<p>BTW, awhile back someone was saying that MIT has a small endowment because it's lack of legacy preference/development admits and that this meant there financial aid was paltry. </p>
<p>MIT actually has the #6 highest endowment of any university in the country. In 2005 the MIT endowment was nearly 7 billion dollars...</p>
<p>
[quote]
to scrape the bottom of the barrel in terms of those with very "at risk" resumes.
[/quote]
With all due respect, berurah, can you not see why that type of comment will elicit a strong response?</p>
<p>^to which I would add even those with most stellar of resumes may be partaking in the same activities as those 'at the bottom of the barrel'. How would any college ever really know? It's just wrong-headed assumption that 'johnnybegood' on paper is 'johnnybegood' in all aspects of his life. And it's fair assumption that college admissions counselors, teachers and parents are the parties johnny will devote the most effort into fooling.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You want to believe he's the messiah...
[/quote]
This is one of the nastiest things I've read on CC Cheers. Can't you see the difference betweeen a nine year old on his own attracting the attention of an infectious disease specialist, and the prep school kids who are carefully nurtured in the science research/mentorship process for which their schools are famous? Some stranger's kid writes a doc a note & it creates such an impression on her that she saves it for many years? I think that's remarkable. So did the admissions people. </p>
<p>My H is helping with one of those Intel bound kids who is nicely set up & supported in his public school's science research program. He's a smart, impressive kid. But he's not an independent nine year old.</p>
<p>As I said above, Yale admitted a kid from an emotional growth program. I guess it all depends what you think is a risk. Actually, based on the many kids who bomb out in college for one reason or another, ANYONE is a risk. You really can't tell from the application who is going to develop a serious eating disorder, drug problem, get discouraged by not being at the top of the heap and quit, get out of control with drinking, shoot a fellow classmate............ I guess kids from emotional growth programs have at least been given some important tools. I guess Yale liked that.</p>
<p>The Messiah had a checkered past. He broke lots of rules and even disobeyed his parents. This is what Episcopalians believe, at any rate. I guess college was out for him.</p>
<p>@MOWC...yeah, but a kid who has a problem is more likely to have a problem in college. Restating berurah's sentiment in less inflammatory way, it's probable that there are a bunch of applicants with the same stats/activities who don't have a drug problem.</p>
<p>^ That may be true with respect to substance abuse, but little else. Why does "bottom of the barrel" and "at risk" mean drug problem? There are lots of disciplinary issues that occur in high school. There can be anger problems, skipping school, fighting, sneaking into the girls' dorm...... All of these- and many more- can lead to suspensions/expulsions. Are these kids likely to be inferior college students? Oh, wait- in college you are already IN the girls' dorm!</p>
<p>The elites NEVER "scrape the bottom of the barrel." Their applicant pool is so vast and so deep that they can take whomever they feel will positively add to their university. Yes, many were turned away who were equally deserving, but the fact remains: every student who is admitted deserves to be there. Even Al Gore III.</p>
<p>MOWC: yeah, i agree not all offenses are the same. Getting caught with a girl is not the same as smoking crack... </p>
<p>MomWaitingForNew: I would hardly call it a "fact."</p>
<p>Isn't the bottom of the barrel relative? I mean, the bottom percentage that get into Harvard may be 1000-1200, 3.0 GPA. The bottom percentage that get into somewhere else may be 600, 2.0 GPA.
That's how I was reading it at least (as I recall, Al III's SATs were quoted in the 1200 range)</p>
<p>YIKES WHAT AM I DOING??? I'm getting caught up in the personal examination thingy. My bad, I admit.</p>
<p>Which is why we should all speak in generalities instead of pointedly disclosing personal information about other people.</p>
<p>Getting caught with a girl is not the same as smoking crack, but in the world of college admissions, it can still lead to an application that has disciplinary issues disclosed, and in the view of some on this forum, means the applicant is not worthy of taking a spot from someone who is squeaky clean.</p>
<p>'
[quote]
Restating berurah's sentiment in less inflammatory way, it's probable that there are a bunch of applicants with the same stats/activities who don't have a drug problem.
[/quote]
That is far less inflammatory, for sure, collegealum, but I don't think that is what Berurah said. What did you mean, berurah?? I agree with doubleplay-- feels like we are in Oz, not that other state with the tornados. ( Around here, I think if I even quote a movie line I would get edited.. so... won't go there :) )</p>
<p>We're not in Kansas anymore, although if we were, then that would be a hook...</p>
<p>Alums are also donors. One name: Al Gore.</p>
<p>Normally, legacies are not guaranteed admission like development admits...Plus, at schools like MIT and CalTech, alum donate even without legacy preference.</p>
<p>Perhaps Joe Shmo legacies are not guaranteed, but Al Gore, George Bush or <<<fill in="" the="" blank="" name="" of="" famous="" and="" wealthy="" person="">>> legacies doubtless are.</fill></p>
<p>I am not sure what the change in your post was for. Can you clarify, collegealum?
I don't think it changes my response. And lots of alums donate. I donate to my undergrad and grad schools, as does my h. Our kids have no interest in any of our schools, unfortuately, and the comparatively small, though steady donations we make wouldn't have opened any doors. As an aside, when my older s was looking at colleges, a friend put us in touch with someone whe we were vitisting MIT.We got a very nice email from someone from the the "Alumni Department of Large Gifts" . :eek: Our friend is obviously doing well, and is well respected at MIT. Our s decided not to apply, but we were treated well that day :)</p>
<p>Apologies to b and others if offense was taken--none intended.</p>
<p>When the admit rate is 1 in 10, then all the admits, ALL the admits get a tip from somewhere. It might be donor potential, it might be geography, it might be athletics, it might be adversity, it might be international recognition for a cancer cure courtesy of mum the scientist who arranged the research position--whatever. I could name the hoooook for every HYP admit. I know one of those nine year old kids. He contacted teh Royal botnaic society in London to discuss rare plants he collected in the South Pacific. Had he applied to HYP, his geography would have been in his favor--but his race (Korean) would have counted against him. Funny thing about nine year olds who do such things--they usually have highly educated mothers.</p>
<p>The kids who get into top schools are usually great students, passionate students--that's a given. There are a few that no one wants to leave on the table. These are the kids who get into multiple Ivies etc. Thye might be Gate's kids, they might be the top student at Bronx Science, they might be a stellar URM. The rest of these great students get in to at least one or two of their top choices--because someone on adcom likes their story, their hook.</p>
<p>My earlier point was that even with the passion and stellar recs--remote geography is a tipping factor. I should know. Apologies if I stated it badly.</p>
<p>My 9 year old was probably figuring out how to rip DVDs/movies and sell them at school for a profit.<br>
Good post, Cheers. You are right- whether we like it or not, there is something about every admitted student that struck the admissions committee in a way that led to an acceptance. I, for one, am not in a position to use a crystal ball to review the entire package for every applicant so that I can second guess these decisions.</p>