Yes I could, but I already did college. My son was admitted to my alma mater (Reed) but went elsewhere (UChicago).
I was rejected at Georgetown and admitted to GWU with a great scholarship in the 90s. As far as I can tell it was all based on SAT scores for GWU back then. I think I could still get in.
There would be no way I would have been accepted to Santa Clara today. Or Berkeley…would have gone there except that family friends claimed that Santa Clara was a better environment.
From the Santa Clara posts, I had a feeling that the son would have been deferred had he applied, even with legacy. SCU’s loss is WashU’s gain.
I dropped out of beauty school to attend the University of Michigan in the late 70s. Pretty sure it’s harder to do that today.
No way, but that’s OK. My alma mater wasn’t a good fit. I would have been better off at a liberal arts college, maybe even a single sex college.
No. I went to Berkeley. I had several B’s. I took the only 3 AP’s offered. My test scores were fine. My EC’s were probably exceptional at the time. I was pretty shocked to get in. Who knows what they were thinking. My eldest was rejected in 2014 and was a much stronger candidate. My son won’t likely get in though he’s a much strong candidate that I was too.
My husband applied to Columbia in what was an early decision (no idea if it was called that or something different at the time). I think he applied in fall of 81. His SAT score was 1360 which was considered good. His grades were decent but not straight As. His ec were probably typical. though geared towards his STEM major. He got in. I don’t know what a 1360 is today but a current 1360 would probably not get him in.
I was nms, 5 APs at 5 which was about all offered. Went to Willamette on national merit, mostly free. I had petty good ECs as I did well in Academic Decathlon. One and done no prep 1500 on SAT. So yes I am sure Willamette would still take me and still give me merit.
But I would aim higher now.
I had 3.0 gpa in HS but 99.9% in SAT. I am pretty sure I would have made NMF now and gotten 3.5 gpa at some so-so HS and then went to some Honors College or some OOS school like UCF on full ride. I would not have applied to my alma mater (Cornell) knowing how cold it is. I was treated as an URM from a poor background then, but now as an ORM, no way I would get into my alma mater now.
For me, I learned what I needed to learn on my own, and a diploma was what I needed.
I got into Stanford with mid-400’s English section of the SAT. Yes, they cut me some slack since my math was in 700’s and I was a very recent immigrant, but someone with my stats definitely wouldn’t have gotten in even with my somewhat unique hooks… on the other hand, if I knew back then what I wanted to do with my life and what I ended up doing, I should have gone to a second-tier in-state public, since it would be a straight road to a Clinical Social Worker licensing program. However, even if I could do it all over, would have chosen Stanford for the experience.
Pretty sure I’d get in grade/test-wise but as for ECs? Um, no. “Likes to read” was more my style and there weren’t any clubs for that. Nobody worried about having ECs back then (or community service). We did homework, socialized and pursued our own interests/part time jobs with no regard to college apps. And I still think it should be that way.
While I had the grades and test scores and even some good ECs to get in, I had a big geographic boost in college admissions. When I was a freshman, I was the only one from my state at what is now a Top 25 school.
I was very ambitious, and very determined to go away to college. If I were a high school student today, I would probably do what it took to be competitive. However, my alma mater has changed A LOT and I wouldn’t want to go there anymore. Kiddo #1 and I did a visit there and I was not impressed. (She didn’t even end up applying.)
I went to Columbia and there is no way I would be admitted today. My grades and SAT’s were good enough but I’m not the type of student they are looking for today. The “ideal” has changed. Back when I applied colleges really were looking for well rounded kids. That fit my personality. I liked doing lots of different activities - I was in all the school plays, played in the orchestra, worked on the literary magazine etc. Now, schools seem to be looking for a more “deep dive.” They want kids who show a true passion for one thing and then show extaordinary achievements in that one thing. I would have hated that. Its not me at all.
I think I’d have a shot. (Harvard) I’d still be a legacy. My verbal SAT recentered would be an 800, math would still be in the mid 700s. I did fine on the subject tests. I was in five AP courses as a senior, I only know two others who might have been taking as many. I had the equivalent of a Gold Award for Girl Scouts, and was very active in the politics of scouting as well including being a delegate to some sort of national convention. I was pretty serious about art and had taken many courses outside school. I was on the school newspaper and wrote a cartoon for it. I played in a recorder group. (Definitely the weakest player in the group, but I did love the music we played!) I was conventionally well rounded both academically and in my activities. My high school had a program where we spent one day a week doing volunteer work or internships as part of the curriculum.
SAT concordance tables is here: https://research.collegeboard.org/programs/sat/data/equivalence/sat-individual It’s not quite as simple as adding 150 points. In my range - verbal would be a higher score, but math doesn’t change at all.
I went to Cal based largely on a super high SAT score. Zero chance I would get in today. My dad went to Penn as a legacy (as I could have) from a good boarding school and was admitted despite a letter of dis-recommendation from his headmaster. So, that would not fly today. Times - they have a-changed.
Didn’t read the whole thread so apologize if this has been mentioned. Very similar to the comparing athletes from different eras. So often I hear the argument that today’s X are so much better (any sport) than a few generations ago. I disagree. Look at any sport and their athletes from yesteryear would train differently today. They would have specialized fitness coaching, diet and performance coaches, better injury rehab and career extending non invasive surgery. In some cases (Bird and Magic), I think they were way better back then as is but that’s more to do with the game changing.
So I think the top student back then would apply those skills to today’s environment and excel.
I could get into my alma mater now, but I wouldn’t be able to afford it.
@kelsmom same here. My DD’17 applied to my alma mater and was accepted with an ACT 7 points lower than mine was, and she still was awarded close to the highest auto merit. However, the cost would have been 8x what mine was.
i got into Duke (didn’t go, long story) but there is likely no way in hell that I would get in now.
If any of you remember The Preppy Handbook you would get quite the laugh. Average SAT scores for most top colleges were high 500s to low 600s (Duke 593/633, NC Chapel Hill 536/564 for example). Even Ivies were about them same except for maybe MIT. Times have changed.