<p>The seniors in my school have all received their early decision results, and it's ridiculous. For context, my school is a small public one. So far, we've had two accepted into Yale, three to Upenn (one to Wharton), one to Harvard, two to Brown, one to WashU, and one to Johns Hopkins. And the thing is, compared to people who post their chances here, they're considered vastly underqualified! Is there any reasonable explanation for this? I always thought HYP were untouchable, yet these people in the grade above me who are perfectly mortal students all got in!</p>
<p>Only people on collegeconfidential say that these schools are untouchable. The problem is that this creates moral hazard, because generally:</p>
<p>(1) The people answering are students who have applied there themselves and they would rather not face more competition.
(2) Parents who live vicariously through their children will tell you that it’s impossible because their kids have applied there and they don’t want you to apply.</p>
<p>Three possible reasons</p>
<p>1)Connections you don’t know about, such as dad being legacy who donated big.
2)URM/athlete
3)They wrote a believable/real tear-inducing story about “dad died in Afghanistan, brother is autistic so mom got depressed, and in spite of everything I got a 3.8/2200.”</p>
<p>Your school may be considered especially rigorous or historically been a “feeder” school for those schools. You may not know all their hooks – legacy, what they have been up to in their summers, etc. as well. And GPAs and test scores are not publicized at our kids’ schools, so you don’t really know about that, either.</p>
<p>Midas, saying that people here dont want others to apply is ridiculous. Most people here will always say “give it a try, can’t hurt”. I rarely see “don’t bother applying”.</p>
<p>BuBBLES is the perfect example of someone not to get your advice from.</p>
<p>You’ve make several unsubstantiated statements that are simply disingenuous. There may be a few jealous people who don’t want competition, but most threads have several replies diluting that effect. </p>
<p>I have yet to see a single thread with more than several dismissive replies meant to discouraging someone from applying. You need to educate yourself before making any more accusations. While you may be under 18 now, once you are working, your attitude and unproven claims can get you into serious trouble.</p>
<p>Look at your school profile, that will probably provide the answer you’re looking for. The high school I attended in the 80’s still does thing much the same way they did back then. No weighted GPA, no class rank, rigorous classes, and no grade inflation. In our Calculus BC class, more than half the class failed the first marking period, and the majority of the classes ended the year with a C - our final grades were scaled based on a classic bell curve, and also reflected our abilities as compared to the previous several years. A student who earned an A that year would have earned an A any of those other years. That HS is ranked within the top 500 in the nation by US News (for what that’s worth…) Many students are the children of professors at Harvard and MIT, Doctors, Lawyers, etc. It is simply a very good public school system. </p>
<p>If you applied the things you hear on CC to students at that school, you would think none would get into an elite school. But this schools sends kids to all of the top schools, many of them. Your school may be similar in terms of profile. When considering your own chances next year, weight the context of your school heavily - if you school regularly sends students on to the top schools, and those students do well there, then those schools are familiar with your school, and take that into considerations. They would rather have a known quantity - the hard working 3.5 student from your HS - than an unknown - the 4.0/2200+ from a school where they’re unsure of the rigor.</p>
<p>I am actually not under eighteen, so you are making some unsubstantiated assumptions yourself. When I see this:</p>
<p>"Three possible reasons</p>
<p>1)Connections you don’t know about, such as dad being legacy who donated big.
2)URM/athlete
3)They wrote a believable/real tear-inducing story about “dad died in Afghanistan, brother is autistic so mom got depressed, and in spite of everything I got a 3.8/2200.”</p>
<p>I get irritated. I have read books by former Ivy League admissions officers and they say nothing of the sort. Telling people that they need to be Black or Hispanic, have inside connections, a tragic family event, or that they need to be world class athletes to get into an Ivy League is dangerous and plain wrong.</p>
<p>I see your point. However, Harvard says on their website the following</p>
<p>“Among a group of similarly distinguished applicants, the daughters and sons of College alumni/ae may receive an additional look.”</p>
<p>For my URM statement, many colleges have openly fought against rules requiring schools to be race-blind. No one will deny that race isn’t being used at many of the top colleges, including the ivies. </p>
<p>And the same goes for family circumstances, which can be a pivotal admission factor. </p>
<p>All of what I said have some evidence backing them up.</p>
<p>Of course being a URM, recruited athlete, or legacy gives one an advantage, but when you listed your “three possible reasons”, it’s as if you implied that only people with one of these three things get in, which is wrong. I would estimate that the majority of Ivy League students don’t even have one of them, so I will add an option 4: Strong academics, involvement in community, a passion for an activity/activities, or a specific reason to go to the school. Option 4 is what most people get in with.</p>