<p>Christiansoldier it’s actually a conspiracy. HYPS intentionally seek out the most objectively qualified applicants who are also members of CC and decline them. It helps HYPS portray an image of even further heightened selectivity.</p>
<p>I like to think that Princeton secretly called dibs on me in the Ivy League Student draft, so the other colleges were obliged to reject me in deference to the system. Stanford, being a total jerk, accepted me anyways.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Not really. They might get into one or two carefully chosen Ivys but they can’t just waltz into any Ivy they choose and be assured of acceptance.</p>
<p>I have two (non-Asian) daughters. Both of them came out of high school 4.0 and 2200+. One applied to 3 Ivys and the other to applied to 4.</p>
<p>Results:
D1 Accepted by one. Rejected by one. Waitlisted by one.</p>
<p>D2 Accepted by one. Rejected by one. Waitlisted by two.</p>
<p>Both were rejected outright by the same school (Yale) but were accepted by different schools (Harvard and Dartmouth, respectively). Waitlists were not pursued. Your mileage may, and in fact probably will, vary.</p>
<p>Here’s what’s been bugging me since this whole process has ended for us – when I read posts on this board it seems like some kids get in everywhere – 2 or more Ivies plus their backups like GTown, Duke etc. BUT, other kids with seemingly equally impressive stats are either rejected or waitlisted everywhere. What gives with that? I realize that there are lots of truly qualified candidates – so why are some kids accepted everywhere?</p>
<p>Just finished this whole process w/D - 2300+ on SATs (inc 800 on CR), 3.95 uw/4.70 w GPA, multiple APs, great ECs (concentrated in drama, community service buts lots of leadership), excellent recs, NM finalist, blah blah :). Everyone woudl tell her oh you’re a lock for an Ivy – and I would say, no she’s not, not when the acceptance rate if 7%. And, yep rejected by Princeton & Yale - altho her Yale alum interviewer told her she made it throught the ‘first round’ b/c while they say they interview everyone they actually only get to about 50% of the kids…not sure if that’s true or not. Of course that didn’t make her feel any better on April 1. Ultimate rejection came when she was waitlisted by George Washington which we thought was a lock - word on this forum is that they’ll waitlist if they think they’re your safety. </p>
<p>Ultimately we as parents are sort of happy - have known enough folks who’ve gone thru the Ivies (or txfd b/c they didn’t like it) to know that in many cases its not all its cracked up to be. We truly believe D will be very happy with the just about full ride she is getting at a small, selective liberal arts college with an emphasis on undergrads.</p>
<p>But back to the whole admission process – A good friend of hers w/equally impressive stats - PLUS she is an athlete - has been waitlisted at virtually every school she applied to. I don’t get it…</p>
<p>the whole admission process has changed so much in the 5 years since my oldest went to school – I hate to think about how to handle the next one who’ll be applying in 4 years!!</p>
<p>^where is your daughter going?</p>
<p>and also why do parents always say S and D? I bet they don’t realize what those initials stand for in crude teenage culture…also son and daughter aren’t so hard to write ;)</p>
<p>^ S and D are very well established abbreviations for “son” and “daughter” from back in the days when online forums had much lower connection bandwidth than they now have.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is so not true. For example, Harvard only accepted ~350 Asians. How many Asians do you know with a 4.0 and a 2200+? I myself can say that I know 200 or so. That’s not even an exaggeration. And I only know 25 people who got into Harvard, and most of them were not Asian. And those people were all more than just stats. They had personalities, started charities, studied abroad and learned 5 languages, were senate pages, researched cancer treatments, and many other things. At the Ivies, more than 50% (conservative estimate) of people apply with 2200+ SAT scores, so it really doesn’t mean anything. In fact, Brown has said that they just “glance” at test scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ugh, stuff like this sort of makes me GLAD I got rejected by Harvard. Why can’t kids just be kids anymore? Save that stuff for college, I say. But I guess the Ivy Leagues beg to differ.</p>
<p>
quoted because i’ve never agreed with an opinion on this site more.</p>
<p>“gh, stuff like this sort of makes me GLAD I got rejected by Harvard. Why can’t kids just be kids anymore? Save that stuff for college, I say. But I guess the Ivy Leagues beg to differ.”</p>
<p>Believe it or not, there are kids who naturally dive deeply into ECs and their academics --because that’s how they are wired. They grow into adults who love their work and also love participating deeply in other activities. </p>
<p>Such people tend to fit in well and to be happy at places like Ivies where they finally are surrounded by people who are wired like they are. </p>
<p>Most people aren’t like this, which is fine. That’s why different types of colleges suit different types of people.</p>
<p>What I said has nothing to do with high schoolers liking or disliking their ECs. I dive deep into my ECs and my academics. And regardless, I know plenty of Harvard acceptees who are fairly “average” when it comes to EC’s (i.e. not brain surgeons at the age of 17). You don’t have to study abroad and learn 5 languages before college in order to prove your commitment to extracurriculars. Many students are totally dedicated to their student government positions, and yet this is somehow less impressive.</p>
<p>“Many students are totally dedicated to their student government positions, and yet this is somehow less impressive.”</p>
<p>It matters what they accomplish with their SGA position. If all they do is plan prom, that’s not impressive. If they do something more than normal such as establishing an antibullying program or (as did one SGA officer I know) getting all of the schools in their district to build a Habitat for Humanity home, that is the kind of thing that could stand out in top colleges’ admissions.</p>
<p>^antibullying lol. that’s a load of bullcrap if you ask me. this is just my opinion, but I feel that a lot of applicants inflate their subjective qualifications like that.</p>
<p>there isn’t a lot of bullying in my school, but how exactly would one prevent that? physical bullying- of course you can have people on patrol, etc. but emotional bullying (ie social isolation, etc) is something that you can’t force people to fix.</p>
<p>^^But what’s wrong with planning prom? This is what I’m talking about. That student could have put every ounce of his or her energy into putting on a great prom, and yet it isn’t “worldly” enough for some adcoms. That has nothing to do with being “wired” right for an Ivy or not truly enjoying extracurriculars.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that fostering a community for those who are similarly wired makes sense. Nobody says one has to attend an Ivy League, but those who do want a certain experience and are excited by lots of activity.</p>
<p>Admission to Ivies is not a reward for proving commitment to academics and extracurriculars. Schools logically would admit students who take advantage of all they have to offer, including the many student organizations, and are poised to make an impact in the world. Nobody is to say an individual who waits until college to develop his/her inclinations further would NOT make as big an impact on the world, just that the few elite schools logically would favor those who know what they want from the schools best.</p>
<p>The aspect of this Ivy system that is a little crippled, I think, is mainly that it can fail to detect the enthusiasm of those who are committed to academics in a far from normal way. I think they could, say, predict someone who would have political impact far better than they would predict someone to become, say, a great mathematician, since the individual into political impact could show his/her commitment through plenty of community involvements. Granted, the few star IMO type achievers can end up at a school like Harvard. But there are many shades which academic obsession can take, and I think these aren’t necessarily well detected, and I would claim they should be. Why? These universities hold some of the perfect resources for future academic stars, as their breadth and depth of offerings, not to mention faculty, are unparalleled by basically all small, academically intense LAC schools I know.</p>
<p>Also, at times I think the achievements of applicants are a little overexaggerated. I think sometimes people overstep what they really can do to put it on an application and show what they’d like to do, even if they’re not there. Let’s be realistic – most research that is really meaningful probably would come after training in an atmosphere with world class facilities, and that usually cannot happen in high school.</p>
<p>
Precisely. I mean, the sole function of the the class officer (at least in my school) IS to plan prom. This involves everything you do to finance it and promote it (ie fundraisers, organizing post prom, etc). Prom is enough work by itself that other stuff would be distracting, and in my case, would lead to us getting yelled at by our advisers.</p>
<p>Also KevRus, whatever I said above, I do think it sickens me a lot to try obsessively to meet the Ivy model, because it isn’t generally healthy or productive. I think kids burn out trying to do everything earlier than they’re ready for. I think they also defocus themselves on actual academics, because it is in a strange way EASIER to go do 10000 community-impacting things than learn a few science subjects exceptionally well in high school. I mean, sure they get A’s in classes, but we all know that A’s in most high school classes is a joke, and 5’s on most AP tests are a joke. </p>
<p>I think the problem is that Ivy-worship promotes a dumb culture in students, but I don’t think Ivies should stop encouraging “wired” applicants, because there should be a place for such applicants to go.</p>
<p>“The aspect of this Ivy system that is a little crippled, I think, is mainly that it can fail to detect the enthusiasm of those who are committed to academics in a far from normal way.”</p>
<p>Important to realize, though, that places like Ivies view themselves as incubators for people who’ll be leaders (locally, nationally, internationally and in formal and informal leadership ways) in a wide variety of fields, not just in academics.</p>
<p>In fact, it’s fine with the Ivies that liberal arts institutions proportionately produce more graduates who get doctorates than do graduates from Ivies. In fact, the LACs are more suited for pure intellectuals than are Ivies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You bring up a point which I agree with, which is that the culture that one should keep trying to do more leads to overexaggerated applications. It is NOT exactly feasible to master a bunch of academics well, be student officer, organize a prom well, and still do a ton of other stuff for a vast majority of Ivy-caliber students. They end up compromising on something or the other. </p>
<p>This is a culture I am not in favor of. The problem is that the basic premise the Ivy vision is founded on and the culture of actual students may be distinct, the latter not so healthy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find this untrue as a pure intellectual. Ivies offer much more diverse and deep academic offerings than LACs. Not just Ivies, the major Ivy-caliber schools with widely strong departments with enough funding to offer lots of stuff. And this is incredibly important for intellectuals who want to test the deep academic waters before they decide to specialize in something in graduate school. My friend went to a rather good LAC, and transferred to my school because he ran out of classes in his major, and he had many criticisms of how the LAC structure was not favorable to pure intellectuals, which I completely endorse and can elaborate on if you’re interested.</p>
<p>Also, I’m hardly saying the Ivies need be just about academics. I’m saying they should bring in students who give back as much as possible to them and are uniquely best poised to take advantage of their environment. I think they do it well for every population except the kind I am talking about.</p>