<p>^^^^
We have nothing more to talk about.<br>
The point is not that something “looks odd” to me or not. A lot of things may look odd to me, but I don’t spout off about them like they are facts. I prefer to talk about statistics based on information. If you want to say that somewhere in your mind this looks strange, how am I going to debate that?</p>
<p>I could say that it looks strange to me that more Harker students were accepted to Princeton and MIT than to Columbia. I could say they have some sort of “developmental” hook at Princeton or MIT. I actually suspect it is because more of them applied to Princeton than Columbia. But I have no facts to back that up, and neither do you.</p>
<p>POIH To answer your question from post 275, it does not bother me that hooked applicants like legacies and URMs have an increased chance of admittance, I accept that as part of the college system. What does bother me though is how you are frequently implying that being “Ivy Caliber” and legacy/athlete are mutually exclusive. I don’t know if this is what you meant, but when you said,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seemed as though you thought that just because some one was a legacy or athlete that means they are not as academically qualified as the rest of the student body. In many cases you are right, however, you are also often wrong. You don’t seem to be acknowledging that overlap between being academically qualified and hooked is frequent. That is what bothers me.</p>
<p>Also, as for one of your criterion that you gave for being “Ivy Caliber”,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a bad definition. Just because a hook can get some on in some where does not mean that they are not “Ivy Caliber”. I’ll give a hypothetical example.</p>
<p>We have got Bob and John. Bob and John both did equally well in high school and had applications that were of comparable strength. Bob is a developmental (in its true sense) at Tipy-Top University (TTU). John is not. Bob applies EA and gets in. John goes to the chance forum and asks how good his application is and the obnoxious HS students reply “your 2390 could be better, but I think you have a chance at getting in, it is a crap shoot at this point”. He applies and fails to get in.</p>
<p>Now most people would agree that John, although he was not accepted, is an “Ivy-Caliber” applicant (as earlier acknowledged on this thread the term “Ivy Caliber” was born from the uncertainty in elite college admissions). He had the stats and ECs to get in but he was just not admitted. Bob on the other hand was admitted, he was helped by his developmental status no doubt, but just because he was helped by that does not mean that he is any less of an applicant, he is still Ivy caliber.</p>
<p>What do you think about this? If Menlo gets 52 acceptances from Stanford but 11 from U. Penn/Cornell. Don’t that ring a bell in your mind?</p>
<p>HELLO?? PENN is KNOWN for 1] being very pre-professional, which is not necessarily many Menlo students “cup of tea”. 2] Penn and Cornell ARE ON THE EAST COAST! [ read the numerous post above regarding WHERE students prefer to live, as in closer to home! Ring a bell, as you put it?] 3] And, If you are “probably” good enough to get into Stanford, but want an east coast college, why apply ED at Penn, whose UG education is not as broadbased as Princeton, rather than Princeton ED? </p>
<p>And once again, you are trying to apply mathematical- Bell curve type reasoning to a non-mathematical question- why do Menlo students apply to the colleges they do apply to? [If MOST HARKER students applied to ALL of the Ivy’s, then perhaps that is the reason why you do see that increasing level of acceptances that occur at Cornell and Penn, among Harker students, the lower the selectivity level.] Menlo students don’t apply to ALL of the Ivy’s, just because they are Ivy’s. I know very few students from around here who would WANT to live in Ithaca , or Philadelphia, rather than another Calif city or somewhere else in the country.</p>
<p>"most students aspire to attend Ivies or Ivy+. "
Aaah. Now you are projecting and making assumptions based on your own Ivy League mentality or those of other “Ivy” focused parents at your school. Menlo School is a college prep school, NOT an IVY prep school. There IS a difference.</p>
<p>firehose: Ok this thread was about the “Ivy-Caliber” applicant who can get in without the hook (Legacy, URM, or sports).</p>
<p>If Bob is in true sense developmental then he is not “Ivy-Caliber” from thread point of view, because then Bob would not have gotten in.</p>
<p>We were trying to find the “Ivy-Caliber” applicant who will get in without the hook. i.e. the applicant who will get in irrespective of the hook.</p>
<p>The last few pages got wasted to highlight the fact the Menlo school’s applicant those who gets into Stanford are not “Ivy-Caliber” because if they don’t have the hook they won’t get in as shown by the acceptances at other HMPY or rest of the Ivies.</p>
<p>MPM Princeton doesn’t have ED. You can apply regular to U. Penn/Cornell as you apply to Princeton/Harvard/Yale/MIT.
Because Stanford is SCEA.
Or does Menlo only list Early acceptances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not trying to second guess why Menlo school students apply to one college or not other. I’m just trying to point out that the acceptances listed show a big discrepancy in Stanford acceptances and all other college acceptances.</p>
<p>In our pursuit of an “Ivy-Caliber” academic applicant without hook, we want to make sure if Menlo school is as good as producing 52 acceptances at Stanford then the acceptances at other college should have been in line unless that acceptances at Stanford are hooked.</p>
<p>Wait a second, I thought “Ivy-Caliber” meant that someone stood a chance at getting in, not that they actually did or will certainly get in. In fact, I think you can be rejected and still considered “Ivy-Caliber” in some circumstances. Just because someone might not be taken without a hook does not mean that they are not qualified. These schools openly admit that they deny plenty of qualified individuals.</p>
<p>But point of the thread to find “Ivy-Caliber” applicant who will get into one of the college. If you can only get into one because of a hook then you are not an “Ivy-Caliber”, you are hooked applicant only.</p>
<p>Also just because you are comfortable with Hooked applicant at Stanford doesn’t make them “Ivy-Caliber”, remember the girl who was not even a student and fit in for one whole year seamlessly.</p>
<p>From the perspective of a multi-generational public school family in the middle of the country, what’s actually remarkable is the large number of Stanford acceptances from <em>both</em> Menlo and Harker. These schools seem to be playing the same role at Stanford that Exeter and Andover do in the East.</p>
<p>I don’t think New Trier–to name a good public school no one in our family attends–gets that many into Stanford. I could be wrong, though. Does anyone know?</p>
<p>POIH, your attempts to “prove” that you can analyze “holistic”, opaque, admissions decisions, be they where students applied or why they were accepted or rejected, and infer “facts”, through distorted mathematical means, will always fall short, because NO ONE can ever figure out or know ALL the reasons those decisions are made. And as long as you come across as a self proclaimed “know it all” to others on CC, either because of your lack of fluency in “American” English,[which you can work on] or because of your arrogant attitude, your posts will be dismissed.</p>
<p>^^^:MPM thanks for reminding; I certainly need to improve my fluency in “American” English. Which is an improvement in itself because previously others have asked me to improve English in general.
May be over the course of time, my english will become more American.</p>
<p>You seem to be requiring that the person will get in, I am viewing if from the perspective of having a chance at getting in. If that person would have a reasonable chance without their hook, I consider them Ivy Caliber. It does not matter to me that their hook increased their chances.</p>
<p>'Also just because you are comfortable with Hooked applicant at Stanford doesn’t make them “Ivy-Caliber”, remember the girl who was not even a student and fit in for one whole year seamlessly."
this is your stupidest post yet. She was a PRETENDER and an INTRUDER at Stanford. Being Hooked has nothing to do with that girl. Would a squatter in an apt building be considered equal to a tenant in the same building? She “fit in” by not drawing attention to herself, and Stanford is not full of people who will walk up to someone and ask" can I see your ID?"</p>
<p>You still are not getting my main point, which is that just because some one is hooked, it does not mean that they are automatically not Ivy caliber. In some cases that is the correct, but in others it is not. However, you can not tell which category they fall into from a school profile alone.</p>
<p>'In Olympics it doesn’t matter whether you came 4th or nth what matters if you were 1, 2, or 3.
GAWD, is it any wonder your D wanted to get as far from your poisonous all or nothing ivy or bust thinking as possible? I feel sorry for her…</p>
<p>Since both Harker and Menlo are located near each other, the west coast preference argument does not explain the huge admissions disparity between the two schools, particularly when the data was collected over a three year period. If locality preference is the factor, one would see similar degree of preference at Harker. There must be other factors at work here. It could be the disparity in the number of DA’s, legacies or recruited athletes, as POIH believed, or it could be the steering of experienced and capable GC’s as MPM said, but it could also be other factors, such as fundamental difference in their constituents, e.g. ethnicity, academic emphasis, strong school connection, etc. May be more folks who are familiar with the two schools can shed some light.</p>