<p>
</p>
<p>No, the point is anyone who finish outside of 3rd place doesn’t win. It doesn’t matter whether you were 4th or nth.</p>
<p>So the analogy to hooked applicant is that whether the hooked applicant in 4 GPA/2200 or 2 GPA/1800 if the applicant can’t get without the hook, then the applicant is not “Ivy-Caliber”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are again saying that you can be one or the other, which is false.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this. There is a disparity. My argument is with the interpretation of the reason for it, and the statement of what I believe is conjecture as fact.</p>
<p>If somebody had access to Naviance data and could give me the admit percentages it would certainly shed some light. Absent data on who applies, all of this is still meaningless as far as I’m concerned.</p>
<p>I hope POIH D does not subscribe to her dads ideas, that she realizes that athletes, legacys and URM’s, may in fact be at MIT based on…gasp…their merits!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m perfectly getting your point but trying to convey that there is no way to know unless that hooked applicant also got into another peer school.
If the hooked applicant can’t get into a peer school then hook is the only reason that applicant got into this particular school.</p>
<p>
Pea: Consider this
Olympic Moment: Apolo Ohno Sets US Winter Olympics History</p>
<p>What matter is that he created a history by winning 7 medals.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is one plausible explanation, but only if the number of applications at HYPM is known to be in line. How do we know that? Do we expect the application distributions at Harker and Menlo to be the same?</p>
<p>I went to my kid’s Naviance. In the past few years 25 kids got into Stanford, 10 into Brown, and 12 into Columbia. Does this mean there is some sort of “developmental” advantage for Stanford from my kid’s school (a reasonably good California public school)? I assure you there is not. Does it mean it’s easier to get into Stanford than Brown or Columbia? Of course not.</p>
<p>It doesn’t seem to make sense, but the incomplete data set is meaningless.</p>
<p>Until I look up the number of applications - Stanford 200, Brown 62, Columbia 56. The reason far more students were admitted to Stanford was because far more applied. It looks like kids are getting in at about the average acceptance rates for these schools. You can’t draw conclusions from the raw number of admitees.</p>
<p>GA2012MOM:
</p>
<p>I’m just saying once you got into a school because of a hook then there is no way to know whether or not you are “Ivy-Caliber” unless we know all your academic records.</p>
<p>re post 319
Harker has a predominantly Asian population.- which is overrepresented at Stanford relative to population.
Menlo has a lot of student scholar-athletes,[most of whom are not college recruitment caliber] and Stanford has always had strong, unspoken preference for admitting scholar-athletes .
so these 2 factors might partially explain the differences in acceptance levels.</p>
<p>My hubby was accepted to Stanford in the 70’s, local student, 3.0 gpa, 2nd in his class at a not very respected high school on the SF peninsula, but played sports all 4 years and received the Peninsula Athlete of the Year award [ for all athletes and sports] his Sr year. Son, who is not an athlete, was deferred and rejected at Stanford, even though his SAT’s and grades were close to perfect. The mistake we made was Dad pushing him to apply early, in order to get that small legacy 'bump", when son was not sure he wanted to go to college THAT close to home[ as in around the corner]. His Stanford essays were written at the last minute, and were not of the caliber of his later essays for other colleges, which were written in Dec. after receiving his deferral. Stanford was his only rejection though.</p>
<p>tk21769:
</p>
<p>Reasoning is that there are two options to applicants applying to Stanford from SF bay area
<p>Menlo acceptances to both other Ivies or UCB/UCLA are not in line with the Stanford acceptances.</p>
<p>I’ve nothing against Menlo school. I’m just trying to point out the discrepancy and a plausible explanation.</p>
<p>Now point is if you see the anomaly then provide an explanation.</p>
<p>When this thread stops being a ****ing contest about two schools that I could give a rat’s ass about, let me know.</p>
<p>'The reason far more students were admitted to Stanford was because far more applied."
exactly. no mystery there.</p>
<p>^^^: Got it MPM; I’m off the thread.</p>
<p>Why does it even matter, PCP? This Harker/Menlo debate is completely irrelevant to anyone other than parents of kids in those schools. It says nothing about what it takes to be Ivy caliber. The pretentiousness here is overwhelming. How does it help you/your son to hear any of this?</p>
<p>PG, we are trying to build profiles - at least that’s what I thought we were doing - for unhooked applicants. The Menlo school discussion was pertinent insofar as it isolates the unhooked students from the possible hooked, but I agree the discussion took a different turn.</p>
<p>This discussion thread was not created to serve S1 because he is done applying. It is more of an exploration, and perhaps if we reach anywhere, it may help others, including my other youngsters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>PCP, forgive me if I am missing something, but how did any of the numbers from Menlo Park or Harker isolate the number of students that are hooked or not hooked? Do we have app #'s that say x number are URM’s, y number are legacy, and z are athletes?</p>
<p>^I don’t know how :). The Menlo numbers by themselves do not tell us much, but it gets interesting when it is contrasted with Harker’s numbers. That’s why I asked upthread for people who are familiar with the schools to shed some light on the disparity.</p>
<p>What I find interesting is the inference one can draw regarding the role of yield in admissions. I also live in an area where Stanford is generally considered the cat’s meow (except for my younger son, who views it, after spending quality time there, as a “country club where people go to class, not a ‘real’ college”). I believe, in recent memory, every Stanford admit at my kids’ high school has elected to matriculate there. It may be a chicken and egg issue, but I suspect the relatively high acceptance rate of local kids at Stanford (most of whom are development or, at least, legacy, and virtually all of whom applied SCEA) is due in large part to a large yield. In contrast, Columbia is known as the one elite institution that “doesn’t like” the local high school. The few Columbia RD admits locally, as I understand it, have elected to attend other elite institutions. My Columbia son, who was told by the college counselor not to apply to Columbia ED because his chances were “much greater at Stanford or Harvard,” ignored the advice only because he really wanted to go to Columbia. I suspect the Menlo or Harker students have a leg up, not only for the reasons mentioned, but because Stanford, like all the other elites, is ever seeking to increase the yield.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I asked POIH for that information a couple of times, and others did as well. Not surprisingly, this data is held close by admissions and POIH has no more insight to offer than anyone else. </p>
<p>This cold war between Menlo Park and Harker is something else. I feel sorry for people who live in that world. I’m on the east coast and I know people with similar attitudes towards their children’s schools and I think that they live in very small world.</p>