<p>Kajon, I think what you are doing with your donation is a wonderful thing! Don’t stop the good work.</p>
<p>
Hmmm. I think there are some real differences between those student bodies, but I can’t say if it’s because of who the schools choose or who chooses to apply and go to the schools. It’s a fascinating question. (I’m thinking more about Yale vs. Harvard, where I do think there would be a difference.)</p>
<p>As far as this general question of “Ivy caliber,” it seems to me that the smart, well-rounded student with great grades, scores, and in-school ECs gets into very good schools, including Ivies–but he’s competing against a large number of similar students, so the results are less predictable and less likely to be consistent. I think the pool of students with all those traits plus something really unusual is smaller, so they tend to have better results. Both groups are “Ivy caliber” in a sense, but I think sometimes people are thinking about the second group when they use terms like that.</p>
<p>I can’t prove it, of course, but I do think that the admit lists of the Ivies will differ from each other as far as certain intangible qualities prevalent among their students. Each school has a personality to it which is affected by the biases of the admissions staff and by self-selection by applicants. The D of a friend of ours was helped by a college counseling service, which provided her with a list of what each of the elite schools really wanted to see in an applicant beyond the obvious stats. We might agree that these must be gross generalizations. No doubt they are, yet in their professional experience this organization distilled a list of characteristics which they had noticed were of greater importance to each school than other traits.</p>
<p>We might have fun by making up our own version of this. Here’s mine:</p>
<p>Dartmouth and Cornell like the well-rounded-good-at-many-things-but-not-necessarily-brilliant-at-anything type of students more than the other Ivies do. </p>
<p>Yale seems to insist on strength of character and high level community service more than its peers.</p>
<p>Princeton loves quantified academic brilliance and high stats more than the others. </p>
<p>Harvard requires a strong demonstration of initiative and stop-at-nothing ambition.</p>
<p>Penn likes leadership, and and really loves URM’s with leadership.</p>
<p>Kajon,
I meant that some kids tend to have this attitude, I do not mean that it is bad idea to donate, I am very positive about it. We are talking about some who are capable to donate amounts that were reflected in some property school pieces named after their Family names and who, for example, had 2 sisters in school, one of which behaved just like everybody else, but another definately let others know her social standing. It still depend on kids, there is nothing wrong (actually very admirable) in being rich and donate. Sorry, for misleading you, by no means I would insult ppl who donate to the causes on thier list, especially to education.</p>
<p>The student bodies at the various Ivies are not completely interchangeable (while there is some overlap), because, in addition to what differences may arise in admissions orientations (priorities), each campus has a more or less distinct “culture” – not always definable, but often perceptible. The committee also considers cultural fit (and lack thereof). It doesn’t mean there’s a homogeneity of personality on campus, or anything like that, but it does mean that, for example, a toned-down student will find some campuses a better fit than others, while an out-there student will find more a greater comfort level at possibly another. </p>
<p>Btw, I agree with Hunt’s initial definition on this thread.</p>
<p>If there is so much clear difference between what top schools look for why do you so often read about some kids accepted at almost every Ivy League school, and some kids rejected at nearly every Ivy League school? I’m sure I can find multiple students like this on the stats pages here at CC.</p>
<p>Unless there are some kids who are so qualified they meet the necessary criteria for every school.</p>
<p>^ I still believe that connections, URM or star status will get you almost anywhere, I have examples of it, real kids, not hypothetical situations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This supports the existence of tangible and clear differences in what the top schools are looking for, if these full-time “professionals” are doing their jobs. If they are, these lists are invaluable in helping “Ivy caliber” applicants position themselves and target schools where they have the best match.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think we all agree there is an overlap of what each of the Ivies want. If a candidate happens to fall in the intersection of all Ivies, then s/he stands an excellent chance of being accepted by all, unless there are certain “yield protection” schemes at work. For example, I think we all agree that if there is a 4.0-2400-cancer-curing-olympic-athlete applicant, s/he will be accepted by all Ivies. Yes, I’m using an exaggeration to make my point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not interested enough to research it, but I think from what I have seen on here it is far more common for students accepted at one Ivy to be accepted at multiple Ivies, than for them to be accepted at only one. And very often, when I see a kid accepted at one of the HYPSMCs, I see them accepted at least at a couple of them, plus many other top 20 schools.</p>
<p>Edit-
I did quickly look at the spreadsheet of acceptances for our local high school. It appears that for every kid accepted at one of the HYPs they were accepted at every other Ivy school they applied to. Granted, there were only about 7 of them, with some overlap.</p>
<p>Also, there were an awful lot of instances of kids rejected at every Ivy school.</p>
<p>^Your data supported my suspicion that specificity wanes as you go beyond the top 10 or so schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve seen this pattern, but I’ve also seen many counterexamples. I know quite a few kids who got turned down by non-HYP Ivies despite acceptances at HYP. There are also plenty examples of such on CC.</p>
<p>I am sure that you will always find examples of students that got into multiple top schools and ones with similar scores that did not get into any. The Ivies alone had a combined application pool of almost 220,000 apllications.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hunt, mind articulating the difference?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve seen this also, in real life, and it seems rather counter-intuitive. Which to me says there is an element of subjectivity built into the process. Not saying it’s bad or good but it certainly seems to exist. Which is why I think kids should be encouraged to apply to the schools they are interested in even if it is a high reach. I also think that the essays are extremely important in making an otherwise run-of-the-mill applicant stand out. The 4.0, class president, raised $10,000 for charity student isn’t as rare as people might think when you are competing against top students from across the country.</p>
<p>I have not heard our public school GC’s profess to having any relationships with the Adcoms at the Ivies. So I find it interesting that kids from our high school do get into Cornell, Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth and Penn. I don’t hear of many that apply to Brown or decide to attend if they do apply and get in, but know of at least one student who’s there now. Last year we finally got one girl into Harvard, and then at least one more this year so far (LL). But to my knowledge no one from our high school has ever gotten into Yale! I find this odd.</p>
<p>I think TheGFG’s post #83 is extremely interesting. I too think that there are some detectable differences among the colleges, in terms of the characteristics the admissions committees are seeking. A friend of mine who worked in the Harvard admissions office many years ago remarked once that “Harvard wasn’t necessarily looking for the smartest applicants. They were looking for the ones who would be the most successful.” This may be the only element of Harvard admissions that’s changed little over the years. Ambition, as mentioned by The GFG, is definitely a component of becoming most successful. There are a few places that <em>are</em> looking for the smartest applicants: Caltech comes to mind. </p>
<p>We each have a limited window on admissions patterns. However, I have learned a great deal about the overall patterns from CC in the past few years–and I think that if we combined our (possibly limited and possibly prejudiced) views, a picture might emerge that is at least moderately realistic.</p>
<p>OP, I think you should be grateful that your daughter has found a school she loves where she will get a full ride (although I’m not sure how you know that when your daughter is still a junior in high school?) You can probably convince her to apply a few different places, but don’t trash the safety she loves. Lots of parents are hoping and praying their foot-dragging kids will find a safety they will even tolerate!</p>
<p>Every campus and every environment has its downside. Including the Ivies.</p>
<p>I don’t understand what you mean by the Harley-Davidson shirt comment. It doesn’t mean the parents wearing them are in violent motorcycle gangs, it probably just means they like motorcycles.</p>
<p>^I think you posted on the wrong thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At least for HYPSM, that is not true. At student admitted to Harvard is signficantly more likely to be rejected at Yale than admitted to both. </p>
<p>The average yield of these 5 schools is around 70%. This is mathematically impossible if every applicant to these schools is also admitted to another one in the same group. Considering that a non-insignificant amount of students admitted to one of these five schools enroll elsewhere, because of merit scholarships. The number of cross-admits is actually quite low, probably no more than 1 out of 4 or 5. </p>
<p>CC’s annual HYPSM cross-admit battle is only able to come up with a TOTAL of around 60 students admitted to MORE THAN ONE of HYPSM among several hundred admitted to at least one of them, again a low percentage. This may have to do more with randomness than any specific differences between the schools. These schools all recognize they could easily fill their classes several times over with no impact in student selectivity. So, acceptance to one is far from ensuring acceptance to another. </p>
<p>So while it is not at all uncommon to several of the most selective schools, it is much less frequent than often believed.</p>
<p>Obviously, once you drop slightly in selectivity, the likelihood of multiple admission increases substantially. Harvard admits have a significant higher likelihood of being admitted to Penn, Brown or Columbia, than to Yale, Stanford or MIT, but even in those situations, they may still face a greater than 50% rejection rate as these schools yields are also on the rise. Greater outreach may be partly to blame. The pool of talented applicants is also quite deep.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting. Where would I find this data? Do you have the link? Because I glanced at the stats profiles for Harvard admits and almost everyone listed there as accepted was accepted to multiple schools out of this group. But it was a very small group.</p>
<p>Statistically, your argument is pretty difficult to refute, again assuming those yield rates are correct. And they sound about right.</p>
<p>Of course, even assuming what you say here is true (and I have no real reason to doubt it), 1 out of 4 is 25%. Given the acceptance rate for any random student at these schools is around 8% that’s 3 times the normal admit rate for a student admitted at any one of these schools. To me that’s much better odds if you are admitted at one that you will be admitted at another.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kajon – thankyou for your generosity. What a wonderful way to give back, to enable 2 other kids to attend a private school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anyone who comes from a background of privilege needs to learn how to wear that privilege well. It’s probably a tough thing to learn, hopefully the kids who haven’t learned it will catch on.</p>