Class of 2021 - Predictions for June 15?

[Unregistered]

Oh well. The schools have decided what they want to prioritize. It simply isn't that easy to find enough skilled yet really smart kids to run decently competitive athletic programs. Something has to give.

I'd be bit*hing more about the legacy kids - there's way more of them getting admitted that don't deserve it than athletes. Harvard's % legacy admits is insane.

"Today, according to Harvard, legacy students make up around 14 percent of the undergraduate population. An analysis commissioned by Students For Fair Admissions found legacy applicants were accepted at a rate of nearly 34 percent from 2009 to 2015. According to the report, that's more than five times higher than the rate for non-legacies over the same six-year period: just 5.9 percent."

I've known plenty of legacy admits from there - the school can do better :) but definitely not all their athletes are 1550 SAT scorers either.

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/04/66362...s-like-harvard

[Unregistered]

The Ivys should stop using a shifting AI system and bands and move towards a straight forward minimum requirement set at the 25% level of acceptance rate. It’s truly insulting towards kids who get denied with near perfect stats while athletes with mediocre stars and test scores get in. Football players can and do get in with a 1200 SAT and 3.5 GPAs. My dd’s friend was recruited like this. Top recruits should get some slack but at some point there needs to be a lower-end baseline more in line with the lower admitted stats of a non-recruited athlete.

Insulting?
GPA and SAT alone were never the criteria for getting into an Ivy. ever.

Put simply, you need to be great at something AND have good grades.
Be a great artist, publish a teenage novel, build a real business, or do some something truly philanthropic (not that church service trip) or be an exceptional athlete. You have to have bring something differentiated to the college. Academics alone has never been enough, and recent Harvard case ratified that

[Unregistered]

Insulting?
GPA and SAT alone were never the criteria for getting into an Ivy. ever.

Put simply, you need to be great at something AND have good grades.
Be a great artist, publish a teenage novel, build a real business, or do some something truly philanthropic (not that church service trip) or be an exceptional athlete. You have to have bring something differentiated to the college. Academics alone has never been enough, and recent Harvard case ratified that

Here here. What’s insulting are people who think their mute kid with a 4.x and 1600 is entitled to an Ivy.

[Unregistered]

Insulting?
GPA and SAT alone were never the criteria for getting into an Ivy. ever.

Put simply, you need to be great at something AND have good grades.
Be a great artist, publish a teenage novel, build a real business, or do some something truly philanthropic (not that church service trip) or be an exceptional athlete. You have to have bring something differentiated to the college. Academics alone has never been enough, and recent Harvard case ratified that

Seriously, how many of these kids are doing all these “great” things on their own? The rich parents are pushing and facilitating it. Teenage novels get written by ghost writers with parents money and these “real” businesses wouldn’t get off the ground without millions in funding from “friends and family”. The “average” genius kid from a regular, working class family doesn’t even stand a change with top SAT and grades anymore. Now you need money and PR to compete for a spot.

[Unregistered]

Insulting?
GPA and SAT alone were never the criteria for getting into an Ivy. ever.

Put simply, you need to be great at something AND have good grades.
Be a great artist, publish a teenage novel, build a real business, or do some something truly philanthropic (not that church service trip) or be an exceptional athlete. You have to have bring something differentiated to the college. Academics alone has never been enough, and recent Harvard case ratified that

Or, in the case of legacy, you just need to luck out at birth. Legacy has a domino effect of letting in more and more kids with no main other achievements besides being born to an alum who also may have simply been born to an alum. Legacy is rather disturbing when you think about it.

[Unregistered]

Seriously, how many of these kids are doing all these “great” things on their own? The rich parents are pushing and facilitating it. Teenage novels get written by ghost writers with parents money and these “real” businesses wouldn’t get off the ground without millions in funding from “friends and family”. The “average” genius kid from a regular, working class family doesn’t even stand a change with top SAT and grades anymore. Now you need money and PR to compete for a spot.

The Privileged have historically had an inside track to all good colleges. Now, more than any other time in history, is Harvard accessible to common families. It is still not easy to get in, and it is still not entirely fair, but it has never been this good

[Unregistered]

Or, in the case of legacy, you just need to luck out at birth. Legacy has a domino effect of letting in more and more kids with no main other achievements besides being born to an alum who also may have simply been born to an alum. Legacy is rather disturbing when you think about it.

Someone posted a link - 14% of their student body and 30% of their admits are legacy. So that high legacy admit # means many get in but don't take the spot, but they're taking admit spots from other applicants. I don't know if other Ivies are that high?

[Unregistered]

The Privileged have historically had an inside track to all good colleges. Now, more than any other time in history, is Harvard accessible to common families. It is still not easy to get in, and it is still not entirely fair, but it has never been this good

For financial aid yes Harvard and the Ivies are much better than other private schools with assistance as their income caps are much higher. However, it still takes that "something" else to get in, which often enough is some costly activity or other parental supported item - music lessons, sports training, etc - or being a legacy kid. Just being smart often isn't enough.

[Unregistered]

Or, in the case of legacy, you just need to luck out at birth. Legacy has a domino effect of letting in more and more kids with no main other achievements besides being born to an alum who also may have simply been born to an alum. Legacy is rather disturbing when you think about it.

Yes, With 25-30% of admits being legacies at Harvard and other Ivies, it is disappointing. The good news is that because of the ivies offering a third of their spots to legacies, that leaves a whole lot of better students to go make other schools even better. We are fortunate to have so many great universities in our country!

[Unregistered]

4 of the Ivies we’re willing to commit my kid at 1300 on the SAT, knowing that they could play the AI shuffle game if her score didn’t get much higher over subsequent tests. Those included HYP, so don’t get stuck trying to perfect your kid’s credentials at the expense of losing 6+ months of relationship building.

Truth, but only for a highly desired recruit, youth national pool level or so.

[Unregistered]

Yes, With 25-30% of admits being legacies at Harvard and other Ivies, it is disappointing. The good news is that because of the ivies offering a third of their spots to legacies, that leaves a whole lot of better students to go make other schools even better. We are fortunate to have so many great universities in our country!

Guys, you are reading the stats wrong. Read it again,

"Today, according to Harvard, legacy students make up around 14 percent of the undergraduate population. An analysis commissioned by Students For Fair Admissions found legacy applicants were accepted at a rate of nearly 34 percent from 2009 to 2015. According to the report, that's more than five times higher than the rate for non-legacies over the same six-year period: just 5.9 percent."

2 out of 3 legacy applicants are denied. 1 gets in. i think it's safe to assume that Harvard converts close enough to 100% of legacy admits into enrolls. Therefore if 14% of the enrolled are legacies, then 14% of the admits are legacies. I'd still rather have a 1 in 3 chance over a 1 in 20 but let's not make claims that 30% of students are legacies

[Unregistered]

If a player who is a junior committed in her 9th grade year decommits because the coach left, why do people say they should have had other options opened? I thought once you commit you take yourself off the market.

[Unregistered]

If a player who is a junior committed in her 9th grade year decommits because the coach left, why do people say they should have had other options opened? I thought once you commit you take yourself off the market.

You are supposed to do that - -it's only fair to the school you've committed to (why should they hold a spot for you if you may not take it) and the other schools (don't tease others along).

But that's one of the big risks committing so young and one of many reasons the NCAA wanted to get rid of early commits. A lot can happen in those years, including the player not progressing and a coach pulling the offer. If the player is good and has kept developing they'll land something. They might not get much money now but maybe can work their way to more the 2nd year.

[Unregistered]

Truth, but only for a highly desired recruit, youth national pool level or so.

Kid on my dd's team got accepted to 2 Ivies (not HYP) with a 1250 SUPERSCORED...not National Pool but scores a lot of goals for club and HS.

[Unregistered]

Kid on my dd's team got accepted to 2 Ivies (not HYP) with a 1250 SUPERSCORED...not National Pool but scores a lot of goals for club and HS.

Accepted? Is that what you meant?
Offered would make sense, but I'm having trouble with accepted.
Did this just happen and she applied ED to 2 schools? Was this in a prior year and she was in regular spring decision pool?