The reality is that kids from households that are in the top 1 percent of earners have a far better shot at admission to T20s than middle class kids, regardless of the kid’s stats. Colleges like to throw around buzz words like “holistic” and “diversity, equity and inclusiveness”, but in my experience trying to get multiple high performing kids into top tier colleges, the ability to pay full tuition is a hump that cannot be overcome unless the college sees another hook (low income family, etc). Let’s be real here - colleges need people who pay their full (and outrageous) prices, and they also need future donors. They just don’t like to admit it because it makes them seem as if they are propagating elitism.
We’ve all seen the Instagram pages that kids from certain schools set up which show where graduating seniors will be attending college. Try comparing the Instagram pages of a rich private school with a public school or a religious school in a less than wealthy area, and you can easily spot the different outcomes. Graduating seniors from very wealthy schools (which are incredibly expensive) or public schools in affluent zip codes/areas will mostly be attending T20s, whereas the other schools will have a more modest mix of schools.
There is no magical formula to who gets in and who doesn’t, but one thing is for sure - if you have a high performing kid that comes from a wealthy family, they are clearly at the top of the heap when it comes to admissions, and it’s not even close.
This is so sad, and so real as a parent of kids who were likely described similarly by more popular classmates at their private school, through a lot of middle and early HS. At various times each was blatantly mocked by the popular crowd, sometimes for standing up for what was right, other times for looking nerdy. Except here’s the thing: they were not invisible dorks to their small group, and they definitely have wonderful personalities for those who took the time to get to know them. Now at ivy/T10s, each have said at different times, I finally feel like I fit in, I can be my true self here, it is easy to make friends here, almost no one is mean here. They had top scores on standardized tests their whole lives, and did not have fake ECs or nonprofits.
You say, “what colleges would want them?”
Well they both had huge success in their application cycles, so potentially top college AOs do like kids who are true to themselves, dorky or not.
It seems as though you have bitterness toward your dorky classmates. I hope you can try to be more openminded and consider how your attitude may be perceived.
Not true. My friend group is very kind and not mean. some are introverted, but some don’t try to interact and just focus on grades not being part of the student body. Anyone can fit in here and have friends if they try. I’m differentiating who I would want to go to college with and it may sound mean, but it’s not. Students that add to the school feel should be more valuable. We are not stats. Sorry. Late.
Just here to mention that at my proposed Rack’em-Stack-'em national flagship school, in addition to future “mid-level engineers”, we also welcome “bots” and the “invisible.”
I don’t want to pick a fight with a kid, but I can tell my friend @marlowe1 that I’m pretty sure my kids wouldn’t want to go to school with GRR’s friends either—and chances are good that they won’t.
So if the holistic system is actually effective in sorting them apart, then you know what?
Ah yes, the academic drone stereotype, once again. Apparently it’s inconceivable that one can be good at both. That one of the top academic kids could also be school president (one of mine was). That these kids typically have lots of ECs, but maybe not the ones as the “best kids in your school”, however you define it.
ETA: Just caught up on the thread, and glad to see GRR’s post was called out earlier.
Ga Tech, which appears to me as having the least predictable admissions for exceptionally strong students, at least for those applying OOS. Much less predictable than MIT, IMO.
I have seen the Ga Tech deferral story with multiple exceptional kids at our HS, and both @Chekov and @Rivet2000 mentioned it as well.
Well, old friends, @Chekov and @hebegebe , there’s room in my world for all kinds, but I have a special tenderness for those expressive types who aren’t afraid to let it fly. Plato called this type “the spirited,” and Nietzsche and D.H. Lawrence in their different ways prized that quality above the reflective attributes that Plato in the end preferred.
@GRR is fully capable of speaking for herself, but I take her as using saucy and provocative language to describe something like this ancient concept of “the spirited.” It goes without saying, of course, that a highly intellectual kid can be spirited too, but spirit takes many forms, and not enough is made of it in this forum, in which credentialism and careerism are often praised even more highly than either intellect or spirit - though, yes, those other qualities also go into a successful life and career. If all this is sounding a bit like conventional wisdom - even, shudder, the holistic approach to admissions - well, I plead guilty. And I say to all you dorks, embrace your dorkiness! But one way in anything, said Blake, is tyranny.
The only non-profit founder at our HS (in recent years) actually took it very seriously (actually started it in MS) and was recently profiled on a national morning program. This lovely student doesn’t attend an elite school and has kept up - and expanded - her non-profit while attending our state flagship. For her it was a true labor of love - not a way to improve her college admissions chances.
I don’t think the fact that kids from the wealthiest households enjoy a distinct advantage at T20s is news. Part of their success is that many are hooked - recruited athletes (sometimes in niche sports), legacies and kids of major donors. The students I know that attend (or have attended) elite private schools have not enjoyed the same level of success as unhooked applicants - regardless of their academics/ECs. They get into excellent schools, but are often shut out at the Ivy+ level.
That makes sense because Tech has to prioritize in state applicants and the majority of the application volume is OOS. I also expect that Tech’s admission process is relatively more holistic than MIT’s.
Yes. And I’m sure there are some others too. Often these kids aren’t shooting for the Harvards of the world - they are just trying to make our world a little better.
Seems like this is good information for people to process - not as proof that GT’s process is broken, but that GT may not be the match some consider it is if they are OOS applicants.
A lot of “the process is broken” are anecdotes from exceptionally smart parents and students who seem to have missed/misunderstood some aspects of college admissions. Some misunderstandings seem to be which states prioritize in state applicants over OOS applicants and which school cultures may be radically different from one another.
MIT seems to be looking for [some] applicants whose applications show exceptional math skills that may lead to Putnam awards. Doesn’t seem like many other schools are looking for that (as shown by how many other schools don’t win Putnams).
From my experience and observation, it seems clear that for highly selective schools - showing yourself to be a match in all ways, not just academically, is highly important. It’s one of the reasons I side-eye the shot gun “apply to 20+ schools” approach because I seriously question how if a student has such specific needs - there can be 20+ schools that will work (or, rather - maybe there are even more schools that will work?)…and how a student can/will show they are a holistic match for each of those schools.
I think if more highly qualified students took the time to figure out which schools were actually good ‘fit’ matches as well as academic matches - students would not need to apply so widely as they could better tailor their applications to the smaller number of schools they apply.
It is exceptionally rare for highly qualified students to be accepted no where during an application cycle. Even most “REJECTED EVERWHERE - HELP!!” posts in April actually reveal the applicant has been accepted to 1-3 very good schools (usually in the Top 100) which the applicant sees as terrible options…because they never expected to only have those options.
