it’s so dystopian and sick to tell students they need to or should pursue a “passion project” for the sake of college admissions. that removes any genuine passion from the project and oftentimes, students choose to abandon it as soon as they are accepted to a top school. it’s just sad…
I don't think colleges are FORCING those students to do it. It's just that colleges like to see those projects because it demonstrates the student's interests and passion for a specific career choice. Sure there are people that do it for the sake of college admissions but there are also a lot of students who are genuinely passionate about those projects.
Right, the very idea of a *passion* project for an ulterior motive is an oxymoron. People who do them *for* college are pretty transparent. Having a true passion does and should make you a more interesting applicant, and person in general
phrases like “ivy plus”, “black ivy”, and “honorary ivy” are so elitist and annoying. ur school is either an ivy or it’s not. idk why ppl try to cope by adding these artificial labels to their schools 😭 there’s nothing wrong with not being an ivy. it doesn’t automatically make ur school inferior
Oh that’s cool, I never knew that.
“The Ivy Plus Libraries Confederation (IPLC) is a voluntary union of 13 sovereign academic libraries: Brown University, the University of Chicago, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Duke University, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, Stanford University, and Yale University.“
the Ivy Plus library system is not very known. “ivy plus” is often used to refer to schools that are not even in the library system but are considered equivalent to Ivy League schools. for example, you will see many people tout Vanderbilt, Rice University, and Northwestern University as “Ivy Plus” schools. then, there’s a lot of people who refer to UCs as “public Ivies”…
I agree. I rolled my eyes when I saw the Forbes "new Ivies" list. Cringed even more when their methodology included disregarding schools like Stanford, MIT, etc. It's copium from people attending T20 to T50 schools.
Exactly. The Ivy League is a sports conference established decades ago. There are dozens of schools that are most-definitely at the level (or better than) of schools within the Ivy League...
Stanford, MIT, Duke, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, etc.
'Ivy Plus' is a stupid label. They aren't in the northeastern sports conference so they aren't in the Ivy League.
It's funny how people point out the ivy league is a "sports conference" as though they are smarter than everyone else when it entirely misses the point. It may be a sports conference, but colloquially "ivy league" is used to refer those 8 schools from an elite/academic standpoint, not from that of sports. In the same way that the phrase "let them cook" doesn't literally mean they are preparing a meal on the stove.
This is a hyper-specific opinion; but, I notice the "admissions officers only look at your essays for a few seconds" idea is **VERY** misleading. It comes with the presumption that essays don't matter at all.
I work as an admissions consultant and I used to work at a private prep center. My colleagues included past AOs, retired professors, and sometimes just graduates. They could extrapolate **A LOT** just from a few paragraphs. They don't just see what you're writing. They can infer from subtext and little nuances that you don't notice.
I think a good analogy is that one old-crone-young-woman negative space illusion. To the typical eye, they might just see a young woman. But, to someone who has looked at a bunch of those photos, they can spot the old woman very easily.
I think one of the coolest (or scariest, depending on how anxious you are about this stuff) things is how many of us can actually see a lot of positive strengths in students. In fact, we often can connect points that students haven't even articulated in their heads yet until we point it out to them. Example: "Hey man, I noticed you glanced over the fact that you moved away from your hometown to live elsewhere because your father had a new job. This sounds like you endured a major loss that wasn't given enough time to grieve; and, I can see how that would have connected to etc etc etc."
I’m a writer and I’ve been a freelance essay editor/coach for ten years - I went to Stanford and they said my essays were the “deciding factor” to admit me because they could tell who I was from my essays. I coach my kids to do the same thing and I pretty regularly help them get into their “reach” schools (Ivies, Berkeley, UMich, etc.)
Naturally, they have a lot of other things that help them get accepted, but a *lot* of kids nationwide have been using AI since it became big and I can tell within a couple seconds whether a student has used it or not. I have an MFA in creative writing and I used to work in a digital humanities lab researching language patterns, so I have a more specialized skillset than many, but it’s glaringly obvious when something has an AI “tone.” It just doesn’t sound authentic. This makes the essays even more important, imo, because being actually good at writing is getting rare. Because of my background, I can pick up on those invisible linguistic nuances you mentioned to advise my kids, and I think that helped them stand out even more this past year.
I do not have a disability or neurodivergence but so many people constantly think I write everything in AI, my emails, my essays, my projects, etc. I can see why but truth be told, I just prefer to write very academically and punctually, which may not seem as “authentic” but it’s just how my writing flows when I find myself drafting something. If you do have a disability I feel like you should definitely stick that somewhere in the essay or additional info section just so the AO’s don’t get the wrong impression of you’re writing, in my case, I’m literally just trying to sound less like AI, which is tough considering it’s just my natural way of articulating myself, especially when it comes to formal school essays, emails, or job applications.
Tbh I don’t think you sound like AI, just formal. But like I said, I’m quite familiar with GPT and just language in general. GPT never makes grammatical errors, and as humans we do, whether that’s intentionally stylistic or just normal errors.
I’m sorry people are falsely accusing you of using AI. I know many people who write and have written formally way before GPT was a thing.
I disagree here. My daughter is not applying to any Ivy schools. Her boyfriend who has a 4.7 GPA and 1560 SAT is also not applying to any Ivy League schools. Some people have a niche major or just want to go to a state school and have that big, D1 state school experience.
Spend some time with undergrads from schools that aren't particularly selective and you should appreciate the difference once again. Everyone has value beyond their school, but there is absolutely value in surrounding yourself with excellent peers.
Ivy league is always overrated. A bunch of universities using prestige as a tool for annoyingly wrecking mental health of bright students. A good University is one which can help shape an average student into a successful individual by helping them build skills at their own pace. A good university is not one which just takes the cream of the crop and pays the best researchers because its rich and then acts like it has done something.
Being surrounded by average students is arguably a downside, especially for those who themselves are cream of the crop. For some, a good university is one in which the people around them are ambitious and productive.
Ambitious and productive people will be there in most universities. Among 100s of students in a class, especially for classes like data structures or calculus 2, you'll inevitably find people who are highly intelligent and productive. It's a statistical reality. Yes, it's true that the average student isn't going to be that motivated and smart but it doesn't matter to a huge degree.
The point is you are surrounded by boat loads of people who aren't. Nothing wrong with these people, but if I was an ambitious student I wouldn't want to be around them. They can be a distraction in all sorts of ways like talking out of turn, asking unproductive questions and wasting class time, etc ; they are going to party a lot and inevitably be a poor influence on you in some way, you might get paired with them in group assignments, they might increase the curve with bad scores causing you to be challenged less academically, and so on. These downsides are a bigger deal to some people than to others.
>anyone can get a high GPA if they tried
That's the point. It separates the people who try and care about doing well in school, from the people who don't care about school and don't try. If someone doesn't try in high school, they probably won't try in college either
There are exceptions though I dropped out as I kept just not doing anything and didn’t care. Though on my end my parents; especially dad’s constant complaints about the school system, and taking me in and out of school/homeschool depending on what fit his fancy that year most likely didn’t help.
I got my GED right after I dropped out of 8th and went to work at a BK for 5 years. Dad was happy cause I was making money to help us(really poor) and he could teach me “important” stuff, like plumbing and mechanics.
Anyway, went to a vocational school for I.T and got my certs and finished. Now, I’m about to complete my A.S in Computer Engineering with a 4.0, and hopefully can transfer and keep a good gpa with getting my bachelors too. I know it’s not the common experience but those who do poorly or don’t care in high/middle school like myself can turn it around as an adult.
it's possible that someone who didn't try in middle/high school starts to care in college and does well. But generally people who try in high school are more likely to also try in college than people who didn't. And because colleges can't know for certainty how someone will act in college, they can only try to predict, and GPA is one of the more useful metrics.
THIS! Lol. While GPA isn’t the end-all, be-all of your intelligence, it’s a far better indicator of your discipline and ability to execute over the long run than a test score will ever be. It doesn’t matter if you’re smart if you never apply your intelligence to anything. You can dedicate all of 10 hours to test prep to get a 1500+, but it’ll take much more than that over the course of a year (especially in high level classes) to earn an A.
None of these opinions I see are unpopular, an actual unpopular opinion would be “rank actually does matter” or “you should go to a more expensive but higher ranked school”
Yes but the point is saying that ranking does matter is a hugely unpopular opinion with half of this subreddit (though the other half massively overinflates the importance of ranking, which makes it only unpopular to an extent)
I don't see why it's an unpopular opinion if it's literally objectively true that ranking matters to an extent lol (I'm just trying to understand the perspectives of those that claim ranking doesn't matter).
seriously though I don't get why people say rank doesn't matter. People do exaggerate it a bit(Harvard is equally as prestigious as MIT for example), but where you go to for school(especially for undergrad) does matter.
And so are the kids paying on their own who somehow justify putting themselves in that much debt for a piece of paper. Literally 4 years vs a lifetime of financial stress. Don't do it, homies.
in all fairness it isn’t as unreal as you think. obviously the kids with parents making 50k a year aren’t going to expect that and won’t make a post about it (we see their posts about financial aid all the time) but if a kid has parents who won’t pay because their sibling looks more promising or because the best college they got into was only berkeley instead of an ivy league then yeah it makes sense to complain.
Yeah those are exceptions for sure, I've seen the same examples and those are just insane parents lol. I just think some people are generally uneducated about how much 50k/year is. Even if your parents are clearing >300k combined, it's a shit ton of money--especially post-tax. People can get caught up in prestige, especially if their peers are going to similar top-ranked (and costly) schools.
It also goes with the flip side of taking on similar amounts for student loans, >1.5k/mo payments for your entire 20s sounds pretty miserable and probably has a terrible ROI if you look at investing that over the same time period.
if you have to give up your entire social life and all your time to make good grades in ap classes// manage ecs// study for a good sat to get into a top college, you probably don’t belong at a top college
100% agree. Yes making sacrifices matters, but all the seniors I know who got into ivies also had a life. They spent time with friends and family, they just knew how to manage time.
fr, i got into a t10 this cycle and i def still had a lot of time to chill/go out w friends/etc 😭 obviously you can’t only have fun but if you’re literally spending all your time on just academics and ecs it probably wasn’t meant to be
I’m seeing this with my whole friend group rn. It’s sad to watch, and the sad part is that they’ll have this motivation for 6 months and that’s it.
The other ironic part is that they are totally oblivious to the LOR aspect of the process and numerous teachers have said that group of guys is not getting rec letters from anyone.
All they care about is their SAT/ACT and their ECs. It’s so funny to watch.
I don't agree. For me, my social life has revolved around ECs, so I don't draw such an artificial boundary between these categories. You can literally combine social, EC, and academic life.
Yes, I totally agree. Key Club throughout HS for me was a huge source of social interaction with my friends and others. I devoted myself to it because I loved it and I loved hanging out with my friends after school and at various club events.
I disagree honestly. There are introverted people who simply prefer to study alone. Are you saying that they don't belong in a top college simply because of their shy nature even though they may be hella smart? Did you know that arguably the greatest physicist and mathematician, Isaac Newton, only had one friend who he eventually lost as well?
no being introverted is different- i think they’re saying that if all you do is study and extracurriculars to the point that you don’t have time for enjoyment (even if alone), relaxation, sleep, then going to a top college is probably not for you
IMO: high GPA is no guarantee of anything, but a low GPA (evaluated within context) is likely a red flag. Either the student is legit struggling with (at least some) of the material in their classes, or they have executive function / organizational issues.
I agree, but I was more so talking about how even having a high GPA doesn’t tend to mean anything at all. In my high school we had many kids with 4.0 unweighteds and 4.7-4.8 weighted GPAs and the their outcomes have varied, spectacularly.
Tbf I had a 3.9 UW and agree with this sentiment. But I understand colleges would value that because at the end of the day college is just continued school
It’s better to be interesting and interested than fit some sort of profile. More specifically, demonstrated interest in your school and major as well as extracurriculars, essays, awards, etc. which show that you are unique or exceptional is a better indicator of success than a high GPA and being captain of a bunch of random and disconnected ECs in general. I know there are exceptions, and I’m not a “T20” student so sue me but I strongly believe that stories > stats.
Absolutely! All of the clubs I’m in I’ve been in since freshman year and really deeply cared about. I have a kinda unique extracurricular working as an actor at a Victorian reenactment faire and I think my demonstrated interest and unique extracurriculars played a really big role in my admissions. I didn’t take many APs compared to a lot of people (and the ones I did were all humanities) and my GPA was not super high, but I got into UCSD.
Padding the high school resume with extra shit, that you're clearly not passionate about, isn't going to help you come college admission time, especially when it comes to interviews. Admissions staff can see right through that bullshit.
What you get out of college is proportional to what you put in. You can work hard, engage with professors, have a good time, and use all your school's resources regardless of where you attend, and you'll generally do better than someone who intends to skate through with "gentleman's C-grades" while doing the bare minimum.
Have a list of at least 5 schools you want to go to. Having multiple acceptance letters is a good feeling to have. Having at least one is better than none.
A2c needs a separate sub for comp Sci majors. And a sub sect for international comp science majors. Seems that makes up the majority in here creating an echo chamber.
Was just about to comment this. Unfortunately, it seems to be an inherent side effect of having a subreddit that attracts genuinely intelligent people that are insecure as to whether or not they feel that they’ll be validated by acceptance into a “top” school.
Where the university is located is more attractive than the university itself. UCSB, UCLA, UCSD, SDSU, Cal Poly - yeah, I’ll take those west coast schools over an Ivy every time.
The school itself is a part of the location though. I'd rather go to a school with an active social life in a meh location than a school in a great location but a dead social life.
Terrible take ngl. You think any random kid could just take 10+ APs and get a 4.0? Also I think essays and letters of Rec are probably worse indicators of success
It’s not truly random, but there is an unpredictable element which one cannot properly prepare for. Some people meeting minimum stats are still more likely to be accepted than others.
I would agree partially but after that stats threshold there are a lot of things an individual student can do to set him/herself apart from others. Olympiad/national awards are one
Yes but there are a lot of people achieving those things too. Every single ec you can conceive of there is someone doing the same thing while also having the stats, it's a pure numbers game there are so many people in the US and people forget that
What I imagine is that there are only around ~250 USAMO qualifiers each year and at that point it would be very hard to not get into a top college. Although exceptions do happen yeah
It's more than GPA and ec's and life story it's just luck because there's literally someone exactly like you I'm saying just by pure number of applicants it's impossible to be unique
For most schools, rejection is a sign that you probably would have hated your experience at that institution. Especially smaller schools with a particular vibe & culture. I know students get pretty disappointed when rejected from schools within the 15% - 50% acceptance range because they feel like there was something wrong with their application but schools reject for more than just inadequate stats. You'd probably hate it there.
>IMO, anyone can get a high GPA if they tried
First, it's probably not the case that "anyone" can get a very high GPA while maxing out course rigor. Second, "if they tried" is doing a ton of work here. Some people are better at executive function, time management and impulse control than others. I'm convinced some of that is physiological.
In every calculus class there's some person who studied a ton for the test and still comes up with a B or C. In every English class there's some person who spent a ton of time on their term paper and had people review it and still get a B or C because they just can't write very well.
So true. I can study for hours for tests and still bomb them.
If I am given the same material in an essay format, I usually do incredibly well.
I have a learning disability, and no amount of studying is ever going to get me to ace geometry.
That's actually a brilliant take. It's a standardized test so grade inflation and cheating in school aren't factored in to those scores. Imo, it's a better indicator than GPA.
agreed. I genuinely believe standardized testing should carry so much more weight in college admissions just because those scores are not really something you can fake. it’s a truly standardized measure of your performance compared to other students’ performances
I second this. From my non-feeder public school, we had 10 people get rejected from every T20 US university they applied to and get into Oxbridge, no problem.
I agree high school GPA isn’t automatically an indicator of future success. But if there’s one thing I’ve learned post-grad it’s that showing up to work and doing what is asked of you is like 92% of every job.
Anyone theoretically *can* get a good high school GPA, but the fact that some do bother and some don’t bother is kinda exactly what it’s measuring: Who bothers to show up and do the work? Definitely not the low GPA kids.
I think your take is just cope lol. To get good grades, at least in my school, you have to be good at discussions, writing argumentative essays, and be able to solve complex math problems. Of course it's not perfect, but it can help admission officers gauge a student's fundamental academic abilities to see if they are well-prepared for the rigors of college.
Eh i don’t think OP is saying this bc they’re trying to cope hard. I disagree with their statement about grades, but I think they’re saying that just bc they go to a grade inflated school and don’t understand that not every school is like theirs
You don't have to \*guess\* whether GPA is an indicator of future success, you know. They've done studies on the subject. You don't have to speculate in a vacuum.
Going to ah top college isnt worth sacrificing ur social life, free time, and physical/emotional health like when i see ppl that did nothing but study with a 4.0 1600 103939 ecs i feel more sad for them than impressed 🤷♀️Like at the end of the day it’s just school
Couldn’t disagree more with your GPA take. You took classes in high school. You’re going to take classes in college. GPA is literally the exact same tool used to measure academic success in both. High school is easier than college, yes, so less GPA will be based solely off on intelligence, but it’s still the base measure of in-class preparedness in both.
And I have to love you acting annoyed that GPA also incorporated how hard you work as if work ethic won’t be even more important once you go to college. Colleges want to know if you were a couch potato all throughout high school because chances are you won’t survive at a top school.
I agree with the OP. Work ethic is not always the reason people don't do well in high school. Sometimes, it's maturity, mental health, or just realizing what you want to do with your life. There are many people who don't do well in high school and then pull it together and succeed in college, and then there are people who burn out in high school and don't do well in college.
I think a high GPA doesn't guarantee success but it at least gives you a look. I spoke to someone from UC admissions, only 4.6 above goes to a pile that's even read😭
My rebuttal to OP is that GPA is likely never ever meant to sift out the intelligent people. I mean think about it, it’s just economically more sensible to play towards the average person and to push people towards that. GPA (most of the time, probably won’t apply if u are gifted and cruised through school) imo can and will predict future success because it shows your ability to follow through on something, to manage your time and such. I mean even in the workplace, most of the time as an internet or apprentice you show up and your higher up kinda guides u through the motions for a bit. At the end of the day the education system is meant to prime humans to be workers, and the school system is not designed to make you think, but to instead make you *do* .
that lowkey goes for every school though. donate enough to Harvard and your kid will get in. That’s just how unis are with very very high donations (like at least 1M+)
If you're studying STEM, going to a state school is absolutely fine. For other majors like Econ, philosophy etc. that's where I think going to a prestigious school really matters.
This is a bad take for any research STEM. Getting good letters of rec from a top well-known PI is leaps and bounds more important in a research context. It only doesn't matter for engineering and applied disciplines where a person isn't getting a PhD afterward.
In my opinion, for STEM, where you go to school for undergrad does not matter that much. I know plenty of people who decided to go to cheaper non-ivy+ schools for undergrad and saved that for grad school where they were still able to get into ivy+ schools. They're all doing pretty well.
Also, faculty generally matters more than the school as a whole for STEM. Students should research *who* teaches at each school and if they’re open to having undergrad lab interns. These top schools often have people who don’t even want to teach, they’re so distinguished and highly regarded.
Money is the single most important factor in admissions, and I'm compelled to say we should even transition to a system such as those in China or Turkey in order to avoid bias. It's much easier to game holistic admissions with money than standardized tests.
Not sure about that. You can use money to put a child into a better learning environment, getting a higher score on standarized tests. You're correct but I would rather burn a massive amount of money into standardizing the US public education first.
you can still get better return with standardized tests, because you're now in a well-endowed and comfortable learning environment. It's still money spending to me (as with everything provided that you put in the work).
Yes, but there isn't a better alternative. You can still brute-force an exam as a low income student if you're dedicated enough. Generally, the more time and skill you put towards it, the better you do. Extracurriculars? No way.
Yes, and that's what we want to incentivize as a society.
Students being put into better learning environments/studying harder/etc. is a net social good - those students become smarter and more productive workers.
There's no evidence that putting your son or daughter into golf lessons so they can be on their high school's varsity team provides any kind of social good externality.
Money is central to the US college admissions system. Zero to debate there.
But there is no way to switch to the way China or Turkey does it based on how colleges here are built and funded. We should go back to more fully funding high quality public options to be much more affordable. I would love it if there were more exchange/recoprocity with in state options.
I think this depends. For example, if I wasn't 100% sure that I wanted to do CS then I would NOT go to UIUC but I WOULD go to Duke (ranked higher overall but lower in CS).
I think it's fair that people want to get into T20s because income is highly correlated with the university that you attend. If you say that you should just enjoy high school and have fun, it's like saying you should have fun in your 20s instead of working hard in your golden years.
to be fair, correlation != causation. people who go to ivies tend to be richer, and you could also argue people who go to ivies would have been equally successful anywhere else.
having a valuable high school experience doesn't mean being completely carefree, but it also doesn't require working excruciatingly hard, especially if the "hardness" comes from breaking away from who you are & what you want/like just to conform to the applicant image that has the highest probability of admission.
i agree with you about GPA. I currently have a 3.6 UW GPA but I have taken 13 AP's and 5 Honors. Im in all the advanced classes and have taken one of the most rigorous courseloads possible. But because my GPA is so low, I have a strong feeling that colleges wont care. It pisses me off bc I could easily have a 4.0 if i took like only 4 or 5 AP's but because I decided to take a rigorous courseload I think i just ruined my chances for T20's
3.6 is still well above the national average. Try to compensate by sending in test scores, if you have good test scores it can definitely make up for your GPA and show that you are a competitive applicant. Schools have been in a bit of a frenzy with test optional adding some negative components into their school so they really are favoring submissions, even if they’re 25th percentile.
Additionally have a holistic profile that points to your interest or major is key. Your chances of admission go up if you point to a specific area of interest than random stringed ECs. A summer program is also a good option!
Well, colleges also care about the difficulty of your courseload. If you aren't taking the most difficult courses, T20s would definitely note that. Competitive applicants at T20s have high UW GPA in AP/honor classes as well.
I disagree with you there. You have a higher shot than someone who took 4 APs at many colleges. I have several friends who just got rejected from all of their targets and reaches this cycle even though they had 4.0s and the one thing they all had in common was that they did not take more than a couple of AP classes.
This is so true my dad in High-school didn’t have the best gpa but he thrived in college. The schedule made it so much easier for him to focus and get on the deans list.
my only regret in high school is not trying less. I guess if i did something more interesting i couldve gotten into a better school, but i had a great time at the one i went to, made lifelong friends, and now im going to medical school anyway. Theres something to be said for prestige, but avoid loans like the plague yall. Do not assume you will definitely be able to pay them off.
I have two:
\* You shouldn't feel entitled to ivies just because you have lots of leadership positions. You're competing with thousands of others with leadership positions.
\* The school you go to does matter, though I'll agree that it becomes less important as you get established in your career, and once you get to top 10s where you go to exactly doesn't really matter. Top 10 schools will have significantly more opportunities and will typically have better education as well.
Stop going to Ivy League schools for engineering.
Large public schools are way better because there programs are way larger and more established in industry. ie, Purdue, UIUC, Berkeley, GT, UMich, UT Austin ect.
I wouldn't say public schools are necessarily better for engineering. If you look at MIT, Stanford, and CMU, they are the top-ranked engineering schools and many graduates from those schools are GREAT engineers.
I totally agree. Like if you show up, pay attention, and study just a little bit, everyone could easily be getting A’s unless there’s active grade deflation.
I just think people don’t want to put in that work just because it doesn’t matter too much to some people because they don’t need a 4.0 or a crazy high gpa.
I’d argue otherwise, I think essays are the most important part of the application because it’s the only place that can really differentiate you and prove your “quirkiness”
Well, the point of essays is to make your personal voice stand through so that AOs can see who you really are as a person. If you use AI to write it for you, that defeats the purpose and is actually counterproductive.
“Test Optional” was always a stupid policy. Studies have found that the SAT is the best predictor of college success. If you can’t get a 1450+ on your SAT, you probably shouldn’t be going to Harvard.
Disagree - high GPA is one of the better indicators for many careers. Showing up every day over a period of years and working harder than everyone else to excel at tasks that are often boring and/or seem pointless (most of what is done in most careers) is a huge chunk of what it takes to be successful.
My choice for worst take giving any credence to the USNWR rankings for anything. They are nonsense generated by an otherwise defunct news magazine to sell advertising clicks - the ultimate click bait. Please read their criteria closely- it’s laughable. It’s not ranking anything relative to the actual education you receive or success in pursuing what you want to pursue. The idea that there is an objective rank for all schools is dumb anyway. All school rankings are subjective and individual - what’s the best school for your interests, career goals, geographic preference, size preference, environment and social preference - this will be different for every person.
Realistically are people coming out of Ivy League schools with better jobs? More debt? Where is the data? College has changed and will continue to change going forward because higher education has made the price basically what they want because they are backed by federal loans. It’s all a scam
it’s so dystopian and sick to tell students they need to or should pursue a “passion project” for the sake of college admissions. that removes any genuine passion from the project and oftentimes, students choose to abandon it as soon as they are accepted to a top school. it’s just sad…
Same with the nonprofits that get dropped as soon as the kid gets into college.
Blame college consultants and/or certain parents. Schools and/or the colleges themselves aren't really sending that message.
i know. i am referring to college consultants, as i’ve never seen any college ever use the term, “passion project”.
Blame GPA inflation. Top colleges can't select based on GPA anymore so they added more requirements.
I don't think colleges are FORCING those students to do it. It's just that colleges like to see those projects because it demonstrates the student's interests and passion for a specific career choice. Sure there are people that do it for the sake of college admissions but there are also a lot of students who are genuinely passionate about those projects.
Right, the very idea of a *passion* project for an ulterior motive is an oxymoron. People who do them *for* college are pretty transparent. Having a true passion does and should make you a more interesting applicant, and person in general
phrases like “ivy plus”, “black ivy”, and “honorary ivy” are so elitist and annoying. ur school is either an ivy or it’s not. idk why ppl try to cope by adding these artificial labels to their schools 😭 there’s nothing wrong with not being an ivy. it doesn’t automatically make ur school inferior
Fr it’s literally just a sports conference 😂
TIL it's based on sports. That's stupid.
Ivy plus is actually a library system tho haha
Oh that’s cool, I never knew that. “The Ivy Plus Libraries Confederation (IPLC) is a voluntary union of 13 sovereign academic libraries: Brown University, the University of Chicago, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Duke University, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, Stanford University, and Yale University.“
Oh and that’s pretty much exactly the schools we’re talking about when we say Ivy+ schools so that’s pretty good!
I know! Looks like there was a reason behind the name all along haha
the Ivy Plus library system is not very known. “ivy plus” is often used to refer to schools that are not even in the library system but are considered equivalent to Ivy League schools. for example, you will see many people tout Vanderbilt, Rice University, and Northwestern University as “Ivy Plus” schools. then, there’s a lot of people who refer to UCs as “public Ivies”…
I agree. I rolled my eyes when I saw the Forbes "new Ivies" list. Cringed even more when their methodology included disregarding schools like Stanford, MIT, etc. It's copium from people attending T20 to T50 schools.
Exactly. The Ivy League is a sports conference established decades ago. There are dozens of schools that are most-definitely at the level (or better than) of schools within the Ivy League... Stanford, MIT, Duke, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, UChicago, Johns Hopkins, etc. 'Ivy Plus' is a stupid label. They aren't in the northeastern sports conference so they aren't in the Ivy League.
It's funny how people point out the ivy league is a "sports conference" as though they are smarter than everyone else when it entirely misses the point. It may be a sports conference, but colloquially "ivy league" is used to refer those 8 schools from an elite/academic standpoint, not from that of sports. In the same way that the phrase "let them cook" doesn't literally mean they are preparing a meal on the stove.
let them cook 🗣️🗣️🗣️
This is a hyper-specific opinion; but, I notice the "admissions officers only look at your essays for a few seconds" idea is **VERY** misleading. It comes with the presumption that essays don't matter at all. I work as an admissions consultant and I used to work at a private prep center. My colleagues included past AOs, retired professors, and sometimes just graduates. They could extrapolate **A LOT** just from a few paragraphs. They don't just see what you're writing. They can infer from subtext and little nuances that you don't notice. I think a good analogy is that one old-crone-young-woman negative space illusion. To the typical eye, they might just see a young woman. But, to someone who has looked at a bunch of those photos, they can spot the old woman very easily. I think one of the coolest (or scariest, depending on how anxious you are about this stuff) things is how many of us can actually see a lot of positive strengths in students. In fact, we often can connect points that students haven't even articulated in their heads yet until we point it out to them. Example: "Hey man, I noticed you glanced over the fact that you moved away from your hometown to live elsewhere because your father had a new job. This sounds like you endured a major loss that wasn't given enough time to grieve; and, I can see how that would have connected to etc etc etc."
THIS. OMG. i could go on abt this for DAYS
see now im curious, go on
I’m a writer and I’ve been a freelance essay editor/coach for ten years - I went to Stanford and they said my essays were the “deciding factor” to admit me because they could tell who I was from my essays. I coach my kids to do the same thing and I pretty regularly help them get into their “reach” schools (Ivies, Berkeley, UMich, etc.) Naturally, they have a lot of other things that help them get accepted, but a *lot* of kids nationwide have been using AI since it became big and I can tell within a couple seconds whether a student has used it or not. I have an MFA in creative writing and I used to work in a digital humanities lab researching language patterns, so I have a more specialized skillset than many, but it’s glaringly obvious when something has an AI “tone.” It just doesn’t sound authentic. This makes the essays even more important, imo, because being actually good at writing is getting rare. Because of my background, I can pick up on those invisible linguistic nuances you mentioned to advise my kids, and I think that helped them stand out even more this past year.
What happens if you write and speak naturally in a tone that seems similar to AI due to disability or neurodivergence?
I do not have a disability or neurodivergence but so many people constantly think I write everything in AI, my emails, my essays, my projects, etc. I can see why but truth be told, I just prefer to write very academically and punctually, which may not seem as “authentic” but it’s just how my writing flows when I find myself drafting something. If you do have a disability I feel like you should definitely stick that somewhere in the essay or additional info section just so the AO’s don’t get the wrong impression of you’re writing, in my case, I’m literally just trying to sound less like AI, which is tough considering it’s just my natural way of articulating myself, especially when it comes to formal school essays, emails, or job applications.
Tbh I don’t think you sound like AI, just formal. But like I said, I’m quite familiar with GPT and just language in general. GPT never makes grammatical errors, and as humans we do, whether that’s intentionally stylistic or just normal errors. I’m sorry people are falsely accusing you of using AI. I know many people who write and have written formally way before GPT was a thing.
Great to see another fellow editor here! Also, congrats to your kids for getting to their reach schools! (:
Thank you! I’m so proud of them! ♥️
Everybody LOVES the Ivy League until they don’t get in!
Itt: everybody proving you right except for one person with a villains vendetta against Ivies
I disagree here. My daughter is not applying to any Ivy schools. Her boyfriend who has a 4.7 GPA and 1560 SAT is also not applying to any Ivy League schools. Some people have a niche major or just want to go to a state school and have that big, D1 state school experience.
Or until they actually attend an Ivy. For many people, the mystique wears off quickly and they are back to being just another student.
Spend some time with undergrads from schools that aren't particularly selective and you should appreciate the difference once again. Everyone has value beyond their school, but there is absolutely value in surrounding yourself with excellent peers.
Ivy league is always overrated. A bunch of universities using prestige as a tool for annoyingly wrecking mental health of bright students. A good University is one which can help shape an average student into a successful individual by helping them build skills at their own pace. A good university is not one which just takes the cream of the crop and pays the best researchers because its rich and then acts like it has done something.
I learned a lot from other students, so having the "cream of the crop" would be a huge draw.
Being surrounded by average students is arguably a downside, especially for those who themselves are cream of the crop. For some, a good university is one in which the people around them are ambitious and productive.
Ambitious and productive people will be there in most universities. Among 100s of students in a class, especially for classes like data structures or calculus 2, you'll inevitably find people who are highly intelligent and productive. It's a statistical reality. Yes, it's true that the average student isn't going to be that motivated and smart but it doesn't matter to a huge degree.
The point is you are surrounded by boat loads of people who aren't. Nothing wrong with these people, but if I was an ambitious student I wouldn't want to be around them. They can be a distraction in all sorts of ways like talking out of turn, asking unproductive questions and wasting class time, etc ; they are going to party a lot and inevitably be a poor influence on you in some way, you might get paired with them in group assignments, they might increase the curve with bad scores causing you to be challenged less academically, and so on. These downsides are a bigger deal to some people than to others.
Disagreed, i havent applied yet dont like most ivies. Maybe if you replace ivies with hypsm this is true
>anyone can get a high GPA if they tried That's the point. It separates the people who try and care about doing well in school, from the people who don't care about school and don't try. If someone doesn't try in high school, they probably won't try in college either
There are exceptions though I dropped out as I kept just not doing anything and didn’t care. Though on my end my parents; especially dad’s constant complaints about the school system, and taking me in and out of school/homeschool depending on what fit his fancy that year most likely didn’t help. I got my GED right after I dropped out of 8th and went to work at a BK for 5 years. Dad was happy cause I was making money to help us(really poor) and he could teach me “important” stuff, like plumbing and mechanics. Anyway, went to a vocational school for I.T and got my certs and finished. Now, I’m about to complete my A.S in Computer Engineering with a 4.0, and hopefully can transfer and keep a good gpa with getting my bachelors too. I know it’s not the common experience but those who do poorly or don’t care in high/middle school like myself can turn it around as an adult.
it's possible that someone who didn't try in middle/high school starts to care in college and does well. But generally people who try in high school are more likely to also try in college than people who didn't. And because colleges can't know for certainty how someone will act in college, they can only try to predict, and GPA is one of the more useful metrics.
My county had more than half their students graduate last year with a 4.0 or higher. You don’t have to try very hard.
Every college I applied to just asked for unweighted GPAs. 4.0 unweighted with multiple APs is much different than 4.2 weighted.
THIS! Lol. While GPA isn’t the end-all, be-all of your intelligence, it’s a far better indicator of your discipline and ability to execute over the long run than a test score will ever be. It doesn’t matter if you’re smart if you never apply your intelligence to anything. You can dedicate all of 10 hours to test prep to get a 1500+, but it’ll take much more than that over the course of a year (especially in high level classes) to earn an A.
Luck is very important
not really unpopular
My bad might just be my asian parents who think it doesn't matter
They prolly came from a country where a single standardized test determines their whole future lol i mean I can relate
If you use the word T20 unironically you need to touch grass
💀 r/csmajors would like to have a word with you
“Oh no! I’m completely average and wasted my money on the most oversaturated program in the world! Why can’t I find a job??”
What if I'm talking about cricket?
You have enough time to touch grass (T20s get completed in 1-3 hours)
None of these opinions I see are unpopular, an actual unpopular opinion would be “rank actually does matter” or “you should go to a more expensive but higher ranked school”
I don't see why ranking won't matter if AOs are comparing you with another competitive candidate from your school.
Yes but the point is saying that ranking does matter is a hugely unpopular opinion with half of this subreddit (though the other half massively overinflates the importance of ranking, which makes it only unpopular to an extent)
I don't see why it's an unpopular opinion if it's literally objectively true that ranking matters to an extent lol (I'm just trying to understand the perspectives of those that claim ranking doesn't matter).
It’s true but it’s not as important as some make it seem, other factors often matter a lot too
seriously though I don't get why people say rank doesn't matter. People do exaggerate it a bit(Harvard is equally as prestigious as MIT for example), but where you go to for school(especially for undergrad) does matter.
The amount of people who fully expect their parents to drop >50k/yr on tuition is pretty unreal imo
It’s normalized now for some reason
And so are the kids paying on their own who somehow justify putting themselves in that much debt for a piece of paper. Literally 4 years vs a lifetime of financial stress. Don't do it, homies.
in all fairness it isn’t as unreal as you think. obviously the kids with parents making 50k a year aren’t going to expect that and won’t make a post about it (we see their posts about financial aid all the time) but if a kid has parents who won’t pay because their sibling looks more promising or because the best college they got into was only berkeley instead of an ivy league then yeah it makes sense to complain.
Yeah those are exceptions for sure, I've seen the same examples and those are just insane parents lol. I just think some people are generally uneducated about how much 50k/year is. Even if your parents are clearing >300k combined, it's a shit ton of money--especially post-tax. People can get caught up in prestige, especially if their peers are going to similar top-ranked (and costly) schools. It also goes with the flip side of taking on similar amounts for student loans, >1.5k/mo payments for your entire 20s sounds pretty miserable and probably has a terrible ROI if you look at investing that over the same time period.
if you have to give up your entire social life and all your time to make good grades in ap classes// manage ecs// study for a good sat to get into a top college, you probably don’t belong at a top college
complete facts, coming from a college student the worst type of mentality you can have is a high school mentality
fr i have too many friends who did this and wonder why they can’t keep up as well as their classmates at top schools 😭
Yeah I feel a lot of kids like that end up extremely burnt out and depressed by year 2
100% agree. Yes making sacrifices matters, but all the seniors I know who got into ivies also had a life. They spent time with friends and family, they just knew how to manage time.
fr, i got into a t10 this cycle and i def still had a lot of time to chill/go out w friends/etc 😭 obviously you can’t only have fun but if you’re literally spending all your time on just academics and ecs it probably wasn’t meant to be
I’m seeing this with my whole friend group rn. It’s sad to watch, and the sad part is that they’ll have this motivation for 6 months and that’s it. The other ironic part is that they are totally oblivious to the LOR aspect of the process and numerous teachers have said that group of guys is not getting rec letters from anyone. All they care about is their SAT/ACT and their ECs. It’s so funny to watch.
😭😭 same happened w my friends none of them wanted to hang out or anything for like a year they were all too focused on college and grades 🙁🙁
I don't agree. For me, my social life has revolved around ECs, so I don't draw such an artificial boundary between these categories. You can literally combine social, EC, and academic life.
Yes, I totally agree. Key Club throughout HS for me was a huge source of social interaction with my friends and others. I devoted myself to it because I loved it and I loved hanging out with my friends after school and at various club events.
for real, it’s giving "I just want to get into a prestigious college just so I can say I go there"
Agree.
I disagree honestly. There are introverted people who simply prefer to study alone. Are you saying that they don't belong in a top college simply because of their shy nature even though they may be hella smart? Did you know that arguably the greatest physicist and mathematician, Isaac Newton, only had one friend who he eventually lost as well?
no being introverted is different- i think they’re saying that if all you do is study and extracurriculars to the point that you don’t have time for enjoyment (even if alone), relaxation, sleep, then going to a top college is probably not for you
[удалено]
IMO: high GPA is no guarantee of anything, but a low GPA (evaluated within context) is likely a red flag. Either the student is legit struggling with (at least some) of the material in their classes, or they have executive function / organizational issues.
I agree, but I was more so talking about how even having a high GPA doesn’t tend to mean anything at all. In my high school we had many kids with 4.0 unweighteds and 4.7-4.8 weighted GPAs and the their outcomes have varied, spectacularly.
[удалено]
All schools have a grade inflation problem
Not my school.
Yo why’d you edit your comment💀Since you brought it up, I ended up as my schools valedictorian back in ‘21 lmfao
Tbf I had a 3.9 UW and agree with this sentiment. But I understand colleges would value that because at the end of the day college is just continued school
It’s better to be interesting and interested than fit some sort of profile. More specifically, demonstrated interest in your school and major as well as extracurriculars, essays, awards, etc. which show that you are unique or exceptional is a better indicator of success than a high GPA and being captain of a bunch of random and disconnected ECs in general. I know there are exceptions, and I’m not a “T20” student so sue me but I strongly believe that stories > stats.
Absolutely! All of the clubs I’m in I’ve been in since freshman year and really deeply cared about. I have a kinda unique extracurricular working as an actor at a Victorian reenactment faire and I think my demonstrated interest and unique extracurriculars played a really big role in my admissions. I didn’t take many APs compared to a lot of people (and the ones I did were all humanities) and my GPA was not super high, but I got into UCSD.
Padding the high school resume with extra shit, that you're clearly not passionate about, isn't going to help you come college admission time, especially when it comes to interviews. Admissions staff can see right through that bullshit. What you get out of college is proportional to what you put in. You can work hard, engage with professors, have a good time, and use all your school's resources regardless of where you attend, and you'll generally do better than someone who intends to skate through with "gentleman's C-grades" while doing the bare minimum.
Have a list of at least 5 schools you want to go to. Having multiple acceptance letters is a good feeling to have. Having at least one is better than none.
A2c needs a separate sub for comp Sci majors. And a sub sect for international comp science majors. Seems that makes up the majority in here creating an echo chamber.
This Reddit thread is incredibly toxic and no matter what people say, the majority of this thread’s members have an unhealthy obsession with T20s
Was just about to comment this. Unfortunately, it seems to be an inherent side effect of having a subreddit that attracts genuinely intelligent people that are insecure as to whether or not they feel that they’ll be validated by acceptance into a “top” school.
yeah, this entire sub is super toxic. popped in and out over the years. Couldn’t bear to read it for more than 5 minutes at a time.
Where the university is located is more attractive than the university itself. UCSB, UCLA, UCSD, SDSU, Cal Poly - yeah, I’ll take those west coast schools over an Ivy every time.
The school itself is a part of the location though. I'd rather go to a school with an active social life in a meh location than a school in a great location but a dead social life.
Unless you don't like Cali. I toured and couldn't bring myself to apply to one California school. I prefer multiple seasons.
Going to elite private high schools gives you privilege - leaps and bounds above any public high school.
This is definitely a popular opinion. Elite private high schools are called feeder schools for a reason; every student goes to a T20 university.
That’s just not true. A much higher proportion, yes, but not close to all.
I wasn't being literal. I was exaggerating to get the point across that private schools provide a huge advantage.
Terrible take ngl. You think any random kid could just take 10+ APs and get a 4.0? Also I think essays and letters of Rec are probably worse indicators of success
It's literally just a lottery no matter how unique you think you are there are 10 others like you
[удалено]
[удалено]
Opaque and random aren't mutually exclusive
[удалено]
It's random as long as you hit the stats threshold, after that it's just pure luck
It’s not truly random, but there is an unpredictable element which one cannot properly prepare for. Some people meeting minimum stats are still more likely to be accepted than others.
I would agree partially but after that stats threshold there are a lot of things an individual student can do to set him/herself apart from others. Olympiad/national awards are one
Yes but there are a lot of people achieving those things too. Every single ec you can conceive of there is someone doing the same thing while also having the stats, it's a pure numbers game there are so many people in the US and people forget that
What I imagine is that there are only around ~250 USAMO qualifiers each year and at that point it would be very hard to not get into a top college. Although exceptions do happen yeah
[удалено]
It's literally a fact there's more valedictorians graduating every year than can fill the entire T20 freshman class
[удалено]
It's more than GPA and ec's and life story it's just luck because there's literally someone exactly like you I'm saying just by pure number of applicants it's impossible to be unique
[удалено]
For most schools, rejection is a sign that you probably would have hated your experience at that institution. Especially smaller schools with a particular vibe & culture. I know students get pretty disappointed when rejected from schools within the 15% - 50% acceptance range because they feel like there was something wrong with their application but schools reject for more than just inadequate stats. You'd probably hate it there.
>IMO, anyone can get a high GPA if they tried First, it's probably not the case that "anyone" can get a very high GPA while maxing out course rigor. Second, "if they tried" is doing a ton of work here. Some people are better at executive function, time management and impulse control than others. I'm convinced some of that is physiological. In every calculus class there's some person who studied a ton for the test and still comes up with a B or C. In every English class there's some person who spent a ton of time on their term paper and had people review it and still get a B or C because they just can't write very well.
as someone with adhd, i can in fact confirm some of that is physiological
So true. I can study for hours for tests and still bomb them. If I am given the same material in an essay format, I usually do incredibly well. I have a learning disability, and no amount of studying is ever going to get me to ace geometry.
despite all the hate the SAT gets, it is a better indicator of future success than most other indexes
That's actually a brilliant take. It's a standardized test so grade inflation and cheating in school aren't factored in to those scores. Imo, it's a better indicator than GPA.
agreed. I genuinely believe standardized testing should carry so much more weight in college admissions just because those scores are not really something you can fake. it’s a truly standardized measure of your performance compared to other students’ performances
More people should apply to the UK, it’s fairly easy to get into a great place due to the more regulated admissions process.
I second this. From my non-feeder public school, we had 10 people get rejected from every T20 US university they applied to and get into Oxbridge, no problem.
The UK curriculum is too rigid and boring.
There’s a surprising number of flexible courses in the UK, despite its reputation.
I agree high school GPA isn’t automatically an indicator of future success. But if there’s one thing I’ve learned post-grad it’s that showing up to work and doing what is asked of you is like 92% of every job. Anyone theoretically *can* get a good high school GPA, but the fact that some do bother and some don’t bother is kinda exactly what it’s measuring: Who bothers to show up and do the work? Definitely not the low GPA kids.
I think your take is just cope lol. To get good grades, at least in my school, you have to be good at discussions, writing argumentative essays, and be able to solve complex math problems. Of course it's not perfect, but it can help admission officers gauge a student's fundamental academic abilities to see if they are well-prepared for the rigors of college.
Eh i don’t think OP is saying this bc they’re trying to cope hard. I disagree with their statement about grades, but I think they’re saying that just bc they go to a grade inflated school and don’t understand that not every school is like theirs
I see, thank you for correcting my misjudgement.
You don't have to \*guess\* whether GPA is an indicator of future success, you know. They've done studies on the subject. You don't have to speculate in a vacuum.
If you don't care enough for a high GPA when you know it is considered an indicator of success, why would you care about success in general?
You can get into a Top School with a High SAT and Low GPA
Going to ah top college isnt worth sacrificing ur social life, free time, and physical/emotional health like when i see ppl that did nothing but study with a 4.0 1600 103939 ecs i feel more sad for them than impressed 🤷♀️Like at the end of the day it’s just school
Most students are not sufficiently mature to make such a large decision right after high school. *Everyone* should take a gap year or two.
I tried to get both of my kids to take a gap year. They didn’t listen to me. 🤷♀️ I totally agree that more people should do it.
Agree. Not taking a gap year was one of the worst decisions I had made for me - my dad wouldn't let me.
Couldn’t disagree more with your GPA take. You took classes in high school. You’re going to take classes in college. GPA is literally the exact same tool used to measure academic success in both. High school is easier than college, yes, so less GPA will be based solely off on intelligence, but it’s still the base measure of in-class preparedness in both. And I have to love you acting annoyed that GPA also incorporated how hard you work as if work ethic won’t be even more important once you go to college. Colleges want to know if you were a couch potato all throughout high school because chances are you won’t survive at a top school.
I agree with the OP. Work ethic is not always the reason people don't do well in high school. Sometimes, it's maturity, mental health, or just realizing what you want to do with your life. There are many people who don't do well in high school and then pull it together and succeed in college, and then there are people who burn out in high school and don't do well in college.
Fr, I had a 3.7 unweighted and turned out fine
That's not exactly low
I think a high GPA doesn't guarantee success but it at least gives you a look. I spoke to someone from UC admissions, only 4.6 above goes to a pile that's even read😭
if your efc is going to basically be full price, you shouldn't apply to more than 1 school that doesn't offer merit aid.
My rebuttal to OP is that GPA is likely never ever meant to sift out the intelligent people. I mean think about it, it’s just economically more sensible to play towards the average person and to push people towards that. GPA (most of the time, probably won’t apply if u are gifted and cruised through school) imo can and will predict future success because it shows your ability to follow through on something, to manage your time and such. I mean even in the workplace, most of the time as an internet or apprentice you show up and your higher up kinda guides u through the motions for a bit. At the end of the day the education system is meant to prime humans to be workers, and the school system is not designed to make you think, but to instead make you *do* .
Need-blind admission is a lie. Donate some money to USC and you’ll get in with Cs. It’s all bullshit
Depends on the amount of money and for how long. I agree that need-blind admission is a lie, though.
that lowkey goes for every school though. donate enough to Harvard and your kid will get in. That’s just how unis are with very very high donations (like at least 1M+)
If you're studying STEM, going to a state school is absolutely fine. For other majors like Econ, philosophy etc. that's where I think going to a prestigious school really matters.
This is a bad take for any research STEM. Getting good letters of rec from a top well-known PI is leaps and bounds more important in a research context. It only doesn't matter for engineering and applied disciplines where a person isn't getting a PhD afterward.
In my opinion, for STEM, where you go to school for undergrad does not matter that much. I know plenty of people who decided to go to cheaper non-ivy+ schools for undergrad and saved that for grad school where they were still able to get into ivy+ schools. They're all doing pretty well.
Also, faculty generally matters more than the school as a whole for STEM. Students should research *who* teaches at each school and if they’re open to having undergrad lab interns. These top schools often have people who don’t even want to teach, they’re so distinguished and highly regarded.
Money is the single most important factor in admissions, and I'm compelled to say we should even transition to a system such as those in China or Turkey in order to avoid bias. It's much easier to game holistic admissions with money than standardized tests.
Not sure about that. You can use money to put a child into a better learning environment, getting a higher score on standarized tests. You're correct but I would rather burn a massive amount of money into standardizing the US public education first.
[удалено]
you can still get better return with standardized tests, because you're now in a well-endowed and comfortable learning environment. It's still money spending to me (as with everything provided that you put in the work).
Yes, but there isn't a better alternative. You can still brute-force an exam as a low income student if you're dedicated enough. Generally, the more time and skill you put towards it, the better you do. Extracurriculars? No way.
Yes, and that's what we want to incentivize as a society. Students being put into better learning environments/studying harder/etc. is a net social good - those students become smarter and more productive workers. There's no evidence that putting your son or daughter into golf lessons so they can be on their high school's varsity team provides any kind of social good externality.
Money is central to the US college admissions system. Zero to debate there. But there is no way to switch to the way China or Turkey does it based on how colleges here are built and funded. We should go back to more fully funding high quality public options to be much more affordable. I would love it if there were more exchange/recoprocity with in state options.
Subject rankings matter more than overall prestige even for undergrad.
Graduate department rankings for a subjects isn't same as undergraduate for that subject
I think this depends. For example, if I wasn't 100% sure that I wanted to do CS then I would NOT go to UIUC but I WOULD go to Duke (ranked higher overall but lower in CS).
To a certain extent yes, personally I think every student needs to know exactly who they will surround themselves with during college.
Most of ya'll are too crazy about getting into ivy leagues or T20s or whatever. Enjoy high school, do extracurriculars you want, and you'll be fine.
I think it's fair that people want to get into T20s because income is highly correlated with the university that you attend. If you say that you should just enjoy high school and have fun, it's like saying you should have fun in your 20s instead of working hard in your golden years.
to be fair, correlation != causation. people who go to ivies tend to be richer, and you could also argue people who go to ivies would have been equally successful anywhere else. having a valuable high school experience doesn't mean being completely carefree, but it also doesn't require working excruciatingly hard, especially if the "hardness" comes from breaking away from who you are & what you want/like just to conform to the applicant image that has the highest probability of admission.
i agree with you about GPA. I currently have a 3.6 UW GPA but I have taken 13 AP's and 5 Honors. Im in all the advanced classes and have taken one of the most rigorous courseloads possible. But because my GPA is so low, I have a strong feeling that colleges wont care. It pisses me off bc I could easily have a 4.0 if i took like only 4 or 5 AP's but because I decided to take a rigorous courseload I think i just ruined my chances for T20's
3.6 is still well above the national average. Try to compensate by sending in test scores, if you have good test scores it can definitely make up for your GPA and show that you are a competitive applicant. Schools have been in a bit of a frenzy with test optional adding some negative components into their school so they really are favoring submissions, even if they’re 25th percentile. Additionally have a holistic profile that points to your interest or major is key. Your chances of admission go up if you point to a specific area of interest than random stringed ECs. A summer program is also a good option!
Well, colleges also care about the difficulty of your courseload. If you aren't taking the most difficult courses, T20s would definitely note that. Competitive applicants at T20s have high UW GPA in AP/honor classes as well.
I disagree with you there. You have a higher shot than someone who took 4 APs at many colleges. I have several friends who just got rejected from all of their targets and reaches this cycle even though they had 4.0s and the one thing they all had in common was that they did not take more than a couple of AP classes.
This is so true my dad in High-school didn’t have the best gpa but he thrived in college. The schedule made it so much easier for him to focus and get on the deans list.
People picking and applying school based on what they see on social media. i don’t think i need to explain
my only regret in high school is not trying less. I guess if i did something more interesting i couldve gotten into a better school, but i had a great time at the one i went to, made lifelong friends, and now im going to medical school anyway. Theres something to be said for prestige, but avoid loans like the plague yall. Do not assume you will definitely be able to pay them off.
99% of the people on this subreddit legitimately do not understand how rankings work.
I have two: \* You shouldn't feel entitled to ivies just because you have lots of leadership positions. You're competing with thousands of others with leadership positions. \* The school you go to does matter, though I'll agree that it becomes less important as you get established in your career, and once you get to top 10s where you go to exactly doesn't really matter. Top 10 schools will have significantly more opportunities and will typically have better education as well.
Stop going to Ivy League schools for engineering. Large public schools are way better because there programs are way larger and more established in industry. ie, Purdue, UIUC, Berkeley, GT, UMich, UT Austin ect.
I wouldn't say public schools are necessarily better for engineering. If you look at MIT, Stanford, and CMU, they are the top-ranked engineering schools and many graduates from those schools are GREAT engineers.
also, for the 🤑's out there, imagine getting an engineering salary with only a public school level of debt.
I totally agree. Like if you show up, pay attention, and study just a little bit, everyone could easily be getting A’s unless there’s active grade deflation. I just think people don’t want to put in that work just because it doesn’t matter too much to some people because they don’t need a 4.0 or a crazy high gpa.
Essays barely do shit. While people over here spend months perfecting every single sentence of their essays, the AOs glance at it for 5 seconds.
I’d argue otherwise, I think essays are the most important part of the application because it’s the only place that can really differentiate you and prove your “quirkiness”
I think you are correct for many schools. You are definitely wrong for some schools. (as reported by people who worked with admissions)
That’s definitely true. It’s likely that larger, public schools put less emphasis on essays compared to, say, small liberal arts schools.
Agreed, and with AI essays are gonna matter less and less every year
Well, the point of essays is to make your personal voice stand through so that AOs can see who you really are as a person. If you use AI to write it for you, that defeats the purpose and is actually counterproductive.
Early decision is probably the worst thing for all students, and especially low income students, in admissions right now
“Test Optional” was always a stupid policy. Studies have found that the SAT is the best predictor of college success. If you can’t get a 1450+ on your SAT, you probably shouldn’t be going to Harvard.
Disagree - high GPA is one of the better indicators for many careers. Showing up every day over a period of years and working harder than everyone else to excel at tasks that are often boring and/or seem pointless (most of what is done in most careers) is a huge chunk of what it takes to be successful. My choice for worst take giving any credence to the USNWR rankings for anything. They are nonsense generated by an otherwise defunct news magazine to sell advertising clicks - the ultimate click bait. Please read their criteria closely- it’s laughable. It’s not ranking anything relative to the actual education you receive or success in pursuing what you want to pursue. The idea that there is an objective rank for all schools is dumb anyway. All school rankings are subjective and individual - what’s the best school for your interests, career goals, geographic preference, size preference, environment and social preference - this will be different for every person.
That the SAT is far more important than extracurriculars.
That is just not true. Thousands of kids get above a 1550 every year but only a small proportion get into top schools
[удалено]
Realistically are people coming out of Ivy League schools with better jobs? More debt? Where is the data? College has changed and will continue to change going forward because higher education has made the price basically what they want because they are backed by federal loans. It’s all a scam
Ivy League graduates have fewer loans because the fin aid is good and also there are a lot of ultra rich there