r/ApplyingToCollege • u/Used-Departure9606 • Feb 02 '26
Rant I hate seeing all the “I don’t deserve to be rejected” ppl
It honestly bugs me when people say they don’t deserve to be rejected and then flex their stats: 4.0 UW, 5.0 W, 1600 SAT as if that should guarantee admission or change the outcome And then, of course, they say:
“I saw people with lower stats get in.”
Newsflash: you’re applying to top schools that care way more about the whole application than just numbers. Your stats just need to hit the baseline (around 3.7+ UW and 1400+ SAT). Lower GPA? Boost the SAT. High GPA but low SAT? Go test-optional.
Getting rejected doesn’t mean you “don’t deserve it.” Stats aren’t everything, and acting salty at people with lower stats is honestly annoying or saying things like they got accepted bc they r DEI
Anyway, good luck with apps, y’all.
EDIT: Since some idiots (sorry) can’t read, I’m not talking about people who are rejected and come to this Reddit to express their frustration, that is totally valid. I AM TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUALS WHO TALK DOWN ON OTHERS WHO GOT ACCEPTED AND SAY RUDE STUFF LIKE “DEI” OR “FGLI” 🤦**♀️ I didn’t think I would need to say that, who would hate ok highschool kids for being **sad
58
u/Flashy_Curve_43 Feb 02 '26
Yesssss. Like I’m sorry bro but nothing is guaranteed
Also, not towards anything specific but just in general I just cant ever say “I deserve”. And no judgement towards people that do say they deserve something but like how can you be so confident?
4
u/Southern-Rub-843 Feb 03 '26
I so agree on that deserve comment, I would never be comfortable saying I deserve something, cause like, what if i dont? ya know?
2
u/Flashy_Curve_43 Feb 04 '26
💯like what if I screwed up or was wrong or missed something how can you be so certain that you deserve something?
126
u/AC10021 Feb 03 '26
I use the metaphor of someone saying “I am blonde, but the guy I want to date chose to date a brunette! Everyone knows blondes are hotter than brunettes! He’s clearly messing up, and making a mistake!” And you say “yes, but looks aren’t the only thing someone dates for — chemistry, shared goals, sense of humor.” And they say “NO! The guy is supposed to pick the blonde! He picked WRONG.”
8
u/nahwhatdagat Feb 03 '26
So I’m assuming you are brunette? Jkjk
3
90
u/Responsible-Home-877 Feb 02 '26
Particularly when it is a state school that is not their own… like yes, you’re in or above their range, but ultimately they are not here to serve you😭
29
u/XAfricaSaltX Feb 03 '26
Yes like I wish I would’ve gotten into UNC or UVA but at the end of the day I can’t complain, OOS public schools are really hard and geography made it virtually free for me to go to UF
2
u/NoisyNinja2025 Feb 06 '26
You dodged a bullet there, trust. Wherever you landed > UNC, UVA
2
u/XAfricaSaltX Feb 06 '26
Yeah i kinda see it as a blessing in disguise, I wanted to go out of state but Im going to end up going to UF basically free
37
u/JustTheWriter Private Admissions Consultant (Verified) Feb 03 '26
“Deserve” has nothing to do with college admissions.
1
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26
Except Fitz at Harvard every year says hundreds of students have such incredible accomplishments and stats that they earn their spot. Harvard speak is that those students are “inevitable”.
So there’s always reality. And reality involves merit.
Or there is misguided guy on Reddit with a bone to pick politics.
14
u/Eclair_Luna2 HS Senior Feb 03 '26
The way I just saw the post before this one and I just opened the app
26
u/Serious_Yak_4749 Feb 03 '26
To be fair some people with high stats plus good ECs are getting rejected too. A lot of people aren’t mentioning all their ECs. Most people know it’s not only about stats now so some of the people “complaining” may have the standard good ECs along with the stats so they’re wondering why they got rejected
5
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
Bc nobody wants another robot with good ecs and stats with good essay. They can be found every app cycle, what makes u different
14
u/jmsst1996 Feb 03 '26
Exactly. Everyone applying to these top schools have the same stats, same EC’s. It’s boring and the schools can’t take everyone.
2
u/No-Assist-8734 Feb 03 '26
Precisely. There are about 30,000 high schools in America That means there are ~30,000 Valedictorians , and 30,000 Salutatorians.
So even if these tops schools only admitted the ABSOLUTE TOP STUDENTS, I can guarantee you that there are not 60,000 seats of admittance for the freshman class across the entire ivy League.
These people who claim to be intelligent don't understand basic math. Their scores clearly lack substance if they can't reason beyond what they want to see/hear
2
u/jmsst1996 Feb 03 '26
I assume because they are top students at their schools they can’t quite imagine anyone else being their equal. College is so different. My daughter graduated with someone who basically contacted our state school and demanded that he get a full ride because “he was Valedictorian and deserved it”. He should have kept his mouth shut.
0
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 06 '26
Nope. Fake math.
The dean of admissions for Georgetown (yes the irony is palpable) was directly quoted by David Selingo as saying that there are about 30,000 top candidates in the country and Georgetown just wants its share.
Next myth?
1
u/No-Assist-8734 Feb 06 '26
Read my final sentence again. The math doesn't lie. You don't even understand basic supply and demand
1
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 06 '26
I guess you would know more than the Dean of Admissions at Georgetown of course.
Not every valedictorian / salutatorian has concordant standardized testing. A study of hundreds of thousands found only 60% of students have concordant SAT and grade metrics.
And not every valedictorian is considered the same - obviously the top student at Hotchkiss is different from the top student at bumbletown high.
Duh, math doesn’t lie but it sometimes gets one or two steps more complicated than 2+2. Which is why the number 30k for actual top students is correct.
Stick that on your supply curve.
5
u/Disastrous_Room_927 Feb 03 '26
4 years from now, they’ll be complaining about getting rejected from every grad school they applied to, having only applied to t10 departments.
1
u/No-Exam-4200 Feb 03 '26
Believing you’re truly “different” from everyone else in a good way is extremely delusional.
1
u/GoogleGenius Feb 04 '26
At this high a level, you've got plenty of ISEF finalists, Olympiads, and real published research from people who have pursued their passions and taken initiative, but "they can be found every app cycle." Should they admit the person who has proven they are already at a high level of work with somewhat worse essays, or the person who hasn't done that but shows that type of potential in their essays? At what point do you draw a line? Yes, being unique can be better. However, what I worry about in the college admissions landscape is whether we're getting to the point where traditional but still exceptional achievements, as aforementioned (not talking about SAT or GPA), will become "generic" and discounted because they aren't considered rare or "unique" anymore.
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 04 '26
A person who has done all that is unique…not many high schoolers do that. I’m talking about your 4.0 UW, 1600 SAT individuals who r president of NHS and HOSA and then expect amazing college admissions when there is nothing special about their application…
1
u/Serious_Yak_4749 Feb 05 '26
But why do u assume they’re robots. It could be they just have too much of one type of person. Doesn’t mean they’re all robots though. I think it’s good to have some level of diversity though to make an interesting class. It’s just how it is now. It’s not always fair but it is what it is
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 05 '26
robot is not referring to them as a person but them as a collective group...
1
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 06 '26
Yes. ROBLOX and a 3.7 GPA is really unique at Stanford dude. You’re right. Your app would stand out a lot there - for about 6 seconds.
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 06 '26
Man U must love me still stalking this thread and replying to every comment I posted. Kiss my ass and show me ur acceptance’s 🥳. If ppl r dming me abt u, u gotta go. Go get laid my man let the stress gooo
1
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 06 '26
You must be hitting it left and right after spending 13 hours a day on Reddit🤣
Take it from an expert. Girls like smart guys. Sorry!
15
u/FourScoreAndSept Feb 02 '26 edited Feb 03 '26
Also, people ignore other important factors like major selection (and do your EC’s even support it), which is highly relevant, even at elite institutions that don’t “admit by major”, most of them still try to balance out interest areas. Can’t have a whole class of useless business major likelies for goodness sake ;-)
Another one people only whisper about but is relevant is gender. Some schools get way too few female applicants and a lot of schools get way too few male applicants. You can pretend it doesn’t matter and they should just admit best stats regardless, but the reality is too much gender imbalance is an attribute that most 18-22 year olds despise, once they’re living it. So a lot of schools put their thumb on the scale just a little bit with respect to gender balancing
5
u/CabbageSass Feb 03 '26
Don’t forget about full pay. 💰
1
u/FourScoreAndSept Feb 03 '26
Indeed. Which I think giving these troubled times, is more important than ever. I suspect even a lot of need blinds are looking for tells
6
u/unlimited_insanity Feb 03 '26
Yes, the industry term is institutional priorities. What the admissions officers are looking for varies from school to school and year to year. Heck, it probably varies at different points of the same cycle within the same school.
4
u/FourScoreAndSept Feb 03 '26
Right, but a lot of people hear that term and their mind jumps to race. I’m just trying to shine some light on some other things that are too often ignored but are pretty powerful determinants (especially expressions of area interest with the EC chops to back it up).
30
u/OrangeCats99 Feb 03 '26
The converse also pisses me off when people with 1480s cry about not getting into T10s.
5
u/Electrical-Bug3390 Feb 03 '26 edited Feb 03 '26
to be fair, it's kinda valid. For example, being rejected from your in-state public means having to go to community college for many people who cannot afford OOS schools. If you take the hardest possible classes, grind the SAT, and get A's in every single class you've ever taken and the school that is intended to serve your state's residents rejects you, then that can feel unfair.
Being prevented from going to a four-year college based on how an AO felt during the 3-5 minutes they were reading your app, your high school's reputation, how much an AO vibed with your essay, whether they liked your ECs or would've preferred you were president of a different club, etc. is arbitrary and a valid reason to be angered.
Even if it's not an in-state public that decides whether you're going to a four year college or not, the same principle applies, just with less sympathy (but is it justified to be significantly less sympathetic?)
Yeah, if it's a T10 and they don't need aid, i kind of get it but I would never be annoyed if someone I knew vented to me about being rejected from University of Washington in-state (when other people got in with significantly lower stats) and therefore having to go to CC (technically, there are merit scholarships/other public schools but they're not always accessible and sometimes can inhibit your experience/education quality).
Personally, I don't care too much about rejection, I have far too many safety nets. For example, I have an extremely high quality community college that will set me up for a Berkeley transfer, the wealth to pay for OOS publics/privates (even if they're barely T50), and the privilege of being interested in a field where prestige doesn't matter
But not everyone has those privileges. Most people don't.
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
No it’s not. Everybody has a state school with at least an 80 percent acceptance rate and if they have the stats you’re describing , they should be able to get in no problem.the problem is that people only care about prestige and then cry when they get rejected from all their reaches. You worked hard in highschool and got high stats, great. A smart person would make themselves stand out beside high stats that everyone can get but not everyone can have the creative thinking to do certain ecs
2
Feb 03 '26
A truly smart person can’t make themselves stand out nowadays. There are almost no meaningful activities that a teenager can do to demonstrate some high level of ability. The only one that immediately comes to mind would be potentially participating in Olympiads or something similar. Otherwise, you have to demonstrate your abilities through academics, but because most high school grades are absurdly inflated nowadays, the person would have to take advanced courses at the local college or something.
The SAT used to literally be an IQ test with a huge +4SD ceiling during the 1960s-90s. It served the purpose of filtering out very intelligent students from average or lower ones. A 1400 on the SAT back then would almost guarantee admission into most T20 colleges. Now, though? The SAT is just a really watered-down achievement test that’s an excuse to reject people for having too low of a score.
-1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
People who think like u get rejected every year lol, not because they aren’t intelligent, but because they misunderstand what college admissions actually reward now. Intelligence by itself isn’t the differentiator anymore. Admissions officers aren’t trying to measure raw IQ the way standardized tests once attempted to; they’re trying to understand who you are and how u think
There are countless meaningful ways for a smart teenager to stand out that don’t involve Olympiads or perfect test scores. Strong applications usually have essays with a clear theme and a consistent narrative, where the student reflects deeply and shows self-awareness. Extracurriculars matter too, but not in the checkbox sense. Generic activities like NHS or student council don’t impress unless they connect to a larger story. What actually stands out are passionate, self-directed activities that correlate with your interests and show depth over time.
You don’t need to invent something artificial to prove ability. You take what you already enjoy and push it further than most people would. . I got into multiple top schools with subpar stats because my extracurriculars were genuinely meaningful to me. I took something I loved like ROBLOX and built a clothing group with around 80,000 members, made thousands of sales, and participated in the DevEx program. That demonstrated initiative and creative far more than any gpa
The idea that smart people can’t stand out anymore is simply false. What’s changed is that the system no longer rewards abstract claims of intelligence; it rewards students who can translate their abilities into real actions and reward students who can tell a story
1
Feb 04 '26
I'm not a high school or college student first off, I just got this thread recommended to me. But I have family members who are going through the admissions process currently and I've kept up with it some.
The narrative you're constructing is ridiculous. Ask yourself, what are these elite institutions for? In theory, they're meant to provide the most high quality, rigorous, and prestigious education for the best students in the country. Where do totally irrelevant ECs that demonstrate "creativity" fit into this equation? How does Roblox tell a top school whether or not you'll be able to handle courses taught by the most serious academic researchers in the world?
But I don't know why you continue to insist that these things are a mark of a "smart" teenager. A conscientious one? A borderline performative one? Maybe, but a smart one? Come on.
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 04 '26 edited Feb 04 '26
You’re arguing against a version of admissions that hasn’t existed for decades.
Elite institutions are not just selecting for who can survive coursework. Plenty of people with perfect grades and scores can do that. They’re selecting for people who will contribute to the intellectual and creative ecosystem of the campus and eventually represent the institution beyond it. That’s why they explicitly say they evaluate initiative, originality, leadership, and how students apply their abilities outside a classroom.
Roblox was not evaluated as a toy, I made thousands of dollars from the program, my major is business it directly correlates, I expanded it beyond just roblox. Running a large ditigtal enteprise and creating products people choose to pay for demonstrates applied intelligence far more clearly than another A in AP Calc or a slightly higher SAT percentile (Coming from someone who got a 4 in AP Calc B, and 1540 b4 idiots start attacking me and saying inferiority complex)
You’re also making a basic category error. No one is claiming extracurriculars replace academic readiness. They complement it once the academic bar is met. The assumption that intelligence only manifests through traditional academic metrics is exactly why people misunderstand why rejections happen.
And respectfully, keeping up with admissions through family members does not make you an authority on how selective schools actually evaluate applicants. Admissions officers themselves have been very clear about this shift. Dismissing it as “performative” doesn’t make it untrue.
0
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 04 '26
You have a bad case of imposter syndrome due to your low stats.
And you are acting out your insecurities by lashing out at students with higher stats. It’s a well known side effect of holistic admissions - to glaze admitted students with a sense of unearned virtue.
“Top schools” is actually very vague, and your credentials - mid commercial impact against the setting of mid grades and scores is much more commonplace than those you are flaming who have top grades, scores AND EC’s.
And it wasn’t your essay bro.
0
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 04 '26
Oh my god, do people on Reddit have no reading comprehension. People think things like president of NHS, some random nonprofit that is really just an instagram page, some random blog that never gets updated are good ecs. Those are repetitive and common ECs….if you have top stats with those ecs , the chances of you getting admitted are close to none . Obviously I’m not taking about individuals with super impressive ecs that an every day high schooler cannot do…use some common sense
And I’m a college freshman, last application cycle I got into UT Austin (in state) Columbia, Georgetown, UW Madison, UMICH, Brown, Cornell, IU, Fordham, Northwestern, Northeastern
I currently attend Georgetown so I’m not sure where you’re getting at with saying I have imposter syndrome or mid credentials, you know nothing about my application profile. If this message offends you, it’s prob for a reason , I’m not talking about the genuinely sad people who get rejected from dream college, I’m talking about the prideful ones who start saying stuff like ppl only got in cus of dei or hating on other people which is 90% of this sub
0
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 04 '26 edited Feb 04 '26
You seem unhinged. Your words - “subpar stats”. That’s exactly what you claimed. Need a reminder? Scroll up 1 screen. There. Deep breath…
You got in because your EC’s were actually meaningful to you? Dang. You must be one incredibly authentic and great Roblox playin’ human! Self gratify much?
How’s “Georgetown” working out for you? So many friends and great classes that you spend hours here kicking down on high school kids? People must not realize what an authentic best human gem you are yet.
Sure! I got into Harvard, Princeton, Caltech, and when I withdrew my application, Yale offered me a full ride. So I>you on reddit. LOL Must be because I was a literal god on fortnite which authentically meant a lot to me. Need I say Among Us? Oh wait that might be too “real” for this conversation.
Other evidence of some kind of weird psychological break? No one except you ever said NHS president or otherwise means anything. That is happening exclusively in your imagination. Straw man much? I guess you don’t know the truly impactful accomplishments as ostensibly they didn’t have anything to do with you.
Which is kinda why Imposter syndrome is a great fit. “Subpar stats” according to you and claiming some tier A- admissions. Good, but not HYPSM. It’s literally a setup for imposter syndrome. And a strange urge to put down students who don’t have your “subpar stats”? Yep textbook imposter syndrome. Or maybe inferiority complex? Hmmm tough call.
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 04 '26
This is a lot of confidence for someone who clearly does not understand how modern admissions works.
You are fixating on one phrase and turning it into a full psychological diagnosis, which says far more about you than it does about me. Acknowledging that holistic admissions do not rank applicants purely by GPA and SAT is not insecurity. It is literally how selective schools say they operate LOL
The fake flexing and sarcasm about Harvard and Caltech are not clever, especially since I got into Harvard and turned it down bc of Georgetown's public policy + business program that is only available at their school. They just show you have run out of an actual argument. Mocking an activity because you personally do not respect it does not make it invalid. Initiative and impact matter regardless of the medium.
No one claimed NHS president was impressive. That strawman exists entirely in your head. The actual point, which you keep avoiding, is that stats alone do not entitle anyone to admission and attacking other applicants after rejection is immature.
You can call it glazing or imposter syndrome if that helps you cope lmao The reality is that many people with perfect numbers get rejected every year because admissions is not an IQ ranking. If this bothers you, maybe ask yourself why.
0
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 05 '26
"And I’m a college freshman, last application cycle I got into UT Austin (in state) Columbia, Georgetown, UW Madison, UMICH, Brown, Cornell, IU, Fordham, Northwestern, Northeastern" - You 2 posts ago
"I got into Harvard" - the new You. In your last post.
Of course it's plausible that you turned down Harvard and it's K school and HBS for "Georgetown". And you forgot you also got into Harvard 2 posts ago. Or... yeah I got it. You got into Harvard as a Junior and turned them down to apply to Georgetown as a Senior. That must be it.
Imposter yes. Imposter syndrome - actually yes in every sense of the word.
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 05 '26
I’m not going to argue with an imbecile. I didn’t get enough aid from Harvard and I’m not going into debt for undergrad, especially since I plan to go to law school and aim for a T-14, which will already be expensive. You’re just projecting your insecurities onto me because you’re mad that I’m calling out people like you who hate on others for their accomplishments. <3
→ More replies (0)
6
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 03 '26
If meritocracy has anything to do with admissions, “deserve” should too.
Newsflash: holistic doesn’t select for the best “humans”. It demonstrably selects for preppy privileged sport athletes, wealthy and connected alumni, political social engineering priority candidates and class balancing of exactly the kind that colleges deny. “Need blind”, “don’t admit by major” “don’t compare candidates from the same school”, all of these are fig leafs that fall off in the face of the holistic final shaping room.
3
u/leafytimes Old Feb 03 '26
Absolutely 100% agree with this comment. So much woke-washing of the process but at the end of the day rich kids who play squash, fence, have legacy parents who donate, or had their college consultant help them start a nonprofit in 8th grade will always get in over the earnest kid with tons of potential but only good grades to show for it.
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 05 '26
Nothing is stopping the earnest kid from creating stuff. If they truly had potential they would show it bc u r evaluated in the context and ur life, u aren’t compared to those type of people
1
1
u/AntiHyperpop Feb 09 '26
To be honest people say this but I dont think its such a bad thing to care about stats beyond grades. Like there are thousands of kids with the same “1600 sat 4.0 cs app with non profit for cs tutoring” app every cycle and its like top schools are not going go admit a class of identical people. Also they want people with initiative not kids who went on reddit to optimize their apps for prestige and have no hobbies no interests bc they spent their teen years gunning for ivys.
1
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 09 '26 edited Feb 09 '26
First of all, however many people you think have 1600/4.0/major awards, there are 10x that have somewhat lower accomplishments and 100x who are excellent.
Second, you’re just not understanding admissions math. The top students you talk about earn a 15% likelihood of admission. The 10x students have a 2% admission rate and the 100x students have virtually nil. You had better have some “virtue supreme authenticity best version personality” to be that 2% right?
That’s how it works. No one has a 100% chance, but you can earn a good shot. Given that there are at least 10 amazing, prestigious schools, a 15% chance at each one is like the chance of hitting a 6 with 10 rolls of the dice. Again not 100% but very high.
There are hundreds of athletes who can run a mile in under 4 minutes. Since we can’t give them all a gold medal, should we give some of the 4:00-4:10 timers a gold instead while we falsely accuse the sub 4:00 timers to be dull strivers with no personality simply because they worked hard and actually succeeded?
Nearly every other country is able to rely heavily or nearly exclusively on grades and test scores yet still have amazing college crew teams and orchestras . The Oxford vs Cambridge crew regatta is internationally televised.
The US system was created and is perpetuated solely to give universities complete and arbitrary control over admissions while they retain favoritism to the privileged and wealthy majority through “priorities” like recruiting mostly very wealthy athletes for preppy sports, catering to large donors, and other secretive factors that they can arbitrarily adjust with no accountability.
-1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
You’d be surprised by the amount of admitted students who aren’t athletes, wealthy and connected alumni, and wouldn’t be considered political social engineering priority. Yes, those exist but they’re few compared to the rest of the student body
5
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 03 '26
43% of all white admitted students to Harvard are ALDC.
Yep. I’m not surprised.
-2
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
You named Harvard, considered the number one top school in the US objectively. I’m generally speaking about top schools in general
1
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 03 '26 edited Feb 03 '26
Now we're talking about "objectively"? Because just before, you were calling people who talked about objectively great accomplishments "spoiled and entitled."
And yes Harvard, because we have Harvard's data thanks to discovery in some lawsuits. If your claims rest on other top schools (MIT / Caltech aside) differing fundamentally from Harvard in their behavior, that's a loser.
Newsflash: This is what it is really like at college:
Harvard: "I mean I WAS the #2 ranked epee in the world". Yale person cringes.
Yale: "I dunno, I just got lucky (was the #1 epee in the world)" Harvard person shakes head.
Princeton: "I mean my great grandfather, grandfather, dad and two of my brothers went to Princeton, and my dad has kinda close ties... but yeah, I also got good grades and stuff (also a lacrosse recruit)".
A2C: "I was the best, authentic version of myself and AI'd an awesome essay that traumadumped the pants off my AO" (After graduating from Groton just like dad and attending Duke just like dad.)
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
Yep, its people who think like you that get rejected every single year. You’re conflating two different things: whether holistic admissions are perfectly fair (they aren’t) and whether they’re meaningless or purely rigged (they aren’t either). No one serious is denying that legacy, athletics, and wealth confer advantages at places like Harvard which is uniquely distorted by its donor base, alumni pipeline, and athletic recruiting. But taking the most extreme, data-exposed outlier and pretending it represents every “top school” is lazy analysis LOL
Even within Harvard’s ALDC numbers, people love to skip the uncomfortable part: ALDC doesn’t mean “unqualified.” It means advantaged. Those students still clear extremely high academic and extracurricular bars. The system is biased, yes but it’s not random, and it’s not a charity raffle for the mediocre rich. And outside of Harvard/Yale/Princeton, the distortion drops off significantly. Schools like Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, UChicago, Rice, etc. are not just cloning Groton → legacy → lacrosse pipelines at scale, no matter how badly A2C cynics want that to be true.
The “holistic selects for preppy athletes and social engineering” take also ignores the sheer volume of admits who are none of those things: middle-class, public-school, non-recruited, non-legacy students with no political checkbox who get in because their applications actually make sense. Clear narrative, sustained interests, evidence of initiative, intellectual curiosity, impact relative to opportunity. Admissions isn’t about crowning the “objectively best human.” It’s about building a class under constraints, and yes, merit is contextualized whether you like that or not.
The caricature at the end the Groton kid with an AI trauma essayis funny, but it’s also cope. People repeat that story every year to explain away rejections instead of grappling with the harder truth: many applicants with strong stats still submit incoherent, soulless applications with zero throughline. Meanwhile, others with fewer formal advantages take what they actually care about and push it far enough that it’s undeniable. Those people exist, they get admitted, and dismissing them as unicorns or propaganda doesn’t make the argument stronger.
Like girl bye your argument has no merit
1
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 04 '26
Yes, admissions is not fair. Students here complain about it and you take the opportunity to bash them for pointing that out. Typical. Small. Thoughtless.
You’ve drunk the Kool Aid. “Building a class” is another admissions sleight of hand where competing concepts like “need blind admission” and “we don’t admit by major”’and “we don’t compare students from the same school” go to die. On the floor of the “class shaping room”.
It doesn’t take much cynicism at all to see that the vast majority of ivy athletes are privileged and from families making more than $500k per year. And we’re not talking about Bronny James here if you get my drift. Why exactly DOES Harvard need a squash team? - Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch. See the Groton pipeline now?
In a tight race where subjectivity rules, ADVANTAGE IS DECISIVE. Year after year, students are admitted to ivies with grades and scores and accomplishments that would otherwise never distinguish them under the flag of ALDC. Ironically, the ones most harmed by this - other privileged students.
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 04 '26
No one is bashing students for being frustrated. What I’m pushing back on is the leap from “the system is unfair” to “the process is meaningless and anyone who believes otherwise is delusional." LOL and when once did I say students dont have a right to be upset, I SAID THE STUDENTS WHO SAY THINGS LIKE "ppl with lower stats got in" or its cus of "dei that they got accepted" like OMG. Ppl on reddit r imbeciles, ofc u can be upset about college rejections
You keep repeating “advantage is decisive” as if that’s some devastating insight. Everyone already knows advantage matters. The disagreement is not whether advantage exists, it’s whether advantage alone explains outcomes. It doesn’t. If it did, admissions offices wouldn’t spend months reading applications or rejecting thousands of legacies, athletes, and wealthy applicants every year.
You’re also flattening the applicant pool in a way that makes your cynicism feel smarter than it is. In a tight race, advantage can tip outcomes, yes. But tight races only happen after you meet the base.
1
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 05 '26
Yeah, you need to actually read more than listen to your inner monologue.
It's classic A2C. Patronizing people who "leap" to impute nasty or petty motivations to high school kids and then judge them harshly for exactly those motivations. OMG.
Frankly you fit a very specific type of internet "commentator". There is a culture associated with calling everyone who disagrees with you "imbeciles" or "illiterate" and doles out judgment from "on high". That's you. Plain and simple. And anyone who reads any number of comments knows the type.
You claim to have had "sub-par" grades and scores. Simultaneously calling others stupid is a puzzling choice.
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 05 '26
People like you are genuinely whats wrong with society. You jump to conclusions without reading what I originally said. I never said that students dont have a right to be upset, but A2C is full of individuals who say derogatory stuff like people only got in because of "dei" or because they are fgli....at that point, you can be sad about your rejection but why put others down just because they had a different path to admission?
And “Sub-par” doesn’t mean they weren’t good. My grades and scores were strong—they just weren’t a 4.0 UW and 1600 SAT. I had a 3.75 UW and 1530 SAT and still managed to get into great schools, including four Ivies.
There’s a huge difference between being upset about rejection and acting like the system is a random lottery or that others only get in because of unfair advantage.
. If being honest about that makes me a “classic A2C commentator,” so be it LOL
→ More replies (0)
6
u/Randomacc1234567891 Feb 03 '26
No, I understand the frustration. Imagine working so hard, and then seeing people with much lower stats get in. It is annoying, and I don’t think people like that are usually trying to flex
5
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
Ppl who think like that probably wouldn’t have gotten in anyways bc they lack all critical thinking skills to think beyond themselves. Who said the people with lower stats didn’t work as hard? There are many different types of intelligence that don’t show thru standardized testing that may show thru essays or ecs…ur logic is flawed
2
2
u/charmercc Feb 04 '26
Lol I’m so sick of posts like that too. I can’t even be understanding anymore, so I always think to myself maybe their damn application was boring beyond the big numbers, compared to the other person.
5
u/TremendousTesticle Feb 03 '26
“I think it’s dumb that applicants are mad that criteria XYZ is used because top schools care about XYZ” are you real lol what is this logic
2
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
Do u have a rock as a brain? Obviously they care about stats but im emphasizing that stats do not play as big as a role as ppl think. It’s not the fifties where a 4.0 gets u into Princeton
4
u/TremendousTesticle Feb 03 '26
You’re ngmi brother self reflect on your reading comprehension skills before you get aggressive with other people
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
You’re missing the point of what I said, and then acting smug about it. I never claimed stats don’t matter or that schools don’t care about them obviously they do. My point was that people massively overestimate how decisive stats are once you’re past a baseline, and then get mad when other criteria are used as tie-breakers.
2
u/TremendousTesticle Feb 03 '26
No I didn’t miss the point. I’m saying that you’re missing the fact that these applicants do not decide whether they “deserved” to get in entirely based off of the schools’ criteria for admission. A student with perfect stats can still feel they deserved to get in while still knowing the last sentence of what you just said
3
u/True-Boysenberry225 Feb 03 '26
THANK YOU! Our application reflects who we are; stats aren't everything.
Yes, getting rejected sucks, but admissions officers see those stats 4.3W/UW+ GPAs every year. Your story gets you in; how you present yourself matters.
This also goes with people and their SAT scores. So many people have 1400+.
Also, the major you choose matters too. It's not rocket science. When each of you has a 4.4UW GPA and 1560 SATs, competing for the same position, it makes it harder to choose. Make your story count.
I got a 1240 SAT, and I've been getting at least deferred from colleges that people with 1400+ are getting rejected from. Don't lose hope, but again, stats aren't everything.
4
u/zzzrecruit Feb 03 '26
These schools get thousands to tens of thousands of 4.0 and high SAT scores that dont even get seen by human eyes lol. These kids are competing with thousands of kids just like them.
Choosing to value themselves on college admissions will feel foolish when they get older. Imagine your son or daughter telling you, "I didn't get into [school of choice]. I might as well quit school altogether!" You'll look at them and call them crazy. College is only 4-6 years of your life.
6
u/ConureCultist Feb 03 '26
That’s just not even true, most schools have committed to not using ai or only using it to weed out obviously unqualified applicants. I agree with the second part of your comment, but the first is grossly exaggerated
4
Feb 03 '26
i agree with you, but i also can see their frustration too. when some students are told to maximize their sat score and gpa & other stats and they work hard to achieve it, it def can get discouraging when their hard work is rendered down to being "just like any other applicant" or "not enough" by decisions or people online.
it's so unfortunate college apps are turning into a way of demeaning others' work ethic when sometimes decisions are made for reasons just completely out of our control. but yeah, no one is guaranteed an acceptance, especially when negative attitudes can seep through an application.
4
u/Sad-Banana7249 Feb 03 '26
OP's dad donated 1.5 million to get him admitted. That's why he deserves it and you hard working students are entitled.
2
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
🤣🤣 not even going to waste my time on this comment. I’m referring to the individuals who think the only form of hard work is to get hung stats and that’s why they should be accepted over the people with lower stats. They assume that people with lower stats don’t work hard and standardized testing is the only measure of intelligence or college success when they may have out their time into other ventures that stand out in the pool of “pick me I have perfect stats”
1
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 06 '26
To all the schools he supposedly got into? I love how he “forgot” he got into Harvard 🤣
2
Feb 03 '26
If you’re more intelligent and academically adept than someone else, you should get into an elite university over them, period.
The issue is that we’ve moved away from meritocracy heavily since the 20th century. The g-loading of the SAT and its ceiling have been severely diminished, high school grades are inflated like hell, our standards suck, etc. It’s no wonder that kids have to come up with a billion BS, meaningless extracurriculars and write a sob story personal statement to get into these schools. Are they actually the smartest, most capable students our country has to offer? Probably not, but they get in anyways because high school and the college admissions process are a joke.
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
No being “more intelligent” or having higher grades doesn’t automatically mean you’ll be more successful, and that’s exactly why admissions moved away from a pure numbers-based system. Grades and test scores are weak predictors of long-term outcomes once you’re above a certain threshold. They correlate with being good at school, not with being impactful, creative, resilient, or capable of doing meaningful work in the real world.
If grades actually selected for future success, the world would be run exclusively by valedictorians and perfect test-takers. It isn’t. Plenty of people with elite academics flame out, and plenty of people with less dazzling stats build companies, do groundbreaking research, or lead institutions. Intelligence matters, but how it’s applied matters far more and that’s not something a GPA or SAT ceiling can capture.
The “BS extracurriculars and sob story” framing is also a misread. Meaningful extracurriculars r signals of initiative, curiosity, leadership, and follow-through. Essays aren’t about trauma they show , reflection, and the ability to communicate ideas. Those skills predict success in college and beyond far better than another marginal increase in test score.
Meritocracy didn’t disappear lol it changed im so tired of this tatement The merit being selected for isn’t raw test performance, it’s demonstrated ability to do something difficult over time in the real world. If the goal of elite universities is to produce people who actually do things like research, innovation, leadership, and leadershipthen selecting only on grades would be a far worse system, not a better one.
1
1
u/Icy_Expression_6152 Feb 03 '26
those numbers aren't really baseline for t20 but regardless ye ur point stands
0
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
Yes they r
3
u/Icy_Expression_6152 Feb 03 '26
Nah bro not 1400
2
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
If you have a 4.0 uw and a 1400 SAT, the 1400 is not what will get you rejected if the rest of the application is strong
2
u/Icy_Expression_6152 Feb 03 '26
I dont understand. Youre saying a 1400 is the baseline? By this you mean that the score is meeting the requirements of the school (it checks the box) and higher scores provide a negligent advantage right? But then ur saying that if you have a strong app, then the 1400 won't get you rejected, which is implying that the 1400 is being made up for by the strong app
Regardless I rly dont think a 1400 is the baseline, reputation is very important to t20s meaning that they want to keep their test scores high and make sure their students can handle their rigor. A 1400 is 100 points lower than the 25th percentile at most t20s, the large majority have a higher score
2
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
Im not saying a 1400 is the baseline or the target score for T20s.
What I’m saying is that if you have a 1400 SAT and the rest of your application is genuinely strong, that 1400 is very unlikely to be the deciding factor in a rejection. It’s not that the score is being “made up for,” it’s that admissions decisions aren’t purely additive. Stats aren’t everything.
You’re right that a 1400 is below the 25th percentile at most T20s, and higher scores do help at the margins. But once you’re in a broadly competitive range, the process becomes much more holistic. At that point, course rigor, grades, essays, recommendations, activities, and context tend to matter more than squeezing out another 50–100 SAT points.
On the reputation point, I think it’s often overstated. Schools don’t protect rigor and prestige through hard SAT cutoffs. They already get that signal from transcripts and the difficulty of coursework. That’s why every T20 admits students below their published medians each year.
So no, 1400 isn’t the baseline, its just wont reject an already strong applicant. u can have a 4.0 uw, 1600 sat but have ur only ec be president of hosa and 300 volunteer hours and be rejected bc ur another generic applicant unlike the 3.7 uw with a 1530 SAT who has context and a narrative to their story
3
u/Far_Quantity7545 Feb 03 '26
What do you consider a strong application?
To me, someone with a 4.0/1600/highest course rigor (in context of school) and is president of 2 clubs, has a meaningful internship that leads to a strong LoR, and a project that ties their interests—provided all activities are cohesive and narrative—could potentially bag a T20
Now look at a student who has the exact same profile but with a 1400. Now their GPA looks a little iffy or inflated and their course rigor maybe a tad weak.
I’m not saying a 1400 will get this student rejected, but it raises several “yellow flags” that need to be made up for
1
u/Far_Quantity7545 Feb 03 '26
Also not saying that’s the one and only profile to get a t20, j an example of a friend who now attends Penn
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
Yeah, fair let me tighten this.
When I say “strong application,” I don’t mean just high stats plus a couple leadership titles. I mean clear academic strength in context, meaningful interests, depth, and a coherent narrative that shows why this student makes sense for that school.
Also, I’m not talking about your friend who went to Princeton. He obviously had a strong application because you’ve said he had real interests and passion projects. That’s the key part passion + sustained work creates a clear narrative, and the stats just reinforce it.
I’m talking about the more generic applications: same grades, same course rigor, president of two random clubs, maybe a generic sports-injury-taught-me-confidence essay. Those students rely way too heavily on stats. For them, a lower SAT absolutely raises yellow flags because there isn’t much else in the file doing real work.
Also A 1400 doesn’t automatically make the GPA look inflated or the rigor weak it depends heavily on context. For example:
- A very demanding high school with brutal grading
- A student who took the hardest possible math/science track and still earned As
- Strong teacher recs that explicitly confirm the student’s academic strength In those cases, the SAT becomes secondary evidence, not contradictory evidence.
I say this from experience too I had a 3.7 GPA and a 1540 SAT and got into Cornell, Columbia, Vanderbilt, UMich, NYU, UPenn, plus strong state schools because I had context for my GPA and a strong narrative. my Stats were far from perfect but i stil had a great cycle last year. I also went to a very competitive high school, one of the most competitive in texas
1
u/Icy_Expression_6152 Feb 03 '26
I still dont understand what u mean. What are you referring to when you say baseline? When I said baseline, I was saying that it is the score at which higher scores provide negligent advantage and the box is checked. Im saying that a 1400 is not that. Youre saying that at a 1400, the other parts of the application are what matter more and their flaws or strengths ultimately decide ur result. Does this not imply that the box is checked? Since if the other parts decide it, the 1400 does not decide it and sat is checked. Im trying to say that a 1400 is not the point at which this occurs, and youre trying to say it is. So what do you mean by baseline when you say a 1400 is not the baseline? In quite confused since ur making ur point off of a change in the meaning of what you meant by baseline originally in the post and are now saying that a new meaning of baseline is not what a 1400 is. This isn't rly relevant but like im js confused lwk or maybe im not comprehending ur semantics correctly
Regarding the point abt rigor I dont know enough abt the process itself to talk but i just cant see a low test score looking good even with a high gpa and rigor. It probably doesnt have as huge of an impact compared to gpa but considering cheating and inflation are a thing (at my school like a bazillion people have a 4.0 uw genuinely) its of course still an important factor especially seeing standardized testing seems to be making a bit of a comeback with TO being eliminated in some t30s. I guess it can be assumed that high scores are a side effect of the types of people being admitted and lower end scores are just natural variation but without hard evidence its hard to convince me the point at which it doesnt matter as much is a 1400 because ive just been reinforced by seeing so many profiles that a 1550 is basically the norm. And I guess its not implausible to assume the opposite or at least an in-between of the two interpretations
1
u/No-Biscotti-6891 Feb 03 '26
bro its not hard to understand. Literally have a 3.7+ and a good sat and if everything else is good u have a solid chance. They can fill a 4.0/1600 kid over and over again they want to see what makes YOU unique.
1
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 03 '26 edited Feb 03 '26
BS moralizing. Frankly nauseating.
This and the echo chamber comments just emphasize the toxic and basely incorrect conclusions of holistic policies. The assumption that “good people” holistically get admitted was the exact excuse for keeping out more qualified Jewish students who had the wrong “fit” for top colleges in the early 20th Century.
Now it is untenable to be antisemitic politically but colleges continued holistic to retain absolute power to apply institutional priorities including racial handicapping that was found unconstitutional.
Colleges want no accountability as to their choices and “holistic” makes rational review impossible. Much as it did at its antisemitic inception.
Students rail against what they see as inconsistent decisions not based on any objective bases of merit. Then people here jump on them as “bad people”.
Typical ugly A2C behavior. Misinterpreting holistic to be moralistic which it never was, and defending arbitrary and deliberately opaque systems of distributing valuable college opportunities as somehow indicative of being “a good person”.
1
u/No-Exam-4200 Feb 03 '26
I think it’s more delusional (and way more prevalent) for people who do get in with lower stats to believe that their essays are somehow “special” and everyone else with better grades than them are robots, lol. But I guess most people don’t have 1550+ SATs so reddit is just going to be an echo chamber of that demographic.
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
I mean if they are below the school's median in terms of SAT and GPA, their essays and ec's are special
1
u/No-Exam-4200 Feb 04 '26
The more probable scenario is that they got lucky cause AO’s only spend like 3 mins to read their essays. I also say this as I come from a place where half the students applying to US schools don’t even write their own essays.
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 04 '26
Your logic works against you. You can make a memorable impression if an AO reads your essays for 3 mins. I doubt it’s luck, luck would work against u if u have low stats below the median because it already creates a negative impression of ur application profile
1
u/No-Exam-4200 Feb 04 '26
Point being the mood of the AO and their preferences is way more of a predictor for admissions. If it wasn’t luck driven no one would be applying to 10+ schools, and no one should be admitted to better schools and rejected at worse ones.
2
u/bestben168 Feb 03 '26
Obviously no one "deserves" to get in to some of these T10 schools; however, implying that a hyper focused passion for something, makes you a better candidate for college is a fairly ridiculous statement. A well-rounded person might have multiple hobbies, a part-time job, play sports or work-out in their free time, and spend time with friends, while also getting great grades in school. Just because someone doesn't exclusively code videogames in their free time and take computer science classes for all of high school doesn't mean they're a bad candidate for computer science.
When these people get rejected from the aforementioned T10 schools, they feel it's a reflection on them as a person. To their credit, most of them are teenagers who just got handed a letter saying they're not good enough. and then they go online and see someone with significantly worse grades or extracurriculars get accepted. I'm not agreeing with their perspective, but feeling like people did less work then you and got rewarded for it sucks, so I think they're entitled to an internet rant or two, as long as they're not attacking individuals or specific groups.
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
They’re not “not good enough” for top schools they’re just not what those specific schools are selecting for, and that distinction matters. Obviously no one inherently “deserves” admission to a T10, but it’s also not ridiculous to say that a hyper-focused passion can make someone a stronger candidate in that context. Selective schools aren’t trying to admit the most well-rounded humans; they’re trying to admit classes full of people who are distinct. Depth is often more legible and compelling than breadth when you have to choose among tens of thousands of high-achieving applicants.
Being well-rounded good grades, multiple hobbies, a job, sports, friends describes an enormous portion of the applicant pool. That’s not a flaw, but it also doesn’t differentiate you at the very top. Someone who took one genuine interest and pushed it unusually far isn’t “better” as a person, but they are often easier to place academically and intellectually. That doesn’t mean you have to code video games nonstop to be a viable CS applicant; it means that having a clear throughline helps admissions officers understand how you’ll engage with their resources.
Where you are right is the emotional side of this. Getting rejected hurts, especially as a teenager who’s been told for years that working hard and checking the right boxes would pay off. Seeing someone with lower grades or seemingly “worse” extracurriculars get in can feel deeply unfair, even if there are things about that application you’ll never see. Feeling frustrated and venting online is human, and as long as it doesn’t turn into attacking individuals or groups, that reaction is understandable.
The real problem is when that frustration turns into the belief that the system is fake only because it didn’t reward a particular profile. T10 admissions aren’t a referendum on your worth or effort they’re a sorting mechanism with specific preferences and constraints. You can acknowledge that it sucks, criticize the process, and still accept that rejection doesn’t mean you weren’t capable, smart, or hardworking.
1
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 06 '26
How would you even know with your 3.7 GPA and low 700’s SAT what the top even looks like?
Prepare for more bragging / lying about where this clown got accepted.
1
Feb 03 '26
It's true that college admissions are based off way more than stats alone, but we also can't deny that it's unfair in many, many ways. It's hard to tell genuine hard workers who are heartbroken to be rejected from entitled individuals who've been blinded by illusion when they are both going through one of the worst days of their lives. Although I personally wouldn't post something like this no matter how frustrated or screwed over I felt, I try to view most of these posts as devastated individuals who have really worked as hard as they could and just want to let out their feelings online.
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 03 '26
"Letting your feelings out" doesn't mean that you have to say derogatory stuff towards people with lower stats or try to falsely "rationalize" your rejection as the people who got accepted are bc of DEI which is 90% of rejection posts on this sub
1
Feb 03 '26
I agree. To clarify, I understand when someone says "I thought I deserved to get in" and rant that the general admissions process is unfair. But when they start attacking those that have achieved what they hadn't and undermine their effort, then I would have less sympathy for them.
1
u/Intelligent-Web-8017 Feb 04 '26
they deserve to be rejected only the best can be admitted its a cruel world but thats how it is
1
1
u/LucidUncreativity Feb 05 '26
It’s like y’all forget that a super majority of people don’t get into top schools…….. I have had bad grades through almost all of HS. Not too many ECs either. I’m just thrilled I was accepted to a 4 year college and don’t need community college.
2
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 05 '26
what does this have to do with the post? it is talking about people who get rejected and hate on other people or be rude. its okay to be rejected and sad, heck i was rejected from what i thought was my dream school but i didnt use it as an excuse to see ppl with lower stats and be rude
1
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 05 '26
Slicing the bs kinda thin aren’t we now? And shaddap with the personal attacks. You’d think the mods would take notice of someone calling others “idiots” on a post, but maybe that also speaks to the quality and viewpoints of mods here.
People can’t whine about working hard and not receiving recognition they hoped for - real world grief about real world results.
You whine about having to hear the other people complain about a system you admit is unfair.
Careful! You might want to edit out the slew of posts you “great person who came through in your essays” wrote including the words idiot, imbecile, illiterate and the like. Just low class. Apparently 350k per year and assets don’t buy manners.
1
u/Used-Departure9606 Feb 06 '26
atp come give me a lap dance youve left about 10 comments on my post sm i never knew i was this loved
1
u/Commercial_Ad8072 Feb 05 '26
Appreciate the edit lol. Agree 100% OP
1
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 06 '26
It is a great edit. It really shows what wonderful people who claim to be getting admitted over actual top students.
“Mature, empathetic and pleasant”. I can just see the interview report now. Musta been what got him into Muhlenberg.
1
u/Commercial_Ad8072 Feb 06 '26
Gobbledy guck lol
1
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 06 '26
Mean people suck.
Which culture is it again that reflexively calls anyone who disagrees “idiots”??? Hmmmmm
1
u/Commercial_Ad8072 Feb 06 '26
Did you ever like chat with someone on the bus who looks normal only to regret it when you realize they are a little kooky and start going on and on about some conspiracy or grievance? Yeah that feeling. Getting off at the next stop! ding!
1
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 06 '26
You’ve lapsed back to Did Ya Ever? Now you’re tryna be Jerry Seinfeld? Maybe.
1
u/Kind_Practice_6839 Feb 06 '26
That’s completely valid tbh, colleges can deny literally anyone and down owe anyone acceptance. I also understand expressing frustration when you’re not accepted but talking down to others is gross. Amazing take, friend.
1
u/vivit_it Feb 07 '26
I think a big factor in the amount of frustration is the grade/transcript inflation which is warranted (and not at the same because academics need to be competitive) but I agree that people shouldn't be toxic and talk down on those who were fortunate enough to get in.
0
u/Careless_Antelope536 Feb 03 '26
the ppl be flexing their failures... bc they don't have anything successful to brag abt.
0
u/Affectionate-Pea4156 Feb 03 '26
no yeah its always "ugh gt denied me even tho I have 4.0, 1570, great ecs, great essays" like... I get being upset put it just comes off as entitled
0
u/Ashamed_Image_2357 Feb 03 '26
I had a long conversation recently with the head of admissions of a prestigious university (I am a parent). He said a few things that aren't being mentioned here.
Where did you go to high school? Was it challenging, and did you take the most difficult classes available? College admissions officers have likely seen applicants from you high school before, and you could also measured against those previous students and your school's reputation.
Your essay can help get you in if your grades are weaker, but it can also kill your application even if your "stats" are good. Some people have essays that are actually offensive or tone deaf.
ACT and SAT scores are seen as a predictor of first year success in college, and nothing more. After your freshman year, they are largely irrelevant in predicting how you will perform.
1
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 04 '26
I had a long conversation with many AO's and multiple "heads of admission" at prestigious - actual T20 universities.
- Definition of "context"
- The essay is NOT going to get you in unless the rest of your application is at the same level. See this exact quote from William Fitzsimmons - Dean of Admissions at Harvard - "Writing a great essay cannot lead to admission if the rest of the application is not at the same level. What students achieve on a day-to-day basis during high school is far more compelling."
https://archive.nytimes.com/thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/harvarddean-part4/
A tone deaf essay is a bad essay. It can hurt as much as a bad letter of recommendation, or a bad grade. Why glorify the essay? Oh yeah. This is A2C and moralizing admissions by glorifying the essay is de rigueur.
- "In their paper on admissions to highly selective colleges, Chetty, Deming and Friedman (2023) show similarly that scores correlate strongly with students’ post-college outcomes including earnings, attendance at prestigious graduate schools, and employment at prestigious firms."
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf
and ALSO correlative with GPA in college. But FAR from IRRELEVANT
https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf
1
u/Ashamed_Image_2357 Feb 04 '26
I don't disagree with you on points 1 and 2. I wasn't suggesting that a bad candidate can get in with a great essay, but the head of admissions I was talking to gave examples of bad essays disqualifying students. Most were quite humorous. He also have examples of "quirky" or "creative" essays that made an applicant stand out in a sea of great stats.
Regarding your response to point 3, I do think I mis-spoke. The AO said they primarily view ACT and SAT scores as a predictor of first year success. He did not add the "irrelevant" part, that was me. Either way, it is clear that there is not consensus on this issue amongst admissions offices. For example, the University of Chicago believes that GPA is far more important than test scores (see story below about a U of C study and why they are still test optional years after COVID).
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/test-scores-dont-stack-gpas-predicting-college-success
I've also noticed that some of the studies most supportive of standardized testing were funded by College Board or others that benefit from the testing regime.
I don't have a horse in this fight. My child tested well and got in to the school she wanted. I personally tested well decades ago and got in to the school I wanted. I like how standardized tests level the playing field a bit between vastly different high school experiences. But I am only sharing what was told to me by a head of admissions at a very elite school as to why some "great stats" candidates don't get in.
1
u/MeasurementTop2885 Feb 04 '26
Safely, it seems that we mostly agree.
Kids with amazing stats might not get in for a lot of reasons including self immolation in an essay, tepid school support, or mediocre out of school efforts.
The coincidence between high standardized testing (despite the slide in test difficulty) and high grades is also much lower than people think - about 60% per surveys of tens or hundreds of thousands of students.
So the conundrum isn’t almost ever why didn’t this exceptional candidate get in to a T20. It’s why didn’t I get into this particular school where I am unhooked.
Here we are in the winter of stress for deferred students most of whom are going get into multiple schools appropriate to their achievements in a few months and some guy to the applause of A2C takes the opportunity to kick them in the teeth and call them “entitled”. That’s my horse here.
Especially after early rounds dominated by hooked ALDC admits, these kids are in fact seeing the most “unfair” seeming outcomes from any baseline of meritocracy and yes it is stressful.
But that’s the unpopular opinion. Because “authentic” interest in ROBLOX according to OP was the secret sauce.
302
u/Commercial_Ad8072 Feb 02 '26
Yeah I always wonder how much of that vibe/entitlement came through in their apps 😬