See The Poll Questions - Vanderbilt News - Vanderbilt University: Fill & Download for Free

I posted a comment under this answer given by one of our fellow quorans to this question: When was the last time have the United States had ever been at risk at losing so many lives like they are during the coronavirus outbreak?Here is the answer given by the other quoran:I believe the answer to this question is I don’t remember exact dates but it was in the former administration with the swine flue. It was under reported and ignored. But the death toll was astronomical. But that’s the sad part under reported.HereHere is my comment under this answer:A look back at swine flu: 8 facts about the world's last pandemic in 2009 . The World Health Organization on March 11 declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic, the first such declaration in 11 years.4. The WHO declared the swine flu outbreak a pandemic on June 11, 2009.5. Between April 12, 2009, and April 10, 2010, the CDC estimates swine flu caused 60.8 million illnesses, 273,304 hospitalizations and 12,469 deaths in the U.S.12,469 deaths….. OVER A 12-MONTH PERIODFirst Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in the United States | NEJMthe first confirmed case of 2019-nCoV infection in the United States, reported on January 20, 2020.United States Coronavirus: 418,451 Cases and 14,240 DeathsLast updated: April 08, 2020, 18:34 GMT14,240 deaths ….OVER A TWO AND 1/2 MONTH PERIODSO… WHEN I SAW THIS QUESTION ::Q :: Was the Obama administration prepared for a pandemic? What is Trump blaming them for?I decided that more commentary/answer from myself was needed.SO….. here is a fact check…. it shows how trump is always telling bald-faced lies and/or misleading information. It is a very thorough analysis of how trump is always pointing blame at someone else and never never taking responsibility for his incompetence. I thought it was such a fantastic analysis … that I decided to copy and paste it here to make sure everyone sees it.Trump’s H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic SpinTrump’s H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic SpinBy Jessica McDonald and Lori Robertson Posted on March 13, 2020In tweets and other appearances, President Donald Trump has repeatedly compared his response to the new coronavirus with President Barack Obama’s handling of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. But Trump’s information is frequently incorrect or misleading — and the two viruses are very different.In a March 4 telephone interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, for example, Trump falsely claimed that the Obama administration “didn’t do anything” about the 2009 pandemic.Trump, March 4: Well, I just say that it’s, you know, a very, very small number in this country. And we’re going to try and keep it that way as much as possible. I will say, though, the H1N1, that was swine flu, commonly referred to as swine flu. And that went from around April of ’09 to April of ’10, where there were 60 million cases of swine flu. And over — actually, it’s over 13,000. I think you might have said 17. I had heard it was 13, but a lot of — a lot of deaths. And they didn’t do anything about it. Interestingly, with the swine flu, children were — in particular, they were vulnerable, sort of the opposite in that respect. But children were very vulnerable to the swine flu. But they never did close the borders. I don’t think they ever did have the travel ban. And we did. And, again, they lost at least 13,000.In a March 12 meeting with the prime minister of Ireland, Trump repeated the sentiment.“If you go back and look at the swine flu, and what happened with the swine flu, you’ll see how many people died, and how actually nothing was done for such a long period of time, as people were dying all over the place,” he said. “We’re doing it the opposite. We’re very much ahead of everything.”Trump is correct on the number of H1N1 cases and deaths, but it’s misleading to compare those figures to the current outbreak of COVID-19, which has just begun. It’s also not true that the Obama administration did nothing or waited a long time to act on the H1N1 influenza pandemic.In 2009, a new H1N1 influenza virus cropped up out of season, in late spring. Because of genetic similarities to influenza viruses in pigs, it became known as a “swine flu,” even though there is no evidence the virus spread between pigs or pigs to humans.According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were about 60.8 million cases of infection with the novel type of influenza virus in the U.S. between April 2009 and April 2010, with a total of approximately 274,304 hospitalizations and 12,469 deaths.While that death toll may sound high, it’s over an entire year and, in fact, ended up being far lower than was initially expected. The strain of influenza also turned out to have a case fatality rate of just 0.02% — well below even many typical seasonal influenzas.Everything that’s known about the new coronavirus so far suggests that it’s an entirely different beast than its most recent pandemic predecessor. Peter Jay Hotez, a professor and dean of the tropical medicine school at Baylor College of Medicine, told us that the new virus, which is known as SARS-CoV-2, is considerably more transmissible and more lethal than H1N1.For those reasons, he said, “the urgency to contain this coronavirus is so much greater than the H1N1 2009 one was.”In the Hannity interview, Trump touted his travel restrictions and noted that Obama “never did close the borders.” Paul A. Offit, chair of vaccinology at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, agreed that Trump’s travel restrictions bought the U.S. time to react, but he said it didn’t make any sense to impose travel restrictions in 2009 since the H1N1 was first reported in North America and the flu is “hard to stop.”“I don’t think it is a fair comparison,” Offit said. “The flu is constantly mutating – it usually happens in pig and humans in southeast Asia – it is really hard to stop that. Unless you ban all travel anywhere in the world to the United States you would have had trouble. That is true with all flu pandemics. I don’t think a travel ban would have ever made a difference.”Contrary to Trump’s suggestion that the Obama administration did “nothing,” officials declared a public health emergency early in the H1N1 outbreak, secured funding from Congress and ultimately declared a national emergency, as we’ll explain below.On top of that, the CDC sequenced the new virus, created testing kits, and the Food and Drug Administration approved multiple vaccines, among other actions.Rep. Michael Burgess, a Republican from Texas, praised the CDC at a House hearing in 2016 for quickly developing a vaccine for the swine flu in about six months — in time for the start of the school year in September 2009. “So that’s a 6-month time frame if I’m doing my math correctly that you were able to identify the genetic sequence of the virus, reverse engineer a vaccine, test it, assure its safety and efficacy, and get it to school teachers on the second week of school. That’s pretty impressive,” he said.Trump said in a tweet that the Obama administration’s response to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic “was a full scale disaster.” While he can have that opinion, there is little to support such a negative view.A New York Times article from January 2010 said that while some mistakes were made, a variety of experts thought the administration had generally handled things well.William Schaffner of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine told the Times that officials deserved “at least a B-plus,” while Mount Sinai virologist Peter Palese called the overall response “excellent.”Obama’s Emergency DeclarationsIn one tweet, Trump quoted Fox Business Network’s Lou Dobbs as misleadingly claiming that it “took 6 months for President Obama to declare a National Emergency” for the H1N1 “swine flu” outbreak that “killed 12,000 Americans.” It’s true that Obama didn’t declare a national emergency for six months, but that ignores several other steps the administration took, including declaring a public health emergency the same month that the novel H1N1 infections were first reported.At the time of the tweet, Trump had not yet declared a national emergency for COVID-19.(Dobbs’ actual quote was slightly different. He said on his March 12 show that it “took six months for President Obama to then declare a national emergency, one that ultimately killed more than 12,000 Americans and infected 60 million more.”)On April 15, 2009, the first infection was identified in California, according to the CDC, and less than two weeks later, on April 26, 2009, the Obama administration declared a public health emergency. The day before, on April 25, the World Health Organization had declared a public health emergency.Dr. Richard Besser, then-acting director of the CDC, confirmed to the press on the day of the U.S. declaration that there were 20 cases of H1N1 in the U.S., and that “all of the individuals in this country who have been identified as cases have recovered.”The same day — April 26 — the CDC began releasing antiviral drugs to treat the H1N1 flu, and two days later, the FDA approved a new CDC test for the disease, according to a CDC timeline on the pandemic.On April 30, 2009, two days after the public health emergency declaration, Obama formally asked Congress for $1.5 billion to fight the outbreak, and later asked for nearly $9 billion, according a September 2009 Congressional Research Service report. On June 26, 2009, Obama signed Congress’ supplemental appropriation bill that included $7.7 billion for the outbreak. [April 30 to June 26 …two months? …what took Congress so long to get this supplemenatl appropriation bill to Obama to be signed?? … comment by myself ]The U.S. public health emergency was renewed twice — on July 24, 2009, and Oct. 1, 2009.The WHO declared H1N1 a pandemic on June 11, 2009. Obama declared a national emergency related to the pandemic on Oct. 24, 2009. At the time, the CDC director, Dr. Thomas Frieden, had said millions of people had been infected in the U.S. and more than 1,000 had died. Also about 11.3 million doses of H1N1 vaccine had been distributed, he said.A month later, on Nov. 12, 2009, the CDC published a report that estimated there had been between 14 million and 34 million H1N1 cases between April 17 and Oct. 17, 2009, and 2,500 to 6,000 H1N1-related deaths.The H1N1 2009 flu pandemic ultimately did kill 12,000 Americans — the figure Dobbs used — according to the midrange estimate from CDC for April 12, 2009, to April 10, 2010. The number of cases totaled an estimated 60.8 million people. To be clear, that strain of the flu continues to cause infections and deaths, at least 75,000 deaths from 2009 to 2018, the CDC says.In the case of that pandemic, the outbreak began in Mexico and spread quickly to the United States. [Which begs the question… what would travel bans have done in this case??…comment by myself] The first cases in Mexico were identified in March and early April 2009, with the Mexican government reporting an outbreak to the Pan American Health Organization on April 12, 2009, according to a CDC report.In the case of COVID-19, the earliest known instances of the disease occurred in early December in Wuhan, China, and officials reported an outbreak to the WHO on Dec. 31. The CDC announced the first American case on Jan. 21. The Trump administration declared a public health emergency on Jan. 31, one day after the WHO did so, and announced a national emergency on March 13. Two days before, the WHO had declared the global outbreak a pandemic.Trump Misleads on Polls AgainIn yet another tweet, Trump again misleadingly cited poll information to claim he has “78%” approval of his administration’s response to the new coronavirus outbreak.Donald J. Trump✔@realDonaldTrumpSleepy Joe Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest!Sleepy Joe Biden was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic which killed thousands of people. The response was one of the worst on record. Our response is one of the best, with fast action of border closings & a 78% Approval Rating, the highest on record. His was lowest!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 13, 2020He claimed this was “the highest on record,” while Biden’s approval rating for the response to the H1N1 outbreak “was lowest.” Even according to a dated poll, the H1N1 approval wasn’t the lowest.As we’ve written before when the president cited Gallup, a poll by the company, taken Feb. 3-16 and released Feb. 20, before anyone had died from COVID-19 in this country, found that 77% of Americans were very or somewhat confident that the government would be able to handle an outbreak of new coronavirus. That was a higher percentage than American confidence in previous administrations’ ability to deal with Zika, Ebola, swine flu and bird flu, according to an average of polls. But the confidence in swine flu was the second highest — at 67% — not the “lowest,” as Trump claimed.And as the number of cases and deaths have grown, public confidence in the Trump administration has decreased, according to several polls. A Quinnipiac poll, taken March 5-8 and released March 9, found 43% of registered voters said they approved of the way Trump is handling the outbreak response.With the swine flu, however, at least two polls showed higher approval of the Obama administration (the polls didn’t ask about Biden). A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken in October 2009 found 69% of adults were confident in the federal government’s ability to respond to an outbreak. A CNN poll released in early November 2009 found 57% approved of Obama’s response.Also, Trump may have given Biden a promotion, claiming he “was in charge of the H1N1 Swine Flu epidemic.” When we asked the Biden campaign about that, we were told that the former vice president “helped lead” the response to the pandemic “but was not the top official for it.”SO… FOXnoise LIED….SEAN HANNITY LIED….TRUMP LIED…Wasn’t that grand? …… Wasn’t that nasty? …..lol

From the point of view of researchers who study these issues, the answer lies in this long but fascinating article. Please tell me your thoughts after reading it.http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianismThe rise of American authoritarianismA niche group of political scientists may have uncovered what's driving Donald Trump's ascent. What they found has implications that go well beyond 2016.by Amanda Taub on March 1, 2016The American media, over the past year, has been trying to work out something of a mystery: Why is the Republican electorate supporting a far-right, orange-toned populist with no real political experience, who espouses extreme and often bizarre views? How has Donald Trump, seemingly out of nowhere, suddenly become so popular?What's made Trump's rise even more puzzling is that his support seems to cross demographic lines — education, income, age, even religiosity — that usually demarcate candidates. And whereas most Republican candidates might draw strong support from just one segment of the party base, such as Southern evangelicals or coastal moderates, Trump currently does surprisingly well from the Gulf Coast of Florida to the towns of upstate New York, and he won a resounding victory in the Nevada caucuses.Table of contentsI. What is American authoritarianism?II. The discoveryIII. How authoritarianism worksIV. What can authoritarianism explain?V. The party of authoritariansVI. Trump, authoritarians, and fearVII. America's changing social landscape VIII. What authoritarians want IX. How authoritarians will change American politicsPerhaps strangest of all, it wasn't just Trump but his supporters who seemed to have come out of nowhere, suddenly expressing, in large numbers, ideas far more extreme than anything that has risen to such popularity in recent memory. In South Carolina, a CBS News exit poll found that 75 percent of Republican voters supported banning Muslims from the United States. A PPP poll found that a third of Trump voters support banning gays and lesbians from the country. Twenty percent said Lincoln shouldn't have freed the slaves.Last September, a PhD student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst named Matthew MacWilliams realized that his dissertation research might hold the answer to not just one but all three of these mysteries.MacWilliams studies authoritarianism — not actual dictators, but rather a psychological profile of individual voters that is characterized by a desire for order and a fear of outsiders. People who score high in authoritarianism, when they feel threatened, look for strong leaders who promise to take whatever action necessary to protect them from outsiders and prevent the changes they fear.So MacWilliams naturally wondered if authoritarianism might correlate with support for Trump.He polled a large sample of likely voters, looking for correlations between support for Trump and views that align with authoritarianism. What he found was astonishing: Not only did authoritarianism correlate, but it seemed to predict support for Trump more reliably than virtually any other indicator. He later repeated the same poll in South Carolina, shortly before the primary there, and found the same results, which he published in Vox:As it turns out, MacWilliams wasn't the only one to have this realization. Miles away, in an office at Vanderbilt University, a professor named Marc Hetherington was having his own aha moment. He realized that he and a fellow political scientist, the University of North Carolina's Jonathan Weiler, had essentially predicted Trump's rise back in 2009, when they discovered something that would turn out to be far more significant than they then realized.That year, Hetherington and Weiler published a book about the effects of authoritarianism on American politics. Through a series of experiments and careful data analysis, they had come to a surprising conclusion: Much of the polarization dividing American politics was fueled not just by gerrymandering or money in politics or the other oft-cited variables, but by an unnoticed but surprisingly large electoral group — authoritarians.Their book concluded that the GOP, by positioning itself as the party of traditional values and law and order, had unknowingly attracted what would turn out to be a vast and previously bipartisan population of Americans with authoritarian tendencies.This trend had been accelerated in recent years by demographic and economic changes such as immigration, which "activated" authoritarian tendencies, leading many Americans to seek out a strongman leader who would preserve a status quo they feel is under threat and impose order on a world they perceive as increasingly alien.Trump embodies the classic authoritarian leadership style: simple, powerful, and punitiveThese Americans with authoritarian views, they found, were sorting into the GOP, driving polarization. But they were also creating a divide within the party, at first latent, between traditional Republican voters and this group whose views were simultaneously less orthodox and, often, more extreme.Over time, Hetherington and Weiler had predicted, that sorting would become more and more pronounced. And so it was all but inevitable that, eventually, authoritarians would gain enough power within the GOP to make themselves heard.At the time, even Hetherington and Weiler did not realize the explosive implications: that their theory, when followed to its natural conclusion, predicted a looming and dramatic transformation of American politics. But looking back now, the ramifications of their research seem disturbingly clear.Authoritarians are thought to express much deeper fears than the rest of the electorate, to seek the imposition of order where they perceive dangerous change, and to desire a strong leader who will defeat those fears with force. They would thus seek a candidate who promised these things. And the extreme nature of authoritarians' fears, and of their desire to challenge threats with force, would lead them toward a candidate whose temperament was totally unlike anything we usually see in American politics — and whose policies went far beyond the acceptable norms.A candidate like Donald Trump.(Scott Olson/Getty Images)Even Hetherington was shocked to discover quite how right their theory had been. In the early fall of 2015, as Trump's rise baffled most American journalists and political scientists, he called Weiler. He asked, over and over, "Can you believe this? Can you believe this?"This winter, I got in touch with Hetherington, MacWilliams, and several other political scientists who study authoritarianism. I wanted to better understand the theory that seemed to have predicted, with such eerie accuracy, Trump's rise. And, like them, I wanted to find out what the rise of authoritarian politics meant for American politics. Was Trump just the start of something bigger?These political scientists were, at that moment, beginning to grapple with the same question. We agreed there was something important happening here — that was just beginning to be understood.Donald Trump could be just the first of many Trumps in American politicsShortly after the Iowa Republican caucus, in which Trump came in a close second, Vox partnered with the Washington-based media and polling company Morning Consult to test American authoritarians along a range of political and social views — and to test some hypotheses we had developed after speaking with the leading political scientists of the field.What we found is a phenomenon that explains, with remarkable clarity, the rise of Donald Trump — but that is also much larger than him, shedding new light on some of the biggest political stories of the past decade. Trump, it turns out, is just the symptom. The rise of American authoritarianism is transforming the Republican Party and the dynamics of national politics, with profound consequences likely to extend well beyond this election.I. What is American authoritarianism?Andrew Renneisen/Getty ImagesFor years now, before anyone thought a person like Donald Trump could possibly lead a presidential primary, a small but respected niche of academic research has been laboring over a question, part political science and part psychology, that had captivated political scientists since the rise of the Nazis.How do people come to adopt, in such large numbers and so rapidly, extreme political views that seem to coincide with fear of minorities and with the desire for a strongman leader?To answer that question, these theorists study what they call authoritarianism: not the dictators themselves, but rather the psychological profile of people who, under the right conditions, will desire certain kinds of extreme policies and will seek strongman leaders to implement them.The political phenomenon we identify as right-wing populism seems to line up, with almost astonishing precision, with the research on how authoritarianism is both caused and expressedAfter an early period of junk science in the mid-20th century, a more serious group of scholars has addressed this question, specifically studying how it plays out in American politics: researchers like Hetherington and Weiler, Stanley Feldman, Karen Stenner, and Elizabeth Suhay, to name just a few.The field, after a breakthrough in the early 1990s, has come to develop the contours of a grand theory of authoritarianism, culminating quite recently, in 2005, with Stenner's seminal The Authoritarian Dynamic — just in time for that theory to seemingly come true, more rapidly and in greater force than any of them had imagined, in the personage of one Donald Trump and his norm-shattering rise.According to Stenner's theory, there is a certain subset of people who hold latent authoritarian tendencies. These tendencies can be triggered or "activated" by the perception of physical threats or by destabilizing social change, leading those individuals to desire policies and leaders that we might more colloquially call authoritarian.It is as if, the NYU professor Jonathan Haidt has written, a button is pushed that says, "In case of moral threat, lock down the borders, kick out those who are different, and punish those who are morally deviant."Authoritarians are a real constituency that exists independently of Trump — and will persist as a force in American politicsAuthoritarians prioritize social order and hierarchies, which bring a sense of control to a chaotic world. Challenges to that order — diversity, influx of outsiders, breakdown of the old order — are experienced as personally threatening because they risk upending the status quo order they equate with basic security.This is, after all, a time of social change in America. The country is becoming more diverse, which means that many white Americans are confronting race in a way they have never had to before. Those changes have been happening for a long time, but in recent years they have become more visible and harder to ignore. And they are coinciding with economic trends that have squeezed working-class white people.When they face physical threats or threats to the status quo, authoritarians support policies that seem to offer protection against those fears. They favor forceful, decisive action against things they perceive as threats. And they flock to political leaders who they believe will bring this action.If you were to read every word these theorists ever wrote on authoritarians, and then try to design a hypothetical candidate to match their predictions of what would appeal to authoritarian voters, the result would look a lot like Donald Trump.But political scientists say this theory explains much more than just Donald Trump, placing him within larger trends in American politics: polarization, the rightward shift of the Republican Party, and the rise within that party of a dissident faction challenging GOP orthodoxies and upending American politics.More than that, authoritarianism reveals the connections between several seemingly disparate stories about American politics. And it suggest that a combination of demographic, economic, and political forces, by awakening this authoritarian class of voters that has coalesced around Trump, have created what is essentially a new political party within the GOP — a phenomenon that broke into public view with the 2016 election but will persist long after it has ended.II. The discovery: how a niche subfield of political science suddenly became some of the most relevant research in American politicsBrendan Hoffman/Getty ImagesButtons for sale on the day of the 2016 Iowa caucuses.This study of authoritarianism began shortly after World War II, as political scientists and psychologists in the US and Europe tried to figure out how the Nazis had managed to win such wide public support for such an extreme and hateful ideology.That was a worthy field of study, but the early work wasn't particularly rigorous by today's standards. The critical theorist Theodor Adorno, for instance, developed what he called the "F-scale," which sought to measure "fascist" tendencies. The test wasn't accurate. Sophisticated respondents would quickly discover what the "right" answers were and game the test. And there was no proof that the personality type it purportedly measured actually supported fascism.More than that, this early research seemed to assume that a certain subset of people were inherently evil or dangerous — an idea that Hetherington and Weiler say is simplistic and wrong, and that they resist in their work. (They acknowledge the label "authoritarians" doesn't do much to dispel this, but their efforts to replace it with a less pejorative-sounding term were unsuccessful.)If this rise in American authoritarianism is so powerful as to drive Trump's ascent, then how else might it be shaping American politics?But the real problem for researchers was that even if there really were such a thing as an authoritarian psychological profile, how do you measure it? How do you interrogate authoritarian tendencies, which can sometimes be latent? How do you get honest answers on questions that can be sensitive and highly politicized?As Hetherington explained to me, "There are certain things that you just can't ask people directly. You can't ask people, 'Do you not like black people?' You can't ask people if they're bigots."For a long time, no one had a solution for this, and the field of study languished.Then in the early 1990s, a political scientist named Stanley Feldman changed everything. Feldman, a professor at SUNY Stonybrook, believed authoritarianism could be an important factor in American politics in ways that had nothing to do with fascism, but that it could only reliably be measured by unlinking it from specific political preferences.He realized that if authoritarianism were a personality profile rather than just a political preference, he could get respondents to reveal these tendencies by asking questions about a topic that seemed much less controversial. He settled on something so banal it seems almost laughable: parenting goals.Feldman developed what has since become widely accepted as the definitive measurement of authoritarianism: four simple questions that appear to ask about parenting but are in fact designed to reveal how highly the respondent values hierarchy, order, and conformity over other values.1.Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: independence or respect for elders?2.Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: obedience or self-reliance?3.Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: to be considerate or to be well-behaved?4.Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: curiosity or good manners?Feldman's test proved to be very reliable. There was now a way to identify people who fit the authoritarian profile, by prizing order and conformity, for example, and desiring the imposition of those values.In 1992, Feldman convinced the National Election Study, a large survey of American voters conducted in each national election year, to include his four authoritarianism questions. Ever since, political scientists who study authoritarianism have accumulated a wealth of data on who exhibits those tendencies and on how they align with everything from demographic profiles to policy preferences.What they found was impossible to ignore — and is only just beginning to reshape our understanding of the American electorate.III. How authoritarianism worksJustin Sullivan/Getty ImagesA 2010 protest against President Obama.In the early 2000s, as researchers began to make use of the NES data to understand how authoritarianism affected US politics, their work revealed three insights that help explain not just the rise of Trump, but seemingly a half-century of American political dynamics.The first was Hetherington and Weiler's insight into partisan polarization. In the 1960s, the Republican Party had reinvented itself as the party of law, order, and traditional values — a position that naturally appealed to order- and tradition-focused authoritarians. Over the decades that followed, authoritarians increasingly gravitated toward the GOP, where their concentration gave them more and more influence over time.The second was Stenner's theory of "activation." In an influential 2005 book called The Authoritarian Dynamic, Stenner argued that many authoritarians might be latent — that they might not necessarily support authoritarian leaders or policies until their authoritarianism had been "activated."The social threat theory helps explain why authoritarians seem so prone to reject not just one specific kind of outsider or social change, such as Muslims or same-sex couples or Hispanic migrants, but rather to reject all of themThis activation could come from feeling threatened by social changes such as evolving social norms or increasing diversity, or any other change that they believe will profoundly alter the social order they want to protect. In response, previously more moderate individuals would come to support leaders and policies we might now call Trump-esque.Other researchers, like Hetherington, take a slightly different view. They believe that authoritarians aren't "activated" — they've always held their authoritarian preferences — but that they only come to express those preferences once they feel threatened by social change or some kind of threat from outsiders.But both schools of thought agree on the basic causality of authoritarianism. People do not support extreme policies and strongman leaders just out of an affirmative desire for authoritarianism, but rather as a response to experiencing certain kinds of threats.The third insight came from Hetherington and American University professor Elizabeth Suhay, who found that when non-authoritarians feel sufficiently scared, they also start to behave, politically, like authoritarians.But Hetherington and Suhay found a distinction between physical threats such as terrorism, which could lead non-authoritarians to behave like authoritarians, and more abstract social threats, such as eroding social norms or demographic changes, which do not have that effect. That distinction would turn out to be important, but it also meant that in times when many Americans perceived imminent physical threats, the population of authoritarians could seem to swell rapidly.Together, those three insights added up to one terrifying theory: that if social change and physical threats coincided at the same time, it could awaken a potentially enormous population of American authoritarians, who would demand a strongman leader and the extreme policies necessary, in their view, to meet the rising threats.This theory would seem to predict the rise of an American political constituency that looks an awful lot like the support base that has emerged, seemingly out of nowhere, to propel Donald Trump from sideshow loser of the 2012 GOP primary to runaway frontrunner in 2016.Beyond being almost alarmingly prescient, this theory speaks to an oft-stated concern about Trump: that what's scariest is not the candidate, but rather the extent and fervor of his support.And it raises a question: If this rise in American authoritarianism is so powerful as to drive Trump's ascent, then how else might it be shaping American politics? And what effect could it have even after the 2016 race has ended?IV. What can authoritarianism explain?Mark Wallheiser/Getty ImagesIn early February, shortly after Trump finished second in the Iowa caucus and ended any doubts about his support, I began talking to Feldman, Hetherington, and MacWilliams to try to answer these questions.MacWilliams had already demonstrated a link between authoritarianism and support for Trump. But we wanted to know how else authoritarianism was playing out in American life, from policy positions to party politics to social issues, and what it might mean for America's future.It was time to call Kyle Dropp. Dropp is a political scientist and pollster whom one of my colleagues described as "the Doogie Howser of polling." He does indeed appear jarringly young for a Dartmouth professor. But he is also the co-founder of a media and polling company, Morning Consult, that had worked with Vox on several other projects.When we approached Morning Consult, Dropp and his colleagues were excited. Dropp was familiar with Hetherington's work and the authoritarianism measure, he said, and was instantly intrigued by how we could test its relevance to the election. Hetherington and the other political scientists were, in turn, eager to more fully explore the theories that had suddenly become much more relevant.Non-authoritarians who were sufficiently frightened of threats like terrorism could essentially be scared into acting like authoritariansWe put together five sets of questions. The first set, of course, was the test for authoritarianism that Feldman had developed. This would allow us to measure how authoritarianism coincided or didn't with our other sets of questions.The second set asked standard election-season questions on preferred candidates and party affiliation.The third set tested voters' fears of a series of physical threats, ranging from ISIS and Russia to viruses and car accidents.The fourth set tested policy preferences, in an attempt to see how authoritarianism might lead voters to support particular policies.If the research were right, then we'd expect people who scored highly on authoritarianism to express outsize fear of "outsider" threats such as ISIS or foreign governments versus other threats. We also expected that non-authoritarians who expressed high levels of fear would be more likely to support Trump. This would speak to physical fears as triggering a kind of authoritarian upsurge, which would in turn lead to Trump support.We wanted to look at the role authoritarians are playing in the electionThe final set of questions was intended to test fear of social change. We asked people to rate a series of social changes — both actual and hypothetical — on a scale of "very good" to "very bad" for the country. These included same-sex marriage, a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the United States, and American Muslims building more mosques in US cities.If the theory about social change provoking stress amongst authoritarians turned out to be correct, then authoritarians would be more likely to rate the changes as bad for the country.In the aggregate, we were hoping to do a few things. We wanted to understand who these people are, in simple demographic terms, and to test the basic hypotheses about how authoritarianism, in theory, is supposed to work. We wanted to look at the role authoritarians are playing in the election: Were they driving certain policy positions, for example?We wanted to better understand the larger forces that had suddenly made authoritarians so numerous and so extreme — was it migration, terrorism, perhaps the decline of working-class whites? And maybe most of all, we wanted to develop some theories about what the rise of American authoritarianism meant for the future of polarization between the parties as well as a Republican Party that had become both more extreme and internally divided.About 10 days later, shortly after Trump won the New Hampshire primary, the poll went into the field. In less than two weeks, we had our results.V. How the GOP became the party of authoritariansTom Pennington/Getty ImagesDonald Trump and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie sign autographs during a Trump campaign event in Texas.The first thing that jumped out from the data on authoritarians is just how many there are. Our results found that 44 percent of white respondents nationwide scored as "high" or "very high" authoritarians, with 19 percent as "very high." That's actually not unusual, and lines up with previous national surveys that found that the authoritarian disposition is far from rare1.The key thing to understand is that authoritarianism is often latent; people in this 44 percent only vote or otherwise act as authoritarians once triggered by some perceived threat, physical or social. But that latency is part of how, over the past few decades, authoritarians have quietly become a powerful political constituency without anyone realizing it.Today, according to our survey, authoritarians skew heavily Republican. More than 65 percent of people who scored highest on the authoritarianism questions were GOP voters. More than 55 percent of surveyed Republicans scored as "high" or "very high" authoritarians.And at the other end of the scale, that pattern reversed. People whose scores were most non-authoritarian — meaning they always chose the non-authoritarian parenting answer — were almost 75 percent Democrats.But this hasn't always been the case. According to Hetherington and Weiler's research, this is not a story about how Republicans are from Mars and Democrats are from Venus. It's a story of polarization that increased over time.They trace the trend to the 1960s, when the Republican Party shifted electoral strategies to try to win disaffected Southern Democrats, in part by speaking to fears of changing social norms — for example, the racial hierarchies upset by civil rights. The GOP also embraced a "law and order" platform with a heavily racial appeal to white voters who were concerned about race riots.This positioned the GOP as the party of traditional values and social structures — a role that it has maintained ever since. That promise to stave off social change and, if necessary, to impose order happened to speak powerfully to voters with authoritarian inclinations.Democrats, by contrast, have positioned themselves as the party of civil rights, equality, and social progress — in other words, as the party of social change, a position that not only fails to attract but actively repels change-averse authoritarians.Over the next several decades, Hetherington explained to me, this led authoritarians to naturally "sort" themselves into the Republican Party.That matters, because as more authoritarians sort themselves into the GOP, they have more influence over its policies and candidates. It is not for nothing that our poll found that more than half of the Republican respondents score as authoritarian.Perhaps more importantly, the party has less and less ability to ignore authoritarians' voting preferences — even if those preferences clash with the mainstream party establishment.VI. Trump, authoritarians, and fearBased on our data, Morning Consult data scientist Adam Petrihos said that "among Republicans, very high/high authoritarianism is very predictive of support for Trump." Trump has 42 percent support among Republicans but, according to our survey, a full 52 percent support among very high authoritarians.Authoritarianism was the best single predictor of support for Trump, although having a high school education also came close. And as Hetherington noted after reviewing our results, the relationship between authoritarianism and Trump support remained robust, even after controlling for education level and gender.Trump support was much lower among Republicans who scored low on authoritarianism: only 38 percent.But that's still awfully high. So what could explain Trump's support among non-authoritarians?I suspected the answer might lie at least partly in Hetherington and Suhay's research on how fear affects non-authoritarian voters, so I called them to discuss the data. Hetherington crunched some numbers on physical threats and noticed two things.The first was that authoritarians tend to fear very specific kinds of physical threats.Authoritarians, we found in our survey, tend to most fear threats that come from abroad, such as ISIS or Russia or Iran. These are threats, the researchers point out, to which people can put a face; a scary terrorist or an Iranian ayatollah. Non-authoritarians were much less afraid of those threats. For instance, 73 percent of very high-scoring authoritarians believed that terrorist organizations like ISIS posed a "very high risk" to them, but only 45 percent of very low-scoring authoritarians did. Domestic threats like car accidents, by contrast, were much less frightening to authoritarians.But Hetherington also noticed something else: A subgroup of non-authoritarians were very afraid of threats like Iran or ISIS. And the more fear of these threats they expressed, the more likely they were to support Trump.This seemed to confirm his and Suhay's theory: that non-authoritarians who are sufficiently frightened of physical threats such as terrorism could essentially be scared into acting like authoritarians.That's important, because for years now, Republican politicians and Republican-leaning media such as Fox News have been telling viewers nonstop that the world is a terrifying place and that President Obama isn't doing enough to keep Americans safe.There are a variety of political and media incentives for why this happens. But the point is that, as a result, Republican voters have been continually exposed to messages warning of physical dangers. As the perception of physical threat has risen, this fear appears to have led a number of non-authoritarians to vote like authoritarians — to support Trump.An irony of this primary is that the Republican establishment has tried to stop Trump by, among other things, co-opting his message. But when establishment candidates such as Marco Rubio try to match Trump's rhetoric on ISIS or on American Muslims, they may end up deepening the fear that can only lead voters back to Trump.VII. Is America's changing social landscape "activating" authoritarianism?But the research on authoritarianism suggests it's not just physical threats driving all this. There should be another kind of threat — larger, slower, less obvious, but potentially even more powerful — pushing authoritarians to these extremes: the threat of social change.This could come in the form of evolving social norms, such as the erosion of traditional gender roles or evolving standards in how to discuss sexual orientation. It could come in the form of rising diversity, whether that means demographic changes from immigration or merely changes in the colors of the faces on TV. Or it could be any changes, political or economic, that disrupt social hierarchies.What these changes have in common is that, to authoritarians, they threaten to take away the status quo as they know it — familiar, orderly, secure — and replace it with something that feels scary because it is different and destabilizing, but also sometimes because it upends their own place in society. According to the literature, authoritarians will seek, in response, a strong leader who promises to suppress the scary changes, if necessary by force, and to preserve the status quo.This is why, in our survey, we wanted to study the degree to which authoritarians versus non-authoritarians expressed a fear of social change — and whether this, as expected, led them to desire heavy-handed responses.Our results seemed to confirm this: Authoritarians were significantly more likely to rate almost all of the actual and hypothetical social issues we asked about as "bad" or "very bad" for the country.For instance, our results suggested that an astonishing 44 percent of authoritarians believe same-sex marriage is harmful to the country. Twenty-eight percent rated same-sex marriage as "very bad" for America, and another 16 percent said that it’s "bad." Only about 35 percent of high-scoring authoritarians said same-sex marriage was "good" or "very good" for the country.Tellingly, non-authoritarians' responses skewed in the opposite direction. Non-authoritarians tended to rate same-sex marriage as "good" or "very good" for the country.The fact that authoritarians and non-authoritarians split over something as seemingly personal and nonthreatening as same-sex marriage is crucial for understanding how authoritarianism can be triggered by even a social change as minor as expanding marriage rights.We also asked respondents to rate whether Muslims building more mosques in American cities was a good thing. This was intended to test respondents' comfort level with sharing their communities with Muslims — an issue that has been particularly contentious this primary election.A whopping 56.5 percent of very high-scoring authoritarians said it was either "bad" or "very bad" for the country when Muslims built more mosques. Only 14 percent of that group said more mosques would be "good" or "very good."The literature on authoritarianism suggests this is not just simple Islamophobia, but rather reflects a broader phenomenon wherein authoritarians feel threatened by people they identify as "outsiders" and by the possibility of changes to the status quo makeup of their communities.This would help explain why authoritarians seem so prone to reject not just one specific kind of outsider or social change, such as Muslims or same-sex couples or Hispanic migrants, but rather to reject all of them. What these seemingly disparate groups have in common is the perceived threat they pose to the status quo order, which authoritarians experience as a threat to themselves.And America is at a point when the status quo social order is changing rapidly; when several social changes are converging. And they are converging especially on working-class white people.It is conventional wisdom to ascribe the rise of first the Tea Party right and now Trump to the notion that working-class white Americans are angry.Indeed they are, but this data helps explain that they are also under certain demographic and economic pressures that, according to this research, are highly likely to trigger authoritarianism — and thus suggests there is something a little more complex going on than simple "anger" that helps explain their gravitation toward extreme political responses.Working-class communities have come under tremendous economic strain since the recession. And white people are also facing the loss of the privileged position that they previously were able to take for granted. Whites are now projected to become a minority group over the next few decades, owing to migration and other factors. The president is a black man, and nonwhite faces are growing more common in popular culture. Nonwhite groups are raising increasingly prominent political demands, and often those demands coincide with issues such as policing that also speak to authoritarian concerns.Some of these factors might be considered more or less legitimately threatening than others — the loss of working-class jobs in this country is a real and important issue, no matter how one feels about fading white privilege — but that is not the point.The point, rather, is that the increasingly important political phenomenon we identify as right-wing populism, or white working-class populism, seems to line up, with almost astonishing precision, with the research on how authoritarianism is both caused and expressed.That is not to dismiss white working-class concerns as invalid because they might be expressed by authoritarians or through authoritarian politics, but rather to better understand why this is happening — and why it's having such a profound and extreme effect on American politics.Have we misunderstood hard-line social conservatism all along?Most of the other social-threat questions followed a similar pattern2. On its surface, this might seem to suggest that authoritarianism is just a proxy for especially hard-line manifestations of social conservatism. But when examined more carefully, it suggests something more interesting about the nature of social conservatism itself.For liberals, it may be easy to conclude that opposition to things like same-sex marriage, immigration, and diversity is rooted in bigotry against those groups — that it's the manifestation of specific homophobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia.But the results of the Vox/Morning Consult poll, along with prior research on authoritarianism, suggests there might be something else going on.There is no particular reason, after all, why parenting goals should coincide with animus against specific groups. We weren't asking questions about whether it was important for children to respect people of different races, but about whether they should respect authority and rules generally. So why do they coincide so heavily?What might look on the surface like bigotry was really much closer to Stenner's theory of "activation"What is most likely, Hetherington suggested, is that authoritarians are much more susceptible to messages that tell them to fear a specific "other" — whether or not they have a preexisting animus against that group. Those fears would therefore change over time as events made different groups seem more or less threatening.It all depends, he said, on whether a particular group of people has been made into an outgroup or not — whether they had been identified as a dangerous other.Since September 2001, some media outlets and politicians have painted Muslims as the other and as dangerous to America. Authoritarians, by nature, are more susceptible to these messages, and thus more likely to come to oppose the presence of mosques in their communities.When told to fear a particular outgroup, Hetherington said, "On average people who score low in authoritarianism will be like, 'I’m not that worried about that,' while people who score high in authoritarianism will be like, 'Oh, my god! I’m worried about that, because the world is a dangerous place.'"In other words, what might look on the surface like bigotry was really much closer to Stenner's theory of "activation": that authoritarians are unusually susceptible to messages about the ways outsiders and social changes threaten America, and so lash out at groups that are identified as objects of concern at that given moment.That's not to say that such an attitude is in some way better than simple racism or xenophobia — it is still dangerous and damaging, especially if it empowers frightening demagogues like Donald Trump.Perhaps more to the point, it helps explain how Trump's supporters have come to so quickly embrace such extreme policies targeting these outgroups: mass deportation of millions of people, a ban on foreign Muslims visiting the US. When you think about those policy preferences as driven by authoritarianism, in which social threats are perceived as especially dangerous and as demanding extreme responses, rather than the sudden emergence of specific bigotries, this starts to make a lot more sense.VIII. What authoritarians wantFrom our parenting questions, we learned who the GOP authoritarians are. From our questions about threats and social change, we learned what's motivating them. But the final set of questions, on policy preferences, might be the most important of all: So what? What do authoritarians actually want?The responses to our policy questions showed that authoritarians have their own set of policy preferences, distinct from GOP orthodoxy. And those preferences mean that, in real and important ways, authoritarians are their own distinct constituency: effectively a new political party within the GOP.What stands out from the results, Feldman wrote after reviewing our data, is that authoritarians "are most willing to want to use force, to crack down on immigration, and limit civil liberties."This "action side" of authoritarianism, he believed, was the key thing that distinguished Trump supporters from supporters of other GOP candidates. "The willingness to use government power to eliminate the threats — that is most clear among Trump supporters."Authoritarians generally and Trump voters specifically, we found, were highly likely to support five policies:1.Using military force over diplomacy against countries that threaten the United States2.Changing the Constitution to bar citizenship for children of illegal immigrants3.Imposing extra airport checks on passengers who appear to be of Middle Eastern descent in order to curb terrorism4.Requiring all citizens to carry a national ID card at all times to show to a police officer on request, to curb terrorism5.Allowing the federal government to scan all phone calls for calls to any number linked to terrorismWhat these policies share in common is an outsize fear of threats, physical and social, and, more than that, a desire to meet those threats with severe government action — with policies that are authoritarian not just in style but in actuality. The scale of the desired response is, in some ways, what most distinguishes authoritarians from the rest of the GOP."Many Republicans seem to be threatened by terrorism, violence, and cultural diversity, but that's not unique to Trump supporters," Feldman told me."It seems to be the action side of authoritarianism — the willingness to use government power to eliminate the threats — that is most clear among Trump supporters," he added.If Trump loses the election, that won't remove the threats and social changes that trigger the "action side" of authoritarianismThis helps explain why the GOP has had such a hard time co-opting Trump's supporters, even though those supporters' immediate policy concerns, such as limiting immigration or protecting national security, line up with party orthodoxy. The real divide is over how far to go in responding. And the party establishment is simply unwilling to call for such explicitly authoritarian policies.Just as striking is what was missing from authoritarians' concerns. There was no clear correlation between authoritarianism and support for tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 per year, for example. And the same was true of support for international trade agreements.These are both issues associated with mainstream GOP economic policies. All groups opposed the tax cuts, and support for trade agreements was evenly lukewarm across all degrees of authoritarianism. So there is no real divide on these issues.But there is one more factor that our data couldn't capture but is nevertheless important: Trump's style.Trump's specific policies aren't the thing that most sets him apart from the rest of the field of GOP candidates. Rather, it's his rhetoric and style. The way he reduces everything to black-and-white extremes of strong versus weak, greatest versus worst. His simple, direct promises that he can solve problems that other politicians are too weak to manage.And, perhaps most importantly, his willingness to flout all the conventions of civilized discourse when it comes to the minority groups that authoritarians find so threatening. That's why it's a benefit rather than a liability for Trump when he says Mexicans are rapists or speaks gleefully of massacring Muslims with pig-blood-tainted bullets: He is sending a signal to his authoritarian supporters that he won't let "political correctness" hold him back from attacking the outgroups they fear.This, Feldman explained to me, is "classic authoritarian leadership style: simple, powerful, and punitive."IX. How authoritarians will change the GOP — and American politicsMichael Ciaglo/Pool/Getty ImagesTo my surprise, the most compelling conclusion to come out of our polling data wasn't about Trump at all.Rather, it was that authoritarians, as a growing presence in the GOP, are a real constituency that exists independently of Trump — and will persist as a force in American politics regardless of the fate of his candidacy.If Trump loses the election, that will not remove the threats and social changes that trigger the "action side" of authoritarianism. The authoritarians will still be there. They will still look for candidates who will give them the strong, punitive leadership they desire.And that means Donald Trump could be just the first of many Trumps in American politics, with potentially profound implications for the country.It would also mean more problems for the GOP. This election is already showing that the party establishment abhors Trump and all he stands for — his showy demagoguery, his disregard for core conservative economic values, his divisiveness.We may now have a de facto three-party system: the Democrats, the GOP establishment, and the GOP authoritariansBut while the party may try to match Trump's authoritarian rhetoric, and its candidates may grudgingly embrace some of his harsher policies toward immigrants or Muslims, in the end a mainstream political party cannot fully commit to extreme authoritarian actionthe way Trump can.That will be a problem for the party. Just look at where the Tea Party has left the Republican establishment. The Tea Party delivered the House to the GOP in 2010, but ultimately left the party in an unresolved civil war. Tea Party candidates have challenged moderates and centrists, leaving the GOP caucus divided and chaotic.Now a similar divide is playing out at the presidential level, with results that are even more destructive for the Republican Party. Authoritarians may be a slight majority within the GOP, and thus able to force their will within the party, but they are too few and their views too unpopular to win a national election on their own.And so the rise of authoritarianism as a force within American politics means we may now have a de facto three-party system: the Democrats, the GOP establishment, and the GOP authoritarians.And although the latter two groups are presently forced into an awkward coalition, the GOP establishment has demonstrated a complete inability to regain control over the renegade authoritarians, and the authoritarians are actively opposed to the establishment's centrist goals and uninterested in its economic platform.Over time, this will have significant political consequences for the Republican Party. It will become more difficult for Republican candidates to win the presidency because the candidates who can win the nomination by appealing to authoritarian primary voters will struggle to court mainstream voters in the general election. They will have less trouble with local and congressional elections, but that might just mean more legislative gridlock as the GOP caucus struggles to balance the demands of authoritarian and mainstream legislators. The authoritarian base will drag the party further to the right on social issues, and will simultaneously erode support for traditionally conservative economic policies.And in the meantime, the forces activating American authoritarians seem likely to only grow stronger. Norms around gender, sexuality, and race will continue evolving. Movements like Black Lives Matter will continue chipping away at the country's legacy of institutionalized discrimination, pursuing the kind of social change and reordering of society that authoritarians find so threatening.The chaos in the Middle East, which allows groups like ISIS to flourish and sends millions of refugees spilling into other countries, shows no sign of improving. Longer term, if current demographic trends continue, white Americans will cease to be a majority over the coming decades.In the long run, this could mean a GOP that is even more hard-line on immigration and on policing, that is more outspoken about fearing Muslims and other minority groups, but also takes a softer line on traditional party economic issues like tax cuts. It will be a GOP that continues to perform well in congressional and local elections, but whose divisions leave the party caucus divided to the point of barely functioning, and perhaps eventually unable to win the White House.For decades, the Republican Party has been winning over authoritarians by implicitly promising to stand firm against the tide of social change, and to be the party of force and power rather than the party of negotiation and compromise. But now it may be discovering that its strategy has worked too well — and threatens to tear the party apart.Correction: Matthew MacWilliams is a PhD student at UMass Amherst.

Here is what I have found after working with kids and talking at length with many college admissions to find the college admissions secrets…These are some great tips and secrets to help you navigate the process:Grades, grades, grades and then more grades. Not for every school, but you can’t camouflage or sugar coat or breath spray great grades. Colleges usually count this as the all important factor and with so many kids applying, they may not even look at your application if it’s not in their general GPA ballpark. So make sure you hit it out.Many schools don’t care much about extracurriculars like most of the UC schools, especially UC San Diego or UC Irvine and yet in contrast, the Ivy’s really do care about your activities (that is if you are also close to their standard run of the mill grade and SAT criteria- about a 3.85/4.0 and 1560 SAT)-it’s what separates the standard from the standout(s). If you don’t have them, don’t apply unless it’s Cornell which loves all As, a 1560 SAT and then to top it off, you will likely also need to have great leadership and/or be very involved in campus and do something related to your major and your magically going to be accepted.I know this from spending hours at seminars and speaking to their admissions directors. You don’t need great activities here, but do need to show them you’ll fully take advantage of every type of club and similar activities on campus.They want leaders and doers (not sleepers) at Cornell.The other Ivy’s “secret sauce” if you will, is that the others want insane world or national championship caliber activities only. You have to be in a different league (and why they probably call it the Ivy League-kidding as you know).“Holistic reviews” are a great “buzz word,” but each school has a secret type of the student they want and you can learn that by what students they admit and who they accept and by studying the scores of admitted students too. It’s tough at first,but the patterns do emerge and as it should be. Every school has its special requirements and admit students that are the right fit.Admissions directors are paid to get applications and do a great job with “PR” encouraging everyone who speaks to them to apply and think they have a good chance when under there breath its more like (“Good luck with just playing the piano and in the school choir with all A’s and a 1500 SAT.” Instead, you’ll hear, “Sure we would love to have you apply.” They actually do a great job of getting the information out there and really have to keep their secrets close to the vest or no one who doesn’t even closely meet there requirements will apply right? Would you apply to schools you have almost no shot of getting in? Now after reading this, I hope you won’t or will limit those longshots. And its our job, as such, to uncover those secrets or closely held information. Acceptance and denials tell you much of what you need to know.And the more people the top schools like U Chicago can turn away, the higher the rankings of the school which is why they love to advertise in “bulk mailings” designed to look personal with your name on it where they paid the college board for your information that “we would love to have you at our school and we’re very interested in you” and sadly they’re probably not. But your application fee is needed for a great cause…to pay for special financial consideration for so many students who do need financial aid. So here’s a little secret…when you get those letters, unless you see one telling you that with a certain GPA you’ll get a scholarship tell your kids to “always recycle the trash.” It’s a great lesson.A lot of people want to be National Merit Finalist (16000 earn this designation annually) and my son was but it on average, after what we learned, it will barely helps you get into the top schools. Most schools don’t even look at it. But there are some schools that do actively recruit National Merit students because they too can advertise that they have 200 National Merit Finalist at schools like Baylor University the U of Alabama, Arizona, Arizona State, University of Texas Dallas and University of Oklahoma who absolutely love it.If a school offers a National Merit scholarships like the ones in the link below (or for any set and defined scholarships based on an exact GPA or test score, (and some of these schools below generally do), you really have just hit the educational equivalent of the national lottery. You can also “google” for any school you may want to attend the following: “scholarships at U of Alabama or ____.” But please don’t tell anyone about this list of schools below or this search that helped is get many scholarships and it’s not just for narional merit since these schools are usually also the one who life straight A or 1550 SAT kids and have a great scholarship program in place. In other words check and hopefully check mate mate. You will be blown away by this list (and it’s. A great too not just for National Merit Finalists but if you have almost all As or 1550 SAT. Again please don’t tell anyone since our little secret (see below #10)For any of these merit scholarships (and most are guaranteed if you qualify), do apply to many of these schools because they do want you, it’s a great almost guaranteed admit and you’ll be a VIP, getting special enrollment, first chose of roommates and classes, special forums and events to attend and it’s easy if you do well getting into a top PhD program as a big fish in a small pond with easier competition since you're the star there (if you study hard).Guard this list with your life and it will warm your heart (and checkbook)…drum roll: NMF Scholarships (use it if you are a National Merit Finalist or an A close to all A student or 1550/35 ACT (or even lower in some cases lien a 31 ACT) to look up at least in some cases like ASU, U Arizona and U Alabama for their other great scholarships. They really want top students and offer these fixed scholarships anyone with high grades or test scores to get these kids away from the ivys and top 50. Again guard the list with your life. It got my son 10 close to full rides and why did he have to choose UC Davis over these full rides - why me? That is another secret- have them pay themselves if they don’t take a full ride. What was I thinking?The Ivy’s really don’t care at all about National Merit Finalist award. I would believe that if you don’t have a national merit that they would probably look at the application oddly. Kidding, but sort of.Two schools in the country, for their 75% percentile, actually want all A’s and unless you’re a special admit, you have as much chance of getting in as winning the state lottery. Ready and they are UCLA and Cornell and you didn’t hear it from me. The school statements may try to change or breath mint these facts, but the reality of their numbers prove otherwise. Be a perfect high school student or don’t apply and I’m not kidding. Even special admit students at UCLA need a 3.92 GPA out of a 4.0 for their 25th percentile and why they call it special indeed. But it’s our little secret. Ask around and I can almost guarantee that is close to a fact and in fact I know 50 out of 50 non special admits at UCLA who didn't get in without all As and the 4 who did got in had all As as advertised. I’m sure there are exceptions to any rule just not many here. Yep, the deck is stacked at UCLA with a lot of bright straight A students as this great school should be. But don’t apply and save your parents 100 dollars if you don’t have all As as a regular admit. It’s not a reach, but a pipe dream even if a couple of kids probably do get in with some unusual situation due to a few openings.Cal Tech and MIT want a perfect 800 or 36 in math and that’s pretty much a necessity to get in for a non-special admit students (and it’s actually listed as proof on their websites overall with some statistically anomalies on rare occasions-you want to be well done and not “rare” when applying here). It’s the kids they feel they need to be successful here at this intense university (again as it should be). Heck, even the special admit students like first-time college students, American Indian and African American or for those kids and families where they don’t speak with English at home the 25th percentile generally speaking need a 780 in math to be at the 25% percentile. In other words, just do the math to see if you should apply. That and a national robotics title may (should help). With just about 1000 spots worldwide, you’ll absolutely have to prove you are one of the smartest kids in the world by having some major accomplishment - not a regional science award winner but again that is a little secret and why I told a kid I mentor not to apply this year and he did. He didn’t get inDream big but please spend your money wisely and selectively on top 50 ranked school applications. I’m seeing the last three years so many wonderful all A students and also ones with 4.3 GPA and 1500–1560 SAT and great extracurriculars activities getting rejected from every single top 20 school and for these star kids with a 4.3 kids, from every top 50 school (that or bad coaching more likely from me but that’s another secret right-dont listen to anything I say). Just today, they broke the news to a great kid and this no ordinary student with a 4.3 GPA and 1560 SAT and quality extracurriculars too like a regional silver in academic decathalon. But it wasn’t not enough rocket fuel for MIT or CalTech, UCLA and USC (he did hit it big at 95th ranked UC Riveride and 87th Santa Cruz as his only top 100 spots. He was completely shell shocked and I warned him last year and thankfully he listened to some advise by applying to schools outside the top 50. Other kids this year with all As and 1550 were rejected from UCLA, USC and the ivys, but luckily had some great and wise choices by getting into the rest of the top UC schools (Berkeley Davis, Irvine, Santa Barbara and San Diego all top 50). They were smart to not expect admits into any top 30 schools and each hit with Berkeley as their single choice (if that isn’t a lottery pick then what is but all others weren’t interested. It was a wake call for me too. It’s gotten impossible to get in.Here is a little helpful secret and please don’t tell anyone… Generally, the top students at each high school with high SAT almost always will nail admission into the top Public schools in state-great school like U Michigan, U Washington or UCLA/Berkeley, U Colorado etc so do apply to these schools liberally in state. Why? They know in state students will probably attend due to the inexpensive tuition and you might find yourself with limited top private school selection so do use this great tip wisely even if you don’t love going to say Utah State. The kid listed above with a 4.3 GPA is now loving UC Riverside- a school he wasn’t going to apply to (but my convincing)! has him so excited now as he should be to have a top 100 college to attend. It’s a great feeling to get into a super school like Riverside or Michigan State. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. State schools are phenomenal and in par with any school in the country. Leave your egos at the door and you should be beaming with pride to get in. These are special places.There are only 12,000 Ivy League spots open annually and yet there are about 44,000 public and private high schools in the United States. In other words, if you remove international students and about 35% of the applicants which do you go to athletes according to a major recent article on this matter (Google it). And thus, your high school basically has about a one in six shot of getting a single student to the Ivys annually. The deck is a long shot number wise and don’t think your chances are ever great about getting in. Sure if you have top stats, why wouldn’t you apply, but have many many other wonderful choices. Duke and Northwestern and Hopkins are phenomenal world class schools and they love to feast on these kids who don’t have national caliber titles but do have top notch grades scores and activities too so apply liberally to the non Ivy’s for a great shot if your a top student. Again it’s our little secret since everyone wants the Ivy’s and these are much better shots for most top kids. But they still typically don’t take your average A- and 1400 SAT kid playing varsity soccer. They may occasionally, but you have to be top top top student to get in here as well-just not win a national title etc. a state title may work or something high caliber is very important too.And yet if you happen to go to a famous elite private school like Harvard Westlake in Los Angeles (and with 275 seniors only), they miraculously get five kids in annually to Harvard and five into Stanford…surprise surprise (and they boast about it on there website or they used to anyways). Yep it’s the famous old-school, old admissions are alive and well. And as it should be since these kids who got in are heavily vetted with tests that are much tougher than the SAT and a process that makes getting a membership to Augusta Golf Club look pretty easy. Yep it’s a nice chip shot from these schools into the ivy’s as a good student but a round (or year to attend) will set you back $45000 a year (per kid). And for many it’s worth it.Need blind financial aid is not always the case at some schools as per expert comments stating that it can affect your application process -just check with some people on Quora. It usually won’t affect your outcome but the rumors say that it can. I would still apply if you need the money though.Your stated major can actually affect your admissions at many but not all schools. The best are odd ones like Arabic studies or Greek studies or Chinese studies and something that few others study. My nephew got into USC with solid, but not spectacular scores writing about which classes on history he wanted to take and why and his application never made the history pile. It was a modern classic his acceptance and then he changed majors the following year. A straight A kid is now fortunately going to Berkeley undeclared because I suggested that with Berkeley being number 1 in the country for computer science he could have trouble getting in so he applied undeclared. For schools he was way above the 75th percentile for grades and scores like UCSD and UC Irvine, he applied and got into their computer science and he loved Berkeley and said he’ll go and he can still take some classes and if he does well get a BA in it or another field since he’s ok doing many stem majors. This is a highly intelligent kid who listened without any ego and now is going to his dream school. Be very skilled and layer your admission approach so you have so many more Great options. Those who don’t use these types of creative techniques from my perspective usually end up with very few school choices. Let the kids themselves within reason decide, but now they will have so many more wonderful choices and this gives them confidence to be very proud of what he accomplished. It also gives them the essential healthy esteem they need to move on from the college rejections they will get and really be excited about college.Computer science is a big “no no” for most kids unless you aced the SAT and have top grades too and elite scores higher than the standard admit. You want to come from a position of strength. it makes sense in any impacted or heavily applied majors because the admitted kids are usually extremely high performing test takers on average-ok above average is more like it. It’s very competitive and as such do make sure you can add it as a major because that too could be a major problem as well. If your scores are well above the 75th percentile, then yes apply. At some public schools like UCLA the major won’t hurt or help your chances so ask these question first to the admissions office (call is email them for a fast response) and they will always let you know if your major is a “major” deal or minor (puny right?).Another secret is that yes over 40% of kids end up changing majors anyways and so determine if that is an angle you want to play at a few dream schools anyways (or at schools that you are not that into). But more importantly do what is right for you. One son got into UC Davis and NYU by applying to NYU for its very general…general studies even though he wanted computer science and to Davis for economics (supply and demand made that a smarter decision). But to make sure he had some great choices he did apply to computer science at some great schools like U Alabama and U Arizona because his stats were a bit higher for then and it worked out with a lot of great choices. It usually does make sense to take this more layered or latter approach. Our family had to learn the hard way from our oldest son who was rejected by 16/16 top 50 schools for computer science, but he did get a shot at a top 100 school since it’s not as ultra competitive. And the funny part was you guessed it…he changed majors which I believe impacted his school choices. You do want to have a lot of great college options when all is said and done. For computer science (pre med, physics, any engineering major or business at any top school, please do use care and be aware of the difficulty of getting accepted. But these are all great majors as well. For computer science, most kids studying it love the degree and with 50,000 kids getting USA computer science degrees yearly, it’s one of many reasons why it’s so difficult to get in.The schools want you to believe that you can’t bring up your SAT score, but my kids raised their scores from 1200-1560 and 1000 to 1460 with special, elite test prep. It was ridiculous (and ridiculously priced too) but it did get one son many full ride offers even though he had to pick the more expensive school. I should have told him son, you have two choices —pay for the college yourself or I’ll pay for it with a scholarship but I got sucker punched twice. What was I thinking? “But dad I love my school.” My wallet isn’t loving it but it worked out for him so it’s worth it in select cases. You will know.One of the best kept secrets to getting into colleges is (mathematically) to apply to at least 20 schools that you have a shot at getting in. The one son with tons of scholarships applied to 33 schools and it worked wonders. He had a slightly lower GPA and a top SAT score so I didn’t know where he’d get in so like fly swatting blind fold (sort off) we went college fly swatting and caught some flies (and fleas too) with many rejects as expected. The top 30 schools were all fleas and gave us the old collar and a few nice wait lists as U Chicago so nicely does. It’s there nice way of saying no thank you. But we were thankful and respect them for this nice touch. Work hard in school (and your applications) now and as a result enjoy a great college later. Or by default, community college will be calling to many who take the path of least resistance. No pain and no gain. Don’t worry you'll gain a fresh 10 in college anyways so it may as well be at one you love.To have a great shot, if your special and not a special admit is to target the key demarcation line of 75 percentile for your grades and SAT scores and at any school listing, this information as almost all admissions coaches and experts tell you this is a realistic shot for admissions. It’s certainly not a guarantee but a decent chance, a shot at selection. If your also “special” and a special admit, you will really want to focus in on the 25th percentile line. Anything below that mark is a reach school and anything above is safer school (but you are never safe). These days you really need a “safety net” with a lot of schools, but no school is really a safety school anymore in the days of mass student applications and some really high test scores from elite test preps. Use the common apps to apply to an uncommon number of great schools and then you’ll have many wonderful schools to attend. When college gives you lemons (a tough admissions process),simply make lemon aid and add a lot of sugar to sweeten up the outcome. You will need a “twist.”I see many kids I help mentor with 4.3/4.6 GPA including many AP classes and 1500 Sat or 33 ACT scores who get rejected by almost every top 50 school. Be very careful to have many choices since the admit rate is brutal these days and think about the top five students at each high school that your competing with that have these stats or better and with same or better activities. We like to feel we’re special with all of these accolades, but so are so many others with even more impressive accolades. Think of it as like a fun game of poker where you have a sizeable stack of chips that you won but someone else at the table has more than you.Waitlists are part of the waiting game and you have a possible chance at each school so always say yes that your interested if you are, but do let schools know immediately if not as a courtesy to others. My UC Davis son said that many of his friends were waitlisted so it’s is a possible chance of admissions. And here’s a little secret we discovered last year by accident- If it’s a private school, visit on a regular tour near the freshman enrollment deadline and do let them know nicely how grateful you are that you are a “waitlistee“ (a new word in the American Heritage Dictionary now) and you’ll be surprised when like my sons’s close friend how they pulled him aside and offered him a spot few minutes into the tour as they did at 14th ranked Vanderbilt. Why… part of successs is showing up (and demonstrated interest) so he hit the jackpot therein on a whim to visit. And if you think about it, this was a brilliant move showing interest at a key point in time. Check and chekcmate (mate) for being brilliant and showing up) but he actually also got in the waitlist at UC Santa Barbara too and went there (he had 6 waitlist and 2 acceptances from them and after taking tours too. It more difficult at a public school though. But give it the old college try and try this army tactic if you will. Show up at the admissions office of the school that you were waitlisted at and ask to speak to admissions directors (not the front desk person) and let them know it’s your dream school and then magically you just might end up waking up from a dream and into your dream school. sometimes kids get in a week after school has started and will abandon ship for their dream school.If you get into a school like U Alabama ranked 120 or so— this is an amazing school as is U of Arizona or Baylor. It’s someone’s dream school so if you get in and then visit and be proud of getting into these or other amazing schools. Hold your head up high at any admitted school and be proud. It’s truly a special honor and one that few in the country get to have. Schools outside the top 20 or 40 are unbelievable and you should be so excited to go to a school that the school which chose you feels you are a perfect fit. They know best. And the competition is a little easier at a school where the average is a 3.3 GPA than competing against almost all A students at UCLA. I’m not saying by any means turn down UCLA but the glass here is really half full and not empty wherever you go so look at the bright side (and upside too) for you to ace college and get into a top grad school.This is a huge secret…and a fact, a reality, a truism and it will save you from transferring in two years from a bad fit college. Trust me it happened to me at Santa Barbara as I was encouraged to save money and not go to USC-huge mistake and two years later I was loving USC every waking moment (when I did awake-joking mostly). The key determiner where you go for college for four years of your life (many take 6 years now so choose carefully) should be how well you get along with others here so talk to many students and staff and make sure you would absolutely enjoy being there for four years and not because it’s ranked 10 spots higher than the other. I would choose the lower ranked school in a heartbeat if it’s a much better fit (and you get in). Big fish in small ponds become PhD students (or masters) at top 30 colleges. This is the most underrated and least utilized secret in the list and read it twice or you’ll transfer and hate your school. Maybe this was why I had a bit of a soft spot for my sons choice of Davis over Alabama and it worked out since he loved the school…if you don’t love it don’t attend please. Would you marry someone you like and not love? Of course not and the same holds for college. “Love it or you’ll leave it.”The schools themselves really know where you fit in and if you don’t get in to your Dream school, it’s perfect so just study harder and then prove it to them when you go to their grad school.State public schools like U Michigan or U Texas give major advantages to in state students so buyer beware. You have a major advantage generally being a top student and applying in state… I must state. For example, U Texas is amazing school that everyone in Texas should have at the top of the list. However with only 10% of out of state students getting in (hint you’ll get into top 20 schools as well and probably won’t go here) so why apply unless it’s your dream to attend from out of state. The UC are a better choice for out of state kids…Why? because they take 2–4x as many kids As U Texas and the competition is actually usually easier than from the intense in state California competition, since you are actually only competing against that group of kids. And it’s the same for international spots but they also take much less than national kids. I have found it’s actually a bit easily to get in at the UC schools especially internationally than from the intense CA beauty pageant going on in state. At the UC schools, the very elite out of state kids are usually targeting the ivys so if you are just a smidgen below, you will have a statistically better batting average at the UC schools choice. In state, Texas is a brilliant choice as a top Texas student and people don’t realize what an underrated and amazing place it is and not just for football. U Michigan is one of the best schools in the world too if you get in here too. The top public schools are phenomenal and all under rated by the polls. if you are a top student always target your best two state schools even as back up targets so you’ll hit a bullseye regardless. Let’s keep this public secret private ok?So many kids are focused just on the top ranked schools, but if you also focus on the schools ranked 70–150th (and those unranked) , which are phenomenal btw, with top GPA or SAT scores you’ll likely get some incredible schooling and scholarship offers. Some of the best scholarship secrets are schools like U Alabama, U Oklahoma (it’s better than OK), U Arizona, Arizona State, LSU (they even tell you how much you’ll earn with their on site scholarship calculator so calculate your savings and bag a great admit too with a very high SAT score or GPA (and sometimes with a 3.5 GPA or 1300 SAT. These are smart application choice because admissions at a reduced rate is almost guaranteed. Have some great choices out of the gate. You’ll relax on your other applications.Life can be a breeze … if you get into many of the UC schools since its surprisingly still somewhat of a secret that many are in some of the best and most beautiful places in the world. UC Santa Barbara overlooks a scenic cliff on the Pacific Ocean and to chill or ”chillax,” the kids walk to the sandy beach off campus (Sorry Harvard and Chicago) but the school is breezy,and easy (ier) and a great choice if you stand the admissions heat (I mean sunshine). Ditto for UC San Diego. La Jolla is considered the nicest part of San Diego and it’s an incredible city with beachfront cliffs. Most students will you love it here and some take up surfing if you want (or shopping). likewise, UC Irvine is 10 short minutes from famous Newport Beach, the best and most scenic beach city in Orange County with the best surfing, shopping and scenery anywhere in California. UCLA is a beautiful conclave and among the most scenic communities in Los Angeles- 20 minutes from the ocean and nearby skiing (same day). Davis campus is insane and outside awaits a 1940 movie type old town with classic modern buildings on campus. The UC schools are really amazing from many standpoints not to mention jobs. Do factor in the weather as to whether or not you will want to attend the school of your dreams. Do you like hot weather or cold, four seasons or for some more of a Four Seasons small private college. Do you like hiking fishing and the outdoors and staying inside, a large campus or small; big city or rural….etc. These see below important. I wouldn’t do well in Chicago as much as love the city. For me it’s “Sunshine on my shoulders (great song)” but look at more than the rankings and especially the fit part.Always look closely at the published admit rates and also at the number of applicants. Getting into a UC School is not a breeze unless you have almost all As and secondarily a top SAT score. There is a reason UCLA has more applications about 115,000 than any school in the country and most of the UC are close. Great schools, great values great places to spend four years and Ca employees really respect them. Use math to eliminate schools likely to eliminate you like the ivys which average only 1500 admits worldwide. Seriously what are your real chances of a school that admits 7% of the best, and don’t ever just focus on the ivys and instead always select a wider net and include top schools with a much better acceptance rate like a. Georgetown, Vanderbilt, U Purdue, Virginia etc.Like in geometry, use the angles. For example, how many kids from California are applying to U North Carolina or U Madison Wisconsin (two amazing schools) so when you do you’ll have a chance at one heck of a school by going off the normal grid. Or what North Dakota State and you just mind find yourself getting in with lower stats. I’ve never heard of a top local kid I know doing this trick but it’s a brilliant move. Top Kids from California tend to fly together and apply to all of the UC, some Ivys, maybe a few like Duke or Georgetown but rarely to UNC or Ohio State (Michigan yes)…Applying off of the grid… gets you on the grid and why kids from Alaska do very well getting into top schools so all 50 states are represented (a little known but true secret). Most of all, be that “diversity” candidate or a person the admission director is thinking really why is a kid from San Diego applying to North Dakota State and if so they must want to go here so let’s let them in. Angle off the grid for a few select college choices.Please don’t tell anytime this secret-only 500 US kids apply to Oxford/Cambridge annually so make sure you schedule their own special test (required here) at least one year out since my son couldn’t get a chance to take it 3 months out. Also the tests are insane, so do study for it for a year if interested like you would the SAT. And they do admit 18% and less from US. I’d choose either school over almost any US college but that is another secret I won’t discuss here…The very top, elite schools like Harvard, Yale and U Washington, Duke, John Hopkins etc (all great schools) are trying to gauge your interest so go their summer school and events and tours. This is one of the biggest secrets yet joining Harvard or MIT for a summer school program and doing well even if it’s used to get into Northwestern. This is a huge admissions boost so see what programs they have for high school kids or spend the summer on your own taking a few classes and you have proven to admissions directors you have what it takes to attend an elite college. It’s expensive but spend the summer at Boston as the best money you’ll likely ever spend. And also do Email the admissions departments regularly, click in there website regularly etc since they keep track. Give them some love and they may love your application, effort and it will make a difference if you are a great candidate. Had my son been a little more outgoing during his hour phone interview I helped set up with an amazing admissions director at Cornell, I believe he would have had an offer.You can develop a great repoire with admissions directors (as a parent too) occasionally and if your son is daughter is the right fit you’ll have a possible acceptance. Occasionally call, email and ask to visit with them. Life is about developing relationships and I still communicate with the retired Cornell admission director who was incredible helpful to our family and my understanding of the elite admission processes. I still regularly talk or email to the past Cornell assistant admissions director and consider her a friend. She has been a huge help over the years and a great source for information.Here is an interesting “secret” for athletes (or top performers/artists)-For any friends, family or parents of a star athlete that you know-for someone who will be a recruited, division one caliber athlete where they can play for a team like- they can “vault” into an ivy league school. Ivy’s don’t give any athletic scholarships but more importantly, they do offer amazing financial aid to anyone accepted who applies within a set financial matrix.This is listed on their financial aid website (and with calculators too in some cases. And its why at Princeton (the top ranked US News school), if your parents makes under $300,000 and in other cases under $200,000, and you apply you will get a very liberal (not a degree per se) but a generous financial aid package covering a nice part of your tuition.And it gets even better at the $140,000 a year and is very nominal or free at around $90,000-$120,000 income level. Most ivy’s have similar aid packages making a private education similar or in some cases cheaper than most public schools. For those with top level talent, the coaches have several slots per Division 1 only sports that are almost guarantees forabide by the specific college rules on how and when to contact to let them know your interest level too. To get more info too, you can google “athletics and special admissions at the ivys’ and you will enjoy reading why about 30% of all admits now go to athletes.Now that you read this you too can be one of the “crew.” Regardless, its one way to “bank” an ivy education. And as it should be. Beating Yale at Harvard takes a lot of work and coach recruiting so if you have this level of talent, why play at your state school when you can possible attend an Ivy for free. But don’t tell anyone. Its also our little secret.Take every AP class possible which will save you money on college (up to $77,000 for one year)…if you pass your AP classes with 4 and 5 (or 3s on occasion) this can also help you graduate up to a year early or give you the freedom to double major which is also very smart and distinctive. Typically most Universities will accept a 4 or 5 on the AP test for credit and some a 3 but it varies widely and most students get some but not all credit for their AP classes. And for ones they don’t do be sure to take the same class again and then nail it in college for a so called “Mickey” (as in Mouse) class or an easy A.And it’s a great grade boost for most colleges too. Here is another secret…the UC schools as per several admissions directors have told me they gauge closely having 9 or more AP classes as a major admit factor. It shows them that you took advantage of all that school had to offer by challenging yourself academically .One kid at spring break told me that his AP classes were harder than his computer science classes in colleges and really helped prepare him too. most top schools including the private schools look very closely and ask or calculate this key admission factor. It’s incredible how important this overlooked item is in your acceptance process…My suggestion, as tough as these classes are in high school, is to try within reason to take every AP class that you can handle like a Vegas Buffet. Even if you get a “B” or a 3 on some of the AP test, you’ll probably be able to ace each class again as well as your regular classes at college due to the rigor you had and that is much more important than getting As in high school.The goal of college really should be to focus on getting into grad school or getting great grades for a job since you will a need a minimum of a 3.0 GPA for virtually every Fortune 500 company later (many want a 3.7 GPA so put in the hard work when you. Party a little now and party a lot more in the future.Hard work now will likely help you succeed later in college and beyond so use AP classes, not to game the system, but to learn everything you can. And if you don’t get a 4 or 5 on the Ap test take AP calculus once agoan in college and it should be an A if you work hard again. Just do the math right? I like to say AP classes show your Ap-titude.Here are a few secrets for great extracurrulars? College love leaders who start a few popular clubs and serve as president; It never hurts being student body president either. Put in 400 hours over 3 summers of volunteering at a well known charity and that is a huge positive in your application and hours do count. College love any type of home run activities especially extracurriculars such as speech and debate (you can’t debate that), Academic Decatahlon and Science Bowl, plus any national competition like Siemens or Intel competitions. First, speech and debate for the top participants in any state will likely land you a half or full ride and even better special admission at a great school that has this team. My friend at USC got in as one of the top debaters in Illinois with a half ride and with very low GPA too. We couldn’t believe it and debated the merits therein but that is another story. The best activity (a true secret) to help prepare you for college is Academic Decathalon and it has 11 subjects that will actually help you decide what to major in or a major advantage. My son is going to get his PhD in economics when he graduates from Davis due to him loving economics here and winning a silver at states in it. The kids spend about 3 hours a day and when they go to college almost all of them destroy the curve because it’s so easy in comparison and taking a multiple choice is quite easy for them. We know one kid who has straight As in computer science at number one 1 ranked Berkeley and he said academic Decathalon was much tougher than any class at Berkeley. Another had a 3.9/4.9 in high school and now has 3.85 in computer science and econ at ecom and says college is pretty easy in comparison. They also do interview and speech so the kids become expert interviewers for college and grad school and make lifelong friends and the team has spots for A B and C students. Any kid should strongly consider taking this incredible extracurricular activity and the likelihood of it helping you get top grades and a PhD after college is always positive. Two of my kids did it and since both are almost done, don’t tell anyone but it’s our little (I mean big) secret. Also colleges love it too since it shows you love learning for learning sake and the kids do usually get into better schools than many of their peers with a slight bump for college admissions from what I have seen. Yes doing so is clearly ….“Academic.”A Summer school secret-If your first choice is a school that happens have a special “summer program for high school students” and run in conjunction with the University…then that program could be your “lottery admit ticket” since: A) it shows you are very interested in attending that college (and likely accept if they offer) B) you can talk about it in your essay with personal insights others don’t and C) it shows interest and likely acceptance of an offer. My son’s best friend did this program at Emory (it’s incredible), and sure enough he applied for Early Decision and bingo he hit the lottery with a 4.3 GPA and a 1500 SAT and qualify extracurriculars (into a top 22 ranked school). Then for a “double double,” his family hit the jackpot twice (or paid the slot machine twice depending upon how you look at) when his younger brother did the same thing and is now a legacy and he got in this year. Emory knew he too was dying to go their school (and it was a layup for them by admitting him) since his brother clearly loved it and had him apply. They got two top students guaranteed and kept it all in the family. I also noticed that Princeton loves our kids High School and is the only Ivy League school to regularly offer the public high school an annual admit. Is it by chance… no chance lol is my belief. They know the too kids do well.Both factors are secrets in helping you to heavily increase your odds and especially if a sibling is attending, and don’t forget to also apply to the same school and mention this fact. Why? Now the school knows you’ll most likely accept if you apply since your brother or sister loves it so much they told you to apply. Getting admits to accept their offer of admissions will in fact improve the schools rankings so this factor tells them they have a great shot at getting you… you are a “layup” for them so use this strategy to obtain tough admits. Call the school and find out about the summer school to. For elite colleges aces high school summer school works or even getting two As at Harvard or UCLA is a major green flag (meaning this kid can handle the heat. But if you aren’t brilliant it could also backfire if you get a C so drop any such class I’d you can. Getting As at any major university especially an Ivy or MIT may not be a slam dunk but it close to a layup for admissions if you have good enough scores to get into the main pile. Think about this logically… applicant A is perfect and is applicant B but applicant B took 2 classes at Harvard summer school and got all As. Who ya gonna call…Ghostbusters. No kid B. And taking classes at any elite college will help you get in (or get a possible scholarship if exceptional in every way) into many more colleges and it’s a game changer but with major risks if you do poorly…the so called double edged sword. But if an incredible student in one area put it off the glass softly for a winning basket.Early Decision (ED). Like any other decision in life, this could be your equivalent of the educational lottery (in a good way. Making an early decision for early decision will substantially increase your odds of acceptance, but nevertheless, it’s a case of buyer beware since it’s almost always binding so only do ED if you love the school and do it early. I would strongly advise someone who would love to get into a top ivy to do this and only pick your first choice (not your best chance because you’ll have to live with-and love your choice). It is highly underutilized by top public schools (and I don’t understand why) but it’s always encouraged at private high schools for a smart reason-demonstrated interest. And if your rejected/deferred, usually (not always) you’ll still get a second chance/look in the regular admit pool so you get a double double (ok and a cheesy comment or too right)? Similarly, I would also suggest taking “Early Action (EA) whenever possible at a larger range of schools as permitted… but -again please do read the fine print listed for any school for both because there are a lot of predetermined outcomes hinging on each and in some cases legal binding enrollment (hint your stuck going here unless you can prove financial aid didn’t meet your full need). Spend a lot of time studying and reading up on both and really understand the nuances. I would call severs of the school admission officers (or email them) for their own details. But please don’t tell anyone at the public schools since so few students these days that I have seen including my own bothered to take advantage of this major admissions advantage. It’s also important to usually apply earlier than their regular deadline as a general suggestion.Timing wise, I believe it’s always much better to try to finish some of your applications (or if a self starter) all of them over the summer. Doesn’t it make sense to be finished when everyone else stresses last minute near December and during school which is a major student stressor. Be relaxed, and grab a Starbucks or Net flix while your friends are stressing out big time. Why would anyone do that to themselves (hint most do) when you can likely give yourself a small boost by trying to be the top candidate to apply and on day one. To me anyways, it does show your interest in their school to put them first or early. A family friend whom I advised this year had a possible shot at Princeton as a top all A diversity student from a school they love offering similar diversity students annually. However he waited until the last moment, got behind and he couldn’t apply. This was a major mistake but a life learning moment.. “Showing up” is the number one key to success. Apply yourself and apply early as another big secret. It will open you up to adding many more schools as friends apply and you say you know what I would love to attend Georgetown so you simply crank out another Georgetown app… Soon enough, you are heading off to Washington DC for one great school because you had the time to apply. Always apply and also apply yourself.Don’t ever stress out over college (the best secret of all), because community college is the best option for many kids and if you ace it, you can often times go anywhere in the country. You’ll save money and sure it’s not like a 4 year college but my son did it and loved it and the kids are exceptional here too.For the right kids, usually hard working ones without a super high GPA or SAT score or even without a ego of feeling they need a four year school, community college is a truly a brilliant way to get into many top colleges (and sometimes with scholarships) with solid grades, but remember you do lose out two years of college life “for better or worse.”My oldest got into electrical engineering this way at UC Santa Cruz with a 3.3 GPA, but he also get rejected from UCLA, UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara and UC Berkeley and that major is brutal for kids (another secret-watch out for that and computer science in college unless you are incredible at these subjects.Most of all, enjoy the process itself, and it ends up correct in most situations. The colleges know what they are doing; sadly most students do not because they don’t know how the game worksI loved the question and good luck to you. In the end, going to college was found recently in a study to pay 85% more than a high school degree so the fact your attending is worth every penny. Best of luck to you