<p>I too love the fact mom said he’s not that smart and worked very hard !</p>
<p>In this case,it’s true he did not have a gazillion apps. However, each college counts as an app --common app doesn’t just count as one app. I was responding to Kat who said her S applied to 34; that would not be allowed. But after the kid in the article got into Harvard, I don’t think there’s any chance he’d go to the UCs other than Berkeley. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As far as I know, none of the NYC public magnets rank. There is no way a college can ID which are the top 5 kids in the class. The kids themselves don’t know this info. The valedictorian is announced just before graduation–no other info about class rank is given out at the school my offspring attended. I guess the kids could call a class meeting and have everyone announce his/her GPA, but that just doesn’t happen. Oh, you always have a general understanding of about where you stand in the class based on your GPA, but as far as I know, nobody knows whether (s)he is #5 or #12. </p>
<p>Plus, my offspring’s alma mater has a rather strange way of calculating GPA. I doubt any college accepts it at face value. The high school also includes info which makes it very easy for colleges to recalculate a GPA, but the kids don’t do it and there is no way that they could possibly figure out a rank. </p>
<p>The practical impact of this is that colleges can’t draw some huge distinction between a kid with a 95.25 GPA and one with a 95.50 GPA, even though at some high schools there might be 6 people with GPAs between them. It’s a meaningless distinction. </p>
<p>However, in choosing among the kids it accepts, a college might go with the kid with a higher GPA from among those who actually apply. So trying to make sure that kids who aren’t at all likely to enroll do not apply is helpful to those who do. So, if Susie with the 95.25 GPA applies and nobody with a better GPA applies to that LAC, she’s likely to get in. Now, if Susie had a 78.43 GPA she won’t, because colleges now that’s not a good GPA. </p>
<p>At some of the top colleges, the percentage of accepted students who attended a high school that doesn’t rank is about 40%.</p>
<p>Yes, there may be supplements and such unique to each school – but is that common for counselor and teacher recommendations? If not, then the counselor and teacher need only write one for all of the Common Application schools that the student applies to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>After getting the Harvard EA admission, but before seeing any other results from the schools or GMS, there would still be the possibility of:</p>
<ul>
<li>No GMS, so Harvard’s net price would be $4,600 per year (for this discussion, assuming maximum need-based financial aid at all schools).</li>
<li>Admission to Berkeley, but no Regents’ scholarship, giving net price of $8,500 per year.</li>
<li>A non-Berkeley UC offers a Regents’ or other scholarship that gives a net price of $0.</li>
</ul>
<p>Someone who is very cost and debt averse and from a background where $4,600 to $8,500 is more money than he ever dreamed of having might not automatically pick Harvard or Berkeley over the non-Berkeley UC in this situation.</p>
<p>Given his financial situation, it was the prudent thing for him to wait until all results came in before making any decisions.</p>
<p>Ah, the mythical GC who lives in CC’land - well, not mythical for some CC’ers, but definitely so for most people. I would bet that the vast majority of GC’s in the U.S. are not told by colleges that their students were accepted. The vast majority of schools also do not maintain databases or use Naviance. Honest.</p>
<p>There’s an incredible self-importance in thinking that one’s high school is SO VERY IMPORTANT that the adcoms are going to pay attention as to whether the kids in that school are “allowed” to apply to only a limited number of schools. Really? These places have 30,000 applications but they care so very much about your very particular high school’s specific policies? Give me a break.</p>
But the UC application was due before he could have possibly heard from Harvard. (And there is no way his high school counselor would have allowed a kid that strong academically to miss the UC deadline).</p>
<p>As for the UCs–they are easy to explain per this article. I would assume the elite privates absolutely salivated when they say this kid. (Which is not to say he isn’t a great kid who deserves a great education and will go far.) But I think the unintended consequences of the outreach is that California loses some of these kids to other schools. Frankly, that’s probably fine, because I’d bet this kid winds up back in CA to be near Mom.</p>
<p>It’s not like all the smart kids are concentrated at only a few high schools. There are smart kids everywhere, and the best adcoms know how to pick them out of the massive piles of applicants. This is the part of holistic admissions that seems to infuriate people on this site–they think that by “doing everything right”–including living in the best public school districts in their community or sending their kids to the best private schools–that they are improving their chances for their kids. I am not sure that is true.</p>
<p>Also–looking at it from a brand-awareness standpoint–it behooves colleges to extend their reach into schools that have never sent a graduate to their institution. Just as it benefits them to draw more kids from areas that are underrepresented geographically.</p>
<p>There’s no need for a personal attack. I am not claiming that the high school is important. I am saying that the college counselors at the high school say that the POLICY is important. As I assume you know, many high schools prepare profiles which they send to colleges together with transcripts. You apparently assume that the college admissions staff don’t read them. The college counselors here think that they do, and that the POLICY of limiting the # of college applications students can apply to is noted and remembered, especially by the regional college admissions rep, whose job it is to summarize the applicant and/or present his/her application to the committee. </p>
<p>Moreover, I also said that this policy is most important at LACs, where decisions are made by people, not machines and which aren’t dealing with 30,000 apps. Again, the college counselors at my offspring’s old high school say that knowing that the applicant has applied to a limited # of colleges and thus may be more likely to enroll helps gets the kids into the school. </p>
<p>Sally’s second argument supports mine. Yes, I agree that the LACs want to extend their reach to other geographic areas. That’s part of the reason why, no matter how great the applicants are, a LAC is not going to accept 20 kids from the same high school class. That’s why the high school thinks that kids who are not likely to enroll should not apply. It hurts their classmates who really want to go to the LAC. </p>
<p>I have seen that happen. You’ve got 2 students in the same high school class with similar profiles. One has marginally better #s or is a bit better at their shared ECs. At the 4 LACs where their applications overlap, the one with marginally better qualifications gets into all 4 and the other is rejected. At another LAC which is regarded as equally competitive, the first student doesn’t apply and the second student IS accepted. </p>
<p>It’s even worse though when a lot of kids use a particular LAC as a safety and nobody enrolls. After a year or two of this, few, if any, kids from the same high school get in.</p>
<p>From the state’s point of view, it does not matter so much if a few of the good students from low SES backgrounds who are encouraged to go to college go elsewhere. What matters more from the state’s point of view is that good students from low SES backgrounds are able to reach educational attainment that reflects their abilities and motivations, leading to a better educated and more productive workforce, boosting the state economy and increasing tax revenue to the state, rather than being limited to lesser educational attainment, economic productivity, and tax revenue contribution. Note that increasing the educational attainment of the state population is really the main reason that there are state universities in the first place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The student in this story did not apply to any LACs or other schools the size of typical LACs as seen by people on these forums.</p>
<p>How many apps are NY high school kids limited to? If its something like 10, that wouldn’t seem to provide much of a signal to targeted colleges about likeliness of attending. </p>
<p>Our public hs tried to limit apps to 10, and there was an uproar. The written policy says 10 but it is not enforced. How would a hs enforce it, anyway? Just stop sending recs after the 10th one? Seems silly when filing is electronic nowadays. Even when it wasn’t, our kids had to buy, address and stamp all the envelopes anyway. </p>
<p>I’m surprised that the residents of NY would allow their public schools to do this. I agree with those who say it is overreaching and none of their business.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s appropriate for the schools to mandate a maximum number of colleges kids can apply to, but I do understand the stress placed on resource-strapped guidance offices in public schools like ours. Someone still has to send out all the physical transcripts and recommendations that are not going electronically.</p>
<p>Our HS would not dare limit applications are ask them to pull others once accepted. They are proudest of those students with multiple Ivy League acceptances. Besides it seems very short sighted that a few kids pulling apps from one High school will positively affect all other kids from that same school.</p>
<p>The California public universities evidently make it easy to apply to lots of them without piling the workload onto the high schools:</p>
<ul>
<li>One application for any number of UCs, one application for any number of CSUs. (But fee for each.)</li>
<li>No counselor or teacher recommendations.</li>
<li>No transcripts sent at application. (Students self-report courses and grades; these are verified by final transcripts after high school graduation for those who matriculate – hmmm, do any other colleges use a similar “trust but verify” method to cut down on transcript paperwork?)</li>
</ul>
<p>So a student can apply to the 32 California public universities without adding piles of work to the high school counselors and teachers.</p>
<p>Now, if workload on the high school counselors and teachers were an issue, it may be reasonable to limit the number of unique recommendations that they will provide for any given student (schools sharing a common recommendation form count as one).</p>
<p>I don’t see why this young man would have any obligation to pull his other apps after getting into Harvard SCEA. Others have already mentioned the ability to compare FA and the timing of the Gates, etc. But even so, perhaps Harvard wasn’t his first choice or he was unsure and wanted to be able to weigh his options when all his cards were on the table. A student may want to visit colleges. Six months later, their criteria may change. This is not ED. The chance to weigh options on such a big decision is part of college admissons and I don’t see this as hoarding or trophy collecting in this example at all.</p>
At my school, that would be the student’s responsibility. The school will seal official documents and then give them to the student to address and mail (postage not included).</p>
<p>I just read this article. Nothing against this kid. It’s great what he did. But the mother can’t work because of her depression and is on public assistance. But she was able to drive her kid to school 40 miles each way and wait around for him and drive him back. It seems to me that if she was able to do that she could be able to do something like, oh I don’t know…work! </p>
<p>This kid had something many low income kids don’t have and that is an involved parent. Even if they were disabled because of a mental illness.</p>
<p>While it might be true that mom could have worked part time, rather than taking her kid to school, does it mean she should have? Depression is a terrible disease, and in severe cases it can make it almost impossible for someone to parent well. If this woman could manage 10 or 15 hours a week of productive activity, and she used it to raise her children so that they broke the cycle of poverty and went on to contribute important things, isn’t that better than having her at a minimum wage, and her kids continuing in her footsteps?</p>
<p>I think he will contribute to the “good taxpayers of California” simply by limiting the welfare cycle in his family to one generation. This is the goal of welfare IMO.</p>
!</p>