<p>I think “Tufts Syndrome” has become the catch-all phrase for “I’m so qualified, they must have assumed I’d go to a better school.” </p>
<p>People assume top stats (or in that top 25%) and some long list of activities equates to an interesting and well-done application. Not.</p>
<p>Lots of interesting tangents. Sending good wishes to OP and her son, hoping they find a good way to move forward.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A nice way to look at them, poetic. How about other Ivies, poetgrl?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How true. S school of >3,000 freshman has ~90% in top 10% in high school. After 1st year, only ~300 will be in top 10% and ~1500 or 50% will be at the bottom of the class.</p>
<p>davh- too early for me to be doing percentage math problems! I was trying to figure out how 90% of the freshamn class (in high school) could be in the top 10%. I had to re-read your post several times before I “got it”! LOL </p>
<p>PS- this is my math inadequacies, not yours!</p>
<p>
I’d just point out that many students who get accepted “everywhere” got in that position by forming a more realistic assessment of their status in relation to other students, in the first place. They focused their college search on matches and safeties instead of fixating on Ivy League & elite colleges only. So while they have reason to celebrate, there is no reason to assume that they have a distorted sense of their own abilities.</p>
<p>Even those who did apply to reach colleges and get accepted may have been successful precisely because they recognize their own limitations and structured their application process accordingly – for example, by being proactive in addressing weaknesses in their application, or by carefully targeting their applications to specific schools that were a particularly good fit for their interests and talents.</p>
<p>Exactly, calmom.
My oldest did attend Reed, this is true.
However her 2nd choice school & one that she would have been happy to attend was The Evergreen State College, which offered her merit aid. For years she had planned on attending TESC, it was only during her gap year, when she learned about Reed, that she wanted to take a closer look.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I think we’ve come full circle. These kids did it perfectly and everyone who was rejected was flawed. <–Implied sarcasm. Sometimes it’s just the luck of the day and sometimes a kid really stands out. </p>
<p>My only point was that arrogance isn’t a character trait I would encourage. Empathy, compassion? Not such a bad way to go, especially with something as completely fickle as college admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really wouldn’t even venture to go into that. Others might.</p>
<p>I have just always been struck by the uniqueness of Brown, and the uniqueness of Dartmouth, both in their locations and in their general attitudes, probably born out of their locations (particularly in the case of Dartmouth.)</p>
<p>I’ve always thought that most of the Ivies are different from one another, in significant ways, but these two schools, in particular, are also different from all of the other Ivies, as well. The students at all of these schools are unquestionably bright, and will leave well educated. </p>
<p>I just can’t see not having a preference between these two particular places, physically, intellectually, or creatively.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I completely agree with you except we are expecting 17 year old kids to do that; know their weakness and address it successfully. Not being able to do that implies by no means that they are lacking in any substantial way even for tip-top schools. I think that’s why some kids are angry at the rejections.</p>
<p>My sense, honestly, from the past few years of reading threads on this board and on the financial aid board is that the GC’s are woefully unprepared to advise kids, and this is, at times, the unfortunate outcome.</p>
<p>Kids are told, “don’t worry about the money, just shoot for the best school! The money will be there,” and are stuck with great acceptances they can’t afford, or at borrowing levels nobody would consider, as an adult, to be “the money being there.”</p>
<p>But, also, I think very bright kids are advised to apply to so many reaches partially because their GC’s have no real understanding of how this system works, today.</p>
<p>I don’t think it is the “fault” of the 17 year olds, nor do I think the one’s who are better advised by more educated parents and GC’s are more qualified (though some really, really are), I think it is a “system” that has changed significantly with the influx of the echo-boomers and the technology, and even the colleges, themselves, are confused, and using increasingly large waitlists.</p>
<p>whether or not it is a “complete” lottery system, the fact, stated by the schools themselves, is that they could very easily fill another class or more with all of the qualified applicants they turn down, which also explains the size of the waitlists and why Harvard and Princeton went back to SCEA this year. Even they were feeling a need to get more certainty over yield, even at 6% acceptance rates. </p>
<p>Right now, it is quite easy for a kid to end up with a pile of rejections, imho. When the echo-boomers have all gone through school, acceptance rates will rise, again. This is a very big generation.</p>
<p>Brown didn’t originally have this character. The “new curriculum” was a public relations idea that really worked to make Brown competitive with the other ivied. Columbia had dark days too when NYC was a shambles. It’s NYC location and core make it very different too.</p>
<p>actually, that’s very true about Columbia. When I was younger, it was considered to be “very dangerous” there.</p>
<p>Now, I can’t imagine if you wanted to live in NYC and had the opportunity to attend Columbia, you would not. It, too, is quite unique.</p>
<p>Also, Cornell, which I like because it has the Hotel and AG schools, has a really great character, and the setting is spectacular, too.</p>
<p>@post#251 - This isn’t going to get better anytime soon. The population for this age is decreasing but if the uncertainty forces kids to apply one more school, the number of application will increase by 10% on the average dwarfing any decrease in population.</p>
<p>this is probably true, Igloo. </p>
<p>But, the fact remains that this is a very big generation, and the number of highly qualified students for top schools is also significantly large. So, if you propose that the rejection rates are simply a matter of numbers, then I don’t disagree.</p>
<p>However, when there are fewer actually qualified applicants, then these situations where some very top students lack any acceptances won’t happen. Over time, the schools will realize the cross admits are very high and they are going to the wait lists more and more and will act accordingly.</p>
<p>You’d think they are smart enough to know that and already worked that number into yield calculation. They are using actuaries. Interestingly, some schools seem to assume higher yields this year. I am not talking about Harvard or Princeton with their first SCEA this year.</p>
<p>The obvious corollary is that if you define the “best” students as, say, the top 10% of all students (and one can argue that it’s 5%, but the actual number doesn’t matter as much), that the universities where these students go wind up becoming the “best” universities. This so-called problem is only a problem if one thinks that the only worthwhile universities are the top 10 or top 20 in the country, which have limited numbers of seats. I know it’s fashionable on CC to pretend that there are meaningful differences between the Ivy League and, say, Emory, or Georgetown, or Tufts, or whatever, but their student bodies, when looked at at the 10,000-foot level, ARE pretty indistinguishable.</p>
<p>Yeah, I think that’s a valid point, except not really this point, which is that kids are getting rejected from everywhere INCLUDING the universities you listed. So, I’m not sure what you are saying, in this context.</p>
<p>On another thread, I made the comment that kids shouldn’t apply to Ivies unless they have the profile- academically and in terms of activities and accomplishments. Last time I checked (it’s an older thread now), nearly every (adult) poster had replied:
You wont know unless you try; chances are zero unless you try; “Go for it;” if you “want to,” you should try; it’s only $X bucks, why not try- etc. And this one: well, I know (or heard of) another kid who was advised his stats weren’t good enough, but he went ahead and applied anyway and got in, so you should try too.</p>
<p>My comment was about Ivies, but applies to many schools. </p>
<p>Bloats the process. Packs the stadium. The line winds around the block. Or whatever other visuals. When it is a buyer’s market, why is it a surprise that adcoms (Ivy or otherwise) pick the kids they like best and want most, not just the top stats percentage? Have you any idea how same old same old so many apps are? So many NHS, Key Club, did a walkathon, recycled at the hs, did something for the yearbook, member of this club or that, went to some regional competition with MUN or JSA or debate or math team or whatever. </p>
<p>ps. in my day, Penn was dangerous, too, Brown wasn’t far from eyesore neighborhoods, and Cambridge wasn’t a good place for young women to walk later in the evening, either.</p>
<p>It’s difficult for most of us as we live in our own little worlds. If a child is a big fish in a small or medium pond or even a large one, parents, gc’s and kids tend to think they’re Ivy/highly selective material. There were 20 or even 10 years ago. It’s a different world and college market out there now.</p>
<p>Our D knows the odds but it was helpful for her to hear the presenters at Caltech & Stanford say as much. She is the kind of kid who would thrive at these schools, but she’ll also thrive at other universities and colleges as well. </p>
<p>Our task is to find a few safeties that she loves, a couple matches and then she can apply to Caltech & Stanford, with the knowledge that it’s a crap shoot, not a reality.</p>