<p>My kiddo, like many, received TONS of mail from WUSTL. All stated that she was just the type of student they were looking for. The kid quipped that she was going to apply (she didn’t have an ice cubes chance in hell of getting accepted) and was going to include a cover letter saying she agreed with their mailings. I would have paid to for THAT application.</p>
<p>And sometimes folks are incredibly unlucky, and then they get to mourn. And sometimes they’re lucky and get awesome results beyond explanation. Not everything is rational, and that’s a lesson too. I have experienced inexplicable negative and positive results in my life and my kids’ lives too.</p>
<p>Most 17 year olds are more or less broke, if we don’t count babysitting money. In many cases, parents may be middle class - not able to afford Harvard, but not needy enough for much financial aid.</p>
<p>My daughter has worked her tail off since Kindergarten and applied to 13 schools. She was waitlisted or denied at almost ever school; Occidental, all the Claremonts, Boston College, Swarthmore…good thing she applied to the UC’s, she was accepted there. She’s an excellent student, with an SAT of 2300, 11 AP classes, Girl Scouts for 12 years, swims, National merit Scholar, S&D, theater, Academic Decathlon, etc. What the heck are these schools looking for kids who have already discovered the cure for cancer. And for all of those that think that being a first generation Latina is an automatic in…You’re wrong.</p>
<p>Serious!?! </p>
<p>When did Occidental get so hard to get into? Yikes! And for a first gen Latina? Wow!</p>
<p>If she was WL for Oxy, that’s probably because they thought they were being used as a safety. </p>
<p>As for the rest, I think being from Calif, that hurts…too many smart kids from that state. If she were from Nevada or Idaho, she probably would have been snapped up. </p>
<p>Glad that she has her UCs…is she happy with those?</p>
<p>"When did Occidental get so hard to get into? Yikes! And for a first gen Latina? Wow!’</p>
<p>They just figured out they had a student who became president. It only took them three admission cycles.</p>
<p>Again - numbers. Thousands of high school kids are “working their tails off”. There is no space on the common app for how many hours sleep do you get per night with a low number being optimum. Kids are working really hard, harder than we ever worked in high school. They seem way better prepared, and yet are having less success in admissions . . . numbers. More kids better prepared and better informed with the same number of slots = harder to gain acceptance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you prefer kids without tails (worked them off in high school) or kids that are just warmed up and ready to work hard in college?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What if the kids just did everything themselves and showed their parents nothing, obviously not mature and didn’t take their future seriously? Do you prefer well-prepared (by whoever) and fully-mature kids? I thought colleges were where one to grow up and work his/her tail off.</p>
<p>Do colleges compare admission note on a student and what the student turns out 10-30 years later? They must have the data.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with mom2, I don’t get this. Essays? I suspect high achieving Latina women in CA are not unusual but what else can be expected?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Post of the Day!</p>
<p>Notwithstanding texaspg’s clever comment, my suspicion is that the explanation for itsacrapshoot’s D’s shocking result at Occidental is more prosaic. To wit: It’s probably not true. </p>
<p>Swimming, academic decathlon and Girl Scouts! No one appreciates her gifts! And she does it all without a tail!</p>
<p>Now let’s see if itsacrapshoot comes back with his or her third CC post all righteous indignation at my implication that he or she is a ■■■■■.</p>
<p>Again - numbers. Thousands of high school kids are “working their tails off”. There is no space on the common app for how many hours sleep do you get per night with a low number being optimum. Kids are working really hard, harder than we ever worked in high school. T</p>
<p>That’s just it. At any school, there is a group of high-achievers. Tthe number probably relates to school size. </p>
<p>At my kids’ small private, there were probably 5-10 super achievers and 25 very strong students every year. At a large public, there may be 25-50 kids who also work “really hard” (these kids can typically be found in all the AP classes). At a school like that Virginia TJ school, the whole student body works its tail off…they’re all sitting on those donut rings for comfort. </p>
<p>When you start multiplying by how many high schools are out there in the US, you’re talking a very large number of kids working their tails off. After all, the AP classes are full and who’s in them? Kids who work their tails off. </p>
<p>all one has to do is look at the data as to how many kids take AP exams. Those are the tail-less wonders applying to the top schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, that’s similar to my kid’s large public. </p>
<p>I suspect abs is right about the probably false post. I’m usually so gullible about such.</p>
<p>LAC’s are most concerned with fit. Occidental may have felt this young woman too much of a powerhouse for their program. Notice that Obama did transfer.</p>
<p>We had strange results with LAC’s. My son was accepted at some very high ranking LAC’s and then rejected at a much lower ranked LAC after an interview. I think they felt he would not fit in with their student body.</p>
<p>The process left us with the idea that unless we’re talking about state schools with clearly marked parameters, there are no safeties. Results were all over the map, and he tended to do better in the more competitive schools than the less.</p>
<p>He had a happy result, but if I had to repeat the process I would find a true safety in a public (or several) and throw one or two more in, but I would have encouraged him to apply to more high match and reaches, where it turned out he had more success.</p>
<p>He also had more success with LAC’s than uni’s, but I think was was just him. He’s a well-rounded (in terms of activities) kind of introvert that appealed to the LAC’s more than the uni’s, though he did have at least one very gratifying uni acceptance. True to his nature, he didn’t really consider it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because there aren’t enough spots. What was so hard about that question?</p>
<p>And why do people think there are fewer than a dozen top schools?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is where I have seen the oddest admission results. One peculiar one that comes mind is Pitzer College. Not a tippy top LAC, but rejects plenty of very well qualified kids in favor of fit. I am still puzzled by the the case of the extremely high stats kid who applied ED to show the requisite love/avoid Tuft’s Syndrome and was outright rejected in the ED round and the solid stats legacy URM kid with all the right ecs that ended up waitlisted.</p>
<p>A rejection by a safety can’t always be chalked upto Tufts syndrome.</p>
<p>There is a tendency among the kids to blow off paperwork for colleges they believe are not worthy of them. It will come across the way the essays are written, or questions answered because the student feels a safety/match is not worth too much effort while they are spending all their time on paperwork for the reaches. Yes, it can be that blow off answer to one question that can get you rejected.</p>
<p>Blow off paperwork! Thank you. People are so fixated on stats and hooks that they forget there is a long CA and any supplements- and they somehow think adcoms don’t read these. The only way a team of adcoms can know you is through your application package. They don’t just jump to the transcript page and look for scores.</p>
<p>Sad thing: kids do this for their top choices, too.</p>
<p>When I looked at D’s applications, I could sense the differance between the schools she really loved, and the ones that she liked. I thought it was because I reviewed it all at once, but perhaps not. And an experienced Adcom could likely spot it all.<br>
D got the results she wanted/worked for, we are so grateful for the opportunities, but we were suprized by a WL at Scripps…I think it was the paperwork. I just don’t think she convinced them this was a college she really, really wanted to attend. And in the end, they were right.</p>
<p>My son definitely did not throw off paper work. And he was on the campus, showed demonstrable interest, took a tour and had an interview.</p>
<p>His buddy, who only applied because S brought him an application, did not ever step foot on the campus, had lower stats and less EC’s was accepted and happy as clam to attend.</p>
<p>I do think LAC’s consider fit carefully.</p>
<p>For S this was a safety; for his friend this was a match.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t you rather be the chosen prom date than the last resort?</p>
<p>I had spoken to many people whose kids did better at matches and low reaches than at their designated safeties. High reaches are another matter, but even there S was wait listed, whereas he was out and out rejected at the LAC I’m reviewing.</p>
<p>I have no sour grapes because he was accepted at and attended his absolute number one dream school.</p>
<p>I’m am just reporting this phenomenon if my report can help others. I would do the application process differently with what I know now. However, since our result was a happy one, it really doesn’t matter, and it’s the past anyway.</p>