<p>@ Sybbie: You might be right - but either way, internationals only comprise 10% of the entering class at Ivies, and Canadian citizens make up a small fraction of that 10%, so I think the odds were clearly stacked against me in the first place.</p>
<p>I’ve been looking into another exciting new option very recently, so I’m still not 100% sure I’m going to McGill yet.</p>
<p>Again, back to anecdotal experience from D’s peers this year . . . the boy who applied to all tippy top and you “knew” he would get in based on stats, personality, ec’s etc did get in. The girl who you “knew” would get in and applied SCEA to Harvard did and decided to stand pat and not apply to others. The kid who got in to Cornell also got in to Princeton, etc. There weren’t great surprises. When I say “knew” I’m meaning that based on everything that I know about the kid’s academics, music, personality, sports, likelihood of having stellar recs, outside lab research, go-gettiness and overall like-ability, etc. If you had to pick 2 kids from the whole school to put your money on for admission these would be the ones and they were admitted. Nobody that she knows was admitted to Stanford (except maybe kid #1, but no mere highly achieving mortals). Kids in district known to have been admitted to Stanford were athletes or little sister of prominent athlete.<br>
My point is - if you take every school and grab just the one or 2 kids (not necessarily val or sal) but total package great kids who you would expect to be admitted that is already more than they can admit. I am not talking about “packaged” kids but kids who are just naturally that way - kids who one can just objectively say “these are the people who make the world go round”. My kids is great, has really tip top academics and strong but not quite tip top test scores and has some really unique ECs but she not the kid who you would pick if you had to pick one from her school. She had a realistic shot at Stanford, but it wasn’t a surprise that she didn’t get in. I think that a lot of kids like my D and their parents who see their kids as super special are not seeing the bigger picture on the numbers and the chances.</p>
<p>There should be no “selection process” or hierarchy of colleges. We have wrecked this process. College, in the purest sense of the word, “post” H.S. education, is for anybody!</p>
<p>Whether you take a year off (or 10), start at a community college, accomplish your BA part time while working, go to a state school, private LAC, state flagship, public Ivy, near Ivy or actual Ivy. College education is accessible to practically everyone who resolves themselves to ‘giterdone!’</p>
<p>That we, as a society, have now, or are trying now, to wreck this by labeling one means a better path to success, happiness, adulthood, than the other? that somehow pretends that “privilege” should be a factor in choice? is repugnant.</p>
<p>Man plans, God laughs.</p>
<p>With regard to the comments by Ben Jones, at MIT (posted by sybbie, #158): Ben no longer works in admissions at MIT. He was hired by Marilee Jones (no relation), when she was the Director of Admissions there. In that era, I formed the impression that MIT Admissions tended to dislike the 2400/4.0 UW group, to a certain extent. It appeared to me that those students actually had to clear a higher hurdle of likability, in order to be admitted.</p>
<p>On the surface, Ben’s statement (in my opinion) misrepresents MIT admissions as it actually operated in that era. To say that the rejected students “knew how to grind, but brought nothing else to the table” could mislead a top-stats student who is genuinely passionate about engineering or science about his/her admissions odds. There was a certain amount of stereotyping (“grinds,” “robots”) that was evident in the MIT admissions blogs and other posts by Ben Jones (primarily), but also by a few others in the Marilee Jones era. In the worst case, Mikalye, who apparently still interviews for MIT, declared that some of the applicants he interviewed were “only barely human.” Meanwhile, MIT was admitting a few students with weaker academic qualifications, who were top-notch rutabaga-growers (my preferred EC), unicyclists, and rodeo clowns (ok, I have somewhat of a weakness for rodeo clowns, myself).</p>
<p>The MIT admissions philosophy has shifted somewhat under Stu Schmill, although not as far as I might hope. These days on the MIT forum, I see fewer rejection posts by the super-smart-but-still-actually-quite-nice crowd (although there are still some), and a trend in the direction of posts that actually reaffirm the decision by MIT.</p>
<p>(Incidentally, QMP had no interest in MIT.)</p>
<p>Finally, I would like to concur in part with mini’s post #64. I agree that a few of the applicants have been tossed out “for cause.” However, I don’t think that a student who is rejected necessarily had any glaring weakness. I think it’s likely more the case that “they just weren’t that into you.” The part of post #64 that I think is spot-on is the advice that wait-listed applicants should try to figure out what new elements could be added to the case for admissions, and provide them.</p>
<p>By the way, if Mikalye at MIT has retracted or ever does retract or apologize for the “only vaguely human” remark, and I have missed it, please let me know. Until then, I am likely to keep bringing it up every so often.</p>
<p>(Can’t remember the precise wording–barely or vaguely–but it’s out there on the MIT forum, from a few years back.)</p>
<p>I am dealing with a friend whose child applied to all ridiculous reaches except for the local state U where he took one or two classes while in high school. The list: Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, Stanford, and the University of Cinncinnati.</p>
<p>She couldn’t see past their own small pond where her son was the big fish to realize that just about every high school has its valedictorian/salutatorian, first chair violin of the high school orchestra, co-editor of the literary magazine.</p>
<p>Her son is a wonderful young man, with good grades, obviously, and scores~2200.</p>
<p>Definitely qualified to be at an Ivy. He certainly could do the work if admitted.</p>
<p>My friend just doesn’t understand that every high school in the country has its superstars and that there are an awful lot of high schools. She doesn’t understand that, as wonderful as her son is, he isn’t different in any substantial way from all of the other high school superstars. And that a huge portion of all of them are applying to the same schools…and that those schools are accepting only 5 to 10 out of every 100 applications. She doesn’t grasp the concept that 90-95 of each hundred applications are being denied. And she refuses to understand that virtually all of each 100 applicants are
is as qualified or even more so than her son, that in the vast sea of applicants, he doesn’t stand out as a superstar, but is one of many indistinguishable applicants in a teeming swarm of applicants. That all the kids applying to these schools have stellar grades and scores.</p>
<p>What is so sad is that he IS a great kid and could do well at any Ivy, had he been so lucky as to get in…in the great Ivy lottery, he had the same small chance of getting in as a lot of applicants who were admitted despite not being a superstar, it’s just that there are so very few of them…but that he could have gotten in to so many fabulous schools just half a rung or a rung below, where he would also have the benefit of going to school with a lot of superstars like himself. But he didn’t apply to any.</p>
<p>She is just so angry…and he is bewildered. And they are upset that “lesser” students than he are going to great schools like Northwestern, Rice, Emory, Grinnell, American, CaseWestern, etc…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I expect that he did get into Cincinnati, yes?</p>
<p>Part of the problem is that parents underestimate the competition.</p>
<p>My own DS would have you convinced he’s a do-nothing slacker. He won’t be the class valedictorian so no one will know his UW average hovers around 3.8.</p>
<p>He doesn’t do any varsity sports so he’s not known as an athlete. What few people know is that he’s highly accomplished at a sport not offered at his school.</p>
<p>When asked recently whether he does a lot of community service his response was “Not really” (He has in the neighborhood of 600-700 hours, the vast majority at a place at which he’s been working since 7th grade). His own advisor recently asked him how he was going to fulfill his school’s 40 hour CS requirement.</p>
<p>No one outside the family knows about the national honor he’s earned. He agreed to show up for the award ceremony only if we don’t make him do an interview with the local paper.</p>
<p>We think he’s terribly special but we know there are scads of parents out there whose kids have equally wonderful hidden talents. We are sure DS will have some great college choices but we are under no illusion that Ivies will necessarily be among them.</p>
<p>Your unassuming son sounds like a nice fellow, Sue22.</p>
<p>I continue to be perplexed by people’s angry reactions to disappointing admission results. With whom are people angry? With the adcoms? What did they do? So the adcoms at the Ivies and other top schools put a lot of kids on the discard pile. Did they owe those kids something different? Of course, they didn’t. If anyone should be angry or feel hard done by, it’s the adcoms at all the terrific schools that are considered also-rans. Heck, you don’t even have to have access to the Internet to know there are many options outside the top 10 or even the top 100 of any type of school you want to name. Anyone who flipped through the pages of a reputable college guidebook could see that. I get that people are surprised by the competition to get into top schools but they really ought not to be. Again, even if people made a minimum investment of $20 or so for one of these guidebooks, they’d get a pretty good sense, provided the guidebook is current. The bottom line is that you need to be realistic about how your kid compares to admitted students at a given school, be creative in your list-making and be willing to investigate schools other than the household names.</p>
<p>As long as you are looking for a college that is that right academic fit plus other important qualities that are desirable to him, he will have success. Don’t be afraid of the process, there are some wonderful success stories and you shouldn’t be discouraged from letting him apply to the Ivies as long as you have depth in the range of schools. There is a tremendous amount of competition and rejection can be a likely outcome. Your son sounds like an incredibly passionate individual. A college likes to see that quality as opposed to having many activities to impress an AO. One interesting thing to note about extensive hours in an EC is that it shows authentic interest.</p>
<p>This is not sour grapes. Both my kids a happy result many moons ago. However, the are some situations in which the result is irrational and students are not rewarded by what any parent (or even objective outside observer) would expect. It happens that results can not always be explained, even by the most realistic observer. I think it’s understandable that in those cases parents are angry.</p>
<p>I think the anger is really a feeling of helplessness that they couldn’t help their kids get what the kid (or sadly in some cases, they themselves) really wanted.</p>
<p>Of course, the anger is not productive, and a resilient personality says, “back to the drawing board” and comes up with a good solution. Not everyone is equally resilient.</p>
<p>All very true. I think that for many of these kids it could be the first time they have faced rejection. It hurts deeply, but rejection does have some value. As you say, it does teach them to be resilient.</p>
<p>Consider this: a very large proportion of the students attending the schools “a half a step down” (and often a whole step down - look at the honors colleges at the better state u’s) are as good as those at the schools with the ridiculous admit rates. And they may actually, in many cases, get better educations.</p>
<p>We’re very lucky in PA that for many, like my kids, Penn State and Pitt make great academic safeties for students with the kind of credentials listed by OP and further down the thread. They are also both rolling admissions, and having secured a decision early on, permitted my kids to apply primarily to reaches, but not worry about rejections, which they got a lot more than their peers who had more match schools.</p>
<p>Mini’s comment about honors college is very accurate for Penn State - we had students turn down Ivies with little/no aid and went to Schreyers and came out as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this is exactly why there are a zillion applications… and then somewhere along the line the parents, the kids, etc, start believing their own press and think, “Well, why NOT me?” And then the heart goes where the head really shouldn’t, or their once very smart list becomes dwarfed by the plate. </p>
<p>Honestly, I think we all give some of these POPULAR schools a lot more credit than they perhaps deserve, especially quite frankly, at the undergraduate level. And that’s just it. There’s lots of good schools, but it becomes about the popular choice, where selection is lower but only really because that many more kids apply. It’s not that the education is necessarily that much better, it’s that being popular makes something more selective. Everyone wants to be among the popular.</p>
<p>No one including me should discourage anyone from applying to any college. That being said, they need to be realistic and not disappointed with rejection.</p>
<p>
boysx3, that is such a sad story. Do they see the irony that her son could probably have gone to a great school like NWU, Rice Emory, et al IF HE HAD APPLIED TO ONE OF THEM?</p>
<p>I think people read guidebooks, I just don’t think they understand them. If the guidebook says that the middle 50% of students have a 1950 - 2250 SAT, then they think if they have an SAT in that range they’ll probably be admitted, even if the guidebook says the admit rate is 13%. Here’s what the guidebook MISSES: It does NOT say what the average APPLICANT’S stats were. I suspect people looking thru those books assume that most of the 87% of kids who were declined had stats below the mid-range. After all, if you’ve got a 2000+ on the SAT, you’re looking at a College Board report that puts you in the ninety-somethingth percentile. People don’t stop and think that there are 37,000 high schools and over 3 million high school graduates every year, and being in the ninety-somethingth percentile means there tens of thousands of kids with scores just as good as yours. After all those years of being the big fish, they don’t have a realistic view of the national and international competition they face.</p>
<p>So here’s my solution: not only should the colleges report the average stats of admitted students and the average stats of enrolled students - they should report the average stats of ALL students who COMPLETED an application.</p>
<p>THEN parents and students could see that simply having scores and GPAs in the mid-50 range isn’t nearly enough to assure you of entrance to Fabulous University. THEN maybe people would understand the necessity of safeties, and what a real match is.</p>
<p>I think where many families fall down is in applying only or at least primarily to schools with admit rates under 15 percent. These schools are a long shot for everyone. I think it’s great to apply to a couple of long shots as long as one also applies to some match schools and a few well-researched likely schools.</p>
<p>I was happy when the list from DS’s college counselor came back with a few schools I’d never heard of. They turned out to be solid schools with serious academics and good kids. They just weren’t the schools whose names were going to blow Uncle Eddie’s socks off at Thanksgiving. DS has gotten an early look at a bunch of the schools on his list and thankfully he’s been as tough on the uber-selective schools as he has on the lesser-known schools. Right now his first choice is not the most selective school on his list.</p>
<p>Lafalum’s post is why I like Naviance-- because you can gauge your chances so much better than in a guidebook.</p>
<p>After going through the college admissions cycle with several kids, my applicant this year was a musician. It makes the ‘regular’ process look easy (not that it is but the audition thing and the very small number of students schools need on each instrument adds a lot of uncertainty to the process). The information is there; it’s just not encouraging. The best advice is to build from the bottom up and manage expectations.</p>
<p>Student here. I don’t know if it is welcome or not, but I’d like to put my two cents in.</p>
<p>I applied to 17 colleges (I know, a lot), and got into 7. I got rejected by all the Ivies I applied to except 1, where I was waitlisted. I got waitlisted by 3 matches that based on whatever measure you wanted to use, I “should” have probably gotten into at least one. </p>
<p>I have 2 choices. 2 wonderful, exciting choices, that while they are not as prestigious as other expected my choices to be, make me very happy. </p>
<p>Every relative, friend, acquaintance, mom from my sister’s Sunday school has tried to ask about the colleges which they were told/guessed/assumed I applied to. My mom feels the need to defend the colleges I’m considering because they’re not what people expect.</p>
<p>College admissions is crazy. It is atrocious.
But right now, as graduating HS seniors, there is nothing we can do about that. Yes, in the future, but not right now. I’ve seen everything - people delighted with a top choice school, people angry because they didn’t get into top choice schools, people who went to crazy lengths to get into that top school, people who got in because of a hook, people who are devastated by rejections or waitlists, people who have plenty of choices, and a thousand other ways of reacting. </p>
<p>Still, you can’t change the past. Right now you have a ticket to some kind of future. Maybe not what you were expecting, but you have one. And the only thing you can really do is to see the good in the situation and make the best of it.</p>
<p>It’s fine to discuss what happened. But its not helpful to obsess - it doesn’t matter right now why you didn’t get into those colleges, and unless you’ve been waitlisted and a miracle occurs, you’re not going to change anything. </p>
<p>If you can let go of what might have been, it can be surprisingly easy to be happy with what can happen now.</p>
<p>Also, people outside of the college/college admission world don’t generally know how tough and competitive it is, or how good a program is, or the ten thousand other details that are important when applying to and being accepted by a college.</p>