College suggestions for my lovely slacker daughter

Parents Forum
41

<p>California is NOT good for diversity points at the large urban, Northeast schools-- other western states may be, but the Boston/NY/DC schools get MANY from California -- generally Calif. is the largest contingent at their schools outside of the states in the immediate geographical area. I think at Barnard, for example, around 10% come from Calif.</p>

<p>I do think that admission standards as far as test scores are more lenient for California, but I think that's a product of the test-obsession madness that prevails in some east coast states-- so I think that's more of a matter of the ad coms simply knowing they can't expect to see the same sort of test scores out of Calif. public schools. So Kluge-daughter's 34 on the ACT may be seen as particularly spectacular in that light -- but it's more of a "wow this kid must be really smart" reaction than a "we need more from California" process.</p>

42

<p>I also lovingly called my DS a "slacker", because, frankly, compared to these intense, driven, focused, EC-maniac types on CC, he is! So I think Kluge might have been describing his DD in a similar way. Obviously she is bright and knows how to apply herself. How about Macalester college in Minnesota? Urban area, lovely school, lots of attention, good for premed, and good food. We really liked the school, and although it's fairly small, the urban area expands it significantly.</p>

43

<p>I would also point out that "slacker" kids in HS often find out what they are good at in college--and their social skiills may serve them very well. For instance, joining a sorority/fraternity and discovering they are good at being treasurer, secretary, organizing fundraisers, shepherding the pledge class--all these are skills which will carry over into business or other careers.</p>

44

<p>I know a great guy from San Fran at Colby..with similar stats but his test scores weren't as good. Colby is a fantastic learning environment, but I get the idea you should enjoy snow sports to max out the fun..outdoorsy kids.
Californians are desirable on the East Coast. But if you are looking to have part of her college paid for, I would stay in Calif unless you want to try for her to be top student in a less competitive environment. I wonder if you could comment more on the political/cultural landscape at a college that might work best for her. She might get into Wm and Mary in my opinion, if she showed interest. They used to offer "optional" senior student adcom evaluative interviews for instance. She might get into Chapel Hill, even with that GPR due to her ACT.</p>

45

<p>A few years ago, Barnard and NYU would have looked perfect. I knew several kids with profiles like your daughter's (including a boy voted "Class Bimbo" at his school) at each. I agree, though, that they have gotten more competitive recently. Barnard, especially, is hard to pin down. In my daughter's cohort, there was a clear "Tufts" effect -- very strong students who applied to both Barnard and Columbia were waitlisted at Barnard, while weaker students for whom Barnard looked like a reach were accepted. This year, a close friend of my son's was accepted at Barnard with what probably looked like a slacker profile: highish SATs, and a wide range of grades depending on whether she liked the course. But she is a deeply intellectual kid, and that would have come out in the first 20 seconds of any contact with her. (She is, perhaps, the flip side of kluge's daughter's problem -- a very pretty girl who refuses to wear a dress or to brush her hair for fear someone will treat her that way.)</p>

<p>One advantage of NYU, BU, and the Washington schools is that they are pretty big and accept a lot of people, so it is easier to get a handle on what they are looking for.</p>

<p>One school no one has suggested so far is Drexel: Urban campus adjacent to Penn and Center City Philadelphia, tech-oriented with lots of pre-meds, a regional school with national ambitions, and the destination of a lot of my kids' science-oriented classmates who are smart and ambitious but who didn't get into Penn. (For whatever reasons, many fewer of this group chooses Penn State than one would expect.) Philadelphia has plenty going on for a city-loving student, and trips to NYC are easy, fast (< 2 hours on public transportation) and pretty cheap.</p>

<p>Another non-reach possibility on the LAC side is Goucher, just outside of Baltimore.</p>

46

<p>I find myself thinking Reed might fit your daughter... why? because it seems like she's more interested in learning than in grades. Of course you didn't mention the rest of the west coast, but there it is.</p>

47

<p>You/she could add a couple of nerd schools - like UChicago and JHU - to the list. These schools tend to be demanding and attract a hard working group of students. Both also tend to put a lot of weight into essays so that might help offset a marginal gpa.</p>

48

<p>I'm not sure about JHU. A close friend of my d is pre-med there.She was an extraordinarily focused student in high school(7 ap classes senior year). She was also possessed of the sunniest personality in her class. She told our d JHU is grueling and not fun at all. </p>

<p>This kid came from a demanding prep school where she was used to hard work and excelling.</p>

49

<p>
[quote]
Note to Xiggi, re post #32: Barnard takes about 25% of applicants; Emory takes 36% - SAT range at Emory is about the same as Barnard, but GPAs range is skewed somewhat lower; Bryn Mawr takes 44%, SAT range about the same for CR, somewhat lower for math; Sarah Lawrence takes 46%, but refused to consider standardized test scores, so the 34 ACT is a wash there. With my son I figured a 35% admit rate was the break between reach/match if his test scores were on the high end for the school -- so yes, Barnard would be a reach, Emory a match/reach in this case, with Bryn Mawr & SLC probably match/safety level.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Calmom, the reason I never play the game of WAMC is that it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to handicap one's chances with a modicum of accuracy. Fwiw, I nodded at Momrath's post where she agreed with posters who have divergent opinions. This is not unusual because there are so many intangibles in an individual application. By the time Kluge'd D finishes her applications, she probably will have a range of schools and --hopefully-- different "presentations" that are tailored to schools ranging from small private schools to the largest state schools. At some schools, the GPA and ACT scores will be the guides, at others the essays and teachers' recs will be more important. </p>

<p>As far as analyzing the admissions' statistics, I know that YOU know that the acceptance rates do not tell the entire story. After all, I doubt you'll consider Lane College or Tougaloo College more selective than Barmard, yet their reported admit rates are lower. Further, were we arguing about the selectivity of Chicago versus a number of selective schools, wouldn't you not introduce the mitigating factor of self-selecting that is supposed to have a negative impact on the selectivity of Chicago? </p>

<p>The example of Chicago illustrates that the mere application/admission ratio is subject to factors that influence the number of applications, including many frivolous ones. Schools with poor geography and access fare a lot worse than schools located in a city like New York. For the record, I also believe that schools that are viewed as providing a backdoor entry to a much more prestigious sister school benefit tremendously in the ... game of statistics. We could debate the parallels and differences between the fate of The "Harvard Annex" aka Radcliffe and Columbia's affiliated Barnard ... for a very long time and end up none the wiser. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But all that is beside the point -from Kluge's description, Emory might be a good fit for his d's personality & interests -- I think his kid would be absolutely miserable at SLC, probably unhappy at Bryn Mawr, and based on his description, I don't think she would be happy socially at Barnard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree completely with your second statement, as all that is beside the point. :)</p>

50

<p>"the Boston/NY/DC schools get MANY from California -- generally Calif. is the largest contingent at their schools outside of the states in the immediate geographical area."</p>

<p>Yes -- but the immediate area generally supplies TONS of applicants. California provides a <em>relatively</em> small contingent of applicants.</p>

<p>As I see it, the most defining desire in a college is its size and an urban environment. This rules out all of the women's colleges except for Barnard -- and then only because it is so closely related to Columbia.</p>

51

<p>Oops! I posted by accident . . .</p>

<p>Anyway, Smith is the largest all-women colleges at around 2600 students. </p>

<p>Calmom is right about the bang for the buck with the UC system, but if the OP's D wants out of the state (as she may by the middle of senior year), then there are other options, such as BU, NE, American U, and any of the state flagship universities. </p>

<p>I do have to question the choice of a large university for a "slacker." The smaller, more intimate schools ensure (as much as any school can) that students aren't lost along the way. Smaller class size encourages attendance. If I were the OP, I would make sure that my D visited some of the smaller colleges in quasi-urban areas so that she understood what that kind of school was really like.</p>

52

<p>Cornfed, the OP's daughter is interested in premed. Med school and residency requirements are for those who handle and thrive on "grueling."</p>

53

<p>Okay. How about Rice? I know it's a reach, but they actually admit a range of students with a range of GPA's and scores; I've seen some surprising admits on the boards. Also, Rice is looking to expand the school size and increase out-of-state enrollment while freezing instate enrollment, so out-of-state students definitely have an edge. And I still think Macalester is worth a look-see for Klugesdaughter, as it is more of a match in terms of admittance.</p>

54

<p>As a UC grad, I certainly second the opinion that a UC education can be top-notch and a good value. </p>

<p>However, financially, the difference between a UC and a northeastern private may be smaller than many of you assume. We pay about $7/year more for Northeastern Univ. than my niece, a California resident, pays for UCBerkeley. Fact is, privates give grants & financial aid the publics can't match.</p>

55

<p>"Fact is, privates give grants & financial aid the publics can't match."</p>

<p>This is very true. I know someone who turned down Penn State for a much more lucrative deal at a private--which also happened to be higher ranked.</p>

<p>However, if a family is in an income bracket that precludes need-based aid, or if the student isn't at the top of a school's stats to get merit aid, an in-state public is usually a financial deal-sealer.</p>

56

<p>"..the reason I never play the game of WAMC is that it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to handicap one's chances with a modicum of accuracy."</p>

<p>It does seem that way. I don't play that game much either.</p>

<p>"..benefit tremendously in the ... game of statistics."
If so then it would only make it actually more difficult to be admitted there, right? Assuming we can analyze application motives.. I'm no better at this than WAMC though. Whether or not that comment is even relevant here.</p>

<p>"...very strong students who applied to both Barnard and Columbia were waitlisted at Barnard, while weaker students for whom Barnard looked like a reach were accepted."</p>

<p>We had something like this personally in our own family, though nobody wanted or applied to Columbia. D1, a National Merit Scholar, National AP Scholar, etc, was waitlisted at Barnard. D2, with still excellent yet a bit lesser stats, was admitted. So I can't dismiss this possibility.</p>

<p>However, in our case there are some potentialy confounding circumstances:
- D2, learning from D1's situation, applied ED.
-D2 is actually a better fit for Barnard, based on her academic interests
-D2 has different extra-curriculars, which the college may have evaluated higher.
-All teachers love D2. Teachers who D1 likes like D1, but this can be a more select group. Who knows what the school and teacher rec letters said?</p>

<p>So was Tufts Syndrome really at work here, or was D2 in actuality the better candidate when all circumstances, particularly fit, were evaluated?</p>

<p>In our case, at the end of the day I really can't say.</p>

<p>It does seem to me though that expression of appropriateness of fit is a consideration of most LACs. At least the ones that my kids applied to. Increasing yield is one explanation. Others are : increasing retention; and rationing the available spaces to those who seem to best fit with what is actually available.</p>

<p>All of which just goes to reinforce the first sentence above.</p>

57

<p>"But the discordant note is her outlier ACT score - 34. This has caused me some head-scratching."</p>

<p>Well, if this is the discordant note, and causes the head-scratching, maybe you should ignore it, and find schools that fit the rest of her profile well.</p>

<p>She says LARGE. She says URBAN. On that basis, you can throw out about 90% of the suggestions made on the last four pages. Start by making a list of LARGE (I presume more than 15,000), URBAN schools. No Smith, no Rice, no Barnard, no Chicago, no Reed, no Kalamazoo, no Wheaton. no JHU, no Tufts. LARGE, URBAN schools. Yes, NYU, Boston University, University of Washington, University of Toronto, McGill, University of Maryland, Arizona State, UCLA, Berkeley, (George Washington is a little too small), University of Pittsburgh, Northwestern (though not really urban). Most (but not all) will be state schools, some of them excellent. Then whittle it down. (I won't be surprised if it turns out she likes California, and that you do as well.)</p>

58

<p>Kluge: going against the stream on the UCs.
If large is more important than urban, and science in general is of interest to her, you might want to look at UC Riverside and UC Merced, as well as UC Santa Cruz and UC San Diego; the former for chemistry/matierals science/nanotechnology, the latter for various types of biology. UC Merced has picked up professors from other UCs, with numerous research projects already in process, and is aiming at becoming "the" UC for nanotech. Riverside, admittedly in not a great location, has been beefing up its technological departments. Both are, at the moment, easier to get into than UCLA and Berkeley and thus might also provide some better chances to get the top grades that admission to medical school will demand.</p>

59

<p>It's hard to be Barnard, awash in application from girls they know really want to go to Columbia. My niece worked in admissions there for 2 years. I thinks it's very important to show them love.</p>

60

<p>To echo dadofsam, the GPA is King when it comes to med school applications. A 3.7 at a "lesser" school will trump a 3.2 at Berkeley, all other things being equal. (The Pre-Med forum provides a wealth of information for students interested in eventually pursuing an MD.)</p>