College suggestions for my lovely slacker daughter

Parents Forum
61

<p>First - thanks to all who have responded (here and in PM's) with suggestions and advice. I'll second Momrath's observation that even posts which seem contradictory to each other can both be valid - and in this thread, anyway, generally seem to me to be so. Part of the problem I feel faced with is that my daughter this year is not the same person as she was last year, will be next year, etc. I think many families face this to a greater or lesser degree; certainly my family to a greater one: they don't know who they are and what they want at the age of 17. I find this unsurprising; at 17 I was a physics major close to flunking out of UC Berkeley; at 24 I was practicing law. Not a lot of overlap there. As I mentioned, I'm constantly amazed at the focused, directed teenagers who post here on CC on a regular basis. I don't know any kids like that in real life - literally, not one. I heard a statistic thrown around at one point, something to the effect that the average UC student changes his/her major 4 times before graduation (or some such number.) That's why I don't see basing a college choice on something such as current intended career as being all that wise for the average kid. On the other hand, I do see that different schools can bring different forms of "education" to a young person beyond simple academics.</p>

<p>I don't want to impose my vision of "what's best for them" on my kids, but I do want them to have the fullest awareness of their options and the pros and cons associated with them as possible, so they don't pass up an opportunity which might be great for them simply because they didn't know about it. It would be easiest to simply direct my D to look over the various schools in California, apply to the likely ones, and pick among the ones she's accepted into. That's what her brothers did, and is, in fact, the most probable outcome for her as well. But I'd feel remiss as a parent if it turns out that, weather and travel time notwithstanding, for some reason a more distant college would somehow offer her an opportunity for growth and personal development that she wouldn't get by taking the more likely route, and she never even learned of the opportunity. </p>

<p>That's why hearing about the "culture" of different schools that I know little about is really helpful. My daughter is dubious about all-women schools based on her perception of the nearby same sex Catholic high schools, and probably would not be interested in that environment on first blush. But on second thought, would she change her mind? Well, not if she never has cause to think about it, certainly. But if she does? I don't know. I get the picture of Barnard as an "Type-A personality" school, and can pass that along. Would she envision herself in that kind of an environment? I honestly don't know. Personally, I'd love to have her consider Reed or Rice and a passel of other schools I've "fallen in love" with for one reason or the other over the years, but realize that that's a bigger task than is reasonable to undertake. She says "Big city, east coast" - and that's enough to take on for now. </p>

<p>My perception of teenagers is that they are constantly reinventing themselves - sometimes on an hourly basis. Certainly the choice of what University to attend is a big step in defining oneself and one's future. As an example, NYU and USC are similar on paper - similar size, similar academic selectivity, both "in large cities". But I suspect the impact four years at either one would have on a given California girl would be very different.</p>

<p>As far as "WAMC" - I don't know either. I think the only thing that's sensible is to apply to the schools that seem plausible and find out, without counting too much on a positive answer from anything but your rock solid "safety" (that you love.) My own kids skew "the wrong way" -- BWRK's with good test scores and so-so GPA's, so I'm used to the idea that being above the 75th percentile in some category is essentially meaningless (for my kids, anyway.) I just wouldn't want my D to not even consider some school that she might be accepted into because some form of analysis might indicate that her chances were poor.</p>

62

<p>Your daughter is hardly a slacker based on her numbers. A slacker is someone who worries about getting into Arizona State and ends up at Chico State.</p>

<p>There are a few kids who don’t waiver. The bear hasn’t for about three years but it is rare.</p>

<p>As for looks there are more pretty young women than you think at the high end of academics in college. Most feel a huge weight is off their shoulders when they graduate form high school. Many high schools are hard environments to be pretty and smart.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
Many high schools are hard environments to be pretty and smart.

[/quote]
The comments about looks on this thread are driving me nuts. Sorry, but if being attractive were such a burden, the girl could shave her head, wear baggy unflattering clothes, or even have a surgeon disfigure her in some way. So it's an absolute crock that life is tougher for the attractive. It's simply not. And the billions spent on plastic surgery, fashion, weight loss, etc. prove that.</p>

64

<p>LOL Try googling "attractive people more successful" and see what you come up with.</p>

65

<p>I wouldn't say life is "tougher"--in some ways it's easier, at first. But if you are used to getting by on your looks, when the looks go, what do you have? Especially if you don't have a particularly outstanding skill or talent in music, art, math, or whatever, and you haven't been forced to use your wits to make people notice you.</p>

<p>It's tough to find who you really are, what your talents are, vs. the perception. Sad to say, sometimes people assume you are capable based on being nice-looking. Or they assume you are dumb based on blonde good looks.</p>

66

<p>10% is not 'awash' in Californians. Most of the NE schools are drowning in kids from New Jersey. When they get kids from California, they tend to be kids with NE style intensity (is my impression). Thus my 'feeling' that kluge's D could be an interesting novelty and worth a gamble. It's a reach but it's not out of the question. ED would help.</p>

<p>Barnard is one of those places that she'll have to visit to understand. It's the most co-ed of the single sex schools. A nearby girl's Catholic school is NOT a good comparison, LOL. Also, Barnard isn't technically a big school but it is surrounded by an enormous city. I don't think many Barnard students feel Barnard is too small. </p>

<p>But again, she has to visit. Lots of kids who think they want big city are blown back by the realities of big city college life.</p>

<p>Too bad she's not a boy, k. It's tough to catch some breaks as a slacker girl--because her cohorts are too good for paper.</p>

67

<p>Parentofbear - I guess "slacker" is a relative term. If you spend enough time here at CC, reading the kids talk about practicing vocabulary words daily with flash cards, taking practice SAT tests twice a week, self-studying AP physics, etc., a kid who works just hard enough at her studies to get B's in AP classes and A's in regular classes, but spends most of her study time at home IMing her friends and declines to do any prep work for an ACT or SAT test, kind of pales by comparison. In the "real world" my D is actually relatively diligent, at least compared to the other kids I've known. But I don't know any CC students. :) (At least not that I know if...)</p>

68

<p>kluge,
For what you HOPE for your D, (as opposed to who it sounds like she might be) UCSD is a better fit than UCSB. It's more academic, less party. More urban, less "let's go tan." I'm not saying your D can't be an outstanding pre-med student at Santa Barbara, I'm just saying overcoming the temptations there will make that less likely for someone who is not academically minded and internally driven. The social/beach scene of Isla Vista is legendary and it spills over onto campus from day one, and it's hard to get worked up about anything, much less a chem midterm. (I'm a UCSB alum and mom of a blonde, attractive, athletic "slacker" rising senior D, too, except we call her "easy going").</p>

69

<p>Kluge: Here's a thought not offered in the context of all the comments on this thread, but only your comments (I didn't have time to read the others): </p>

<p>I went to Berkeley undergrad and East for grad school. When I read your daughter's profile, something says to me she'd really find her path at a school like Sarah Lawrence or Macalaster or Bowdoin or Amherst. I don't know which of these she could or could not get into, and I don't know what you could afford.</p>

<p>My own education was greatly enhanced by diversity: Asia, West Coast, East Coast, Europe were all places I lived and studied. I always recommend students to get out of their comfort zone and go across the country, if all else is equal or not important.</p>

<p>The fact is even though the West is full of people from the East, it is a different culture. Your daughter will end up richer in character, most likely, if she has the chance to see another part of the world. Going to school on the East Coast would be a great way.</p>

<p>Now, if it's not possible for her to do this, no big deal, she's got some good options on the West Coast. But the optimal in my view would be the East Coast.</p>

<p>Now the question: how do you get her interested?</p>

70

<p>
[quote]
If only! Actually, I don't think people appreciate how limiting being a good looking blonde can be for a young woman. "Dumb blonde" is a stereotype that is hard-wired into the national psyche. And it's so easy - so easy - just to play off that. I understand a certain amount of skepticism in response to this, but I never felt the same concern for my sons.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You are right on on this one, whatever some of the posters may say. It is this thing which is partly the genesis of my suggestion she go Back East. I believe it is harder in an environment like, let's say Wellesley or Williams, to rest on looks. (I am not sure she could consider these schools as ones she'd possibly get admitted to, they are just for example). There are a lot of serious kids and being smart is valued highly. I think unless one is really focused, an atmosphere like UCSB can involve a lot of easy distractions whatever the essential quality of the faculty and school.</p>

<p>Oh, and I'll never forget a college class I took where a drop dead gorgeous and also apparently quite smart blonde turned on the flirting/sexual tension right in front of the class for our very portly (and reserved) professor. He didn't buy it at all. But good looks create different, for lack of a better word, "vectors" and for women it can actually be debilitating.</p>

<p>Someone above suggested googling good looks and success. Everything I've ever read suggests good looking men and less attractive women tend to be more successful. What does that say about the power of this vector?</p>

71

<p>It sounds as if part of the issue involves a decision about the value or preference of going to school in a remote location. When I went to college I really wanted to go cross country and be on my own. This was really a good decision. My older D stayed at home and commuted to classes. That was what she wanted and it did save a lot of money. In many regards that was not a good decision. In addition to college, she would have been better to live on her own, in the halfway housing we call dorms. My younger D was clear about wanting to go away to college. She ended up about the right distance away - a 6 hour drive. We can easily drive and her stuff to college, but the drive is too far for casual weekend visits.</p>

<p>If you have not done so, it sounds like it is time for some visits. My D changed plans numerous times during and after college visits.</p>

72

<p>
[quote]
Now the question: how do you get her interested?

[/quote]
Good question. I couldn't get a rise out of my sons, although I dangled the same temptations there, too. I was pleased that my D would at least think about it. California has great, affordable schools, warm weather, far enough away that the parents don't drop in unannounced, but close enough that it's a short plane ride or manageable drive to come home. The downside here is close to non-existent. But I see college as an opportunity to broaden your horizons, if you're up for it. That's the kind of opportunity I'm averse to foreclosing - if she wants to tackle it.</p>

<p>Momof2inca - the dreaded "UCGPA" is the killer for UCSD - which is very formula driven. When you've maxed out your UC allotted 8 weighted semesters (which D did 1st semester this year) a B in AP Chem hurts your GPA as much as a B in beginning Art. Her fully weighted GPA second semester this year was a 4.1, but her UCGPA actually declined due to that factor. And GPA is king at UC. As my family is lacking in adversity, diversity, and any other "versity"s that might provide extra points under the UCSD formula, I don't think she'll make the cut at UCSD - her brother didn't, with similar "stats." But we'll see.</p>

73

<p>"I believe it is harder in an environment like, let's say Wellesley or Williams, to rest on looks."</p>

<p>My d. spent an overnight at one of these, and, when not drinking copiously, all the women did was complain about their respective weights. At any rate, neither is large, neither urban, and none of Sarah Lawrence, Macalester, Bowdoin, or Amherst come even close to fitting the bill. And there are several dozen schools, at least, that do, so I'm surprised that folks are so reluctant to talk about them.</p>

<p>Add Northeastern to the large, urban east coast list. Syracuse and Fordham are a little bit small.</p>

74

<p>I think the downside of the UCs for any kid who might be tempted to be a slacker is that they will find pleanty of company. It's not too hard to get a 4.0 plus at CA schools, and the UCs at the undergrad level are filled with slackers. Especially once you get past Cal and LA. Take it from a former UC grad student. If you can afford the extra dollars, I'd focus on one of the Claremont schools if she wants to stay in state.</p>

75

<p>kluge, okay, I see. But I would think that 34 ACT might sway the formula in her direction a bit, maybe enough to get a nod...</p>

<p>"a kid who works just hard enough at her studies to get B's in AP classes and A's in regular classes, but spends most of her study time at home IMing her friends and declines to do any prep work for an ACT or SAT test,"</p>

<p>You just described my D to a tee! :) If only "winning and keeping friends" was a UC approved, four-year course series, my D would have a much higher GPA.</p>

76

<p>kluge, on the UCGPA... I thought UC would take the 8 weighted courses with the highest grades. So wouldn't it not matter how many courses total or what grades she gets in earlier or later semesters? Example, if your D got two A's in junior year UC approved courses, UCSD should use those to calculate the GPA, and drop two courses with B's... I seem to remember that I asked this specific question to a UC admissions officer for my S (now at Cal), who had an abundance of UC approved courses. But maybe my memory is off on this. (No doubt, though, that UCSD has gotten a lot harder to get into).</p>

77

<p>


Slight correction -- Barnard is large. It is also small, in a very nice way, when it comes to things like advising or access to profs. But the Barnard "course catalog" includes everything offered at Columbia, and Barnard first year students are all packed into a set of high rise dorms that have a very urban, population-dense feel to them. It feels huge.


I'm pretty sure the "bimbo" boy is not at Barnard.
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
That's the point - Barnard is looking past the numbers for a certain personality or fit. UCgradmary hit the nail on the head -- it's not "Tufts" syndrome, but Barnard wants to avoid cross-admits with Columbia, because most kids who apply to both will opt for Columbia if they get in -- so I'm sure Barnard weeds out the kids with the too-perfect stats who look like they are probably aiming higher. Xiggi might not want to play WAMC, but as a Barnard parent I've got a sense of what they are looking for based on what I know of backgrounds & interests of admitted students. Again... a good place for kids with lopsided profiles and some glaring weaknesses, as long as their strengths mesh with Barnard.


The reason this doesn't work for highly competitive schools is that this suggests an underachiever (though not a "slacker"). The ad coms know the school environment, and they want kids who will do well at their schools. A high GPA & class rank at a good sized public high school, along with EC's that show high involvement, focus, and/or leadership, tells an ad com that the kid will tend to rise to the occasion. I mean, my d. was disappointed this past semester when she got an A rather than an A+ in a particular course -- she gets one A+ and now she thinks she should have that in every class -- I have to roll my eyes at some of what I hear from her--she just has that go-for-the-gold drive and attitude that means she is out-performing kids who on paper look better qualified. </p>

<p>So the question isn't, can this kid do the work -- of course Kluge's daughter is capable of doing whatever she wants to do. probably far more "capable" than mine -- the question is will this kid take full advantage of the college offerings. As a parent of two very different kids, I now see that in the area of competitive private admissions, that's a very important question -- my son's got the intellect, but I certainly did not get my money's worth when I bankrolled his first two years at a private LAC. I mean - I don't want to be taking out a PLUS loan and stretching my finances for a kid who is going to decide to do the bare minimum needed to get by in any class where he decides he doesn't like the teacher or the assigned reading. I'm glad my son realized he was wasting my money and is now now at a public college paying his own way, so he can decide how much he values the money he is spending each semester. My d is different. A kid will ultimately get out of their education what they put in -- so a kid can go to an Ivy and get themselves a state U. education, not because the Ivy doesn't offer more, but because the kid isn't willing to put out the effort to get the best that the school has to offer. So I don't think the top colleges are wrong when they choose a the kids who seem to have an overabundance of drive and ambition over equally capable kids who simply aren't such overachievers.</p>

78

<p>Calmmom,
You know I'd <em>resent</em> the comment you made about a student getting a 'public school' education out of a private school experience:</p>

<p>"kid can go to an Ivy and get themselves a state U. education, not because the Ivy doesn't offer more, but because the kid isn't willing to put out the effort to get the best that the school has to offer. So I don't think the top colleges are wrong when they choose a the kids who seem to have an overabundance of drive and ambition over equally capable kids who simply aren't such overachievers.:</p>

<p>except I know you better from reading past posts. I'm sure you'd also agree that a kid can go to a state U and get the same education an Ivy has to offer if he takes advantage of all the resources they offer as well?</p>

<p>There is an abundance of opportunities at state U's. The phrase "kid in a candy shop" comes to mind. But, yes, you have to want to take advantage of them. No one is going to go after you.</p>

79

<p>"Slight correction -- Barnard is large. It is also small, in a very nice way, when it comes to things like advising or access to profs. But the Barnard "course catalog" includes everything offered at Columbia, and Barnard first year students are all packed into a set of high rise dorms that have a very urban, population-dense feel to them."</p>

<p>Not so slight correction:</p>

<p>Columbia plus Barnard is STILL not large. They aren't even 60% of 15,000. Barely medium. Well smaller than George Washington or Syracuse, slightly larger than Fordham. Now had you referenced the Honors College at Ohio State, that would be another story.</p>

<p>Oh - Ohio State does meet the LARGE, URBAN description. (Definitely LARGE is Smith plus Mount Holyoke plus Hampshire plus Amherst plus UMass, but doesn't get close to the urban requirement. The combined Claremont colleges don't make it to "medium".)</p>

80

<p>


Trust me, Cheers -- California is NOT a novelty for Barnard. Maybe a California farm girl, or a California URM -- but no advantage for white surburban/urban kids from well regarded publics or prestige privates. They have enough from Calif. that they send out their first year dean to advising sessions for enrolling students to LA & SF at the beginning of June -- and it looked to me like there was at least one kid from every prestige private in the SF Bay area at the session my d. attended. As far as I know my d. was the first from her high school to be accepted to Barnard (at least during the years she was at the school).... but there were quite a few before her and in her year who were rejected. </p>

<p>And things are always quite busy at the Jet Blue terminal for the SFO/JFK run around Sept 1 and May 15. Trust me, I live here -- if the kid in California look out-of-state for college, they all want to go to New York. </p>

<p>Your observation that the kids from California have NE style intensity reflects who they admit, not who applies -- that is, it is no accident. They are looking for that intensity. </p>

<p>That may not be a bad thing -- I've met enough women who felt overwhelmed or unhappy at Barnard and transferred out to know that it simply is not an easy adjustment for those with a more laid back attitude.</p>