<p>
[quote]
Trust me, I live here -- if the kid in California look out-of-state for college, they all want to go to New York.
[/quote]
Except for those who want to go to the Boston area. (I live here, too. :) And I see the SJC-BOS Jet Blue runs filled up with Boston-bound students around those same times you mention.)</p>
<p>Mini, I'm referring to to the "feel" of the campus and the offerings. Because course selection at Barnard includes all of Columbia, including graduate offerings (and they really do allow first year students to enroll in some graduate courses) -- academically the array of choices seems overwhelming. Because of the urban density and limited space, it "feels" like there are a lot of people there. You could contrast this to a college like UC Davis, which has many more students, with lots of space and with dorms and student gathering places more spread out, so it "feels" more intimate.</p>
<p>LOL, Mootmom - my d's musician boyfriend is actually playing in a bicoastal band -- they have gigs all over the SF bay area for the summer, and will be back in Boston come September.</p>
<p>I live here too and would have to say that in my experience the parent income is the biggest indicator of whether a child leaves CA or not. The money no object set and those with low EFCs are leaving. The middle class is going to UCs and what we once considered upper middle class (docs and execs) kids are staying in state if mom doesn't work.</p>
<p>
Yes, I would agree with that for most students at a top state public, like a UC campus -- not at a lesser state public. Sorry - I'm a UC grad, I've got a kid at Humboldt and a kid essentially at Columbia (in terms of access if not technically enrolled there) -- and Humboldt is frustrating to my son in terms of what it lacks, and some of what my d. is talking about doing at Columbia simply is a level above and beyond what I could have dreamed of at a UC, probably in part because of the NY location. I don't think most kids would necessarily set their sights so high - my d. is the type who plunges right in to the deep end of the pool and doesn't seem to accept "not possible" as an answer. </p>
<p>So yes, the UC's offer a top caliber education, and 90% of the kids who might choose an Ivy over the UC will end up with the same quality either place. But there is a certain element who will find a way to take advantage of what the Ivies offer. Maybe its 10%, maybe its only 2% .... and maybe it would be different if my daughter was interested in studying math or engineering, where Berkeley really excels. But she is interested in areas where Columbia excels- so she is sitting at Barnard and taking her pick of what she wants from Columbia -- and as a parent I am seeing some of what the prestige school offers. </p>
<p>But my point is -- it take a kid with a lot of drive and ambition for there to be that discernible difference. My d. has surprised me - I was afraid she would have to struggle to keep up given her lower test scores and weaker public school background. I didn't expect to see a 4.1 college GPA her spring semester, I didn't expect her to win special academic recognition at Columbia her first year.... but that is what happened. She sees, she wants, she gets.</p>
<p>UCgradmary -- I think you are right about the money - we qualify for enough financial aid to get a private education for the cost of public, though it is still a stretch for me. It comes back to what I said before -- given the academic strength of the UC's, it does not make much sense to shop for merit aid from less demanding schools-- and the ones that are of equal or better caliber are not likely to offer a lot of aid except for the very top echelon of students. </p>
<p>I mean, people on this thread keep bandying about the names of some east coast safety/match schools that I tried to foist on my daughter under the same rationale --but she came home from visits decidedly unimpressed with the caliber of the academics and promptly dropped those colleges from her list. Once I added that factor to the equations, I recognized the wisdom of that approach.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>She sounds like my sister (who's at Tech). In terms of the schools she wants and her high school record. This is why I hesistated with the GW safety: my sister got in, but we have strong alumni connections, and I know people with kinda similar profiles did get rejected. My sister has really strong ECs and leadership. Despite the admissions office's best attempt to lower the criteria for merit aid, they couldn't give her any. However I don't know with the ACT. Tech is obviously not urban in any sense of the word, but she adjusted and she loves it. </p>
<p>She got into BU and American (not very a big school though). Didn't get into McGill, you pretty much have to be a diploma candidate (IB) here to do that, so I have no idea what the implications would be for AP kids. Didn't get into UVA (not very big either, but bigger than some schools here). </p>
<p>Other than the obvious DC schools, there is George Mason in northern Va. It's not huge though, but it's fairly large. Although it's actually suburban, it's really close to DC and they have buses running back and forth all the time. I know someone there who also got into GW (again alumni, my dad's best friend's kid) but no merit aid. She wanted to stay in DC based on her career goals so she's at Mason and so far that's worked out. It's still not going to be urban, but schools like that may be an option. The big urban school in Va is VCU (Richmond) which actually might be a worthwhile option for you to look into: pretty sure they have some medical program that is accelerated, it's one of the things they're known for, that and art.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Urrr...no. As Mootmom indicates, many choose Boston. And not a small number, like my D, settle for half way in between.</p>
<p>UCGM, that's an interesting thought about the economic basis of who leaves California. We fit your bill, a dual-income household, and we know several low-EFC students who are attending D's school. But I know of quite a few current students and some recent alumnae of D's school whose families are paying full-freight or near enough. Not sure if the theory holds water.</p>
<p>I agree with UCMary and calmom and others. Those Californians who go East for college don't represent a huge percentage of Californian college students. Under 10% Under 5% mini?</p>
<p>Those who go usually represent those who have a desire to experience the East Coast intensity--again a very low percentage of Californians.</p>
<p>The more I read kluge's posts, the more I think this is his California dream--not his Ds. I still think she has half a shot at Barnard for three reasons--1) 10% is STILL not an 'awash' number no matter how you slice it, 2) Barnard looks beyond the stats and 3) klugeD probably has some terrific verbal skills that could translate into fabulous essays.</p>
<p>Having lived in Manhattan as a youngster, I know it takes all types to thrive there. Chilled out California types do quite well in the Big Apple. There is room--and a appreciation for that type of personality in a city overwhelmed by the bridge and tunnel set. I should know. I met a chilled out Californian in Manhattan and married him.</p>
<p>Apply to a women's college. Sounds like challenging her gets her to work harder, so why set her at a college where she is allowed to get by through slacking off?</p>
<p>FWIW, there's one coming next year who is not in the least "lopsided".
Solution to getting weeded out for too perfect stats, or whatever: apply ED.</p>
<p>IF I lived in California, or Virginia, or Michigan,or Canada, I would be pushing state U's very hard. Fit be damned- the $$ difference is too huge, for people who aren't going to get aid, but still need it.</p>
<p>(whipping myself- should have made her apply to Cornell Hum Ec....)</p>
<p>kluge:</p>
<p>Your daughter isn't a very good slacker. What kind of slacker has a GPA of 3.5 UNWEIGHTED, many Honors/AP courses, great athletic experience, experience putting together a drunken driving awareness program, AND experience as a class officer? Oh, wait, in the world of CC, students are supposed to solve world hunger, bring about world peace, find the cure for cancer, take every AP class known to humankind and earn perfect 5s and A+s in them, earn perfect scores on the SAT (with a 2350/2400 to be retaken in hopes of gaining that lousy 50 points, never mind that bad luck could just as easily lower the score 50 points), be the next Zubin Mehta, and be the captain of multiple All-State champion Varsity sports teams.</p>
<p>Back when I graduated high school in 1992, I was salutatorian, AP Scholar with Honor, and National Merit Finalist. I worked with a level of intensity that I could never approach today, and I'm surprised I managed to survive all that. I had a reputation as the strung-out achiever. But compared to the students on CC, I was Ferris Bueller, Zack Morris, Bill and Ted, or Jeff Spicoli.</p>
<p>Students can also be like mutual funds: Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. My undergraduate GPA was 4.13 (3.13 on a 4-point scale), which you would have expected to be higher based on my high school GPA and standardized test scores. In retrospect, I'm surprised I didn't earn a much lower GPA, as I had a shoddy attitude in my undergraduate years. I had stopped drinking the Academic Performance Cult Kool-Aid (lacked the energy to continue as a charter member of the Cult, realized that nobody cared about my past GPA, didn't have a new source of motivation to replace the Cult motivation).</p>
<p>Kluge,
we live in Maine....my son scored very high on psat as hs sophmore... and he checked the box to get mail....and we got tons of brochures and mailings... and California loomed large on his horizon....summer btwn junior and senior year in hs, he did a 4 week program at Stanford in math.... and we took an extra week to look at Berkeley, UCSB, Cal Tech, UCLA. Pomona... we rented a convertible....had a great time.... surprisingly enough, it was all too far away from home is my gut of what his reaction was....so he only applied to Stanford. There was a lot to like at the other schools, but he was not willing to apply. I was very surprised by this hesitation on his part. I think the reality of the long journey was important to experience for real and not just in the abstract. </p>
<p>My 2nd son also did a Stanford summer thing this past summer....and once again he knew it was great to visit...but too far away. </p>
<p>My point here is to look at a Bowdoin if you are going to be in Boston... look at Northeastern, look at Boston University.... but don't be surprised if it is not really in the cards for her.... and use the trip to have a memorable time with your daughter, period. </p>
<p>The whole looks thing is resonating with me because of a discussion I was involved in recently. A good friend has a sister from California visiting now. Her 12 year old son actually told his mom that he was looking forward to getting back to Maine BECAUSE he likes how the women in Maine look.... where people look normal. The implication was that there is way toooo much plastic surgery back home. The women look funny....all stretched and distorted?? Not my view, but the view of a young boy. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder..... maybe your sons need to help her with what they find attractive in a gal.....so often that type of advice resonates so much more when not coming from a parent. </p>
<p>Hope my reply hits on at least one of your musings!!</p>
<p>maineparent--too funny!</p>
<p>Maybe it's not plastic surgery, just that women in CA don't go out without their "faces" on...carefully madeup, tanned, and with hair done...which can seem strange if you are used to the "natural" look.</p>
<p>A much higher percentage of the women I know in CA don't wear make up compared to those I knew growing up in the Boston area. They look healthier here because of the sun you just can't avoid!</p>
<p>It is hard for the CA kids to imagine having to bundle up just to walk around 6 months a year. Then we visited Princeton at the beginning of June and it was sweltering!! They are not used to much rain much less snow. Outdoor activities they are used to get cut off for several months. Driving is hairy. Lack of sunshine depressing.</p>
<p>Mythmom, just a bit more on your "radar or sonar" comment. </p>
<p>Hedy Lamarr (nee Hedwig Kiesler) "co-invented" a torpedo guidance system (monitoring by aircraft) that was not commercially nor militarily practicable until modified more than a decade after WWII by Sylvania. She had approached George Antheil at some point amid her six marriages (probably as her first, to a Nazi arms dealer, ended) in her quest to have her breasts enlarged. Antheil and she ultimately obtained the patent together. In 1962, a variation of the concept was installed on ships involved in the Cuba blockade; the patent had already expired.</p>
<p>Okay, stop. Just... stop, right there. Here I am, trying to be a good parent, walking the tightrope between "helicopter parent" and "My Daddy never went to my soccer/little league/swim/oboe/games/recitals/meets/awards programs!! <sob!!!>" -- and I'm supposed to deal with Hedy Lamarr, Nazis, and the Cuban Missile Crisis (an event which I did, in fact, have academic cause to discuss with my daughter just a few weeks ago, to her wonderment that I was a.) alive and b.) sentient at the time it happened)???</sob!!!></p>
<p>Being a parent is hard enough. Let's leave Hitler, Khrushchev, Castro and Lamarr (or Kiesler) out of it, okay? ;)</p>
<p>
I was responding to your post title, "A fit at Emory but a reach at Barnard?" Since Barnard is statistically significantly harder to get into than Emory, it makes sense to label one a "reach" the other a "match". ../... That's not making a judgment as to the relative merits of the school -- it's just looking at the stats as they relate to likelihood of admission.
</p>
<p>Are you really looking at ALL the stats when declaring that "it makes sense to label one a "reach" the other a "match" because Barnard is statistically significantly harder to get into than Emory, or simply looking at the application/admission ratio? How about the fact that the formula used by USNews to establish selectivity would CLEARLY yield a better number for Emory -because the admit ratio represents only 15% of the total, while GPA and class rank account of the remaining 85%. For the record, the number for top 10% students is higher at Emory and so are the SAT and ACT numbers. As an example, the 25% ACT score of Emory is roughly equal to Barnard's 75%. </p>
<p>This said, you may very well simply declare that selectivity does not really equate to "difficulty of getting in". Of course, were we debating the difficulty of getting in at Chicago and say Cornell, the position would "probably" change. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You can argue all you want about applicant pools, but Barnard's NYC location and Columbia affiliation means that it also probably has one of the strongest applicant pools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The pool of enrolled students is indeed sufficient to be ranked 9th in selectivity among LAC, a position that is considerably higher than its total ranking in the mid-twenties. I am thrilled that you can make such a convincing assessment of the applicant's pool through extrapolation and speculation, and believe it to be statistically correct. And this without having to repeat that trite "correlation is not causation" that presents a real danger of becoming a gospel-like expression in this forum. </p>
<p>Ah, the beauty of semantics!</p>
<p>
Or else simply put a lot of effort into the "showing interest" stuff. Barnard, like many colleges, has quite a few short answer questions on the application supplement -- I don't think students realize how important and how revelatory those are. For example, most colleges have a question that essentially is "why do you want to attend this college?" - for Barnard I think it would be particularly important to list some strong reasons that do NOT apply equally as well to Columbia. The more the answer reflects in-depth knowledge about the college, the better.</p>
<p>Again, I really think that colleges are just trying to protect their yield by factoring in likelihood of attendance. The greater the likelihood of students using that school as a safety for somewhere else, the more the ad com will be attuned to that possibility, and it thus becomes that much more important that the application clearly telegraphs the reasons the student is choosing that school. Of course, "my sister attends Barnard and I know from her experience that it is wonderful" might just do the trick for that part -- I'll bet that statistically having a sibling at the same school is a positive factor for yield.</p>
<p>"The more the answer reflects in-depth knowledge about the college, the better."</p>
<p>This holds true for most colleges -- and it is an excellent piece of advice. </p>
<p>I do alumni interviews for an Ivy, and you'd be surprised by how little some applicants know about the school. A fairly common answer to the question "Why did you apply?" is "Because it has an excellent reputation." No more. A reputation for what? Many students cannot answer, making it clear that they have done squat in terms of research and are going by name only.</p>