College suggestions for my lovely slacker daughter

Parents Forum
101

<p>Xiggi, re your post #98 -- I don't look at US News figures nor its totally bogus "selectivity" ranking; I don't even have access to those numbers. Both Barnard and Emory post their common data sets online, and I pulled info from the respective CDS for each college for the the 2005-2006 academic year. It clearly shows that Barnard has a much higher percentage of students with high end GPAs and SAT CR scores. </p>

<p>Percent who had GPA of 3.75 and higher
Barnard: 69% Emory: 48.5%</p>

<p>Percent who had GPA between 3.50 and 3.74
Barnard: 27% Emory: 32.6%</p>

<p>Percent who had GPA between 3.25 and 3.49
Barnard: 4% Emory: 14%</p>

<p>Percent who had GPA between 3.00 and 3.24
Barnard: 0 Emory: 4.4%</p>

<p>Percent who had GPA between 2.50 and 2.99
Barnard: 0 Emory: 0.5%</p>

<p>So its pretty obvious that Barnard students have higher GPAs than Emory. </p>

<p>And as to test scores, the range of scores is the same at both scores, but Barnard has a significantly higher percentage of high-end CR scorers.</p>

<p>SAT CR
Barnard: 650-740 Emory: 640-730
% in 700-800 range: Barnard: 53.7% Emory: 32.4%</p>

<p>SAT Math
Barnard: 640-710 Emory: 660-740
% in 700-800 range: Barnard: 40.5% Emory: 45.4%</p>

<p>While Emory appears to have a slight edge as to SAT math scores, the discrepancy disappears if you account for gender differences. Here is what happens if I convert the SAT math median range to percentile rank, accounting for Barnard's single gender pool, using this table:
<a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/PercentileRanksMathematics.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/highered/ra/sat/PercentileRanksMathematics.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Barnard students range from 87-97%
Emory: 88-97% </p>

<p>(No similar gender discrepancy exists for CR scores, so no need for conversion there)</p>

<p>ACT ranges cannot be compared for the two schools because of differences in reporting practices. The Emory CDS reports that 93% of its students submit SATs, and 36% submit ACTs -- so 80% of the ACT reporters also reported SATs. Barnard reports 86% submit SATs and 14% submit ACTs-- so there is no overlap in data, and Barnard is reporting only non-SAT submitters in the ACT category.</p>

<p>Given the preference at both schools for SATs (in terms of overall percentage of submitters), we can assume that students who submit SATS will only submit ACTs if they are as strong or stronger than their SATs, and we have no way of knowing what the ACT range is for the 7% of Emory enrolled students who did not also submit SATs. So basically we simply don't have relevant data to compare. </p>

<p>Again -- no attempt to compare schools -- and "chances" depend a lot on factors extraneous to test scores -- but Barnard is clearly a rung up the selectivity ladder than Emory-- making it more of a reach for a student.</p>

102

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Huh? Guess you must be referring Southern CA? We're pretty natural up here in the north . . . Or maybe it's just me . . . :)</p>

103

<p>D2s GC said she had a better chance of getting into Emory (which he was pushing, actually) but frankly I didn't believe him. Mentally I put these schools in the same big bucket, with a good number of others, where your chances are not that obvious or distinguishable from each other; objective student academic statistics hugely overlap and impressions of particular application readers and particular aspects of fit can produce varying results among the schools, often for no evident reason.</p>

<p>IMO There should be other obvious ways to distinguish and/ or choose between these schools besides trivial/ambiguous or incremental distinctions in aggregate selectivity.</p>

104

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wrong. Was this your impression from movies?</p>

<p>
[quote]
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!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Right.</p>

105

<p>
[quote]
Xiggi, re your post #98 -- I don't look at US News figures nor its totally bogus "selectivity" ranking; I don't even have access to those numbers. Both Barnard and Emory post their common data sets online, and I pulled info from the respective CDS for each college for the the 2005-2006 academic year. It clearly shows that Barnard has a much higher percentage of students with high end GPAs and SAT CR scores.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Calmom, you went through great lengths ... to illustrate my point that most anyone can establish her own set of conclusions by culling well-selected data in support of the said conclusion. </p>

<p>While your attempts to control -- read manipulate-- gender issues and bury the ACT scores are laudable, the efforts remain as inconclusive as misleading. Clinging to supporting data while ignoring data that demonstrate a different point is what separates the competent and objective from the subjective and opiniated analyst. </p>

<p>Fwiw, I have no interest in debating this further, as we are clearly on different wavelengths -as usual, I should say. In addition, I frankly don't have sufficient interest in Barnard to justify a continuing time investment into such trivial and unverifiable details. Of course, I understand that a Barnard parent is entitled to a different set of opinions, and apparently a different set of facts.</p>

<p>Be well and enjoy Morningside Heights and Harlem!</p>

106

<p>I didn't mean to insult all the native, natural, or northern Californians out there! I was just replying to the maine's friend's son's remark about women in Maine vs. Ca. Have no idea what part of California they were from...Beverly Hills for all I know, just trying to make sense of the comment. Maybe they DO all have plastic surgery where he was from. :eek:</p>

107

<p>:...the efforts remain inconclusive and misleading."</p>

<p>I agree with inconclusive.</p>

<p>Calmom raises a very valid perspective, when comparing single sex school to a coed one. Gender differences in testing are well-known. The old guide books used to break out SATs by gender, and the math ranges for the female students were substantially lower IIRC. With verbal going the other way. It would perhaps be more instructive if they still broke this data out. Though less PC? I guess..</p>

<p>On the other hand, though, these days is seems like at many schools more females apply. Determing actual selectivity for female applicants to a coed school these days would require more data than is currently available I think.</p>

<p>That doesn't mean one shouldn't think about it, though, conceptually at least. But I don't really know what the answer would show in this case.</p>

<p>Which sorta goes back to my #103. I think we're splitting hairs here.</p>

<p>One can get these stats, manipulate them however you want, and draw your own conclusions. Then apply, and in many cases it will not go down for you the way your self-imagined selectivity ranking would have indicated. So past a certain rough-cut point this exercise simply is not very valuable or instructive.</p>

108

<p>
[quote]
I didn't mean to insult all the native, natural, or northern Californians out there! I was just replying to the maine's friend's son's remark about women in Maine vs. Ca. Have no idea what part of California they were from...Beverly Hills for all I know, just trying to make sense of the comment. Maybe they DO all have plastic surgery where he was from.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not offended. Just saying the young man obviously doesn't live in my neighborhood/town/area . . . We live in a fairly unpretentious area, yet as I was picking up my kids from swim practice, I couldn't help but be stunned, yes, stunned, at how amazingly beautiful two of the swim instructors are -- two teenage girls that I have known since they were little tykes -- just breathtakingly beautiful. No makeup, just tanned, toned, and YOUNG. Nice kids, too, not <em>into themselves</em>, the way some physically beautiful people are, if you know what I mean. Just adds to the beauty. Ha ha, no wonder those little kids get crushes on their swim instructors . . .</p>

109

<p>
[quote]
I agree with inconclusive.</p>

<p>Calmom raises a very valid perspective, when comparing single sex school to a coed one. Gender differences in testing are well-known. The old guide books used to break out SATs by gender, and the math ranges for the female students were substantially lower IIRC. With verbal going the other way. It would perhaps be more instructive if they still broke this data out. Though less PC? I guess..</p>

<p>On the other hand, though, these days is seems like at many schools more females apply. Determing actual selectivity for female applicants to a coed school these days would require more data than is currently available I think.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why would that be less PC? What is it that we really do not know? That boys do better on standardized tests and that girls report higher GPAs? Are the College Board Senior Scores tables no longer available at <a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2006/national-report.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2006/national-report.pdf&lt;/a> ?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Then apply, and in many cases it will not go down for you the way your self-imagined selectivity ranking would have indicated.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Self-imagined selectivity? Sure! I guess the problem here is that this type information is pretty objective since the underlying numbers that drive the final number are known entities, except for the data of institutions that prefer to play fast and loose with basic integrity. In the meantime, it would take a myopic cyclop not to recognize the lower selectivity of non-coed schools as a group. A number that, unfortunately for some, is not as easy to manipulate as the peer assessment. </p>

<p>PS I don't really understand this: "The old guide books used to break out SATs by gender, and the math ranges for the female students were substantially lower IIRC. With verbal going the other way." </p>

<p>Are you intimating that the boys score substantially lower on the SAT critical reading?</p>

110

<p>I can provide another detail or two on my comment about the CA son looking forward to getting back to Maine for their summer vacation.... the CA area they are from is the greater Palm Springs area.....the mom definitely has the view that most of the moms in their home area have already had cosmetic surgery or botox at a very early age......her sister lives in Maine.... they have reasonably comparable circles of friends....cause they have kids of comparable ages....and the Maine gals are not having the surgery at the frequency or the age that the CA gals are having.... </p>

<p>I personally think from my most recent CA trips that women in CA are more physically fit/attractive overall, more stylish.....but, i can't really remember specifics about their faces...... and I think that is why the conversation was resonating with me when I saw Kluge's concerns about his daughter... </p>

<p>Maine is poorer, colder.....so there are more challenges to looking good... </p>

<p>And finally, I went to a high school with boys and girls, but girls were educated separately from boys for all classes in fresh & soph years... it wasn't until junior or senior yr that the higher classes, math and science were mixed as there were fewer kids taking the entire college prep curriculum. My experience was that with no boys in the class, girls were more engaged and participated much more actively in learning.... when there were boys in the class, it was a quieter classroom.... I don't have daughters, so I can't speak for whether it is still a valid concern, but, not trying to impress a romantic interest could be a factor in being a better student. </p>

<p>Hope that makes sense...... dabbling here while I work elsewhere....</p>

111

<p>"Why would that be less PC? "</p>

<p>I don't really know why the guide books stopped breaking down admissions stats by male/female; just speculation on my part. No idea. Maybe it's not less PC, but there must be some reason why they stopped doing it. US News reporting format, perhaps? I really don't know.</p>

<p>"What is it that we really do not know? "
For each college:
-how many boys applied, were admitted, test scores of those boys, GPA, yield
-how many girls applied, were accepted, test scores of those girls, GPA, yield
Broken out by college, by gender.</p>

<p>Maybe you know this, but I haven't seen it. I only see consolidated numbers, not broken out by gender.</p>

<p>"Self-imagined selectivity?"
No: self-imagined ranking. Even where data is consistent, each person weights the various factors according to their own criteria. And institutions like US News weights them based on its own self-decided criteria. For example my US News ranks Emory above U Chicago in admissions selectivity. And it ranks Berkeley higher than either. That's US News' imagined selectivity ranking, based on its analysis of the data, and self-chosen weighting of the disparate factors. Perhaps your imagined ranking of these three schools in selectivity is identical to US News. Perhaps you have a different opinion, based on your own read of the data, and weighting of the various factors. In many cases there is room for differences of opinion in how to assign weights. Even ignoring some of the data issues such as those Calmom identified.</p>

<p>"...lower selectivity of non-coed schools as a group."
Is not relevant. They are different schools that are not all the same, either as institutions or in selectivity. Each school is more selective than some other schools, and less selective than some other schools. As a group they are lower or higher than others depending on the other group. But nobody is applying to a group. They are applying to individual colleges. Some of which are more selective than others.</p>

<p>Perhaps, if one investigated, one might find that women's colleges as a group are more selective than colleges located in Georgia as a group. What would that show that is of any use whatsoever?</p>

<p>"Are you intimating that the boys score substantially lower on the SAT critical reading?"</p>

<p>No I am stating that in the old Cass & Birnbaum college guide I used in the early 70s to screen colleges- which I took out of the library again about 5 years ago to refresh my recollection- the admissions data for each college was broken out completely seperately by gender, not aggregated among the sexes for the college as a whole. That was my point. </p>

<p>It is my, quite possibly flawed, recollection that, for the particular selective colleges I was looking into, this data typically showed the boys had higher math scores, and the girls had higher verbal scores. I recall the difference in math scores seemed pretty substantial on average. I don't have a firm recollection of the difference in the verbal scores. Obviously this must have varied by college. If I come across any of this data I'll post it.</p>

<p>I am not making any statement about boys & girls in general. Though I guess this information is available on the back of each the SAT exam score sheet. </p>

<p>But actually my point was, to more properly compare a single sex school with a coed school it would be nice if the stats for the relevant gender was available in isolation, Like in "the old days". Not so much predicting what this comparison would show.</p>

112

<p>It's hard to find a breakdown of SAT scores, but the common data set whos females applied/accepted and males applied/accepted, which is a little useful. For example you can see for the school I'm attending, nearly equal amounts were accepted, but about twice as many girls applied :) There are some schools for which it's the opposite basically. Of course that still doesn't really tell you for example, what kind of median SAT scores the girls had, but it might say, well if you're a girl, you're probably going to have to fall ABOVE the median rather than below for a good chance.</p>

113

<p>Xiggi, I don't know why you are in such a snit over this -- Emory is probably a reach for Kluge's daughter, too -- but the raw numbers make it clear that Barnard is a much bigger reach for a kid with a 3.5 GPA without any other distinguishing characteristics. (Of course Kluge's daughter may very well have some amazing and wonderful distinctions -- but he didn't list them, and he suggested that she would present a "slacker" profile). </p>

<p>Add to that the fact that I happen to have "insider" info on the Barnard app process -- I know what they look for and what it took to beat their odds -- then I figure that I am in a much better position than you to know what her chances are there. On the <em>record</em> presented by Kluge, right now there is virtually no chance. If Kluge's daughter wanted Barnard, I'd be happy to work with Kluge & d. to help develop the <em>record</em> -- as an appellate lawyer I am sure Kluge can appreciate how much of a difference it can make to include a few key points and present them well. </p>

<p>I don't know what you mean by your comment, "Be well and enjoy Morningside Heights and Harlem!" -- but I am in California, it is my daughter (not me) who is attending college in NY.. but FWIW, it's a great location. My d. feels that students at Barnard & Columbia who are afraid of venturing into Harlem are missing out on a lot ... fortunately, as I have already noted, she is not one to shy away from taking full advantage of whatever benefits her surroundings offer.</p>

114

<p>Actually, at this point I'm not sure my D will be interested in applying to Barnard or any other east coast school. I'm just trying to find out information to pass along to her, hopefully with enough supporting data to attract her attention if there's something there that interests her. A college trip is in the works - it'll be interesting to see what that stirs up. </p>

<p>And in terms of putting together an application, after thinking about it a bit, I'm inclined to let her follow the approach that her brothers followed: be yourself, submit an application which is a reasonably accurate reflection of that, and let the various colleges figure out if they think you're a "fit" or not. </p>

<p>Of course, I'm still unsure if my D has a GPA of 3.5 (per Calmom) or 3.9 (per Xiggi.) This is a subject for a different thread, but does anyone know if the common data set GPA averages reflect unweighted or weighted GPAs?</p>

<p>P.S. Of course my D is "amazing". But you knew that. :)</p>

115

<p>When looking at reported GPAs of accepted students at colleges, they go by the UNWEIGHTED GPA. Everyone has an unweighted GPA or one can be calculated. But not every high school has a weighted system and the ones that have one, vary on how they weight. Having worked with some CA students, I can see GPAs are often reported as WEIGHTED, but I always compute an unweighted GPA because colleges WILL do this. And you should too so that you can put your D's GPA in relation to the average GPAs reported of admitted students to various colleges. Using a weighted GPA when they are reporting unweighted ones, is an inaccurate assessment. Even though UNweighted GPAs are used in Common Data Sets, and in evaluating candidates, remember that colleges DO look at the rigor of the curriculum chosen in the context of what the student's high school offers. So, those weighted classes matter in terms of the adcoms' examination of the courses taken (and also if the school ranks using a weighted GPA) but otherwise, the unweighted GPA is the one that is used (not talking the state college system in CA).</p>

<p>About the "fit".....yes, a person should present WHO THEY ARE and not change who they are to fit the college. However, a candidate should articulate why they feel that they ARE a good FIT for that college.</p>

116

<p>"Be well and enjoy Morningside Heights and Harlem!"</p>

<p>I suppose this comment is pertinent to the FIT concept raised above.</p>

<p>I've a relative who recently graduated from Columbia, absolutely loved it.</p>

<p>That area is not the most happening part of Manhattan, but it's still in Manhattan, with subway access to everything. And consider the alternatives : many schools are located, relatively speaking, no place.</p>

<p>There are many students who do not prefer a city environment, but for those that do there aren't many better places to be, seems to me.</p>

117

<p>..and is the unweighted GPA an unweighted *academic<a href="or%20college%20prep">/I</a> GPA or a total GPA? And if it's "academic" who decides which classes qualify as academic and which don't? (Again, I know what UC uses, but I also know that they've changed their standards from time to time, also.)</p>

118

<p>Calmom, it is very unfortunate that almost every effort I make to remain civil in our numerous discussions has to be met by some unflattering remark. This morning, when I walked away from the part of this debate that should concern you, I ended with a very simple and unsarcastic comment "Be well and enjoy Morningside Heights and Harlem!" </p>

<p>In the same post, I said that "I have no interest in debating this further, as we are clearly on different wavelengths -as usual." </p>

<p>Since that did not seem to work, I'll have to assume that it is easier for "us" to continue to feud as it does not require that much subtility nor uses of verbal nuances. Next time I'll wave a white flag in your direction, I'll make sure to also post a fair warning.</p>

119

<p>
[quote]
Actually, at this point I'm not sure my D will be interested in applying to Barnard or any other east coast school.

[/quote]

Kluge, I think at this point the most and best you can do is lead your "lovely slacker" to water and see what she chooses to drink. At her age I was a worldclass slacker myself. Like your daughter I luckily had an excellent state university to fall back on. I went to Big U and found the anonymity highly conducive to an advanced level of slacking. Basically I got a wonderful education by osmosis, but made very little personal commitment to the process. </p>

<p>Years later my latent type-A personality has surfaced and (as I wrote on another thread) I was able to redirect my potentially slacker son into an infinitely more rewarding college experience. His time at his small, remote LAC was so overwhelmingly positive that I tend to think that it would be good for everyone, but really, (though I'm sure some readers may doubt it :) ) I *do * accept that fit and comfort level are highly subjective and that some people thrive on urban buzz -- and benefit from the very anonymity that was so alienating to me.</p>

<p>So take your daughter on the Grand Tour of the East Coast. Enjoy the downtime together and help her determine what might make her socially happy and academially fulfilled. Venture into to the New England countryside if you have the time. She may not be impressed, but you'll have a great time and see a beautiful part of the country.</p>

<p>And if she ends up in your backyard, well, good for both of you. [Ironically, one of my son's best friends, who just graduated from Barnard -- and fills the bill as a driven, creative, bright young woman -- decided to move to Santa Barbara to experience the leftcoast lifestyle!] I don't remember seeing the Claremont colleges mentioned in this thread. Has your daughter considered Scripps? Could be a good combination of small within large and is very hospitable to smart California blonds.</p>

120

<p>Excellent post, Momrath.</p>

<p>I really do think that LACs offer much to the latent achiever. I'm also a convert to the women's colleges (daughter at Smith -- and I can't believe the education she's getting) after rejecting them outright myself when I was looking back in the day. I understand that those types of schools aren't for everyone; however, I think exposure to them is necesssary, even if they are later rejected, to a student like Kluge's daughter. My daughter was vehemently against women's colleges until her GC convinced her (note: it wasn't me who pushed them since I was still, decades later, in a "not single gender college" mindset) to visit a few. We also know students who were against LACs until they visited.</p>

<p>I'm amazed at what happens to kids when they go off to college. Unless they are unhappy or are overly seduced by the party scene, they bloom into adults with knowledge that usually exceeds our own. The college itself doesn't matter as long as it fits their needs and goals.</p>