<p>NewMassDad, I agree...I observe lots of hair splitting on CC with some kids about 1490 vs. 1540 when truly they are not all that different given that the SAT score on each subtest has a margin of error of 30 points. I personally see no difference about a kid's qualifications or ability to succeed at a top school whether the kid had 1460 or 1540. I think once a kid is over a certain threshhold, and within the ballpark at a top school as far as test scores, it is all that other stuff that matters. Top schools don't use a cut off for scores. If that was all it was, then we would not see all these kids with BETTER scores, even PERFECT scores who are rejected when those with lower scores get in. Yes, scores matter. But they just need to be in the ballpark for a school. Frankly, I think the GPA and the fact that his kid had a rigorous curriculum and was tops in his class says a lot more to me than if his SAT score had been 60 points higher which is within the margin of error anyway.</p>
<p>
I agree. That's why I am still wondering, "why is this news?" (other than the fact it is a followup to his selection as a USA Today All something or other).</p>
<p>But folks let us remember he didn't have a 1460 or 1490. He had a less than 1400, a significantly lower number even allowing for the margin of error. And again, I wonder about his testing history.</p>
<p>He's a lower than average (at uber schools) test taking suburban kid from an over -represented affluent U.S. area with a Phd parent. No legacy or URM mentioned. Not a recruited athlete in a helmet sport. Not a development admit. There is not a higher bar that I know of in college admissions. He just didn't crawl over it at TWO SCHOOLS. Jeez. He just didn't flip their switch. It happens more often than not, why is anyone surprised?</p>
<p>To me, the lesson here is that an otherwise outstanding kid with mediocre SAT scores can rise above them and be admitted to some of the best colleges in the country -- such as Duke.</p>
<p>Now Marian, that's a better framed story. ;)</p>
<p>NMD:</p>
<p>Even when adreps know that certain scores are within the margin of error, there is a pyschological boost in getting over the 700 threshold, or the 600 threshhold or whatever. In other words, a 700 sounds better than a 690; and a 1400 sounds better than 1380. It's the $1.99 phenomenon, but in reverse.</p>
<p>I don't know, when I first read the article I thought the same thing as Curm. He is NOT a perfect applicant - his SAT scores suck. Oh well.</p>
<p>BUT -- In my neck of the woods, every top few students are strongly advised to apply to the Ivies from their poorly informed Guidance Counselors. These kids walk around actually believing they have a great shot, because their GC told them so! The GCs take no time to help these kids put together a decent list, nor do they bother taking into account a family's ability/willingness to pay. The outcomes are often rotten. Needless to asy, they usually ARE NOT Duke on a full scholarship.</p>
<p>So, maybe it is good for families and kids to read this stuff in the newspaper. Hopefully it helps a few of them get real.</p>
<p>I said whiney, perhaps not a good word, but why even write this article...it is whiney that it is even being talked about</p>
<p>as I said a bigger and more important issue is the lack of building of more universities and lack of money</p>
<p>CGM:</p>
<p>HE did not write the article. He agreed to be interviewed for it. If his case is being talked about, it is because USA Today decided to talk about it. HE did not whine. What's the problem?<br>
And what has that got to do with more universities and lack of money? HE is not responsible for these.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with CGM. Anyone complaining about not getting into Yale is whining, IMHO. </p>
<p>And any parent who "did much of the research on colleges and scholarships" is a bit over the top. What did the kid do, then? Work on his resume? When it goes on to say " and kept on Jonathan to meet deadlines. Early in the fall, Jim started a master spreadsheet tracking all the colleges with their requirements and deadlines, 15 or 16 columns long." I KNOW this parent is too involved.</p>
<p>Any kid as good as the article says doesn't need a parent to meet the deadlines, especially with a spreadsheet.</p>
<p>Yea, the article reflects the parents' disappointment, hence the whineness. </p>
<p>I'm sure the kid is happy and relieved, probably to have the opportunity to do things on his own finally, without father doing the research and managing the deadlines. Just hope he's gotten enough experience on his own to handle things in college.</p>
<p>It is important to know to have a balanced list of colleges to apply to, but to write this about a kid who did not get into two schools, yet got into many others and with money, what is the lesson</p>
<p>not everyone can get into Princeton and Yale, even if they look good on paper...what lesson or cautionary tale is that?</p>
<p>Maybe I am not seeing the big picture here, but really, even "perfect" kids don't get into the Ivies, its all about the #s, and what is it 85% or more get said no too?</p>
<p>I just don't get why the parents were wondering why son didn't get in...it not really why HE was not chosen, but what "it" factor did those that did get in have- </p>
<p>it is not like not getting accepted to the ivies is a surprise...I think people should be surprised thast they are the 1 of 9 or 10 that DO get in</p>
<p>I should think that parents nagging their kids to meet deadlines, whether for applications or packing for college, probably would describe 80% of CC parents, with or without spreadsheets. And let's mot forget about the threads about FAFSA, EFC, merit money, etc... all on the Parents Forum. </p>
<p>Anyone who is not a bit disappointed in not getting into his or her #1 college would have to be superhuman. The difference between this kid and other kids who did not get into their #1 college is that he got interviewed for an article and was willing to give voice to that initial disappointment. But why focus on that alone? he is thrilled with where he will be going--as are the majority of kids who did not get into their top choice but are/will be attending excellent schools nonetheless.</p>
<p>I really don't see any reason to dump on the kid.</p>
<p>CGM:</p>
<p>Your questions would be best addressed to USA Today.</p>
<p>"I really don't see any reason to dump on the kid."</p>
<p>Who is? I'm dumping on the dad. And I'm not talking about nagging. I had the distinct impression it was way beyond that. Besides, superstars don't need nagging...unless they've been managed for a long time?</p>
<p>If this student lives in Fairfax County, part of the reason he didn't get into Princeton and Yale might have to do with the presence of a presigious public magnet, Thomas Jefferson Science/Tech High School, drawing a lot of the top students in his area away from local public schools. For Princeton, in particular, this probably hurt him, since TJ is one of Princeton's biggest feeders, with 14 students in my class and 20 in next year's. So, Princeton and Yale may have looked at his rank in the context of a system that had already likely removed some of the top students from his school.</p>
<p>"as I said a bigger and more important issue is the lack of building of more universities and lack of money"</p>
<p>I don't see any reason for more universities. The US has thousands of universities, and virtually any student who wants to go to a university can find some place to go. </p>
<p>By 2011, too, the # of college-bound US students will fall after the Echoboomers get through high school, so we don't need to overbuild and have empty classrooms.</p>
<p>Icargirl:</p>
<p>Good point.</p>
<p>NMD:</p>
<p>It may be that the Dad was overinvolved. It may also be that the kid was less stellar than USA Today believed he was when selecting him for the USA Today All-Star Team. But superstars also need nagging. That's why they have managers.</p>
<p>One of the most brilliant persons I ever knew could speak 10 languages and was extremely erudite. But he could not be trusted to keep appointments or to get out of the house wearing matching shoes (the socks were matching, courtesy of the wife). Anyone wanting him to get something done knew enough to let his wife know. That went for his publisher, too. I actually overheard his wife telling him he had to finish writing his manuscript.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And any parent who "did much of the research on colleges and scholarships" is a bit over the top.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>With the cost of college creeping up to 50K a year and some schools already there unless someone can just open their checkbook, write the check without flinching, I think as a parent, you would be remiss not to do any research on colleges and scholarships.</p>
<p>With all of the threads about merit money, full rides, etc I guess we have more than our share of over the top parents right here on CC</p>
<p>Right on, right there, Sybbie. Some of kids have difficulty picking up the right sundries from a store. You'd be crazy not to know what you are paying for, and the only way to do that is to do some research. And of course, you should share your findings and opinions with your student.</p>
<p>I really don't see what the problem is with the kid or the parents. They told their story; they didn't complain. They seem more than okay with the outcome. CGM think that anyone who admits that all did not go perfectly, even if they are happy with the outcome, is whiny. NMD has a problem with the parents being involved, with dark hints of over-involvement but no obvious evidence. guess my kids sure weren't superstars, as they needed some support and help from us. As did, almost by definition, most offspring of CC parents.</p>
<p>Sure is a tough crowd! :)</p>