<p>Really? Are there kids who “should” be going to excellent schools who wind up at mediocre ones? Or are there kids who think they “should” be going to HYP who are sadly disappointed when they “only” make it into Chicago, or Duke, or Northwestern, or Vanderbilt? On CC, I think it’s the latter. </p>
<p>I agree with soozievt. If you’re looking towards the most elite schools, you simply have to start from the mindset that however you perfect your application and whatever cards you may hold that you play, it ultimately is a crapshoot. Set your expectations low and then be pleasantly surprised – if you hit any top 20 school, it’s absolutely wonderful cause for celebration, instead of being like the piggish people who bemoan that they have to “only” choose from Chicago, Duke, Northwestern and Vanderbilt because they were so unfairly rejected from the Ivies. I mean, really, now. Spare me the fake angst.</p>
<p>I do agree that if you are going to apply to the most selective schools with extremely low admit rates, you should be realistic and have fairly low expectations going into it. Do not expect a certain school to come through. Know that it is possible but the odds are very low and so you should not be torn to pieces when a rejection from such a school comes through. Disappointed, perhaps, but not so upset because you didn’t expect it to happen. Further, nobody should be fixated on just Ivies or just top 10 schools or some such. That is also part of the problem for some people…the mindset of “Ivy or bust” and so if it doesn’t happen, they are so devastated and can’t seem to be happy with acceptances to other elite schools. In my experience, in MOST cases, if someone is a TRUE realistic contender for highly selective schools, typically they won’t be shut out all together but one can’t predict just which elite school will give the nod.</p>
<p>I think the most frustrating situation for students and their parents is to end up on multiple waitlists while not actually getting accepted into any top-25 school. It would be nice if one could trade 3 or 4 “waitlist points” for a single acceptance to any of the schools on that list.</p>
<p>Perhaps the top schools could pool their individually-tagged waitlist data into a central server, along with their remaining needs – by major, by gender, by geography or what have you. Students would rank their waitlisted college choices and software would match as many of these multiple waitlisters as possible to the one school that best fits everyone’s needs.</p>
<p>Odds have nothing to do with it. Admissions is not flipping a coin to decide who gets in. If u get in you are more qualified academically, athletically, and or artistically. The kids who get in to top schools are not wondering “if” they’ll get accepted, they’re only wondering who it will be.</p>
<p>I don’t buy the “Ivy or bust” way of thinking. The university I attended probably wouldn’t rate a second look from a lot of CC posters; furthermore, it is my sincere opinion that any limitations in my work now are my own, and not connected with the university I attended.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, restricting my attention to science, math, and engineering (where I know something), I do believe that there is a genuinely elite group of thinkers who ought to go to the top schools. If they wind up going to one of the excellent schools nominated by Pizzagirl, I’m sure they will do very well there (and it will make some of my colleagues extremely happy to see them in their classes, and labs). And yet . . . I think the nation gains something by matching the very top students with the very most challenging colleges. Caltech operates this way, but it’s not for everyone.</p>
<p>This post is not a complaint about AA, legacy admits, or preferences for lacrosse players or fencers. It’s also not pseudo-angst–it’s about allocating scarce resources sensibly.</p>
<p>Future “captains of industry” can be evaluated on entirely different criteria–fine by me.</p>
<p>Also, I agree with LoremIpsum–unfortunately, that would probably be regarded as a “combination in restraint of free trade.”</p>
<p>Here’s another factor that comes into play at highly selective schools that have tons of applicants who come to the table with very high academic profiles. Their academic profiles are not what sets one apart from the other but merely brings them to the consideration pile. But what can often really help tip someone into the “yes” pile is something UNIQUE about them. This is not necessary but can really help. For example, my kid who went to an Ivy, did not have this unique factor in her favor. She was truly what some call a “bright well rounded kid”…strong academically and strong in ECs but none of her ECs were unique and in fact, she had more than one passion and was involved in three different sports, two different instruments, band, dance, theater and so on. She didn’t even specialize (like many say is necessary today) but was more the “do it all” kind of kid (she liked each of these lifelong activities too much to give some up to specialize). She still got in. </p>
<p>However, what can help a lot (even though it doesn’t fit my kid’s situation) is to have something unique to offer or something unique you have done. I’ll give an example of such a kid but don’t want to be too super specific as it is not my own kid. But I did interview (as an alum interviewer) a kid this year from my kids’ rural public high school. Interviewers are not privy to academic stats and such. We learn about “everything else.” This kid had a unique talent that was self taught. He does circus arts. I don’t want to be specific on what his skill area is. This kid devoted endless hours to honing these skills right at home. He has achieved a great deal with it and performs in a well regarded circus troupe. He made a supplemental video for college admissions and I saw it (actually, I’ve seen him perform live too…I live in a very small community). Besides how great he came across in the interview, his video alone would make me want to accept him if I were an adcom. Indeed, he was the only kid I interviewed this year who was accepted to my alma mater, a very selective university, and I interviewed many other strong candidates. He is going to one of the HYPSM schools next year, and this is very rare from our high school and in fact, I am not sure anyone has gone to this university from our high school before or if they have, it is quite unusual. Anyway, he seemed to have all the academic “goods” (has other very good acceptances too), but I imagine the uniqueness of his activity (not to mention the achievements within it) and the video he put together about his activity could have set him apart from the next very bright student. </p>
<p>I am not suggesting to go out and find a unique activity as you should only do activities you are genuinely interested in and not find ones to “get into college.” This kid is very passionate about his activity and had been doing it for years. But it happened to be on the unique side. And I really believe that some kids who have some really unique thing in their file have a tip factor when all else is equal among very strong academic students. And of course, kids who do more ordinary things like my kid also get in (if they excel at their ordinary interest areas). But unique activities or experiences can stand out in a huge pile of highly qualified applicants at elite colleges.</p>
<p>When an adcom makes a case for you to the rest of the admission committee,there are likely little buzz words that label some kids…like: “the community organizer who lives in the inner city” or “the dog sled racer who is homeschooled” or “the Irish step dancer whose parent died in tragic accident,” or “the painter who started an afterschool art program for underprivileged kids in the housing project,” etc. So, imagine if you have done something unique, those buzz words might be remembered in a sea of applicants where someone else may be “soccer playing science kid,” or “poetry writing pianist.” The latter are fine too and could be admitted too but sometimes the unique stuff tends to stand out!</p>
<p>I’m legacy H and well not sure it is a help despite having rocking scores. I think legacy have higher chances because their folks put more money into their education etc, not because they are legacy per se</p>
<p>I think “unique” is a bit strong and very, very hard to achieve when you’re one of the 35,000 applicants to a college. “Distinctive” may be enough to at least get into one Ivy or top-20 school: do something – an EC, business or community service project – that is well off the beaten track, rather than follow the usual pre-packaged activities that high schools and summer programs offer. These schools want to admit tomorrow’s innovators and leaders, and thus it’s important to show one’s potential in these areas.</p>
<p>BillyMc-
In the article I linked earlier, they said that the legacy kids had on average higher SAT scores than the non-legacies. Perhaps the legacies have a better understanding of what stats are necessary to get into top schools. Many people apply to tops schools who really have no chance of acceptance.</p>
<p>Texaspg,
I can’t recall all the members of the band, the orchestra, the woodwind ensemble, the jazzband, etc, as it was a long time ago, but IIRC, yes there were many strong students, but there were also some average students in the band. I do think though, that for the mostpart, the kind of student who is drawn to the band, orchestra, woodwind ensemble, chess club, bridge club, model UN, etc, and todays clubs like the robotics teams, odessy of the mind, etc, are a different type of student than those who might be drawn to the Future homemakers of america or the 4H club (apologies to anyone who belonged to these-- I am just giving an example).</p>
<p>Considering HYP and their ilk get to choose from a mob of qualified academically, athletically or artistically applicants, the deciding factor is often that you fulfill some university need. Unfortunately, except for some highly visible sports positions, you can’t know what those needs will be beforehand.</p>
<p>How else to explain someone who gets into H and not YP, or Y and not H and P, etc.?</p>
<p>LoremIpsum’s “innovators and leaders” sounds much better than my “rich and famous and influential”. How to ID them must be a top trade secret for each school. With decade’s admission data and alumina records, a school should know better who to admit. Maybe legacies are a better bet.</p>
<p>Even those “highly visible sports positions” may not be needed the year you apply, or there may be 15 others with your skill and grades, and H will only recruit, for example, maybe one pole vaulter per year.</p>
<p>Cry me a river. These kids are moaning about the fact they didn’t get into HYP, but going to places like University of Chicago. Yup, they are now ruined for life (read with sarcasm, please).</p>
<p>If I knew only the admissions outcomes in my own family, or had never served on a scholarship selection committee, I’d probably share the view of pacheight, that it’s a question of qualifications and not “odds.” There might have been years or groups where the outcomes made complete sense–but I have personally seen ones that didn’t. Also, from reading CC, I’ve seen a small number of rejections that were real head-scratchers, and I don’t think that all of the posts were phony. Beyond that, at this point I know how the college experience turned out, for about 50% of the students in our circles.</p>
<p>Based on reading CC and personal messages over the years, I think there might be a little more apparent logic in the HYP admissions of people in the East. The admissions committee members might be a bit more familiar with the high schools in that region than they are with high schools in the land between the coasts. As I understand it, there are about 37,000 high schools in the US; and there is fairly rapid turn-over among young admissions committee members. It is highly improbable that they’d know much of anything about most of the high schools, especially if they receive single-digit numbers of applications from them, year-by-year. A Harvard representative visited the local HS eight years ago, and I don’t think “anyone from anywhere” has been seen there since.</p>
<p>If your response to that paragraph contains the words “high school profile,” you just haven’t encountered the staff at the local HS.</p>
<p>soozievt is right, that uniqueness seems to sell. I don’t think that the universities have quite registered how much cynicism this engenders among the not-so-unique. On the one hand, it’s not difficult to understand why a top school would take an Olympic champion skater, if the academic qualifications are solid. When MIT admitted a rodeo clown and publicized it, one could argue that rodeo clowns are risking their own safety to draw a bull away from a downed rider, and that’s indicative of important personal qualities. </p>
<p>But recently, Stanford admitted a champion tap-dancer and a champion skeet-shooter. Really? No disrespect to the specific students intended–it’s possible that these two students might have been among the top choices, without their championships. However, Stanford’s highlighting the championships makes them seem like the deciding factor.</p>
<p>“I think the most frustrating situation for students and their parents is to end up on multiple waitlists while not actually getting accepted into any top-25 school. It would be nice if one could trade 3 or 4 “waitlist points” for a single acceptance to any of the schools on that list.”</p>
<p>Look, I think the most frustrating situation for students and their parents is that there are more kids who are top-25-worthy than the top-25 can accommodate. It’s just as simple as that. And almost no one on CC seems to be able to accept it. Just because you may be top 25 worthy doesn’t mean that you, indeed, are owed a top 25 slot.</p>
<p>You’re talking something almost akin to residency match - both med school students and residency programs rank the other and a computer spits it all out. The wild card, though, is financial aid. In residency matches, the programs pay the students. In college, the students pay the colleges. You can’t really match a kid to a college without simultaneously handing him the FA offer.</p>
<p>In response to fireandrain: No, collectively, that is not the group I was thinking of (especially not the student with 2330 SAT on the 6th try). </p>
<p>With regard to Asian-Americans, specifically: I predicted on another thread that Asian-American admissions would be skewed this year, by the publication of Amy Chua’s book, and especially its timing. The book contributed to an ugly stereotype of parent-driven accomplishment, and efforts well past the point of diminishing returns. </p>
<p>Ok, the book is part caricature, conceivably even humorous to some, and Sophia and Lu seem to be reasonably well-balanced. It didn’t hurt Sophia’s admissions, but I do suspect that it had an adverse impact for some others.</p>
<p>It’s interesting that the Asian-admit thread cropped up this year. I don’t actually know whether the Asian-American outcomes were any different this year than before. The raw percentages will not tell much, because they won’t tell about the types of Asian-American students admitted.</p>
<p>For the record: Not Asian & do think Asian-Americans experience discrimination in some areas</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I don’t have a problem with the idea that quite a few top-25-worthy students are not admitted to the top 25. That has to be expected, just based on the numbers. The situation I’m describing is different: a student who is actually likely to be in the top 5% of admitted students at one of the top 5, who is not admitted to any of them.</p>
<p>Oh good grief! All the other schools I named were also top 20 colleges! How much more challenging do you need to get? This is known as slicing the bologna a little too thin.</p>
<p>Really, this is like distinguishing between the gold, silver and bronze winners at the Olympics. Who cares? They are all still at the absolute cream of the crop tippy-top level in their sport; there is little difference to write home about.</p>