<p>My son was not a superstar but was ranked in the top 5% of our suburban HS. He was accepted EA at his first choice school – not HYPS stature, but a well-regarded masters university mostly known in the NE. When one of his classmates was also accepted during RD, we had quite a number of parents ask us “how do you think ‘Oscar’ got in?” ‘Oscar’ was never known for his academic achievements: no AP classes, no honors level classes. But he was a pretty good athlete: starter on the FB team and also a member of the baseball team. </p>
<p>I think when most parents brought this up with us, it was because they considered the college better known for academics than sports and thought that the acceptance of a “lesser qualified” student might reflect negatively on our son’s accomplishments. We all assumed that ‘Oscar’ had been recruited for the BB team, but of course no one knew his test scores. DS didn’t care at all – the school was and is a perfect fit for him academically and socially.</p>
<p>As it turned out, we eventually had the opportunity to chat with ‘Oscar’s’ dad on campus. While he tried out as a walk-on for the BB team, he had not actively been recruited as a scholarship player. And when ‘Oscar’ did not make the team freshman year, he ended up transferring to a smaller college where he did end up playing BB.</p>
<p>YES! Exactly! BTW, I was a Girl Scout troop leader and room mother and all the rest. And I had a general idea of “who the bright kids were.” But specific grades and test scores – I can’t see how that could possibly be any of my business, or under what circumstances my kids would share that info with their peers, any more than I’d share what I made this year or how much I spent on my new car with my neighbors.</p>
<p>My D’s best friend got into Notre Dame - excellent school, and she’s a smart, nice girl. Great for her. What more else would be to discuss about it? My S’s friends mostly went to U of Illinois. That’s the thing around here - even really smart kids are fine going off to the state flagship. That’s not expansive enough for <em>my</em> thinking and <em>my</em> household, but who am I to suggest otherwise to them? If they think that’s the right path, well, god bless 'em.</p>
<p>If we accept the fact that no one knows what goes on inside admissions, and Monday morning amissions-rep serves no one, we have to apply that to both the student who was turned down AND the student that was accepted. With all due respect to the parents here explaining why their students got in…you don’t know what the tipping point was any more then the parent of the student who was rejected knows why their student didn’t make the cut. Obviously there are sometimes some glaring factors that will make a student far less qualified for a lottery school, however once you get to the high level students that are statistically admissible you have no idea what the tipping point is one way or the other for an admit or deny. It could be the luck of the reader the file was assigned to…they really connected with the essay style and what the student was interested in. Another reader for the same school could find the writing self indulgent and not share the interest, be in a bad mood due to traffic and a spilled a grande latte. You have no idea. One year they could be looking to enroll more students in a program your student expressed interest in and has consistent EC work in, another year they could be overenrolled and planning on cutting that program back. No one knows.</p>
<p>In all cases it’s best to graciously say “It’s a wonderful opportunity for your/our student.” and leave it at that.</p>
<p>Sally, I did not say it was always the case. But neither will I use the term rarely, especially when reading the reactions on … These shores in April and May. </p>
<p>I also do not buy the argument that people do it for instructional purposes. If they were, they would ask the student directly “hey, little Sally’ how did you get in” would of course defy common sense and decency. Hence, people do it behind the back, and fully knowing it is plain … gossip, and that they do NOT expect to hear the real reasons listed by people who do NOT know the answers better than they do.</p>
<p>IMO, any response other than “well, none of us really knows what strikes the fancy of a particular adcom on any given day --but good for him, I hope he enjoys himself there – now, how about this weather?” IS encouraging MMQBing, IMO. It also encourages the point of view that everyone’s life choices are up for public discussion / debate / speculation. That’s fine on an anonymous forum such as this one; I don’t think it’s something to encourage in real life.</p>
<p>Maybe my situation is different since I work in the school and see the kids more academically, but I’ve yet to be surprised with any acceptance or rejection. Sure, some were toss ups and could have gone either way, but no surprises here that come to mind.</p>
<p>I have long ago advocated that grades and test scores be made public. Never bothered me when they were back in Elbonia. Also, the annual national exam questions are published once the testing is done, the test results used to be published by student name, and the admission criteria (test scores) for every department of every university are published as well. </p>
<p>People don’t know the intelligence or hard work of other kids as much as they think they know.</p>
<p>When I here or read what some people think are signs of giftedness, I want to vomit sometimes, seriously. People will say if a child is a troublemaker, then they are probably highly gifted, therefore, bored, therefore, causing trouble. I have never seen this to be true. This is just one example of many. If someone is nice, or quiet, they are often seen as dumb. I am not sure if this is why there was an assumption that one child should have gotten in over another, but really, there are so many reasons, superficial, that people sum other people up. And many of them are inaccurate.</p>
<p>I’m a little dumfounded at the suggestion the point is being nice about some kid who got into a reach- or being encouraged. And, just shrugging our shoulders that some “better seeming” kid didn’t get in. We see it on CC all the time, this idea that stats and a few hs titles are what it takes to get into some coveted school. That the BMOC is somehow golden. Why do we think colleges ask for an appplication that’s more than transcript, scores and a list of activities? Why do we think they read the apps, rather than run stats through a computer program and assign some sort of scores to activities?</p>
<p>I totally get that it’s hard to predict what will catch the eye of an admissions officer on any particular day. OTOH, you can bet I asked our GC about why the only two students who ever got into Stanford from our school had much lower scores than the ones accepted to HYP. It turned out they were both recruited athletes, URM and one was also a close relative of a very well known political figure. While my son still applied to Stanford, we went in with our eyes open - it was a much longer shot than the east coast colleges which know our high school better. It often appears random *who *gets into HYP from our school, but there’s never been a year when *no one *got in. So then your question becomes what sort of credentials beyond the obvious are going to be good enough. For a while it seemed like the kids who got in were all at least Intel semi-finalists. You bet I worried whether what my son did was of equal caliber. If no one ever talks about what sort of accomplishments the kids who get in have (and the equally good ones of many who get rejected, that goes without saying), you have no idea whether those super-reaches are even reasonable.</p>
<p>I had an interesting talk with a neighbor who thought until last spring her son was looking at one set of colleges, but he’s suddenly begun running really well. He’s winning state level races, and the game has completely changed. I have to admit, knowing nothing about athletic recruiting, I really enjoy hearing about how it works.</p>
<p>I’ve seen kids that, on paper, are “shoe-in’s” for the Ivy’s–as much as there is such a thing–4.0’s, 2400’s, etc. but, one conversation with them and you know why they didn’t get in…sad but true. These schools don’t want kids that all they do is study and with no EC’s to back up those grades, they aren’t getting in. It’s surprising to some that aren’t familiar with the process though.</p>
<p>^^not simply credentials. More about self-presentation and whether that matches what the college wants and likes. You can glean a lot by poring throught the websites. Some tell you exactly, some have a few key phrases. Many kids don’t match themselves up this way. They assume their stats and titles have all the impact needed.</p>
<p>It’s not just studying with no ECs. You can have a good candidate who blows the written portions.</p>
<p>lookingforward–very true–in one case though, the parents were pretty clueless as well–of course their snowflake will get in…huge shock when all the rejections came back–but had they asked, people would have told them otherwise. Crying in your alumni interview because you think you got the answer wrong is not a good thing…</p>
<p>Oh good grief. Why is this anyone’s business, at all? You know, all the countries that we’re supposed to mimic how they do things – those are all countries where people give up everything they have to flee from there and come to the US.</p>
<p>But xiggi, someone CAN be qualified - and simply not get in because there aren’t enough seats, and that’s how the cookie crumbles. I don’t see it doing any good to suggest that someone who was reasonably well qualified “blew it” or had some weakness on the app. They may or may not have. They didn’t “blow it” - they just didn’t get in. It’s not a referendum on them as a person.</p>
<p>^ Ultimately, that’s true- they just didn’t get a seat. And there are lots of reasons for that, including the volume of competition in general and in your community. But part of what we’re talking about (or at least what I am,) is what a kid CAN control. Being val or top 5 is impressive in the high school context. Does not guarantee a kid can pull together a good app. Long before you get sidelined for geo diversity or that tuba player they need, it’s your own actual app that can push or not.</p>
<p>“It’s not a referendum on them as a person.”</p>
<p>^This.</p>
<p>With the rarefied 6% admit rates, people might be really good and might have gotten in 5 years ago but just did not make the cut from finalist to admit in the last stack.</p>
<p>D1 didn’t get into any of her reaches. As someone who is always curious about why something happens, I spoke with her GC at length after the results came out. I was also very friendly with the GC, so I think I probably got more information than other parents.</p>
<p>The GC said that even though the school was known to place 30+% students at top 20 schools, a lot of those students were either athletes or legacies. One year Princeton may admit 5 students, but 3 would be recruits and 2 for academic. She said there was another girl with very similar profile as D1 (accomplished dancer), but had just a bit better stats than D1. This young lady pretty much cleaned up at every school she applied to. I could definitely see that, 2 dancers with similar profile on paper, guess who they were going to take? I think if we had that piece of information, maybe D1’s strategy would have been different.</p>
<p>I don’t think it is as much of crapshoot as people like to believe. I also think students from the same school, same region, same sex, same race, same EC are competing with each other.</p>