<p>
oldfort - I don’t want to mention where your D went to school but I think it was a very, very prestigious place. Was that considered a “match” at her high school? Or do you mean she ended up getting in but off the waitlist? Or are you talking about ultra, ultra reaches? Just curious.</p>
<p>Many of the kids who study-study-study are naturally very smart and really do not have to study as much as they do. It’s part of their personality and these kids do very well on standardized tests.</p>
<p>According to her GC, the school she ultimately matriculated was her match. She was WL because they thought it was her back up. Her GC was told that if D1 really wanted to go there they would give it a special consideration. I also got that piece of information when I met with the GC. The girl I mentioned was admitted to Harvard EA and applied to other top tier schools during RD.</p>
<p>Here is one example. There was a student, top of the class, who applied to Stanford. At least, he said he was the top of the class, they do not post who is top and who is not. We had no reason to believe otherwise. He played in the orchestra. Later, after the 1st year of college started, the mom was clearly angry with the whole application process. She said her child did not get in to Stanford and she fully expected it. She claimed he was in the top 10% of the class (but his final choice of college was Baylor). I asked her what extracurriculars he did, she said orchestra. I asked her about volunteer work, she seemed very bothered that I would ask, but he had none. And in our district, Orchestra is a class. It is done largely during the school day. He had nothing outside of that. My daughter, who is not in the top 10% (but close) does orchestra, PLUS, city orchestra, PLUS, every music competition that comes out, PLUS charity stuff, PLUS volunteer work with Army Corp of Engineers, and so on. My daughter takes straight AP courses. So while she might not be in the top 10%, she takes more challenging courses than anyone we know. And, she also participates in Math Honor Society, French Honor Society, and so on. </p>
<p>I am not saying she will get in. But she was shocked her son did not get in. And no one who does not know us personally likely knows all that my daughter does.</p>
<p>sylvan8798–not really as this girl didn’t go to our high school and I never said that kids that study all the time get poor test scores I said that the kids know the difference between the kids that have to study all the time to get the scores they do–there is a distinction whether you understand it or not. There has to be a natural ability to achieve those high test scores but most kids that study hard enough can score well enough on homework and in class tests to have a high GPA.</p>
<p>Schools with very low admission rates, can be “matches” but a reach at the same time.
My oldest was admitted into a 100% need met school that was a reach for her, & I think she got a bump because it was clearly her top choice even though she did not apply ED/EA.</p>
<p>emeraldkity4–I agree–I think that for most kids on CC that the top schools are technically “matches” based on GPA/test scores and EC’s, but it’s the acceptance rate that makes them reaches.</p>
<p>lmkh70–same with this kid I was talking about–EC was soccer and a bunch of summer learning “camps”–one for writing, one for math, etc. She never had a part-time job, never even babysat. Everything she did was focused around school and studying. Not the kind of kid schools want to see. She had 10 rejections and one acceptance (double legacy) at her “safety” school.</p>
<p>
Yeah, I don’t know how much kids study, but to the extent I’ve looked, at our local school the NMF list, the val list (we have a lot) and the top admissions all seem to line up fairly well. SATs and top activities too. And I know because up until a year or so ago they used to publish a comprehensive list of stats and admissions (by number, not name). </p>
<p>It was on the web actually, I think I’ve posted a link on here before to be helpful, but some of the comments it received (along the lines of "How did number 263 get in there?) may be the reason they no longer make it public.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amy needs to become a better snoop. Any decent college speculator would have known about the boy’s double legacy.</p>
<p>There are kids who study a lot and get perfect grades in advanced classes, and even if they cut the studying in half they would still have all A+s. The other students may think that they get these grades only because of the constant studying, when in fact these grades would be achieved without the studying. These kids don’t realize that some teachers actually tell these students to put away the books and stop!!! Of course these kids are also naturally smart and do well on standardized tests, but nobody knows this, nor should they.</p>
<p>Maybe I missed it, but we have also not talked about “need blind” vs not. If a school is not need-blind, then a full pay student may have an edge. Another area where other parents and students do not really know the details. Obviously a lot of tippy-top schools ARE need blind, but going down just a little on the list, then they are not.</p>
<p>We don’t begrudge this young lady. The reason I even brought it up is that I don’t think it is as random as people think. It was D1’s bad luck, but on the other hand, she also ended up at a place where she was very happy.</p>
<p>As a young person, I become upset whenever parents grill my mom or me about what schools I’ve applied to or my top choice. Rarely are they doing so out of innocent curiosity.
Usually snide comments are made. So unnecessary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>PG, did I write anything that would intimate I do not agree with you on the above? It is well accepted that there are more qualified candidates than there are seats at the schools that are most often discussed on CC. While the adcoms tend to “sell” quite a bit drivel on a routine basis, one has to believe them when they share that they could have accepted more candidates. Actually, even the best schools do accept students who end up turning them down, as the plumetting yield on the first page of the USNews shows. </p>
<p>Fwiw, I also buy the concept that schools do make mistakes when rejecting XYZ, but I am not so sure they make many mistakes when accepting ABC. The decision, as in Oldfort example, is between picking the most appropriate among two great choices. In so many words, they could not go wrong with either choice as … far as the school goes. Not necessarily the same story for the applicant. This said, that shunned applicant will ultimately find his or her niche school and be extremely happy. </p>
<p>All in all, I have yet to see --not that I pretend to know more than is shared in this or my own community-- examples that the system does not work, and that there is much truth to the claims of “lottery” and universal crapshoot. That does not mean, however, that the system does not create deceptions and failed expectations.</p>
<p>There’s the old stereotype of the not smart kid who achieves based on hard work alone. (Sister to the image of the brown-noser/teacher’s pet.) The colleges don’t know if a kid sleeps at night (unless he tells them- yes, some are proud to admit they only get two hours or routinely stay up late to finish a paper.) What the college sees is the results. Nothing says a hard worker will have lower scores. They can prep for the std tests, too. And, if someone means “native intelligence,” those naturally brilliant kids-- they have to have the results, too.</p>
<p>alexissss–that is really too bad. We haven’t experienced that here. When people ask those questions they are genuinely interested. The comments heard are usually “that’s fantastic”, “good luck” and “I’m glad I don’t have to pay that bill” :D.</p>
<p>@stevema
That’s good! That should always be the response imo, lol. I had one really sweet mom congratulate me on my top choice and give me a hug back when I lived in PA! :3
She was a single mom and really down to Earth.</p>
<p>
I laugh because the scope and spectrum of human intelligence, abilities, interests, and motivations is infinitely complex and defies these simple reductions that posters attempt to make. And yes, students can study for the SAT/ACT and do well based on studying a lot vs some kind of “natural ability.” </p>
<p>Ultimately, I think that’s what this whole discussion comes to - schools are trying to put together a class of students with different interests, abilities, backgrounds, and intelligences. Presumably, they do a reasonable job of it and the motivated students all find slots somewhere, even if it’s not where <em>WE</em> might have expected them to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is definitely the case with my kids’ peer group. I would never say this publicly but some do. The other factor that makes people mad is when they find out that some affluent kid with well-educated parents used the minority card–we have several where one parent was from Argentina or Colombia or another Latin American country, but they were wealthy there and now are wealthy here. It seems to me that the core of the “how did HE get in?” speculation is a basic desire to make sense of it all and to find answers where sometimes there are none.</p>
<p>sylvan8798–well, and like I said, no one has really been surprised by where kids got in or not, which is what this is about. The kids that really have to study hard to get the grades they do, aren’t Ivy material, the other kids get that, it’s the parents of these kids that are the ones that are surprised, no one else is.</p>