<p>I hope my worries are unfounded and I can look back and say I wish I had known it would all work out :-)</p>
<p>I would have encouraged S to apply to more EA (I too thought this was binding - but mostly just dd not get our act together in time)</p>
<p>I would have done the visits of “likely” schools in Junior year instead of waiting to visit once accepted (2 visits the past couple weeks - 3 visits this coming week - eek)</p>
<h1>9 confirms #8, and is also my only regret. Ultimately, it wouldn’t have made a difference in admissions outcomes (positive for us, for both D’s), but for D#2 concentrating on improving her ACT score might have caused her less stress, poor thing – and for me, a lot less nailbiting & internal thrashing.</h1>
<p>OTOH, she only bombed the SAT math – did very well on other sections, so she might have had less positive data to provide unless she chose to submit all scores on all tests.</p>
<p>And I have to agree with margit. Being in a family I believe was blessed and/or lucky with outcomes, the main thing I so wish others would comfort themselves with are these 2 realities:</p>
<p>(1) The results aren’t a referendum on a particular student’s personal worth. The most competitive colleges are largely choosing among equals, but choosing for reasons that none of us can control. The competition is unpredictable and mostly invisible to us.</p>
<p>(2) The only important thing is where the particular student is likely to be happy (which could be a number of colleges), not a “label” college or the most popular college. Even “dream schools” have their downsides. We’re still on earth as far as I know, not in paradise.</p>
<p>I slightly disagree wtih reasonabledad. I think his statement about “minimum” is true for any non-Hooked applicant to an Ivy or Ivy-peer, but it does not apply to Hooked or heavily-tipped applicants, necessarily. I know way too many exceptional students (but without the top-top stats) that beat others with higher stats to Ivies & flagship publics. In all the cases those admits were heavily-tipped or outright hooked. But if you’re not in that category, virtual “perfection” is, yes, the minimum.</p>
<p>I wish the formula for ascertaining the EFC score was simplified. I wish colleges were more forthcoming about their scholarship offers. I would make it mandatory for colleges to post their expected avg G.P.A and avg SAT or ACT score maybe even their yield rate on their applications. It would save parents a ton of money and help students meet realistic expectations. And last, I would recommend financial counseling be required for those students who need to take out loans to pay for their education that exceeds a certain threshold.</p>
<p>“I would make it mandatory for colleges to post their expected avg G.P.A and avg SAT or ACT score maybe even their yield rate on their applications. It would save parents a ton of money and help students meet realistic expectations.”</p>
<p>TerpDad, the problem is that even the previous year’s info has lately been “too low” in the case of many colleges. That’s for starters. When the capable pool is suddenly much more capable than last year (for that college), all bets are off and cannot be based on the most recent published results. Secondly, the transparency would have to be 2-way, which it will never be: i.e., students would also have to publish how many/which colleges they applied to, so that colleges in fact could “post their expected…yield rate.” Colleges cannot reliably predict yield right now. Yield unpredictability is off the charts, given double-digit applications from single students and similar multiple acceptances. That’s one reason waitlists at some colleges are so long right now.</p>
<p>Last year suddenly there were “massacres” at many of the mid-level U.C.'s that would have been a cake-walk the previous year for those same students. That’s just one of many examples. Also, when competition is so tight and so massive (for example, for privates), it’s the little things – not the big but similar stats --that can tip the scales. Another thread on CC features some revelations from admissions officers about “interest” being a deciding factor in tight races – interest measured partly by visiting. I see a difference even among consecutive admission years. Last year my D’s friend got into Cornell with slightly above a 3.2 UW and strong scores. This year a different friend got rejected from Cornell with a 3.8 UW and the same strong scores. Both are from the same ethnic background and similar SES. The difference? The first friend visited Cornell; the other did not. I’ve heard lots of results like this. These are obviously anecdotal only. They are offered not for statistical “proof” but as indication of the limited value of publishing “averages.”</p>
<p>I appreciate it when a college website has a more detailed “admitted freshman profile page.” Some are quite detailed and you can learn the “lowest” and “highest” accepted, but again keep in mind those are only valid for that year. I think that the best that families can hope for is to plan conservatively and not to plan lopsidedly. Results may not be intuitively estimable, but they are also not counter-intuitive. If a college on a certain level has not accepted any un-hooked student with a 3.8 or lower in the last 3 years, what makes a student believe that 7 colleges (in her case, all Ivies) which are <em>more</em> competitive than that will seriously review a 3.8 this year? Strategies of this sort reveal that the student is looking upon college admissions as a lottery, with quantity of applications providing a significant edge as long as those applications are all within the same group. No, you don’t have control about who else applies (that’s the chance aspect), but you do have control about where YOU apply.</p>
<p>Epiphany ~ I agree with your observation about heavily hooked applicants. But one of the things that I’ve observed on CC over the years is that it can be quite difficult for us, as parents, to really understand how “hooked” or “tipped” our kids are.</p>
<p>Yes, the African-American NMF with the 4.0 UW GPA and the novel on the NYT best-seller list is headed somewhere good…but many parents on CC are looking at things like being high school Valedictorian (24,000 of those each year), editor of the school newspaper…</p>
<p>My conclusion is that we are all committed to our children to such a great extent that it is hard, very hard, to see them objectively. This is one of the key elements in the posts we can read on CC which have the flavor of “my great kid didn’t get accepted, even though the kid up the street with lesser stats did…” </p>
<p>So for the Cal Tech/ Stanford/ Ivies/ MIT crowd, it all starts with high school grades. That’s the core. Everything else is built on that foundation.</p>
<p>At least that’s the way I see it.</p>
<p>I’m speaking, for example, of cases where I knew very well competitors from the same school for a particular college (watched who got in, who didn’t, and where there was no variation in ethnicity). The results have never been a surprise to me.</p>
<p>In cases where I knew well the competitors from the same school for a particular college, another differentiating factor in admission was ability to pay. Full-pay kids got in, as did kids with connected parents. Not legacy necessarily, but those with family or professional connections. </p>
<p>Heck, I had a man offer (too late) to go to bat for my daughter. “Why didn’t you tell me she wanted to go to U of XYZ? I could have gotten her in.” He comes from a very prominent family who has given millions to this particular university, among others. A close family member sits on the Board of Trustees. </p>
<p>It wouldn’t have mattered if he had offered earlier. It’s not the way we play ball but apparently others aren’t above using every advantage.</p>
<p>I’ve known kids who were definitely strong candidates who were not accepted despite heavy duty contacts really pushing for them. So many heavy weights at a college have so many contacts that unless it is a direct line admissions, it doesn’t much matter. My son’s girlfriend’s father was as connected as anyone and really got help at a number of schools for admissions including his alma mater to which he heavily donates and is very active in employment and alumni activities. She was still rejected. Ivanka Trump did not get into UPenn from Choate with great grades and test scores. Was waitlisted and begged her own way into Georgetown.</p>
<p>I wish we’d known to put less emphasis on DD applying for local scholarships. The applications took a good deal of time and effort, were for comparatively small amounts, and only served to reduce the dollar amount of the grants she received at the colleges where she was accepted.</p>
<p>re post 68
perhaps the saying “the thicker the file the thicker the kid” [ I heard that from an admission officer once] actually seems to mean something? I don’t mean to imply that a student is not qualified, but I wonder if too many attempts to “push” a student could backfire? This does not seem to apply to DA’s though.</p>
<p>The best advice was making our son look at the northern school in January. Starting in January of junior year. Finishing all applications, many scholarships and such before Halloween. Taking advantage of EA. Worked great - six acceptances, four before Christmas. I learned a lot that I will use for our daughter in a few years. Being ahead of the game helped for the hard part of the FASFA.</p>
<p>I want to second the motion for good grades, lots of AP classes, and high test scores.</p>
<p>Then, the night before Easter, I want to give thanks.</p>
<p>Our child had good ec’s, but not great, not like you would read about in the NY Times for someone getting into the Ivies. But she did have great grades and test scores, at a public high school. She got one A-, and took all AP’s her last two years.</p>
<p>She got into three of the top 6 colleges, was rejected at a couple, and was accepted at all of the top State schools she applied to.</p>
<p>We are so thankful that they cared about her grades and scores. No hooks, no URM’s, no legacy, no novels, no Olympiads.</p>
<p>Thank you God, thank you America, thank you Colleges, and thank you CC!!! In the words of Rodney Dangerfield, “I’m going to college!” Er, she is…</p>
<p>It turned out to have been a very good idea to do college visits Junior year. (Unheard of around here). If the student has obligations in the Fall, such as a fall sport or another fall EC, it is very difficult to make those trips in the senior year.</p>
<p>
Part of that process is making your own “tip” – by helping your kid figure out what makes him or her interesting or special, and figuring out what colleges are going to be appreciative of what the kid has to offer. It may be an interest outside of school, and it may be something that the kid has never won any awards or recognition for – but still be the kind of thing that would bring the applicant to life in the eyes of the admissions readers. </p>
<p>
I think too many people are focused on accomplishments within the high school environment rather than the world and life outside of school. For example, my d. signed up for mock trial in part because she thought it was something that would look “good” on college apps. She had fun and one year the team was good enough to go to regionals – but my d.'s role on the team was subordinate and I didn’t think it would mean much on the college app, beyond the value of offsetting a possible mistaken impression that she was too narrowly focused on her “passions.” I told her – a lot of kids participate in mock trial - its a great activity, but nothing special on a college app. She also had joined the school honor society her sophomore year – again thinking it looked “good” on a college app – and again I told her it was meaningless, that almost all good students could say they were members of their school’s honor society. (She dropped participation after that year). </p>
<p>My son was nominated (twice) for “Who’s Who in American High Schools” … which of course is a big crock of you-know-what – but it illustrates the mindset: students and their parents are looking at how to win high school level recognition, whereas colleges may be more impressed by outside activities that have have nothing to do with high school, simply because they stand out in some way. So, for example, a kid who gets involved with a dog rescue organization and writes an essay about the succession of foster dogs that have come through her home might have great fodder for an essay, complete with humorous anecdotes and a heartwarming conclusion. Will it help get the kid into college? Who knows – but at least it sets the kid apart. Obviously that essay isn’t going to get a B student into Harvard – but the point is, if everyone in the crowd is wearing a blue hat, then the eyes are going to be drawn to the kid in the red hat … even if it is a school full of blue hats.</p>
<p>I’m not a parent… but I read the thread, and it’s very interesting. I wanted to add:</p>
<p>I wish I had known how little outside scholarships matter at some universities. I would have not bothered with so many extraneous applications.</p>
<p>Wish that when applying ED, we realized how next to impossible it was to get accepted into Wharton at Penn and had used the advantage elsewhere. Wharton is like HYP.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Epiphany - All well said, but the quoted point above is something a lot of parents and students don’t take seriously. I chuckle when I see postings on CC or my children’s friends are amazed they were rejected by colleges they considered to be “safeties” (often considering as “safeties” some very selective institutions) or that they applied to at the last minute (usually at the insistence of their parents). These are schools they showed no or little interest in - no visits, didn’t do any of the optional portions of the application, no contacts before the application, submitting the application on the last possible day, etc. Not every school you think is a safety for you (or for your child) is that “safe.” And, even the ones that really are safeties are clever enough to know that that is how you see them.</p>
<p>The other thing is that too many people base everything on the obvious quantifiables - GPA, SATs, class rank, ECs, etc. They fail to account for the non-quantifiables that they don’t know about the other applicants or that they don’t know are important to a particular college in a particular year. Most of the “my neighbor’s kid with lesser stats got in and my kid didn’t” complaints are based totally on the known quantifiables, ignoring all the other things that may have been considered. “Fit” isn’t just how the college fits your kid but also how the college sees your kid fits its community.</p>
<p>Oh, and I learned that you always go with the tour guide who is the loudest.</p>
<p>K9Leader, I’ll return the compliment. A good summary of what many have said on CC & probably many more than that have experienced.
:)</p>
<p>Perhaps the part that gets overlooked the most is the last sentence of your first paragraph.</p>
<p>Im coming to this thread late, but I want to comment on the idea expressed upthread that despite their official pronouncements of neutrality when it comes to ACT vs. SAT, colleges are still biased against applicants who submit the ACT rather than the SAT I. Not in our experience. Son submitted only the ACT (and, where required SAT IIs). He was admitted to several highly selective schools, including HYP. He had excellent scores, but is not a legacy, a URM, a recruited athlete, or otherwise hooked in any way.</p>
<p>So add our family to the list of those who believe colleges when they say there is no remaining institutional bias against the ACT. </p>
<p>I think a counselor who says a student didn’t get accepted to College X because s/he submitted the ACT rather than the SAT is just trying to take the heat off himself.</p>