<p>Well, if they let in Hotchkiss kids, Choaties must be golden. ;)</p>
<p>(Or was it Lawrenceville?)</p>
<p>The counselor apologized profusely for the misunderstanding.</p>
<p>I’m well aware of the potential for misinterpretation on behalf of my niece. But the “4.0” wasn’t misheard and didn’t need to be brought up at all. There is no statistical evidence that suggests the bottom 25-33% of the class are all athlete dummies and art weirdos, or that non-athletes with 3.5-3.7 must have a 34 ACT score, i.e., one or the other. The counselor should be nothing but supportive for what is at worst a fringe in-state applicant, and conscious of the fact that semester 1 grades may be taken into account if she is deferred, so motivation is crucial. I repeat, the safety schools had already been discussed. Attempting to “ground” a teenager’s dreams isn’t in their job description; it’s irresponsible, callous and tends to happen more frequently to minorities and other low SES youth.</p>
<p>Many found reading posts in CC to be discouraging too. ;)</p>
<p>Did someone say that artists are weirdos and athletes dummies? Must’ve missed that. Artists and athletes are people who are talented hard-working and focused on what they do, like many other people. But spending most of your time in a consuming single-minded pursuit tends to leave you with less time to mind other things, like husbanding grades. Only 24 hours in a day and some of those spent sleeping.</p>
<p>I posted some statistical info. Did you see it? Rather spread out, not organized, but it’s there for you to look at.</p>
<p>The athletes and artists who get admitted to UM have well earned their place, regardless of their GPA/ACT. The purpose of talking about these things is not to bash athletes. It’s to try to better understand data to properly understand one’s chances.</p>
<p>Ground has several meanings. To crash is one, to be realistic and sensible is another. Imparting the second trait to teens in your care is a very noble pursuit I’d say.</p>
<p>There is nothing “unrealistic” about my niece applying to Michigan. Is she a strong match? No. Is she a 3.3 with a 25? No.</p>
<p>Did someone say she shouldn’t apply? Must’ve missed that. I THOUGHT people were saying go ahead and apply, but in the awareness that it’s a reach of some sort(can’t tell how much of a reach with the limited data you’ve shared). And it sounds like she understands that, has a plan B as you say. That’s good. It’s not clear to me what the argument is about? Semantics?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously it will be the counselor’s fault if your niece doesn’t do well this year. </p>
<p>Perhaps the counselor tried to be more subtle but felt your niece wasn’t hearing anything even slightly negative about her chances. Somehow that wouldn’t surprise me.</p>
<p>Why would a counselor need to inform, correct, ground a student of their chances in October of their senior year? Anything synonymous with “Don’t get your hopes up” makes me cringe. Counselors should encourage. Now if it’s April and the student is waitlisted, yes, it’s time to get other affairs in order.</p>
<p>Perhaps you haven’t read the myriad threads here on CC that all tell the same sad tale. I will summarize: “What are my chances to get into X top uni?” “Oh go ahead and take a chance and push the button.” "You’ll never know if you don’t try. " “Yes, don’t worry Mom, I have a safety.” (But I would never go to that awful dump and it doesn’t matter. I’m gonna beat the odds and get into my dream school. I’ll apply to the dump to get them to stop bugging me and pretend I think my chances aren’t good to keep everyone quiet and just wait, just wait until they see me get accepted at X! It’s gonna be great.)“What, deferred? Oh, no.” “It’s OK. That means you still have a chance. You weren’t rejected. They just want to see your semester grades are OK before they accept you. You can call and explain you love them and they’ll take you.” “Whew.” (Back to my daydreams. Hmmm. I wonder if I should’ve looked around a little more and found a safety that I actually like…Nah, I’m going to X. It’s gonna be awesome.) “Waitlisted? I can’t believe it.” “But you weren’t rejected. That means you still have a chance. Keep the dream alive. It’ll come out OK.” (My hopes and dreams. Don’t they know? I’ll write a letter and tell them how much and then they’ll HAVE to take me so they don’t hurt my feelings.) “OK, OK, Mom. I’ll deposit to the safety. Yes, I understand X only takes a few people every year off waitlist. I guess I’ll learn to like safety. It’s a fine school too.” (Ha! Right! I’m not going to that stinkhole. I know X is just taking so long to accept me to prolong the anticipation so I’ll be beside myself joyful when it finally happens after all the waiting.)“What? They closed the waitlist? How can that be? I didn’t get an e-mail. It must be in my spam folder.” “Why didn’t someone tell me last fall? Now I have to go that rat’snest because it’s too late to apply anywhere else. Ohhhhhh.”</p>
<p>Never underestimate the power of teenagers to obscure reality with wishful thinking.</p>
<p>Notes: 1. YES. Story does sometimes have a different ending, though far less frequently than the ending presented. 2. I’m sure the safety is a super place. But teen thinks it’s awful because focused all energies on X and never projected herself into the safety, never tried to really imagine herself there. 3. Probably most often after some time at the safety, teen changes her mind and learns it’s the best place in the world after all and really she always wanted to go there, just applied to X as a lark. 4. But everyone is in for some miserable months in the meantime and it’s not the ideal way to start one’s time at college in that frame of mind.</p>
<p>^Really. As if it’s all about encouraging the poor, fragile little dears. They’re about to leave home and enter the transition to young adulthood- and some of what the big name schools look for is that readiness, that challenge-worthiness that says, when I get to your U, (If I get there,) I won’t crumble, my drives are evident, have been and I know what it takes . Yup. Clock’s ticking.</p>
<p>I wish I could remember some of my own barbs about this “family and friends” attitude that each kid, based on their knowledge of him or her, is oh so special. Fact is, the U’s are machines and their first drives are self-perpetuation. None of this is about niceness, sweet understanding or what-the-kid-wants. Nor how great the kid is in the hs context. You’re not applying for a lateral move to another hs or for 13th grade. Plenty of colleges take chances on kids- in the case of the tippy tops, the competition is such that clear-headedness, goal orientation and success need to prevail. And show.</p>
<p>I encouraged D1 to apply to a school she couldn’t get into. Our GC was frank about her low chances, maybe even blunt. The college generally only accepts one or two from her small hs- and they are usually stellar. I thought, because my D’s interests, strengths and accomplishments so perfectly match one of the more notable programs there, that they might overlook her other drawbacks. Nope. And, I work for the U, actually with admissions, in season. Not once did we even entertain that the GC should coddle D1, keep the flickering flames burning. This is all high stakes. Celeste is right that a skewed view does no one service. But, it is OP’s niece’s choice whether to apply. perhaps her app package, as a whole, will be what they seek. But she should understand what it is they seek. Not assume it’s all about her, her uniqueness or desire.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Judge much? Wow… one of my kids is a physics major with an art concentration – is she a weirdo? </p>
<p>Grizz, someone has to be in that bottom 25% of scores. And at every top school it is mostly students who bring something other than academics to the table. Or a student who is out of sync – high grades, lower score, or high score with lower grades. </p>
<p>And stop fixating on the counselor. We barely used our GC in the college process. We used CC a whole lot more. I would say our GC also underestimated my D2’s chances – she got into every school she applied to, including the ones that the GC firmly stated were a “REACH” (like that, in capital letters :)). Unless your niece intends to not apply based on this conversation, you are making too big a deal out of it. If you think the counselor is young and inexperienced, maybe she is. So what? As long as your niece has matches and safeties on her list she would also be happy with, then she should go ahead and apply.</p>
<p>I will say that you seem to be ignoring the statistical discussion that has gone on earlier in the thread. But I don’t think that is what you want to talk about… you don’t REALLY want to know your niece’s chances for admission, you want to complain about the counselor.</p>
<p>From another thread: "In this thread are people who don’t know what it’s like to be a poor minority in America. People who got into a University because of privilege and want their alma mater full of students from similar privileged backgrounds. Why interrupt the unfair cycle that keeps people like you at the top, right? "</p>
<p>And here: "This woman doesn’t have any idea the life experiences of my niece. "
and also “its irresponsible, callous and tends to happen more frequently to minorities and other low SES youth.”</p>
<p>Could it be that your niece is a URM? Because if so, that changes everything, as you know. In that case the GC should be encouraging her and helping her figure out how to work the ‘life experiences’ into the app. essays. That might make her an attractive candidate. If life has been tough(??) then a 3.7 is quite impressive.</p>
<p>
But what is she? You haven’t told us that, which is why some of us have resisted piling on the GC.</p>
<p>There are so much information missing and we only hear one side of the story. I still give the benefit of doubt to the GC unless all the other information like scores, intended major, GPA, etc are disclosed. She may be simply telling the truth when she looked at the scores (“not strong match” as I quoted). For Ross or CoE, you do need “like a 4.0 to go there”. That should be the truth the GC is telling everyone particularly when the scores are weak. The average admitted GPA for CoE is 3.9, while the average for UMich overall is 3.85. Indeed, it is “like a 4.0”.</p>
<p>FWIW, Grizzly, if you would like to assist your niece in a way that perhaps has not occurred to her guidance counselor, tell her to request access to the school’s NAVIANCE data on its historic admission to UofM.</p>
<p>I suspect you’ll find from helping your niece review that data that if only a few kids are getting in each year, particularly the last 3-4 years, they will be the one’s with the val/sal distinction and possible a few artists/athletes. I also predict they will be within the school’s top 10% of class, even if the school doesn’t rank.</p>
<p>Then you could help your niece interpret the accuracy/inaccuracy of the counselor’s statement, and help her understand ways to optimize her holistic aspects of her application.</p>
<p>It IS possible that your niece’s GPA at her school does not put her in the to 10% of class, which will be a substantial obstacle.</p>
<p>Another thing worth remembering is that guidance counselors can in fact predict with some degree of accuracy whether a student has a legitimate shot because they will have insight to their own and the principal’s recommendations, which are given more weight than you might imagine. So they DO usually have an understanding of the competitive field their students are, in theory, dealing with.</p>
<p>That said, it’s also true she could just be especially lackluster at her job.</p>
<p>Best wishes.</p>
<p>Counselors at publics can be hit or miss. Can’t let a bad one discourage you, as it’s very likely the admissions rep for the area already knows the bad apples.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t find anything from a legitimate source to verify this. To my knowledge, Michigan doesn’t disclose top decile or quartile statistics.</p>
<p>many schools do not rank in Michigan. My school district is one of them. Nevertheless, there is still subjective way to rank students when they are reviewing applications.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They did up until their 2011-2012 Common Data Set, when they stopped reporting those figures. In the 2010-2011 CDS they reported 92% of entering freshmen in the top 10% of their HS class. If I recall, they were questioned on that figure and admitted it was an “estimate,” but regardless of its accuracy, I do think it’s something they take into consideration. On their CDS they list class rank as “considered,” not “important” or “very important,” but I’d take that with a grain of salt, too. </p>
<p>I’ve always thought class rank was an underappreciated stat among college applicants and they parents. GPA gets a lot more attention, but GPA plays no role in the US News college rankings; percentage of the entering class in the top 10% of their HS class does count toward the US News rankings, and that’s something all colleges care about, whether they like it or not and whether they admit it or not. So I think most schools trying to defend or improve their US News rankings are going to pay some attention to class rank.</p>
<p>^The metric UMich publishes on its applicant rating includes percentile rank.</p>
<p>Rank helps sort the “significance” of the GPA. Eg. If you have 3.7 but that puts you in the top 20% as opposed to 10% then perhaps there’s grade inflation at your school. By the same token, a 3.7 that ranks in the top 10% means grading is a little more rigorous.</p>
<p>The other way in which this assessment is talked about is in the evaluation criteria that asks what the student has accomplished within the environment available. Whether the school ranks or not, a candidate’s performance will be evaluated in the context of comparison to peers from that school. Most of the time, you will find the otherwise unhooked admits in the top tenth percentile :)</p>