<p>
[quote]
Does anyone else feel that way when their child is rejected from their alma mater?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes. What alumni check? :) No more from me, that's for sure! Also, for years I have represented university faculty/staff at reduced rates or no cost. No more, that is for sure. I don't even want to work with them any more. </p>
<p>The school has an absolute right to set its parameters and make its choices for its incoming class, and we have an absolute right not to associate ourselves with them any more :).</p>
<p>Yes prefect, you are absolutely correct that a state university is not an automatic guarantee for a state resident. However, the odds are astronomically better than say a private school.</p>
<p>As far as alumni and donors go, that is a tricky situation. While I don't think there is anything wrong with an legacy applicant having an extra few points because their parent is an alumni; I do think that is where it should stop. "A few extra points". The school shouldn't lower their standard for the applicant because they are a legacy. Also, I don't think that an alumni should believe that they should be able to "Buy" their son or daughter admittance to their alma mater. Of course, they most definitely have the right to not donate any longer to the school if their child doesn't get in. But it is sad to think that someone was donating and contributing to their alma mater for years with the only motive of trying to buy their child's way in. But like I said; if your child is stellar academically and in all other areas that schools look for in an applicant, then a legacy SHOULD receive some extra points towards their package being accepted. Not an automatic, but definitely some extra consideration. That is a fringe benefit of having belonged to that school. Just like faculty get discounted tuition for their children; employees of company's get discounts, etc.... I just don't believe in the "Automatic" because they are a legacy.</p>
<p>Remember, if you look at the top 50 schools in the country, their acceptance level ranges from about 7% to 35%. But there are also plenty of schools that have acceptance in the 80-90% range. That means for every school that you apply to, someone is NOT going to get accepted. Also realize that most every school has a certain level of diversity that they aim for. I don't mean AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. There's a big difference. The level of diversity a school looks for is to bring enough differences together to benefit the learning and cultural/social experience of ALL STUDENTS. In other words; yes many schools will have a certain amount of minorities accepted; female/male levels; athletes, musicians, artists, international students, students from different parts of the country, etc.... Mind you, this doesn't mean that they are lowering the minimum requirements for these diverse students; they are just trying to diversify the student body from those applicants who have met the requirements. </p>
<p>I.e. all things being equal among 2 applicants, an applicant from Montana PROBABLY has a better chance of getting into a school in Massachusetts than an applicant from Connecticut. Only because there's PROBABLY a good chance that A LOT OF APPLICANTS apply for Connecticut whereas probably very few apply from Montana. Again; assuming all other things between these two applicants were equal. Also, many of these schools have departments that don't get a lot of students. I know first hand of at least 3 schools that have such a low enrollment in their engineering department, that if you were to claim a major in Engineering on your application where they look for your goals and plans, then you've got an excellent chance of getting accepted. Way above many other students. Again, assuming you met their other requirements. Remember; the school is trying to maximize it's resources overall as a school. Not just a school of 10,000 students all wanting to be history majors. That's why I mentioned earlier why it's so important to find out the majors the school you want has; determine if they are really looking for students; and mention this ALL OVER YOUR APPLICATION. Guess what; no one said you had to stay with that major once you get accepted. Although, if the school needs those students in the major bad enough, many of the individual colleges at the university will throw a lot of scholarship and merit money your way. So make sure it's something you "PROBABLY" want to major in.</p>
<p>That's what I'm talking about, Christcorp--a fully qualified applicant--in our case my son was above the 75% mark. In no way would I expect or want a school to lower standards nor would I support the idea of a family buying a kid into a school, though I imagine it happens. In fact, my husband might have continued his support of his alma mater no matter what, but I'd have been royally ticked off--a non-issue in our case because his alma mater did admit our son with a merit scholarship</p>
<p>My son would not have applied to Rice if he wasn't a qualified applicant. He wasn't one of the top applicants (over 75th percentile), but he met the range of criteria. However, I think he didn't express enough interest. He didn't do the alumni interview, for example, at which he would have done well. Also, I think the legacy means less when you don't apply ED. The main problem is that my son just didn't have his act together soon enough to know that Rice was his number one choice and we tried very hard not to pressure him into applying. We wanted him to look at other schools and reach the conclusion on his own. Also, he didn't buy into the whole college application process. He figures if they don't want him based on the way he looks on paper then he doesn't belong there. This is a healthy attitude, but not realistic with the frenzy this year. However, I think he will be happy at any of the schools he was accepted at. He's a very adaptable kid.</p>
<p>I'm in pain more than my daughter (pending tomorrow's Cornell decision). She was deferred, then rejected from my alma mater (and my father's) (and I have two masters from it as well). For 18 years I have been dreaming about her having the same wonderful undergraduate experience I did--she's bright, perceptive, worldly aware (we lived overseas), hard-working, dedicated to dance and girl scouts and flute, just for a start. I can know logically that the odds were against her, but I didn't expect this to hurt so much--it's as bad or worse as getting dumped by a long term relationship. I can't let her see that this bothers me so much--she has to be able to make her decision now based on the options she has, not the might-have-been. (And my father is really upset!)</p>
<p>I love you, and your admissions office is absolutely amazing -- on par with Columbia's (and before anyone goes, "Wait, was that sarcastic?": No, it wasn't -- I had a really wonderful experience working with Columbia). However, just for cathartic reasons, when I received your rejection letter, which was very nicely worded by the way, I simultaneously went: "**** you." and "Hey, despite you being my first choice, I don't feel like crying. SWEET."</p>
<p>KathyC: "For 18 years I have been dreaming about her having the same wonderful undergraduate experience I did..." She probably will have a wonderful experience, just at a different place. It sounds like she will do great, wherever that is. </p>
<p>BTW, when S applied to my alma mater, it was a reach. I was pleased that they waitlisted him. Not their fault that he didn't work hard enough to get in.</p>
<p>Oh, also, not sure if this is true, but I say McGill University wins the meanest rejection letter. Apparently, when you check your decision online, rejected students get this: "REJECTED - NOT UP TO ACADEMIC STANDARDS."</p>
<p>Dear NYU (both admissions and financial aid),
I don't get it. I simply don't and never will. </p>
<p>Dear Barnard,
If you were willing to disregard that GLARING negative aspect of my application and waitlist me, why couldn't you go all the way and accept me? I demonstrated interest, I had great grades and scores, and I have passion coming out of my butt. I'll fight for you, but you're making my April so much harder.</p>
<p>Dear Columbia,
Screw you. </p>
<p>Dear UCLA,
Thanks for making a bad day so much better. I only wish you had given me aid!</p>
<p>bartlet: For what it's worth, in my daughter's cohort 100% of the girls who applied both to Columbia and to Barnard were waitlisted at Barnard, while girls who had not applied to Columbia were accepted. (Not all of them, of course.)</p>
<p>Here's a state school story for you: D's friend, in the top 5% of a competitive suburban high school gets into NYU, but is waitlisted at 2 of the top SUNY's. Incredible! He visited every school he applied to, so demonstrated interest is not the issue. His parents let him apply to NYU with the stipulation that their finaid package had to come close to what it would cost to attend the SUNY. I doubt that will happen. </p>
<p>I have a huge problem with state schools that reject/waitlist the top candidates from their own state's high schools. He should have been an automatic admit, imo.</p>
<p>Seriously, JHS? I only applied to Columbia because my Columbia-alum government teacher convinced me to, but my heart wasn't in it... I shouldn't have wasted an app. I want(ed) Barnard SO badly! </p>
<p>Dear Barnard admissions officer,
Hi. You don't know me, but you read my application and obviously decided that I wasn't quite inferior enough to reject, so thanks, I guess. Don't think I'm a lunatic or anything, but I want your school more than you could ever know. You're going to be hearing a lot from me this next month. Don't get freaked out or anything, but when I put my mind to something, I see it through no matter what.
Looking forward to speaking with you (numerous times)!</p>
<p>One thing my DD1 and I have concluded is that the actual writing and cohesiveness of the application is very, very important. It really isn't just "stats" - the application has to come alive for whoever has to read it on the other end. I doubt that hired guns to write/edit essays and package an applicant can really achieve the kind of voice and quality that it takes. There's no substitute for putting tons of time and TLC into the entire application, getting parents and teachers to make comments, sleeping on it, coming back and honing it to where it's as good as it can possibly be. I agree that perfect grades and certainly perfect scores and even outsized ECs may not be enough if the application doesn't just sing.</p>
<p>Well, I wasn't talking about a scientific sample size, of course. But, yes, there was a strong feeling among the girls and their GCs that Barnard would waitlist otherwise great-fitting girls who had applied to Columbia in the (ususally correct) expectation that they would ultimately choose to go somewhere larger and more co-ed than Barnard, while accepting girls who on paper looked like weaker candidates but for whom Barnard, not Columbia, was the primary target. The sense was also that the waitlist was an invitation to say "Oh, you made a terrible mistake, Barnard was my first choiiiiiiiiice!" and that there was a decent chance of getting admitted. However, (a) that was several years ago, and (b) none of the girls I knew tried that because they all chose colleges more like Columbia than Barnard.</p>
<p>That is horrible for Barnard to do. What if all admitted chose to attend there will be no girls taken off from waiting list? Then they missed the top candidates.</p>
<p>btw, how Barnard adcom even know the girls applied to Columbia? Do they have access to Columbia's database?</p>
<p>It all depends on what you consider top candidates. I don't think it's out of line for Barnard to prefer young women who have made the conscious choice for the particular things Barnard offers - in particular a (somewhat) single sex environment. I wouldn't want a school full of kids who really wished they were attending the school next door.</p>