Stanford and Yale SCEA

Parents Forum
121

<p>to me, it is pretty sad that our kids are forced to view admissions as a kind of strategy game. More and more, I see decisions made based on odds calculations, positioning, resume development and such, rather than having kids follow their own passions and interests, whether it be what college to apply to, or what ECs to pursue.</p>

<p>So this year, we add one more element to the college admissions strategy game: Who will be impacted most by H and P admissions changes? How can one best position to take advantage of these changes? Sigh.</p>

122

<p>
[quote]
it is pretty sad that our kids are forced to view admissions as a kind of strategy game

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think plenty of kids aren't forced at all to view admissions that way. They just do what they do in high school, and still get into college just fine. But my son, who took the CTY game theory summer course a few years ago, might point out that it's interesting to look at life with a game-theoretical perspective. Human beings trying to take care of themselves and their loved ones in a world with scarce resources learn to trade and to balance decisions according to the upside and downside risks of the decisions, and that's not a bad perspective to add to decision-making.</p>

123

<p>
[quote]
to me, it is pretty sad that our kids are forced to view admissions as a kind of strategy game.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nobody is forced to play this game. Plenty of very, very good students do not participate; they have an enjoyable senior year of high school, and end up in very nice positions when all is said and done.</p>

<p>Really.</p>

<p>Well, I typed my note before tokenadult posted his; I wasn't really copying him.</p>

124

<p>tokenadult, since my son has an economist for a father, he has internalized much of the game theory perspective, but also the concept of opportunity cost with respect to the 200K price of a top private school degree. His choice was to let the rest of the dogs eat each other and grab one of the big merit scholarships that they would have gotten if they weren't stuck on the idea of Ivy/Stanford. (Of course the analysis would be different if we were not a full-pay family.)</p>

<p>(I should admit that he did apply to one non-merit school, which rejected him. That was a fortunate thing, IMO.)</p>

125

<p>
[quote]
I see decisions made based on odds calculations, positioning, resume development and such, rather than having kids follow their own passions and interests, whether it be what college to apply to, or what ECs to pursue.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I see many more decisions being made having kids following passions and interests, THEN calculating, positioning, and developing resumes that place them in a position to be attractive to the selective schools they choose to pursue. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with that. It is a wise stretegy if you want to increase your chances of admittance to a selective school, regardless if the demand created is from within or external. </p>

<p>Whatever the competitive endeavor, school, a mate, a job, a position, etc, part of the satisfaction comes from what is necessary to accomplish the goal.
What's sad to me are those who don't find contentment in doing/being their best regardless of the outcome.</p>

126

<p>Why should high school seniors not behave the way everyone else behaves -- strategically, rationally, balancing lots of factors including personal preferences? </p>

<p>My son didn't try to get Rachel Bilson to go to prom with him, although she might have been his top choice . . . he thought about the odds (perhaps even including the odds that he would actually like her in person) and decided to apply elsewhere, where he had a better shot. And it worked out fine; I did not shed a single tear for his poor, oppressed self. </p>

<p>And remember, we're talking about a thin layer of very ambitious kids, here, making choices among colleges that, while full of individual character, are almost perfect substitutes for one another in every important respect. From the perspective of the universe, or even from the perspective of the next-door neighbor, it makes absolutely no difference whether a kid applies SCEA to Harvard, EA to Chicago, or ED to Northwestern. Sure, we obsess about it -- at least I do -- but it's about as important and about as scientific as debates about the fine points of alchemy.</p>

<p>For lots of these kids, it's their first really big, meaningful decision, and for most of them there's really no bad choice. So why not let them make it the way human beings make their decisions: with brains, guts, AND calculators?</p>

127

<p>
[quote]
What's sad to me are those who don't find contentment in doing/being their best regardless of the outcome.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Perhaps I have misread your statement, but it strikes me that there are different ways to "be your best". It doesn't have to include the very tippy top schools, for kids who are capable of taking advantage of every opportunity at slightly lesser institutions.</p>

<p>If students wish to pursue the super-selective schools, I have no problem with that. I do take exception to the notion that anyone, including the very most talented students, are "forced" to do so.</p>

128

<p>I think that it's the parents are into the strategy of college admissions. My high-scoring/high GPA/interesting ECs kid doesn't have a clue about the strategic side of admissions. In fact, we're still working out his final list. I have some idea about the gamesmanship, but choose not to engage in it. He'll still end up at a wonderful college, but no one here is that worried about it.</p>

129

<p>Midmo, I think we are in agreement. The sadness comes from the kid who does their best, but doesn't find contentment with their effort or results when they don't get exactly what they wanted or coveted, even though the other options are more than sufficient.</p>

130

<p>madville, I wouldn't have thought this even a month ago but I'm beginning to think this crazy senior admissions year experience is a process that changes the students, matures them, and most are fine with the eventual outcome. I see my own child becoming much less fixated on specific brand name schools, more interested in the broader set of issues surrounding various choices. I'm cautiously optimistic she'll come in for a soft landing next spring.</p>

131

<p>"Why should high school seniors not behave the way everyone else behaves --strategically, rationally, balancing lots of factors including personal preferences?"</p>

<p>I don't think most people behave this way at all, least of all high school students. I see many students making their college lists based on really capricious, unrealistic, and shallow considerations. A lot of them could do with a lot more strategic thinking.</p>

132

<p>Yale defers more students than Stanford does which I think is a factor. I completely agree with mammall's observations. The Stanford application is very involved and the Yale one is less complicated. I am sure some kids realized that they could not give their best effort to Stanford as October wound down but that maybe they could to Yale.</p>

133

<p>My kids grew up going to magnet schools. There was always a need to stategize. It would be foolish to use our points to apply to a school that consistently only takes kids with way more points than what we have. Every time we considered programs, we considered the likelihood of getting in -- not based on merit but based on reality, etc. There might be a fantastic program out there, but if it was really unlikely my kid would get in and there was only one shot with the application, it was a factor. I think given the fact that my kids grew up having to choose programs that way, they bring that experience to the college admissions process. What is realistic? Is there any point in applying to School X? Can I be pretty certain that school Y is really a safety for me? That's the reason there are so many warnings on this site about having a safety -- it's a strategy to make sure you get into a good school that you will like. How many schools to apply to, how to evaluate which are reach, which are match and which are safeties -- that's strategy. Figuring out which school offers what you want -- that's being strategic. Obviously, in the college admissions experience, there are lots of choices and hopefully kids take into account all sorts of factors -- but learning how to evaluate all those factors is a useful life skill. They will need it when they are choosing between jobs later.</p>

134

<p>My two kids: one a strategist; one not. Both got into their first choice colleges.</p>

<p>S was so little a strategist that he actually gave up playing in a concert at Lincoln Center with a youth orchestra to play Uncle Henry in his HS production of The Wizard of Oz. He just wanted to be with his friends.</p>

<p>I wanted to see him at Lincoln Center, not for strategic reasons, just for normal Mommy reasons. But of course, his preference prevailed, as it should.</p>

<p>D, the strategist, made good use of this in her peer recommendation for her brother at Williams, where he did get in.</p>

<p>I think the college admissions process, as most things, is an inkblot for the personality engaging in it. My D would strategize a shopping trip; S would wear rags if he could and never think about how he appeared to others. Yup, that's right! D picks his wardrobe.</p>

<p>Rachel Bilson? Good choice. S was interested in Hayden Panetierre (save the cheerleader, save the world) who is only 18 and 5'2" (S is not tall -- but not that short.) </p>

<p>He did take a lovely girl to the prom.</p>

135

<p>Of course the Harvard Crimson is reporting on the subject of this thread. </p>

<p>The</a> Harvard Crimson :: News :: Early Applications Increase at Yale</p>

136

<p>I wish my S would think more strategically about his applications. He insisted on applying SCEA to his first choice, for which he is qualified, even though his chances of getting in, like those of most applicants, are obviously small. In doing so, he significantly--perhaps greatly--reduced his chances of getting into any of the three schools that are next in his order of preference. </p>

<p>He followed his heart, and unfortunately may well pay for that by being rejected from all of his top choices. He may well end up at his very bottom safety--if they don't reject him too because they don't think they are his first choice. </p>

<p>People say that kids should be satisfied because they've done their best and whatever the result is, it will be sufficient. The problem with that is that the result is NOT always sufficient. The kids who end up in that situation will have to learn to deal with it, but let's not pretend that college admissions or anything else in life always works out for the best.</p>

137

<p>
[quote]
In doing so, he significantly--perhaps greatly--reduced his chances of getting into any of the three schools that are next in his order of preference.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I want to say that this is wrong, but instead I'll just say that it is extremely unlikely to be right.</p>

<p>First of all, it only make sense of ##2-4 are all EA, not ED, schools, or I guess if one of them is an ED school that allows simultaneous EA applications and the other two are EA schools that allow simultaneous ED applications, and the ED school is preferred to the EA schools.</p>

<p>Otherwise, if it was a choice between applying SCEA to Yale or Stanford and applying ED to one of three other schools, he could only have hurt his (hypothetical) better chances at one of the three other schools, not all of them.</p>

<p>I ##2-4 are all, or mostly EA schools, then you should be aware that there's no reason to believe there's a big advantage to applying EA at those schools. They all deny it, and one of the most selective of them -- Georgetown -- actually enforces it by limiting its EA acceptance rate to its projected overall acceptance rate. So even if he gave up the opportunity to apply EA at all three schools, he couldn't have reduced his chances of admission at any of them "greatly", or even possibly "significantly".</p>

<p>Finally, if he is really qualified for Stanford or Yale, he ought to be a pretty strong RD candidate at any of the EA schools in existence. If two of the three are MIT and Cal Tech -- well, they aren't much less selective than Yale or Stanford, but applying early to them would not have made things much better. And if he doesn't look like a strong candidate at Chicago, Georgetown, Notre Dame, BC . . . then applying EA (or ED to any similarly selective school) was not likely to give him any kind of advantage.</p>

<p>I'm quibbling over language, but doing it to make a point: Don't overvalue the advantages OR disadvantages of the early process. Over a population of tens of thousands of kids, it probably makes a meaningful difference one way or the other in the outcome for a few dozen of them. Everyone else winds up going where they were meant to go, or someplace indistinguishable from it.</p>

138

<p>Consolation, I agree with JHS that applying to Stanford SCEA will not have an effect on the admissions outcomes at other colleges, given the parameters he made. My son, who applied to Stanford 2 years ago SCEA, was deferred, and eventually rejected. That hurt, but because he was "qualified" , Dad is an alum, and was a strong candidate. Stanford was his biggest reach. But in the regular round he was accepted by every other college he applied to [12 colleges, including Dartmouth, Brown, Wash U, Pomona, Carleton, USC on a full Trustees Scholarship, and others. I say this not to brag, but to give you hope. If you son has the "chops" to be considered a strong candidate for Stanford, he will do well in the regular round.
"if they don't reject him too because they don't think they are his first choice. "
The key to avoiding this is for your son to "customize" his essays, especially his " Why are you applying Here" essays, so that the colleges don't think he will go elsewhere. In addition, when my son was applying, I told him advice I has read about on CC- Send each application to Common app colleges one at a time- don't check off all the colleges he is applying to and then hit the "send" button. That way each college can't "see" where else he is applying. I've read that this is not necessay, that colleges can't SEE where you have sent your applications, but he did not want to take any chances. So you may want to pass this on to him. It will take a little more time to send in the applications this way, but it may be worth it.</p>

139

<p>


This thread hadn't tickled my fancy until today (slow news day) so I didn't see this. Yale does not require SAT Subject Tests if you take the ACT.</p>

<p>


Standardized</a> Testing | Application to Yale College | Freshmen | Office of Undergraduate Admissions</p>

140

<p>
[quote]
He followed his heart, and unfortunately may well pay for that by being rejected from all of his top choices.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Consolation, There's just no way you can or should eliminate the "heart" factor from the SCEA or ED choice. Assuming your son is within the Stanford ballpark, I think he did the right thing to apply SCEA to his emotional favorite even if doing so might incur risk at the ED schools he didn't apply early to. </p>

<p>There is risk in every decision, risk in acting, risk in not acting, but you don't want him to be in the position of regretting that he didn't give his number one his best shot.</p>

<p>Will this chapter in his life story have a happy ending? As long as he has reasonable match schools, most likely it will, whether he's successful in his SCEA bid or not. </p>

<p>I guess my point is that if the early choice is driven by intellectual or statistical analysis and the emotional attraction is squeezed out, the heart has a way of reasserting itself later in the process. Sometimes kids just need to find out if they couldda been a contender.</p>