<p>In a similar vein to Mommy_Dearest, I feel very fortunate to live in the State of Michigan, where UMich has rolling admissions. D's acceptance to UMich in mid-November took a lot of pressure off the wait for Y EA in mid-December. She knew she was accepted to a great school (H&W's alma mater) and the invitation to the Honor's College 10 days later was the icing on the cake.</p>
<p>However, when the acceptance to Y came on December 15th, which was far and away her 1st choice, she wrote UMich and declined and then dropped her other pending RD applications. "Trophy Hunting" acceptances was not in her program.</p>
<p>I've "heard" that my son probably would have been accepted at several of these waitlist schools, if he had applied ED. But, they are all BINDING! We definitely needed to see the financial aid before accepting. The problem with coming in off waitlist is that there is precious little money left for aid at that point, so... we're not even letting ourselves hope. We're in "carry on" mode, happily on my side, but grudgingly on my son's! It's truly a fine school, where he'll get a lot more professor contact and won't fall through the cracks. Things happen for a reason sometimes, and I really believe everything will work out wonderfully. It's just a shame that families have to either learn the hard way, or be wise enough to find boards like this to learn from others. Now, I really should pay a visit to the high school gc with "suggestions" for her.</p>
<p>I think that the situation reflects many things in society today. The technology industry brought many smart immigrants to the Country in the last decade, Many came from Asian Countries where the college you go to dictates what you can do for life. This group has certainly impacted admissions at UCs and I would think at ivies and MIT/Caltech, too. </p>
<p>Then there was the prolonged recession during which we saw many white collar workers lose jobs. Being more qualified than the next guy took on new meaning for many.</p>
<p>I'm sure the pundits can give many more reasons. But the fact is that this is just a reflection of the values in American society today, and it doesn't see like it's about to change.</p>
<p>I'll also add that from what I've seen at highly competitive schools, many families do not want a safety below the "lowest" school on their list. Should the kid not get in, they'll do a gap or PG year, regroup, and apply to the "acceptable" schools again.</p>
<p>Allow me to add a few points and clarify my position.</p>
<ol>
<li>While I decry the lack of "news" in the NACAC report, I do not underestimate its importance and validity. My problem starts when the information leads to erroneous conclusions. For instance, while it is true that there over 4,000 post-HS schools in the United States, there is vast range in admission policies ranging from the super selectivity to open door admissions. In addition, I think that th discussions on CC relate to a small percentage of the 4000 schools, probably as low as 10%. That is why is not that helpful to read nationwide statistics. For instance, the boom or bust cycles in community colleges do not have much impact on the top 50 schools. Here's a snapshot at the various schools.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>631 Public 4-year institutions for 6,236,455 students
1,835 Private 4-year institutions for 3,440,953 students
1081 Public 2-year institutions for 5,996,701 students
621 Private 2-year institutions 253,878 students
Total of 4,168 schools for 15,927,987 students</p>
<ol>
<li><p>When, in a past CC thread, one person asked what we would have done differently if given the chance, my opinion echoed the importance of safeties. I stated that it was best to build a list of application from the bottom up and ensure a safety net of solid schools. With the automatic acceptance at the Texas flagship schools, the situation might be a bit easier for Texans, but there are many states that have unbelievable local schools that fit the parameters of safety to reaches. FWIW, I only applied to five schools and I would have been happy to attend any of them. Obviously, I had some preference but I did not consider my so-called safeties as second thoughts. </p></li>
<li><p>Lastly, the points raised by Carolyn transcend the mere acceptance rates. The salient point is that there a great number of schools that provide an extraordinary education and have very reasonable acceptances and ... cost. The only thing that they MIGHT lack is having a household name. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Spending time to identify admission niches and "good fit" is the most important part of the "game".</p>
<p>people,
sounds like you are set - we were in the same boat with ED. Friend's daughter that matriculated at 'safety' was happy she did (eventually) - same comments about not falling through cracks and prof involvement.</p>
<p>Mommy_Dearest, great timing for me on your CUNY posts as I've been reading up on CUNY for the past few days. Historically these have been some great colleges and some very well known folks got their degrees there. (Wasn't Leonard Lopate one of them - for those of us WNYC/NPR listeners? ) </p>
<p>I appreciate your bringing all this up and including those details you have. :)</p>
<p>"Anybody in Caifornia that is thinking about becoming a teacher should look at Sonoma State. Beautiful campus in a beautiful area, and it is an hour from San Francisco and Berkeley."</p>
<p>And even become one of the best players in the NFL</p>
<p>73 Larry Allen, G
Height/Weight: 6-3/325
Birthdate: 11/27/1971
Birthplace: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Team: Dallas Cowboys
College: *Sonoma State *
NFL Experience: 12 </p>
<p>The insanity won't stop because it is being driven by larger forces that aren't going away any time soon.</p>
<p>Admission to the top colleges has always been competitive and selective, but things have really gotten out of hand in the past couple of decades due mainly IMO to two things: 1. USNews and other rankings 2. The internet.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Rankings. You gotta hand it to USNews. They dreamed up a winning concept that is selling a lot of books and magazines for them. People love ratings and rankings. Humans everywhere understand the concept of a hierachy. Everyone also understands winning and losing. These college rankings give everyone one more arena is which to compete and dream of the top. And USNews has defined it all for them: Admission to top 20 = winning. Being relegated to local Mediocre State U = losing. What is being lost is the notion that you can get a fine education even at Mediocre State U.</p></li>
<li><p>The Internet. This has opened up the whole wide world to everyone with access to a computer. On-line view books, on-line brochures, on-line apps, on-line encouragement to apply. You could be a bright kid living in some remote corner of the world. You've heard of the famous Harvard, and so you go on-line at the high school's lone computer and viola: Harvard in all its glory unfolds before your eyes and sings its siren song. It's all there for you at the click of a mouse. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>In my day nearly everyone applied only to their local state schools or LACs, or maybe some schools in an adjacent state. Only a handful thought to apply to some dream school on the other side of the country. Today every val and sal in every high school across the country can easily apply to HYPSM. Result: acceptance rates of <10%.</p>
<p>Neither rating books nor the internet show any sign of going away. Just the opposite in fact. So you better get used to the insanity.</p>
<p>ohio_mom: Thanks for the shot of confidence! I do feel my s will thrive at his school next fall, but with his current attitude problem, it truly helps to have support!</p>
<p>Perhaps CC is a double-edged sword: Wisdom gleaned from those with experience is invaluable, but it seems the vast majority of student posters are right at the top of their class. Bright-but-not-stellar students that troll these boards probably don't understand that this isn't a good cross section of all college applicants, and might come away feeling quite dejected in April. Just a thought, though it has probably been addressed before (I'm a newbie, really).</p>
<p>I must be in a contrary mood this afternoon...because I think I agree w/the general consensus of this thread that the school w/extradordinary selectivity is not the only place a kid can get a quality education...but...here comes that contrary mood--</p>
<p>Selectivity in school choice IS (or at least can be) a factor in a kid's future...my son had a "general guidance" lunch w/a very highly-placed-in-the-government friend of mine, who emphasized that he, as an employer, would much prefer a candidate from the Ivy my son may attend over the still-selective-but-not-an-Ivy alternatives. I'm told the school from which you get your undergrad degree can matter with respect to gaining admission to certain difficult-to-get-into grad/professional programs...</p>
<p>In the example of the govt person who hires for fresh-out-of-school jobs (and summer internships), the message is clear and unapologetic: they WANT the prestigious school candidate and they DO rank the schools from which their candidates come...</p>
<p>So...while all our kids would be well-served to create that thoughtful range of school choices to which we all aspire, there IS something other than "bragging rights" underpinning the hysteria to get into the selective schools...</p>
<p>Has anyone looked into the common application and its impact on the application numbers? There are kids in California that seem who apply to each state school....there is no way that all those schools have the types of programs looking for....and many apply to schools they don't even like because of either fear, trophies or misinformation., but seeing these numbers of 10% increase in applications fuels the fire of applications.</p>
<p>I think Coureur had some very valid points.</p>
<p>Xiggi- could you explain your numbers for me? How did they break down? Is that number of students in each of those kinds of schools? Just wondering. Those numbers are indeed amazing.</p>
<p>As for the selectivity being an important factor in jobs etc. That is true. What is frustrating is that the "selectivity" criteria is skewed. While the schools claim so many applications and a low percentage admitted, thus implying that those accepted are indeed the best of the best, that high number of applications is in part due to fear and frenzy of not getting in anywhere, so kids apply to more schools. That creates a kind of "false" selectivity, if you get my drift. It doesn't mean that the applicant pool is necessarily stronger, just more of them. I am not at all saying the top schools don't deserve a good reputation, just that the stats being thrown around in the various publications is not always the best way to judge a given instiution.</p>
<p>So while getting into the top school can have its advantages because of image, that doesn't mean that the graduates are better than those at other schools. If, as the colleges claim, so many qualified applicants are turned down, those kids will be going to other schools. And doing very very well. It will be interesting to see what happens at the "lesser" schools when these very qualified applicants are there.</p>
imho, this is a valid point. There are those who want to do "reverse-bashing" and denigrate the Ivies, highly selectives, etc. However, I don't think that's the thrust of this thread. What people are saying here is that those highly selectives are not the ONLY place one can get a good education; when a kid has a choice s/he may well go for the brand name. But the "insanity" has left some poorly guided kids with NO place to go, as they applied only to those top 20's and got into none.</p>
<p>Overanxious mother, I am disappointed when I read posts like yours. Did you ever ask the guy about people who took scholarships at less prestigious schools? Are they screwed?</p>
<p>All these application increases and decreases are due to parents who want "better" for their kids, and the common app has made it easier to apply to so many schools. Yes, there are the additional essays, but if you had to do individual apps as well, that proved daunting to many, so they were more selective where they applied. These numbers and the uncertainty of admissions counselors and the "fit" have denied many kids who would have been shoe-ins years ago from attending where they really want to go. The rules are now so uncertain, that the old axioms of you meet the range or are over the range for that school, so you will get in no longer apply. It's such a crap shoot now.</p>
<p>Some of you talk to like selectivity is an over-hyped, meaningless statistic. This is not necessarily true for students who care about the dynamics of their college peer group. Someone can appreciate selectivity, IMO, without being a "prestige whore." </p>
<p>Of course, there are tons of other factors which should weigh into the decision as well, but plenty of people have touched on those already...</p>
<p>Fascinating thread. I realy think the language of this process can be harmful to the process in and of itself. To call something a "dream school" sets an expectation that seems unrealistic since all schools have their pros and cons and fit may be a function of geography and weather as much as anything else. We tried hard to talk about "sure bets" rather than the Safety terminology, especially since many students might choose the so-called safety over the reach depending on the circumstances. I think a grouping of favorites may be a more valid starting point than kids listing schools as --#1, #2, and so forth. For those considering merit scholarships or financial aid it makes no sense to get into a ranking paradigm until all the facts are in and you can look at the whole picture. We tried our best to support the notion that there are a ton of schools that will provde an excellent college experience, no matter where they fall on the spectrum of "chances".</p>