Anyone have thoughts on the Naviance/or another type system their school is using from the perspective of college outcomes, CG’s advice, etc? I was surprised how high the score combos are for some schools. And then again, I knew that every BS has a pool of talented kids.
Any thoughts? I’d love to hear from parents who have already gone through the college process. Did your kid use these systems as a baseline? Apply to schools that were out of a quadrant? It’s tough because they don’t factor in ECs, legacies or sports. So, I’m trying to decide if they have value, and if they do, what is it?
Just getting started in the process.
We’re at the same point as your family, so I don’t have any anecdotal outcomes data to share. I can share what I see for the data on Choate.
In general, the acceptance rate for the top schools is similar to the overall published acceptance rate for those schools; but the average GPA is lower than the published GPA (if available) and the average Choate test scores are at the lower end of the published middle 50% ranges.
For the not-tippy-top, next tier of schools, the acceptance rate for Choate students is higher than the published rate, with the same GPA and test score observations above.
As you continue down the list of schools according to competitiveness (though still considered highly competitive), the acceptance rate for Choate students is very high, and the average GPA and test scores move even lower compared to published overall GPAs and scores.
The trends on Naviance seem to reflect those discussed often in the BS forum…BS kids don’t get much of an advantage in applications for the very top schools, but they get substantially increased advantage as they apply to the next tier(s) of schools.
Yes…I’ve only had Naviance access for a couple weeks and have spent entirely too much time on it.
I think a good guidance counselor is more predictive/accurate than Naviance.
Another factor missing from the list of unknowns is intended major. For schools that admit by major, acceptance rates for CS, engineering, and nursing can be much more competitive than the university as a whole.
Naviance lets you figure out pretty easily if a school is a reach, match or safety for your child. That’s pretty much it. We identified schools and then checked with Naviance as to how my son stacked up.
Naviance is very useful for colleges where your high school’s students apply to frequently.
But importantly, you really need to filter out those who got in due to preferences your child may not have: Legacy, URM, athlete, etc. For that, you need your high school counselor.
I loved Naviance and found it very helpful. With that said, the CC has the back stories-- as in, legacies, recruited athletes, ED preferences, etc. What I learned is that it’s up to every school to maintain its system and ensure that the data is right. So the kid who gets in off a WL in June – maybe not in there.
But it does give a pretty good picture of what’s reasonable and typical overlaps, etc., especially for yourschool. (It was also how I discovered nobody had had a 4.0 in the previous 5 years!)
Interesting perspectives. I think it might be a good starting point but not enough info to inform the student about what’s really transpired. Since they only use the last five years of data and BS are often small, kids seem to apply to the same/similar schools.
And yes legacies, sports Outstanding ecs, and URM/geographical info doesn’t appear either. All that seems to matter a lot since there are so nany outstanding applicants.
I found one school that 20 kids applied to and no one got in. And it is much lower ranked than schools which often accept many students. Perhaps they have an anti BS bias. It’s odd because it’s a Southern school That has sent us more mail than any other. Fortunately, it’s not one that appeals to my kid.
And as someone mentioned upthread it’s often more difficult to pursue some programs than others.
Just echoing the caveat that the dots don’t tell the whole story. Someone may look at S19’s dot and think that they have a chance to get into his school. He was a highly recruited athlete, there’s no one at that school with that score which wasn’t highly recruited for something.
Also we have a problem of the data being very incomplete. My guess is that most boarding schools are good about that though.
You and me both @Altras. Have you taken a look at the matriculation lists compared to the Naviance (for us Scoir) scatterplots? I figured out that not all of the admissions on the matriculation lists are in the scatterplots- ie, the scatterplots are incomplete. Some kids must not report. I was curious if that is the case everywhere?
Still, it interesting to compare the two - you can see something similar to yield. Kids do get into multiple schools, so for which schools, when the kids get in do they actually attend, and which not so much?
There is also a clear trend that Cate students apply to some schools more frequently and get in more frequently, aka look more like a pipeline. And the opposite, too. I think that is a “Naviance Effect” - kids apply where kids got in, and don’t where they didn’t.
I agree you need to filter out recruits and legacies. Some are obvious outliers. The CC knows who those are on the scatterplots. They may not tell you names, but they can tell you to ignore a data point.
I found one school that 20 kids applied to and no one got in. And it is much lower ranked than schools which often accept many students. Perhaps they have an anti BS bias. It’s odd because it’s a Southern school That has sent us more mail than any other.
Ha! Based on our mail and Cate’s scatterplots, I know what school you are talking about!
I figured that gap out. If there are less than 3 kids in a given year, it doesn’t appear. You can have the guidance dept “unlock” it. The system protects individuals.
I haven’t gotten as far as thinking about getting all the details.
So CG is needed big time as the interpreter of data. @CateCAParent Yes, you are right!
@Altras - just making sure we are talking about the same thing: I meant the annual matriculation lists for where the kids from the past x years actually went, usually found on the school profile. Those lists aren’t generated by Naviance/Scoir.
So it is more than the low number anonymity thing. Although that is interesting in its own right. What I found interesting is there are some schools where the admits are the same (or lower) as the number who actually matriculated, and there are some schools where there are many more admits than matriculated. For example, a lower tier Ivy. You can piece together a storyline: a profile of kids who apply to multiple elites, and then which they choose. There is definitely a “back up” lower Ivy that gets a significant number of apps/acceptances, but not matriculants. There is one that gets a surprising number of apps/acceptances AND matriculants. And then there are some that don’t have apps/acceptances or matriculants.
My introduction to Naviance was almost 20 years ago, when it was in its infancy. I truly thought it was one of the most useless things I had ever touched as it pertained to the college process.
Boy was I wrong!
20 years later, assuming all data is being populated from your student’s high school, it has become an excellent way to help predict admissions. I would suggest making your own list (or using a professional) with what you/they perceive the likelihood of admissions to be for your student, and then using Naviance to keep everyone honest. It is, by far, the best way to check your work or the work of a college counselor.
I recall finding a few schools that accepted virtually everyone from our school. Others were a total bust. And you could see some that seemed to prefer high test scores.
Your CC will probably be able to speak easily to most of these. In our experience, they really understood the nuances as well – which schools were seeking what. They also were pretty good at knowing where the 5 year old data distorts the current picture. Some schools get hot, some go TO, etc. But this makes for a good start to a conversation with the CC.
Test optional creates some uncertainty with the scattergrams going forward. My understanding is that they will display data points with scores, where the applicant had the score but did not submit.
Naviance told me I don’t meet any criteria for a single school I applied to. However, I only got rejected by one school (Cornell), and got into schools such as Northeastern, UMich, NYU, etc. I think it’s good for getting an idea for the people who apply, but there are other factors like essays that can completely trump the stats Naviance gives you. Rec letters are part of what helped me a lot. Consider Naviance to get good safeties, but don’t feel discouraged by it.
Very good indicator at our school. Naviance is based on the actual applicants from your school and their admission results, assuming data on acceptances, rejections etc are inputted for each. So much more relevant than general ranges for particular colleges. Worth knowing whether legacy is considered at the school and whether that is a factor or not (it is not many places).
Yes, such things work better when a college does not admit by major or division and there are no specially preferred applicants from your high school.
A high school can partially mitigate that by maintaining separate data sets by major or division for applicable colleges where the number of applicants is large enough, and excluding the specially preferred applicants from the data sets. (But does any high school actually do this?)
Another data set that may be relevant to many is scholarships.
