my d, a ny junior, has very good but not over the top stats, 97 avg, 33 act, will take it one more time and probably superscore to a 34 (needs to improve one point on any subsection). strong rigor, good, not great ecs.
we’ve visited a number of schools, she’s liked haverford, williams,swarthmore and colby. Colby on paper looks like a target, the others reaches. Given she’s a white female and LACs small class size,varsity athletes, legacies, URMs, and desire for geo diversity, it doesn’t seem like she has much chance unless she plays the ED card. and I’m not sure how much ED really helps as that’s when we’ll see the legacies/athletes apply.
Those are all competitive schools, but what about this: instead of worrying about one more point on the ACT (which is already really good) why not encourage dd to improve her Ecs. You concede they are not great right now, but she’s a Jr so there’s time. Time to create something, time to dive in and do something with impact in a community service org. With those numbers and a great EC story, she improves her chances.
D2, five years ago: White girl with typical ECs (one sport, music; she wasn’t a “star” at either) but very good stats (35 ACT, 2350 SAT, 4.0 GPA); she got into Amherst, Colby, Pomona (off the waiting list), and a bunch of other schools. She didn’t get into Brown, Dartmouth, or Middlebury. Obviously her academic achievements were key but I think her essays helped.
I think that’s about right. I’m familiar with Amherst and Williams. The admitted classes will be roughly 30% athletic recruits. 10% legacies. 30 % URM. 10% international. Some significant % low income (20%?? Not sure on that one).
That’s 100%. Some will fall into multiple categories, freeing up spots. But if you are not an athlete, legacy, URM, its tough. The average ACT this year at Amherst was 34, which includes athletes, etc. My guess is unhooked with less than that will have something like a 5% chance.
I do think ED at these schools makes a huge difference. I think the # of athletes at these schools who apply ED is less than most think, based on what I’ve heard. A big part of the class is filled ED, with a lot of athletes taking a chunk of the remaining rd spots. This is one way nescac is very different than ivy (where almost all recruited athletes come in ED).
thanks #13thfloor , we have two in college now and I’ve come to the conclusion that we parents as a group,despite what colleges may say, underestimate the importance of standardized scores. In any case, she under performed the test vs her practice test scores, so she signed up for the very next test and will study 45 mins per day for 3 weeks. take the test and she’s done.
on the community service front, maybe I undersold her a bit. Starting in 8th grade she and four friends have been raising money and awareness for girls education in poor countries. They choose a different country every year, learn about the roadblocks to education in that culture and partner with a charitable organization in the country. They’ve raised over $7k and held a number of community service events to raise awareness. She’s already started planning the events this year.
I guess what’s missing is the wow factor: state, national or international award. I dunno, I’m thinking swat accepts 500 woman a year, that probably leaves 250 unhooked spots. 60 or so spots go to ed. so that leaves about 200 spots for 3200 woman applicants…seems almost silly to apply.
First Gen and men are also her competition. There is serious affirmative action for men going on that no one discusses. The top schools scooch them up to achieve 50/50 parity leaving the lower tier schools to scramble and very, very frequently they do not find enough men to reach the 50/50. I agree with other posters that the ECs would be the best place to put effort. But also wanted to expand awareness that athletes/legacies and URMs are not the only hurdles as even those groups face competition from other special interests named above.
ED makes a huge difference. These schools want to know they are not second (or third) choices to HYPSM. They are looking at their yield.
IMO, waste of time to get ACT up one point. A 33 will not keep her out. It’s her essay that will make her shine. They want to know she is not “all grind, no mind.”
With a great personal statement, I would think she has an excellent shot at any of these schools with an ED app.
There is a lot if debate on CC on whether ED boosts chances, but at the LACs it is more likely to help. Many schools take half the class ED and I don’t buy into the theory that it is all athletes, legacies and URMs. Yes, athletes can end up making up 20/25% of a class, but not all apply early and most importantly not all athletes are recruited. Same with legacies. Many legacies, especially those very qualified apply RD not ED. Many URMs also apply RD to compare aid. And there is overlap between all these groups. ED at the LACs certainly has room to admit a good number of unhooked kids.
At least part of the problem is that top LACs want geographic diversity - and get flooded with applications from their region. If you are from NE, apply to the midwestern LACs. From the midwest? Apply to the NE. Think outside the ‘usual suspects’ that everyone in your community already knows and is apply to.
^^ this. My D is a top LAC and I think her midwest home might have been part of the reason (her stats were excellent too, but no national awards or athletic recruit or anything like that).
You’re from NY? So the midwest, the south, the west…has she considered Oberlin, Kenyon, Davidson, Reed, the Claremont colleges…?
Just because I recently looked it up, admissions rates for men v women at some top LACs - there are differences among them, some are much more difficult for women to get into than men, some are closer to equal.
Williams - 21% acceptance rate for men, 18% acceptance rate for women
Amherst - 15% for men, 13% for women
Swarthmore 20% for men, 15% for women
Bowdoin - 17% for men, 13% for women
Middlebury - 19% for men, 16% for women
Pomona - 15% for men, 10% for women
Carleton - 25% for men, 21% for women
CMC - actually even, both 11%. Women get a fair shot here.
Davidson - 26% for men, 19% for women
Haverford - 26% for men, 23% for women
Vassar - 34% for men, 19% for women (!)
National universities seem to be closer to “even”.
HYP are essentially even with
P at 1% higher for women
Y at 1% higher for men
H same
Columbia is 8% accept for men and 6% for women
S same
Chicago is 9% for men and 8% for women
MIT 13% vs 6% - the bright spot for women in the top 20 or so Us and LACs.
Duke - 1% higher for men
I think your D is competitive for those schools but whether she will get in I don’t know. I don’t think getting a 34 instead of 33 makes much difference at all.
FWIW, my S just graduated from Bates. The majority of his friends (both M &F) were from NY, NJ and MA (more from MA then anywhere else.) Most were not legacies or URM’s ( which he was as an Asian.) Bates is 50% M 50% F.
According to their stats for 2012/2013 ( only one one I could find) - 41.7% of first yr students are from NE. If you add in students from Maine you are up to 50%.
we played the geo diversity/ed/full pay card with my middle son, he’s at oberlin (though it’s mostly kids from ny, nj and ca). I’m sure carleton will come into play at some point. Ca seems a little far away.
it would be hard pill for her to swallow to have the same outcome as her bro despite +10 on gpa and higher standardized test scores. Still, my wife and I are aware that might be just what happens. Actually, she’s afraid to apply to u mich and give her oldest brother lifetime bragging rights if she doesn’t get in
@quietdesperation The top LACs have very good yields of 40% plus, so do the math based on the school only needs a total of 250 females, including athletes, legacy, internationals,1 female from each of the 50 states, URM and then a nice handful of internationals. Some get over 3,000 applications from females, so even if a bunch of females check all those boxes, there isn’t much room for some demographics.
It is possible, and worth a try. My daughter applied as an unhooked female applicant last year and is now at one of the reaches you mentioned. She did apply ED, though, because she was sure she knew where she wanted to go. I think the interview and essays really can make a difference with these small selective LACs.
Really not impossible. Thousand and thousands of applicants get into these schools every year. I think your daughter’s stats are good, and agree the key may be the essays. Find a safety to make next fall a little less stressful, but then just go for it.
hmm, checking naviance, middlebury seems to really like our hs. in fact, no one in the last 10 years has been denied with my d’s stats. also my d has studied two languages throughout hs which should play well there. we haven’t visited yet but it may be a great option if she likes it.
Honestly, I think you’re daughter will get into at least one of her school listed, however, it’s always wise to play the game conservatively. If she’d consider all women’s colleges, consider some of those as safeties. Bryn Mawr comes to mind since she liked Haverford. Great academics but easier admissions.
Regarding the original poster, the stats seem fine, but admission to highly selective LACs is about more than stats and hooks. You can read more about what the colleges are looking for on the websites and their CDS. You may be surprised about what the colleges say is important. For example, Haverford’s CDS says essays, LORs, ECs, and character/personal qualities are all more important than test scores. You said ECs are not great, so improving ECs might have more benefit than studying and retaking the ACT for hope of an extra point.
@Data10 : There’s no way that athletes represent less than 13% of the students at Williams. It has 30 varsity sports, and only 550 students per entering class. 13% would be about two per team – a number that’s believable for squash or golf, and maybe even basketball, but which doesn’t come close to working for football, baseball/softball, hockey, soccer . . . A number that sticks in my mind somewhere is that at Amherst – granted, a somewhat smaller college, with five fewer varsity teams – well over 40% of the students play a varsity sport. That doesn’t mean they were all “athletic recruits,” per se, but it probably means that their high school athletic history probably figured in their admission.
One poster above suggested that ED was not the backbone of NESCAC athletic recruitment. That’s contrary to what I have observed. Of course, the coaches will try to fill in gaps RD, and lots of athletes may be accepted then (because even the top LACs only have yields in the 30% range RD).
That said, I know unhooked, unathletic, nonminority, well-to-do women from states in the Northeast who have been admitted to Amherst, Williams, and elsewhere, certainly including Colby.
If she wants to stay in the NE, let me also throw Wesleyan out there, because it’s significantly larger (I think around 2800 students), and therefore the athletic, etc. admits make up a smaller percentage of the entering cohort overall. (Plus I think it’s a great school, ).
