What if kids were limited to 6 applications?

Parents Forum
301

<p>momofthreeboys;</p>

<p>There were several reasons why UCLA was not an optimal choice. </p>

<p>First, even if it was essentially an academic safety, it was far from a financial safety for us. The COA at UCLA for OOS students is close to $50K and higher than many private colleges. With virtually no FA, it was actually our worst choice from a financial perspective. </p>

<p>The second was the size of the school and the difficulty of getting access to certain classes. Many of the state schools have been impacted by budget cuts and even UCLA was not immune. We were concerned that she may not be able to graduate in four years.</p>

<p>Finally, research was not guaranteed. UCLA had the labs, but it was far from clear that she would get access.</p>

<p>In the end, all the other options she gained were far better than her safety and saved us over $120,000 over 4 years.</p>

302

<p>cellardweller:</p>

<p>(1) So what was the 17th college? I count 10 top-15 Us, 5 LACs, and UCLA. I presume it was something of a hedge, too?</p>

<p>(2) Did she only get into one or two of the 15 reaches? If she had cut that part of the list in half, would it have been a “GUARANTEE OF FAILURE”?</p>

303

<p>You were able to visit 17 colleges all over the country? Did you apply to all the colleges she visited? Did she visit more and then take them off the list? </p>

<p>What was the critieria for taking something off the list? </p>

<p>I see a kind of pattern here. The “top” students apply to alot of schools. While those students who are smart, driven, want a good education, but may not be top statiscally, don’t feel the need to apply to so many.</p>

<p>My Ds, with THEIR lists, were smart, passionate, girls. Maybe its because they saw college as more than just an educational institution, but as places where they will get some learnin’ done in all aspects of their lives- volunteering, internships, friendships, community outreach, etc.</p>

<p>To them, their environment beyond the classroom is important, the world to them is more than books and classmates. To them this part of their lives is yes, about book learning, its also about putting themselve into the larger world, so location, dorms, not having a greek life (they both didn’t want schools where the social scene was revolved around a greek system), they wanted their college years to help their whole person evolve- with concerts, museums, charity work, etc.</p>

<p>That is why those things I listed weren’t silly or trite or trivial. </p>

<p>Apples and oranges I guess, but not every kid wants their college years to be focused on a narrow path. So looking beyond the classroom and the world around the classroom can be important, and not irrelevent.</p>

<p>If my D had chosen a school outside an urban area, she wouldn’t be interning at MSNBC right now. She knew location, environment were actually very relevant. That if she was going to stay in an urban area, having four year on campus in decent dorms was very relevant. To be able to continue her volunteer work, she wanted a school that really supported that. </p>

<p>I find it interesting that some discount the world around the school, calling that irrelevant. How can it be? College is more than a lab or a theater. Or at least it should be.</p>

304

<p>

Again, I think you don’t quite get this. It’s not about having a lot of options; it’s about going to the very best school the kid can get in. If a kid like this gets in to Harvard, Penn, Brown, and Swarthmore, he’s probably not going to mull over the options. He’s going to Harvard. But if he didn’t get into Harvard, he’d go to the next school in whatever rank order he has. It’s just like if you applied for a bunch of jobs, with the idea that you would take the highest-paying job you are offered among those that fit you.</p>

305

<p>^^^ what cellardweller said. I too, am mystified why Americans consider it OK to strive for excellence in sports and music, but when it comes to academics a pretty common message is “Why bother?” When academic excellence is your main criteria, and the acceptance for an unhooked applicant is probably 3-5% at a top school, narrowing the list too much is just foolish.</p>

306

<p>Well, I think cellardweller’s interesting points certainly could be applied to students who are not seeking Ivy League schools or are concerned only w/an academic aspect.</p>

<p>A student w/a B average can get shut out just as firmly from some of his or her ‘reach’ schools as the A+ student who doesn’t apply to enough in his/her ‘top 20’ category. </p>

<p>My son also wanted a great education at whatever school he went to. Thus, we formulated a list that included schools that were ranked highly in his major – some of these were ranked higher than Princeton, in that specialty. </p>

<p>There were other factors for him, too (he wanted warm weather, etc.) but they were secondary behind the academics (though too many negatives in the secondary characteristics would trump even a solid academic program, in his case).</p>

<p>The fact is, w/son’s gpa, it was not a given he would get into any school on the list. However, a student w/out a 4.0 average can have the same intense desire for a positive college experience (even if it includes weather requirements!) and thus the same, multiple-app strategy can be employed.</p>

<p>We all want options and optimal experiences for our kids, whatever their interests/gpa. To me, putting out many apps was an avenue to achieve that.</p>

307

<p>

</p>

<p>You still aren’t listening to what some of us are saying, though. For <em>some</em> kids, they have a very specific vision that they want to spend these 4 years in a city / in a suburb / in a rural area, with 20,000 other kids / 10,000 / 5,000 / 2,000 kids, and any “deviation” from that specific vision will be a dissatisfier or something they’ll have to learn to accept. For <em>other</em> kids, they don’t have any such vision. They could adapt to and enjoy the city school and its environs and what it has to offer – and they could adapt to and enjoy the rural school and its environs. They can like different things at the same time. It’s really possible.</p>

<p>That doesn’t mean that they <em>ignore</em> the world outside the campus. It just means that they don’t have set expectations for what it “must” be like to be happy.</p>

308

<p>Both the last posts confirmed my thoughts.</p>

<p>And this isn’t about not taking academcs seriously. Far from it. It is about saying, do most kids really need to apply to over a dozen schools to get a great education in a school that is right for them.</p>

<p>And I, and seems many private school GC, say no. I guess if you are the student that can only excel at one of the top ten schools, then I guess you need to apply to all of them, because anything less just won’t do.</p>

<p>I am finally getting this thread.</p>

309

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree. Assuming the student is in the ballpark and these are “reasonable reaches” (that is, he’s not applying to all the Ivies with a 3.0), you just don’t know til you try. </p>

<p>I think at that point it actually becomes more psychological in nature.</p>

<p>Some kids / families are of the nature that they’d rather weight their list towards 1-2 reaches, a few matches and a few safeties because psychologically they want to have a bunch of acceptances and as many “sure things” as possible in this world of no sure things. For them, a few reaches may be in the mix, but too many and they’d start to feel like rejects as the rejections piled in. Their biggest regret would be “I tried for the big leagues and I failed at every single one.”</p>

<p>Other kids / families are of the nature that they’d rather weight their list towards a whole bunch of reaches, as long as safety / match are covered, because they’re more of the “never know if you don’t try” crowd, and as long as they get one bite from a reach, they won’t be psychologically upset if the rest of the reaches say no. Their biggest regret would be “I didn’t try for the big leagues in the first place.”</p>

<p>These are personality and risk assessment factors, that are very individual and different for each family. And I’m even leaving out the need or quest for financial aid in this example.</p>

310

<p>jolynne-</p>

<p>I think you might misunderstand. No one is saying that unless someone uses a “highpriced private college counselor” (I didnt do that nor say that) that a student or family doesnt know what they are doing. And, IMO, there is a difference between casting a “wide” (your words) vs a “very, very wide” (my words) net. I just haven’t been able to ascertain where the dividing line is between the two.</p>

311

<p>It’s not about having a lot of options; it’s about going to the very best school the kid can get in</p>

<p>** Best** is in the eye of the beholder.
Does best mean expensive? A highly ranked graduate school? ( when you are applying for undergrad). An extensive alumni donor and hiring network? Professors instead of graduate students teaching classes? Flexible graduation requirements? Distribution requirements? Few AP credits accepted?</p>

<p>Or does ** Best** mean prestigious=name recognition, and most likely to impress the neighbors?
;)</p>

312

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, you’re the one who has been saying that a school that is “right for them” has to have specific parameters of urban, rural, Greek, dorms all 4 years, etc. But we’re talking about kids who <em>could</em> be happy at (say) both Brown and Dartmouth, at both Penn and U Chicago, etc. (just picking pairs of schools that are high caliber but have significant lifestyle differences). </p>

<p>I find it ironic that you are criticizing people for being picky about the high caliber of academics when you’re being just as picky by narrowing down to urban, no-Greek, dorms all 4 years, etc. Why not just accept that other people have different criteria than you do? </p>

<p>I guess the real question is – what’s the first sorting mechanism?
Is the first sort on academics / selectivity, and then within, start sorting on urban, rural, Greek, non-Greek, dorm life, etc.?</p>

<p>Or is the first sort on urban, rural, Greek, non-Greek, dorm life, etc. – all the lifestyle characteristics – oh, and then add in academics? </p>

<p>Those approaches create very different kinds of lists.</p>

313

<p>Put another way, why is “I want to be among some of the smartest students I can find” any less valid of a criterion than “I want to be in an urban setting in a region of the country that gets all 4 seasons where I can live in the dorms all four years and there isn’t a Greek system?”</p>

<p>The first could, indeed be trophy hunting – but isn’t always.</p>

314

<p>ilovetoquilt, let me draw you another straw man application strategy.</p>

<p>Consider a kid who eventually wants to work in one of the hard sciences, or in engineering, ideally as a full time researcher or professor. Bright, qualified student with top notch stats, stellar ECs that fit in with the kid’s passion, the works. Academics and lab opportunities and being around like-minded souls are the only things of interest. The things that are of great importance to your children–“volunteering, internships, friendships, community outreach, etc.”, location, the wider world–don’t figure into what drives this kid. Conversely, your daughters weren’t weighting the importance of science/engineering academics, and that’s fine, because it wasn’t important to them.</p>

<p>Where is this kid going to apply? MIT and Caltech, for sure. Two or three of the Ivys, depending on specific research interests. JHU, Olin, some of the public Ivys, U of C, possibly some LACs with excellent research connections and a strong track record of routing kids to grad school. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. A kid with these credentials who lives in, say, California or Michigan would be able to use the public option as a safety. Kids living elsewhere won’t have that luxury, and will apply more widely. Maybe not up to 17, but certainly more than 6 or 8 schools. </p>

<p>I’m a big proponent of being able to find research opportunities at schools that are not tippy-top. Yet I entirely understand what would drive a kid like this (and this isn’t one of mine) to cast a broad net in pursuit of a SPECIFIC objective.</p>

315

<p>I don’t know any student who would have been equally happy in an urban school and a school out in the country. I really don’t. Some want that small school, cute town vibe,others want that big school, go go go, feel, but I have never met one kid, talked to one parent, who said their applicant would be happy in both. Not a one. I kinow kids who have adapted, who have just sucked it up and said, well I will be outa here in two years and have gone this far, so will just bide my time, but are not really happy with schools location. </p>

<p>I get this sense that somehow those kids that have certain wants and desires outside just the academic realm are seen as not being able to adapt or are rigid. </p>

<p>That is not the case at all. In fact, they just see the world beyond the classroom, and that plays a part of the selection process of schools to apply to. Is that a bad thing? Some here seem to think so.</p>

<p>As if looking beyond the classroom is not as relevant as whats going on in the classroom. For a large number of kids, it is, and that should not be disparraged. And these very same kids take their accademics just as seriously. They can have both criteria for a school. Part of the qhole package, the equation. And there is absoutely nothing wrong with that.</p>

316

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s funny that you say that. In my search in the Dark Ages, my two dream schools (before visiting) were Princeton and Penn. I nixed Princeton from my list because it was “too rural.” And now I go back to Princeton a lot on business and have occasion to be on campus and I kick myself and think, what a dumb thing on my part! I was <em>too narrow</em> in that I only applied to schools that were in / immediately adjacent to big cities. I am quite positive that I could have been quite happy at Princeton if I’d gone there. </p>

<p>Meet my S. He’s interested in history and internatl relations. He has 2 potential “constellations” of schools. Some are small, rural LACs. There’s also the Gtown / GWU / Amer / DC-based trio for him to consider. We haven’t yet visited them all, but knowing him, he might like aspects of each, and there’s no need for him to arbitrarily choose and lop one of those constellations off that BEFORE putting out applications.</p>

317

<p>Pizzagirl, you are assuming that students at school with that aren’t the “best of the best” won’t have really smart students, really good professors, amazing programs, a lively communoty, etc.</p>

<p>(deleted, it was kind of snarky, my apologies)</p>

<p>There are smart kids at schools not listed. There are a lot of 4.0, high SAT, academically driven students at schools seems you would deem worthy for your list. And that somehow kids who look beyond the classroom don’t care as much about college as those that want to go to the Ivies, etc. Wow, just wow.</p>

<p>Can’t argue with that. Toodles, folks. Guess my amazijg daughters just aren’t in the same league as the pposters here. Too bad they aren’t MT majors (most of whom won’t make it), or engineers (many of whom don’t cut it). too bad they are just your average great kids who want an all around good education and see the world in broader terms. </p>

<p>Guess those who just have your average run of the mill kdis aren’t welcome here.</p>

318

<p>Yes, if a student is pursuing academia or research there is a very specific target (set of schools.) and therefore a strategic rationale for picking schools. Most kids are not pursing academia or research as a career path. Pizza is also correct in that the criteria will be different for different kids and the selected list should reflect a specific criteria…if “no greek, warm climate, dorm guaranteed for all 4 years,” is the strategy, well, then the list should reflect that along with places that the students academic record are applicable/challenging use whatever adjective you want and you wouldn’t have any schools in the NE or Midwest or Mountain range. Maybe you’ve got a kid who has SAD, you’re certainly not going to send him to college in Michigan or Buffalo or Portland where the sun doesn’t shine that much. It’s really not that difficult to come up with a strategy for any individual kiddo.</p>

319

<p>My daughter- because of finances didn’t apply to the rigourous urban private schools in which she was interested.
Not because I told her she couldn’t- although I did give her information about how much we could afford to pay- how large of a loan I thought she should limit herself to and where there would probably be a gap between those numbers and the amount charged by the schools.
She opted not to apply to them.</p>

<p>Which I think she may have regretted- but I was bemused to learn that her roommate * did apply* to one of the same competitive schools and was accepted, however the money wasn’t there, even though it was a 100% need met school.</p>

<p>( I also think that both young women are going to be very pleased with their experience at the smallish public university- in state for one of them. However that doesn’t mean they aren’t going to compare the public U to the private LAC for a few weeks )</p>

320

<p>

</p>

<p>Me? I didn’t assume that AT ALL. You need to read me on other threads. I’ve posted the list of schools my juniors will be investigating. I am not a “gotta be top 20 or go home” poster in the least, and my kids are NOT 4.0 UW / 2400 SAT / cancer curers who couldn’t bother to mix with the riffraff. You’ve got me ALL wrong.</p>

<p>I simply agreed with Hunt’s point that given a top level student he described, I don’t see a need to arbitrarily limit such a kid to 2 reaches, 2 matches, 2 safeties. If he’s reach-worthy, then assuming he wants to play the game and won’t be unduly hurt, I don’t see a reason for him not to add a few more reaches and matches as long as safeties are covered adequately.</p>