<p>Also, if I really thought my kid might not get into any of the reaches, I’d make sure to have matches and safeties. </p>
<p>With my own children, I didn’t know which schools would come through as each was so selective that it would be unpredictable to say. But i felt pretty confident that they’d get in somewhere on their lists. Their lists were appropriate to them. Indeed they had many choices. When older one applied to 10 highly competitive grad schools, again, very unpredictable odds but we never believed she’d be totally shut out and we were right and she again had many choices. When a student is entirely shut out of all the schools on their list, then their list either was not appropriate to them (not everyone in this process is realistic…I could tell you such stories, LOL), not long enough, not well balanced, etc.</p>
<p>cellardweller, thank you for those posts about your D’s priorities, the rationale you used and her experience. I am glad it worked out for her. My D has similar priorities- she wants to be surrounded by the smartest and academically strongest people she can find- students and professors. Why should she apologize for those priorities? And why is it her problem that the strongest schools, that she is attracted to, tend to be the most prestigious? Is an athlete considered a “prestige whore” for wanting to get into a Division I school as opposed to Div III? </p>
<p>Consider it to be the student’s counterpart of what the highly selective colleges do- their first criterion in selecting students is academic strength. </p>
<p>I have yet to find a single university that declares “We strive to form a student body that is well-balanced between the academically strong and the academically weak”.</p>
<p>Well put. I think there is sometimes a presumption that kids wanting to go to the tippy-top schools are always driven by prestige. Well, sure, some are. And others genuinely aren’t.</p>
<p>It would limit some kids’ options. Kids that need a good financial aid/merit package to go to a private school would have less of a chance. I know a number of kids who got one jackpot offer out of about 10 or so apps. In other words, they were turned down, got inadequate amounts of aid to attend, were accepted to a couple of safety schools that were just affordable, and then one school offered close to a full ride that was higher on the list. </p>
<p>My son applied to 10 schools and got one full ride+ offer out of the whole shebang. Had he been restricted to 6 schools, that school might have been the one that he would have eliminated since he didn’t know he would get the package when he applied. Another school that was high on his list where he was eligible for a very nice merit award ended up offering him zilch though they did accept him. He had variations from zero aid to full ride plus out of the 10 schools.</p>
<p>Agree with posts 362 and 363. I also had a kid who wanted to go to a college with the strongest academic student body as possible. I can’t imagine apologizing for that. THAT was the BEST FIT for HER. She did not care about rankings and has NEVER seen the US News Rankings and we did not know the rankings of her schools. But she wanted a very selective school with a very strong and motivated student body with very challenging academics. This was her first selection criteria but she had other criteria of course (ie. has a club or varsity ski team, has a major in architecture, etc.). And she did not pick from her options in terms of which was ranked highest or by name. She seriously considered three schools until the very end. She ruled one out that was an Ivy and two were not. But all were selective and academically challenging. I have never heard her say, “I want to attend an Ivy League school” but she did say she wanted to attend a really challenging selective school. This indeed was what fit her learning style.</p>
This is the clearest possible demonstration of the sense of this strategy for a person who is very interested in highly selective schools. Imagine if this student had decided to drop the LACs, and apply to seven reaches, Tufts, and her safety. Depending on which reaches she had dropped…she could be at Tufts. Again, far from a tragedy. But the strategy she used got her the result she was looking for, and I see nothing wrong with what she wanted.</p>
<p>It’s nice that the idea (as put forth by cellardweller) that 17 or so schools for an academically driven kid who wants the most intense academic experience is being seen as having some valid rationale. Perhaps it makes it easier because the argument for 17 schools is put in the context of ‘we value education and a strong academic program’ and ‘America should value education more’ etc. Hard to disagree with those great ideas! </p>
<p>However, I think that the concept of ‘many apps to get what you want’ can certainly apply <em>outside</em> the realm of ivies/top 20 schools. Kids who are applying to Tier 2 or other non-ivy schools need options too (whether they be for FA, for a specialty school in their major, or even just into a solid, Tier 2 school for which there is no guarantee they will get into). </p>
<p>Because certain schools are perceived as ‘less selective’ than say Harvard or Brown, it does not mean that they are easy to get into w/a kid w/less-than-perfect stats. Those kids should feel just as free to utilize a ‘more apps than the norm’ strategy to get what they want, as well.</p>
<p>Good post, vp. And while we’re at it, let’s put this thought out there, too: In drawing up a college list, it’s okay to put prestige on the list of criteria. No, it should not be the only factor on the list. But it’s okay to want to go to a celebrated college whose faculty and alumni are some of the most influential and impressive people on the planet.</p>
<p>Jolynne…I do agree that such considerations do not simply apply to those seeking top tier schools. </p>
<p>I think people should do what they wish. </p>
<p>I work with many students with very low academic profiles as well. I also work with those seeking specialized degree programs. I just haven’t come across a situation where more than 13 apps even would be needed to reach their goal IF their goal is realistic in the first place. I have met kids with very unrealistic goals and you could have 20 schools on their list and they’d get into none if their list was not appropriate to them or balanced in terms of odds (relative to them).</p>
<p>That’s sort of beside the point, for two reasons. First, an athlete can generally get more merit-type scholarship at a D-I school, as well as a higher level of competition. Those two factors alone justify the preference. Second, in lots of cases recruited athletes have to compromise, sometimes a lot, on what they want in a college, based on which colleges want THEM. And I have seen a number of recruited athletes drop out of the D-I market into D-III precisely because they DID want to choose a college they liked (sometimes after their D-I freshman years).</p>
<p>Re prestige:</p>
<p>Let’s not forget that prestige has an economic signalling function. Like any other ranking system, it aggregates a whole bunch of information from many sources and reduces it all to a single factor. And a lot of what goes into “prestige” are things that I respect and care about. Frankly, I like prestige a little more than USNWR as a guide to quality, although where USNWR diverges from prestige it is always interesting to dig deeper and to examine why. (I.e., you are not going to get me to believe that USC is a better place than Michigan or Cornell, but I may have to stop being so snotty about USC.)</p>
<p>Despite being in agreement with cellardweller’s post about the logic of sending in multiple applications, I do wonder whether one might reach a point of diminishing returns beyond a certain number. I am sure every student would have a different cutoff but I suspect my D will produce better applications if she sends 10 instead of 15. Even if all her colleges took the Common App (which they don’t), she would have to deal with 15 supplements, and potentially 15 interviews. Her E.C. schedule in the winter and spring is highly unlikely to let her schedule even 10 interviews. Luckily we have identified at least one safety and two matches that would be very good fits for her. She will probably end up with 7 reach, 2 match, and 1 safety on her list. Unless the EA school comes through…</p>
<p>That is precisely one of the main drawbacks that I see to the 15-20 apps approach (to be clear, am in AGREEMENT with you). I know my own kids’ schedules between demanding homework and very heavy duty ECs. They never had to be prodded to do applications at all. However, in order to put together polished applications and umpteen essays, it was a lot of work. They did this for 8 schools. They likely could have done more but doing 15-20, I don’t think so without something having to give…either the quality of the essays, the showing of specific interest in the apps to each college (they tailored statements to each school), the interviews or auditions for each school (each kid had one or the other), visits, and so on. Perhaps it is doable (others here have done it!) but for my kids, it would not mean that they were too lazy to do it but they had all they could do to fit in 8 stellar apps and interviews and auditions given their schedules. Kinda sounds like your D in fact. Your D may do ten. Yes, I think my kids could have fit in ten. I feel much after 12 or so, the effort per app is gonna have to be diluted OR something else in life will give (ECs, homework, sleep), OR the interest in each school can not be adequately shown, visits made and so on. While you don’t have to visit every school before applying, the problem with 17 apps is if you have not visited and you get into 12 schools come spring, that leaves you one month to narrow and refine the list and do visits. I think it can be beneficial to start narrowing (but not too narrow) before that point, for many reasons. </p>
<p>That is simply my view and my preference but certainly not meant to judge others’ choices. </p>
<p>For my younger kid, by the way, it was a lot just traveling to 8 auditions during the winter on top of her major commitments back home that were hard to miss. I can’t imagine having to do many more than that, let alone the expenses involved. I rarely have had a student go over 12 or 13 apps. The students who did 14 or 15 did not have BETTER results.</p>
<p>We did consider the issue of diminishing returns of too many applications. For us, 17 was highly manageable, especially when spread over 3 months in the fall. Less than half of the schools had interviews and for those that did, the initial research that we made on every school on the list came in very handy. There was no risk of praising a school for a non-existent department because they were selected specifically based on the availability of a program. Our D could refer to a visit to a lab or meeting with a faculty member, or talking to students in her intended department. No very different in approach from what a recruited athlete or MT applicant would go through. In many ways we feel that our D did better when there was an interview than when there was none, when there was a supplement as opposed to none, simply because she could make a stronger case as to why she should be admitted. She did not have to really craft a very different picture for each school, just present who she was and what she could contribute to the college if admitted. If somebody would ask her what other schools she was applying to she would simply state other colleges with strong departments in her intended major. </p>
<p>As others have mentioned, the process is very similar to applying for a job. You need to be prepared and most probably will apply for similar positions at different companies. You are not applying for a position in the legal department one day and in the R&D department the next. If you have clear idea of what you want to study and can make the case for it and why you think there is a match with the school you are in good shape. You essentially are helping to build your case for the adcom to pitch to the admission’s committee. </p>
<p>If you really know what you want to do and what schools are a good fit, 17 applications is no big deal. If you only picked the school for the ivy on the walls or the weather, you may be in trouble putting together even 6 decent applications.</p>
<p>I agree with that statement. Our second D is now a senior in HS. As opposed to an A+ student she is more a B+/A- student with solid but not extreme test scores (2200). Except for one, possibly two schools, there is no overlap with her sister’s choices. Her high reaches were her sister’s low matches. Her current list is around 15 schools but may increase or decrease depending on how the semester goes and additional test results. Her intended major is less definite. She is a talented dancer, but does not want to be a dance major. Possibly more choices but harder to define a true match school. Financial aid is much trickier in her case as she may not qualify for much merit aid and the full need schools in her range are less generous.</p>
<p>I agree that 2200 is beyond what most think of as “solid”. It is in range for many quite selective colleges, particularly if her GPA seems to be in the 3.6 range or so. </p>
<p>Everything is relative! On CC, one might refer to that score and GPA as solid but for most others like myself, I would call it very good and competitive for more selective schools!!!</p>
<p>Well, mythmom and soozievt that is the conundrum. What are targets for kids with 2200 single sitting test scores, fives on all APs so far but only 3.5 unweighted GPA (3.8 weighted) ? Using Naviance drives us crazy, because she does not fit into any of the clusters of either admitted or rejected students. Somewhere in no-mans land. </p>
<p>She has a very rigorous curriculum, takes multi-variable calculus even though she is not really planning to be a science major. Great writer. Does just OK during the year, then aces the finals at the end of the year. But that leaves her with as many Bs as As. </p>
<p>She may be as naturally talented as her older sister but not as motivated or clear about her plans. Here such students are sometimes considered slackers or under-performers. I was looking up schools in the UK and even Oxford only cares about test scores not GPA. But she is not really interested in going that far away. Any advice is welcome!</p>
<p>cellardweller,
Your 2 kids sound just like mine. While second s had somewhat higher SATs, he sounds like your second dau. He is at a very good school (top 50) on a full tuition scholarship plus national merit scholarship. Funny that on cc “only a 3.8 weighted GPA” is a weakness. Your d’s stats are fine.</p>
<p>I don’t know what she is looking for, but Bard immediately comes to mind. But no merit awards, only need based FA. Brandeis comes to mind. Clark would have amazing FA for her. I don’t know what part of the country you’re looking at, but Reed might be a good bet too.</p>
<p>NYU as well. You can see I’m an easterner. </p>
<p>I do know other areas, but these are in my backyard.</p>