<p>
A kid like that is known as a “Princeton reject.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, heck then, you might as well just be blunt about it and say “if you are a URM, add X points to your score. If you are a legacy, add Y points. If a double legacy, add Z points. If your family’s name is on the science building, you’re in.”</p>
<p>Chances are schools a tier below the ivies will benefit a lot (all the kids who would normally apply to these schools, with a chance of getting in, are scared to waste there app so apply to other good schools, in which they have a higher chance).</p>
<p>But then the same could be said for the schools a tier below THAT level, too – same principle. It’s not just “I’m scared to waste my app at HYP so I’ll try for Northwestern, CMU and Emory.” It can just as easily be “I’m scared to waste my app at NU, CMU and Emory so I’ll try for [insert top 30-ish level university that I’m too lazy to look up].”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fact that he shared all this with other people doesn’t speak well to his powers of discretion. Sounds like a blabbermouth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It already exists. It’s called your state university system. State Universities are far more driven by statistics than “touchy-feely” things like recommendations and ECs. If fact a place like Iowa has a straight forward calculation that decides whether you are going to be admitted or not. Within every state there is a pecking order to the universities: flagshipU, stateU, eastU etc., you can look online right now and get a very good idea of your admissions chances. </p>
<p>What that leaves is the private schools. The fact that they have created an approach that is attractive to a portion of the applicant pool is their reward for doing a perceived better job. Of course, you pay extra for that opportunity, but doing a job that is attractive to consumers shouldn’t be the basis of punitive restrictions on applications. </p>
<p>If you want a straight meritocratic approach use the state university system and feel free to apply to 6 or more schools. If you want to have your state university “be as good as” HYPMS then start voting for more taxes being spent on higher education. Requiring that private colleges and universities to participate in a program of restricted applications that would then require them to accept applicants without their input smacks of nationalizing education. Good luck with that one.</p>
<p>Don’t many flagship state Us already use a stats approach initially, at least in some sort of formulary for consideration? Schools with 40K students and tens of thousands of applicants cant possibly read every single application cover to cover, can they? Surely there must be some criteria that moves an application from the “no way Jose” pile to the “lets give this one a look” pile. IIRC, there was some litigation (Michigan, GA, etc) where accusations of reverse discrimination were made in the application/acceptance process. In GA, IIRC, they now cannot add weighting for different variables-- the student has to be “otherwise qualified” to attend. THEN they’ll look at things like LD accomodations, etc.</p>
<p>***** crossposted with vinceh.</p>
<p>@JHS, we’ve had a difference in perspective on selective college admits before. To some extent, I suspect that this reflects the difference in our locations–by which I mean my geographical location, rather than “Hilbert space.” </p>
<p>Over time, I’ve looked at Naviance plots for admissions to HYPSM from some of the schools that post them for “guest” access. In some cases, the admits are bunched in the upper right corner (high GPA, high SAT). In others, the admits are randomly located in a rather large upper right rectangle, amongst many rejects with higher GPA’s and higher SAT’s. </p>
<p>If a student goes to a school in the first category, and has comparable stats to those who were admitted, the odds of admission seem pretty high. Of course, this could reflect a local culture in which the high-stats students also tend to have very impressive EC’s! Or they may have learned how to craft essays better, or they may have developed the “right” personality quirks. In addition, I think that some of the high-stats students in those schools have a slight edge, due to the familiarity of HYPM admissions representative with their high schools (specifically, high schools in the East where there are large numbers of National Merit Scholars). </p>
<p>It would be inaccurate for me to say that we live in “the middle of nowhere.” But out here, one might as well consult sheep’s entrails as the Naviance plots, for all the clue about admissions that would be offered. I’m pretty sure that the same holds, where curmudgeon lives. (Say, curm, can you supply sheep entrails?) I’ve read a lot of curmudgeon’s posts (in 4+ years), and can say with quite a lot of confidence that trophy hunting is not what the 'mudges are about.</p>
<p>Of course, the case of someone who applies SCEA and is admitted, and then submits other applications is highly dubious. However, a student might well apply SCEA and then prepare the RD apps for other places before the SCEA decision comes out.</p>
<p>"the student has to be “otherwise qualified” to attend. " - not always. Widespread of “hook” including URM status is very well known at least in admission to Grad. school. All UG students planning to apply to Grad. Schools know about it and completely accepted it as fact of life anymore, I mean they do not waste their energy on being frustrated about it anymore, they just know that they have to have higher stats if they are not URM, period.</p>
<p>from pizzagirl:
</p>
<p>That is what I meant back in post 150:
</p>
<p>This won’t be happening.</p>
<p>Miami-
The “otherwise qualified to attend” was verbiage from the LD services staff after UGA was successfully sued in 2001 for some of their admissions practices. They were trying to describe a more level playing field in the admissions process, when asked how students with LDs , ADHD, etc, whose test scores or GPAs may have been affected by their disability, might be considered. They said this was a byproduct of the litigation, that students disabilities could not be considered before admission-- that they had to be “otherwise qualified” to attend, and then LD issues and accomodations could be explored, if indicated. Sorry to confuse.</p>
<p>
Ooooh!!Shiny slow-moving object in the water!!!Must bite!..nope. ;)</p>
<p>^^^Oh man… and I had <em>just</em> popped a fresh pot of popcorn and grabbed a ringside seat… ;)</p>
<p><em>lurking, lurking to see what develops</em></p>
<p>QuantMech: I have never, ever seen a Naviance plot for Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Stanford that gave any guidance at all. What they always seem to show is that, (a) if you not very near the upper right-hand corner, you have no chance, (b) if you are generally near the upper right-hand corner, you have hardly any chance, and (c) among kids generally near the upper right-hand corner, grades and test scores are obviously not the relevant data for determining who is accepted. And the Naviance plots I have seen for Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, Cornell, and even Chicago are not much different, although the last few historically have a somewhat bigger target and do not historically turn down “perfect” students.</p>
<p>What I have always taken from this is that test scores and grades are being used as a first cut but not a final cut, and that most of those colleges simply do not pay attention to the difference between 3.95 and 4.0, or between 760 and 800.</p>
<p>In my kids’ various classes, by and large I was impressed by how “right” Harvard and Yale got it, generally accepting the kids with the most substance over kids with (somewhat) higher grades.</p>
<p>
Sigh. That’s what my son did–applied SCEA, and then prepared–and submitted–most of his RD applications before the SCEA decision came out. Why did we do this? We were afraid if he was rejected SCEA, he’d lose steam on the other apps, and we just wanted to get it over with. In retrospect, he could have prepared them and held them to save the fees. When he was accepted SCEA, he withdrew all the others before the RD decision (except his safety, a state U, responded earlier with an acceptance). So he can say that he wasn’t rejected anywhere, or that he only got into two schools.</p>
<p>JHS, take a look at New Trier in Illinois–it’s one I recall offhand. I’m not supporting a stats-driven approach to admissions, I’m just pointing out that some of the Naviance plots look a lot more random than others. New Trier has one of the less random-looking plots.</p>
<p>I keep reading, some kids apply to a dozen or more schools so they will have choices later.</p>
<p>My Ds looked at lots of schools, they applied smart and didn’t apply to more than 5. And even 5 was pushing it.</p>
<p>They talked to GC< they did research, I did research, and they couldn’t pick out more than ten schools they could actually see themselves at.</p>
<p>If a parent and the student are really honest with themselves, they would see that many schools on their list are schools they would never attend. </p>
<p>I have read on this site hundreds of posts of, oh son got in everywhere, and we immediately dumped all the schools but his top 2. Why did he even apply to schools he wouldn’t consider going to?</p>
<p>I have read an equal number of posts from kids who applied to schools just to see, who didn’t pull applications, because they were curious, who wanted to show how many scholarships they got, but never had any intention of going to that school.</p>
<p>I don’t know if they can limit the number, but I think that if a kid, and seems its just as much the parents pushing lots and lots of applications, wants to apply to over a dozen schools, they should have to make a case for that.</p>
<p>It isn’t so simple as freedom of choice, and freedom to do whatever the heck you want.</p>
<p>There is something to be said for personal ethics, personal restraint, personal consideration, personal taking control of ones impulses, and really taking seriouslly this process, and not feeding the CC frenzy.</p>
<p>We all talk about personal responsibilty, but in the same breath, I see parents not teaching their kids some self control and being focused and really making smart decisions and applications.</p>
<p>Just because you get an amazing package at a school, doesn’t mean your kid will ever condsider going there. Read the threads.</p>
<p>My D did not apply to any California school, public or private. She said she would rather go to a “lesser” school in NYC than the top school here. To looked at herself, what she really wanted, and needed. She got amazing merit and need based aid, because she was smart in her school choices. She didn’t add a school just cause they might give her money, if the school was not the right size, was not in a city, etc. What would be the point?</p>
<p>There is a whole lot of “i should be able to do whatever the heck I want, so there” mentallity on this thread. Just cause you can, doesn’t mean its smart or the best plan.</p>
<p>I know kids here in Cal that sent in apps to ALL the Cal school, state and university. Why? Cause it was easy and they could. They knew they would never go to at almost 90%, but what the heck, they could do it so they did.</p>
<p>Some claim its about merit aid, etc., sure to a degree it is, but again, how many of those schools would your kid be happy in? Not all they applied to.</p>
<p>I see parents whose kids applied to big schools, little schools, city, country,all over the spectrum, so different, but hey, if the money might be there, go for it is the attitude. And often it seemed that it wasn’t so much about the right school, but more about $$, and again, I get that money is an issue, but if your kid wouldn’t go there, why apply?</p>
<p>College should be about the package, and if there is something about a school that is so far out of the students wants, no amount of money will make that school attractive. </p>
<p>There are schools that you couldn’t pay my kids to attend, nor igve them a free laptop or car, or penthouse, they would not go.</p>
<p>Most kids get accepted to most schools. Many kids get great merit and need based aid. There is no need to apply to over a dozen schools to get $. Thats more vanity. </p>
<p>Also, so many threads were, oh, the choice is soooo hard not that Super D got into all her schools. Well, it was easy, cause she dumped 7 right off the bat, so now she has to decide between her top three. Why did she apply to say, 4 of those dumped 7?</p>
<p>I think we have created a monster here at CC, and with the whole college application process. </p>
<p>If were really honest with ourselves and stepped back during the process and really looked at the schools our kids apply to, there is generally no real need to apply to more than six. Vanity and some sense of I can do it if I want to childish mentality seems to take over, and intelligent, intellecitual, streamlined, well done applicaition well almost always work, and this feeding frenzy of having to send 18 applications will ebb.</p>
<p>One more examply, I see kids apply to half the Ivies. The Ivies are allvery different schools, and a school, say a step lower on the percieved prestige scale, would have much more in line with Yale than say Cornell would.</p>
<p>@ilovetoquilt22: In a word: andison.</p>
<p>One of the students in QMP’s class, who is truly extraordinary, did not have the outcomes that were really deserved, when decisions came out in March. I don’t blame anyone for casting a net broadly.</p>
<p>Actually, in response to JHS, I have to acknowledge that H and Y have done a good job of selecting students locally, in the time frame familiar to me, as has Caltech. But a number of applicants to PS&M have had just plain weird outcomes.</p>
<p>Also, curmudgeon, you haven’t responded yet about Sheep Entrail & Divination Supply, Inc. (#168)</p>
<p>Hunt–QMP started on the same track with SCEA and submitted 4 RD apps ahead of the SCEA notification. After an SCEA deferral, added 3 more RD apps (setting sights slightly lower). Eventually admitted 7 places, but rejected by the SCEA choice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the grand scheme of things, in the context of all of the given graduating seniors off to 4 year colleges in a given year, how big of an issue is this? I submit it’s not a big problem overall. This board is VERY skewed towards the Northeast, where chasing the Ivies is a big sport, towards upper-middle-to-upper-class parents who themselves have elite educations, and towards high-achieving kids. It’s a “problem” in the big scheme of things only if using a microscope. The vast majority of hs kids in this country have zero interest in applying to the Ivies or similar schools; they make their choices based on proximity to home, cost and local-reputation, they apply to only a handful of schools as the data shows, and that’s that.</p>