Everyone is different. My kid would not have a great time attending an LAC. She definitely has a type of school. Some kids are like that. Others would enjoy various types of schools.
Thanks for the variety of responses. I see that many people have kids like mine who are attracted to a variety of environments. I do hope that people can accept a little more that the variety in a list may not always be a sign of a “lack of research” but instead may simply be a kid’s unwillingness to pigeonhole themselves into applying to one particular type of school. Some kids may have a “type” and some kids may really be fine in any environment.
Just like different schools work for different kids, so too is the range of schools that will work for kids. That give types of schools or two or more specific schools do not make sense to you or your kid doesn’t mean that is true for everyone. Someone taking a different approach than you isn’t wrong. Just different. There is a certain level of arrogance underlying the one approach for all view which definitely colors certain discussions/posts here. Good with the bad.
Yeah but this is CC, a mostly anonymous forum where you are what you write. I don’t think we question kids who seem to have thought through their choices, whether or not they’re of a uniform type. It’s kids or parents who just lay out those wildly disparate targets, even asking, say,“Is Dartmouth a good school?” Begs the answer, “You want to apply, but don’t know?”
Lstely, this is coming up in conjunction with ED. It’s late September and “You don’t know?”
And some are naming majors that don’t exist UG. When other posters need to explain, I think it’s fair to ask if the OP researched.
And about “divining,” those adcoms are reading apps and supps. Again, a form of “you are what you write.”
There is a lot of wiggle room here. If you disagree with the choice, you may well simply determine they haven’t thought through their choices rather than simply making a different one than you would make.
I also think that part of the “is X a good school” question is that there seems to be a VERY high number of first-generation American kids and their parents on CC. I have seen posters over and over again who are questioned over their priorities, choices and values when in fact those priorities, choices and values are coming from a very different place, perhaps, than the majority of Americans.
Immigrant communities continue to have different values from the “typical” American family for a few generations. This can be seen in valuing the income a potential degree/profession might bring rather than valuing education for educations sake. (I can see this in my own family dynamic.) This can also be seen in valuing what is perceived to be “prestigious” over any other metric of evaluating a school.
There is SO much great information on CC and SO many amazing knowledgeable people willing to help. But sometimes, it comes across as very judgmental of those that come at the college search from a non-traditional background.
We all bring our own baggage to the table. While I agree wholeheartedly with the need to reevaluate how we look at colleges, how we “rank” them, how we determine what schools are “worthy,” I also think we need to be a bit gentler with people who may be coming at this from an entirely different perspective.
@doschicos my concrete evidence is not only the kids who get into all the Ivies but the ones who post here on CC a laundry list of top 50s from which they have likely letters and fly ins and merit aid. I have anecdotal cases too. Again the relevant point to the OP’s observation is that these schools SAY they are looking for a very “special” type of student who wants a very “specific” type of undergraduate experience that only they can provide. Don’t submit an essay where you can insert any school’s name, blah blah blah. BS. Yet I counsel kids to write those very specific essays all the time just to get wait listed or rejected while some hooked kid without a clue is in.
An essay that reflects understanding of the college is good. It’s just that (and this swings to OP’s point, too) many kids still don’t get what those schools want to see. You said “alpha” adcoms, which I take to mean tippy tops-?
But I think hooked kids are a different thread.
One’s not competing for the hooked spots anyway. Just consider those out of contention. It’s less frustrating - and more realistic - to think of it that way. Of course the colleges are going to choose some athletes, legacies, development cases, URMs and if you don’t fit one of those categories, guess what? Those spots aren’t available to you. No one is being dishonest about that nor condescending.
@Oregon2016, I have to disagree. Your statement about hooked kids without a clue getting into selective colleges is very condescending. You don’t know what their applications looked like and what their essays were about. I’m sorry that your family had such a rough time with the application process. However, dismissing students who did get in with such flippant remarks is not helpful to you nor to those students that you are trying to guide through the application process (whether that was your own children or others).
call me the outlier, but the single most valuable thing we did was visit “types” of schools locally. the big, the small, the lac, the uni, etc.
it helped focus our list and we didnt waste time or money looking at somewhere that wouldnt work.
i thought i had a bloom where planted kid. her original motto was “i dont care where i go to college, as long as i go”.
umm, yeah…not so much. she ended up with very strong preferences about what will and wont work for her. the self discovery process was nothing short of amazing. it is abundantly clear that i dont have a humongous big-u kid, nor do i have a teeny LAC one.
i’m a big believer in early exposure to a variety of choices. its a starting point, not the end game. but every kid is different so do what works for yours.
but i’m in complete disagreement with it being a waste of time. sorry.
@goingnutsmom I called unspecified admissions officers “condescending” in my post #30 and your response is that I’m being “condescending”? Isn’t that Trumpian? Anyway I’m critical of the admissions officers who emphasize applicant fit with their unique institution yet the results I see often contradict fit mattering. And yeah it is really disappointing to always follow the advice of AOs and well paid experts only to be on the losing end.
Maybe it was the wording. “condescending alpha admissions officers SAY they are divining which kids fit their distinctive-totally-not generic institutions YET appear to be chasing the same group of hooked and angular/quirky kids. Really no or little consideration which kids will really appreciate and thrive in their distinctive-totally-not generic institution.”
You don’t get in because, from your own perspective, you will appreciate and thrive. (Or because you tell them in the Why Us how much you would love to go there.) Rather, because from what you submit, you “show” you get what they do value and want, are a match, and allow them to see it in you. Is that “divining?” Maybe. But it starts with what the kid produces for an “apha” adcom team. Not simply what the kid wants or friends and family believe he is due.
I bark on this because, from my perspective, it’s not so hard to get bright, alpha-worthy kids to focus their thinking. Not all kids. Yes, it takes some vetting. Aka “research.” But the alpha-worthies can do it.
Of course, there are also elements beyond your control: the sheer numbers of apps, the volume of kids applying from very specific areas, how many want the same majors.
I also think quirky and angular play waaaay less than CC thinks.
Each of my kids had a very specific but also flexible definition of what they were looking for.
1 (son) wanted a college where 1) it is considered safe to be a thinker, and 2) preferably located in a major league city (sports). No preferences regarding region of the country. And so his applications went out to several liberal arts colleges (ranging from the west coast to Massachusetts) and a few universities, including the in-state flagship public university. These were chosen based on our (parents') perceptions of what might be a good fit. Son had zero interest in making pre-application visits -- he had seen many colleges in connection with being on the debate tour, and didn't want do any research. He was too busy, in his view. He had truly strong test scores (NMSF) and EC's. His first visit to the University of Chicago was on admitted students day. He did an overnight. The next morning he pronounced, "this will do." End of search and decision making. Thank you and buh-bye to Reed, Carleton, Williams, and UMich.
2 (daughter) had very specific criteria, but did make a grand tour of visits to colleges in June after her junior year of high school. Her criteria? 1) stand-alone art school, 2) located in a "real city," and 3) in the East. She applied to a handful of art schools, was accepted by all of them, and enrolled and graduated from Rhode Island School of Design (RISD). Her only reservation when she first visited RISD was was whether Providence qualified as a "real city." A few of her high school classmates accepted offers from NYU and Columbia, and she figured out that she could get to NYC from Providence by train or bus in 2-3 hours. That she did on a regular basis.
So, while it’s true that the kids had in mind a “type of school” if by this one means they had specific criteria for the decision, they were flexible as long as the college met those criteria, which weren’t exactly hard and fast but helped in defining the search and application process. For example, a few art schools on the West Coast would have met some of my daughter’s criteria but not the geographic one. My son’s core criterion was very easy to meet; there are probably a couple of dozen that would have been a good fit.
@Oregon2016, your statement on post #47 was condescending- “while some hooked kid without a clue gets in”. Basically you are saying that your kid or the kid you were guiding, deserves the selective college but not this hooked kid who doesn’t “get it”. Gee, I guess they were an average stats illegal immigrant, minority, low income kid who got into Harvard without breaking a sweat (from your other post).
You really don’t know what got any kid in. Because you are not seeing the entire application nor were you there for the admissions discussions.
You sound bitter.
there are a large group of students on CC who do not think to or should I say dare to expand the type of schools they look at. they are not looking for the best fit…they only care about prestige and name…and nothing can change their mind (or for many their parents mind)
My understanding was that kids with hooks are admitted to fill needs, and often against the better judgement of the adcoms sometimes.
Also my understanding is that adcoms who admit kids who do not succeed do not stay adcoms very long.
I am basing these judgments on things I have read, and no direct experience, so I may be incorrect or incomplete.
As for the general topic: I believe one of the secrets of success and happiness is not to go chasing universal perfection but rather to take advantage of what is accessible to you. Find yourself living in the mountains? Learn skiiing and hiking. In a city? Go to museums and theaters. etc etc… I have lived in the country, major cities and the suburbs, and honestly loved certain aspects of all three and hated others. No place is perfect.
I think the idea that there are no kids who would thrive equally at Amherst or Michigan is hard to defend.
^Maybe you.mean some athletic hooks.
But not all “hooked” kids are just taken to fill some need. Especially not at competitive colleges.
My D is another where the quality of the school in regards to her major was key - and that led us to MANY different types of schools. Her smallest had a few thousand- her largest was a state flagship. If you had looked at just the list of schools (without knowing major) it might have seen scattered and confusing- but all had a top 20 dept in her subject.