Yes @Lindagaf in terms of war, poverty and violations of human rights, not getting into your #1 or even your #10 school and having to go to state flaghsip or private safety with merit is not a tragedy. However, for those who expended effort, went above and beyond and then are sitting next to the kid that spent every weekend partying in high school while you were watching Khan Academy videos on Calculus is a bitter pill.
I have a high stats kid (99% SAT/ACT, very top of class with very respectable ECs, GPA was great but not perfect but no Bs) who fortunately got into one “reach” school and several target schools (where she was at or above the 60%). There was no “safety” that she wanted to go to, PERIOD. There were schools she could have ended up at and would have learned to like but no place that had a 40% admit rate or whatever you would call a safety that she wanted to go to. She visited 20 schools, she researched, but would have been HAPPY to attend, no. I remember the GC asking my D in September, if you only get into BU, NE and your state flagship (all of which she visited) how would you feel. The response was not great. Even when she was accepted at her target schools (Top 20-35) she was not excited but was ok with attending. Do you really think it matters to a high stats kid who REALLY wants that affirmation that her state school will have lots of people she can connect with? Also, there are certain kids that are tired of fighting the crowd. That are sick of being the best student in the room because that is what they have always been, the one who when they ask a question in Honors Chem is told, great question, we will cover that in AP Chem in senior year or gets groans and eye rolls from the other students who just want to get on with the material? For certain kids there is no true “safety” that they would be happy to attend, just someplace they will have to attend if all else does not come through.
Very often it is not the perfect stats kid who is just going through the motions but the 3.8 kid who this does not come naturally to who is being groomed and tutored and directed into activities. There are many high stats kids who never have tutoring except for standardized tests and some not even for that. Most of them are tutoring or helping other kids get through the exams in high school, not being tutored.
Sometimes the kids end up loving their safety but that will not happen until after they get there. Many years ago I chose a college because of circumstances intending to transfer (not a safety). I never did and I loved my college and would like one of my kids to consider it even though at the time, had circumstances been different I never would have applied.
Both Vals are doing great at their respective schools. They are happy and have friends and they both made peace with their decisions before graduation. The public one got into a 7 sisters school off the wait list but had already made her plans and is not a flexible kid so she said no. Each of the safety schools is a respectable institution but not where the kids (or anyone else) would have predicted they would end up.
My original point is that kids end up at these safeties because of factors beyond their control such as where the district has connections. This is why Naviance is your best bet.
There is an expression, where you stand depends on where you sit. The wealthier AA students have a small hook, spike or whatever you want to call it so the system seems to work for them (I would assume, not AA). As a parent who is not a URM, I want my A, B or whatever student to have the best shot at the most number of seats. Unfortunately it is up to the parents in those districts to get their elected officials to improve college acceptances so that their kids have the same shot. Since many are first generation, this is a problem. One of my goals when I retire is to volunteer at an underserved distict to help top kids with applications to get the benefits that their own parents are not well informed about. Some local version of Questbridge. Its a dream.
In certain parts of the country, such as wealthier suburbs, NYC prep schools, if parents who are low SES and URM have a talented kid they can apply to private schools who if the kid is exceptional will have low or no tutition. Many of the URM kids at prep schools end up with almost free rides at top tier full needs schools. However that is most likely a very small number and requires that the family seeks this out and identifies early on that their kid is exceptional. In NYC there are also public magnate schools that teach kids who are accepted, a number of which are URM, advanced coursework in elementary school and this feeds them into other advanced magnate schools so that they will get into a great college.
As for internationals, you are correct. Not just for state school but for any not for profit because we as taxpayers pay their real estate taxes and other costs indirectly because they do not pay taxes. This is true on the federal level as well because of federal grants that all universities get. Columbia and NYU are some of the biggest property owners in New York City and NYU especially has many internationals. Anyone living or working in NYC or New York State indirectly subsidizes those internationals. Yet no one in New York is favored for admission to these schools.
@hebegebe Just have to also say that there are plenty of kids who are not obsessed with grades - they happen to be fortunate enough to find school fairly easy and follow their passions.
One of my kids got accepted into several ivies and other high level schools (and no, he didn’t apply to all eight ivies - that’s kind of ridiculous, since they are all so different). So let me share why I think he got in. He is an “unhooked” kid - with no URM, sports, geographic desirability or legacy status. But he had 2300+ SATs, 3.9 something GPA, NMF, was ranked 2nd in his class, accelerated through several subjects so that he studied at colleges with respected professors while in HS, performed a musical instrument at a high level through youth orchestras and regional and state competitions, etc. etc.
He was NOT focused on grades…In some ways, he was a slacker. He read spark notes in AP English. He avoided AP US history because he thought it would be boring. But he engaged in numerous areas where he had a passion and excelled because they were meaningful to him. He was fortunate to have high stats because he conformed enough to get the work done. But grades were secondary.
So let’s not assume that most kids with high stats are just focused on grades. It is not that simple.
Why? I’m amazed at the sense of entitlement in this paragraph. If the child is so smart, then how did such a poor college list get crafted? Are there even enough spaces at all the top 50 private schools for the top tenth of the top 1% applicants? (so public elites don’t count, interesting).
Getting into an elite school us supposed to be difficult. That’s why they are elite. If they just admitted students based on GPA and test scores, well, the school wouldn’t be very interesting. It was never, if you got straight A’s and 1500/2250+ on your SAT, you got into Harvard/CalTech/Princeton. You had to show something extra. It was that way when I applied to colleges in the 70’s and that’s how it is now.
I’m sorry but this is an outcome of all the participation ribbons handed out to tots combined with the frenzy of 20+ applications per student to the same 50 schools. At some point it becomes a numbers game akin to musical chairs. Some kids will very left out. And it’s not enough to just have the GPA with a decent test score. In fact, if it were just these factors, resulting demographics may not be what people think - elite colleges may become majority Asian (see TJHSST for the wealthy white suburb example and Stuyvesant for the mixed urban example).
If students spent way more time on safeties and matches, and less time feeling like they deserve to be at a top X school, maybe they would be less stressed and happier. I don’t buy that argument, “there is no safety suitable for my child” or “my child just can’t find a safety he likes”. Look, high stat kids have many more “safeties” than ordinary students - almost anything with an acceptance rate of 40% (showing interest but presumably one only applies to schools that interested the applicant however it seems that’s not the case for top students) is a safety. To say no suitable safety can possibly exist is another example of entitlement.
The other factor is rampant grade inflation as well as other forms of qualification inflation. Schools that hand out A’s like candy and have 30+ valedictorians, with 3/4 of the class receiving honors. Kids who claim a 2300 SAT by cobbling together scores from 4 different test dates. Coaches who allow every senior on the team to claim captaincy. Clubs or nonprofits that exist for all of 3 months. I think students these days are working harder than ever but those top qualifications have lost a bit of the weight they once held in many high schools due to the frenzied compilation of the “right” resume and the lowering of high school standards.
Forget about Harvard or Stanford. UCLA received three times as many applications from students with unweighted 4.0’s as they had spots in the freshman class in 2014.
@mountaingoats,
My point was that a superscored 2300 is not the same as a single sitting 2300. While fewer that 1% of testers receive a single sitting 2300 or better who knows how many achieve this by superscoring?
I am sorry but I am not buying it that the top students that did not get into super elites and now they have to go to their safeties namely Brandeis and RPI and U Rochester and UMD honors will have to sit next to dummies and they will be afraid and embarrassed to ask “interesting” questions. No way. I am for understanding and yes disappointment is normal but the exaggerations are TOO much.
@SlackerMomMD, thanks for putting into words what I was thinking. It’s a little scary the sense of entitlement that folks are passing on to their kids. I’ve explained to mine that if they work hard and do well that buys them the lottery ticket, it doesn’t mean they’ll win the lottery. Harvard doesn’t owe them squat.
It’s easy to say it should be more fair, but who gets to define “fair”? Donors and alumni will think it’s fair that their kids benefit from their investments in the school. High-stat kids will claim to be more qualified (even though we know test scores aren’t reliable indicators of future success). Athletes, dancers, musicians, volunteers and kids who have to work to pay the rent all “work hard.”
It seems to me it’s a matter of supply and demand. If there’s not enough of a supply of high-quality, low-cost education, then it means we as a society haven’t made it a priority to provide that. I always vote for the candidates who value education and believe in making it more accessible… but most of the time my vote is cancelled out by people who care more about lowering their taxes.
@SlackerMomMD, the Ivies and equivalents (counting top LACs as well) take in roughly 1% of Americans. The near-Ivies (including the top publics) take in another 1%+. If you include among the near-Ivies some respected foreign unis like McGill, UToronto, Edinburgh, etc. who typically have much more straightforward admissions procedures (hit the numbers on certain tests for a particular major/college, and you’re in), that list expands more.
So someone in the top 1% whodoesnothavefinancialconstraints_ and applies smartly should land in a top 5% school somewhere. However, few of the top publics who offer the majority of the slots in the top 5% offer good fin aid to OOS, so that may be constraining to the poor and middle class (though they can look at LACs and for scholarships).
Likewise, while the Ivies and equivalents may be a reach no matter what your numbers are, if you are top 0.1% by numbers (including in all standardized tests), you’re almost guaranteed a near-Ivy if you are willing to go abroad (but still to an English-speaking uni) andyoucanpay_ (the foreign unis, like American schools outside the very richest, treat internationals as cash cows). Even in the US, options open up if you can pay.
Otherwise, it behooves someone in the top 0.1% to look at LACs. In general, LACs aren’t as difficult to get in to as the private RUs on the same tier. I would be pretty surprised if a top 0.1% guy gets rejected from Vassar or a top 0.1% girl from Bryn Mawr, for instance.
Obviously in the hypothetical “No Superstar Left Behind” program, the test score would have to be from a single sitting.
In a perfect world, kids would understand that applying to ten reach schools is pretty risky… that they should add lower reaches, a few matches, and a safety they wouldn’t mind attending.
I just feel like, while certainly a college education can be good at virtually any school, the traditional reach schools seem to do it a little bit better – and yes, if you are OOS, some good publics can be viewed as reaches too.
The aim of such a program would be to minimize or remove the risk of being shut out from top-level private schools (and maybe publics – though they tend to give weak aid to OOS students, with a few notable exceptions, and we’d want all of the program schools to meet need), for students who have quantitatively performed well enough to be admitted to that level of school.
I’d bet the vast majority of superstar students would continue applying to schools individually. But some who prefer the low-risk approach might use such a program to ensure – if they want one – a top-notch, small(ish), private college experience.
In the meantime, hopefully kids will realize that they need depth in their apps.
Someone mentioned that this sounds like “everyone gets a trophy” entitlement. I don’t see it that way. Why? Because these kids with the top 1% test scores and high GPAs have already “won”, in really the only quantifiable terms (maybe apart from scholastic competition victories), at school. They are at the top of the heap. And winners get a trophy. I’m not for handing out elite admissions to anyone but those who quantitatively deserve it.
Not even Questbridge National College Match has a guarantee, so would colleges sign up for a similar system open to all applicants (not just small subset of those from low income families) that does have a guarantee?
However, some of those schools’ preferences are not for the benefit of the students who will benefit the most by attending those schools. For example, does being a legacy necessarily mean that a student will benefit the most by attending that college (other than the admission preference)?
Indeed, most of those schools have undergraduates who skew very heavily toward those from very wealthy families, even though some studies indicate that it is students who come from less wealthy families benefit the most from attending an elite school versus a non-elite school.
@Curiosa , your post #69 is the best one on this thread. And I stand by my earlier statement about kids who are devastated by only getting into their safety. @am9799 is spot on. If anything, every student should put a little more effort into choosing a safety school than the rest, because if that is where they end up, devastation should not be the reaction.
If you are just looking at the US News top 50, you have Cal-Davis, Cal-Irvine, and Penn State on the list. All of those are going to take almost any kid in the top 5-10%.
I am no fan of an entitlement attitude. However I don’t think that was the OP’s point. The point was wondering why ostensible merit was inconsistent with the result of applying to selective schools.
A quick look at the scattergrams of admission results at selective schools is interesting. Generally, the more selective the school, the less academic merit (measured by GPA and test scores) correlates with admission and the more random the blue and green dots of acceptance occur. In other words, many of their decisions are arbitrary within an above average group of applicants. They do what they want and leave us to ascertain the abstruse wisdom behind the curtain of admissions.
It is interesting to me that the schools who most wax on about “inclusion” are the most exclusive - and their exclusivity appears to be the most capricious. All for the sake of the one-armed oboists, mute singers, and Nepalese transgendered pole vaulters we are told - the imperative to field a “balanced” class. I don’t buy it but they are generally private schools and should be able to do what they want.
Of course, they need high stats students to apply and be rejected in order to pad their selectivity stats. If we were a free country, we would see the emergence of top quality colleges developed for top performing Asian students for example, groups of students who seem to get the shaft on acceptances. There is certainly demand. I doubt that potential employers would lament the “imbalanced” campus vibe when making hiring decisions.
Although it is not feasible for college in general, one system to consider the the residency match process for graduates from medical school. In that situation, the graduate interviews at whatever number of institutions he wants and then ranks them in order of preference, excluding any programs he does not want to attend. In turn, the interviewing institution rank orders all of their interviewees that it would consider acceptable, of course limited to the number of available slots. A computer then matches the highest ranking combinations. The applicant is obliged to attend the highest ranking institution which is obliged to accept the matched applicant.
I could see that working for certain groups of schools and applicants outside of the current process.
@ucbalumnus
I suppose if the app fee were high enough, the schools might lend some spots to such a program.
I want to clarify the end of my post, #71. I mean that quantitative limits would be set for the program, just to qualify applicants for it. After that, obviously, member schools would use their own means for rating and choosing applicants
And while I am harping about high GPA and test scores, I am a fan of qualitative measures in admissions as well – I prefer a rounded approach. Going by “numbers only” would simply be the two hurdles to entering that program – after that the kids would be, like I said, at the mercy of the individual schools’ rating systems, which obviously involve several other variables.
And in today’s standard admissions process – getting back to reality – I support holistic admissions processes.