<p>Sally305, you were close with schools. I don’t think we would have been utter failures, but we most likely would have been like my father, he wanted more for us. </p>
<p>Wow, really? Those were totally random guesses. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t take too much meaning from such ranty statements. Sometimes, it’s a sour grapes type of comment made so the ranter can assuage his/her bruised ego. </p>
<p>As for those saying this shows teenagers are idiots, such comments are also often made by older adults. </p>
<p>Only difference is instead of undergrad colleges, it’s in response to rejections from desirable dates/marriage partners*, invitations to socially desirable parties, desirable companies/positions, condo/co-op boards, etc. </p>
<p>It’s part of the human condition…albeit one of the less noble qualities…</p>
<ul>
<li>I’ve lost count of how many times folks around me who are hurt/angry at being rejected for dates/marriages say “I can’t believe he/she rejected me. I was doing her/him a favor. I can always do better.” ~X( </li>
</ul>
<p>Reasons for harsh reactions = four:
(1) sense of personal entitlement
(2) isolation from reality; you wouldn’t believe how many families live within their own local/regional or even high school “bubble” – as if that micro location can be projected onto a map of the U.S.
(3) lack of realism about how the institutional priorities of each college campus trumps everything the student or family wants
(4) over-investment in the importance of ‘name brand’ in the overall trajectory of a future life in the U.S.</p>
<p>For the most part (vast majority of students), an undergrad degree is so NOT where it’s at.</p>
<p>IOW, the reason for most “harsh reactions” is nothing other than ignorance. </p>
<p>Normal venting and becoming harsh are two different things. Important not to confuse the two.</p>
<p>^ fair point. </p>
<p>As the parent of a high school senior who just heard admissions decisions, I can attest that it is exhausting and emotionally charged, but modeling a little perspective and self-control in the face of the news may go a long way. Parents who wonder why their little darlings didn’t get into the college of their choice, and then behave like toddlers about it, might do well to look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they have raised a self-absorbed, entitled, precious little ball of vanity. Often, the apple does not fall far from the tree. </p>
<p>First, anyone who got mad at my comment about athletes needs to re-read it. My comparison was with once a week community service activities - and I deliberately made that comparison. (Look, I know how often clubs meet, and there are a lot of kids who tout their once-weekly club or service project as their prime extracurricular. I also did not compare to Intel, math team, or orchestra for a reason.) If you want to pretend that I said something I did not, or am defending the business of bringing in illiterate kids to D1schools (a statistically insignificant portion of admittees), fine - but permit me to roll my eyes at the obvious straw man.</p>
<p>Second, many parents truly do not understand the scale of the competition. It’s like they think that since their kid has always been that stand-out student who has beaten the odds, he will always continue to be so, regardless of the level at which he is competing at. It would be like someone saying, “Little Johnny never struck out in t-ball, so the World Series should be fine for him!” </p>
<p>If you move up high enough, you eventually get to the point wherein everyone is just as good as you are, including those who fail. This should be a fairly easy concept to grasp, but I’m continually amazed at the number of grown adults who fail to wrap their minds around it.</p>
<p>@ariesathena stated, 'If you move up high enough, you eventually get to the point wherein everyone is just as good as you are, including those who fail."</p>
<p>I would make this one step further - the higher you go, everyone is better than you at something specific; just as you are better than they at something specific. Who gets chosen is simply based on the company requirements at that given moment.</p>
<p>Not all top students with equal stats etc. are really equal. And the ones with the highest stats may actually bring less to the table overall. That is the tough job that admins do - deciphering that difference. </p>
<p>Yes, parents need to understand that little Jonny who leads in their world may not lead in the larger world at all. That said, parents can vent a bit. Everyone needs to be able to vent a bit. But, there are common sense limits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed. </p>
<p>I really have to ask this. A common mantra on CC is that the undergrad school is not that important, and that grad school is really where it’s at with regard to career and life trajectory. First, don’t you think the undergrad choice will influence one’s preparation for grad school as well as the grad school possibilities one will have? And secondly, how many college graduates actually go on to grad school right away? Given that a great many kids never go to grad school at all and their future attendance is not a sure thing by any means, and given that for many it will not be affordable or financially beneficial, this seems like an odd emphasis to me.</p>
<p>^^ It is not an odd emphasis; it is an illogical emphasis because 50% of students change majors. No one knows the future and to limit oneself now in education based on hopefully getting a better education later in something else is like reading tea leaves. </p>
<p>If one is planning an academic career, the terminal degree (usually a PhD) is what matters. And students in PhD programs, even the best ones, come from a variety of undergraduate backgrounds. Many of the top “feeder” programs in various fields are LACs, and not even the ones you might expect. </p>
<p>For medical and law school, the college of origin seems to matter less than people would like to think because it’s all about the MCAT/LSAT scores and GPA. I’d say MBA programs are one of the few areas in which the undergraduate institution’s name might hold some importance.</p>
<p>@oldfort says:
</p>
<p>This^^</p>
<p>Plus, my son was resistant to applying to safeties. He had colleges he thought were ok for safeties send him cards saying if he applied it would be free and require no essay. He figured ‘ahah, safety!!’ </p>
<p>And was waitlisted, while being accepted to schools that are much higher rated. And you can say ‘they didn’t want to be safeties!’ </p>
<p>But then WHY send a card saying application would be free, essays and recs unnecessary? What sort of attention did they expect to get? </p>
<p>At one of these he would have gotten a quite large automatic merit scholarship, as well. It certainly wasn’t his stats that kept him out.</p>
<p>So that feels like bait and switch, and coming up on the ‘hard decisions’ instead of having a safety in his pocket he had been waitlisted by a school he wouldn’t even have started thinking about if they hadn’t sent him that card.</p>
<p>So yeah, I definitely think less of the schools in question. </p>
<p>He is in better schools now, but that really shook his confidence at the moment.</p>
<p>@sally305 - My position is independent of your analysis of planning an academic career because 50% of students change majors. That means a sizable number who thought they wanted academic careers change. To me, it would be a bummer if I could have gone to a much better school and my planned academic major no longer interests me as much as something else. </p>
<p>I told my kids they should be happy to get a few rejections - otherwise they would always wonder if they shot too low. </p>
<p>But to OP’s point, I think the vitriol results from families who don’t appreciate the idea of “holistic” admissions reviews. Personally I’m glad to see some schools backing up their claims about same, and thus reject students with high stats but lacking other qualities they are looking for. </p>
<p>It makes sense that most public universities go strictly by stats (GPA/SAT/ACT/etc) because how else could they sort through the huge number of applications they receive? But in the alternative, many schools emphasize qualities beyond a student’s stats - and look for qualities in the individual that will contribute to the overarching goals for the campus community. </p>
<p>In the end I think “selectivity” is not so much a judgment about the quality of each individual applicant, but rather an informed “gamble” that the student is well-suited to contribute to the spirit, goals, and academic aspirations of the school as a whole. That’s where “fit” meets up with “selectivity” to make a nice match between student and school. It’s really a benefit for all since it ideally results in students finding happiness in their new place to call “home”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some public schools do use holistic readings. However, their processes are designed to maximize consistency and scalability as best as that can be done in the context of holistic readings, resulting in processes rather different from those described for smaller private schools (e.g. compare the Hout report for Berkeley admissions to the newspaper articles about Lehigh and George Washington admissions). Given the process differences, it is entirely possible for the results at the smaller private schools to seem more “random” to applicants and other outsiders.</p>
<p>"And secondly, how many college graduates actually go on to grad school right away? "</p>
<p>They don’t go “right away.” Most smart students take what most colleges now consider the preferred path: a break between undergrad and grad programs: jobs, internships, personal (perhaps related) pursuits, then a clear and mature focus. That’s what the colleges want, and that’s what they are getting. And they want them from hugely different backgrounds and locations. Diversity on the graduate level (intellectual, geographical, and institutional) is hugely more important than it is for undergrad, and for many reasons, but one reason is that the institution in question wants to pick brains (wants students who will make a lasting contribution to the school). It is also recognized that the variety stimulates the peer interaction, intellectually. Finally, it is acknowledged that all the specialties in the terminal degree program need to be covered, if possible. </p>
<p>Anyone who is shocked at the <10% undergrad acceptance rates for Elites is in for a much ruder awakening relative to graduate admissions – both at the same school and at different schools.</p>
<p>@awcntdb, I agree that parents should factor in the likelihood that their child might change majors (and thus career paths) in college–sometimes more than once. And yes, most smart kids who end up on the grad school path work or do something else in between their undergrad and masters’/PhD program. </p>
<p>Even kids who prefer one college based on an intended major also factor in other reasons for the decision to attend. So I don’t think changing course is such a big deal. Having said that, at some large public universities making a radical change can cost a student time and parents money, if they can’t get all their new course requirements yet and still graduate in four years.</p>
<p>@Sally305 - We were in the same boat with my S. He knew where he wanted to go to college, it was our in-state flagship, it was a good fit, he had 2 scholarships, and we could afford it. He was accepted early and never looked back.</p>
<p>My D also didn’t apply to any “reach” schools (although one by sheer % of admitted students ended up being a “reach” to which she was rejected). We are full pay but can’t afford our EFC (NCP and NCSP and real estate that provides income etc.). D is not well suited to a large State U for a variety of reasons so her goal was to find a quality LAC that is a good fit and where she is likely to receive merit. I think this is a path a lot of students seem to be taking, especially those who are full pay. </p>
<p>With respect to rejections and trashing schools it comes down to sportsmanship. A loss always stings, but you congratulate the winner, show some class, and move on. You can mourn and vent in private, but you don’t do it “on the field.” Who likes the Dad who is down on the field screaming at the refs at the end of the game because his kid’s team “was robbed?” Not me.</p>