<p>Consolation: no one knows til they see it (know you know.) And adcoms see so many, year in and year out. None of us knows what worked in this gal’s app and what may have yielded certain reactions among reviewers.</p>
<p>If she did state a usual pre-med major, I still wonder if she had the usual range of math-sci activities and some outside engagement in science or the health field. If she did explain her interest in med as being about helping others, I wonder what her record of helping other is. When she spoke of GS Gold, I wonder if she allowed personal attributes to clearly show through. Were her recs appropriate to her major? Did she take highest levels of math-sci courses? All we know is what OP said- stats, many AP, GS Gold with a project on issues, some sort of unspecified STEM leadership, etc. Editor is good, as is tech director. But that still leaves so much unknown. Including how she actually delivered her info, in her app, what attributes came through with that. Or not.</p>
<p>And, assuming she did write a good app, it still leaves the fact that, even at what CC may think is 99% probability, for various reasons a kid can fall into that 1%. That’s where “match” can be misleading. </p>
<p>Consolation, I have stayed away from speculation about essays because I can’t criticize an essay I haven’t read. As you well know, since you’ve been on CC for quite awhile, these threads take on a life of their own and people love to speculate. Bottom line is that this student should have gotten into more competitive schools and we’re all trying to figure out why she didn’t. And for students applying next year, a discussion about essays could be helpful so they can avoid common pitfalls.</p>
<p>Where you and I totally disagree is in our definition of match. You look at it from the perspective of whether the student is a good fit on campus, I look at it as – does the student have a 50% chance of getting in. Some people use term “target” school instead of match. Maybe that would make more sense.</p>
<p>You said:
</p>
<p>Neither. She did not have NO chance of getting in. Her chance of getting in – let’s use Bowdoin as the example – was 15% – probably lower because she didn’t provide geographic diversity, and was unhooked, possibly higher if lots of unqualified kids apply (which I doubt). There were most definitely students of her profile who were accepted. She absolutely should have applied if she wanted to go there. It was a reach school. Kids get into reach schools all the time. But if all you do is apply to reach schools, then you might have a problem in April. </p>
<p>She did have a chance at getting in. She didn’t have a “good” chance. Did she do something wrong? Who knows? We didn’t read the essays or the LORs. I remember on the Andison thread of years ago, there was similar analysis of what that kid did wrong. My takeaway from that story (which I read when my daughter was still in high school) was to make sure my kid had plenty of target and safety schools on her list and at least one rolling/EA school. And to make sure she would be perfectly happy to attend ALL of the schools she applied to. It was a very valuable lesson. If dozens of kids get that lesson from this thread (and I suspect that 10 years from now we might be referring to this one in the same breath as Andison), all the better. </p>
<p>If I had been advising this kid, I would have recommended applying to many more target schools. But when the University of Chicago acceptance came in, I would have said: “If you are happy with Chicago, drop all the target schools and just apply to reaches. You have your safety, it’s Chicago, but be prepared that come May 1, Chicago may be your only choice. If you don’t want to go to Chicago, keep the target schools on the list.” (That’s not taking financial aid into consideration.) </p>
<p>And I would not have encouraged ANY of my kids to apply to ANY school where they wouldn’t have been happy to attend. Not overjoyed to attend- I get that one doesn’t feel overjoyed to attend their safety. But to "throw’ an early application to Chicago just because they allow an early application if the parent feels that Chicago is too far away- this I don’t understand. A kid needs to understand that every single school on the application list is a school where in fact, he or she may end up attending. My kids weren’t interested in our flagship state U- but were able to find “admit by the numbers” schools in neighboring states where they were sure to be admitted (not necessarily to the honors programs where admission is more competitive and more holistic) where they could find something to love.</p>
<p>If you get accepted to Chicago early and your mindset is “Bring it on” vis-a-vis the top tier, competitive single digit schools, then you either need a very tough skin (and are prepared to attend Chicago), or you need to widen the pool to include places like U Maryland or Delaware which will be further from home, not as far as Chicago, but potentially more exciting to a kid from New England than U Mass or the home state flagship.</p>
<p>And do we know the guidance counselor didn’t let it slip to the other schools that the kid had an acceptance in the bag from Chicago? That could explain some of the rejections…</p>
<p>And further to the guidance counselor- at my kids HS, the counselors were very proud of how they eliminated “bunching”. One could posit that this was more of a factor than being a SWF from the Northeast. A kid who was applying early was given a whole lot of love and affirmation to accept the early school, so as to “make room” for classmates whose first choice might be a school very far down on the early kid’s list.</p>
<p>I always got the impression that people are disdainful of their own state U’s, but have a much higher opinion of state Us in other parts of the country . Maybe a “grass is greener” type of thing? So, kids here in NJ might have no interest in Rutgers, but would love to go to Penn State or Ohio State, or Indiana, for example. And as far as the East Coast caring more about ivies than the Midwest, I always think of the movie from my adolescence, Risky Business - wasn’t that set in a suburb of Chicago? Two lines I will always remember from that movie: “Looks like the University of Illinois!” and “Princeton could use a man like Joel.” </p>
<p>I agree, Blossom, but you know, sometimes we don’t stick to the rules, and sometimes we don’t even settle into the rules until towards the end of the process. Some years ago, my son and I visited a school on the other side of the country just really on a whim. I wanted an excuse to visit a friend there and the college came up on the list and sounded interesting, so why not take a look. Kid wanted to go there, and that was it though we pressed on through the process, and believe me, I was voting for any number of schools closer, with more name recognistion, less expensive, etc, etc. but that was it. We should never have looked, applied, but it just kind of slipped onto the list. I can see how the momentum can carry a person. UCh sounds pretty good, but as the year goes on, the idea of that distance, the weather issues (and this year they were monumental) start hitting home, and that school you can leave after breakfast, make lunch there, turn around and have dinner at home starts looking mighty good.</p>
<p>Well, at Bowdoin you’d have to figure that if their overall rate was 15%, their RD rate had to be MUCH lower after you take out the ED I and II kids, many of whom will be recruited athletes. On the other hand, since her stats put her solidly into the top of the top 25% there, and she had ECs that made her a great fit, that would increase her chances. One would think, anyway.</p>
<p>Ironically, she might have had a better chance if she came from even closer: Maine instead of Massachusetts. Bowdoin is one of those schools that likes to take top local students. </p>
<p>The Andison thing continues to haunt everyone doesn’t it? When I first came to CC, I was concerned that my S had a top-heavy list. Everyone immediately told me to read about Andison. I was convinced that he was on track to follow in those footsteps, and although I could not get him to apply to what most of us would consider a true safety, I did force him to broaden his list a bit (although the schools I made him include were of the type that this girl was rejected from.) When the results came in, he said to me “I guess I didn’t have to apply to all those schools after all.” Did. Not. Get. It.</p>
<p>When I look at cluster points so thick at the very top of the scale for grades and test scores that’s it’s just a solid splotch of color, how on earth are the colleges supposed to pick from so many qualified kids to fill a limited number of seats? Really, it’s that bad, looking at the charts. I don’t wonder an instant that so many kid with top qualifications are denied at these schools. </p>
<p>A young woman we know here is rather desolate in that she applied and was accepted EA at BC. Thrilled with that and it became her safety school, and she only applied to schools that were more selective and kinda thought she’d get into a few of them, even entertained the possibility of getting into the top picks, HPY. She’d not happy at all right now with all of the rejections. It really hits hard when that happens, and that she has a fine school in her pocket is not really helping as she now takes that accept for granted. Happens that way sometimes with EA or other earllier acceptances. </p>
<p>I’m from the Northeast, but I live in Maryland now.</p>
<p>Maryland kids sometimes prefer state Us in other states, such as Penn State or Wisconsin, over the University of Maryland at College Park, but I’ve never heard of one who would choose Rutgers or a SUNY school over our own state university. Never. </p>
<p>There’s something more than grass-is-greener syndrome going on here.</p>
<p>That’s because there is a genuine risk that if adcoms see the applicant didn’t waive their right to see those LORs before being submitted, those LORs would be viewed as suspect and thus, discounted. </p>
<p>Both my GCs and family/friends who were adcoms at elite colleges have said if that waiver wasn’t signed, many adcoms will have suspicions the LOR wasn’t as bluntly honest about the student…especially regarding weaknesses/bad points because the student/parent may have been able to see them before submission. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In some cases, it may have been negative reputation from the recent past from having siblings or the parent concerned attending him/herself or the parent’s older siblings. In the case of UMass, there was a reason why the nickname “Zoo Mass” existed and was well-deserved…especially back in the late '80s/early '90s when many past colleagues/neighbors in the Boston area and a relative attended. </p>
<p>In the case of the relative, he attended UMass in part…“to take one for his family” as the oldest of a handful of siblings…even if the college was widely considered by his teachers/neighbors as well below his academic level. He was also part of their honors program as it existed then. While he received an excellent STEM education, the party school atmosphere and high numbers of drunken rowdy anti-intellectual students on campus when he attended was such he strongly encouraged his younger siblings to consider other options…so they did. </p>
<p>As for the SUNYs, some “flagship campuses”* like Albany had well-known and deserved reputations as having party-school campus cultures throughout the '90s and into the early '00s. Knew plenty of HS classmates and colleagues who transferred out from there for that very reason. </p>
<p>Even top ones like Binghamton were often viewed as safety or last choices due to factors such as location(It’s widely considered “a dump” by every Binghamton alum/attendee I’ve met) and the academic level of a critical mass of students**. </p>
<p>One pattern I’ve noticed was how many HS classmates in my year and earlier who started at Bing ended up transferring to Columbia College(Columbia U) or Barnard for their last 2-3 years of college. </p>
<ul>
<li>Binghamton, Stonybrook, Buffalo, Albany as ranked by folks in the NYC area at the time I was in HS from top to bottom. Former two are schools above-average or stronger students would have less issues attending…especially if pre-med/STEM in Stonybrook’s case…and not as much for the latter two(Unless pre-med or some specialty areas in Buffalo’s case).<br></li>
</ul>
<p>** While one needed a minimum of a 90 average(-A) to be admitted, their minimum SAT cutoff was considered by strong NY area students as exceedingly low at 1100/1600 on the pre-1995 SAT. This perception was especially prevalent among students at NYC area boarding schools and public magnets like mine where having an 1100 SAT meant one was close to the very bottom of the student body if one ranked by SAT scores. </p>
<p>No, you cannot unequivocally say that adcoms give a hoot whether the waiver was signed or not. It is what it is. Nearly all kids waive, as a school policy. And plenty of kids waive and still get a look-see. Most letters are already carefully written to say at least the one iota of good they can. Most kids focus on what is good, don’t read between the lines. </p>
<p>And, sure, every single person I know who went to UMass starts by saying, “Well, it’s biiiiggg.” But they are all finely educated and for a state school, that consortium is hard to beat.</p>
<p>Any exploration of the SUNY schools needs to look at today. </p>
<p>However, there are adcoms I’ve known who have said they will look upon LORs without that waiver with suspicion of undue influence because the student/parent was able to see them before submission.</p>
<p>And it’s a reasoning I understand from a logical point of view. How honest can a teacher/LOR writer can be…especially of a student’s shortcomings/weaknesses if the student/parent is allowed to see the LOR before being submitted? </p>
<p>Especially considering most students seek out teachers or LOR writers they perceive as folks who view them in the best possible light and how emotionally wrought the college admissions can be for both students and parents as clearly seen even in this thread. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, but perceptions of a given local college’s reputation…especially state schools in the NE from the recent or parents’ generation’s past can strongly influence perceptions picked up by HS aged kids applying to colleges today. </p>
<p>I think that SUNYs suffer from the fact that there really isn’t a flagship. The four university centers together have an enrollment of 85,000, almost half of whom are at Buffalo which is not the most selective but does have big-time athletics. Buffalo didn’t become part of SUNY until 1962–before that it was a private university. Before that, SUNY, founded in 1948, was more of a loose confederation of mostly teachers’ colleges. So the SUNY system is only 50 years old and most campuses haven’t had the time or critical mass to develop an endowment and a notable history.</p>
<p>I say that as an alumna of Binghamton, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. I graduated in 1971. During the years I was there, the campus doubled in size, and since then it’s doubled again but as the most selective university center, it has the smallest number of students among the university centers.</p>
<p>Merging the ‘why not SUNY?’ topic with the ‘why all the love for athletes?’ topic . . . what does the SUNY system not have that Michigan, Penn State, The Ohio State, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, UCLA, etc, etc, . . . have? Major conference college sports which translates into name recognition which translates into prestige. No matter what the actual quality is, we always ascribe more value to that which we’ve heard of. Why do you suppose political candidates can win races based on name recognition alone?</p>
<p>Ha! crosspost with oldmom . . . maybe we’re on to something :P</p>
<p>And the case of the CUNYs is arguably more interesting and tragic. Before 1969, the CUNY system…especially CCNY was considered an elite academic public higher-ed system and had exceedingly competitive admissions to match. </p>
<p>This is due to CUNY’s excellent academic staff in that period, Ivies/private colleges having discriminatory admission policies against “undesirable” groups and/or those from the lower SES, the critical mass of highly engaged high academic level students, and free tuition for NYC locals who qualified for admission. </p>
<p>However, once open admission policies were implemented the CUNY system went from being considered a Jewel within NY’s and arguably the US’ public higher education to being one widely considered an absolute last ditch option for local NYC area students without other options by the late '70s and into the early-mid- '90s. </p>
<p>Factors for this include the flood of underprepared students overwhelming the system during the early '70s, budget problems with NYC/State finances, reduction of higher-level college classes in favor of increasing remedial ones, many of the best academic staff & students voting with their feet by leaving/not applying, Ivies and elite private colleges eliminating those discriminatory admission policies, and finally…the elimination of free tuition for NYC area students. </p>
<p>While the City and CUNY have since implemented policies to remedy this such as increasing admission and academic standards for their 4-year colleges, attempting to move all remedial instruction to the 2-year community colleges, and instituting the Macaulay Honors program…those policies have come under attack as “too elitist” from many of the same educational activists who favored open admission policies and decried their elimination. </p>