A parent's cautionary tale – SWF- Northeast need not apply?

Parents Forum
61

<p>I don’t remember seeing so many whines and race-based comments on admissions in prior years. I am a bit shocked at the unwillingness to consider the competitive nature of applying to colleges who meet financial need. I do not understand the neurotic need to blame URM, internationals, athletes, boys, and/or girls for a system that is so selective. </p>

<p>In preparation for life, and college application, my D had a copia of EC’s, and she received <em>National</em> and <em>Regional</em> awards. It was very obvious to me that it wasn’t realistic to expect acceptances at needs blind schools without more than scores and grades. I knew that a child star at the local high school could not be a contender. I don’t know if I would have let her apply to elite schools without her awards.</p>

<p>My D was admitted a a couple of elite LACs and a HYPS (her only Ivy admit), but she was very hurt by the rejection of her first choice (despite my efforts to minimize ranking). I do understand the process is painful. I was hurt that she received so little aid from my alma mater (40% acceptance rate), but I was pleased she was accepted. I consider her incredibly lucky. We won the lottery. She has choices, and her sister and I will have a varied menu in coming years. </p>

<p>Still I would bet that her awards were a significant factor.</p>

62

<p>@mamalion stated, “I do not understand the neurotic need to blame URM, internationals, athletes, boys, and/or girls for a system that is so selective.”</p>

<p>The logical approach you took in analyzing your kid’s application is the exception today.</p>

<p>My first thought was what else should we expect because students and college admissions are not divorced from the larger culture.</p>

<p>Take a hard look outside academia at the societal and political culture, and politicians today segregate everyone into groups, pit rich and poor against each other, and income equality is defined by some people taking something from someone else or not sharing enough of what they produce, as if giving away what you make is some understood obligation. </p>

<p>Media and politicians treat the society via pandering, as if there are several monolithic groups, not just plain simple Americans with common goals. Every now so-called group that does not have what it thinks they should have blames someone else of stopping them or taking away something they never had. The news is all a victim-hood mindset.</p>

<p>Given this modern media environment, it should not be surprising that students today pick up the same victim-hood attitude, for that is all they have head in their young lives. Students instinctively now blame others for their lack of success, just like the media portrays everyone as victims if not successful.</p>

<p>Therefore, to expect students to not reflexively blame others when that is all they see in the larger culture is unrealistic to me. And the reason why I think it really showed up this year is the identity blame politics has hit full swing and no one can escape it and students are basically reflecting the cultural environment of I am a victim. </p>

<p>We need to bring back that personal failure is part of the deal of eventually succeeding; you cannot and will not win at everything, no matter how good you are. </p>

<p>Sorry, if it seems I hijacked the thread, but there was no way to answer this without looking outside the college admissions process and examining the possible reasons of students’ overall behavior. </p>

63

<p>She got into U of C! Congrats!</p>

64

<p>Ironic isn’t it…this gigantic rant and then it comes out that there is an incredibly great acceptance. </p>

65

<p>awcntdb: I don’t understand your point, when you say the admit rates for these LACs are misleading. Are you saying that they are actually lower? Splitting hairs, if that’s your point. I think the real point is, when you have a college with admit rates below 25% – whether the number is 18%, 25% or 6% – these school cannot be considered safe for anyone. Anyone who compares Harvard and Williams and thinks Williams is going to be “easier” to get into because its admit rate is 18% is delusional. </p>

66

<p>He/she is saying that schools like Bowdoin and Davidson attract fewer blatantly unqualified candidates than some of the ivies so proportionally they are picking from a more qualified pool as a whole. (I don’t know this for a fact, just explaining). If 7000 apply and 1000 are admitted the idea is that all or most of those 7000 are actually viable candidates so the the acceptance rate is more true. If you could knock 2000 applications off the top as being from those who had no prayer and just wanted to say that they applied to Bowdoin, then the rate for actual serious qualified candidates would effectively go up. He/she is theorizing that some name brand schools attract a large number of candidates who throw their hat in the ring for whatever reason, but it you filter out all the kids who really never had a chance then the percentage ticks up for the prospect who is truly in the mix for strong consideration.</p>

<p>Also, anecdotally Williams is trying to fill the same number of competitive sports teams from a much smaller student population (and they care) so the chances for the student who is an academic powerhouse but not sporty goes down further. Actually, Davidson cares about sports as well. Not every super selective LAC does.</p>

67

<p>

</p>

<p>Unless they have changed their application, Bowdoin has a supplemental essay asking precisely why the student wants to go there. They encourage specificity. So the student’s response to this would be right on the mark.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And yet you deny that being solidly in the demographic most common in their applicant pool makes no difference. Yeah, right.</p>

68

<p>I am shocked U of C EA admission was left out of OP’s narrative. </p>

<p>We visited U of C this month. Our freshman tour guide from small town Michigan was pumped and still has not gotten over the fact that she was admitted to such a great university with so many opportunities in a City like Chicago where she thinks she is living the liberal arts dream (visits to museums, shows, various events on any given day). She took us to a science building where one of her freshman chemistry professors has an office and she was explaining how she randomly went to his office to tell him she is in his class and he spent 30 minutes with her showing all the champagne bottles he has collected over the years, one each for successful Ph.D. dissertation but more importantly, offered her a position to do research right then and there. She had no interest in Chemistry what so over and did not accept it but was just recounting the fact that professors were readily accessible and are willing to take on freshman students if one asks.</p>

<p>FWIW, my D attends a top 10, admitted to 3 others, applied EA to U of C, was deferred and denied and still smarts over it two years later. It is not just another school for those who can’t get into that mediocre as an athletic conference set of schools but a school of choice in its own right.</p>

69

<p>@chris46 why did you not mention that your D was accepted at U of Chicago in your original post? I am curious as that would seem to be an extremely relevant piece of information.</p>

70

<p>This isn’t the first post I’ve seen in the last few days whose title gave me the impression that the students had very limited options. Several not only had multiple acceptances to excellent schools, but full rides as well. I can understand being disappointed in what you don’t get, but I cringe when reasons for denial are attributed to race, gender, etc. Is this a new thing? Do parents not understand what single digit and “highly selective” admissions numbers mean? If my child had a full ride to a decent school, that would make me pretty happy. </p>

71

<p>Definitely not a new thing. It’s as old as disappointment.</p>

72

<p>IMHO, there is a paradigm shift within each individual college and maybe even individual dept. that can happen year to year; there are unpredictable factors that can have a huge impact (like an international college ranking that puts MIT as #1 for several consecutive years and also ranks some other schools unusually high…)</p>

<p>The thread was started about disappointment, but the reality is that her DD has some great options. Maybe there is regret about some of the ways they individually handled things or that certain things fell a certain way.</p>

<p>In one year, the DD might have had more acceptances from some of the elite schools. You cannot control what you cannot control. Life is not fair, but we all are privileged in many ways, and it is good to count one’s blessings. I am grateful for good health with our family, and for being here (I am a stage III cancer survivor, currently cancer free but had some tough years starting in 2009). I have worked for two universities and got degrees from three states (although none on the east or west coast). Not sure where my DDs will land after college, but they have had a great education and are continuing with a great education in our state (AL). </p>

<p>Good luck for all your students’ hard work paying off with continuing at a college that is right for them. </p>

73

<p>@fireandrain - I was doing two things in my post. I completely agree with what you wrote and that is the big picture way to look at it. You call it splitting hairs, however, when analyzing a reaction of a student, it is the student’s viewpoint that should be analyzed. </p>

<ol>
<li>I would bet 99%+ of students who see 5% (Stanford) vs 25% (Davidson) admit rates reinterprets it as a 1:20 chance vs a 1:4 chance. That is a real statistical difference. In terms of statistics and real odds analysis that is not splitting hairs. So, I can easily see how students are deceiving themselves, statistically. They think the top LACs are an easier accept, even though that is false.</li>
</ol>

<p>My Princeton example was meant to show, in terms of real percent analysis, the chances at Williams and Princeton are statistically about the same, even if Princeton gets 4X the applications. If Princeton is really looking at the top 13,000 - 14,000 applications and takes accepts 1900, then that admit rate for the breakout pool is really around 14 - 15%. Pretty much the same admit as the very top LACs basically because the Princeton pool and other top Ivy pools are no way near as self-selecting.</p>

<ol>
<li>My other point was now that students have deceived themselves into thinking some admit rates are really easier and then they do not get in, I do think they are mimicking the victimhood culture of society at large by blaming groups they perceive got special treatment. </li>
</ol>

<p>Some students may be correct in some of those cases, but that does not explain how so many students now instinctively reach that conclusion. Instead of reviewing their application for a weakness or lack of fit, it must have been they were robbed or not wanted as member of some group. And note, the OP does not even address herself as a person; she is a SWF. She sees herself as a member of some sub-group that is in competition with another sub-group and thus the mass blame the other group game is born.</p>

74

<p>My hunch? This young woman prefers U of C to Bowdoin and Davidson. It is possible that her GC let those 2 colleges know that. Maybe things have changed, but back when my offspring were applying, GCs did that. They were especially prone to do that when there was someone else in the same class who genuinely wants to go there.</p>

<p>Like cobrat’s, my offspring’s NYC public magnent limtled the # of colleges to which you could apply. This was, overall, a good thing. It’s especially good when LACs are involved. No matter how wonderful applicants are, LACs are not going to take too many kids from one high school. If she really had no interest after she got into U of C and somebody else in the class really wanted Davidson or Bowdoin, the GC may have intervened.</p>

<p>Obviously, this is pure speculation on my part. However, time after time I’ve seen kids pick up acceptances as trophies or in an attempt to get a fin aid package they could use to negotiate with “dream school.” Then a classmate who really wants it doesn’t get in. </p>

75

<p>^^ Yep, my school headmaster did as much. Intervened all over the place to get the best outcome for each student. But that was 30+ years ago. I cannot speak for today except for the private schools where I know that still happens. </p>

76

<p>Btw, the NYC selective public high school referred to by Cobrat no longer limits the number of applications that students can make to colleges. Someone sued them in 2006 or so and now, while they encourage a limit of 10 or so, there is no absolute limit any more. </p>

77

<p>“We need to bring back that personal failure is part of the deal of eventually succeeding; you cannot and will not win at everything, no matter how good you are.”</p>

<p>But it’s not even personal failure!! If you put together a reasonable / credible application for these elite schools – regardless of whether you get in or not – you’ve already demonstrated that you have what it takes to succeed! </p>

<p>How can anyone with any logical thinking skills think that the kid who didn’t get into (insert elite school of your choice), but was clearly qualified, has “failed”? He didn’t “fail” any more than if I apply for a job and don’t get it. I tried and that’s what counts. </p>

78

<p>"There are plenty of northeast white females at elite schools. Indeed, bclintonk and I did an analysis that indicates that the Ivies skew towards the northeast.</p>

<p>" I have to agree that it is somewhat of advantage being from the northeast. This is particularly true in the states which the ivies are in; the ivies think it improves town-gown relations and their standing in the state. "</p>

<p>No, no, no. I never said that it is an advantage to be from the northeast (though you are correct that some of the schools make a point of over-admitting in their relevant geographic area to be “good neighbors”). I am saying that the pool of their students is over-indexed to the northeast. You don’t know whether that represents a higher-than-average acceptance rate for NE-ers, an average acceptance rate for NE-ers, or a below-average rate for NE-ers unless you know what % of the applicant pie are NE’ers. </p>

<p>Numbers made up for illustrative purposes only, but let’s say that 20% of the country’s population is in the NE.
And 30% of Elite NE College A’s student population is from the NE.
That could mean:
20% of Elite College A’s applicant pool is from the NE, and they love them to pieces, so they overaccept.
30% of Elite College A’s applicant pool is from the NE, and they accept at the rate of the rest of the country.
40% of Elite College A’s applicant pool is from the NE, and they “underaccept” since they don’t want a college full of just NE’ers.</p>

<p>I feel like I say this a billion times on CC - this is just basic math. It is not an advantage or disadvantage unless you know what the applicant pool looks like. Which we basically never do.</p>

79

<p>"Yield considerations are important to all colleges, especially LAC’s (they run into serious problems if they over-estimate or underestimate) – but it is not as if they are going around rejecting candidates with high end stats. So while it might be comforting to parents of waitlisted candidates to think “Ah, Tufts syndrome, my child was just too wonderful for them”… "</p>

<p>Agree totally. That’s an arrogant parent speaking – “Oh, they were just dying to admit my child, but s/he was just too good for them.” </p>

<p>What part of “this is part of how life works – interviews for jobs, your love life, etc.” do people not understand here? </p>

80

<p>

</p>

<p>Sure, you’re correct. Part of the skew maybe an overabundance of qualified applicants from the northeast, but i think this what the OP was implying. </p>