<p>IMO, there is something to the “Tufts Syndrome”…but it’s not necessarily the implication parents of students “victimized” by it are thinking. </p>
<p>Applicants who view colleges as their middle-bottom choices are prone to putting less dedication or attention to critical parts of the application package…like application essays. </p>
<p>The essays are especially important for smaller LACs/LAC-like universities who are trying to build and maintain a viable cohesive campus culture and community. </p>
<p>Have even a large minority of admits who just applied because “it’s a safety” or last choice without really wanting to be there can seriously detract from that goal. </p>
<p>I think Bowdoin was a definite match for this student. As a matter of fact, I think just about every school she applied to was a “match” in the sense that her stats and courses and ECs put her solidly in the upper half of their candidate pool. </p>
<p>The problem for kids like this is that all of their matches are lottery schools, or close to it. And being a white, middle-class female from New England does not give such a student any advantage. (I notice that most of you who are pooh-poohing the notion are not from this area.) She MIGHT have had better luck at Pomona, where she would be comparatively geographically desirable…</p>
<p>I really think OP just wanted to vent about the disappointments- and I can see why she skipped the triumph. And whether or not, say, Bowdoin, seems a match from the few details OP gave, we’d have to know a lot more to guess further. On CC, we tend to get flat info. Adcoms are looking for the dimension that comes through in the app. And even when a kid hits that, there’s still geo diversity to worry about.</p>
<p>As for knighthood, c’mon. That sort of talk only perpetuates the shallow desperation for a tippy top. </p>
<p>@Pizzagirl - I was not judging the student; I was looking at the process from the student’s perspective because it is the student who blames others (and their parents too). </p>
<p>So, to be more clear, I meant personal failure in the eyes of the student, i.e., students do think they have failed if they do not get in, not that the student is a personal failure for not getting in. So, I actually agree with you by applying at that level they already have the gumption to succeed.</p>
<p>@Consolation - Match and fit are two totally different things. I do not think it is a lottery as much as people think. Tough as nails, yes, because of the sheer number of matching applicants. However, I think the number of students, which truly fit a school and is the type of student for whom the school is looking is much, much smaller. </p>
<p>The lottery is the match part; the fit aspect is probably much clearer to adcoms than they will ever tells us. They can see two kids with the same stats and probably tell in 5 minutes which one fits and which one does not.</p>
<p>This is really getting off track, but I had all of the above for computer science (except subject GRE scores because people don’t really take them in cs, but I had a 3.9 major GPA from a top-4 school and a publication) and got rejected from all the top-10 schools in computer science in my subfield. Maybe chemistry is easier though?</p>
<p>@warbrain : Yes, comp sci is different. Something that helps the top students get into grad school is when there is a standardized exam that is highly respected and which is fairly difficult; this helps to stratify the applicant pool. That is the case for both physics and chemistry. I’m not sure how comp sci. admissions committees makes the decision, but I can easily see how it would be less predictable. Even the classwork itself isn’t as predictive of ability as a software engineer. </p>
<p>@lookingforward : All it takes for me personally to be satisfied with my status in my community is if I won my NCAA pool. But I’m a simple guy.</p>
<p>Warbrain - from my experience, chemistry does not seem to be “easier,” but it’s possible that my data are obsolete.</p>
<p>Several years ago, when I was still working at a major pharma, I had a summer intern (a rising senior) who had a 4.0 in her chemistry classes, a 3.8-ish average overall, and a ton of undergrad research with a big-name chemistry guy. She and I kept in touch as she applied to grad school. Her GREs were very high and she had several publications (including one with me).</p>
<p>She applied to at least 12 top programs and got acceptances to maybe 2-3 of them? I was really surprised; I would have predicted a much higher success rate. </p>
<p>This is just one story, and this was 5+ years ago. I do know that getting into the highly ranked grad schools AND then getting an appointment with the big-name advisers is still a tough slog…</p>
<p>^^ I do not see anything wrong with something being a disadvantage. Such is life and the reality of just existing. The minute there is equality of everything I want out because that means my extra effort, attention to detail and increased productivity are not worth it. And it also means no one is taking meaningful distinctions that meet the requirements of differing situations. </p>
<p>I’m not sure CS PhD programs are necessarily seeking candidates who have what it takes to be software engineers. </p>
<p>If anything, saying as much around the software engineers/programmers/techies I’ve known and worked with is likely to elicit disdainful smirks, uncontrollable laughter, and eyerolls. </p>
<p>Many working software engineers/programmers IME tend to regard what is taught at the MS/PhD levels of CS as way too theoretical and have too little practical applicability to what they do on a regular basis. This includes folks who have gone for their MS degrees in CS and folks who worked for some of the biggest household names in the tech industry. </p>
<p>But being a white middle class female from New England might well be an advantage at Purdue, Rice, Reed, and a bunch of other terrific schools which are NOT in New England. </p>
<p>Let’s remember that many of the “most elite” colleges and universities have small undergrad student bodies.</p>
<p>Let us also remember the tens of really really great colleges and universities in the US that are not so absurdly low in their admission percentages.</p>
<p>I’ve been an occasional poster and very frequent user of College Confidential since 2006, when my oldest (of three) started this wild process. I’ll go out with a reply to Chris’s extremely elegant and heartfelt post, because my daughter just had a strikingly similar experience with stats a lot like your D’s, Chris. She got rejected by 9 out of the 11 top schools to which she applied, including every Ivy to which she applied (one of them the alma mater of both me and my wife and another where I went to law school). She will go to a great school but expected to have far more choices. She’s an affluent white girl from New Jersey who doesn’t play sports and went to a small private Quaker school. We’re all stats-numb at this point so I won’t bother listing her numbers and achievements beyond that – most of you have children with the same or similar stats. The kid did everything right and always has, and I think that is what makes it so difficult for the parents on this forum. Most of us who went to good schools played by the rules, and we raised our sons and daughters to be members of the meritocracy. We’re used to getting the admission letter, the promotion, the award, the win on the job project, if we just work hard and play by those rules. Our children internalized that and created amazing profiles for themselves – in most cases (certainly in my family) , far better than that of their parents.</p>
<p>None of that, however, can withstand the tsunami of this year’s numbers. There are more Starbucks in a ten-mile radius of my home than there are Ivy League schools, and with the number of applicants rising to these levels versus a supply held that constant, the results are considerably more random than we in the meritocracy want to admit. I think the harshness of some of the responses here is unfair yet understandable. People still want to believe that the stats will pay off. I leave that debate to others but want to close with two notes of thanks. The first is to the posters here who have helped me immensely as we have counseled our three children on their choices. The second is to Chris, whose daughter will no doubt be successful. Thanks and good luck to you all. </p>
Your kids (and mine) aren’t the only ones doing everything right – so are all of the other students who are vying for admission. </p>
<p>And if you are “used to” getting all the wins… then you are very fortunate. My life hasn’t played out that way, and I don’t think that most people’s do. We win some, we lose some, we keep going – and we don’t enter competitive arenas with the expectation that we are entitled to the win. </p>
<p>NO! Bowdoin was NOT a match for this student – Bowdoin is not a match for anyone, not with an acceptance rate in the teens – assuming by match you mean neither a safety nor a reach. Frankly, I think you are doing a great disservice to future applicants by even suggesting that a school like Bowdoin could be a match school for anyone. Future applicants need to go into the process with eyes wide open to the fact that no matter how strong their stats, they will very likely get denied from these schools.</p>
<p>Calmom’s analysis is right on the money. </p>
<p>And I also think too many CCers blame Tufts syndrome for denials. It’s an easy excuse to fall back on and it may make you feel good, but I think it’s ridiculous. Why does a kid get into Harvard and not WashU? It may have absolutely nothing to do with yield protection, but perhaps WashU figured out that this kid just wouldn’t fit. Or they accepted enough ballet dancers already. Or they just accepted 10 other kids from her county, and they reached their geographic quota. Admissions officers are keenly aware of how hard it is to get into selective schools. When Harvard and Stanford have acceptance rates under 6%, no admissions officer is going to say, “we’re not taking this kid because she’s getting into Harvard.” </p>
<p>Actually, the theory of Tufts Syndrome is that they are actually saying “we’re not taking this kid because there is no way they would come here”.</p>