To be clear, this thread is not about CC. Some of the platitudes may be things people say here, but I started this thread based on things that I was hearing in other places. And I do hear the “top 20” or bust notion. But agree, not here I don’t (other than students about themselves).
And the second 1/2 of your response is essentially more support for the other platitude I named.
There is a difference between X, Y, and Z being just optional politics that one may choose to participate in or not, versus (often institutionalized) hostile discrimination that the student cannot avoid and which therefore negatively affects the student’s quality of life. A current example would be a transgender student avoiding states which have anti-transgender laws that would directly affect the student. Another current example would be schools with lots of Israeli/Palestinian politics that devolve into bigoted shouting matches and spill over to affect the quality of life of otherwise non-participating Jewish/Arab/Muslim students.
Related to that, there has been a misnomer (not sure it’s a platitude) that if a school has a Hillel then Jewish students will feel comfortable there. Ain’t necessarily so, as the say. And in large schools, even though overall there may be a number of undergrad/ grad Jewish students, the percentage may still be small and the students may be spread out and not always feel as socially comfortable. This is very variable but is a consideration.
Plan Bs that are not really Plan Bs, not having a Plan B.
My limited anecdotal experience from both my kids, friends’/classmates’ kids and interviewees is that a kid who gets into 1 selective college will get into others (not all). So sure, the kid who got into Harvard may be rejected by Brown and Amherst but will likely have gotten into some places like Williams and Princeton. The flip side is that some high stats kids get completely shut out of any reaches. This indicates to me that some kids’ essays, EC accomplishments and/or LoRs resonate across different AO’s while others fall flat. This is why I always advise the high stat kids to limit their reaches to no more than 6 so they can better tailor their essays to fit the targeted schools.
Love this one. My D22 is at UCLA with 17 of her high school classmates, including one she had a falling out with her junior year of high school. We were initially annoyed this person was going to UCLA, but as a senior, my D has seen her maybe 3 times. I think she’s seen the others even less. High school 2.0 is not a thing for UCs, or any flagship with tens of thousands of students.
I agree, and 6 seems like way too many. When I advised kids professionally 2 reaches was considered appropriate. Of course top kids were applying to 6 or 7 schools and not 20.
Even at a local community college, high school classmates may rarely encounter each other if they choose to study different things. There is far more possible variation in what courses one chooses at most colleges compared to most high schools.
How about colleges that list “[3 or 4] years of [math or foreign language]” for frosh admission, but do not make it clear how they handle applicants with fewer years at more advanced levels (a common situation due to being advanced in middle school, or being a foreign language heritage speaker)?
“We practice holistic admissions and view such situations in context.”
However, that does not stop posters from disagreeing about whether the applicant’s Spanish 3 and 4 in 9th and 10th grade are enough for “[3 or 4] years of foreign language”. Or (in a recent thread) whether the applicant’s geometry and algebra 2 (after algebra 1 in middle school) is enough for “3 years of math”.
My response was simply an admissions platitude, in keeping with the theme of the thread. It wasn’t meant as a debate on level 3 vs 3 years, which isn’t, IMO, what the OP envisioned as the purpose of the thread
“We meet full demonstrated need” - this one only annoys me by proxy based on what I read and hear others say about it since I have no experience with it. While the statement may be true, since there is no universal definition of demonstrated need that all colleges use, demonstrated need is determined by the college, and the net price calculators are not necessarily accurate, what the college deems as demonstrated need for a family may or may not match what either the family, or even applicants in general may see as demonstrated need. Folks report significantly different need determinations from different schools even though each of the schools is looking at the same financial picture for them. So, this particular statement ends up not specific enough to tell many people seeking need-based aid whether or not the school will be affordable.
“Once you account for the athletes and other hooked applicants, ED doesn’t really make much of a difference for acceptance rates” - I hear some version of this fairly frequently. And while true that ED rates for unhooked applicants are not as high as the percentage posted, the vast majority of experts agree that competitive unhooked applicants have a significantly better chance at admission in ED than RD at most highly selective and highly rejective schools.
That would be collusion. See the 568 Presidents Group and resultant lawsuit to see how badly sharing need based aid formulas can go.
That’s what the NPCs are for.
I don’t think ‘vast majority’ is accurate. This is a school by school situation, to be clear at some schools I don’t think there is an ED admissions advantage for unhooked applicants (although there may be certain ED advantages like early registration, preferred housing, merit money (see WPI thread), etc.)
I was not suggesting they should collude, I was pointing out the problem from the student/family perspective of no universal definition for what a family with a particular financial situation needs.
On net price calculator, see my point about them not always being accurate.
Yes, that’s a problem at some schools. Also can be an issue for merit hunters if the NPC doesn’t estimate merit aid. It is important though to understand there can’t be one need based aid formula that all colleges follow.
Always wondered what happened to that consortium!!
Yeah it’s a bummer that the schools can no longer agree on “need”. But one of MY “platitudes” is “My parents will pay full freight for Harvard or Princeton, but not Tufts or Northwestern. Do you have suggestions of merit schools that are just as prestigious as Harvard or Princeton?”
And the parental analogue- “We are high income earners with decent assets- but we would have to cut back A LOT on our lifestyle if we end up paying full price. Any suggestions on schools which will provide need based aid at a $450K income level?”
In our case and in the cases of people I know the NPCs were quite accurate. I think people getting inaccurate results either didn’t wait for an updated version (i.e., used last year’s) or put in inaccurate or faulty information or in some cases have a complicated financial picture (e.g., family business or divorced parents). For those of us with uncomplicated financial situations - which I’m guessing is many of those receiving need-based aid- the NPCs are pretty good. But yes you have to run them for every school because they definitely count things like home equity differently from each other.