Which CSU is this?
1 Like
Colorado State University.
1 Like
Thatās a great score. Personally I think there are better uses of her time than retesting.
Is she still focused on small schools? The reason I ask is that with the score and everything else, sheās likely to be a very strong candidate at many selective schools. Some of these give really good need-based aid and she might attend for free. Iām not sure it makes sense for her to exclude schools like Princeton, Stanford, Yale, etc that are among the most generous just because they arenāt very small. (MIT is among the most generous, too).
Anyway, Iād encourage being open minded to those sorts of schools as itāll expand the range of schools that might fit her academic interests and give great need-based aid. Iām not sure sheād think Yale, for example, feels any bigger than MIT.
Thanks! Iām in California and we have a bunch of CSUs!
2 Likes
Sheās not focused on small schools. Rather, she has two competing priorities: āinteraction with professorsā (she means both in classes, and potential research opportunities) and ālots of class choices in my areas of interestā ā which pull against each other in a way that seems to lead her towards medium sized schools at the moment, except for some very techy small ones that still have a large variety of STEM classes. All colleges are much larger than our entire isolated town of <500 people, so theyāre all big!
As far as the other ivy league schools, would they be culturally friendly to a shy, geeky, low-income, rural, intellectual but not competitive kid? Sheāll be so different, with such a different background than other kids wherever she goes, and I really want her to be able to connect and āfind her peopleā in a way she canāt do here (because they simply donāt exist here). Going off popular stereotypes, MIT is for uber-nerds, and the others are for super-competitive rich kids. I thought I read an article somewhere about competitive clubs at some schools? Not that we should go off stereotypes, so Iām happy to hear about any of them, and the very low prices are quite appealing (MITās net price calculator said $0!). It also does seem like ultra-selective schools more often have computational biology as a major (Brown, Stanford, Cornell that Iāve seen so far).
1 Like
MIT has uber nerds, and kids who spend their free time playing ultimate frisbee, and athletes, and musicians, and kids who tutor math at local elementary schools and kids who teach knot tying at the Boys/Girls club and kids who get certified as EMTās and spend their evenings going out on calls and perfecting their skills as first responders. I would not let the stereotypes prevent your D from applying to a place which has the academics sheās looking for AND is affordable.
My kid had friends who were history nerds (and Boston is a great place for that) and kids who loved to ski and a kid who seemed like the ultimate computer science nerd except his passion was writing and performing poetry at campus āslamsā.
This is not particular to MIT of course- but just to reassure you that if sheās interested in MIT at all, she shouldnāt let the stereotypes dissuade her. Who knew that the Boston Science Museum opened at night for college parties? Or that virtually every arts organization in Boston and Cambridge gave away student tickets for concerts, opera, dance, gallery openings?
3 Likes
Got it. Sorry, thought I remembered a preference for smaller LACs. If not sheāll have a lot of options.
I would think in terms of meaningful interaction with faculty, not class size. Sure, there are schools where lower level class might have 200 kids in lectures. But even with those there are discussion sections, office hours, symposia, etc. And upper level courses at most schools will be a more manageable size. In terms of research, every bright kid I know who went to a well-resourced school with grad programs, etc, had no problem getting involved with faculty research if they wanted to.
Ivies, Stanford, and many other high endowment, selective schools are no longer the bastion of rich kids. The dramatic expansion of need-based aid at those schools has made them attractive to lower and middle income families. The entire income spectrum is pretty well represented, and rural kids also. MIT is a bit unique but not all the nerdy, shy, kind, bright kids fit there. Theyāre all over the Ivies, Stanford, Chicago, state flagships also. If admitted to some of these schools she can attend preview days and get a feel (likely theyād fly her there).
competitive vs cooperative culture she can explore. There are some differences. But Iāve known non-competitive kids at schools that Iāve read here are competitive and theyāve been very happy. Even at schools with competitive clubs, there are plenty of kids who donāt do that.
Not trying to discourage MIT as sheāll be a competitive applicant, but as you know the odds arenāt high for anyone so having some other schools with great need-based aid is worthwhile.
1 Like
There is still a strong skew toward high SES. Commonly, about 40% of the undergraduates at those schools are not getting financial aid grants, meaning that they come from families with enough money to pay list price nearing $100,000 per year.
2 Likes
Your child may want to look at schools in consortia where itās very easy to take classes at the other universities. Some possibilities in blue states include:
-
Baltimore Collegetown (Loyola Maryland, Goucher, Johns Hopkins, among others)
-
Pittsburgh PCHE (U. Pitt, Carnegie Mellon, Duquesne, among others)
-
Ithaca (Cornell & Ithaca College)
-
Associated Colleges of the St. Lawrence Valley (Clarkson, St. Lawrence, and SUNYs Potsdam & Cantonā¦source)
Others are more familiar with the highly selective/rejective colleges and would be able to give better advice on which schools might be better fits for your D than others, but I suspect that Wesleyan would be a good one to consider.
3 Likes
Wesleyan in Middletown (CT) is one of the few highly rejective colleges and universities to have actually added a significant number of seats over the past half-century. Thanks to a large windfall in stock investments in the mid-1960s, they were able to finance a transition from being a small, all-male college of 1500 to a fully co-ed, small university of 3,000 (basically, by absorbing the functional equivalent of an entire womenās college!) The result is a very solid institution capable of supporting superlative programs across a broad spectrum of the liberal arts and sciences. They have created both a nationally recognized film school as well as a city blockās worth of STEM classrooms, and tax-supported labs; with the exception of Tufts, Wesleyan has one of the highest per capita rates of R&D funding among the NESCAC (ālittle ivyā) athletic conference:
6 Likes
I would have your DD check out Brown. Yes, itās a lottery ticket type of school, but your kid has a lot going for her- underrepresented state, strong academics, etc. Brown has a fantastic applied math program, is very collaborative and my sonās experience w professors thus far has been great- they have been very approachable and encourage undergrads to get involved in research. Open curriculum, so she wouldnāt have to take any writing classes. Have her check out the residential programs including Tech House- itās a special interest dorm for primarily STEM students. Itās very inclusive, they have a very high number of LGBTQ members & weekly board game nights. With an ED bump (albeit minimal, but still- itās a bump) it might work out for her. My S23 EDād, also from an underrepresented state, which I think really helped.
2 Likes
I appreciate the suggestions on particular selective schools that might fit, and some lottery tickets for nearly-free education are probably worth filling out, even if they are lottery tickets. And since MIT said the kids from the fly in had a shot I guess Iāll believe them that itās worth a try.
But do keep suggesting the more realistic schools as well. Yes my kid is from Alaska, and she is doing significantly advanced work in her STEM subjects, but looking at all the crazy activity lists, leader of everything, a dozen awards, and zillion APs and such from other threads Iāve peeked at here, most of them seem more impressive.
Which leads me to what I guess is a sort of strategy question, as she works on trying to figure out what she likes. I know thereās a level of seeming randomness (at least to an outsider) in admissions, but how much can admissions rate be used as a guide? Say, for example, a kid researches schools and ends up with a preference list like this: #1 = 5% admissions, #2 = 50% admissions, #3 = 5% admissions, #4 = 50% admissions. Obviously a kid could change their mind, and there are clear financial benefits to those selective schools, but would there be any admissions reasons to apply to school #3? Is there any meaningful chance a kid would get admitted to a very selective school but rejected from a much less selective one? Or should a kid only apply to reaches if they are more preferred than all targets and safeties (and only apply to targets if they are more preferred than all safeties)?
I would say that any school less preferred than a safety (that has 100% assured admission and affordability) under any conditions (even if it offers its largest scholarship) can be dropped from the application list.
Other than that, it is still possible for a student to be admitted to a school that appears more selective while not being admitted to a school that appears less selective, particularly if they are significant users of subjectively graded criteria or level of interest.
2 Likes
This might depend upon how much less selective, but generally yes a student might in some cases be accepted to a more selective school and turned down from a less selective school. This has happened to a few people I know, although the two examples that immediately come to mind involve graduate level admissions.
Universities are looking for students who are a good fit for them. Different schools and different admissions committees might not all have the same idea regarding what constitutes a āgood fitā.
Years ago in the Stanford alumni magazine there was an article about admissions. They were explaining how sometimes admissions seems random. Suppose that the tuba player on the Stanford marching band happens to be graduating this year. They might accept a few tuba players (who are also academically excellent) in the hope that at least one of them might join the marching band. In a year where the tuba player is staying on, they might not care whether an applicant plays tuba. To an outsider, this might seem random.
But I think that a bigger issue is that āfitā is hard to figure out. Admissions is sometimes pretty good at it (or at least has seemed pretty good at it in a few cases I have seen), and admissions might in some cases be better at it even that the student. After all, admissions staff have been doing this longer.
On the other hand, students really need to apply to at least one safety, and I am usually more comfortable to see applications to at least two safeties. Letās assume that these really are safeties both for admissions and affordability. As long as this assumption is solid, I do not see any point in applying to more selective schools that you would turn down to attend your safety.
3 Likes
This is an interesting contrast between the NESCAC schools and the Ivies. The smaller elite colleges are WAY less subject to DOE blackmail since they receive fewer federal funds. Wesleyan receives the most (again, not counting Tufts), but nothing that couldnāt be covered by the university itself, if needed. Brown (just using them as an example), unfortunately, was a huge punching bag for most of last year.
3 Likes
In terms of application strategy, I think it can be a multi-layered process. When applying to a larger list of schools (more than 3-5ish), I think itās great to have some variety in the college list. Because people change (and change their minds), and that especially applies to 16-18 year olds.
So maybe someone might be interested in small to mid-sized tech schools, but maybe theyāre toying with the idea of honors programs at larger schools, or maybe theyāre tempted by an urban campus but could fall in love with the idea of an idyllic college town or want to have a couple of geographically closer options in case they change their mind. So, itās nice to develop some optionality in that college list.
Below is an example of how such a list could look:
0.01-30%
- Techy School: MIT, city
- Honors Big College: U. of Virginia, college town
- Small to mid-size all-rounder: Lehigh or Villanova
- School that has a higher admission rateā¦but has a lottery scholarship that is needed/desired
30-70%
- Techy School: WPI, city
- Honors Big College: U. of Wisconsin, college city
- Small to mid-size all-rounder: Santa Clara
70-100%
- Techy School: Clarkson, rural
- Honors Big College: U. of Kansas, college town
- Small to mid-size all-rounder: Seattle U., city
Of course thereās no need to have schools in the low or toss-up buckets. But if in October a kid is strongly preferring a small to medium techy school, then they may prefer Clarkson to UVA or U. of Wisconsin. But in December if they prefer larger schools, they could prefer U. of Kansas over WPI or MIT. And then it could all be different by April!
Essentially, I would worry less about creating a ranking of favorite schools and looking at their admission rates to determine whether to apply and spend more time considering the types of schools that a kid is potentially interested in attending, and making sure that there are some extremely likely admits in those categories.
5 Likes
To answer your question on admissions chances, there are so many factors that go into it- institutional priorities (your tuba players), demographics, holistic review, etc. that it makes perfect sense to apply widely. I let my kids apply to as many lottery-ticket schools as they wanted because when it comes down to it, you have no idea how many other applications are in the mix that meet those schoolās particular needs. My D23 is at Brown, but wasnāt accepted at Case Western- his HS counselor told him that heād get into Case, based on historical data. I see this all the time on Reddit- the college results thread shows kids who should get into particular targets/safeties but donāt, and then get accepted at uber competitive schools. So there are no guarantees, you never know who will be reading your kidās app and how it will hit them. Perhaps the essay really resonates with them, or they used to participate in your kidās sport and know how time-consuming it is (like swimming, for example). The other big benefit to applying widely is being able to compare financial aid packages. Many schools will offer application fee waivers, so thereās really no downside to applying widely for most kids.
1 Like
Based on the OPās concern about the studentās safety and state laws, Virginia and Pennsylvania might be somewhat questionable, Wisconsin a bit worse, and Kansas most problematic regarding gender identity, according to Movement Advancement Project | Snapshot: LGBTQ Equality by State
1 Like
I was trying to provide an illustrative example rather than a prescription for which schools to apply to. Sometimes trying to find a school within a designated admissions rate of a certain type in a certain environment was a challenge.
But instead of UVA, one can sub Cal (which would be unaffordable, but it would be a big college in a college town in a solidly blue state). Instead of U. of Kansas, perhaps Oregon State could be a sub as a big college town. U. of Minnesotaās acceptance rate is higher than Wisconsinās and the Twin Cities are less of a college town vibe, but itās a city. And Brown instead of Lehigh/Villanova.
But again, Iām not trying to say that these particular names are the ones that OPās kid should apply to, but just trying to provide proof of concept.
3 Likes
You have twins at Brown? Thatās pretty cool.