<p>“In some cases, it reflects an unattractive contempt for lesser mortals, a desire to have their greater worth certified by membership in a fancier club.”</p>
<p>That club – even if it’s a large state school – very quickly separates the prepared from the weak by concentration and student clubs. By junior year the honors college students are applying to medical school and the communication and sociology slackers are hunting for meaningless jobs that pay $27,000 per year.</p>
<p>Some state flagships are well-tended, with deep keel, headroom, clever rigging, solid construction down to the bare wood. Others are dismasted, have been sitting dry for years, and should have gone to salvage if not for the fact they keep a few in-town people employed.</p>
<p>Also, I especially enjoyed JHS’s section “2.”, above.</p>
<p>Re: <a href=“How common is getting "shut out" for "reasonably good" students? - #239 by bclintonk - Parents Forum - College Confidential Forums”>How common is getting "shut out" for "reasonably good" students? - #239 by bclintonk - Parents Forum - College Confidential Forums;
<p><a href=“http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1772”>http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1772</a> says that Mizzou has 16% of ACT-taking frosh with 30-36 ACTs. 16% of the frosh class of 7,876 is 1,260. For Michigan, 54% of ACT-taking frosh had 30-36 ACTs. 54% of the frosh class of 6.463 is 3,490. For Northwestern, 91% of ACT-taking frosh had 30-36 ACTs. 91% of the frosh class of 2,171 is 1,976.</p>
<p>Even though the number of high-ACT frosh is lower at Mizzou than at Michigan and Northwestern, it is not like they are absent or unfindable.</p>
<p>For comparison, Arizona State has an ACT mid-range of 21-27, but has 11% of ACT-taking frosh with 30-36 ACTs. 11% of the frosh class of 10,623 is 1,168. Yet really top students will attend, graduate, and go on to top PhD programs in their majors.</p>
<p>The amount of hostility some people seem to feel about a frank acknowledgment of what is to me a reasonable desire for what is, after all, one version of a traditional college experience, is astonishing to me. I had thought that the point of this thread was to explore what might cause a kid to get shut out of college, not to convict any such kid and his parents of character flaws and uppishness. No doubt some kids do have an inflated idea of their own desirability as students, but my word, it doesn’t seem fair to me to blame seventeen-year-olds for a lack of perspective. The point is to achieve a list that will manage normal ambition with pragmatism, while achieving a reasonably happy ending. If that kid’s state school offers what he needs and wants, there you go; not all state schools do, and it would be nice if people would stop asserting that “flagship” schools are safeties, or even available, let alone state schools with honors programs and so forth. State schools are not every kids’ answer to the safety problem, for a great many reasons that are not simply “Aw, he’s too stuck up to go there.” </p>
<p>Again, the original question was if students get shut out of the elites and whether they should (or should have) applied to their state school to prevent a total shut out, and from there if they are settling far below their station in life by being forced to go to the state flagship, or (gasp) an even lower ranked state college. I don’t think anyone is arguing that some elite schools are better for some students and if those students apply, are accepted, and can afford it that that’s where they should go and be with their intellectual soul mates. </p>
<p>This thread is about those shut out, and if they should (should have) applied to a wider (and lesser) level of schools, an action which may have them considering interacting with other public college student who may not be their intellectual equals (in their minds, anyway). The issue is not whether LACs and other elite schools are better for a particular student, but what happens when that elite club doesn’t want them. Should they take a gap year or should they force themselves to attend the public school even if they know they’d be unhappy and unmotivated - ironically making them just like those state school students they don’t want to be near.</p>
<p>‘those state school students they don’t want to be near.’ This thread has brought out so much hostility. My kids both have some friends whose company they enjoy, who are nice kids, but they are not the people they want to work on group projects with. On the flip side, my kids aren’t soccer stars, and they both have good friends who are, but would you accuse their friends of “not wanting to be near” my kids because they may not want to play competitive soccer with them on the team? My kids wouldn’t be able to keep up, and they wouldn’t contribute to the team’s success. I don’t blame or demonize their friends if they wouldn’t want them on their top competitive teams. Kids who have been doing all the work in group projects at school feel the same way, but they’re labeled snobs who hate everyone they regard as inferior.</p>
<p>Actually, the original question was:
How common is getting “shut out” for “reasonably good” students?</p>
<p>“Shut out” means no acceptances by April 1 to schools which are affordable…
Obviously, getting “shut out” would mean that such a student made an overly optimistic application list to begin with. But how common is this mistake?</p>
<p>I can’t think of a public school that doesn’t have an honors program. I also don’t know how a good student gets shut out. If they’re shut out there must be something raising a red flag on their application. Affordability is perception. Loans are there and if the student is so talented then you ought to trust they’ll be in a position to pay back the loans, yes? I think this entire thread is heavy on the hypotheticals and ignoring the elephant in the room – bright students don’t get shut out. If your student was shut out, he or she isn’t as bright as you think.</p>
<p>
It’s not at all surprising that students on a forum focused on applying to college generally apply to more colleges than average. The study mentions the shut out rate for students with 6+ applications was essentially zero, so it is not surprising that posters of this forum appear to have a far lower shut out rate than the 11.2% shut out rate for students in the study. </p>
<p>There a bias on this forum in that we often focus on applications to selective ivy-type private colleges. Students who apply to such colleges tend to have more applications than most. We don’t hear as often about students who want to go to the nearby state school and aren’t interested in going far away to an ivy-type selective college, even though this group probably represents a larger portion of the overall student body. Table 3 explores other variables that are correlated with an increased number of applications. For example, if the % of colleges in a ~200 mile radius that use the common app increases by 25%, then number of applications increases by ~1. This is likely a key reason for the increase in number of applications over time and likely decrease in the shut out rate. Top students also tended to apply to more colleges, with an extra 2.5 AP courses or `400 on the combined SAT increasing the average number of applications by ~1. Race and gender also had a significant impact, with Black students averaging ~1 more application than average when applying controls for student quality and SES among other things.</p>
<p>The “reasonably good” student who failed to apply to safeties can also be accused of not wanting to apply to a school they felt was “beneath” them.</p>
<p>I don’t quite understand the idea that those who want “peers” are necessarily “snobs”. Several people, myself included, have explained that it’s not a matter of “smarts” but rather a matter of “turn of mind” or “interests”. The kids may be very different but most of them will be diligent (for instance). They’ll find it fascinating to discuss w or z.
The State flagship or the directional’s honors college can be terrific safeties for the 3.5/1300 kid. But so do the CTCL’s, which in my opinion can be just as good in terms of “fit” as the previous programs. It all depends on the kid. A kid applying to an elite university and HIllsdale, and not admitted to the elite, may choose Hillsdale for his/her reasons and those reasons have nothing to do with “snobbery”. Between Indiana Bloomington and Earlham, kids can choose whatever “fits” them better. There’s no snobbery. Just a kid who knows himself or herself well enough to recognize that s/he may like it better in this or that environment.</p>
<p>
Actually, it wasn’t about elites at all. It was about kids who are reasonably good but not superstars (3.5/1300 or 27) and the odds of these kids being shut out from <em>everywhere</em>.
CC tends to define “good schools” as limited to some specific universities so some people read the question as if it were about superstar kids shut out of elites but it wasn’t the point.
BTW, a 3.5/1300 kid applyint to Top 10 LACs/universities only WOULD be a shutout. But I doubt this would happen because even the least competent guidance counselors know better and even the most arrogant student knows that they need a couple more universities.</p>
<p>Nationally, students apply to 3 colleges; those who use the CommonApp apply, on average, to 4 universities + 1-2 non commonapp, with great variations depending on how selective the universities are (ie., the higher the odds of being denied, the more universities students apply to - it makes sense, right?)
Academic shutouts would tend to fall into the following categories, as summarized by other posters:
<p>I am surprised that a 3.5 gpa student would have such and optimistic college list. I can see a 3.8 and up student doing that but not the 3.5.</p>
<p>Editing to say that it is not that I believe that 3.5’s do not belong to the top elite or whatever you name them schools. Just that getting a B or two usually makes student more realistic. At least that what I see at my kids schools. </p>
<p>According to the Penn State admissions bubble chart, a 3.5 would need a 2200 SAT to guarantee admission. I have no idea how accurate the chart is. Just saying, state flagships aren’t always safeties for a good 3.5 student. I’m not saying there aren’t other state options in Pennsylvania; just that this particular state option is not as easy to get into as it once was. Same goes for someone applying to SUNY Bing for Engineering. I went to a state school and received an excellent education, which has paid off with a successful career. But, I’m not sure my stats would get me in there today.</p>
<p>I seem to remember that the 3.5 would be a weighted GPA, for Penn State admissions, but still…</p>
<p>Difficulty in getting into Penn State - UP as a freshman seems to increase every year and surprises parents who have not paid close attention to admissions for many years. </p>
<p>Many students do however begin at regional campuses and then move to UP to complete their majors, and some majors can be completed at regional campuses no matter where a student begins. (Pitt is not far behind, and “reasonably good” students are often surprised to find out they have been shut out of the Pittsburgh campus.)</p>
<p>On one of our visits to main campus we spoke with a professor who said he urges “reasonably good students” who hope to pursue a STEM degree to consider beginning at a regional campus as their first choice, especially if they have not already taken AP versions of most of their core courses. His rationale was that at the regional campuses, the non-honors classes are smaller and instruction (and curving) geared towards students who have taken college prep rather than AP classes.</p>
<p>Of course, admission to regional campuses is also getting more competitive by the year, and we know a few students shut out of preferred regional campuses who have ended up at community college. For now, however, I expect that a 3.5/1800 SAT student would not be shut out of regional campuses.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone is saying that those who want to go to an elite university are intellectual snobs, just that it is also inaccurate to state that those kids would not be able to find intellectual peers at their state flagship, although not at their local community college or their directional local campus of the State U. It may be harder, they may have to breeze through a few large lectures, but all is not lost. At many “top” universities there are kids that are good students, but not intellectual - great in business classes but not in discussing politics or literature. </p>
<p>Fit is important, but a kid that does not get into their top choices and ends up at State U, should not be made to feel like a failure or that they will never find their people. I went to a college that was full of Ivy rejects, many of whom were interesting and studious. Made great friends. But it really was not until Grad School, that I found folks that had the same academic interests. </p>
<p>I totally get the need for gifted kids to be with those that don’t make them feel like freaks for studying. I just disagree that a cohort of like-minded kids are not present at State Us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Academic motivation comes from a lot of sources–not always intellectual curiosity. Highly intelligent, driven students who aspire to work on Wall Street are a good example. Many of them are not “seekers,” but “doers” for whom their education is simply the means to the end. The fact that they got great test scores and grades in high school and continue to do the same in college does not mean they are the intellectual equals (let alone superiors) of students whose curiosity about ideas and issues takes them on a more meandering path that may include lower grades, lopsided test scores, or the appearance of less ambition.</p>
<p>I’d say not very common (disclaimer: just opinion, I don’t have nor care to have data that supports me or goes against me). Even in the competitive classes I was in at my just outside of Ann Arbor high school that had a distinct “Michigan or bust” attitude, people generally applied to at least one other school (usually several) as Michigan wasn’t a safey even when I was applying. </p>
<p>I only applied to two schools. One a safety and one a match (got into both, went to the safety.) I would’ve only applied to the safety but wanted to see if I could get into the match.</p>
<p>If your child is gifted you want them to be around a high concentration of like-minded, hyper-motivated students. Bright kids thrive, prosper and grow more when they’re in an ethos of competitiveness. What % make it to med school from the big state U? What % of Wash U? I don’t know why people tip toe around this on CC, but where you go to undergrad is a major vetting process in where you’ll end up in life. (Denial? Not politically correct?) Hell, for Wall Street, some of the vetting process started with where you went to prep school. Who’s eager for their child to be a somebody at a nobody college? The Times recently pointed out that bright students are more likely to regress at regional U’s because the environment isn’t competitive. For the most part, this application process sorts kids out. If your child was “shut out” they’re just not as special as you think.</p>
<p>
Not denial. Just not accurate. Wall Street is a notable exception, because as you say the “vetting” process for entry into what is still largely an old-boys’ network starts early.</p>
<p>“where you go to undergrad is a major vetting process in where you’ll end up in life. (Denial? Not politically correct?)
Not denial. Just not accurate.”</p>
<p>Every wealthy lawyer, PhD, MD, banker, etc I know sends their kids to big name, expensive, elite schools (either top 20 US news or the top LAS). It’s like this all over the country. You think it’s for bragging rights?</p>