<p>Some kids want a school with school spirit (ie lots of focus on sports) or a small school with a personal feel, or a school with certain special programs in the arts. But when <em>the</em> most important thing to a child is to be in a very intellectual atmosphere, they aren’t going to be thrilled with a school that has a 75% admit rate–any more than the kid who dreams of the big football experience in some state schools would love MIT. But at least people don’t feel free to insult those kids for their particular tastes and call them snobs. We found a safety for my daughter with about a 75% accept rate. But it’s not a school she’d be happy to go to.</p>
<p>
I think this is a valuable observation, and one that I don’t recall seeing expressed so clearly before. It explains why, for example, even highly able students are likely to be able to find like-minded students at very large flagships, but perhaps not at some other state schools.</p>
<p>And I would just like to note that students with top grades and scores are, in fact, superior to students with lower grades and scores–they are academically superior. They may not be morally superior, or superior in any other way. And furthermore, some of those academically superior students are, in my opinion, “too good” for some colleges–because some colleges will not be able to provide them with a challenging education because they will be academic outliers in most of their classes. As I noted above, this is probably not the case at a large state flagship, but it will most likely be true at other public and private institutions. So looking for a safety with that “wide” student body is really important.</p>
<p>I’m with marysidney and others on this. </p>
<p>The kids in question have in many cases endured years of sitting in classes aimed at people who do not share their intellectual desires. This is EDUCATION people! At one point does it become okay to acknowledge that kids have different needs? Honestly, the accusations of snobbery and so forth sound just like the same old, same old anti-intellectualism. We’ve all heard it for the first 12 or 13 years. No one would expect the local sports hero to be happy playing with me, but I’m supposed to be happy discussing literature with him, despite the fact that he never willingly reads a book. And if I’m not, I’m a snob. (And before you start, yes of course there are local sports heroes who are also good students. I know them. That isn’t the point.) </p>
<p>A safety is supposed to be both an academic and financial slam-dunk safety. And according to CC the kid is supposed to not just be willing to go there if they have no other alternative, no, that’s not good enough, they have to LOVE it. I say again, for an intellectual kid with very high stats and very low EFC in a state that does not have outstanding publics, and that is many states, there may not be such a school. Why must we be constantly derided for stating the truth?</p>
<p>“No one would expect the local sports hero to be happy playing with me, but I’m supposed to be happy discussing literature with him, despite the fact that he never willingly reads a book. And if I’m not, I’m a snob.” Exactly. But no one would call the kid a snob if they want to go play their sport at a division1 school, or if they want a school with a music conservatory so that they can perform and learn with like-minded and like-talented musicians.</p>
<p>This is starting to feel like deja vu. It seems to me that a year or so ago I was following a thread where we were discussing just how many very highly intelligent kids are out there whose needs could only be met by a small number of universities. Does anyone remember that thread? Was it about MIT?</p>
<p>I absolutely agree there are a few people out there who are so brilliant in general, or brilliant in a specialized area, that their academic needs are on a completely different level from practically anyone else. But this thread is about “reasonably good students”. And the truly brilliant have many opportunities to attend univiersities where they can shine, and where their needs can be met and nurtured. </p>
<p>I am not trying to insult anyone on this thread, though I am successfully doing just that. :0 I just see many, many very intelligent high school kids who <em>believe</em>, and whose parents <em>believe</em> that they are much more special than they really are. Perhaps it is a reflection of where I live, which is a lot like Lake Wobegon, except everyone here is way, way, above average. </p>
<p>Here is an example of the high school intellectual snobbery I’m talking about. January SAT results had come out, and there was a conversation taking place among a group of high school juniors. One student said she thought she had done pretty well. Another said, “How good? Was it (Name of their highly competitive high school) good? Or just (Name of our State Flagship) good?” </p>
<p>Almost all of these kids will end up applying to our state flagship as a safety, all will be accepted, most will be accepted into the honors program, and about half will attend out flagship for various reasons. And those who attend will be challenged much more than they think they will be. </p>
<p>I agree with a previous poster, in that we only have one road to follow. We can’t ever see what would have happened if we had attended a different university. </p>
<p>I do know a lot of kids who were shut out of specialty programs. My son wanted to study Musical Theatre. We insisted that he apply to schools that had good programs in the performing arts, but did not have an actual MT program and that he check of the the “other” square in programs at those schools that so permitted when he applied and auditioned for their MT Programs. He was accepted to alternate programs at a number of schools but did not make the MT cut but at three programs. Had he not applied to so many school that it was ridiculous, it would have been possible and probable that he did not accepted to the program of choice. My friend’s daughter who was applying to Voice Performance programs only got accepted to two, and did not get the aid needed to go to either, so yes, she was shut out. </p>
<p>And it’s not just for audition programs. There are any number of select programs at schools that accept just about any warm body for their general liberal arts college. Nursing, pharmacy, medical tech, Biomedical engineering, even business schools at some unis have very competitive admissions. There is a thread out there where a tip top student was rejected from UT. She wanted the business school, and it’s that selective Not all programs at school are easy enters. You want to get into Purdue. Not so difficult. You want to get into their Aeronautic program, that’s a whole other story. Engineering spots also close up early at a lot of state universities. Those who don’t realize this can find themselves shut out. Also merit money can be harder to get for those programs since the schools don’t have to “buy” students for programs where the line for a spot is so long. Why should they? So you can get merit money, or be favored for aid for certain majors that need students,and get shut out for those that are oversubscribed. </p>
<p>Usually for very reasonably good students, the writing starts to show on the wall once the process is underway, and these kids will apply to some safeties. But some remain stubborn, and yes they could get shut out.</p>
<p>Old friend of ours was shut out of all of his colleges that HE applied to in those days of yore, not that he applied to many. It was “State or Bust” in his mind and he did not get accepted. But his mother applied for him to some small LACs and that’s how he ended up at his college, totally recalcitrant and swearing he’d be out in a year. He met the love of his life, graduated from that college, they are married with kids and he’s a big time exec. Things do work out sometimes. His mother said she never prayed until her kids hit adulthood and then she started buying those votive candles at the church.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even some very brilliant students got their start at unselective schools like community colleges.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.moshekai.com/Pages/Academics/CollegeMain.html”>http://www.moshekai.com/Pages/Academics/CollegeMain.html</a>
<a href=“http://www.moshekai.com/Pages/Academics/BSDegree.htm”>http://www.moshekai.com/Pages/Academics/BSDegree.htm</a>
<a href=“http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/at-just-14-ucla-math-student-moshe-229359.aspx”>http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/at-just-14-ucla-math-student-moshe-229359.aspx</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/05/10/medalist2011/”>http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/05/10/medalist2011/</a>
<a href=“http://sociology.fas.harvard.edu/people/aaron-benavidez”>http://sociology.fas.harvard.edu/people/aaron-benavidez</a></p>
<p>My daughter applied to a whopping 16 schools this year exactly because of this potential fear of her being “shut out” despite her strong credentials. Together, we created a spreadsheet matrix so that we could compare her stats to each school and also factored in categories like acceptance rate, yield rate, various rankings, strength of her academic program, etc. In all, each school was compared using 23 different criteria and then grouped into different expected outcomes. </p>
<p>So far, she has two acceptances to schools within our state that she personally ranks as her last 2 options. She was also already rejected by a super-elite program that she reached for EA. That Rejection vs. a Deferral was a surprise in itself, but it only helps to emphasize the importance of being cautious in your expectations. Of the 13 remaining decisions to come, I would say that 5 of them remain as solid reaches based on their highly selective acceptance rates. She matches well with the next 6, but they are also all top 25 schools, so acceptance to any of them is by no means guaranteed. The remaining two schools should equate to acceptances or at least all the stats point that way.</p>
<p>But her strategy, as an over-achieving, unhooked, white female applicant, was to hope for the best, but to also assume a very difficult undertaking in overcoming the odds. We also wanted her to have options - as early on, we had only been able to visit a couple schools. She thus applied to 6 Reaches, 6 Matches and 4 colleges where acceptance should be expected. If she is fortunate enough to gain admission to one or more of her 5 remaining Reach schools, she will be very excited, but I believe that she is also content with the more likely reality that she may be deciding between one of the other 10 programs. </p>
<p>As a parent, my advice would simply be to err on the side of being over cautious. It is dangerous to make assumptions. I almost learned that the hard way myself when applying years ago. I only applied to 3 quality schools and was accepted by only my third choice school. It all tuned out well in the end, but I clearly was operating under false assumptions myself. Play it safe and apply to at least two more schools than you really think you need to…</p>
<p>Good Luck to all applicants this year!</p>
<p>Eastcoast crazy- but the details matter. A kid who “settles” for their state flagship to study Classics if it happens to be Michigan or Berkeley, both powerhouses in the Classics, is hardly settling. A kid who has to patch together a program at say, University of New Hampshire, where by my count, there are only 3 actual professors (the others are "lecturers) in the department-- well, is it really elitism to prefer attending a college which actually has faculty in the area you are interested in?<br>
If I told an Olympic caliber skater that he should be happy training at my town’s ice rink with one of our local “coaches” (often the children of town employees who may or may not have any actual coaching experience) that would be an insult. We all accept that there needs to be facilities (a real ice rink, not a rinky-dink flooded basketball court), training, etc. But the kid who wants to study Classics needs to suck it up at his or her flagship.</p>
<p>I’m not disputing that there are many parents and kids who believe in the special snowflake syndrome, and some of them are quite ridiculous about why Rutgers or U Maryland or U Wisconsin (which seem to have very strong reputations outside their own states by the way) is inadequate for their little darling. But people- there are 50 states. And not all of them have a campus which is in any way similar to the Michigans or Virginias or Illinois of the world.</p>
<p>^^^^^
+1. We live in a “fly over” state. I would rather my child go out and seek gainful employment than spend 4 years at our state flagship. Sad but true.</p>
<p>^^ Word, blossom.</p>
<p>Even very astute and connected college counselors can make errors in judgement. In S case a school that would have been a safety in any previous year turned out to reject him. Several counselors (at a private HS which had an excellent college process in place) were dropped jawed speechless. So, I’m willing to give those professionals a break.</p>
<p>That said, one of the sagest pieces of advice we received was to apply to a rolling admit safety (both in terms of admit and finances). Better yet, apply to two of these. That way if your student is rejected from these there is still time to implement plan B. </p>
<p>We have a music kid who didn’t get a lot of auditions and who got into a great safety that doesn’t have a great music program. By the time we had parsed all of our various needs and wants (takes the GI Bill, liberal arts college, willing to overlook our son’s abyssmal math score, etc.) there really was no safety that fit perfectly. Whatever happens on March 30, he will be fine, but no, it’s not ideal. </p>
<p>We’re somewhat lucky in that we have lived all over the developing world, and so we just keep telling our kids, “There are a lot of kids all over the world for whom going to college IS the dream. They just want to go and to have that opportunity, regardless of the architecture, the school colors, the prestige, etc. You are incredibly lucky to know that you WILL be going to college. That is so much more than so many people get in life, even really bright people.” Our kids have really taken that to heart and they know that it is true.</p>
<p>“Shut out” means no acceptances by April 1 to schools which are affordable. Note that an acceptance to a school, but not the desired major, can count as a rejection if changing into the desired major after enrolling is very difficult.</p>
<p>A “reasonably good” student would have at least a 3.5 unweighted HS GPA in a good college-prep curriculum (4 years or 4th level in English and math; 3-4 years or 3rd-4th level in history/social-studies, science, and foreign language; art or music) with at least some honors or advanced courses in subjects of interest, and test scores of at least 600 on each SAT section or 27 on each ACT section.</p>
<p>“Shut out” means no acceptances, and “reasonably good” means good, not brilliant, at least in this thread. </p>
<p>I would say this is pretty rare. There are examples being given here, but not many, and darned few examples of “reasonably good” students being shut out.</p>
<p>If we counted all the “reasonably good” people we personally know who applied to college, and then counted those who were shut out, I’d bet the percentage would be pretty small. For me, personally, it would be far below 1%. </p>
<p>I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I just think that in the wide world outside CC, it doesn’t happen very often.</p>
<p>Getting back to the OP’s original question – I don’t know of any reasonably good students who got shut out in either of our sons’ HS graduating classes. All had the sense to apply to good safety schools as well as reaches and matches. However, I know of several shockers where kids were denied from schools that seemed like sure things, or really good chances. For example, the NMSF, high test score/GPA student who would have been the 4th generation in his family to attend Cal, his first choice and our closest UC. Denied, not even wait listed. He was accepted at other UCs, wait listed at UCLA, accepted with merit $ at many privates. Cal was his only rejection. He chose USC. Meanwhile, his parents and grandparents no longer donate to Cal, no longer support/attend any alumni functions. </p>
<p>Sounds like a family who does not realize how competitive the most selective UCs have become. Past generations may have gotten into Berkeley with academic credentials that probably make the middle-selective UCs today reaches.</p>
<p>Note that relation with alumni is not considered in admissions.</p>
<p>It appears that the kids who get shut out are not typically the “reasonably good” ones, who probably all apply to the flagship even if they also have reaches–but rather some higher-achieving kids who think they don’t need safeties. Plus some kids applying to uber-competitive programs like musical theater.</p>
<p>
It’s better to use the only HS data we have as an example, in which the shut out kids were generally either students who applied to only 1 college (often B students applying the nearest public or a students applying to a unique specialty college for which there are no similar schools nearby) or students who had too weak applications to be accepted to traditional safeties, than to assume that a few anecdotal examples of someone who heard about a shut out high achieving kid who didn’t think he needed safeties is representative. </p>
<p>Regarding whether that HS is representative, I’d expect that students having too weak applications to be accepted to traditional safeties occurs at most other HSs. Applying to only 1 college (and that college is selective) is probably more variable, depending on how informed the student body is and much of the student body is not concerned about whether they attend a 4-year college or not. In general, I’d expect better students and better high schools to be correlated with being more knowledgeable about this issue, which probably relates to why none of the kids who applied to ivy-type private colleges were shut outs. If a B student wants to only apply to 1 college and that college is selective, a decent GC should intervene and explain that he is likely to get shut out. It’s unclear whether the student/parent did not discuss college plans with the GC, disagreed with the GC and ignored his advice, was aware of the risks and his backup plan was CC/gap year/no college, or the GC did not make the active effort to get involved. The bias towards applying to only UCLA is obviously not representative since the HS is located near LA. One might find that HSs located nearer to less selective public colleges have a lower rate of shut outs. </p>
<p>
I suspect this is more the posting students’/parents’ feelings than the feelings of the entire state. In general students/parents on this forum are knowledgeable about safeties and would be expected to only have shut outs on extremely rare occasions, which fits why it’s quite rare for new threads to be started about a poster or poster’s D/S being shut out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In states with the better flagships, the in-state flagship IS a reach, perhaps even a high reach, for the “reasonably good” student as the OP defined that term–3.5+ unweighted GPA, ACT 27+ or SAT 600+ on all sections. </p>
<p>At Michigan, for example, middle 50% HS GPA for the class entering in the Fall of 2013 was 3.75-3.9, and middle 50% ACT was 28-32, with an admit rate of 33%. Most Michigan residents with a 3.5 unweighted GPA wouldn’t even apply to Michigan because it’s considered such a longshot. The HS GC would probably steer a student with a 3.5 GPA toward Michigan State where the middle 50% GPA is 3.4-3.9 and middle 50% ACT 23-28. Even Michigan State is probably more of a match than a true safety for a student with a 3.5 GPA, however, as that’s a bit below the school’s average entering class GPA of 3.6; on the other hand, MSU has a 70% admit rate. The state directionals would be the true safeties for such a student.</p>
<p>Couple of years ago, I read a letter to the newspaper regarding this woman’s daughter being shut out of Cal, UCLA,
UC Davis, and UC San Diego. The kid went to a competitive high school with 3.8+ UW GPA and 4.1+ W GPA and an ACT score of 32.
Broke out in cold sweat after reading that.
I understand that Cal and UCLA are rather very competitive but getting rejected by San Diego with that kind of stat is somewhat of a surprise.
I am glad that I am not competing with kids these days. With my stat, today I would probably end up at Loser U. More importantly, I most likely would not get a job either after graduation if I have to compete with them.
L-) </p>