<p>Marite, having had the advantage and honor of meeting your S, I can look at him with “split vision,” seeing both the extraordinary and the ordinary simultaneously. Hmmm…through the looking glass…I wonder what my D looks like from non-parental eyes, for I did not see her recs. I like to think that I see both her strengths and weaknesses but perhaps this is a grand illusion.</p>
<p>Susan, if I had a white board at hand, I could draw graphs showing scenarios where a significantly better than average applicant has less than the average chance of admittance. Unfortunately, I have a “stuffed head” cold at the moment and words are coming out sideways.</p>
<p>Garland, I hope the OP has not Gone Away.</p>
<p>Roseland, see above. Fwiw, my D loved Yale as well but was turned down. Is still, in her second year, almost ecstatically happy where she wound up and is having terrific experiences she’d not likely have at Yale. May your S find the same experience. Fwiw, I spent about seven years in Evanston while allegedly growing up and I think Northwestern has a <em>lot</em> to offer. No dishonor in going there whatsoever.</p>
<p>Sometimes it doesn’t take much on this site to incite tremendous criticism. I don’t think that this post was ever intended to be a scientific study in specific acceptance percentages. Rather it was a more general guideline for applying to highly selective schools without a significant risk. I thought it served the purpose beautifully. ~berurah</p>
<p>Not meaning to criticize Roseland at all. Her post is full of great advice and also offers food for thought. And one important point has to do with the number of schools her student applied to. </p>
<p>Would the picture have been significantly different if the applicant had applied to 9 schools instead, with 3 reaches, 3 matches and 3 safeties? Or would one safety only be deemed sufficient, and so an applicant could consider applying to 4 matches and 4 reaches? These are definitely questions worth discussing without meaning to criticize Roseland. Her strategy worked for her and her child. It might not be feasible for other families.</p>
<p>I also apologize if anyone thought my posts were inappropriate. I also posted that I felt Roseland’s story and advice were well written and helpful and that I agreed with most of it. I did mention a couple things that I look at a different way (the chances analysis and the number of total schools) and how it worked for another student (mine) and I thought the ensuing discussion was good at looking at various perspectives of how to analyze chances at selective schools. I feel badly if it was taken any other way. It was not meant to be critical as much as looking at it from various angles or ways of going about it with this kind of a student. I respect their choices and it worked for them. I do have opinions about having so called “dream schools” or being disappointed to not get into them when one still has gotten into some great schools, and my own thoughts about number of schools needed to apply to. It doesn’t make me right but just another way to frame it. I still think the OP made some good points. I also don’t recall posts in the past using a “1 in 20 chances for elite schools” mantra and that is a new one for me. I guess I just go by the published admit rates and adjust them according to where a kid might fall in the ballpark for that school and other factors. I meant it as a discussion, not criticism. We all approach it differently.<br>
Susan</p>
<p>You know, a year ago, my son wrote out his college applications without my having visited CC, with only what we’d learned from his GC, website viewing and campus visiting, a few of the “put in your interests and scores and let’s see what list of schools pops out” questionnaires, and not a lot else. When I look back now on the list of schools he applied to, I am slightly appalled. We didn’t know the concept of reach/match/safety at that point, not realistically. He applied to 9 schools and was accepted at 8; his “safety” schools, I guess, if I had to pluck them out, were UCSD, UCLA, and UC Berkeley – schools that no one really ought to count as “safeties”. (He had a couple others in his list that he was going to apply to, but once the MIT EA acceptance arrived, he didn’t apply to the others on the theory that even if accepted there, they wouldn’t be able to trump MIT. But even those other schools should never be considered safeties!) A message like the one with which the OP started this thread would have been a real wake-up call, and I appreciate her posting it.</p>
<p>Suffice it to say, the process for my younger son in another year will be ENTIRELY different, and not just because he’s an entirely different kind of kid…</p>
<p>So, if you apply Regular Decision to a top school, once all the Early’s
are taken, and the Deferred Early’s are reviewed during regular round, the slots left for Regular Apps are even fewer…6.5% is a tad better than 1 in 20, but not significantly better! </p>
<p>Overall, 1958 admitted out of 19,682 is 9.9%…but Early Apps have an edge, assuming the applicant is a qualified candidate…schools want yield, and for Yale, the class of 2008, of the 670 accepted early, 90% matriculated. </p>
<p>Hope that helps explain why some folks round down the chances for Regular Applicants…</p>
<p>finally, I don’t think Soozie’s comments were inappropriate at all, I think there are just a lot of very experienced parents who offer up some thoughts/suggestions and the responses are so specific because these parents truly have done their own homework in very recent years. Electronic communications take out tone etc…I think
Soozie’s are always explicit and detailed and her voice is reasoned.</p>
<p>Hey, I adore Suzie! And Alumother! they didn’t poo-poo the OP, or question whose “dream” it was, or call her plan unwise, or a lot of other stuff which I can search for but don’t really need to, it’s there to read. The number thing can be disputed (I said I do as well) but some folks acted like it was pulled out of thin air, like she was some clueless newbie who should be thrilled that her kid got into college at all despite her obvious ineptitude. It was the WAY some people questioned it. And anyway, that’s just one example of the way some (not all) posts struck me.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m wrong; maybe the PMs I’m getting tonight from nonposters are the timid, disgruntled few. It seemed to me she was getting lectured at–I think we should be very, very generous with new posters.</p>
<p>To this day I remember when I was a newbie on this board and posted and someone jumped on me and some nice person told them to go gentle on me. It was great. So let’s be generally gentle - hey, it’s not even heavy app or admit/reject season yet:).</p>
<p>Garland:
I have to say I did not read the thread the same way you did.</p>
<p>I think that Roseland’s estimation of her son having a 1/20 chance at some schools (HYPS) was quite conservative and cautious. In fact, based on the stats she presented alone, I would have said the odds of his being admitted were higher; but, of course, we cannot know what adcoms look for in any particular admission season. The one thing that I am concerned about is the idea some have that applying to many schools with similarly low rates of admission will increase the odds of admission. The odds are the same for each application. In fact, Roseland’s experience bears this out.</p>
<p>Your dream school can be a tiny no-one-has heard of it school for all you know, you can be missing out on some great chances instead of wanting to go to Yale or Harvard… My dream school consists of4 priorities: being in a diverse area, being able to wear flip-flops, a challenging (and interesting) art college that has interior design, and a local coffee shop located a few blocks from wear I will live. As you can see, my list is not typical!!! Yale or Harvard don’t fall into these categories!!!</p>
marite~
I can see what you mean here, and I am in agreement with your statement. However, what I did perceive differently was the intended message of the OP. By applying to 16 schools and only 4 “super elites”, I think the major point was that much of the application effort was spent on schools that were NOT in that category, precisely because she and her son considered the chances so slim. What I took from the message and what I hope others take from it is that 1.) you need a wide array of choices in terms of selectivity, and 2.) make the best of the choices that end up coming your way. </p>
<p>I agree that overall, Roseland’s strategy was very good. I, personally, would have cut down on the number of applications, in both the crapshoot and safeties categories (especially the latter, since the essence of a safety is the extremely high probability of being admitted) With that in mind, I would have gotten the list down to 10 or 11, keeping the 50/50 group as is. Still high, by many people’s account, but a bit better in terms of time and application fees spent.</p>
marite~
That is what my son did last year. He applied to 11 schools, but in his case, I think the list was too top heavy. We probably should have had more 50/50s… You are right, though, about the application fees and time spent.</p>
<p>Gosh Chief6, what did Harvard ever do to you to deserve all this vitriol? You appear to be repeating all the Harvard Haters’ standard stereotypes without bothering to look very hard for the reality.</p>
<p>To begin with it is just flat out wrong that the classes are taught by grad students. With the exception of some writing classes which are taught by published authors, and some foreign language classes which are required by policy to be taught by native speakers, all Harvard undergrad classes are taught by professors. Some classes, in addition to the professor’s lecture, have small study sections that are led by graduate assistants. But this is common practice at many schools, including those much touted for their undergraduate focus. </p>
<p>As for Harvard students being so unhappy, the polls always show that a large majority of the students are quite happy with Harvard. What usually comes as a surprise is that the percentage of unhappy students is larger than most people expect given Harvard’s reputation for being the among the top schools. And that I suspect is the problem. It’s tough for any reality, no matter how excellent, to live up to that much hype. I can report that my daughter is VERY happy at Harvard and so are her friends and roommates. They love it there. She has not yet met any “psychos” among her classmates.</p>
<p>As for Harvard undergrad education being “a joke”, well a truly remarkable part of Harvard’s achievement is having sustained its high reputation for such a long time. It’s 370 years old. It was widely regarded as the top college in the US in the 17th century, the 18th century, the 19th century, the 20th century, and it’s off to a pretty good start in the 21st century. It’s hard to keep up a charade that long. If there weren’t some real excellence behind the reputation, Harvard would have sunk in the public’s estimation long ago.</p>
<p>Not that I think Harvard is perfect. It is certainly not above criticism. But part of its strength is having the resources and will to to improve the areas that do need to be addressed. Witness the $50 million initiative to promote women faculty and students in science - announced recently.</p>
<p>Even though it is sometimes regarded as such, I am not convinced that Harvard actually is or ever was The Best School in the World, because I don’t think such a thing can even be accurately defined, much less measured.</p>
<p>What I can say is that it does many, many things very well. And the usual few dissenters notwithstanding, the large majority of the students there are very pleased with the education they are getting. But because its reputation has been so good for so long, some people are automatically going to resent it for that fact alone. And there is nothing much anyone can do to change their minds. And why bother? The school will get along just fine without them.</p>
<p>Roxygirl,
have you looked at the Maine College of Art? Not certain about the interior design to be honest, but other than that the fit is great…located in Portland Maine, hard to wear flipflops in the dead of winter, but some kids manage to defy the parental units and wear them a solid 8 mos of the year…great art college…lots of coffee nearby, including Starbucks and Coldstone Creamery in the Old Port…great beaches 10-15 min away from downtown Portland…LOBSTER!! </p>
<p>Back to the original posters intention, perhaps 25% of a kids apps should be reach, 50% match, 25% safety?? if 4 out of 16 were reach, that would be mathematically exact… if 10 schools , then 2 reach, 6 match, 2 safety…</p>
<p>I do want to disagree with one point in the OP. </p>
<p>OP says that “if we’d picked the wrong 8 schools to apply to, we might be planning for gap year right now.” </p>
<p>The reason that people don’t apply exclusively to reach schools is that they want to avoid a gap year. Anyone who picks his reaches, matches, and safeties well will, 99.9% of the time, be going to college next year.</p>
<p>Boy, if there is one thing I have learned after a year on CC, it is that every family and kid has it’s own comfort zone where number of apps and schools applied to is concerned. There is wisdom in looking for fit, and in having the beloved safety, but the numbers seem so idiosyncratic, even in the three kids in my own family.</p>
</p>