<p>This thread is excellent although some parents will never understand the college admission process. My Mom went through it with her three sons and each time couldn’t understand the results. The first time was the most realistic - in 1996, my older brother had a 1350 SAT and was ranked 9/206 but was waitlisted at Cornell’s Agriculture and Life Science’s school, rejected at Columbia, and accepted to SUNY Binghamton and NYU (eventually enrolled at Binghamton). My Mom could almost understand the waitlist and rejection figuring that there were people who had better stats, better extra curricular activities, etc. </p>
<p>But then in 2002 my brother applied to colleges with a perfect 1600 on his SAT, three 800’s on SAT II, and a number 1 rank in his school. He was also the drum major of his band and won numerous science and math competitions. My Mom assumed he would go to one of his top choice schools (Harvard, Yale, MIT) and some very difficult 7 year medical programs at Lehigh, University of Rochester, and NYU even though I told her that it was random at the top and too many top applicants apply. But she couldn’t see past that he was her son and perfect in her eyes. He was deferred early action at MIT and later waitlisted and then rejected. He was rejected at Harvard and Yale. Although he had three interviews to 7 year medical programs he wasn’t accepted to any of them. He eventually enrolled at NYU with a full scholarship but my Mom still has intense bitterness towards the schools that rejected him.</p>
<p>Part of the goal is to dissassociate yourself from the college admission process however hard that can be. It seems that the schools are rejecting you and that’s a horrible feeling for an 18 year old. Guidance counselors are also notoriously poor at setting expectations of where people should apply to receive the maximum admit. Sure, people have a chance at the top schools but it’s a lot like the lottery.</p>
<p>My suggestion to everyone but especially the top students is to have a couple of schools. Not necessarily a safety school that they’ll go to after the schools they really want to go to reject them but a school where they fit in and actually like. Schools with an acceptance rate less than 30% are reaches for everyone. Things are too random in the college admission process to regard them as anything but that. Apply to a couple of those schools but also apply to more realistic schools that you ACTUALLY WOULD WANT TO GO TO. NYU was used that way for my brother. I went there and he knew I enjoyed it; he visisted there and enjoyed the professors and in the end wasn’t completely devastated when he went there (the full scholarship didn’t hurt either.)</p>
<p>And for those people saying “Well this advice applies to other people but not me because I have ______”. Take a step back. Count to 100. And then re-read the post.</p>
<p>Dig and Dad…terrific posts - should be required reading for all rising juniors, their parents (and grand-p’s), and quite a few GCs as well!! Then the dogs and SATs bring a whole new slant to the thread (I’m very impressed with these hounds, 'specially when I think of my lovable lug, who could use some REMEDIAL obedience classwork, but don’t worry - we’ll make sure he goes to THE most competitive private school in the state!)</p>
<p>Back to reality…of course you should apply to your dream schools, but not ONLY to them and their peers…realistic assessment of self and the admit process is key. You may be immensely qualifed on your stats alone - ECs are easily overstated (and quantity is NOT better than depth of participation/leadership - serial joiners are frowned upon by adcoms), or what is a big deal in one area of the country may be considered something much less in another - rec letters are read with a grain of salt. Understand going in that there will most likely be someone who is your academic peer, but has some ‘hook’ that HYP are looking for, standing in your way - not just the dumb jocks that seem to be taking the heat here.</p>
<p>Have you never experienced disappointment? It’s part of growing up…not getting to pitch in Little League…the unqualified coach’s son being forced onto the roster at someone more talented’s expense in 9th grade…not getting the lead in the school musical…if you have managed to escape these kinds of things (and there are many others) to age 18, you should consider yourself very lucky indeed.</p>
<p>You will face these things all your life… think of the the boss’s slacker son getting promoted over you…it’s OK to be disappointed for a bit, but regroup quickly and move onward and upward. Don’t waste time blaming others for your misfortune - it may not be just how you view it - and it doesn’t change a thing anyway - do your homework ahead of time, go in with your eyes open and have a Plan B.</p>
<p>In my community, the only person anyone has ever heard of who got into Yale was a female runner, and virtually all the Stanford admits are athletes, usually football players. </p>
<p>I’m sure they do just fine. As for the athletes at Stanford, without the successful athletes and the good weather, the school would be conisdered like Duke and Georgetown were 30 years ago: fine school and all that, but nothing particular to write home about. Excellent, wonderful school of course, but, like Duke and Georgetown, it is athletics that initially gave Stanford a national stage. For that matter, it is the existence of the Ivy League that provided Brown, Dartmouth, and Cornell a national presence (though where I live, even today, once they’ve said, “Oh, are they in the Ivy League?”, most folks wouldn’t know the first thing about them, and unlikely could place them on a map.</p>
<p>One issue I want to bring up is that we hear so many anecdotes about athletes being the ones accepted to the top schools. Well, if you look at the percent of athletes to the student body, it cannot possibly be right.There are not that many athletes, and many of the sports do not give much leeway to the athletes. They are given a “tip” rather than a special category, and even then only if they are on the coaches’ list. Anyone who has gone through this process with a student who is not on a revered sports team, will tell you that the athlete had better be a competitive candidate. Yes, the sport will make a difference if that is the case, and so it should. Student has something the college wants. The biggest problem in my mind where the academic bars are lowered are in the sports such as the big time basketball teams, football and hockey. I have heard so many people tell me that only athletes were accepted at HPY. Well, athletes are not the bulk of the student body there. There are many kids who are top students academically at these school, please do not forget, and where are they coming from, if the only kids from all of these schools getting in are athletes? From S’s school this year NONE of the kids accepted to HPY are going to be contributing athletes in college, though ALL of them played sports in highschool (required by his school).</p>
<p>My paper has a local section for “scholar athletes” which lists their grades, SAT scores, and the college they are either considering or going to. Being curious, I read one of them for a baseball player. He had a 97 GPA and an 1170 GPA and is going to Columbia.</p>
<p>I won’t generalize out from this but I’ll let this single instance stick in people’s mind.</p>
<p>I don’t get it - is being an athlete scholar so much more difficult than being an actor - drama person/scholar (at school until 2am or later working on sets, etc.,) long hours of rehearsals daily, year round, and maybe 2 weeks off a year. Then, at home, instead of time for homework, you have to memorize your lines, etc., Yet, kids do it and don’t think they should be given any additional glory, or praise because they are the sal and top 10% students in our school.</p>
<p>25% of the kids who are at Columbia (not current year) have SAT1s below 1310. My niece, not an athlete,not URM got into Cornell with a 1220 SAT1, and a 96 GPA. I can give a number of anecdotes of kids who get into top schools without top SATs. </p>
<p>Having said that, it is true that the smaller schools that sport full athletic teams do have a disproportionate number of athletes. Columbia, Williams are examples of this.</p>
<p>jonw-which newspaper are you talking about? Newsday on Long Island does that too and sometimes I can’t even bare to look at the stats section when they say where they’re going to college.</p>
<p>Harvard has one of the largest athletics programs in the country. It has an undergraduate student population of 6,597 and 22 men’s and women’s varsity teams which offer 1,488 opportunities to compete to 1,086 actual athletes. What impact do you think that replacing graduating senior athletes has on their admissions process? </p>
<p>Similarly, Williams with 1,974 undergraduate students has 18 plus sports (some are unspecified.) They have 911 competition opportunities for 664 actual athletes. Again, another elite school which would appear to need to have an admissions process designed to fill the need of its sports programs. </p>
<p>By comparison, national football champion USC has 16,381 undergrads and 12 men’s and women’s varsity teams which offer 583 opportunities to compete to 577 actual athletes. </p>
<p>So which schools admissions’ processes are driven by the need to fill up their sports teams?</p>
<p>Opportunities to compete equal the actual number of athletes on a varsity squad on the date of the first competition. The actual number of individual athletes is achieved by subtracting the number of athletes who compete on more than one team. Thus, if a student-athlete is on the indoor and outdoor track teams and the x-cross country squad you would obtain the actual number of athletes by subtracting two from the number of competitive opportunities.</p>
<p>In doing a Title IX analysis you use competition opportunities if you are looking at interest and abilities issues. If you are trying to determine the distribution of athlete financial assistance you use the number of actual athletes.</p>
<p>On a couple of lighter notes about student athletes:</p>
<p>My dh was in the marching band at Columbia. They played at football games (very irreverently, I may add). The football team successfully defended their Ivy League record, and continued to do so for several years thereafter - they lost I believe more than 135 games in a row. I think it worked out to more than 10 years without a win. (I don’t remember the exact figures.) Everyone, especially the alumni, were disappointed when they finally won! Don’t think that there were too many “dumb athletes” on those teams.</p>
<p>A few years ago, a Boston publication (it may have been Boston magazine) did a profile of MIT’s football team, and the prank rivalry between Harvard & MIT. For example, during one of the Harvard-Yale games, a giant balloon started erupting from the ground at the 50 yard line. When fully inflated, it said - what else - MIT. The title of the article? “Well, actually, they ARE rocket scientists.”</p>
<p>Agree with you jrpar that the student does indeed need to hear specific detailed info about successful past candidates … so fully agree not to shield them … rather I think that it is important that the parents have their "own’ meetings with GCs … sometimes the parents and the students have very different questions and are in very different places in the process . and at times a joint meeting can be less productive than some seperate ones …I am sure it also depends on the family and the student … I am a college professor so very familar with the admissions process … my husband was not familar at all as he was raised in Europe … so suggest that student meets alone with GC, parents meet alone … family shares information … and yes … everyone meets together. Also we found our GC to be really helpful in making suggestions to our son that might not have been ‘heard’ coming from us … sound familar parents …</p>
<p>Beachy, you hit on a profound point about EC’s which are considered major hooks in some parts of the country being a yawn in other places. Last year we had several parents who learned the hard way that ballet (not to pick on the dancers, but just to make the point) wasn’t the admissions hook they anticipated it would be.</p>
<p>In some parts of the country if you have an academically talented dancer in the family you are a rarity at your dance studio… but ride a commuter train in the afternoon from suburbs in NY to Manhattan and you’ll see dozens of teenagers heading in to rehearse with the Joffrey, NYC ballet (both the primary and secondary corps), etc. and most of them are doing their AP Bio homework or translating the Iliad or whatever on the train. They go to academically challenging high schools, they win prizes in French and play the clarinet, they dance-- and they’re not the only ones.</p>
<p>Similarly, you can attend East Podunk high and be taking Differential Equations at a local college, or on the internet, and be considered a mathematical genius, because nobody in your high school was ever that advanced… and then you get to college and discover that kids from elite high schools in Asia went even further than you… or that you are a hard-working, B student in math despite your early promise.</p>
<p>Agree 100% about understanding the 'local competition" … my son goes to a prep school in Midwest … 12 HYPS admits (out of 175 students) … BUT they are not the “national” stars you hear about from other areas of the country … great academics from all of them … very fine ECs … but no one took college classes … no one is a westinghouse finalist … so bottom line is get very informed about what the successful candidates from YOUR own high school (and were there any???) acheived in their high school career from the GC … specifics on everything you can.</p>
<p>Evitajr, my son currently a senior wants to go into theatre. He is also an athlete. He can’t do both at college so has gone the theatre route. They are lined up around the buildings to audition for theatre programs. They take about 3-5% of these kids . They are begging him to come visit the athletic teams at some of these schools. Supply and demand. Nothing to do with the time and effort involved.</p>
Athletics is an interesting aspect of admissions … but posts like this do not ring true for me. It seems that the athletic stuff takes on two forms … </p>
<p>First, some big time sports programs (like big time football and basketball) let in kids who are no where close to the typical kid in a school … I’m no fan of this set-up but realistically the 12 baskebatball players at Ohio State, for example, make up 0% of the 30,000 person student body … all the jocks together at Ohio State are noise in the overall population of students at Ohio State … and any admission decision on these athletes is not really affecting the admission of any non-athlete at Ohio State (and these are the situations where athletes get the biggest breaks) (I am not picking on Ohio State in particular but almost all top 20 basketball and football programs provide big breaks for some jocks). </p>
<p>The other situation are schools like Harvard or Williams that are much smaller places and where the athletes represent a much bigger percentage of the students and decisions about athletes absolutely affect the admission decisions of other applicants. The catch is that these schools have guidelines about how much of a break athletes can get and about how many fewer athletes can get bigger and bigger breaks … and for the IVYs, at least, it’s not all that much slack allowed. Even if some athletes do get somewhat of a break what is the motivation for Harvard to accept a lacrosse player whose “only” a 7 on the AI index? … it is not to pull in TV or bowl money … perhaps they believe there is value in filling their class with well rounded students who can respresent the school … they are knowingly not picking all the best academic students but picking quality students who also bring something else to the table. </p>
<p>When I read posts where the implicaion is the only reason a person got into a top tier school is because they are a jock I look at the post with a lot of doubt … we know very little about the applications of these kids and I dislike the assumption that they only got in because the were a jock … and frankly, I think it is very disrespectfull of kids who did <em>earn</em> admission.</p>
<p>Excellent OP, but I disagree with the message. The problem is not with setting ones hopes too high, or telling others about the exclusive list of places to which one applied. The problem is in accepting the notion that, because they are famous, HYP must be the best places to go. </p>
<p>People pay far too much attention to the “prestige” of a college, develop a distorted set of priorities, pick colleges in large part precisely because admissions are difficult (US News and Atlantic rankings), and set themselves up for this sort of disappointment. HYP are terrific universities, but not getting in should not dash anyone’s dreams. </p>
<p>There are dozens of colleges that brim with talented students, offer outstanding challenging educations, and launch kids into successful careers. There are perhaps 50-100 more that do not have quite as high an average academic ability among the students but offer second-to-none educations to those with the talent and motivation to take advantage of it. Many of these have far easier admissions hurdles than HYP. </p>
<p>If students gave the full list of excellent colleges a fair evaluation, unencumbered by notions of prestige, they would realize that anyone qualified for the Ivies will be welcome at lots of wonderful places. Students should realize how little is at stake in terms of post-college careers. Then they should really look at the colleges that are best for them, not necessarily those with the biggest names or most competitive admissions.</p>
<p>One of my favorite quotes from the College ******* guide (oops, guess it’s a competitor, so asterisked-out) to Ohio University (where my son will be):
<p>My S. did get into the so-called elite university of his choice largely by correctly interpreting what it was the school was looking for as it selected its class for the year. Many of his friends with far higher rankings, GPA, test scores, etc. were not accepted. He knew he did not have the highest stats, but he is an excellent writer, which helped with the essays, but he felt a connection with the school’s subliminal theme, which was “this school has an underlying a sense of humor.” He added a little sincere humor, which comes naturally to him, as asides throughout his application. When I introduced myself to some admissions folks at a “prospie” reception, they said “yes we really enjoyed reading that application…,” they remembered! A friend of my S’s took a different route than humor, but found a “hook” other than pure stats and EC’s at the Ivy of her choice, and was admitted as well.</p>
<p>The moral, I guess is that there is more to admissions decisions than pure stats, EC’s, etc. I believe they are looking for that “thing” that makes them say, “this guy (or gal) would be good to have around here.” There are many ways to enhance one’s chances that go beyond stats. As I read the various forums and threads, I’m not sure there is enough attention paid to these other factors. Of course, having said all that, both kids had their safeties as well, with which they would have been very happy, as would I have been (and her parents).</p>
… rather I think that it is important that the parents have their "own’ meetings with GCs … sometimes the parents and the students have very different questions and are in very different places in the process . and at times a joint meeting can be less productive than some seperate ones …I am sure it also depends on the family and the student … I am a college professor so very familar with the admissions process … my husband was not familar at all as he was raised in Europe … so suggest that student meets alone with GC, parents meet alone … family shares information … and yes … everyone meets together. Also we found our GC to be really helpful in making suggestions to our son that might not have been ‘heard’ coming from us … sound familar parents