^So, @lookingforward, most of our unremarkable kids who have little to show other than diligent (but less-than-brilliant) work at school and normal ECs should just apply to the closest state directional and be done with it? I’m not trying to be contentious here; I’d really like to know.
When you write about holistic admissions, please define “top”? At what ranked level can a kid be active in a few meaningful-to-them things, engaged, sincere, kind, friendly, honest, hardworking, true to himself/herself, strive (and make) top grades without achieving at a superstar EC level and still get a true, classic liberal arts education? Because that’s where my kid’s target should be, I suppose, and it’s better to know it now. I’m not complaining, I’m trying to be realistic.
I have read several times by experienced posters on CC that any small college ranked lower that 100 is only dubiously considered to be a LAC in the true spirit of the word…I got the sense that these posters considered anything less to be more of a pre-professional /regional training school or something quite inferior in some way. Don’t know if that’s true, but since all LACs claim holistic admissions, kids like mine may be screwed if what you’re saying is true. If it IS true (and you’re just the messenger), I’d rather know it and be prepared for that reality. Because my kid IS passionate about some things…she LOVES marching band, for example, and our band’s competitive successes. She works hard and enthusiastically to be an integral part of it. But she’s really uncomfortable standing out as an individual or tooting her own horn and there’s really nothing I can do about that. And she does need eight hours of sleep. But, honestly, this does make me sad. This is a kid who was devouring “Little House” books in kindergarten and reading Jane Austen for fun in fifth grade (sure, she didn’t get all the historical context, but still…) and yet a good LAC is out of reach because she’s not a star athlete or some other EC standout? I know I’m focusing on my kid here, but I mean to include the good number of other students in a similar situation…for whom large universities are not a good “fit” and who gravitate to LACS, but find there’s just not enough room for them. Then what? If the population of good students wanting these kinds of schools is growing, then why is there so little trickle-down in the rankings? Why can’t the schools now ranked, say, T120 be just as great today (by quality and reputation) as, say T30s used to be, given that the sheer numbers of average-excellent and average very good students applying to college has grown?