I enjoy looking through the posts on these boards and appreciate the advice of the regs and old-timers who more often than not point kids in the right direction. I am frustrated that, every fall, another flood of stressed students assume the same chain of misguided thoughts causing unnecessary angst:
"Success" in life is earning the most possible amount of money.
Going to an elite school will cause lots of money to be earned.
A student can do certain things to increase their chances of being accepted to an elite.
I will try to teach my own kids that success can be counted in a dozen different ways, that the elite schools are fine places but are more sorting mechanisms for go-getter students than producers of success, and that trying hard to shape yourself into an elite admit rarely works. I’m curious if other parents have insights.
In the real world, at cocktail parties, people ask what college you go to, and they bow down to you based on the resulting name. The hot girls will all want to date you and the guys will all want to be you.
There is one thing a student can do that increases one’s chances of being accepted by an elite university - do something unique and do it big and do it well. Unlike a job, an elite college is not looking for particular skill; it is looking for drive, vision, and uniqueness.
For example, starting a company that makes lots of money is not unique anymore; what is unique is creating a product that no one has seen before and which has proved to fill a void, even if it does not make a lot of money.
This is but one example. It does not have to be a company; whatever it is just has to be standout, purposeful, and extremely well-devised. This will get you noticed and increase your chances.
EDIT: An example that I personally know of in this regard is a student who is an excellent guitar player and a composer for orchestras. Alas, there are many such students applying to elite colleges. However, one thing this guitar player did was actually invent a new guitar playing technique that was verified by top guitars as being new and different and they started using it. That got him noticed and increased his chances for sure.
STEM degrees are the only path to self-supporting work. (And the corollary: Students without STEM degrees will be living in their parents' basements for the next 20 years, unless they go to an "elite" school where even students who major in Ancient Greek and/or Art History will be able to find a six-figure entry-level position in IB...because that's the goal of most people who choose such majors in the first place.)
In aggregate, #2 is true - students from elite schools do on average earn more - but that’s likely due in no small part to self-selection by those who believe #1. And the aggregate result is no guarantee of individual results.
My own additions:
My undergraduate major determines what my options for career and post-graduate study are, so if I major in the "wrong" thing it will be a disaster.
I'm better off going to the "best" school I can get into instead of the school where I will be at my personal best.
If I specialize early by majoring in Healthcare Finance or Marine Computational Genetics or Malay Peninsula Studies, that will increase my success in the job market. Finance, Biology, and International Studies are for suckers.
While there is merit to what @awcntdb said, the problem here is the kids who come in looking for a formula that will guarantee acceptance - such as if I take X AP courses and participate in Y extracurriculars, with those extracurriculars spread across some pre-determined set of activities, and earn Z on the ACT/SAT, will that ensure my acceptance into an Ivy?
Admission rate is the only measure that matters when comparing colleges' admission selectivity, or ED versus RD at a given college.
Admission rate determines what one's personal chances of admission are at the college.
College admission decisions are independent events.
The back door to admission is to indicate an unpopular major on applying and then changing to the popular major later.
You can be undecided, since you do not have to choose your major until second or third year. (Partially true, but watch out if your possible majors are oversubscribed ones that require high GPA or competitive admission to get into, or they require starting the prerequisites early.)
A college that claims to "meet full need" will give good financial aid to all students. (Consider the possibility of one or more of unfavorable institutional EFC calculation, divorced parent situations, and/or high student contribution.)
A college that claims to "meet full need" will cover everything except EFC with grants. (This assumption ignores the student contribution (student work and student loan) that is normally included; also, EFC in this case is usually the college's EFC, not the FAFSA one.)
Having a part-time or work-study job, or doing a sport, will adversely affect my studies. (True in some cases, but often the effect is a positive one.)
If it worked out / didn't work out for me under one set of circumstances, then it be the same for someone else under a completely different set of circumstances despite the fact that there is significant reason to believe that things are different now.
I haven’t really seen too many people who really take this viewpoint. There are well-paying STEM jobs and poorly-paying STEM jobs, like with any other career. The point seems to be that STEM, if it works for you, is a path that has high potential for good outcomes even for the also-rans and not just the superstars. And it also ties into one more fallacy:
Going to a top ranked school guarantees a positive career outcome regardless of what you actually do in college.
It doesn't matter what I actually do in college- what I learn, how I apply my knowledge to new topics, how I interact with my professors- as long as I get my ticket stamped.
Only losers who can't get into a sorority or get invited to lots of parties go to hear the Dalai Lama speak or attend symposia and roundtables which the loser administration of my college keeps sponsoring in a fruitless effort to keep underage kids from binge drinking.
SAT/ACT scores are the primary means of determining admission chances or student peer group quality at a college.
GAFAM companies only recruit at "top" colleges.
Family (with married parents, ordinary wage/salary income and investments) will not get financial aid anywhere but sees itself as "middle class".
ROTC is a widely available way to pay for college. (Even for those interested in being military officers, only 30% of young Americans are eligible for military service, and ROTC does not automatically mean scholarship.)
All schools in the south are full of racists or other bigots.
All schools in non-south areas are free of racists or other bigots.
Historically black schools are automatically unsuitable for non-black students.
Pell grant students are only from the poorest families. (Using FAFSA4caster, Pell grants appear to be available up to around the middle income range, though not necessarily the full Pell amount.)
[Expensive private college, which has 50% full pay and 15% Pell grant students] has good SES diversity.
“5. STEM degrees are the only path to self-supporting work. (And the corollary: Students without STEM degrees will be living in their parents’ basements for the next 20 years, unless they go to an “elite” school where even students who major in Ancient Greek and/or Art History will be able to find a six-figure entry-level position in IB…because that’s the goal of most people who choose such majors in the first place.)”
I’m a huge Dave Ramsey fan, and while Dave doesn’t ever say this implicitly on his show, it’s implied pretty heavily that majoring in anything other than a ‘useful’ major is a waste of money. What he actually says is have a plan for what you study.
Then again, Dave Ramsey would have us all ignore the private colleges and do two years of community college and finish at a state institution. That’s not always the best path for every student.