<p>No, I was thinking that if she is interested in math/econ that she should consider looking at becoming an actuary. Females are few and far between in that field and the Society of Actuaries has a nice list of programs at various schools across the nation that have programs. It’s a good way to narrow down the search process. Since your son is in MN, if she would be interested in this route, I would suggest she look at St. Thomas or University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. Both are reasonable distance from Carleton, she would be a good candidate for a lot of merit aid from St. Thomas making it very affordable. Eau Claire has one of the better programs around, pretty campus and again, affordable. I’m a huge fan of LAC’s and the assumption that they don’t have “business degrees” is just silly. Any of the MIAC schools (conference that Carleton is in) would be good fits for her.</p>
<p>If you look at the Society of Actuaries site, there will be a list of schools under the education tab. There are 3 levels of programs, the distinction between the 3 is mainly size, they all offer about the same amount of progress toward the actuarial tests.</p>
<p>Visiting a college is always a good idea before applying to it, let alone reaches, but I would be wary of visiting a reach with my kids to motivate the kids. But… if it can provide kids with a sense of how would the life at a reach be, go for it.</p>
<p>Visiting Babson may be helpful clarification that not all small schools are alike. I think the vibe vs. Wellesley will be striking even though they are a few miles down the road from each other.</p>
<p>I don’t think your D has to have any clue what she wants to do professionally-- and this will be a good exploration for all of you. Some of the top actuary programs are at schools which sound exactly what your D is NOT looking for- but maybe learning about their programs will help her learning curve.</p>
<p>I agree with all the good advice about your daughter’s current chances at Wellesley, Wes, Vassar, etc. (does my heart good to see “Wellesley” so much in one thread outside the subforum!). I also agree with advice to try the ACT next. Although I do agree with the suggestion that merely completing her junior year may cause your D’s SAT scores to zip up, the fact that she has already had a prep class and shown improvement tempers that hope a bit for me (In addition to anecdotal experience, I teach test-prep classes, including both the ACT and the SAT). </p>
<p>As far as other schools to be interested in, you got Smith but someone also suggested Mount Holyoke as a possibility. Both are more forgiving than Wellesley but your D won’t be an at a disadvantage for being a D and not an S as she will generally be at co-ed LACs. I looked up Bryn Mawr’s admissions stats and it looks like right now it would still be a reach, but a more realistic one than Wellesley et al. Did anyone suggest St. Olaf–you don’t even have to leave Northfield, and they have a cracking (almost) new science building! [Inside ball–my father was one of the main architects. Did Beloit too!]. My father also did some work at Earlham College and I’ve heard lots of positive things about it. A quick search suggests that your daughter would be right at the median SAT score. Oh, and it appears to be test optional. </p>
<p>I was a math/econ double major. I strongly believe that one should major in the area(s) in which one is interested, but I will say that one can take a math and/or econ degree many, many places. Of course you can and should inquire at the colleges you and your D visit about the professions their graduates end up in, but I would not be unduly concerned about math/econ at a LAC in the least.</p>
<p>Also, if one wants to become an actuary one needn’t have majored in actuarial science–one can study for and pass the tests on one’s own. My mother kept suggesting it to me and I briefly considered it but it was a lot of work for something I wasn’t particularly interested in. Obviously if your D KNEW she wanted to be an actuary a school with a program would be better, but I just wanted to mention that not having an undergraduate degree does not seem to preclude one from the profession.</p>
<p>advantagious–no, you don’t have to major in actuarial science, math major is fine, however, schools with actuarial sciences help you study for the tests–and often pay for your tests if you pass. You will also have classmates doing the same tests, etc. and they have great connections for internships, etc. DS is considering this field. It was very encouraging to visit these schools, take to seniors in the major to find out that in November they ALL had jobs lined up for May graduation :D. Without an actuarial science department, you just have to do a lot more work on your own, nothing too major, but just one less thing you need to do.</p>
<p>Oh certainly–after researching the actuarial exams I can absolutely see the benefits of a dedicated program if it is something you are interested in. Plus a job lined up in the fall, enough said! I think it is a good suggestion for something to look into, especially as the actuarial profession is one that many high school students may not be familiar with. But I have to put in my plug for math and/or econ as well!</p>
<p>This has already been pointed out multiple times, but I want to reiterate: These people are non-native speakers who get a pass on the CR section, outstanding math/science whizzes (as in, Olympic medallists and similar), and/or members of special categories of applicants, such as URMs, athletes, legacies, development admits, etc.</p>
<p>A white, middle-class, non-immigrant girl with no hooks has virtually no chance at the likes of Wesleyan and Vassar with an SAT score below 2000, which renders visiting them pointless.</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with her score, which is indeed above the national average. But you’ll be doing your daughter a disservice if you cling to far-fetched scenarios of her getting into Vassar or Wellesley without improving her SAT score by at least 250 points. The statistical likelihood of that happening is in reality far slimmer than the percentages you quote above–which are already far too low to pin one’s hopes on.</p>
<p>Bowdoin and Mount Holyoke sound like good reaches for her, since they are both test-optional (maybe Mount Holyoke is only test-optional for internationals? I forget) and full of driven, ambitious people. If you want her to apply to brand names, push for these two. If Mount Holyoke isn’t test-optional, try Bard. I’d suggest deferring to her on the issue of what the rest of her list should look like. Otherwise you’ll likely set both of you up for disappointment.</p>
<p>Other schools I’d suggest include URichmond, Bucknell, Lafayette, Occidental and Skidmore. Maybe Union? Smith would be a reach, though not as much of one as Wellesley.</p>
<p>Personally, I think it would be depressing and could be a BIG turn off for a student to visit campuses where chances of admission were slim to none. When we toured schools, we only went to one that I considered a reach, Stanford. We did tour because my SIL (who was driving) wanted to tour it and thought it would be a good match for S. It made sense to me and S (and D who accompanied us to many of the Us) to see the other schools we visited, since he they were matches for him and gave him a better sense of what different campuses and areas of the country were like.</p>
<p>S, D, and I found the visits interesting but tiring and I honestly see no good purpose served in touring Us that are a huge reach for students, unless the STUDENT wants to see it for whatever reason. I feel that U visits are somewhat over-rated and over-valued.</p>
<p>I don’t like the idea of visiting reach schools where admission is unlikely. Many reach schools are just too appealing and can make match/safety schools look like a Ford Focus compared to a Lexus. (no insult to the Ford Focus. )</p>
<p>I don’t like doing things that might negatively impact morale and attitude about the school the student may end up having to attend because the “better” schools rejected her. </p>
<p>Unless a school is “test optional” or she has some hook, I don’t see these top schools overlooking her SAT score. The fact is, with so many applicants, they just don’t need to.</p>
<p>I think it depends on your kid. My older D visited Washington University in St. Louis and thought it was amazing. She purchased a t-shirt at their bookstore and wore it when she studied for and took the ACT as motivation (her idea).</p>
<p>Both my kids really enjoyed visiting colleges, even ones they didn’t want to apply to, but had heard of. When S was in Boston visiting his sister and touring area colleges, he toured MIT and Harvard, not because he had any intention of applying, but because he wanted to see them. He loved MIT, by the way! Also wanted to see “Touchdown Jesus” at Notre Dame and Krzyzewskiville at Duke, due to his extensive ESPN viewing. </p>
<p>I think as long as your D applies to a range of schools appropriate to her final test scores, visiting reach schools (if she wants to) won’t hurt anything. And they could be helpful in determining what kind of school she wants. S started looking at big schools where he could be a sports spectator, but decided he wanted to attend a very small school, which surprised all of us.</p>
<p>My S really loved Lafayette, Brandeis, and the University of Richmond, by the way. Never made it to Knox, but know some students who are very happy there.</p>
<p>I would build the school list like an upside down diamond shape, have a lot more reaches and fewer safeties, especially if finance is not as much of consideration. As long as she is happy with few safeties then it should be sufficient. Probability of getting into reaches is lower, by definition you would need more in order to get into one (assuming her stats get her at least a seat on the table).</p>
<p>It takes more than just good GPA to get that first job. She needs to make sure that companies recruit at the school she is attending. I can think of some top LACs that have very poor career services. I always encourage people to visit school’s career center to find out graduate school/job placements.</p>
<p>The time to motivate students is first year in high school or college. If you wait until junior year then everything is written in stone already, especially when it comes to GPA. D2 has the aspiration of going to a top law school some day. We just showed her what stats are necessary to get into those schools. She is very motivated as a freshman in college. We did the same with our kids when they were in high school.</p>
<p>I would show her schools where her GPA is within range (something she can’t change now), and needing higher test scores. I think with good tutoring and hard work, test scores can be raised. D1 was not a reader. Her CR was lower than her math score. She double majored math/econ in college. She did well enough to get a job after graduation.</p>
<p>Two thoughts. My S certainly responded and stepped up his work habits after college visiting with his sister. We were mainly looking for her, but he fell in love and is still working hard. He was the consummate slacker…
Also, FWIW, D is a great student with scores which we worried would hold her back- even after test prep for 6 months. She reluctantly re- took the SAT in November (had to do subject tests in October) and her scores went up rather dramatically. 140 points in M & CR alone. There may be something to the idea that kids’ scores rise between jr and sr year. She definitely didn’t study; to much other stuff going on in the fall.
OP, good luck. Do trust that your child will end up in a good place.</p>
<p>Regarding “Match”, there’s a great new book out now about disadvantaged URMs who are accepted in “high reach” colleges. I don’t recall title, unfortunately. Seems that many of these disadvantaged students receiving preferential enrollment enter college with much lower than other accepted students’ average GPAs, scores, and academic rigor coursework. Authors felt that most “high reach” colleges actively recruit disadvantaged students, but once enrolled, those students founder because the academic “leap” is so profound and struggle to remain enrolled. School’s self-reported stats usually show this trend; book gave many specific examples. (Book doesn’t address recruited URM athletes, which is another story altogether.) </p>
<p>Federally-subsidized TRIO programs address student retention for low-income, 1st generation, and LD students, and a wide variety of colleges and universities are enrolled in program. TRIO involves a concerted effort to provide some degree of support to disadvantaged students, but it requires separate application and acceptance to be enrolled in program.</p>
<p>Book also noted that “college success” improves when student fits the “upper 50%” academic profile, rather than the “lower 50%” profile for incoming freshmen. I thought that was an interesting recommendation. Authors felt students who are at “25% percentile” are at great risk for academic failure or protracted college duration due to academic problems.</p>
<p>Also, certain relatives strongly encouraged DS to apply to “super reach” ultra-prestigious university, claiming clout with admissions department, perhaps to exercise their influence and pad their ego. We thought it cruel to do so, because neither his GPA nor his scores would suggest “good fit”. He’d have been the “15% percentile” normally reserved for disadvantaged students (and perhaps legacies). A legacy URM girl (high income household) from DS’ HS was accepted ED at same university, with stats only slightly higher than his. I wonder at wisdom of such a “super reach” choice when she’s actually struggling to make grades during next four years. This particular school has become far more selective in past twenty years.</p>
<p>we never took official tours at colleges, but the worm had spent a few weeks during summers at Duke, FL state, and another big U. When visiting Boston, when he was 13, we went by a few Cambridge colleges. Same with Stanford when in CA. When applying, the worm didn’t want any college he had spent time in, and preferred smaller school. By applying “blind”, there was no favorite.</p>
<p>When acceptances came in, I took off a week from work and we visited 3 colleges. He would have been happy at 2 of them.</p>
<p>Your influence is powerful, cc posters. D and I have decided to drop Wes and Vassar from the Feb trip and to add Bates. I am happy to have a more balanced trip planned with Bates, Bowdoin and Wellesley on the itinerary, and still plenty of time to visit family over the weekend. Thank you for your input and guidance.</p>
<p>“Regarding “Match”, there’s a great new book out now about disadvantaged URMs who are accepted in “high reach” colleges. I don’t recall title, unfortunately. Seems that many of these disadvantaged students receiving preferential enrollment enter college with much lower than other accepted students’ average GPAs, scores, and academic rigor coursework. Authors felt that most “high reach” colleges actively recruit disadvantaged students, but once enrolled, those students founder because the academic “leap” is so profound and struggle to remain enrolled. School’s self-reported stats usually show this trend; book gave many specific examples. (Book doesn’t address recruited URM athletes, which is another story altogether.)”</p>
<p>I don’t see any of those things fitting in the OP’s D profile, except the slightly low CR score on her PSAT. </p>
<p>The reach schools the OP would like her D to look at will view her holistically - with most of the emphasis on her GPA and course rigor. Given the results of the Bates study between submitters and non submitters (who’s scores averaged 160 pts lower,) regarding freshman GPA and retention rate, I believe these schools are pretty spot on when determining which students will succeed at their schools. If OP’s D is accepted to any, imo, the OP’s daughter will likely do just fine.</p>
<p>Btw, when you do look at freshman scores for a test-optional school, you have to remember that that’s only kids whose scores were high enough that they reported them, with their app.</p>
)</p>