<p>DR- your posts are giving me a chuckle. Last year on CC a mom was complaining that her kid wasn’t accepted to their State’s Engineering college. He was accepted to Arts and Sciences, to which he hadn’t applied. When they called to complain, the admissions folks told them that the kid hadn’t completed the prereq’s for admissions to engineering, but that given his scores and grades, they felt he’d be a solid student, and if he could fulfill his chem, physics and calculus requirements freshman year, he could re-apply to engineering as a sophomore.</p>
<p>Well, the mom was livid. I thought it was a hoot… it’s not like engineering programs are shy about their requirements-- go the website, it’s there in black and what about what is required. The mom couldn’t understand why her kid was being kept out his desired program for lack of a few high school classes.</p>
<p>So… yes DR, people are living in gross denial. I am flabbergasted by how ignorant people choose to be… not because the colleges hide the information or are duplicitous, but because they choose to ignore facts. Every year on CC some kids will post on the parents forum, “I don’t want to take French as a senior 'cause I want to take photography… will that be a problem for college”. Well kiddo, look on the college website, and if they recommend 4 years of high school foreign language, don’t start $%^& and moaning next year when your first choice college doesn’t admit you… </p>
<p>This stuff isn’t so hard. Don’t apply to engineering school if you don’t like math enough to take it senior year (true story from my kids HS; parents were furious that CMU took a pass on the kid) and don’t apply to a Fine Arts program if you don’t have a portfolio, and don’t decide to take an extra study hall senior year so you won’t be stressed out instead of physics if you’re applying to schools who want to see “toughest curriculum taken” checked off on the little box.</p>
<p>Blossom- Well said!! You are right- it isn’t so hard to figure out- Your kid wants to go to a top 50 school- well they should have around 1400/2100 SAT’s- an A- average the most challenging courses- including all the math-physics-at least 3 years of language- a solid commitment to a few activities . Pick the schools wisely- not 6 Ivy’s, Duke, MIT and Rutgers (or Suny Bing) and yes–they need a BIT of luck.<br>
D # 2 is not your typical college confid. student- she’s more like the typical HS student- no honor classes- no Ap’s. B + student -23 ACT. She applied to 12 schools because her stats were just at the midpoint of accepted students. Her only safety was community college as all of the other admissions could have gone either way. What she was willing and able to do was to take 4 years of math- 5 years of language-4 years science (ok she didn’t take physics ). She got into 11 out of 12 schools which really surprised me. I honestly believe that she was so successful because she took solid classes and had no fluff in her schedule.<br>
I don’t know if people are in denial- or we stopped recognizing individual accomplishments of our top students. Many HS schools (based on parents wishes) try to meld all the kids together so you can’t tell one kid from the other. Most Schools don’t have class rank. You can have 40 kids in a class with GPA’s of 4.0. and the only constant comparison a college has is the SAT score. I don’t know what the solution is. The best thing we can do is pick the colleges wisely- have a few well thought out choices that your kid will be happy at and just accept the fact that not every kid who wants to get into an Ivy or other top school is going to get in.</p>
<p>You are right about some parents being in denial. Come senior year, they want their kid to get into college. BUT…have unrealistic expectations. I have had two clients who have F’s on their report card. Both had no foreign language and only one year of a lab science. One’s highest math course was algebra. Another’s is algebra two. Another student had a rank of 90th percentle. I have had several clients with SATs in the 800’s or 900’s (CR and M combined). They have GPAs of 2 point something. Oy. All of a sudden, they want help. I can’t change the stats. Their college lists are SOOOOOOO unrealistic. </p>
<p>There are colleges for all kids. But the colleges have to be an appropriate match that they can actually get INTO. Another has a 3.4 and a 1000 SAT (CR/M), has not taken the hardest curriculum offered and has barely any ECs of note and has UChicago and Northwestern on the list. I could go on and on. Their parents are all educated. Most are pretty well to do (they can afford a college counselor!). I can’t change their student’s record. THEY have to change their expecations and unrealistic college lists! Some are good about “hearing” this message. Not all are. Come April, when they only get into their safeties, well, what can I say.</p>
<p>Lots of parents (and students) don’t want to hear realistic guidance. One mom called me up about colllege counseling for her child who wanted a BFA in Musical Theater. Child had a C avg. and a 1000 on the SAT. Child really wanted NYU/Tisch (admit rate for the BFA in MT program there is about 7% and 50% of the admissions decision is based on academic review). I tried to explain this was NOT realistic (though she was welcome to try) but there were other good options out there. I could tell she did not like hearing this. Did not end up signing up for counseling after I said that. I read her D’s posts on another forum (not CC). Did not get into any of the BFA programs she applied to and is going to a nice BA by audition school. I could have fairly predicted that last September when the mom called. In my opinion, better to get the realistic picture in September, instead of in April when you have only ONE school to go to, your safety.</p>
<p>I have a question if kid is involved in 5-6 extracurricular activities and win prizes in each activity at least regional or state level or beyond? Would school penalzie him for being involved in so many activiites? Stll mainatain tougest course load and SAT/SAT II/GPA/Aps.</p>
<p>However it is draining. But he loves it all.</p>
<p>Collegein07…my feeling is no, not at all. My D who goes to Brown also was heavily involved in several ECs that were lifelong and had achievements in each area…regional or state level. While having just one or two singular passions is in vogue today with college admissions, I do believe a well rounded kid like yours can still be an attractive candidate. Your son sounds like my D in this respect. She even wrote an essay that had to do with her well rounded character and many “sides” of herself. She played it up. It is who she is, even if that is not a popular profile any more with college admissions. </p>
<p>Colleges do not like a laundry list of ECs if each EC is a minor involvement (some clubs that meet once/week with very little significant contributions or accomplishments, for example, or where a kid is a joiner and adds new ECs every year and changes around (or all of a sudden adds them junior or senior year). But for someone who has put in many years of dedication and many hours of commitment per week, along with signficant contributions to the activity and played some significant role in it, plus has achievements of note in the endeavor…is just fine, whether they do four things really well or just two. </p>
<p>Frankly, when I interview candidates for my selective alma mater college, I am continually impressed by students who excel at several ECs that are heavy duty time commitments AND still excel academically. I have met many students like this who seem outstanding to me (even if I am not the adcom! LOL) and I can appreciate the busy lifestyle that is involved in exceling in so many activities along with academics. Some kids thrive on this and wouldn’t have it any other way. If that love of the areas of passion come through, I don’t care if it is one area or four. I have a kid who had one foot in one area, another in another, an arm in another and another arm in another and she loved each area so much that she did not want to give any fo them up. Her essay mentions she wishes she was an octopus with more arms (she gave a visual for what she looked like as she left for the day each AM…all the paraphenalia and equipment, and bags for each activity she’d be going to that day and evening…looked like she was packed for a trip! and she had something on each arm, each shoulder, her back…kinda said it all about the lifestyle she likes to lead. Don’t worry about this. Your child is who he is. He need not change a thing about himself, nor should he feel she would have to. What he needs to do is to document and show who he is on the application and in interviews. He loves all these things he does…have him show it.</p>
<p>soozie,
and sometimes it’s the unrealistic student driving the engine, despite a parent’s attempt to put on the brakes. A friend of mine thanked me last year for suggesting a list of match & safety schools (& a couple of reaches) for her D. Despite parent’s best efforts, D turned around & applied to 11 reaches, with <3.5. I’m sure you can guess the results this April. (Disaster.) My own D is getting pressure – in this case from h.s. classmates who have strong ideas about which colleges are winners & which are losers. No one wants to be perceived as applying, or “needing” to apply to whatever they consider overt safeties. It was never my D’s original plan to apply to reach schools, nor certainly mine. I’m trying to ground her in reality; hopefully I’ll have some success. But I have met parents who felt they were trying to stop a train out of control. --This paragraph is in reference to your earlier post, before the question from the above parent; I was cross-posting & am re-posting with an edit. I’m not referring to this parent’s question.:)–</p>
<p>(I learned something new from your recent post. Haha, I thought that Tisch acceptance rates were 1-2%. They’re 7%? Wow, that’s “generous,” j.k. They’ve never been within our radar, so I take my hat off to anyone who can meet that bar.)</p>
<p>Anyway, sorry to anyone if I had begun to sound snippy earlier. Sometimes I weary of repeating what seems to me to be the obvious reality of reach admissions; perhaps it’s not so obvious after all. I do like calmom’s remark about the advantage of the athletic perspective. Same can be said for those who regularly enter competitions as a “way of life.” (My D’s have.) One gets used to rejection pretty early on & is not terribly fazed by it. An acceptance or a Win is relished for the moment as a surprise or as something fleeting, which may not be repeated the next time. You never get too attached to the notion of the prize or the win; it all may be good preparation for college admissions.</p>
<p>Epiphany, the 7% admit rate wasn’t referring to ALL of Tisch, but only to the BFA in MT (CAP21 studio). The admit rate to the Drama BFA studios is a little higher (though still very selective). Not sure the admit rate for Film, Dance, Dramatic Writing or Recorded music. </p>
<p>While college admissions certainly involved the whole stress of “will I be accepted”, etc. …I can tell you it doesn’t end there…there are summer jobs to hope to be selected for, grad school, etc. And then for my theater kid, it is one constant audition after another…she has been to many just in the past few weeks alone. Her field is wrought with rejection. So, if your D is involved in something that has competition of some sort involved…sports, auditioning, award/competitions, it all is a bit like college admissions. When D2 was auditioning for colleges last year, I said, "well, you are used to this…you’ve auditioned a zillion times in your life, " but she remarked, “yeah, but this time much more is riding on the line…the whole next four years!” I couldn’t do what she does. I can say from the side lines, that even though we’re through with college admissions, I’m constantly waiting to hear the results of this application or audition to do X or Y from the kids…it really never ends. Like your kids, my kids do not get upset over a rejection to this or that. Disappointed, sure, but they just have self confidence and have to pick themselves up and keep going. They are realistic and know you can’t win 'em all.</p>
I agree with the overall comments in post #322 – but I think this statement is exactly why the colleges should not try to spell out minimum criteria for admission when the reality is that they follow a more holistic approach. My d. applied to and was accepted at 4 top 50 schools and waitlisted at another with sigificantly lower test scores-- of course we knew that they were reaches for her, but obviously it would have been a mistake to focus on a single criterion. My daughter also fell short on the “including all the math-physics” part too. </p>
<p>I still think information is readily available – but part of the information is the fact that most top colleges are looking at the big picture. A kid with unusual strengths in some areas may be a viable candidate for admission when another kid with stronger “stats” isn’t. The more we focus on the process as if it were a formulaic approach to the students academic record and resume, the less the process can be understood. It’s like trying to define what good art is – we know it when we see it. There is a certain “wow” factor that can put someone in the “accept” pile even if on paper they don’t look all that special.</p>
<p>Calmom, Frankly, I don’t see why schools can’t demystify the admission process for their schools. There has to be a reason that an 800/750 4.0 student gets rejected over a 3.9 GPA with 740/740 SATS.</p>
<p>It could be due to the essay,but kids with top GPAs and top scores probably have strong essays and recommendations. Thus, it is probably something more.</p>
<p>Perhaps I am a cynic, but I suspect top schools don’t elaborate on the factors because it involves something more sinister. </p>
<p>For example, in the 1940s and 1950s, Jews were getting accepted into top schools in numbers that the top schools didn’t want. Thus, they adopted a “holistic” apprroach, and suddenly the jewish representation in these same schools dropped!</p>
<p>Today, there is a big Asian influx of kids with top scores. I am also wondering if the same “discrimination” isn’t happening, in part, to these kids. Perhaps there are other forms of discrimination going on such as more emphasis on private school kids or more affirmative action that many top schools don’t want the public to know about.</p>
<p>If nothing sinister were happending, why isn’t there even one book written by former top admission’s officers showing why a top kid got rejected for another kid? They could elaborate on case studies of what it took to get admitted into their schools. Sadlly, I know of no such book that really does this.</p>
<p>“…most top colleges are looking at the big picture. A kid with unusual strengths in some areas may be a viable candidate for admission when another kid with stronger “stats” isn’t. The more we focus on the process as if it were a formulaic approach to the students academic record and resume, the less the process can be understood. It’s like trying to define what good art is – we know it when we see it. There is a certain “wow” factor that can put someone in the “accept” pile even if on paper they don’t look all that special.”</p>
<p>This, this is the key. Students (and parents) who want the kind of formulaic approach to college admissions that many posters seem to be demanding can get this by applying to many state schools. Though, this kind of formulaic approach with certain points given to racial status is what got Univ of Mich’s undergrad program in trouble a couple of years ago. There will ALWAYS be kids with lower “stats” accepted at almost every college accepted over kids with higher stats. Last year at my D’s school, the valedictorian with 1600 SAT and 36 ACT got rejected from 7/8 Ivy League schools to which he applied, while many kids with “lower” stats got in. He was Asian. He also did NOTHING but study. No extracurriculars except playing violin last chair in the school orchestra. I would hypothesize that the kid with “lower” stats who started a city-wide creative writing program with high school kids mentoring 5th graders who DID get multiple Ivy acceptances would NOT fit into this formulaic approach. But would certainly add a great deal to a class. </p>
<p>IMO, these schools are not engaged in some sinister conspiracy to keep kids OUT of these schools. They are committed to finding the RIGHT kid to round out their class.</p>
<p>Don’t know if this will help or not but I thought I’d throw it out there.</p>
<p>I think some people are viewing the admissions process at the very most selective schools (and for me that includes just a handful or two) as a contest, a race, a fight, a football game. It is actually more akin to a decision to marry. There are certain quantifiable factors that go into the process but it still comes down to the decision “Do you want to spend a significant portion of your life with them?” and for that we have no formula. At least to some extent, it’s romance.;)</p>
<p>Things have really changed since my older S applied to colleges only 7-8 years ago. Despite being highly educated, we had absolutely no clues about where to look for info, or that Fiske’s and other guides existed much less how to prepare for the SAT, how to write application essays, etc… Thank goodness S had a terrific GC and a teacher who made students write application essays. S got into great colleges recommended by the GC. By the time S2 was ready to apply, we’d more or less got the hang of the process and I discovered that colleges had their websites. I also discovered CC. I’m just wondering how many families are still as clueless as we were just a few years ago. This is particularly true of first-generation college kids (NOT our situation!).
For what it’s worth, I’ve never opened a Fiske or Peterson guide.
As for the pressure from peers to apply to certain colleges, I don’t think my kids ever found out which colleges their friends applied to (“Mom, we have more interesting things to talk about” “Like what?” “Well, the latest episode of our favorite anime show.”)</p>
<p>I won’t rehash what has already been discussed, taxguy, but I think quiltguru’s and curmudgeon’s replies say in a different but parallel way what has been argued more analytically, perhaps. And I’m not meaning at all to be critical or when I say that a screenname of “taxguy” perhaps indicates a tendency to be have more numerical expectations with regard to admissions, and to have it all “compute” and “reconcile.” If so, I certainly understand that. But the reconciling, or the ultimate product or quotient relative to each applicant (and more importantly to the freshman class as a whole) is more qualititative than quantitative. That 4.0/2400 who <em>did</em> get accepted brought some quality to those stats that his or her quantitative equal (who got rejected) did not. That quality was not necessarily something fuzzy & undefinable, although it could have been; it could also have been a more defined description of his intellectual potential (through a rec, an essay, a personal achievement) than the rejected student with the same stats. The same principal applies to what you see as the disparity you just described. There is indeed an assigned value, which is assumed, not necessarily computed, to factors other than GPA & scores.</p>
<p>Btw, my D does NOT talk mostly about college admissions. Rarely in fact. She’s mentioned it exactly twice in 2 yrs. It’s just that when the rising juniors have their class meetings, the subject comes up, & she picks up on the dominant theme because she’s a normal teenager.</p>
<p>Taxguy,
I think it is readily apparent why the kid with the 3.9, etc. got in over the kid with the 4.0, etc. in your sample above. Selective colleges fully explain that they look at the whole child, not just the scores and GPA. (much less selective colleges are more numbers driven as the main criteria for admissions) Yes, the scores and GPA need to be in range of the numbers of accepted students in the past (all published information), but once they are, that is good enough and they weigh all the other things…ECs, achievements, recs, essays, personal qualities, etc. As well they have institutional needs…ex) diversity by race, geography, intended majors, intended ECs, etc. They are building a group. Johnny may be taken over Susie, not because Johnny is better than Susie but Johnny may want to go into Classics, is from Hawaii, plays the tuba and Susie is from Westchester County, NY, wants to major in English, and sings in choral groups. Or Johnny’s recs talk about outstanding personal qualities and he was also very impressive in the interview. Further, Johnny visited campus and met with the Classic professor and wrote on his application very specific reasons why going to this college made it a good fit for him and it was his first choice school. However, Susie’s recs don’t come across as unusual or bring up some issue about her personality at school, and she was also very quiet and not forthcoming except basic answers in the interview and expressed no specific reason for wanting to attend this college and never visited either. Can you publish all these deliberations? Colleges already explain the qualities they are looking for, not just the test scores and other numbers. Subjective qualities can’t be quantified and published but they do explain the areas that they will be examining.</p>
<p>Further, I can’t recall which thread on here recently but someone posted actual deliberations from an admissions committee from an article and it really showed what does go on. Also books like the Gatekeepers give an inside view.</p>
<p>PS…Quiltguru, had not seen your post but completely agree.</p>
<p>Soozie, Amherst’s deliberations were one of the links. There could have been another one after that. I didn’t think the Amherst one was the best example, (because the stated or quoted rationales for acceptances either seemed “off” or were articulated well) but I also have seen other ones that demonstrate what many of us have been talking about. (Compensating factors, whole person, whole class considerations, the student as a person, etc.)</p>
Because it isn’t based on the numbers and never has been. Why can’t people get that? Stastistically to the school there is no difference between those two students – they both have top range SAT scores & GPAs. The admissions people glance at those things and think: “top student, o.k.” </p>
<p>Then they look at the rest of the package. They are thinking, “what does this student offer to our school?” Grades and test scores are irrelevant, because they are all the same. They don’t care about the difference between a 740 and 800, any more than I care whether it is 75 or 85 degrees outside when I am deciding whether to wear a sweater: either way its hot enough for me to be out in short sleeves.</p>
<p>“Then they look at the rest of the package. They are thinking, “what does this student offer to our school?” Grades and test scores are irrelevant, because they are all the same. They don’t care about the difference between a 740 and 800, any more than I care whether it is 75 or 85 degrees outside when I am deciding whether to wear a sweater: either way its hot enough for me to be out in short sleeves.”</p>
<p>Calmom, I agree. The problem with so much of this numbers reasoning that I see constantly on the student threads on CC, is that it is not just about numbers. And even with regard to the numbers, it is not a contest where the highest numbers “win”. At selective colleges, one must have the numbers in the BALLPARK for that school. It is not crucial or doesn’t matter if someone has a 1540 or a 1470 because both numbers are in range for that school. So, they look over the app, see the test scores and go, “check, got that”. Same with other numbers. Higher doesn’t always win over lower with respect to the numbers. If many candidates have numbers in the right ballpark and better yet, if they have good numbers in the test scores, rank, and GPA and courseload, then they are in the running. But big problem, MORE kids are in the running than they have slots for. So, if you have the numbers, you make the first cut. GREAT! You must be in the ballpark, no question. Then, start over and vie for the next round of callbacks (sorry, I have a theater kid and frankly, this ain’t all that different…in theater, you have to have the talent and be able to sing, act, and dance to make it to the final callbacks but after that point, lots rides on factors beyond your control…looks/type/age/haircolor/height and then who else is going to be cast and if you fit a need in that cast or look right with the others who are cast, etc.) So, you do need to be in range to make it to the final cut process but after that, other things come into play. Believe me, my kid has been there and done that at the highest levels. That’s how that works. So, does college admissions. My kids knew that. My D who applied to top colleges, KNEW she had the qualifications but she KNEW that didn’t mean she’d get in but that she’d be considered but if she didn’t get in, she didn’t chalk it up to not being good enough but knew there were circumstances beyond her control as to who fit which slot in the class and she might get picked and she might not but she was good enough to get in. And if that was the case, then if she didn’t get into a particular college, she would get into others and she did. The top schools will tell you they could have filled the class at least a second time over and have had just as good a class as the first group chosen. A qualified student just may not be picked for that grouping. That’s why we see top students admitted to X college but not to Y college which is as equally selective or even less selective. It goes with the territory. We knew this game before we entered it. Our expectations were accordingly with the situation of the state of selective college admissions and the low admit rates, etc. I don’t need a reason why my kid did not get into Yale or why my other kid didn’t get into the BFA program at UMichigan. We never expected them to get into every school but knew they had the “goods” to get into some and indeed, they did get into some, and in fact, way more than we ever thought possible. But we understood that selective admissions has an unpredictable nature to it even if you have the “goods”.</p>
<p>"If nothing sinister were happending, why isn’t there even one book written by former top admission’s officers showing why a top kid got rejected for another kid? They could elaborate on case studies of what it took to get admitted into their schools. Sadlly, I know of no such book that really does this.</p>
<p>Rachel Toor’s books look at exactly this. “The Gatekeepers,” by a NY Times reporter who was allowed to report on Wesleyan’s admissions decisions – including talking with students who applied, accompanying the admissions officers, reading files, etc. – also provides an in depth overview, including detailed case studies that include real namesof students, their background information, ad officers comments’ and admissions decisions.</p>
perhaps indicates a tendency to be have more numerical expectations with regard to admissions, and to have it all “compute” and “reconcile.” If so, I certainly understand that. But the reconciling, or the ultimate product or quotient relative to each applicant (and more importantly to the freshman class as a whole) is more qualititative than quantitative. That 4.0/2400 who <em>did</em> get accepted brought some quality to those stats that his or her quantitative equal (who got rejected) did not. That quality was not necessarily something fuzzy & undefinable, although it could have been; it could also have been a more defined description of his intellectual potential (through a rec, an essay, a personal achievement) than the rejected student with the same stats. The same principal applies to what you see as the disparity you just described. There is indeed an assigned value, which is assumed, not necessarily computed, to factors other than GPA & scores.</p>