If you kid got into their reach school what do think helped?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD at top 3 SLAC. Perfect grades, high test scores, one outstanding recommendation ("best student I ever had..."), interesting ECs, ED2, full pay, not from the DC area.

Again that was not a reach situation

The top 3 LACs (and a bit beyond beyond) are a reach for everyone and reject plenty of kids with stats like that. They are also need blind so full pay has no effect.

It's the OP that references full pay as a "help."

The enrollment managers and admin staff know who is full pay. Don't be naive.

You're a conspiracy theorist? Can you provide some evidence for your entirely unsubstantiated claim?

The FACT is that need blind colleges are ABSOLUTELY NEED BLIND IN ADMISSIONS, and they can be because the vast majority of top applicants are affluent. The don't consider FA and they don't have to. So being full pay is absolutely no benefit over the other candidates.


There has never been one iota of evidence otherwise.

All colleges know who the full pay applicants are. That's why a lot of mediocre rich kids get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD at top 3 SLAC. Perfect grades, high test scores, one outstanding recommendation ("best student I ever had..."), interesting ECs, ED2, full pay, not from the DC area.

Again that was not a reach situation

The top 3 LACs (and a bit beyond beyond) are a reach for everyone and reject plenty of kids with stats like that. They are also need blind so full pay has no effect.

It's the OP that references full pay as a "help."

The enrollment managers and admin staff know who is full pay. Don't be naive.

You're a conspiracy theorist? Can you provide some evidence for your entirely unsubstantiated claim?

The FACT is that need blind colleges are ABSOLUTELY NEED BLIND IN ADMISSIONS, and they can be because the vast majority of top applicants are affluent. The don't consider FA and they don't have to. So being full pay is absolutely no benefit over the other candidates.


There has never been one iota of evidence otherwise.

All colleges know who the full pay applicants are. That's why a lot of mediocre rich kids get in.

No, this is false. Need aware schools know who is asking for financial aid. Need Blind colleges do not consider need when accepting applicants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need-blind_admission

https://blog.prepscholar.com/need-blind-colleges-list

These are facts that no evidence has ever been shown against, and not one adcom has ever said thet they knew when they didn't, despite thousands of current and former.

There are a very small number of development admit - references from large donors - but that number is extremely small compared to the general population, and controlled by the development office and not the admissions office.

I will repeat again: need blind colleges are need blind in admissions, so you do not have to worry that applying for financial aid will hurt you there. It will not.

[Anonymous]

Art Portfolio

My kid is very talented in art, and looked around schools for CS + Art combination

Northeastern has CS & Media Art combined major, and it accepts a few pieces of art portfolio although not required.

Had good SAT 1540, but little weaker GPA for an Asian.
I think Art portfolio probably gave it a boost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Art Portfolio

My kid is very talented in art, and looked around schools for CS + Art combination

Northeastern has CS & Media Art combined major, and it accepts a few pieces of art portfolio although not required.

Had good SAT 1540, but little weaker GPA for an Asian.
I think Art portfolio probably gave it a boost.

How many ( and what type of) pieces did you submit?

Was it part of the application requirements, or was the portfolio a supplement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Art Portfolio

My kid is very talented in art, and looked around schools for CS + Art combination

Northeastern has CS & Media Art combined major, and it accepts a few pieces of art portfolio although not required.

Had good SAT 1540, but little weaker GPA for an Asian.
I think Art portfolio probably gave it a boost.

How many ( and what type of) pieces did you submit?

Was it part of the application requirements, or was the portfolio a supplement?

It wasn't a requirement, but a portfolio supplement.
However it fitted very nicely with the major CS + Media Art.
Submitted 6 pieces ranging from traditional object drawing to digital art
Kid also had a couple of EC related to art and state level award on art.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Art Portfolio

My kid is very talented in art, and looked around schools for CS + Art combination

Northeastern has CS & Media Art combined major, and it accepts a few pieces of art portfolio although not required.

Had good SAT 1540, but little weaker GPA for an Asian.
I think Art portfolio probably gave it a boost.

How many ( and what type of) pieces did you submit?

Was it part of the application requirements, or was the portfolio a supplement?

It wasn't a requirement, but a portfolio supplement.
However it fitted very nicely with the major CS + Media Art.
Submitted 6 pieces ranging from traditional object drawing to digital art
Kid also had a couple of EC related to art and state level award on art.

Thanks for the info. Congrats to your family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD at top 3 SLAC. Perfect grades, high test scores, one outstanding recommendation ("best student I ever had..."), interesting ECs, ED2, full pay, not from the DC area.

Again that was not a reach situation

The top 3 LACs (and a bit beyond beyond) are a reach for everyone and reject plenty of kids with stats like that. They are also need blind so full pay has no effect.

It's the OP that references full pay as a "help."

The enrollment managers and admin staff know who is full pay. Don't be naive.

You're a conspiracy theorist? Can you provide some evidence for your entirely unsubstantiated claim?

The FACT is that need blind colleges are ABSOLUTELY NEED BLIND IN ADMISSIONS, and they can be because the vast majority of top applicants are affluent. The don't consider FA and they don't have to. So being full pay is absolutely no benefit over the other candidates.


There has never been one iota of evidence otherwise.

All colleges know who the full pay applicants are. That's why a lot of mediocre rich kids get in.

This is not always the case, but I have seen it once or twice i n my decades. Depends on the parents, really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD at top 3 SLAC. Perfect grades, high test scores, one outstanding recommendation ("best student I ever had..."), interesting ECs, ED2, full pay, not from the DC area.

Again that was not a reach situation

The top 3 LACs (and a bit beyond beyond) are a reach for everyone and reject plenty of kids with stats like that. They are also need blind so full pay has no effect.

It's the OP that references full pay as a "help."

The enrollment managers and admin staff know who is full pay. Don't be naive.

You're a conspiracy theorist? Can you provide some evidence for your entirely unsubstantiated claim?

The FACT is that need blind colleges are ABSOLUTELY NEED BLIND IN ADMISSIONS, and they can be because the vast majority of top applicants are affluent. The don't consider FA and they don't have to. So being full pay is absolutely no benefit over the other candidates.


There has never been one iota of evidence otherwise.

All colleges know who the full pay applicants are. That's why a lot of mediocre rich kids get in.

This is not always the case, but I have seen it once or twice i n my decades. Depends on the parents, really.

No, it depends on one or two things:

1 Is the college need-blind or need-aware? If "need aware", goto 2
2 How did you answer the question regarding need based aid?

That's the whole program.

[Anonymous]

Five previous generations had attended with no break.

[Anonymous]

Child was accepted to Yale and Princeton, he only applied to those two and Williams and Bowdoin only applied to those two SLAC. I believe he was accepted because he is an overall well rounded student and doesn’t fall into STEM or Humanities bucket only. His advice is always to be yourself, do things you enjoy and not for a resume, and your authenticity will shine through.

[Anonymous]

Eagle Scout. Also had taken NVCC courses during the summer between junior and senior year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And money + URM is the golden ticket.

This was the golden ticket, now it's high stat First Gen or white male.

Are you being sarcastic?

I have noticed the disparities in male vs. female applicants in the common data sets. Is being a male really consider an advantage at this point?

Yes. The advantage for males is slight, but real.

But not in top 10-top 20 schools. It's been documented at the top schools they have no problem balancing gender because large numbers of qualified males and females apply in equal numbers.

When you start going down in rankings below #30 it slowly starts giving a very tiny advantage.

At the SLACs the disparity is huge, even at the top

There’s a disparity in number of applicants at some, but a disparity in quality of enrolled students based on gender is very unlikely and would be news to me. Diminishing returns after a point.

Explain this to me. If you have 8000 more female applicants than male applicants and the schools aim to have evenly split classes, how is it not an advantage to be a male applicant when the percentage of acceptances is necessarily higher?

I too would love to have this explained to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And money + URM is the golden ticket.

This was the golden ticket, now it's high stat First Gen or white male.

Are you being sarcastic?

I have noticed the disparities in male vs. female applicants in the common data sets. Is being a male really consider an advantage at this point?

Yes. The advantage for males is slight, but real.

But not in top 10-top 20 schools. It's been documented at the top schools they have no problem balancing gender because large numbers of qualified males and females apply in equal numbers.

When you start going down in rankings below #30 it slowly starts giving a very tiny advantage.

At the SLACs the disparity is huge, even at the top

There’s a disparity in number of applicants at some, but a disparity in quality of enrolled students based on gender is very unlikely and would be news to me. Diminishing returns after a point.

Explain this to me. If you have 8000 more female applicants than male applicants and the schools aim to have evenly split classes, how is it not an advantage to be a male applicant when the percentage of acceptances is necessarily higher?

I too would love to have this explained to me.

There is just that big a divide at the top 10 schools (none of which are SLACs).

[Anonymous]

Definitely national recognition at a sport. Strong ec's, ED, and full pay prob helped.

[Anonymous]

Pandemic Year was senior year of high school--was wait listed at multiple tippy top SLACs and Ivies. Ended up at Ivy. Chaos that year was a big benefit--I think people taking gap years caused the waitlist to move more than usual.