What has surprised you - as your kid comes to the end of this process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That it's really easy to get into college if you're a good student with pretty good scores but not top scores (in this case a 1400). My ds got in everywhere he applied but one college as a normal kid who picked easier APs and enjoyed his life without stress. I was so worried and thought it would be a lot harder than it was.

Honestly this is only true if he went to a not very competitive public high school or a private school that universities like.

They didn’t say what colleges he got into so how can you make that statement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t waste your money on a college counselor, instead save your money and find a smart college student to review essays . At the school you’re applying. Works wonders they know about the programs. And how to make the why my school stand out

I’d actually qualify this as “Don’t waste your money on JUST ANY college counselor.” I found DC’s to be invaluable - she had far more insider knowledge than a college student who has only their own data point to offer.

can you share name? no one will accuse you of dropping names here.

I’m sorry, but yes, I would be. My advice to secure a knowledgeable IEC is only worth anything amidst the anonymity of this forum is because people know with certainty that I’m not shilling. Your best bet is to discreetly ask parents at your DC’s school. Satisfied parents are the best referral, plus this will ensure that your IEC is experienced in the local context where your DC is competing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hooks matter more than anything else at the top 20 schools, and especially the Ivies. A kid at the top of the class, with perfect grades and scores and impressive, unique ECs, will almost always lose out to a kid without those things who has a hook. I heard this so many times but did not fully absorb it without personal experience.

This is a false but common narrative on DCUM. Unhooked candidates do not lose out to "less qualified" hooked candidates. They lose out to other academically qualified candidates who align with an institutional priority.

Families refuse to accept that the top schools don't really care about 'peak academics'. Once an academic bar has been reached they care about their priorities which means that 4.0UW with a 1590 isn't any more interesting than 3.95UW with a 1540 in their admissions process. And they are correct, in real life those kids are academically indistinguishable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:‘24. The role of hooks, narratives, and packaging.

This really resonated with me.
It's all about sales in the end. All those endless flyers and emails from various schools. Even College Board is more about selling (your data) than about testing ('adaptive' computerized test - how is that a standardized test?).
I can't tell you how many mailers we got from U Chicago hoping my kid would apply just so they can up their application numbers and decrease their yield.
All these organizations are trying to sell.
It's no surprise that the student has to do some hard selling too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hooks matter more than anything else at the top 20 schools, and especially the Ivies. A kid at the top of the class, with perfect grades and scores and impressive, unique ECs, will almost always lose out to a kid without those things who has a hook. I heard this so many times but did not fully absorb it without personal experience.

This is a false but common narrative on DCUM. Unhooked candidates do not lose out to "less qualified" hooked candidates. They lose out to other academically qualified candidates who align with an institutional priority.

Families refuse to accept that the top schools don't really care about 'peak academics'. Once an academic bar has been reached they care about their priorities which means that 4.0UW with a 1590 isn't any more interesting than 3.95UW with a 1540 in their admissions process. And they are correct, in real life those kids are academically indistinguishable.

Agree 100%
At our school, that can go down to 3.8 (for T11-20) and 1480 or 33.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. Where you go to grad/professional school is more important than where you go to college for career trajectory.

2. Mental health going into college is key for freshman year to go well. Do not go to college burned out or on fumes. Being emotionally stable and strong and going to a medium prestige school is better long-term than obsessively chasing high stats to chase a high prestige school.

3. We the parents are the clients, not the colleges. We don't need to say "how high?" when colleges say "jump". Put your kid and what they want ahead of the college you want for your own ego.

4. The goal is happiness, emotional stability and self-actualization for you kid. Nothing more, nothing less.

Less than half of college students go to grad school. Kids don’t always follow their parent’s route. You only mention “prestigious “ colleges. Not every student goes to a big name prestige school. You’re claiming to put your child’s well-being first above all but I’m not sure you’re being honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised how mean and judgmental people can be about other people’s kids. Adult snark is one thing, mocking teenagers quite another. Regardless of the anonymous nature of this forum, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to belittle a high schooler’s character, intellect, or choice of ECs, college, major, etc.

I admit anonymously to being overly harsh about a few kids who appear to have waltzed into tippy top schools to play sports but have not done anything close to the academic work my kid and friends have done (many of whom are still waiting for decisions).

There are a lot of students who are top academics. They aren’t rare. Talented athletes are rare so they are sought after. Sports are big money in this country. The universities make quite a bit of money from their athletes. There’s no point in getting upset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What has surprised you - that you were clueless about?

Fake virtue signaling and faux activism are highly valued in the process by the liberal arts majors that are the AOs at these schools. Tough road for great, but not elite, scholar-athletes and brilliant, but introverted kids.

T20 AO want kids who will get out of their dorms and be active on campus. Contribute. Be both joiners and leaders. In a wide variety of activities - not just robotics.
After you meet the baseline for stats, they then need to be able to imagine what you will do on campus. How exactly are you contributing? How productive are you in the day-to-day life of the campus? The best indicator of what you will do on a college campus will come from your ECs and your LORs.
LOR are a stealth area of "points" in this process.
Make sure you understand the AO scoring process for the reach schools. Review your application with that rubric in mind.

Exactly, and I am saying the rubric values fake virtue signaling and faux activism. As long as they THINK you are going to be active on campus on some cutting edge social issue of the day, you are in a great position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hooks matter more than anything else at the top 20 schools, and especially the Ivies. A kid at the top of the class, with perfect grades and scores and impressive, unique ECs, will almost always lose out to a kid without those things who has a hook. I heard this so many times but did not fully absorb it without personal experience.

This is a false but common narrative on DCUM. Unhooked candidates do not lose out to "less qualified" hooked candidates. They lose out to other academically qualified candidates who align with an institutional priority.

Families refuse to accept that the top schools don't really care about 'peak academics'. Once an academic bar has been reached they care about their priorities which means that 4.0UW with a 1590 isn't any more interesting than 3.95UW with a 1540 in their admissions process. And they are correct, in real life those kids are academically indistinguishable.

+1
I know so many families where the parents only care about the kids getting 1600 on the SATs. They just don’t get it.

[Anonymous]

I knew that there were parents who let their kids apply to schools without looking into the cost. Then, the kid gets in and they realize they can't afford it. The kid is crushed and has to go elsewhere.

I knew that happens but I just didn't think that those parents would include some people I know and respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hooks matter more than anything else at the top 20 schools, and especially the Ivies. A kid at the top of the class, with perfect grades and scores and impressive, unique ECs, will almost always lose out to a kid without those things who has a hook. I heard this so many times but did not fully absorb it without personal experience.

This is a false but common narrative on DCUM. Unhooked candidates do not lose out to "less qualified" hooked candidates. They lose out to other academically qualified candidates who align with an institutional priority.

Families refuse to accept that the top schools don't really care about 'peak academics'. Once an academic bar has been reached they care about their priorities which means that 4.0UW with a 1590 isn't any more interesting than 3.95UW with a 1540 in their admissions process. And they are correct, in real life those kids are academically indistinguishable.

An “institutional priority,” as you describe it, is a “hook.” You are therefore talking in circles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised how mean and judgmental people can be about other people’s kids. Adult snark is one thing, mocking teenagers quite another. Regardless of the anonymous nature of this forum, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to belittle a high schooler’s character, intellect, or choice of ECs, college, major, etc.

I admit anonymously to being overly harsh about a few kids who appear to have waltzed into tippy top schools to play sports but have not done anything close to the academic work my kid and friends have done (many of whom are still waiting for decisions).

There are a lot of students who are top academics. They aren’t rare. Talented athletes are rare so they are sought after. Sports are big money in this country. The universities make quite a bit of money from their athletes. There’s no point in getting upset.

Division 3 says hello. We are not talking about Alabama Div. 1 football or Stanford Olympic athletes. Given that Williams is 40% athletes, no, it is not at all rare. BTW, if your kid wants to go to Alabama, the athletes do not get in the way of your admission. In fact, there are fewer athletes there than Amherst College.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised how mean and judgmental people can be about other people’s kids. Adult snark is one thing, mocking teenagers quite another. Regardless of the anonymous nature of this forum, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to belittle a high schooler’s character, intellect, or choice of ECs, college, major, etc.

I admit anonymously to being overly harsh about a few kids who appear to have waltzed into tippy top schools to play sports but have not done anything close to the academic work my kid and friends have done (many of whom are still waiting for decisions).

There are a lot of students who are top academics. They aren’t rare. Talented athletes are rare so they are sought after. Sports are big money in this country. The universities make quite a bit of money from their athletes. There’s no point in getting upset.

I wonder how the new anti-DEI reality will filter down to women's sports in college. Women's sports are not big money and alumnae tend not to be big donors to their old schools/ teams as men. Will women athletes continue to get the same thumb on the scale in applications?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hooks matter more than anything else at the top 20 schools, and especially the Ivies. A kid at the top of the class, with perfect grades and scores and impressive, unique ECs, will almost always lose out to a kid without those things who has a hook. I heard this so many times but did not fully absorb it without personal experience.

This is a false but common narrative on DCUM. Unhooked candidates do not lose out to "less qualified" hooked candidates. They lose out to other academically qualified candidates who align with an institutional priority.

Families refuse to accept that the top schools don't really care about 'peak academics'. Once an academic bar has been reached they care about their priorities which means that 4.0UW with a 1590 isn't any more interesting than 3.95UW with a 1540 in their admissions process. And they are correct, in real life those kids are academically indistinguishable.

An “institutional priority,” as you describe it, is a “hook.” You are therefore talking in circles.

I am not, you are thinking narrowly.

"Hooks" are institutional priorities but they are typically known things and merely a subset. You'll never really know most institutional priorities in any given year outside of the common ALDC ones that you are thinking of. You won't know that they want a kid from North Dakota, that they need an Oboe player, that the gender ratio isn't quite where they want it to be, that they are looking to add more kids into a major because they received and endowed gift for a sponsored professor, or that their new science center's expanded capacity means that they can be less selective for Chem majors this year, etc.
Institutional priorities aren't often known, can and do change year by year and are big driver of acceptances behind the scenes. They are wildcards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised how mean and judgmental people can be about other people’s kids. Adult snark is one thing, mocking teenagers quite another. Regardless of the anonymous nature of this forum, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to belittle a high schooler’s character, intellect, or choice of ECs, college, major, etc.

I admit anonymously to being overly harsh about a few kids who appear to have waltzed into tippy top schools to play sports but have not done anything close to the academic work my kid and friends have done (many of whom are still waiting for decisions).

There are a lot of students who are top academics. They aren’t rare. Talented athletes are rare so they are sought after. Sports are big money in this country. The universities make quite a bit of money from their athletes. There’s no point in getting upset.

Division 3 says hello. We are not talking about Alabama Div. 1 football or Stanford Olympic athletes. Given that Williams is 40% athletes, no, it is not at all rare. BTW, if your kid wants to go to Alabama, the athletes do not get in the way of your admission. In fact, there are fewer athletes there than Amherst College.

And the athletes at Williams do not get in your way either. Changing the acceptance rate from 6% to 10% means that the answer is still no for the vast majority of applicants and that a huge number of kids with equivalent stats were denied. And most athletes at Williams will have academics similar to typical admitted students meaning nobody lost out to anyone "less deserving".