Naviance is wrong

[Anonymous]

Every high school’s version of Naviance is configured somewhat differently. The decision of how it is set up and what data is show. Is made by your guidance counselor Delors.

My kid goes to a very small school so they include student data going 5 years back.

Other schools only show data for last 3 years of graduates.

The generic stuff about the school, cost, demographics, overall acceptance rate (not your high school’s acceptance rate) is uploaded and maintained by the software company that created Maviamxe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, my daughter thought Ohio State was a safety. She has the highest GPA and ACT of anyone who ever got in at her school the last 3 years.

She was rejected yesterday.
3.7 UW and 33 ACT. Lots of EC’s but who know how much they look at that.

Going on College Confidential and seeing kids with 24 ACT and 3.3 UW get in is pretty confusing though.

She didn’t care as she already picked Case Western who gave her a massive package, but it was pretty shocking.

Congrats on the Case Western package!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who said Naviance was a definite predictor of where your kid would get in?

No one, however, it is misleading. So just a heads up

Grades and test scores gets your application a review, but admission is based on other things.

The data is skewed by athletes, URMs, legacies, and other hooked applicants.

Or the counseling office not bothering to make sure the numbers are not 5 years old in school acceptance rates! That might be why so many posters say schools thinks schools are easier to accepted at than reality!

FCPS parent here.

Are there different version of Naviance? Ours has data points from the previous 3 years in the scattergrams. I believe the supermath numbers say that they are from 2010 and forward. What are you all talking about when you say “old data”?

Yes, the scattergrams are from the past 3 years. Could you please tell me what your version of Naviance says is the national acceptance rate for NYU? Does it also say that its data is from 2018? I'd appreciate hearing your feedback.

NP. I think it varies based on the High School. My son is interested in NYU and our Naviance has acceptances for the past three years with an acceptance rate of 35%. That seems way too high. More in line with the acceptance rate from four years ago based on: https://nyunews.com/2019/03/28/nyu-acceptance-rate-drops-to-16-percent-for-the-class-of-2023/

Can only guess what it will be when he applies next year.

The 35% number is from the class accepted in 2012 which graduated in 2016 ... The number acceptance number has steadily gone down over the last 7 classes. I wonder if other acceptance rates are that old on Naviance?

Why do you say the 35% is from 2012? My DC's Naviance gives 35% and says data is from the last three years. Is there some source that says the rate is different than this?

[Anonymous]

My hunch is that the combined acceptance rate for NYUs 3 campuses is 35%.

Manhattan’s is in the teens.

[Anonymous]

Nope. None of the campuses are 35%. It’s just old data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who said Naviance was a definite predictor of where your kid would get in?

No one, however, it is misleading. So just a heads up

Grades and test scores gets your application a review, but admission is based on other things.

The data is skewed by athletes, URMs, legacies, and other hooked applicants.

Or the counseling office not bothering to make sure the numbers are not 5 years old in school acceptance rates! That might be why so many posters say schools thinks schools are easier to accepted at than reality!

FCPS parent here.

Are there different version of Naviance? Ours has data points from the previous 3 years in the scattergrams. I believe the supermath numbers say that they are from 2010 and forward. What are you all talking about when you say “old data”?

Yes, the scattergrams are from the past 3 years. Could you please tell me what your version of Naviance says is the national acceptance rate for NYU? Does it also say that its data is from 2018? I'd appreciate hearing your feedback.

NP. I think it varies based on the High School. My son is interested in NYU and our Naviance has acceptances for the past three years with an acceptance rate of 35%. That seems way too high. More in line with the acceptance rate from four years ago based on: https://nyunews.com/2019/03/28/nyu-acceptance-rate-drops-to-16-percent-for-the-class-of-2023/

Can only guess what it will be when he applies next year.

The 35% number is from the class accepted in 2012 which graduated in 2016 ... The number acceptance number has steadily gone down over the last 7 classes. I wonder if other acceptance rates are that old on Naviance?

Why do you say the 35% is from 2012? My DC's Naviance gives 35% and says data is from the last three years. Is there some source that says the rate is different than this?

It’s already been posted multiple times. Do a simple google search. https://nyunews.com/2019/03/28/nyu-acceptance-rate-drops-to-16-percent-for-the-class-of-2023/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t trust naviance. My son with near perfect SAT score and 4.89 GPA was rejected from every single school except for his safeties.

Is your son white or Asian? My guess is yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only schools that practice yield protection these days are lower tier. It used to be associated with Tufts, but they don’t need to anymore.

Naviance is great for getting ideas, but everyone knows essays and recommendations are big factors when everyone gets As (and if the school has GPAs that hit 4.89, there is a whole lot of inflation happening).

Exactly. And with more schools going test-optional and even recommendation-optional, how do they know whom to admit? Just back from a Carolinas college tour with mind blown.

Race-based.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. Weighted GPAs are worthless

2. High unweighted GPAs are not going to get you anywhere in the top 25 without a very rigorous course load with 4 years of every academic subject including foreign language.

3. Any college with a 25% or less acceptance rate is a lottery for kids with nearly perfect stats

4. Naviance does not account for recruits, legacies, courseload, first gen status, full pay status, etc.

5. It’s a tool, not a crystal ball.

DD had straight As, even in APs and honors, won the Wellesley Book Award, was a STEM student, could pay full tuition anywhere, cash. Played sports as well. Great SAT scores. White female with no legacy, rejected from everything but her safeties. Applied to no Ivys by choice.

Don’t tell me her race didn’t play a role in this liberal academic environment

[Anonymous]

What is a book award?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Weighted GPAs are worthless

2. High unweighted GPAs are not going to get you anywhere in the top 25 without a very rigorous course load with 4 years of every academic subject including foreign language.

3. Any college with a 25% or less acceptance rate is a lottery for kids with nearly perfect stats

4. Naviance does not account for recruits, legacies, courseload, first gen status, full pay status, etc.

5. It’s a tool, not a crystal ball.

DD had straight As, even in APs and honors, won the Wellesley Book Award, was a STEM student, could pay full tuition anywhere, cash. Played sports as well. Great SAT scores. White female with no legacy, rejected from everything but her safeties. Applied to no Ivys by choice.

Don’t tell me her race didn’t play a role in this liberal academic environment

You seem bitter. You also didn’t list what schools rejected her and what her SATs were. So your post is a bit meaningless. Wondering if you are a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Weighted GPAs are worthless

2. High unweighted GPAs are not going to get you anywhere in the top 25 without a very rigorous course load with 4 years of every academic subject including foreign language.

3. Any college with a 25% or less acceptance rate is a lottery for kids with nearly perfect stats

4. Naviance does not account for recruits, legacies, courseload, first gen status, full pay status, etc.

5. It’s a tool, not a crystal ball.

DD had straight As, even in APs and honors, won the Wellesley Book Award, was a STEM student, could pay full tuition anywhere, cash. Played sports as well. Great SAT scores. White female with no legacy, rejected from everything but her safeties. Applied to no Ivys by choice.

Don’t tell me her race didn’t play a role in this liberal academic environment

Well it’s obvious that the problem was that you only offered to full pay in cash. We said cash or precious gems and were accepted everywhere.

It wasn’t race. Your daughter has the same profile as tons of other applicants. Stop thinking she was something special. She wasn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Weighted GPAs are worthless

2. High unweighted GPAs are not going to get you anywhere in the top 25 without a very rigorous course load with 4 years of every academic subject including foreign language.

3. Any college with a 25% or less acceptance rate is a lottery for kids with nearly perfect stats

4. Naviance does not account for recruits, legacies, courseload, first gen status, full pay status, etc.

5. It’s a tool, not a crystal ball.

DD had straight As, even in APs and honors, won the Wellesley Book Award, was a STEM student, could pay full tuition anywhere, cash. Played sports as well. Great SAT scores. White female with no legacy, rejected from everything but her safeties. Applied to no Ivys by choice.

Don’t tell me her race didn’t play a role in this liberal academic environment

Not just race though, to be fair, preference for "first generation" applicants has been a thing the last couple of years. Were these denials from a selective LAC? I wouldn't expect those results at a bigger state university.

[Anonymous]

My white child did better with acceptances than we expected.

We believe his total package... ECs, sincere youthful essay, and carefully presented common application explain it.

Not every single kid kid did worse than expected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Weighted GPAs are worthless

2. High unweighted GPAs are not going to get you anywhere in the top 25 without a very rigorous course load with 4 years of every academic subject including foreign language.

3. Any college with a 25% or less acceptance rate is a lottery for kids with nearly perfect stats

4. Naviance does not account for recruits, legacies, courseload, first gen status, full pay status, etc.

5. It’s a tool, not a crystal ball.

DD had straight As, even in APs and honors, won the Wellesley Book Award, was a STEM student, could pay full tuition anywhere, cash. Played sports as well. Great SAT scores. White female with no legacy, rejected from everything but her safeties. Applied to no Ivys by choice.

Don’t tell me her race didn’t play a role in this liberal academic environment

Not just race though, to be fair, preference for "first generation" applicants has been a thing the last couple of years. Were these denials from a selective LAC? I wouldn't expect those results at a bigger state university.

Being female is unfortunately a handicap at LACs. And it’s absurdly ignorant to ignore race as a factor in admissions.