Colleges for the slow-to-mature kids

[Anonymous]

This is why boarding schools offer a postgraduate (PG) year, if you can afford it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top schools have their pick of qualified applicants so why on earth would they chose some late bloomer versus an independently motivated high achiever through all of high school?

This question intrigues me. Some late bloomers go on to far surpass their peers. Is there a way to predict who will do this, and why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top schools have their pick of qualified applicants so why on earth would they chose some late bloomer versus an independently motivated high achiever through all of high school?

This question intrigues me. Some late bloomers go on to far surpass their peers. Is there a way to predict who will do this, and why?

Many kids at top colleges peaked in high school.

[Anonymous]

My very bright but unmotivated DS1 needed a lot of hand-holding in grades 6-9. For years, I sat at the homework table with him to keep him on task. Under my guidance, he made checklists and for projects and papers met interim deadlines imposed by me. I read aloud to him and quizzed him before tests. His work was sloppy and often incomplete, but at least he turned it in on time.

By 10th grade he was starting to turn things around, and by the end of 10th I no longer needed to be involved. He got straight As in 11th and 12th grades in a heavily AP/IB schedule (prepandemic). His test scores were excellent. He wanted to go OOS and we knew he would not get enough financial aid to make top schools affordable for us, so he didn't apply to any (so I can't say whether he would have gotten in to them). He ended up at a mid-ranked SLAC with significant merit aid. He flourished there-- made Phi Beta Kappa and graduated summa cum laude. He is now in his second year in a highly ranked PhD program.

So no, kids who fit this profile are not "f*cked." Going to a top college is not required for success in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:community colleges

I used to think this but now think a decent state college is better. CC and living at home can’t compare to the 4 yr experience, with dorms, clubs, etc. College is more than just academics. It’s where kids find themselves. I’m not saying to go into debt to have a fun time, but if you can swing it, find a decent affordable state school (or satellite) that will let your kid have the experience and grow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:community colleges

Oh come on. People like you are useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My very bright but unmotivated DS1 needed a lot of hand-holding in grades 6-9. For years, I sat at the homework table with him to keep him on task. Under my guidance, he made checklists and for projects and papers met interim deadlines imposed by me. I read aloud to him and quizzed him before tests. His work was sloppy and often incomplete, but at least he turned it in on time.

By 10th grade he was starting to turn things around, and by the end of 10th I no longer needed to be involved. He got straight As in 11th and 12th grades in a heavily AP/IB schedule (prepandemic). His test scores were excellent. He wanted to go OOS and we knew he would not get enough financial aid to make top schools affordable for us, so he didn't apply to any (so I can't say whether he would have gotten in to them). He ended up at a mid-ranked SLAC with significant merit aid. He flourished there-- made Phi Beta Kappa and graduated summa cum laude. He is now in his second year in a highly ranked PhD program.

So no, kids who fit this profile are not "f*cked." Going to a top college is not required for success in life.

This poster gets it.

Check out CTCL. Your kid will love the self esteem boost that comes from being a big fish in a small pond. The community will be welcoming. Not full of competitive kids who are looking for external validation from where they went to college. Your son may also land a very generous merit scholarship. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It depends on whether they are coming from private v. public and if this occurred during distance learning. Public schools handed out easy As during DL so there's no excuse for low grades then.

While Covid is a factor now, there are many kids that mature slowly and had this issue even during non-Covid times. Lack of motivation, un-diagnosed ADHD, etc. have always been there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just here to say I wish schools only looked at 11th and 12th for gpa. It’s insane to expect consistent perfection, ambition, and long-term planning from kids from 14/15 -17/18 without intense parental control. Wonder why helicopter parents became a thing? I don’t. Colleges reward premature frontal lobe development and controlling parenting (even parents doing some of the kids work)

Top schools have their pick of qualified applicants so why on earth would they chose some late bloomer versus an independently motivated high achiever through all of high school? There’s a school for everyone but try and have some realistic perspective.

Well, the same schools don't hesitate to cut corners when considering URMs, females, and other preferred minorities. Why not people who were "less able" but are now catching up? Seems like a double standard to me. Try saying "there’s a school for everyone" to one of those kids and see what happens to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top schools have their pick of qualified applicants so why on earth would they chose some late bloomer versus an independently motivated high achiever through all of high school?

This question intrigues me. Some late bloomers go on to far surpass their peers. Is there a way to predict who will do this, and why?

Im the PP with the kid now getting his PhD. I'm not surprised by how things turned out, because my son always had very intellectual interests and always worked hard at things that were important to him. E.g., he loved geography and excelled at an 8th grade geography class without any assistance from me whatsoever. What took a long time with him was getting him to understand that colleges wanted to see him do well ALL his classes, not just the ones that he thought were interesting. And that learning certain skills and concepts (algebra, statistics) could be important even if he couldn't understand why or how. As he matured, he was able to take a longer view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top schools have their pick of qualified applicants so why on earth would they chose some late bloomer versus an independently motivated high achiever through all of high school?

This question intrigues me. Some late bloomers go on to far surpass their peers. Is there a way to predict who will do this, and why?

At a population level, the answer is gender: boys mature later than girls, but men earn more than women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just here to say I wish schools only looked at 11th and 12th for gpa. It’s insane to expect consistent perfection, ambition, and long-term planning from kids from 14/15 -17/18 without intense parental control. Wonder why helicopter parents became a thing? I don’t. Colleges reward premature frontal lobe development and controlling parenting (even parents doing some of the kids work)

Top schools have their pick of qualified applicants so why on earth would they chose some late bloomer versus an independently motivated high achiever through all of high school? There’s a school for everyone but try and have some realistic perspective.

You missed the point completely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top schools have their pick of qualified applicants so why on earth would they chose some late bloomer versus an independently motivated high achiever through all of high school?

This question intrigues me. Some late bloomers go on to far surpass their peers. Is there a way to predict who will do this, and why?

SAT scores are fairly predictive of future income. So your late bloomer with a high SAT going into a STEM field will probably do quite well. I have two boys like this -- one just graduated from college with a job that pays almost twice the median starting salary of a recent college grad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top schools have their pick of qualified applicants so why on earth would they chose some late bloomer versus an independently motivated high achiever through all of high school?

This question intrigues me. Some late bloomers go on to far surpass their peers. Is there a way to predict who will do this, and why?

Not at scale unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of posters complain about how their kids are "bad at taking tests" and therefore have a low SAT/ACT score but decent GPA. Colleges are now allowing test optional applications to address this (thanks to Corona mostly). Great for those parents/kids!

What about kids who didn't do well in 9th and 10th grades academically but got their acts together in 11th/12th? Say they end up with a weighted GPA in the 3.7-4.0 range but end up with a 1550+ in the SATs in junior/senior year. Basically, a good trajectory. Assuming these are male, White or Asian kids that want to do Engineering/CS with no legacy/hooks/sports. Are they pretty much fuc*ed? Will any "top school" touch them?

Would like to hear about schools that really look into the application and select such kids as well as personal experiences. Not interested in "you can get a great education at any school" posts, please.

We'll, you can get an education at any school, even if it is not one that will give parents bragging rights.

My kid got a 1520 SAT (one and done with zero prep) kept her GPA up on her own despite dealing with a serious health issue during grades 9-11 and then was diagnosed with ADHD early senior year, so I'd argue that my kid got in not because I helicoptered (I didn't) but because she is so smart she was able to complete her work at an A level despite obstacles. Maybe that is who your late bloomer is competing against.