It’s not just opinion, there are flat out falsehoods on here. Like this morning, someone posted saying that schools look at all four parts of the ACT. I saw that, and then happened across the Georgia Tech page where GT specifically said that they only look at two sections. So I posted the link. But I wouldn’t go back to the post to insist on the point. People who would prefer to believe that Georgia Tech is lying aren’t going to be convinced by me. |
Same. I have a third going through the process soon and this place is dead (compared to the last five years). And the quality of information sharing is not even worth visiting once or twice a week. It’s really sad - the deterioration. |
| So sad. I've been on and off here since my kids were young and we were in DC. We've moved twice since then and it's been so helpful. The trolls on the college forum are the worst, and I hate the constant denigrating of public school and FGLI kids and all the blanket statements about grade inflations, etc. So annoying. I wish everyone would just accept their kids college outcomes. No need to come on here and post crazy stuff. |
| It is sad, I rarely bother anymore, and I truly did try to leave thoughtful responses. I have an unhooked public school kid at an Ivy and an ADHD smart but not motivated (yet), so I genuinely see many sides of what goes on here. |
OK but you do realize that schools are far from truthful in what they are actually doing, don’t you? I’m not familiar with Georgia Tech but unless it’s truly a unicorn, they may or may not look at different sections. This is likely to get worse not better as schools use enrollment management systems with predictive analytics to “build” their class from an avalanche of applications. Schools feed in as much data as they can often including external source data to identify potential donors, previous applicants and current student performance to predict yield and success, zip code and key word searches to achieve diversity etc etc. |
| I do find that there are more posts than ever that are basically complaining - not only this thread but within substantive threads. If you in a thread for meta-reasons to complain, police, or troll-accuse, you are bumping the thread and raising the level of discord. Don’t. |
| Yeah. There was a person constantly insisting for years that yield protection doesn’t exit. When that no longer fooled anyone anymore, I’m convinced the poster moved on to alumni interviews have zero impact for every single school without exception bait. I think they just like to waste peoples time. Same with the person who always asks for definitions of basic things like early decision. |
Oh and that AP scores don’t matter until that was fully refuted and people stopped engaging. |
| I think even worse than the trolls are those who stupidly engage with them rather than just reporting them immediately. It derails the entire thread and serves no one - except the troll. Report, people! |
Yep that's what seems to happen . And to the newcomers: definitely don't take all the "advice" on here |
| The anonymity here is both good and bad. Probably more bad than good, in the college forum at least. Anybody visit alternatives that are less mean or trollish? Reddit? College Confidential? |
That’s kind of where I am. When I see a thread for a phase I’m already through, I’ll drop in and add a short, matter of fact comment if I remember something that hasn’t been mentioned. I’m not there to argue with anyone. Even though this forum isn’t what it used to be, it helped me a lot through those phases and I try to pay it forward. Mostly my comments don’t even get picked up by the group that’s there to argue on the internet and it’s just a couple posters who acknowledge or ask a follow up. That’s fine with me. |
|
College counseling is a $3 billion dollar industry. Many of the top counselors hire people at $20 per hour to drive their business.
This is not just to promote their stuff which would be fine, but they also spread FOMO, confuse, misinform, etc. Not sure anything can be done about this. |
Sometimes people like nuance. For instance, I agree with you. But you lack nuance. Does an AO really never look at all 4, “unofficially”? The only way that would be true is if it is shielded. Is it? Are you so confident, based on what you saw from that website, that peeking never happens and thereby gets someone over or under the hump? Unless you have inside info, you don’t really know, for sure. And that’s OK. We deal with improbabilities and uncertainty, not “flat out falsehoods” absolutes. I would not ask for and expect 100% proofs from anyone, but not would I assume I had it when it is, indeed, just an assumption. No less complain about it…. |