Grade decline

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rule HYP but, Dartmouth and Brown have been known to go to the 3.6 range IF other pluses exist. Definitely consdier the SLACs. Many of those definitely look at the whole package. That GPA is the range of most if not all.

Depends on OPs school. At our MCPS you need over a 3.9 and SATs in the 2300s to be viable for an Ivy, including at Dartmouth. Brown has a little more variation, presumably related to some hook. Private school kids can have somewhat lower GPAs.

Mine is in the top range of grades and just below on scores and is only applying to one Ivy and it's a long shot. The top SLACs are well within reach though.

Not necessarily. For ivies in general, perfect SATs are not necessarily better than 2200 or 2300. After your cross the SAT and GPA thresholds, what you really need is some sort of hook, or a passion that really makes your kid stick out. I think most Ivies are a long shot for anyone, really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rule HYP but, Dartmouth and Brown have been known to go to the 3.6 range IF other pluses exist. Definitely consdier the SLACs. Many of those definitely look at the whole package. That GPA is the range of most if not all.

Depends on OPs school. At our MCPS you need over a 3.9 and SATs in the 2300s to be viable for an Ivy, including at Dartmouth. Brown has a little more variation, presumably related to some hook. Private school kids can have somewhat lower GPAs.

Mine is in the top range of grades and just below on scores and is only applying to one Ivy and it's a long shot. The top SLACs are well within reach though.

Not necessarily. For ivies in general, perfect SATs are not necessarily better than 2200 or 2300. After your cross the SAT and GPA thresholds, what you really need is some sort of hook, or a passion that really makes your kid stick out. I think most Ivies are a long shot for anyone, really.

Naviance says otherwise. Basically the one or two people under 2300 are recruited athletes. As I said this related to our MCPS public school. Yours may be different.

[Anonymous]

My experience with college admissions is that there are general trends you can look at for GPA and SAT scores, and that it is important to be realistic about what schools are a good match, and an Harvard is likely not going to take someone unless they are in the top 1-10% of their class (depending on the rigor and size of the school), however there is a lot of randomness to it as well. I graduated high school in the mid 2000s, so my experience is not so out of date, and I've been watching family friends and relatives go through it all over again. There's always going to be the kid who you are sure will get in everywhere, or who has a great list of "matches" and only gets into their safety. That kid might be a 4.0, perfect SAT, has all the extracurriculars, super type A student, legacy, and for whatever reason, they just didn't fill the niche that the admissions officers wanted for the class. Then there is always going to be a student who applies to a school that seems like a total crapshoot reach (i.e. no legacy, no "hook" has a couple Bs) who gets in. Hell, I found a SLAC that I was convinced was a perfect match for me which my guidance counselor thought there was no way I would get in; I got in, and later I met the admissions officer who reviewed my application and he said I had really compelling essays, especially the "why x school" supplemental essay. Naviance is a tool, and one shouldn't overestimate their chances, but often in my experience college counselors underestimate the chances of kids who don't fit the typical mold.

That said, a 3.5-3.6 is still an A- average, and it seems silly to yank a student out of rigorous courses when they are performing well. I think in general it is beneficial to the student intellectually and in terms of preparation for college to stay in difficult classes that challenge them with a good peer group, and it is also beneficial for college applications to take rigorous classes.

[Anonymous]

Well, what are her grades? All A-minuses or a mix of As and Cs? Id say the latter is causes for concern, but the former not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My experience with college admissions is that there are general trends you can look at for GPA and SAT scores, and that it is important to be realistic about what schools are a good match, and an Harvard is likely not going to take someone unless they are in the top 1-10% of their class (depending on the rigor and size of the school), however there is a lot of randomness to it as well. I graduated high school in the mid 2000s, so my experience is not so out of date, and I've been watching family friends and relatives go through it all over again. There's always going to be the kid who you are sure will get in everywhere, or who has a great list of "matches" and only gets into their safety. That kid might be a 4.0, perfect SAT, has all the extracurriculars, super type A student, legacy, and for whatever reason, they just didn't fill the niche that the admissions officers wanted for the class. Then there is always going to be a student who applies to a school that seems like a total crapshoot reach (i.e. no legacy, no "hook" has a couple Bs) who gets in. Hell, I found a SLAC that I was convinced was a perfect match for me which my guidance counselor thought there was no way I would get in; I got in, and later I met the admissions officer who reviewed my application and he said I had really compelling essays, especially the "why x school" supplemental essay. Naviance is a tool, and one shouldn't overestimate their chances, but often in my experience college counselors underestimate the chances of kids who don't fit the typical mold.

That said, a 3.5-3.6 is still an A- average, and it seems silly to yank a student out of rigorous courses when they are performing well. I think in general it is beneficial to the student intellectually and in terms of preparation for college to stay in difficult classes that challenge them with a good peer group, and it is also beneficial for college applications to take rigorous classes.

But it's not clear she is performing well in all of her rigorous classes. What's the point of struggling for a C in AP Bio (just to pick an example) at the expense of your other classes? If she's in a private school or strong public school the regular bio class is going to be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience with college admissions is that there are general trends you can look at for GPA and SAT scores, and that it is important to be realistic about what schools are a good match, and an Harvard is likely not going to take someone unless they are in the top 1-10% of their class (depending on the rigor and size of the school), however there is a lot of randomness to it as well. I graduated high school in the mid 2000s, so my experience is not so out of date, and I've been watching family friends and relatives go through it all over again. There's always going to be the kid who you are sure will get in everywhere, or who has a great list of "matches" and only gets into their safety. That kid might be a 4.0, perfect SAT, has all the extracurriculars, super type A student, legacy, and for whatever reason, they just didn't fill the niche that the admissions officers wanted for the class. Then there is always going to be a student who applies to a school that seems like a total crapshoot reach (i.e. no legacy, no "hook" has a couple Bs) who gets in. Hell, I found a SLAC that I was convinced was a perfect match for me which my guidance counselor thought there was no way I would get in; I got in, and later I met the admissions officer who reviewed my application and he said I had really compelling essays, especially the "why x school" supplemental essay. Naviance is a tool, and one shouldn't overestimate their chances, but often in my experience college counselors underestimate the chances of kids who don't fit the typical mold.

That said, a 3.5-3.6 is still an A- average, and it seems silly to yank a student out of rigorous courses when they are performing well. I think in general it is beneficial to the student intellectually and in terms of preparation for college to stay in difficult classes that challenge them with a good peer group, and it is also beneficial for college applications to take rigorous classes.

But it's not clear she is performing well in all of her rigorous classes. What's the point of struggling for a C in AP Bio (just to pick an example) at the expense of your other classes? If she's in a private school or strong public school the regular bio class is going to be fine.

I think the important thing is to step back and assess the entire situation, not just parts of it (like "what does this mean for college?").

I think the first question to consider is why her grades have slipped a bit. Is it just because the work up til now has been easy for her and she is now more challenged? If so, how does she feel about the challenge? Is she capable of getting As and Bs in these classes and does she enjoy the challenge and is she the type who rises to challenges? Or is she feeling overwhelmed and overworked? Is she finding it difficult to keep up? Is her confidence flagging? My advice about both next year's schedule AND ultimately the types of colleges she should be looking at/aiming for would differ depending on the answers to these questions.

To get a sense for where I'm coming from, I have a kid who is often content with "good enough" even though he is quite capable of very high level work. I tend to insist that he take more challenging classes (although not always) because I don't want him to get into the habit of slacking. Especially in his areas of interest (history/government/literature), I push him to take the most challenging classes available even if it means he will get Bs in them, because I think that is best for his overall growth and development. I think I would be doing him a grave disservice to allow him to coast to easy As in lower level classes. OTOH, math is comparatively a challenge for him. I think it is more important that he develop a solid competency in math and gain more ease and confidence in the subject than it is to make sure he gets to calculus before he graduates, so I allowed him to step off the accelerated math track. This approach is likely not going to get him to HYP, but I think in the end it will serve him better. I am confident that there are hundreds of other colleges out there at which he can get a good education and thrive.

[Anonymous]

Our school system, unofficially but consistently, allowed only 3% of students to receive A's. There are grade distributions for every school. The trick (if one wants to spend the time to find out) is know your particular school's predetermined grade distribution. It's not about the student and their mastery of the material. It's about where the student falls on the bell curve

[Anonymous]

But it's not clear she is performing well in all of her rigorous classes. What's the point of struggling for a C in AP Bio (just to pick an example) at the expense of your other classes? If she's in a private school or strong public school the regular bio class is going to be fine.

Unless she is getting all As and one C, it doesn't work out to ~3.5-3.6. It seems far more likely that she's slipped from becoming an A student to a student who is getting As and Bs, or A-s and the occasional B+. I don't think a B in an AP class is poorly performing enough to pull someone out, but maybe that's just me.

[Anonymous]

The school's grading system seems obviously relevant. I went to a very difficult school and an A- average was sufficient to get into an Ivy (and I think an A- with AP coursework would have been better received than an A without any).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But it's not clear she is performing well in all of her rigorous classes. What's the point of struggling for a C in AP Bio (just to pick an example) at the expense of your other classes? If she's in a private school or strong public school the regular bio class is going to be fine.

Unless she is getting all As and one C, it doesn't work out to ~3.5-3.6. It seems far more likely that she's slipped from becoming an A student to a student who is getting As and Bs, or A-s and the occasional B+. I don't think a B in an AP class is poorly performing enough to pull someone out, but maybe that's just me.

+1

When I was in high school, a B in an AP class was GOOD. Seriously, theyre supposed to be hard. Lots of kids who received As got Bs or Cs in AP classes and no one suggested they drop out.

If she were getting a 3.0 or below I could see stepping back and saying "ok, maybe She needs to scale back a bit" but an A- average or an A average with a B or C in there is FINE. Maybe not Ivy league material but not "SHE CANNOT HANDLE THIS SHE MUST DROP OUT" either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rule HYP but, Dartmouth and Brown have been known to go to the 3.6 range IF other pluses exist. Definitely consdier the SLACs. Many of those definitely look at the whole package. That GPA is the range of most if not all.

Depends on OPs school. At our MCPS you need over a 3.9 and SATs in the 2300s to be viable for an Ivy, including at Dartmouth. Brown has a little more variation, presumably related to some hook. Private school kids can have somewhat lower GPAs.

Mine is in the top range of grades and just below on scores and is only applying to one Ivy and it's a long shot. The top SLACs are well within reach though.

Not necessarily. For ivies in general, perfect SATs are not necessarily better than 2200 or 2300. After your cross the SAT and GPA thresholds, what you really need is some sort of hook, or a passion that really makes your kid stick out. I think most Ivies are a long shot for anyone, really.

Naviance says otherwise. Basically the one or two people under 2300 are recruited athletes. As I said this related to our MCPS public school. Yours may be different.

This is just not true. Naviance does not draw some magical hard and fast line. It shows you a few years of data from your school. Harvard has like 1600 places for freshman. There are 26,000 secondary high schools in the United States. The sample size from your school is going to be tiny and statistically insignificant. SATs are just one part of the puzzle. If your kid is compelling enough a 2200 is not going to keep them out of Harvard.

At our private last year, the counselors told one girl not to apply to any Ivies based on her grades and SATs compared to the Naviance scores. Thankfully, she ignored them. She applied to four Ivies and got into three, and she is no athlete. She does have a unique story, though.

[Anonymous]

Who says this kid wants to go to Ivies though?

[Anonymous]

Who says this kid wants to go to Ivies though?

I guess it was implied that she was shooting for top schools when the parent freaked out about going from an A average to an A- average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rule HYP but, Dartmouth and Brown have been known to go to the 3.6 range IF other pluses exist. Definitely consdier the SLACs. Many of those definitely look at the whole package. That GPA is the range of most if not all.

Depends on OPs school. At our MCPS you need over a 3.9 and SATs in the 2300s to be viable for an Ivy, including at Dartmouth. Brown has a little more variation, presumably related to some hook. Private school kids can have somewhat lower GPAs.

Mine is in the top range of grades and just below on scores and is only applying to one Ivy and it's a long shot. The top SLACs are well within reach though.

Not necessarily. For ivies in general, perfect SATs are not necessarily better than 2200 or 2300. After your cross the SAT and GPA thresholds, what you really need is some sort of hook, or a passion that really makes your kid stick out. I think most Ivies are a long shot for anyone, really.

Naviance says otherwise. Basically the one or two people under 2300 are recruited athletes. As I said this related to our MCPS public school. Yours may be different.

This is just not true. Naviance does not draw some magical hard and fast line. It shows you a few years of data from your school. Harvard has like 1600 places for freshman. There are 26,000 secondary high schools in the United States. The sample size from your school is going to be tiny and statistically insignificant. SATs are just one part of the puzzle. If your kid is compelling enough a 2200 is not going to keep them out of Harvard.

At our private last year, the counselors told one girl not to apply to any Ivies based on her grades and SATs compared to the Naviance scores. Thankfully, she ignored them. She applied to four Ivies and got into three, and she is no athlete. She does have a unique story, though.

+1. I'm the "not necessarily" poster above. I didn't want to get into a spat with "Naviance says otherwise" poster. But my own completely unhooked DC got into one of the most competitive Ivies from an MCPS public with SATs of 2100, unweighted GPA of 3.9, and a fabulous EC that really stood out from typical ECs. We're sure it was the EC that sold DC.

Our experience bears out what I've read multiple places, that the most competitive colleges essentially have a threshold for SATs of maybe 2100-2200. Crossing this gets you past the first cut. After this, it's more about the kid, what the ADs see in the kid, and what the kid can bring to the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rule HYP but, Dartmouth and Brown have been known to go to the 3.6 range IF other pluses exist. Definitely consdier the SLACs. Many of those definitely look at the whole package. That GPA is the range of most if not all.

Depends on OPs school. At our MCPS you need over a 3.9 and SATs in the 2300s to be viable for an Ivy, including at Dartmouth. Brown has a little more variation, presumably related to some hook. Private school kids can have somewhat lower GPAs.

Mine is in the top range of grades and just below on scores and is only applying to one Ivy and it's a long shot. The top SLACs are well within reach though.

Not necessarily. For ivies in general, perfect SATs are not necessarily better than 2200 or 2300. After your cross the SAT and GPA thresholds, what you really need is some sort of hook, or a passion that really makes your kid stick out. I think most Ivies are a long shot for anyone, really.

Naviance says otherwise. Basically the one or two people under 2300 are recruited athletes. As I said this related to our MCPS public school. Yours may be different.

This is just not true. Naviance does not draw some magical hard and fast line. It shows you a few years of data from your school. Harvard has like 1600 places for freshman. There are 26,000 secondary high schools in the United States. The sample size from your school is going to be tiny and statistically insignificant. SATs are just one part of the puzzle. If your kid is compelling enough a 2200 is not going to keep them out of Harvard.

At our private last year, the counselors told one girl not to apply to any Ivies based on her grades and SATs compared to the Naviance scores. Thankfully, she ignored them. She applied to four Ivies and got into three, and she is no athlete. She does have a unique story, though.

+1. I'm the "not necessarily" poster above. I didn't want to get into a spat with "Naviance says otherwise" poster. But my own completely unhooked DC got into one of the most competitive Ivies from an MCPS public with SATs of 2100, unweighted GPA of 3.9, and a fabulous EC that really stood out from typical ECs. We're sure it was the EC that sold DC.

Our experience bears out what I've read multiple places, that the most competitive colleges essentially have a threshold for SATs of maybe 2100-2200. Crossing this gets you past the first cut. After this, it's more about the kid, what the ADs see in the kid, and what the kid can bring to the school.

Here we have our favorite troll making her case last October.