College confifential

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I only see super elite kids posting on CC. Super elite with crushing inferiority complexes.

The parent forum is better. There's a thread for B+ kids that's very useful.

You must only be focusing on a tiny slice of the forum. There are all levels of students/parents posting in the College Admissions and College Search and Selection boards, and in the threads for particular colleges. The parent forum threads you mention are very helpful too. Here's one: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1871275-parents-of-the-hs-class-of-2017-3-0-to-3-4-gpa.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you're interested in what kinds of GPA/scores your kid needs to have a chance at a particular school, the Common Data Set is much more useful that College Confidential. Actual numbers from the entire class for that particular year, not just self-reporting whiz kids.

cds blows because cds doesn't give the full picture.

CDS is useless until it releases admit and matriculation data sets by 'hook' crosstabs.

CC profiles give key info.

[Anonymous]

The Common Data Set and College C are only tools in this process. Just one piece of the puzzle. Jeez.

[Anonymous]

I found a lot of useful information on CC, but you have to weed through the "chance me" posts.

[Anonymous]

I like CC much better than DCUM bc people cannot hide behind anonymous posts and provide ill-advised recommendations. Also, it doesn't get as nasty as DCUM.

[Anonymous]

CC was a lot better before it went corporate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only see super elite kids posting on CC. Super elite with crushing inferiority complexes.

The parent forum is better. There's a thread for B+ kids that's very useful.

You must only be focusing on a tiny slice of the forum. There are all levels of students/parents posting in the College Admissions and College Search and Selection boards, and in the threads for particular colleges. The parent forum threads you mention are very helpful too. Here's one: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1871275-parents-of-the-hs-class-of-2017-3-0-to-3-4-gpa.html

No, I've been all around CC. Anywhere a kid starts with the chance me nonsense, disregard. That's why the Parent Forum is pretty good and the thread you posted is the same one I referenced, the B+/3.0-3.4 GPA. Kids are bored by the parent talk so they take their Chance Mes elsewhere. Otherwise you've got to tune out the perfect stats. Also know that in the individual university forums, you'll rarely hear about who DIDN'T get in. So as with everything college-related, it must be taken with many grains of salt.

[Anonymous]

The Parent Cafe forum is good. It's just about random topics, from TV to retirement. I like it not only because it's not anonymous but because I have a college-age DD, I feel like I'm aging out of the DCUM demographic. Lots of people in their 40s, 50s and 60s.

The regular Parent Forum (Parent Cafe is a subcategory) can be helpful, but there are a lot of tiger moms there, so read it with that caveat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only see super elite kids posting on CC. Super elite with crushing inferiority complexes.

The parent forum is better. There's a thread for B+ kids that's very useful.

You must only be focusing on a tiny slice of the forum. There are all levels of students/parents posting in the College Admissions and College Search and Selection boards, and in the threads for particular colleges. The parent forum threads you mention are very helpful too. Here's one: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1871275-parents-of-the-hs-class-of-2017-3-0-to-3-4-gpa.html

No, I've been all around CC. Anywhere a kid starts with the chance me nonsense, disregard. That's why the Parent Forum is pretty good and the thread you posted is the same one I referenced, the B+/3.0-3.4 GPA. Kids are bored by the parent talk so they take their Chance Mes elsewhere. Otherwise you've got to tune out the perfect stats. Also know that in the individual university forums, you'll rarely hear about who DIDN'T get in. So as with everything college-related, it must be taken with many grains of salt.

All the threads for individual colleges I've seen that are started for RD, ED etc. applicants include lots of posts from the kids who didn't get in. Some have good stats, and some not so much. Usually the kids bond over the weeks or months between application and decisions, and many are refreshingly honest about the likely reasons they didn't get accepted. If you are only looking at the threads for top 20 or so schools, there will, of course, be more high stats kids posting.

[Anonymous]

College Confidential was invaluable during to me as my kid went through the process last year - to the point where someone posted a "hack" where kids could log-in to the admissions portal and find out their SCEA decision hours before they were actually posted.

The one thing that always makes me laugh is when people assess how good their recommendation letters, as well as essays, are in the "Chance Me" posts. They're all 9s and 10s!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're interested in what kinds of GPA/scores your kid needs to have a chance at a particular school, the Common Data Set is much more useful that College Confidential. Actual numbers from the entire class for that particular year, not just self-reporting whiz kids.

cds blows because cds doesn't give the full picture.

CDS is useless until it releases admit and matriculation data sets by 'hook' crosstabs.

CC profiles give key info.

Some of you are way too obsessed with "hooks". For most places, they represent only a small percentage of acceptances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only see super elite kids posting on CC. Super elite with crushing inferiority complexes.

The parent forum is better. There's a thread for B+ kids that's very useful.

You must only be focusing on a tiny slice of the forum. There are all levels of students/parents posting in the College Admissions and College Search and Selection boards, and in the threads for particular colleges. The parent forum threads you mention are very helpful too. Here's one: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1871275-parents-of-the-hs-class-of-2017-3-0-to-3-4-gpa.html

No, I've been all around CC. Anywhere a kid starts with the chance me nonsense, disregard. That's why the Parent Forum is pretty good and the thread you posted is the same one I referenced, the B+/3.0-3.4 GPA. Kids are bored by the parent talk so they take their Chance Mes elsewhere. Otherwise you've got to tune out the perfect stats. Also know that in the individual university forums, you'll rarely hear about who DIDN'T get in. So as with everything college-related, it must be taken with many grains of salt.

All the threads for individual colleges I've seen that are started for RD, ED etc. applicants include lots of posts from the kids who didn't get in. Some have good stats, and some not so much. Usually the kids bond over the weeks or months between application and decisions, and many are refreshingly honest about the likely reasons they didn't get accepted. If you are only looking at the threads for top 20 or so schools, there will, of course, be more high stats kids posting.

This. OP, scroll past the "chance me" threads, which are uninformed high schoolers opining on whether other high schoolers, some of whom are probably trolling with made-up intimidating stats, will get in.

Instead, look at the results threads to see actual data. As PP says, lots of rejected applicants post their results and sometimes their thoughts on why they were rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're interested in what kinds of GPA/scores your kid needs to have a chance at a particular school, the Common Data Set is much more useful that College Confidential. Actual numbers from the entire class for that particular year, not just self-reporting whiz kids.

cds blows because cds doesn't give the full picture.

CDS is useless until it releases admit and matriculation data sets by 'hook' crosstabs.

CC profiles give key info.

Some of you are way too obsessed with "hooks". For most places, they represent only a small percentage of acceptances.

Actually hooks account for a decent percentage of admits to private universities once you add up all the athletic recruits, legacies and urms. Before someone tries to race bait, the first two are largely whites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're interested in what kinds of GPA/scores your kid needs to have a chance at a particular school, the Common Data Set is much more useful that College Confidential. Actual numbers from the entire class for that particular year, not just self-reporting whiz kids.

cds blows because cds doesn't give the full picture.

CDS is useless until it releases admit and matriculation data sets by 'hook' crosstabs.

CC profiles give key info.

Some of you are way too obsessed with "hooks". For most places, they represent only a small percentage of acceptances.

Actually hooks account for a decent percentage of admits to private universities once you add up all the athletic recruits, legacies and urms. Before someone tries to race bait, the first two are largely whites.

I always assume the smattering of admits with scores/grades around the low end the group are hooks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're interested in what kinds of GPA/scores your kid needs to have a chance at a particular school, the Common Data Set is much more useful that College Confidential. Actual numbers from the entire class for that particular year, not just self-reporting whiz kids.

cds blows because cds doesn't give the full picture.

CDS is useless until it releases admit and matriculation data sets by 'hook' crosstabs.

CC profiles give key info.

Some of you are way too obsessed with "hooks". For most places, they represent only a small percentage of acceptances.

Actually hooks account for a decent percentage of admits to private universities once you add up all the athletic recruits, legacies and urms. Before someone tries to race bait, the first two are largely whites.

I always assume the smattering of admits with scores/grades around the low end the group are hooks.

it's more than the low end. duke former adcom member once said if you are an unhooked non urm (so an asian kid or white girl) you better be above the 75th percentile in scores and grades or you really aren't going to have a solid shot.

that's the safe rule of thumb for top schools. unhooked applicants should be at or above the 75th percentile stats of a school.