My kid isn't getting in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's been rejected from an ED, deferred from an EA that was considered a safety, rejected from MD Honors, rejected by UVA, did not receive a transcript request last month from the UC's (evidentially a telltale sign you have a rejection coming April 1), received no merit aid from a safety that in the past routinely gave kids like him 10-15K a year, received no scholarship application invitation from another school that in the past routinely gave kids like him big scholarships...I could go on. When you are not full pay there are ways you can tell if a yes is coming from a lot of the schools. Of course there are others, and there's a decent chance he gets into one or two of them, but the trend does not make that feel likely.

Not saying this to kick you when you are down but to educate other parents. The UCs and UVA are VERY difficult admits for out of state students. You can’t look at overall admissions stats and base your applications on these. Add to that the UCs don’t even consider test scores, that 1500 was worth nothing. All they looked at was your child’s 10th and 11th grade grades in terms of stats, and those were lacking in math and science. This outcome was entirely predictable — your kid basically applied to all reaches and the wrong kind of reaches (competitive state schools that cap out of state admits to low numbers).

This is why you can’t just focus on T20s national universities on US News because those are chock full of UCs and Ivies/Stanford type schools that get overwhelmed with applicants. Sure, apply to some of the schools, but cast a broader net and don’t make those non reach applications an afterthought.

UCs are just as difficult for in-state students. You can argue that the pool of in-state is less competitive than OOS because large number of in-state students that apply but the days when 40% to 50% of applicants get into UCB or UCLA and 90%+ get into UCSB are long gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thanks for not blaming the URM boogeyman like most of the grievance-,filled DCUM posters do when their DC doesn't get admitted to his/ her college of choice.

God damn it. Some of you act like admissions standards aren't quantifiably lower for URMs and first gens. The data is readily available: they are. And each of those acceptances means one fewer acceptance for students -- many of them sons and daughters of people who post here -- not in favored demographic groups but with much higher stats. It's bull crap. And just to preempt the response I'm sure is coming, yes, legacies have gotten the same favorable treatment for many years. That's bull crap too.

A poor brown kid did not steal your kid’s spot. Try harder next time.

You have no idea, do you?

Maybe it was a white athlete or a white legacy who stole the spot. Or maybe it was the white kid who had exactly the same stats and similar ec’s and is from the same school who stole it.

Or maybe the essay was meh and even of the admits were a class of 100% lilly-white upper class kids your kid still wouldn’t have gotten in.

+1

All of what to say could be true. Equally true is that dropping test scores, which led to an avalanche of applicants who would never be considered, combined with the stated desire to identify and give preference to minorities is leading to a less qualified applicant pool. Hence, the legal challenge brought against Harvard and UNC.

Says you. What is more impressive, a good score from a kid with no advantages or your privileged, prepped and supported student with a better score? It is very debatable.

Yes, I do say, as does multiple courts of law, which is why the issue is at SCOTUS. And what negates your position is the assumption that those who have the better stats are “privileged, prepped and supported”. It is not true. There is no debate.

DP

You've decided "qualified" means test scores. Colleges are free to define "qualified" in other ways.

Grit, determination, character, motivation, dedication, creativity, kindness, focus, special skills and talents. All of those things could make a student more "qualified" to join an incoming class than someone who scores less on those elements, especially if they are present in a situation where a student has faced tough odds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not being full pay is huge. I wish Naviance separated kids into full pay or not.

What does this mean? How would the UCs know if you are full pay or not, for example. Or for that matter you could be full pay at UVA. The common app does not have any way to indicate and everyone does FAFsA

The Common App asks if you are applying for need based aid. And not everyone fills out the FAFSA. We didn’t. We knew we wouldn’t get aid.

Not sure about this. Besides aren’t the schools OP is talking about supposedly need blind?

Holistic admissions + ZIP code = easy way to guesstimate the applicant’s wealth level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well OP you are not alone. There are likely tens of thousands kids like your DC so disappointed by college rejections. And they will be again next year despite your cautionary post. But it is not over yet, right? My DC is still hoping for good news from UCs. What is that you said about not getting asked by UCs for mid year transcripts? I thought they don’t look at senior grades

They don't look at senior grades. A few kids get asked for additional or clarifying information. Not sure if that's what she's talking about. Also some kids just got news about Regent's Scholarships. But the vast majority of kids won't hear anything until decisions come out next month.

My daughter was asked for no additional info and still got into UCLA last year. The request for additional info are applicants on the borderline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thanks for not blaming the URM boogeyman like most of the grievance-,filled DCUM posters do when their DC doesn't get admitted to his/ her college of choice.

God damn it. Some of you act like admissions standards aren't quantifiably lower for URMs and first gens. The data is readily available: they are. And each of those acceptances means one fewer acceptance for students -- many of them sons and daughters of people who post here -- not in favored demographic groups but with much higher stats. It's bull crap. And just to preempt the response I'm sure is coming, yes, legacies have gotten the same favorable treatment for many years. That's bull crap too.

A poor brown kid did not steal your kid’s spot. Try harder next time.

You have no idea, do you?

Maybe it was a white athlete or a white legacy who stole the spot. Or maybe it was the white kid who had exactly the same stats and similar ec’s and is from the same school who stole it.

Or maybe the essay was meh and even of the admits were a class of 100% lilly-white upper class kids your kid still wouldn’t have gotten in.

+1

All of what to say could be true. Equally true is that dropping test scores, which led to an avalanche of applicants who would never be considered, combined with the stated desire to identify and give preference to minorities is leading to a less qualified applicant pool. Hence, the legal challenge brought against Harvard and UNC.

Says you. What is more impressive, a good score from a kid with no advantages or your privileged, prepped and supported student with a better score? It is very debatable.

Yes, I do say, as does multiple courts of law, which is why the issue is at SCOTUS. And what negates your position is the assumption that those who have the better stats are “privileged, prepped and supported”. It is not true. There is no debate.

DP

You've decided "qualified" means test scores. Colleges are free to define "qualified" in other ways.

Grit, determination, character, motivation, dedication, creativity, kindness, focus, special skills and talents. All of those things could make a student more "qualified" to join an incoming class than someone who scores less on those elements, especially if they are present in a situation where a student has faced tough odds.

Every trait you just listed is subjective as shit! And easily faked, too -- even the sleaziest among us could find a few sympathetic teachers or community members to write glowing recommendation letters attesting to our "character" or "kindness" or "creativity." And then you throw in meaningless terms like "dedication," what does that shit even mean? Fact is, test scores, class rank, GPA and course rigor are the only objective measures of smartness that colleges have, and the reason schools are doing away with them in favor of more arbitrary and subjective categories is to make it easier to meet cosmetic diversity benchmarks. The fact that it's politically incorrect don't make it untrue!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thanks for not blaming the URM boogeyman like most of the grievance-,filled DCUM posters do when their DC doesn't get admitted to his/ her college of choice.

God damn it. Some of you act like admissions standards aren't quantifiably lower for URMs and first gens. The data is readily available: they are. And each of those acceptances means one fewer acceptance for students -- many of them sons and daughters of people who post here -- not in favored demographic groups but with much higher stats. It's bull crap. And just to preempt the response I'm sure is coming, yes, legacies have gotten the same favorable treatment for many years. That's bull crap too.

A poor brown kid did not steal your kid’s spot. Try harder next time.

You have no idea, do you?

Maybe it was a white athlete or a white legacy who stole the spot. Or maybe it was the white kid who had exactly the same stats and similar ec’s and is from the same school who stole it.

Or maybe the essay was meh and even of the admits were a class of 100% lilly-white upper class kids your kid still wouldn’t have gotten in.

+1

All of what to say could be true. Equally true is that dropping test scores, which led to an avalanche of applicants who would never be considered, combined with the stated desire to identify and give preference to minorities is leading to a less qualified applicant pool. Hence, the legal challenge brought against Harvard and UNC.

Says you. What is more impressive, a good score from a kid with no advantages or your privileged, prepped and supported student with a better score? It is very debatable.

Yes, I do say, as does multiple courts of law, which is why the issue is at SCOTUS. And what negates your position is the assumption that those who have the better stats are “privileged, prepped and supported”. It is not true. There is no debate.

DP

You've decided "qualified" means test scores. Colleges are free to define "qualified" in other ways.

Grit, determination, character, motivation, dedication, creativity, kindness, focus, special skills and talents. All of those things could make a student more "qualified" to join an incoming class than someone who scores less on those elements, especially if they are present in a situation where a student has faced tough odds.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thanks for not blaming the URM boogeyman like most of the grievance-,filled DCUM posters do when their DC doesn't get admitted to his/ her college of choice.

God damn it. Some of you act like admissions standards aren't quantifiably lower for URMs and first gens. The data is readily available: they are. And each of those acceptances means one fewer acceptance for students -- many of them sons and daughters of people who post here -- not in favored demographic groups but with much higher stats. It's bull crap. And just to preempt the response I'm sure is coming, yes, legacies have gotten the same favorable treatment for many years. That's bull crap too.

A poor brown kid did not steal your kid’s spot. Try harder next time.

You have no idea, do you?

Maybe it was a white athlete or a white legacy who stole the spot. Or maybe it was the white kid who had exactly the same stats and similar ec’s and is from the same school who stole it.

Or maybe the essay was meh and even of the admits were a class of 100% lilly-white upper class kids your kid still wouldn’t have gotten in.

+1

All of what to say could be true. Equally true is that dropping test scores, which led to an avalanche of applicants who would never be considered, combined with the stated desire to identify and give preference to minorities is leading to a less qualified applicant pool. Hence, the legal challenge brought against Harvard and UNC.

Says you. What is more impressive, a good score from a kid with no advantages or your privileged, prepped and supported student with a better score? It is very debatable.

Yes, I do say, as does multiple courts of law, which is why the issue is at SCOTUS. And what negates your position is the assumption that those who have the better stats are “privileged, prepped and supported”. It is not true. There is no debate.

DP

You've decided "qualified" means test scores. Colleges are free to define "qualified" in other ways.

Grit, determination, character, motivation, dedication, creativity, kindness, focus, special skills and talents. All of those things could make a student more "qualified" to join an incoming class than someone who scores less on those elements, especially if they are present in a situation where a student has faced tough odds.

Every trait you just listed is subjective as shit! And easily faked, too -- even the sleaziest among us could find a few sympathetic teachers or community members to write glowing recommendation letters attesting to our "character" or "kindness" or "creativity." And then you throw in meaningless terms like "dedication," what does that shit even mean? Fact is, test scores, class rank, GPA and course rigor are the only objective measures of smartness that colleges have, and the reason schools are doing away with them in favor of more arbitrary and subjective categories is to make it easier to meet cosmetic diversity benchmarks. The fact that it's politically incorrect don't make it untrue!

You probably don't have multiple kids. Of you did you would probably see that all of the characteristics are very real and very different in different individuals.

[Anonymous]

I doubt a time machine would do much. Today's college admits are simply much more qualified than a few decades ago. Especially at UMD because it's cheap. The soaring cost of private universities is a problem, and we need to address it with a tax credit or something.

[Anonymous]

Maybe we should cap private university tuition by taxing each dollar of tuition over 30k/year or whatever figure at 100% tax rate. Taxing it as a sort of excess unrelated business income because it far exceeds the cost of actually providing the education.

[Anonymous]

Just take him to College Park and find some fun stuff there. Getting too attached to any school is a bad idea. He has a great option available he's going to be fine.

You just have to work with ehat you've got and what he's got is nit shabby at all.

Also, I have a friend from high school who is a super kick ass orthopedic surgeon. Her undergrad? Florida State. He's going to be fine, but he needs to be happy with the great option he has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thanks for not blaming the URM boogeyman like most of the grievance-,filled DCUM posters do when their DC doesn't get admitted to his/ her college of choice.

God damn it. Some of you act like admissions standards aren't quantifiably lower for URMs and first gens. The data is readily available: they are. And each of those acceptances means one fewer acceptance for students -- many of them sons and daughters of people who post here -- not in favored demographic groups but with much higher stats. It's bull crap. And just to preempt the response I'm sure is coming, yes, legacies have gotten the same favorable treatment for many years. That's bull crap too.

A poor brown kid did not steal your kid’s spot. Try harder next time.

You have no idea, do you?

Maybe it was a white athlete or a white legacy who stole the spot. Or maybe it was the white kid who had exactly the same stats and similar ec’s and is from the same school who stole it.

Or maybe the essay was meh and even of the admits were a class of 100% lilly-white upper class kids your kid still wouldn’t have gotten in.

+1

All of what to say could be true. Equally true is that dropping test scores, which led to an avalanche of applicants who would never be considered, combined with the stated desire to identify and give preference to minorities is leading to a less qualified applicant pool. Hence, the legal challenge brought against Harvard and UNC.

Says you. What is more impressive, a good score from a kid with no advantages or your privileged, prepped and supported student with a better score? It is very debatable.

Yes, I do say, as does multiple courts of law, which is why the issue is at SCOTUS. And what negates your position is the assumption that those who have the better stats are “privileged, prepped and supported”. It is not true. There is no debate.

DP

You've decided "qualified" means test scores. Colleges are free to define "qualified" in other ways.

Grit, determination, character, motivation, dedication, creativity, kindness, focus, special skills and talents. All of those things could make a student more "qualified" to join an incoming class than someone who scores less on those elements, especially if they are present in a situation where a student has faced tough odds.

Every trait you just listed is subjective as shit! And easily faked, too -- even the sleaziest among us could find a few sympathetic teachers or community members to write glowing recommendation letters attesting to our "character" or "kindness" or "creativity." And then you throw in meaningless terms like "dedication," what does that shit even mean? Fact is, test scores, class rank, GPA and course rigor are the only objective measures of smartness that colleges have, and the reason schools are doing away with them in favor of more arbitrary and subjective categories is to make it easier to meet cosmetic diversity benchmarks. The fact that it's politically incorrect don't make it untrue!

Well aren't you articulate. Where did you go to college, just asking because I would say their admissions criteria could use some rethinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thanks for not blaming the URM boogeyman like most of the grievance-,filled DCUM posters do when their DC doesn't get admitted to his/ her college of choice.

God damn it. Some of you act like admissions standards aren't quantifiably lower for URMs and first gens. The data is readily available: they are. And each of those acceptances means one fewer acceptance for students -- many of them sons and daughters of people who post here -- not in favored demographic groups but with much higher stats. It's bull crap. And just to preempt the response I'm sure is coming, yes, legacies have gotten the same favorable treatment for many years. That's bull crap too.

A poor brown kid did not steal your kid’s spot. Try harder next time.

You have no idea, do you?

Maybe it was a white athlete or a white legacy who stole the spot. Or maybe it was the white kid who had exactly the same stats and similar ec’s and is from the same school who stole it.

Or maybe the essay was meh and even of the admits were a class of 100% lilly-white upper class kids your kid still wouldn’t have gotten in.

+1

All of what to say could be true. Equally true is that dropping test scores, which led to an avalanche of applicants who would never be considered, combined with the stated desire to identify and give preference to minorities is leading to a less qualified applicant pool. Hence, the legal challenge brought against Harvard and UNC.

Says you. What is more impressive, a good score from a kid with no advantages or your privileged, prepped and supported student with a better score? It is very debatable.

Yes, I do say, as does multiple courts of law, which is why the issue is at SCOTUS. And what negates your position is the assumption that those who have the better stats are “privileged, prepped and supported”. It is not true. There is no debate.

DP

You've decided "qualified" means test scores. Colleges are free to define "qualified" in other ways.

Grit, determination, character, motivation, dedication, creativity, kindness, focus, special skills and talents. All of those things could make a student more "qualified" to join an incoming class than someone who scores less on those elements, especially if they are present in a situation where a student has faced tough odds.

Every trait you just listed is subjective as shit! And easily faked, too -- even the sleaziest among us could find a few sympathetic teachers or community members to write glowing recommendation letters attesting to our "character" or "kindness" or "creativity." And then you throw in meaningless terms like "dedication," what does that shit even mean? Fact is, test scores, class rank, GPA and course rigor are the only objective measures of smartness that colleges have, and the reason schools are doing away with them in favor of more arbitrary and subjective categories is to make it easier to meet cosmetic diversity benchmarks. The fact that it's politically incorrect don't make it untrue!

Not really. You can see it in an application, when the "right words" in the recs are backed up by the particulars that do show it isn't false praise. The application becomes a "show don't tell" -- show them who you are through your actions, and you won't have to rely on allegedly "easily faked" recommendation letters. If they are fake, there will be a disconnect between the show and the tell.

[Anonymous]

All of what to say could be true. Equally true is that dropping test scores, which led to an avalanche of applicants who would never be considered, combined with the stated desire to identify and give preference to minorities is leading to a less qualified applicant pool. Hence, the legal challenge brought against Harvard and UNC.

Says you. What is more impressive, a good score from a kid with no advantages or your privileged, prepped and supported student with a better score? It is very debatable.

Yes, I do say, as does multiple courts of law, which is why the issue is at SCOTUS. And what negates your position is the assumption that those who have the better stats are “privileged, prepped and supported”. It is not true. There is no debate.
I believe the research does not support this claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK here's the brutal truth. My kid is a 90% kid who thinks he's a 99% kid. 1500 SAT. 4.5W GPA with a solid rigor- 11 APs but not in hard science or math. He got into Scholars but not Honors at college park. Rejected from UVA. Neither outcome was unexpected, but both still hurt.

We paid for test prep. We paid for a college counselor. We paid for editors for the essay. We did not pay for private K-12. So recs were from public school teachers and administrators who are overworked and can't really glow even if they want to. We filled out a FAFSA.

He's getting rejected or deferred from everywhere (elite publics and privates) except safety schools. I know, it happens. I know we should have been prepared for this. It has to happen to someone.

And as special as my kid is, being 90th percentile in a world of 99.9th percentile can be a crappy feeling. Add to that not being full pay, not being a legacy, and not being a recruited athlete. I wish I could undo the last two years. I wish I could reset as the goal getting admitted to the state flagship and other out of state publics that offer merit aid and call it a day. That's good enough and trying to shoot for more is a dream that is largely reserved for the extra-brilliant, or the upper crust.

If I could do it over I would have him apply to Miami of Ohio and Wisconsin and Pitt and the other public schools that take a lot of kids from this area instead of all these crazy expensive private schools with much smaller classes where kids like him applying are a dime a dozen. At the time he didn't want to because he knew College Park is a better school than all these options. So he'd rather cast a wide net with the more selective private schools. But now it's coming down to the wire and it really feels like he will literally have NO choices. I am regretting his whole strategy. I just hope similar parents out there can hear this and inform their own choices.

I thought only Asians prepped and that prepping was cheating according to DCUM posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, thanks for not blaming the URM boogeyman like most of the grievance-,filled DCUM posters do when their DC doesn't get admitted to his/ her college of choice.

God damn it. Some of you act like admissions standards aren't quantifiably lower for URMs and first gens. The data is readily available: they are. And each of those acceptances means one fewer acceptance for students -- many of them sons and daughters of people who post here -- not in favored demographic groups but with much higher stats. It's bull crap. And just to preempt the response I'm sure is coming, yes, legacies have gotten the same favorable treatment for many years. That's bull crap too.

A poor brown kid did not steal your kid’s spot. Try harder next time.

You have no idea, do you?

Maybe it was a white athlete or a white legacy who stole the spot. Or maybe it was the white kid who had exactly the same stats and similar ec’s and is from the same school who stole it.

Or maybe the essay was meh and even of the admits were a class of 100% lilly-white upper class kids your kid still wouldn’t have gotten in.

+1

All of what to say could be true. Equally true is that dropping test scores, which led to an avalanche of applicants who would never be considered, combined with the stated desire to identify and give preference to minorities is leading to a less qualified applicant pool. Hence, the legal challenge brought against Harvard and UNC.

Says you. What is more impressive, a good score from a kid with no advantages or your privileged, prepped and supported student with a better score? It is very debatable.

Yes, I do say, as does multiple courts of law, which is why the issue is at SCOTUS. And what negates your position is the assumption that those who have the better stats are “privileged, prepped and supported”. It is not true. There is no debate.

DP

You've decided "qualified" means test scores. Colleges are free to define "qualified" in other ways.

Grit, determination, character, motivation, dedication, creativity, kindness, focus, special skills and talents. All of those things could make a student more "qualified" to join an incoming class than someone who scores less on those elements, especially if they are present in a situation where a student has faced tough odds.

Friend's kid has all those characters plus super high stats, still got rejected from all top 20 schools. 
4 year varsity/ captain: Grit, determination, character, motivation, dedication, focus
Cello first chair: creativity, special skills, talents
Presidential service award: kindness
Getting into the top 20 schools is a lottery.