My kid isn't getting in

[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.

There most certainly is a debate. They ditched using the test scores didn't they?

I am constantly amazed by all of the high stats on this board, which might support the privileged, prepped and supported argument. How are all of these kids scoring so high? In my day, at a competitive, privileged school, anything over 1400 seemed excellent, but here it’s almost scoffed at? Has the test changed that much? How do all of your kids have nearly perfect scores? Clearly I’m only starting the process with my own DC but they are already talking about not submitting because they won’t break 1400 and otherwise have all As. It just seems really broken to me. High school me would be getting rejected by every single school I applied to years ago. It really is nuts. With that said, it’s good to know there are many great schools out there, many paths to achieve the same goal/outcome. The kids are going to be alright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Florida State is no longer easy to get in. It’s a very good institution

[Anonymous]

The math is pretty brutal, OP. Take the top 20 SLACs and the top 20 national universities -- back of the envelope guess, collectively these schools enroll about 40,000 kids each year. Assume the average yield rate for these top schools is 50%, and those schools are admitting 80,000 kids to fill their 40,000 places.

The DC region is chock full of affluent, educated families with high-performing kids. Each year, there are over a thousand DC area seniors with excellent grades and test scores applying to these top schools.

Almost all of them have stats that match those of kids who are accepted at these schools, but most of them will not get in. These schools also have many thousands of similar kids applying from NY, CA, and so on, and they try to have geographic diversity, school type diversity, gender balance, racial diversity, diversity of talent and interests and, in many cases, they admit many recruited athletes before the regular admissions season even begins for most kids.

The math is just brutal. I tell my kids that at any school with an acceptance rate below 25%, they're basically buying lottery tickets, and even the kids with perfect GPAs, perfect test scores, impressive ECs, strong essays and strong recommendations are also buying lottery tickets. A small percentage will get lucky. Most won't. But it really is pretty arbitrary.

Try to remind your kid of this. They didn't get the winning lottery number, but it's not a comment on their talent or worth as humans. It's just: too many great kids, too few seats.

[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.

There most certainly is a debate. They ditched using the test scores didn't they?

I am constantly amazed by all of the high stats on this board, which might support the privileged, prepped and supported argument. How are all of these kids scoring so high? In my day, at a competitive, privileged school, anything over 1400 seemed excellent, but here it’s almost scoffed at? Has the test changed that much? How do all of your kids have nearly perfect scores? Clearly I’m only starting the process with my own DC but they are already talking about not submitting because they won’t break 1400 and otherwise have all As. It just seems really broken to me. High school me would be getting rejected by every single school I applied to years ago. It really is nuts. With that said, it’s good to know there are many great schools out there, many paths to achieve the same goal/outcome. The kids are going to be alright.

The raw score is not as relevant as the percentiles or the rankings. There are still students that excel relative to the mere mortals and they want to try to study at very high level universities.

The well financed public in a big metro suburb has always graduated a few hundred every year and and at most a half dozen are accepted into the most elite colleges. It has always been that way and it is still that way even if the goa numbers are higher.

[Anonymous]

Even the schools with acceptance rates above 25% are still lotteries. A school may have a 30% admit rate overall, but it may be much lower for female applicants, for non-athletes, for kids from NOVA, and so on.

[Anonymous]

Both my friends from high school that went to Ivys had mediocre careers. Friends from Towson and Wake Forest kicked ass. And UMD friend became surgeon. Don’t think career success is evaluation of worth but just a point. Lots more in the mix than where you go to college. Develop skills and motivation wherever you go.

[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!

Colleges include recommendations now and you could argue recommendations are subjective so why do they include them? Some include interviews and you could also argue those are subjective. If the Varsity Blues scandal taught us nothing else, it’s that people can find ways to cheat on the “objective” tests as well. If you only used what you say are “objective” measurements GPA and test score, you would have more GPA/test scores in the same range than HYPSM could possibly accept and then what do they use? If using weighted GPA you would also have to quantify what was available at the school. You would have to compare a 4.7 GPA and a school where kids take all honors and APs from freshman year to someone that has a 4.5 and is the valedictorian at a school that either offered limited APs or limited how many students could take. But by your “objective” standard 4.7 at school where that puts the student in the top 15% is greater than 4.5 where the student is the valedictorian. Both students can do the work and colleges want to be able to pick who they want that they feel will handle the work and contribute to the community. Just because you want to go after minorities and try to state your opinions as facts doesn’t make it true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Florida State is no longer easy to get in. It’s a very good institution

Florida State is a great college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both my friends from high school that went to Ivys had mediocre careers. Friends from Towson and Wake Forest kicked ass. And UMD friend became surgeon. Don’t think career success is evaluation of worth but just a point. Lots more in the mix than where you go to college. Develop skills and motivation wherever you go.

This was my experience too. I have two friends who went to Ivys who ended up in jobs you could have done with community college.

A lot of employers prefer to hire from the State Universities.

[Anonymous]

Welcome to equity. Stats don't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The math is pretty brutal, OP. Take the top 20 SLACs and the top 20 national universities -- back of the envelope guess, collectively these schools enroll about 40,000 kids each year. Assume the average yield rate for these top schools is 50%, and those schools are admitting 80,000 kids to fill their 40,000 places.

The DC region is chock full of affluent, educated families with high-performing kids. Each year, there are over a thousand DC area seniors with excellent grades and test scores applying to these top schools.

Almost all of them have stats that match those of kids who are accepted at these schools, but most of them will not get in. These schools also have many thousands of similar kids applying from NY, CA, and so on, and they try to have geographic diversity, school type diversity, gender balance, racial diversity, diversity of talent and interests and, in many cases, they admit many recruited athletes before the regular admissions season even begins for most kids.

The math is just brutal. I tell my kids that at any school with an acceptance rate below 25%, they're basically buying lottery tickets, and even the kids with perfect GPAs, perfect test scores, impressive ECs, strong essays and strong recommendations are also buying lottery tickets. A small percentage will get lucky. Most won't. But it really is pretty arbitrary.

Try to remind your kid of this. They didn't get the winning lottery number, but it's not a comment on their talent or worth as humans. It's just: too many great kids, too few seats.

The top 20 LACs are not equal to the top 20 national universities. The US naval academy is not equal to UCLA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The math is pretty brutal, OP. Take the top 20 SLACs and the top 20 national universities -- back of the envelope guess, collectively these schools enroll about 40,000 kids each year. Assume the average yield rate for these top schools is 50%, and those schools are admitting 80,000 kids to fill their 40,000 places.

The DC region is chock full of affluent, educated families with high-performing kids. Each year, there are over a thousand DC area seniors with excellent grades and test scores applying to these top schools.

Almost all of them have stats that match those of kids who are accepted at these schools, but most of them will not get in. These schools also have many thousands of similar kids applying from NY, CA, and so on, and they try to have geographic diversity, school type diversity, gender balance, racial diversity, diversity of talent and interests and, in many cases, they admit many recruited athletes before the regular admissions season even begins for most kids.

The math is just brutal. I tell my kids that at any school with an acceptance rate below 25%, they're basically buying lottery tickets, and even the kids with perfect GPAs, perfect test scores, impressive ECs, strong essays and strong recommendations are also buying lottery tickets. A small percentage will get lucky. Most won't. But it really is pretty arbitrary.

Try to remind your kid of this. They didn't get the winning lottery number, but it's not a comment on their talent or worth as humans. It's just: too many great kids, too few seats.

The top 20 LACs are not equal to the top 20 national universities. The US naval academy is not equal to UCLA.

No one is learning to starting to learn how to pilot a nuclear sub at ucla...I hope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The math is pretty brutal, OP. Take the top 20 SLACs and the top 20 national universities -- back of the envelope guess, collectively these schools enroll about 40,000 kids each year. Assume the average yield rate for these top schools is 50%, and those schools are admitting 80,000 kids to fill their 40,000 places.

The DC region is chock full of affluent, educated families with high-performing kids. Each year, there are over a thousand DC area seniors with excellent grades and test scores applying to these top schools.

Almost all of them have stats that match those of kids who are accepted at these schools, but most of them will not get in. These schools also have many thousands of similar kids applying from NY, CA, and so on, and they try to have geographic diversity, school type diversity, gender balance, racial diversity, diversity of talent and interests and, in many cases, they admit many recruited athletes before the regular admissions season even begins for most kids.

The math is just brutal. I tell my kids that at any school with an acceptance rate below 25%, they're basically buying lottery tickets, and even the kids with perfect GPAs, perfect test scores, impressive ECs, strong essays and strong recommendations are also buying lottery tickets. A small percentage will get lucky. Most won't. But it really is pretty arbitrary.

Try to remind your kid of this. They didn't get the winning lottery number, but it's not a comment on their talent or worth as humans. It's just: too many great kids, too few seats.

The top 20 LACs are not equal to the top 20 national universities. The US naval academy is not equal to UCLA.

That was your take away?

[Anonymous]

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.

My child is a junior but we are definitely not filling out a FAFSA. Don’t need merit, and would not want to take it from a family that does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both my friends from high school that went to Ivys had mediocre careers. Friends from Towson and Wake Forest kicked ass. And UMD friend became surgeon. Don’t think career success is evaluation of worth but just a point. Lots more in the mix than where you go to college. Develop skills and motivation wherever you go.

This was my experience too. I have two friends who went to Ivys who ended up in jobs you could have done with community college.

A lot of employers prefer to hire from the State Universities.

That's all they had to choose from.