Naviance is wrong

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t trust naviance. My son with near perfect SAT score and 4.89 GPA was rejected from every single school except for his safeties.

Let me guess, the rejections were from colleges with <25% acceptance rates? Then yeah, don’t count on those.

This. Also, unless your kids' high school is unusual, you just aren't going to have as many data points for those highly competitive schools. Or even for a less competitive but a random SLAC that maybe only has had a handful of kids from your high school apply over the last 6 years.

Naviance can be a useful tool, but it's only a tool. It's not a crystal ball.

I think it can be most useful in seeing where your student will fall (reach/match/safety) when looking at the public universities in your state. We live in Virginia, and between Naviance and SCHEV, our results matched the info we were seeing from those sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Weighted GPAs are worthless

2. High unweighted GPAs are not going to get you anywhere in the top 25 without a very rigorous course load with 4 years of every academic subject including foreign language.

3. Any college with a 25% or less acceptance rate is a lottery for kids with nearly perfect stats

4. Naviance does not account for recruits, legacies, courseload, first gen status, full pay status, etc.

5. It’s a tool, not a crystal ball.

DD had straight As, even in APs and honors, won the Wellesley Book Award, was a STEM student, could pay full tuition anywhere, cash. Played sports as well. Great SAT scores. White female with no legacy, rejected from everything but her safeties. Applied to no Ivys by choice.

Don’t tell me her race didn’t play a role in this liberal academic environment

I worked in admissions and am currently an alum interviewer for my college. Your daughter sounds like an excellent student, so I can understand your disappointment, but there's a lot more to admissions than GPA and SAT scores. Before you play the race card, consider:

What were her recommendations like?
How did she do in interviews?
Did her essay add dimension to her profile as a strong student?
Did she hold any leadership positions -- you mention that she played sports, but was she a team captain?
Did she excel in any national STEM competitions?

First, there IS no disappointment on my or my husband's part. She got into a nice college and has continued to do great.. I didn't WANT a top school, don't care. But boy was she pressured by her peer group in this area! What shocked me was the absolute ridiculousness of the process.

Her teachers, frankly, were stunned. Look at the list you just put up above. Does that also apply towards minorities, or is it ok if they don't meet your (frankly) abusive criteria above.

What you are saying as a college recruiter/interviewer is that kids need to get almost perfect SAT scores, over-perform in academics, be team captains, win national competitions, and hold leadership positions? These kids are TEENAGERS for Christ sakes!

Do you NOT see how absolutely absurd this is? My GOD if this is your criteria, you just proved my point as to how abusive and unrealistic college admissions has become. You are a major part of the problem.

I feel you. My white daughter needed some FA for most colleges and she was ousted from most of the schools she applied. Top 10% in her top 5 private, top grades, ACT 34, won a state championship for a science event, team captain to two varsity for 2 years. Played one of those sports in club setting since she was 12. President of two major clubs and heavily involved. Worked PT at an ice cream shop. 13 year Girl Scout and volunteered 2 weeks a summer at a Girl Scout camp. She interned for 8 weeks and received a fabulous recommendation from that internship on top of 3 other recommendations. Her college counselor said all were great. She was literally at school, at a club meeting, playing a sport, volunteering, or working PT her entire 4 years of colleges. Any free time she was studying. She barely had time to socialize. She loved her school. She gave it her all.

She then watched so many minorities and full pay rich white kids below her academically at her school (some barely involved) get to PICK between top schools. Her and three other obvious white FA kids got squat. One is potentially our valedictorian. They are going to UMCP after being denied at all reached and targets. Accepted to UMCP and Penn State only, which were both safeties. We have one student who had to repeat a grade and is still on Calc AB as a senior, get into an Ivy. It is very hard for these kids to swallow. They are taught to work hard and treat everyone equally and then they watch as colleges do not treat them fairly. But it is a hard, but important lesson to learn. My nephew got bumped from many tech schools and watched as girls who had similar or lesser stats get in AND get merit aid. No different than white males having an easier time at SLAC's. You have to find out which colleges need you or move to North Dakota. Stats and EC's are not enough. Colleges play the number game.

As suggested in another thread, perhaps a better use of your $ would have been to save it for college, so she wouldn't need as much FA, rather than the $$$ you spent on that "top private."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t trust naviance. My son with near perfect SAT score and 4.89 GPA was rejected from every single school except for his safeties.

You were smart to include safeties, some families do not.

[Anonymous]

For the billionth time Colleges are laughing all the way to the bank.

EC's mean nothing. Keep listening to all the online garbage spending all your money on those community service trips.

Most large schools are data oriented schools or it's about the money. They are a business. Full pay always helps. Not a guarantee.

[Anonymous]

It isn't wrong, better people applied, happens all the time. the schools take who they want. when they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the billionth time Colleges are laughing all the way to the bank.

EC's mean nothing. Keep listening to all the online garbage spending all your money on those community service trips.

Most large schools are data oriented schools or it's about the money. They are a business. Full pay always helps. Not a guarantee.

I agree full pay helps immensely at competitive schools which are need aware.

I also agree with another of your points - It is well known that any EC which is "pay to play" -- like summer programs and particularly "paid service trips" do way more harm than good in elite admissions. This is mentioned in virtually every book written by an ex elite adcom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t trust naviance. My son with near perfect SAT score and 4.89 GPA was rejected from every single school except for his safeties.

I'd be looking to see who wrote his recommendations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t trust naviance. My son with near perfect SAT score and 4.89 GPA was rejected from every single school except for his safeties.

I'd be looking to see who wrote his recommendations.

Me too. And a list of match schools.

[Anonymous]

My experience is Naviance was quite accurate. But, this was for schools with large numbers of applicants.

What happens is you need to look at scattergrams and not just the 25-75% numbers (or what they call a safety).

The scattergrams show you how people with a certain GPA and test scores did on admissions. From that, you can get an idea of the probability of admissions.

As an example, at some elite schools, even with near perfect grades and SATs, there were a lot more rejected than accepted (even if you were about the 75%)...

But for the schools like Virginia Tech, at DD's school, almost all above 4.0 were admitted. Between 3.8 and 4.0 there was a drop off, and below 3.8, few were admitted. SAT scores did not matter.

Similar trends existed, but with different numbers, for UVA, W&M, and JMU.

(DD was in the 60-70% number for W&M, the 30% number for UVA, and the 99% number for VT); She was admitted to W&M and VT, chose W&M.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My experience is Naviance was quite accurate. But, this was for schools with large numbers of applicants.

What happens is you need to look at scattergrams and not just the 25-75% numbers (or what they call a safety).

The scattergrams show you how people with a certain GPA and test scores did on admissions. From that, you can get an idea of the probability of admissions.

As an example, at some elite schools, even with near perfect grades and SATs, there were a lot more rejected than accepted (even if you were about the 75%)...

But for the schools like Virginia Tech, at DD's school, almost all above 4.0 were admitted. Between 3.8 and 4.0 there was a drop off, and below 3.8, few were admitted. SAT scores did not matter.

Similar trends existed, but with different numbers, for UVA, W&M, and JMU.

(DD was in the 60-70% number for W&M, the 30% number for UVA, and the 99% number for VT); She was admitted to W&M and VT, chose W&M.

Can you help a newbie understand all this? I look at Naviance with my DD and see that scatterplot (for MCPS) and see green checks for kids who were admitted and red xes for those who weren't. In the schools she's considering "fit" or "match" schools, she's in there with the rest of the kids... But.... What are we missing? Some kids get in with lower stats than hers, some higher. She's always right in the mix. But maybe that's meaningless? I also worry that Naviance is steering us wrong. Rice, for example, is listed as a "match" according to Naviance, but then people on DCUM talk about it as a reach for a mid 1400s kid with excellent grades and good ECs. ? I'd love more info/intel from those who've been through this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s wrong at your school - but every school is different. How many data points are there for his reaches? If not many, then the data is not reliable.

large schools where data are self-reported by students, the rejection data are not accurate - kids do better reporting accepts then rejects. for small schools where counselor enters the data, they are more accurate. i bet OP's kid is from a large public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My experience is Naviance was quite accurate. But, this was for schools with large numbers of applicants.

What happens is you need to look at scattergrams and not just the 25-75% numbers (or what they call a safety).

The scattergrams show you how people with a certain GPA and test scores did on admissions. From that, you can get an idea of the probability of admissions.

As an example, at some elite schools, even with near perfect grades and SATs, there were a lot more rejected than accepted (even if you were about the 75%)...

But for the schools like Virginia Tech, at DD's school, almost all above 4.0 were admitted. Between 3.8 and 4.0 there was a drop off, and below 3.8, few were admitted. SAT scores did not matter.

Similar trends existed, but with different numbers, for UVA, W&M, and JMU.

(DD was in the 60-70% number for W&M, the 30% number for UVA, and the 99% number for VT); She was admitted to W&M and VT, chose W&M.

Can you help a newbie understand all this? I look at Naviance with my DD and see that scatterplot (for MCPS) and see green checks for kids who were admitted and red xes for those who weren't. In the schools she's considering "fit" or "match" schools, she's in there with the rest of the kids... But.... What are we missing? Some kids get in with lower stats than hers, some higher. She's always right in the mix. But maybe that's meaningless? I also worry that Naviance is steering us wrong. Rice, for example, is listed as a "match" according to Naviance, but then people on DCUM talk about it as a reach for a mid 1400s kid with excellent grades and good ECs. ? I'd love more info/intel from those who've been through this!

There are factors beyond grades. Rice is admits about 11.1% of applicants. That probably means there is no grade / GPA where more than 30% of the students are admitted.
At the top schools, the assumption is nearly all A's, and good test scores. Without that they will not consider you. But, even with the scores, that means you are considered, not that you are in.
So, the scatter grams show you how similar students did. If about 30% around your child are green, and 70% are red, that means 30% are accepted. It is a reach to near reach for your daughter.

The reality is there is no difference in a 1500 and 1600 SAT in terms of the ability to do the work. So, the colleges do not care that much (once it is above a number). They will look at what they want in the freshman class. For example, I am sure Anthony Rendon -- who attended Rice on a Baseball Scholarship -- did not have all A's, and 1500+ SATs. But, he is one of the best third basemen -- a talent they needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s wrong at your school - but every school is different. How many data points are there for his reaches? If not many, then the data is not reliable.

large schools where data are self-reported by students, the rejection data are not accurate - kids do better reporting accepts then rejects. for small schools where counselor enters the data, they are more accurate. i bet OP's kid is from a large public school.

DD went to a large school, and the school entered all of the data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s wrong at your school - but every school is different. How many data points are there for his reaches? If not many, then the data is not reliable.

large schools where data are self-reported by students, the rejection data are not accurate - kids do better reporting accepts then rejects. for small schools where counselor enters the data, they are more accurate. i bet OP's kid is from a large public school.

DD went to a large school, and the school entered all of the data.

I doubt that. Schools don't get accept/reject report from Naviance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it’s wrong at your school - but every school is different. How many data points are there for his reaches? If not many, then the data is not reliable.

large schools where data are self-reported by students, the rejection data are not accurate - kids do better reporting accepts then rejects. for small schools where counselor enters the data, they are more accurate. i bet OP's kid is from a large public school.

DD went to a large school, and the school entered all of the data.

I doubt that. Schools don't get accept/reject report from Naviance.

DP. Don't doubt it. Many schools make Naviance exit data part of the graduation process. Ours did and the data was reliable as a result. Yes kids can still lie but they don't.