Colleges for the slow-to-mature kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It depends on whether they are coming from private v. public and if this occurred during distance learning. Public schools handed out easy As during DL so there's no excuse for low grades then.

While Covid is a factor now, there are many kids that mature slowly and had this issue even during non-Covid times. Lack of motivation, un-diagnosed ADHD, etc. have always been there.

Or even diagnosed ADHD. My ADHD kid is in 11th grade at a private school and currently has a 3.2ish unweighted GPA. That's pretty much the best he can do. I think his weighted GPA is a 3.4 or so. He is awful at math and physics/chemistry so those grades (low Cs) bring his GPA down. It's a tough school without retakes. Late penalties exist (70% after one day late 50% after two days late, zero after that). He will probably end up at a SLAC and do fine. I don't know many truly motivated boys his age. My brother was the same story at his age. He finally matured around 23 or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just here to say I wish schools only looked at 11th and 12th for gpa. It’s insane to expect consistent perfection, ambition, and long-term planning from kids from 14/15 -17/18 without intense parental control. Wonder why helicopter parents became a thing? I don’t. Colleges reward premature frontal lobe development and controlling parenting (even parents doing some of the kids work)

Do parents really do this? Lol! I don't think my kid would want me attempting his precalc or physics especially since I never took those classes.

Yes. Especially last year with virtual learning. And not just parents. I even heard about someone (friend of a friend) having their kid's foreign language tutor "sitting with" the student during a vritual test.

Basically if a kid is a current senior who had low freshmen/sophmore grade but "thrived" junior year with virtual learning, I'm going to assume there was some form of cheating involved. That's why it's important that OP's kid ALSO did well on the SAT. In that case, i would NOT assume cheating.

I'll bite. DS struggled freshmen year, had a neuropsych eval half way through followed by accommodations and meds, and steadily improved. Was in hybrid mode for all of junior year where his grades really picked up, then has been all As since start of senior year. Yes, there are probably some cheating, but there are others in the slow-to-mature category. DS got a great ACT score and submitted with the rest of his app.

DS was hurt because the school scrapped grades for the spring semester during the first lockdown. He could have used another 3.7 semester for his overall GPA. He got into a T10 LAC, but might have shot for a T5 with a slightly higher GPA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just here to say I wish schools only looked at 11th and 12th for gpa. It’s insane to expect consistent perfection, ambition, and long-term planning from kids from 14/15 -17/18 without intense parental control. Wonder why helicopter parents became a thing? I don’t. Colleges reward premature frontal lobe development and controlling parenting (even parents doing some of the kids work)

Do parents really do this? Lol! I don't think my kid would want me attempting his precalc or physics especially since I never took those classes.

Yes. Especially last year with virtual learning. And not just parents. I even heard about someone (friend of a friend) having their kid's foreign language tutor "sitting with" the student during a vritual test.

Basically if a kid is a current senior who had low freshmen/sophmore grade but "thrived" junior year with virtual learning, I'm going to assume there was some form of cheating involved. That's why it's important that OP's kid ALSO did well on the SAT. In that case, i would NOT assume cheating.

I'll bite. DS struggled freshmen year, had a neuropsych eval half way through followed by accommodations and meds, and steadily improved. Was in hybrid mode for all of junior year where his grades really picked up, then has been all As since start of senior year. Yes, there are probably some cheating, but there are others in the slow-to-mature category. DS got a great ACT score and submitted with the rest of his app.

DS was hurt because the school scrapped grades for the spring semester during the first lockdown. He could have used another 3.7 semester for his overall GPA. He got into a T10 LAC, but might have shot for a T5 with a slightly higher GPA.

Yeah, I don't really buy this. Some other hook going on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It depends on whether they are coming from private v. public and if this occurred during distance learning. Public schools handed out easy As during DL so there's no excuse for low grades then.

And don't forget all the cheaters with group collaboration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just here to say I wish schools only looked at 11th and 12th for gpa. It’s insane to expect consistent perfection, ambition, and long-term planning from kids from 14/15 -17/18 without intense parental control. Wonder why helicopter parents became a thing? I don’t. Colleges reward premature frontal lobe development and controlling parenting (even parents doing some of the kids work)

Do parents really do this? Lol! I don't think my kid would want me attempting his precalc or physics especially since I never took those classes.

Yes. Especially last year with virtual learning. And not just parents. I even heard about someone (friend of a friend) having their kid's foreign language tutor "sitting with" the student during a vritual test.

Basically if a kid is a current senior who had low freshmen/sophmore grade but "thrived" junior year with virtual learning, I'm going to assume there was some form of cheating involved. That's why it's important that OP's kid ALSO did well on the SAT. In that case, i would NOT assume cheating.

I'll bite. DS struggled freshmen year, had a neuropsych eval half way through followed by accommodations and meds, and steadily improved. Was in hybrid mode for all of junior year where his grades really picked up, then has been all As since start of senior year. Yes, there are probably some cheating, but there are others in the slow-to-mature category. DS got a great ACT score and submitted with the rest of his app.

DS was hurt because the school scrapped grades for the spring semester during the first lockdown. He could have used another 3.7 semester for his overall GPA. He got into a T10 LAC, but might have shot for a T5 with a slightly higher GPA.

Somehow this reads as more about you than him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see a lot of posters complain about how their kids are "bad at taking tests" and therefore have a low SAT/ACT score but decent GPA. Colleges are now allowing test optional applications to address this (thanks to Corona mostly). Great for those parents/kids!

What about kids who didn't do well in 9th and 10th grades academically but got their acts together in 11th/12th? Say they end up with a weighted GPA in the 3.7-4.0 range but end up with a 1550+ in the SATs in junior/senior year. Basically, a good trajectory. Assuming these are male, White or Asian kids that want to do Engineering/CS with no legacy/hooks/sports. Are they pretty much fuc*ed? Will any "top school" touch them?

Would like to hear about schools that really look into the application and select such kids as well as personal experiences. Not interested in "you can get a great education at any school" posts, please.

We'll, you can get an education at any school, even if it is not one that will give parents bragging rights.

My kid got a 1520 SAT (one and done with zero prep) kept her GPA up on her own despite dealing with a serious health issue during grades 9-11 and then was diagnosed with ADHD early senior year, so I'd argue that my kid got in not because I helicoptered (I didn't) but because she is so smart she was able to complete her work at an A level despite obstacles. Maybe that is who your late bloomer is competing against.

This is typical of girl students. Many, many, many boys just do not work that way at this age.

[Anonymous]

I know a kid from HS. Late bloomer. Smart, but no one would have guessed how smart. He went to no name local college out of HS. Hit his stride, decided to wake up and apply himself. U Mich for Masters. Then Ivy for PHD in physics. Don’t worry about your late bloomer OP. If they are just entering their growth stage, that’s great, they will continue to mature.

Likewise I know many who attended Ivy’s straight out of HS bc they were great at getting the grades. They peaked at 20. Smart but never had a growth mindset about themselves or life.

[Anonymous]

Yes, they will be admissible to many 'top schools', although your specifying 'top schools' leads me to believe that your definition of the term is more limited than it ought to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just here to say I wish schools only looked at 11th and 12th for gpa. It’s insane to expect consistent perfection, ambition, and long-term planning from kids from 14/15 -17/18 without intense parental control. Wonder why helicopter parents became a thing? I don’t. Colleges reward premature frontal lobe development and controlling parenting (even parents doing some of the kids work)

Do parents really do this? Lol! I don't think my kid would want me attempting his precalc or physics especially since I never took those classes.

Yes. Especially last year with virtual learning. And not just parents. I even heard about someone (friend of a friend) having their kid's foreign language tutor "sitting with" the student during a vritual test.

Basically if a kid is a current senior who had low freshmen/sophmore grade but "thrived" junior year with virtual learning, I'm going to assume there was some form of cheating involved. That's why it's important that OP's kid ALSO did well on the SAT. In that case, i would NOT assume cheating.

I'll bite. DS struggled freshmen year, had a neuropsych eval half way through followed by accommodations and meds, and steadily improved. Was in hybrid mode for all of junior year where his grades really picked up, then has been all As since start of senior year. Yes, there are probably some cheating, but there are others in the slow-to-mature category. DS got a great ACT score and submitted with the rest of his app.

DS was hurt because the school scrapped grades for the spring semester during the first lockdown. He could have used another 3.7 semester for his overall GPA. He got into a T10 LAC, but might have shot for a T5 with a slightly higher GPA.

Come on. T10 is great. Please help him learn to be contented.

[Anonymous]

They are normal bloomers. Top colleges require either early bloomers (premature frontal lobe development) or intense unhealthy parental involvement because there is no room for error after age 14. It’s absurd. BuT wHy dO sO ManY kIds HavE AnxIeTy???

[Anonymous]

There are tons of great schools for this type of kid. Check out Colleges that Change Lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My very bright but unmotivated DS1 needed a lot of hand-holding in grades 6-9. For years, I sat at the homework table with him to keep him on task. Under my guidance, he made checklists and for projects and papers met interim deadlines imposed by me. I read aloud to him and quizzed him before tests. His work was sloppy and often incomplete, but at least he turned it in on time.

By 10th grade he was starting to turn things around, and by the end of 10th I no longer needed to be involved. He got straight As in 11th and 12th grades in a heavily AP/IB schedule (prepandemic). His test scores were excellent. He wanted to go OOS and we knew he would not get enough financial aid to make top schools affordable for us, so he didn't apply to any (so I can't say whether he would have gotten in to them). He ended up at a mid-ranked SLAC with significant merit aid. He flourished there-- made Phi Beta Kappa and graduated summa cum laude. He is now in his second year in a highly ranked PhD program.

So no, kids who fit this profile are not "f*cked." Going to a top college is not required for success in life.

This poster gets it.

Check out CTCL. Your kid will love the self esteem boost that comes from being a big fish in a small pond. The community will be welcoming. Not full of competitive kids who are looking for external validation from where they went to college. Your son may also land a very generous merit scholarship. Good luck.

This was my DC.

[Anonymous]

What about kids who didn't do well in 9th and 10th grades academically but got their acts together in 11th/12th? Say they end up with a weighted GPA in the 3.7-4.0 range but end up with a 1550+ in the SATs in junior/senior year. Basically, a good trajectory. Assuming these are male, White or Asian kids that want to do Engineering/CS with no legacy/hooks/sports. Are they pretty much fuc*ed? Will any "top school" touch them?

Would like to hear about schools that really look into the application and select such kids as well as personal experiences. Not interested in "you can get a great education at any school" posts, please.

Niece (ok, not a male) faced a somewhat similar situation when applying last year. Had erratic grades for 9th and 10th grades, then got her act together and got closer to 3.9-4.0 for 11th and 12th (in a competitive suburban Cali public school), which boosted her cumulative GPA up to 3.4 or so. Took SATs once and got 1280. No legacy/hooks/sports/URM. Knew she wanted a large school (for environmental studies/poli sci), and ideally one that would reflect her 11th and 12th grade performance rather than the years before that, so she focused on (stronger) state flagships with a relatively high admit rate, and applied regular rather than ED to show the pattern of improvement continued through senior fall. She got into Indiana, Colorado, Arizona (and one of those odd 2+2 acceptances from Penn State); rejected from Wisconsin. Chose Indiana. Is ecstatic there, thrilled by the breadth of course offerings (and students) and faculty engagement, is making Dean's List. (Interestingly, her best friends there aren't fellow OOS students but smart hardworking Indianans who are at IU for financial reasons.) The icing on the cake is that we've now learned (confirmation bias at work...) that Indiana -- which her parents really didn't know much about until now - is actually higher ranked on those "global university/reputation" surveys than the Ivy and NESCAC schools her parents went to, so they've happily passed the bragging rights crown to her.

This has made us all big fans of the state flagships, especially in cases like this where the application package is going to have some weakness to overcome. It seems at virtually every level, the large state flagships accept a greater share of applicants than academically-comparable SLACs and private universities (and the stats you cite might enable your candidate to aim for more selective flagships like Michigan and Illinois and Washington, and for engineering maybe Purdue or Michigan State). I'm not sure my niece's admission was because of "personal attention" to her application (as you wonder above) or simply because they'll accept applicants who seem relatively qualified and can pay full fare (and assume they'll just drop out if they can't cut it) - but it worked for my niece. Of course, if by "top school" you secretly mean Ivy or "T20" then maybe this experience doesn't help you much, but realistically there are lot of state flagships in the top 50 or 75 or to 100 US schools, and a student emerging from those with a strong record isn't disadvantaged, either in terms of education or postgraduate prospects. The outdated notion that the quality of the education available at a particular school is inversely correlated to that school's acceptance rate is silly, especially since there's so much good info out there nowadays (eg WSJ not USNWR) that disproves it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top schools have their pick of qualified applicants so why on earth would they chose some late bloomer versus an independently motivated high achiever through all of high school?

This question intrigues me. Some late bloomers go on to far surpass their peers. Is there a way to predict who will do this, and why?

My husband did. I’ve pondered it and wondered, but since I did not know him when I was younger, I can’t tell. This included pot smoking, drinking, and generally having a laid back but good time with a strong group of friends who ended up split into high, medium, and low achieving with most in the high category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about kids who didn't do well in 9th and 10th grades academically but got their acts together in 11th/12th? Say they end up with a weighted GPA in the 3.7-4.0 range but end up with a 1550+ in the SATs in junior/senior year. Basically, a good trajectory. Assuming these are male, White or Asian kids that want to do Engineering/CS with no legacy/hooks/sports. Are they pretty much fuc*ed? Will any "top school" touch them?

Would like to hear about schools that really look into the application and select such kids as well as personal experiences. Not interested in "you can get a great education at any school" posts, please.

Niece (ok, not a male) faced a somewhat similar situation when applying last year. Had erratic grades for 9th and 10th grades, then got her act together and got closer to 3.9-4.0 for 11th and 12th (in a competitive suburban Cali public school), which boosted her cumulative GPA up to 3.4 or so. Took SATs once and got 1280. No legacy/hooks/sports/URM. Knew she wanted a large school (for environmental studies/poli sci), and ideally one that would reflect her 11th and 12th grade performance rather than the years before that, so she focused on (stronger) state flagships with a relatively high admit rate, and applied regular rather than ED to show the pattern of improvement continued through senior fall. She got into Indiana, Colorado, Arizona (and one of those odd 2+2 acceptances from Penn State); rejected from Wisconsin. Chose Indiana. Is ecstatic there, thrilled by the breadth of course offerings (and students) and faculty engagement, is making Dean's List. (Interestingly, her best friends there aren't fellow OOS students but smart hardworking Indianans who are at IU for financial reasons.) The icing on the cake is that we've now learned (confirmation bias at work...) that Indiana -- which her parents really didn't know much about until now - is actually higher ranked on those "global university/reputation" surveys than the Ivy and NESCAC schools her parents went to, so they've happily passed the bragging rights crown to her.

This has made us all big fans of the state flagships, especially in cases like this where the application package is going to have some weakness to overcome. It seems at virtually every level, the large state flagships accept a greater share of applicants than academically-comparable SLACs and private universities (and the stats you cite might enable your candidate to aim for more selective flagships like Michigan and Illinois and Washington, and for engineering maybe Purdue or Michigan State). I'm not sure my niece's admission was because of "personal attention" to her application (as you wonder above) or simply because they'll accept applicants who seem relatively qualified and can pay full fare (and assume they'll just drop out if they can't cut it) - but it worked for my niece. Of course, if by "top school" you secretly mean Ivy or "T20" then maybe this experience doesn't help you much, but realistically there are lot of state flagships in the top 50 or 75 or to 100 US schools, and a student emerging from those with a strong record isn't disadvantaged, either in terms of education or postgraduate prospects. The outdated notion that the quality of the education available at a particular school is inversely correlated to that school's acceptance rate is silly, especially since there's so much good info out there nowadays (eg WSJ not USNWR) that disproves it.

OP. Thanks for the detailed post and the anecdote. I get the "there's a school for everyone" message..supply and demand, etc. We would want DC to go to the best school possible for his profile but was wondering why a handicap is not available to such late-bloomer kids at top schools (regardless of how you define them) while it is available to perfectly normal kids just because of their color, race, gender, etc.