High-stat kids w/o great college options

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, please tell us who in your circle has been rejected. Decisions for the ivies won’t be released until the end of March. Drama much?

Not OP, my kid was rejected for his ED1 and ED2, but accepted EA at UIUC for an engineering major and accepted at his 3 safeties. Waiting on Cornell and Rice and Emory regular decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your kid was rejected from GA Tech or CMU , your kid can forget too 10.

CMU CS is almost impossible to get into.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure if people realized that for top colleges, high stats alone isn't enough. A lot of people have high stats given today's grading and standardized test quality being "watered down". So you also need to have great ECS evidenced by significant awards. If you have both, your chance at top schools isn't a crapshoot anymore (although not guaranteed either).
So in the context of this thread, talking about high stats without mentioning their achievements outside schools doesn't mean much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your kid was rejected from GA Tech or CMU , your kid can forget too 10.

CMU CS is almost impossible to get into.

This is true. The Big 4 of computer science: MIT, Carnegie Mellon, Cal, Stanford.

If you're applying to CMU for computer science, you're applying to a Top 4 institution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if people realized that for top colleges, high stats alone isn't enough. A lot of people have high stats given today's grading and standardized test quality being "watered down". So you also need to have great ECS evidenced by significant awards. If you have both, your chance at top schools isn't a crapshoot anymore (although not guaranteed either).
So in the context of this thread, talking about high stats without mentioning their achievements outside schools doesn't mean much.

I'll go further than that. No matter what your stats, ECs and awards, getting into the top 10 schools is still a crapshoot. Fortunately, there are plenty of good options beyond those schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if people realized that for top colleges, high stats alone isn't enough. A lot of people have high stats given today's grading and standardized test quality being "watered down". So you also need to have great ECS evidenced by significant awards. If you have both, your chance at top schools isn't a crapshoot anymore (although not guaranteed either).
So in the context of this thread, talking about high stats without mentioning their achievements outside schools doesn't mean much.

I'll go further than that. No matter what your stats, ECs and awards, getting into the top 10 schools is still a crapshoot. Fortunately, there are plenty of good options beyond those schools.

Not really. You could say nobody is guaranteed to get in any given college. But statistically, those who've got great stats and ECs have much better chance than a crapshoot for T10. I have many examples around me to prove this. If a top kid has great achievements and is expected to get into T5, they typically will get into at least one T5. I don't think that's a crapshoot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure if people realized that for top colleges, high stats alone isn't enough. A lot of people have high stats given today's grading and standardized test quality being "watered down". So you also need to have great ECS evidenced by significant awards. If you have both, your chance at top schools isn't a crapshoot anymore (although not guaranteed either).
So in the context of this thread, talking about high stats without mentioning their achievements outside schools doesn't mean much.

I'll go further than that. No matter what your stats, ECs and awards, getting into the top 10 schools is still a crapshoot. Fortunately, there are plenty of good options beyond those schools.

Not really. You could say nobody is guaranteed to get in any given college. But statistically, those who've got great stats and ECs have much better chance than a crapshoot for T10. I have many examples around me to prove this. If a top kid has great achievements and is expected to get into T5, they typically will get into at least one T5. I don't think that's a crapshoot.

Examples?

[Anonymous]

This year more than ever is the year for writing compelling essays and selling yourself in a unique way. Reality is a lot of high stats kids are getting into good schools just maybe not in your orbit. Also high stats is a wide swath...big difference between 4.4 and 4.8, combine with great EC's and essays and that's the difference between accept and defer. It sucks but that's the game.

[Anonymous]

One can’t give examples without exposing identifying information. But I, too, think at some point it is a crapshoot, especially in this year without standardized test scores. Here’s my attempt at an example while remaining vague: a senior we know well was rejected ED from a SLAC (not WASP, a notch below) with a 4.0 uw gpa and 1550 SAT, high level ECs such as national science fair awards and competitive swimmer (those are not the actual ones to preserve privacy). Since the student applied ED, s/he signaled clear and strong interest and no financial need.

There is no way that most students accepted at the college exceed those stats. Who knows why s/he was rejected but there is some randomness!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One can’t give examples without exposing identifying information. But I, too, think at some point it is a crapshoot, especially in this year without standardized test scores. Here’s my attempt at an example while remaining vague: a senior we know well was rejected ED from a SLAC (not WASP, a notch below) with a 4.0 uw gpa and 1550 SAT, high level ECs such as national science fair awards and competitive swimmer (those are not the actual ones to preserve privacy). Since the student applied ED, s/he signaled clear and strong interest and no financial need.

There is no way that most students accepted at the college exceed those stats. Who knows why s/he was rejected but there is some randomness!

And geography.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isn't new. The top 100-150 schools are great and there are high stat kids at all of them.

+1

Our high-stats kid is at what DCUM would term a second-tier school, simply because of money. We can't pay for a top tier school, so DC didn't apply to any.

It's not a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One can’t give examples without exposing identifying information. But I, too, think at some point it is a crapshoot, especially in this year without standardized test scores. Here’s my attempt at an example while remaining vague: a senior we know well was rejected ED from a SLAC (not WASP, a notch below) with a 4.0 uw gpa and 1550 SAT, high level ECs such as national science fair awards and competitive swimmer (those are not the actual ones to preserve privacy). Since the student applied ED, s/he signaled clear and strong interest and no financial need.

There is no way that most students accepted at the college exceed those stats. Who knows why s/he was rejected but there is some randomness!

And geography.

This student would be a stronger than average candidate even coming from his/her top high school, and if your point is that maybe they came from a lesser regarded high school, the 1550 sat would offset it. One can parse it however they want but everyone who knows this kid including the guidance counselor and private college counselor were pretty shocked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One can’t give examples without exposing identifying information. But I, too, think at some point it is a crapshoot, especially in this year without standardized test scores. Here’s my attempt at an example while remaining vague: a senior we know well was rejected ED from a SLAC (not WASP, a notch below) with a 4.0 uw gpa and 1550 SAT, high level ECs such as national science fair awards and competitive swimmer (those are not the actual ones to preserve privacy). Since the student applied ED, s/he signaled clear and strong interest and no financial need.

There is no way that most students accepted at the college exceed those stats. Who knows why s/he was rejected but there is some randomness!

And geography.

This student would be a stronger than average candidate even coming from his/her top high school, and if your point is that maybe they came from a lesser regarded high school, the 1550 sat would offset it. One can parse it however they want but everyone who knows this kid including the guidance counselor and private college counselor were pretty shocked.

I meant the region. Is the student from a remote region where there are few similar high stats students? That's a draw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't new. The top 100-150 schools are great and there are high stat kids at all of them.

+1

Our high-stats kid is at what DCUM would term a second-tier school, simply because of money. We can't pay for a top tier school, so DC didn't apply to any.

It's not a problem.

Same with ours. Happy with our choices.

Really, from what I've seen the only thing that takes even the most super-qualified, top stats, national awards etc. out of "crap shoot" territory for the top ranked schools is a strong legacy connection, major donors, recruited athletes and preferably more than one of these. If you see "lots" of kids around you getting into those schools I'm guessing you know a lot of legacy kids. Still need that high-level profile but there are really very few spots for the unhooked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't new. The top 100-150 schools are great and there are high stat kids at all of them.

+1

Our high-stats kid is at what DCUM would term a second-tier school, simply because of money. We can't pay for a top tier school, so DC didn't apply to any.

It's not a problem.

Same with ours. Happy with our choices.

Really, from what I've seen the only thing that takes even the most super-qualified, top stats, national awards etc. out of "crap shoot" territory for the top ranked schools is a strong legacy connection, major donors, recruited athletes and preferably more than one of these. If you see "lots" of kids around you getting into those schools I'm guessing you know a lot of legacy kids. Still need that high-level profile but there are really very few spots for the unhooked.

Not legacy or URM. Just unhooked kids with amazing national/international level achievements (they call it spikes). Top colleges aren't stupid, they don't want to fill the entire class with legacy and URMs either.