Do great students sometimes get shut out?

[Anonymous]

I’m not sure what shutout means. No kid is entitle to get admitted to any school. As we can all see, there is no and should be a specific criteria that admits all students. Every kid is different, with different academic history and interests. Every AO is different also. They are looking for different things.

To believe your kid shutout was wrong. It implies they were entitled to be admitted to a certain school and they were not. This is life. Move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shut out of top, but fallback was UT-Austin in state auto admit. They were good only bc they had a strong safety.

person 1 - 1600 SAT, rank 1 out of 600+, rejected all ivies, lots of AP, stanford, michigan, duke, chicago, northwestern, varsity sport

person 2 - 1580 SAT, top 5%, lots of AP, varsity sport, rejected UVA, UNC, Duke.

Have a good safety!

Should have mentioned - both were rejected everywhere but their safety

same for my high stats magnet kid. It was rough.

I always told my high stat magnet kid - be a MIT worthy kid who goes to UMD. And that's what happened. Did he apply to MIT? Heck, yes!! Harvard? Never. UMD - Absolutely!! Was it rough? Not at all. The money that UMD gave him and the money he saved by not going to MIT helped him to invest in the stock market. He is already ahead.

We're seeing more and more of those types there. And further, we're seeing a lot of actual MIT (along w/Stanford, Berkeley and a few others) undergrad alums choosing to do their grad work at UMD. Pretty cool.

One reason could be that MIT undergrads are not chosen for MIT grad school. At MIT, a student can only be for 5 years. No more. So, a student can either get an undergrad education or a PhD. Not both (unless you complete both in 5 years).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shut out of top, but fallback was UT-Austin in state auto admit. They were good only bc they had a strong safety.

person 1 - 1600 SAT, rank 1 out of 600+, rejected all ivies, lots of AP, stanford, michigan, duke, chicago, northwestern, varsity sport

person 2 - 1580 SAT, top 5%, lots of AP, varsity sport, rejected UVA, UNC, Duke.

Have a good safety!

Should have mentioned - both were rejected everywhere but their safety

same for my high stats magnet kid. It was rough.

I always told my high stat magnet kid - be a MIT worthy kid who goes to UMD. And that's what happened. Did he apply to MIT? Heck, yes!! Harvard? Never. UMD - Absolutely!! Was it rough? Not at all. The money that UMD gave him and the money he saved by not going to MIT helped him to invest in the stock market. He is already ahead.

We're seeing more and more of those types there. And further, we're seeing a lot of actual MIT (along w/Stanford, Berkeley and a few others) undergrad alums choosing to do their grad work at UMD. Pretty cool.

One reason could be that MIT undergrads are not chosen for MIT grad school. At MIT, a student can only be for 5 years. No more. So, a student can either get an undergrad education or a PhD. Not both (unless you complete both in 5 years).

I don't know where you go this information, but twenty years ago -- when I did my PhD -- it was not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shut out of top, but fallback was UT-Austin in state auto admit. They were good only bc they had a strong safety.

person 1 - 1600 SAT, rank 1 out of 600+, rejected all ivies, lots of AP, stanford, michigan, duke, chicago, northwestern, varsity sport

person 2 - 1580 SAT, top 5%, lots of AP, varsity sport, rejected UVA, UNC, Duke.

Have a good safety!

Should have mentioned - both were rejected everywhere but their safety

same for my high stats magnet kid. It was rough.

I always told my high stat magnet kid - be a MIT worthy kid who goes to UMD. And that's what happened. Did he apply to MIT? Heck, yes!! Harvard? Never. UMD - Absolutely!! Was it rough? Not at all. The money that UMD gave him and the money he saved by not going to MIT helped him to invest in the stock market. He is already ahead.

We're seeing more and more of those types there. And further, we're seeing a lot of actual MIT (along w/Stanford, Berkeley and a few others) undergrad alums choosing to do their grad work at UMD. Pretty cool.

One reason could be that MIT undergrads are not chosen for MIT grad school. At MIT, a student can only be for 5 years. No more. So, a student can either get an undergrad education or a PhD. Not both (unless you complete both in 5 years).

I don't know where you go this information, but twenty years ago -- when I did my PhD -- it was not true.

The poster is right. Things have changed now. My child's MIT interviewer told DC the same thing. MIT doesn't allow anyone to stay more than 5 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shut out of top, but fallback was UT-Austin in state auto admit. They were good only bc they had a strong safety.

person 1 - 1600 SAT, rank 1 out of 600+, rejected all ivies, lots of AP, stanford, michigan, duke, chicago, northwestern, varsity sport

person 2 - 1580 SAT, top 5%, lots of AP, varsity sport, rejected UVA, UNC, Duke.

Have a good safety!

Should have mentioned - both were rejected everywhere but their safety

same for my high stats magnet kid. It was rough.

I always told my high stat magnet kid - be a MIT worthy kid who goes to UMD. And that's what happened. Did he apply to MIT? Heck, yes!! Harvard? Never. UMD - Absolutely!! Was it rough? Not at all. The money that UMD gave him and the money he saved by not going to MIT helped him to invest in the stock market. He is already ahead.

We're seeing more and more of those types there. And further, we're seeing a lot of actual MIT (along w/Stanford, Berkeley and a few others) undergrad alums choosing to do their grad work at UMD. Pretty cool.

One reason could be that MIT undergrads are not chosen for MIT grad school. At MIT, a student can only be for 5 years. No more. So, a student can either get an undergrad education or a PhD. Not both (unless you complete both in 5 years).

I don't know where you go this information, but twenty years ago -- when I did my PhD -- it was not true.

The poster is right. Things have changed now. My child's MIT interviewer told DC the same thing. MIT doesn't allow anyone to stay more than 5 years.

This is not true.

I searched MIT website and I do not see any mention of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure what shutout means. No kid is entitle to get admitted to any school. As we can all see, there is no and should be a specific criteria that admits all students. Every kid is different, with different academic history and interests. Every AO is different also. They are looking for different things.

To believe your kid shutout was wrong. It implies they were entitled to be admitted to a certain school and they were not. This is life. Move on.

+1

Lots of schools are still accepting apps. I am sure they would be happy to have your 'shut out' kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure what shutout means. No kid is entitle to get admitted to any school. As we can all see, there is no and should be a specific criteria that admits all students. Every kid is different, with different academic history and interests. Every AO is different also. They are looking for different things.

To believe your kid shutout was wrong. It implies they were entitled to be admitted to a certain school and they were not. This is life. Move on.

Shutout, n. A game or contest in which one side fails to score.

Entitlement has nothing to do with it. Yes, of course no one is entitled to be admitted to college, just as no team is entitled to score points. Would you write to ESPN telling them they can’t call a game a shutout because no team is entitled to score points? I hope not.

In the same way, if a kid applies to college and doesn’t get in anywhere, he was shut out. Even if his strategy was bad. Just like the team. College admissions is a game, and a shutout is a shutout.

You can also use shutout to talk about just part of a game. Here’s an example: “The Chiefs were shut out in the first half of the Super Bowl.” (Go birds.)

I know a high-scoring valedictorian from flyover country who was shut out as of Ivy day, applied late to ASU, and is presently having a fabulous time there. He did move on, just as you advise. Just as teams typically do after a shutout. Using a perfectly ordinary English word to describe what has actually happened does not prevent that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure what shutout means. No kid is entitle to get admitted to any school. As we can all see, there is no and should be a specific criteria that admits all students. Every kid is different, with different academic history and interests. Every AO is different also. They are looking for different things.

To believe your kid shutout was wrong. It implies they were entitled to be admitted to a certain school and they were not. This is life. Move on.

You really need to learn the nuances of the English language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure what shutout means. No kid is entitle to get admitted to any school. As we can all see, there is no and should be a specific criteria that admits all students. Every kid is different, with different academic history and interests. Every AO is different also. They are looking for different things.

To believe your kid shutout was wrong. It implies they were entitled to be admitted to a certain school and they were not. This is life. Move on.

You really need to learn the nuances of the English language.

bored? why are you bumping up so many threads today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about the difference between a competitive candidate and a compelling candidate.

I just heard Duke’s AO speak about this on a recent podcast. Super helpful.

Agree.
People think high stats gets you in. Look at what ppl are posting. Stats are irrelevant after a certain point. It does not get you “in”. Just gets your app read.

Lower (but still baseline) stats can get you in, if you are otherwise “compelling” (defined as geo diversity; major (way more relevant than people think); identity hooks; what you do inside and outside the classroom (evidenced by LOR and national awards); and most importantly, whether the school needs more of that type of person this year).

You want to be the type of student who fits into a specific bucket.

Apply widely bc you don’t know what buckets each school needs that year.

Junior parents obsessed with stats - memorize this.

[Anonymous]

Has been said 100 times but will say it again. Have your kid Apply to a wide range of schools in terms of selectivity. There are hundreds and hundreds of schools that have something or many things to offer. Talk up those options. Most of our kids are not exceptions to the lottery odds. Accept that and it will be a much happier outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, but students do get rejected from safeties who rejected 90%+.

I see this happening to my niece. Rejected at some true safety schools as part of yield protection. And she didn't show enough interest. So you need to be careful. My take is make sure some of your safeties are the big schools who care less about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure what shutout means. No kid is entitle to get admitted to any school. As we can all see, there is no and should be a specific criteria that admits all students. Every kid is different, with different academic history and interests. Every AO is different also. They are looking for different things.

To believe your kid shutout was wrong. It implies they were entitled to be admitted to a certain school and they were not. This is life. Move on.

You really need to learn the nuances of the English language.

bored? why are you bumping up so many threads today?

I'm not the one who bumped a 15 month old thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, but students do get rejected from safeties who rejected 90%+.

I see this happening to my niece. Rejected at some true safety schools as part of yield protection. And she didn't show enough interest. So you need to be careful. My take is make sure some of your safeties are the big schools who care less about this.

Get over the yield protection thing. How many times do have to tell you that public schools (which generally includes high admission rate schools) DO NOT yield protect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shut out of top, but fallback was UT-Austin in state auto admit. They were good only bc they had a strong safety.

person 1 - 1600 SAT, rank 1 out of 600+, rejected all ivies, lots of AP, stanford, michigan, duke, chicago, northwestern, varsity sport

person 2 - 1580 SAT, top 5%, lots of AP, varsity sport, rejected UVA, UNC, Duke.

Have a good safety!

Should have mentioned - both were rejected everywhere but their safety

same for my high stats magnet kid. It was rough.

I always told my high stat magnet kid - be a MIT worthy kid who goes to UMD. And that's what happened. Did he apply to MIT? Heck, yes!! Harvard? Never. UMD - Absolutely!! Was it rough? Not at all. The money that UMD gave him and the money he saved by not going to MIT helped him to invest in the stock market. He is already ahead.

We're seeing more and more of those types there. And further, we're seeing a lot of actual MIT (along w/Stanford, Berkeley and a few others) undergrad alums choosing to do their grad work at UMD. Pretty cool.

One reason could be that MIT undergrads are not chosen for MIT grad school. At MIT, a student can only be for 5 years. No more. So, a student can either get an undergrad education or a PhD. Not both (unless you complete both in 5 years).

Lots of PhDs take longer than five years. My MIT PhD did -- and I was in the norm, and placed successfully post-graduation.

If there's a new policy not to allow UG MIT grads to start a PhD at the institute, I can believe that. Students could (and do) finish a BS/MS in five years.