What has surprised you - as your kid comes to the end of this process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Normal teenage summer jobs like scooping ice cream, waiting tables, bagging groceries have taken a backseat to formal summer programs, summer research, pre-professional internships, etc.

I was the rare outlier who made my kid work in the summers. Flash forward five years and many of the coddled high income DC private school kids are back at home, having graduated from Tufts, Tulane, Bryn Mawr, and similar, applying to law school. My kid is making six figures first year out of college. Employers want kids with diverse experiences, who are humble and polite, and who understand the work environment.

Thats interesting. I can't think of one of my kids' friends that DIDN'T have a summer job. Most extended into the school year.

same.
that was just a flex for PP to brag about kids "six figures" out of college or whatever,

everyone works now. the more blue collar, the better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That Trump and Elon are destroying my children's dreams and futures.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

For those with disappointing early results, can you state the major?

Our CCO has basically told the juniors that if you apply for CS or Eng or Business (or Math - apparently that is growing huge), that you need to look for targets that are most other people's safeties. Meaning go down a level (or two), that these majors have very few real targets. So it's only safety and reach.

If you aren't happy with that strategy, look at your transcript, EC list, awards, and who is writing your LOR for other "evidence for a major" in the college or arts & sciences or an adjacent college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised how mean and judgmental people can be about other people’s kids. Adult snark is one thing, mocking teenagers quite another. Regardless of the anonymous nature of this forum, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to belittle a high schooler’s character, intellect, or choice of ECs, college, major, etc.

I admit anonymously to being overly harsh about a few kids who appear to have waltzed into tippy top schools to play sports but have not done anything close to the academic work my kid and friends have done (many of whom are still waiting for decisions).

There are a lot of students who are top academics. They aren’t rare. Talented athletes are rare so they are sought after. Sports are big money in this country. The universities make quite a bit of money from their athletes. There’s no point in getting upset.

Division 3 says hello. We are not talking about Alabama Div. 1 football or Stanford Olympic athletes. Given that Williams is 40% athletes, no, it is not at all rare. BTW, if your kid wants to go to Alabama, the athletes do not get in the way of your admission. In fact, there are fewer athletes there than Amherst College.

And the athletes at Williams do not get in your way either. Changing the acceptance rate from 6% to 10% means that the answer is still no for the vast majority of applicants and that a huge number of kids with equivalent stats were denied. And most athletes at Williams will have academics similar to typical admitted students meaning nobody lost out to anyone "less deserving".

Cutting athletes in 1/2 means 20% more “equally deserving kids” who are not athletes get in. This is a zero sum game — and not too difficult to understand.

Really isn't hard to understand if you look at the entire picture. Athletics is important to Williams, very important. I understand that you don't like it but they are an institutional priority at Williams.

Athletics is a huge priority at all of the Elite D3 schools because they value broad excellence and the skills that athletes bring (leadership, determination, grit) are highly valued. The combination of high academic capability and high athletic capability isn't common but and the applicants that have both tend to do very well. These schools want those kids, they really want them.

You really won't like what follows:

Who has the largest athletics program in D3? MIT
Who has won the most Directors Cups at the D3 level? Williams
Who has the second most? JHU
Who is in the top 10 this year?
JHU
Middlebury
W&L
Tufts
Emory
Williams
Amherst
CMU
WashU
MIT

NYU, Wesleyan, and CMS are the next 3.

Williams will never slack off on athletic recruiting because their peers aren't going to slack off. They will take 3.9UW, 1500 and very good athlete all day because that is an exceptional candidate and they are lucky to get them. Cutting athletic recruiting wouldn't mean fewer athletes, it would just mean weaker teams and which is in conflict with Williams institutional priority which is dominating the Directors Cup standings.

Athletics is a key priority for virtually every elite D3 school.

I’m a PP. I have no issue with a 3.9(high rigor), 1500, good athlete (i hope with some leadership) getting into Williams, etc.

I do have a problem with 3.5 (low rigor), TO athlete with no other activities getting into T20 schools.

Athletes are great, but no one else with one activity and those stats is getting into T20.

Just to be clear, you are jealous of a kid that spent thousands of hours more than your kid improving his/her athletic craft and is admitted to those schools?

Let me tell you. I have been a recruiter for the 2 of the top 5 IBs and the top MC group over the last 20 years. In all cases we would ALWAYS take the Athlete from the top schools, even if their GPA was a 3.0 than the non athlete with a 4.0. Very simple. You can teach that drive….once you remove the athletics out of the way, they have shown to be on avg, much better workers than the non-athletes….complain all you want. That is a fact.

What? Because maintaining a perfect 4.0 GPA in the face of intense competition doesn't reflect drive?

Sure. Imagine then how hard it is to be an elite athlete and maintain a 3.5…..I’m sorry….It is what it is….I will and have taken the 3.5 athlete vs your kid hundreds of times……

while that's a good testament to their time management and stamina, it doesn't show me deep passion for a subject or discipline outside their sport. That elite athlete is putting their physical sport (hours practicing or games and travel) ahead of science labs, essays, debating, etc.. I think a tired, overworked elite athlete who is up at dawn practicing and focused on their sport will struggle to go toe to toe in a discussion seminar or write an essay with required depth of someone who wasn't just a B+ student in high school. Being a student-athlete in an elite sport in college is being an athlete first and a student is very secondary.

So you disagree with the IB recruiter? Seriously? She speaks the truth. The elite banks and finance institutions LOVE athletes. The work schedule is grueling. My kid is not in IB, but in commercial lending for JPMorgan. He is up in the middle of the night for calls in other time zones and routinely works weekends and into late in the night. It is like an endurance test but your teammates are Ivy and top SLAC grads with the occasional regional and/or state school grad thrown in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those with disappointing early results, can you state the major?

Our CCO has basically told the juniors that if you apply for CS or Eng or Business (or Math - apparently that is growing huge), that you need to look for targets that are most other people's safeties. Meaning go down a level (or two), that these majors have very few real targets. So it's only safety and reach.

If you aren't happy with that strategy, look at your transcript, EC list, awards, and who is writing your LOR for other "evidence for a major" in the college or arts & sciences or an adjacent college.

If you do not listen to this advice, you will regret it. And junior year is too late to build up evidence of a major to make any difference. Your transcript probably already outs you as a STEM or business/Econ type anyway.

You can still apply to a target (not a reach that you think is a target) if you apply ED1. Keep in mind that top 20 universities and top 10 SLACs are reaches for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two things:

1. Emphasis on prestige - I knew it was bad but good lord I can't imagine what we are doing to our kids from a stress level perspective.
2. Fixation on employable majors - the majority of 18yo kids don't really know what they want to do for the rest of their lives - be open to allowing them to explore vs pushing for some "guaranteed" money making major. If there is an obvious intersection then great but don't force your kid into a major.

You sound healthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Naviance, a better tool than National acceptance rates and even CDS reports, is still flawed. We relied on Naviance to identify reaches, targets, and safeties, based on past years’ data, but we were wrong.

That is why so many privates and Catholic schools moved to Scoir within the past few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised how mean and judgmental people can be about other people’s kids. Adult snark is one thing, mocking teenagers quite another. Regardless of the anonymous nature of this forum, I don’t understand why anyone feels the need to belittle a high schooler’s character, intellect, or choice of ECs, college, major, etc.

I admit anonymously to being overly harsh about a few kids who appear to have waltzed into tippy top schools to play sports but have not done anything close to the academic work my kid and friends have done (many of whom are still waiting for decisions).

There are a lot of students who are top academics. They aren’t rare. Talented athletes are rare so they are sought after. Sports are big money in this country. The universities make quite a bit of money from their athletes. There’s no point in getting upset.

Division 3 says hello. We are not talking about Alabama Div. 1 football or Stanford Olympic athletes. Given that Williams is 40% athletes, no, it is not at all rare. BTW, if your kid wants to go to Alabama, the athletes do not get in the way of your admission. In fact, there are fewer athletes there than Amherst College.

And the athletes at Williams do not get in your way either. Changing the acceptance rate from 6% to 10% means that the answer is still no for the vast majority of applicants and that a huge number of kids with equivalent stats were denied. And most athletes at Williams will have academics similar to typical admitted students meaning nobody lost out to anyone "less deserving".

Cutting athletes in 1/2 means 20% more “equally deserving kids” who are not athletes get in. This is a zero sum game — and not too difficult to understand.

Really isn't hard to understand if you look at the entire picture. Athletics is important to Williams, very important. I understand that you don't like it but they are an institutional priority at Williams.

Athletics is a huge priority at all of the Elite D3 schools because they value broad excellence and the skills that athletes bring (leadership, determination, grit) are highly valued. The combination of high academic capability and high athletic capability isn't common but and the applicants that have both tend to do very well. These schools want those kids, they really want them.

You really won't like what follows:

Who has the largest athletics program in D3? MIT
Who has won the most Directors Cups at the D3 level? Williams
Who has the second most? JHU
Who is in the top 10 this year?
JHU
Middlebury
W&L
Tufts
Emory
Williams
Amherst
CMU
WashU
MIT

NYU, Wesleyan, and CMS are the next 3.

Williams will never slack off on athletic recruiting because their peers aren't going to slack off. They will take 3.9UW, 1500 and very good athlete all day because that is an exceptional candidate and they are lucky to get them. Cutting athletic recruiting wouldn't mean fewer athletes, it would just mean weaker teams and which is in conflict with Williams institutional priority which is dominating the Directors Cup standings.

Athletics is a key priority for virtually every elite D3 school.

I’m a PP. I have no issue with a 3.9(high rigor), 1500, good athlete (i hope with some leadership) getting into Williams, etc.

I do have a problem with 3.5 (low rigor), TO athlete with no other activities getting into T20 schools.

Athletes are great, but no one else with one activity and those stats is getting into T20.

Just to be clear, you are jealous of a kid that spent thousands of hours more than your kid improving his/her athletic craft and is admitted to those schools?

Let me tell you. I have been a recruiter for the 2 of the top 5 IBs and the top MC group over the last 20 years. In all cases we would ALWAYS take the Athlete from the top schools, even if their GPA was a 3.0 than the non athlete with a 4.0. Very simple. You can teach that drive….once you remove the athletics out of the way, they have shown to be on avg, much better workers than the non-athletes….complain all you want. That is a fact.

What? Because maintaining a perfect 4.0 GPA in the face of intense competition doesn't reflect drive?

Sure. Imagine then how hard it is to be an elite athlete and maintain a 3.5…..I’m sorry….It is what it is….I will and have taken the 3.5 athlete vs your kid hundreds of times……

while that's a good testament to their time management and stamina, it doesn't show me deep passion for a subject or discipline outside their sport. That elite athlete is putting their physical sport (hours practicing or games and travel) ahead of science labs, essays, debating, etc.. I think a tired, overworked elite athlete who is up at dawn practicing and focused on their sport will struggle to go toe to toe in a discussion seminar or write an essay with required depth of someone who wasn't just a B+ student in high school. Being a student-athlete in an elite sport in college is being an athlete first and a student is very secondary.

So you disagree with the IB recruiter? Seriously? She speaks the truth. The elite banks and finance institutions LOVE athletes. The work schedule is grueling. My kid is not in IB, but in commercial lending for JPMorgan. He is up in the middle of the night for calls in other time zones and routinely works weekends and into late in the night. It is like an endurance test but your teammates are Ivy and top SLAC grads with the occasional regional and/or state school grad thrown in.

Sounds great: set your kid up for grueling college years so they can live a grueling life.
(Where they never see their kids who live in a McMansion).

You people need better values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What surprised me is how many "top" students cannot read a novel, cannot write a coherent paragraph (let alone essay), cannot have a conversation or interview without staring at their phone and cannot think critically without being told how to do so.

If you kid can do the above they will get into top universities.

Possibly, possibly not. We let our kids take their lumps and so kid number one went to a university ranked as “regional” by US News. He has great interpersonal skills and that definitely was key in his rounds with the big banks. I really now believe kids end up in the right places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised that, for high stats (i.e., 1550+ with perfect GPA and top rigor the school offers), there really are no target schools.

All T20s are reaches, and in the next tier down, almost every school yield protects (even state schools for OOS applicants).

As a result, kids need to apply to a v large number of schools, which is time consuming, emotionally draining, and $$$.

So much uncertainty . . . .

People on this site always say 'have a safety DC loves!'. But which school that accepts more than 50% of students is likely to be a great fit for a kid with perfect GPA and scores?

A school that has a strong Honors College. I was blown away this weekend at St. Joe’s Admitted Students Weekend. My kid could study at Oxford, take Oxford-style tutorials at SJU, and more. The interest and support from professors and faculty at the reception was strong, and the student speakers were impressive. My other son went to St. Joe’s and excelled there, but even then, I had no idea what this gem of an Honors College offers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brainy kids who seek a plurality of peers can look well outside a college. Just like these kids did in high school- the truly exceptional ones. My one student is the typical smart kid, math competitions and CTY in elementary- some "fun" enrichment outside of his school. Online groups for fancy origami, chess with adults in the community center in high school. These things are all available outside of college as well. That kid may not have done well in rural Minnesota, but Pitt? Sure. Stevens? Absolutely. And he is not the brainy one.
My brainy one- graduated from an IVY. Also looked beyond the scope of in-school peers/clubs/groups for things that interested her: theater. Had applied to a small LAC as a safety knowing she would find or create what she is looking for. And where she started and where she ended in terms of interest/career was all guided by works she did outside of school and after time abroad, not because of anything gained by being in a pool of "brainy" kids.
There are smart kids at most schools- many of them. My bet is that most kids are not quite as genius level as parents believe them to be...many of us make that assumption. Of course some schools are better fits than others. But a less rejective school doesn't mean that there will not be intellectual engagement.

Yes, brainy kids can do this. My DC may well have to, and I imagine it will foster creativity and resilience. However, if one can't expect for an intellectual enviroment of peers AT A UNIVERSITY, that's a bummer.

I'm not just talking smart here -- lots of smart kids (and adults) are not intellectual. Their lives are no less rich and valuable.

I work in universities, and have worked at a T20 and a top 40 SLAC. There was much less intellectual engagement at the T40 SLAC. Doesn't mean there wasn't ANY intellectual engagement, but it would have been sub-optimal for my kid.

Much in life is sub-optimal, and making the best of things is an important skill. But being in an environment that allows one's best self to flourish is what we want for our kids, no? I don't think my kid needs a T10 to thrive, but I do think that being at a non-selective school wouldn't be as exciting or fun for her. Anything in the T40 range would probably be a good target -- but lots of T20-40 schools yield protect.

Not sure how I feel about this. My kid is similar high stats and brainy. I was too and going to a T5 college was life changing for me - the first time I could be around peers who thought like me. I would like this for my DC, who will be applying next year.

But later on I lived in a group house with several people who had met at an honors college at a state school. They were just as intellectual as what I found at the T5. Their parents were not wealthy enough to send them to T5 schools so they never even bothered to apply. And in adult life I’ve found the same as well. There are plenty of quite intelligent people who didn’t go to fancy schools.

But that was a different era when where you applied to college wasn’t so obsessively considered, and elite colleges weren’t as accessible by middle class and below income families. I can see that now maybe it’s not as random where people end up. So I’m thoughtful about the PP mentioning it’s not as intellectual an environment at a T40 as at a T20. I’d imagine that the size of school matters too - maybe at a big state school there’s still more likelihood of finding one’s intellectual tribe rather than at a similarly ranked SLAC?

+ 1 million. You have to remember DCUM is still largely populated by a bunch of people who come from upper middle class backgrounds and benefitted from legacy preferences. They have no idea about “the real world.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brainy kids who seek a plurality of peers can look well outside a college. Just like these kids did in high school- the truly exceptional ones. My one student is the typical smart kid, math competitions and CTY in elementary- some "fun" enrichment outside of his school. Online groups for fancy origami, chess with adults in the community center in high school. These things are all available outside of college as well. That kid may not have done well in rural Minnesota, but Pitt? Sure. Stevens? Absolutely. And he is not the brainy one.
My brainy one- graduated from an IVY. Also looked beyond the scope of in-school peers/clubs/groups for things that interested her: theater. Had applied to a small LAC as a safety knowing she would find or create what she is looking for. And where she started and where she ended in terms of interest/career was all guided by works she did outside of school and after time abroad, not because of anything gained by being in a pool of "brainy" kids.
There are smart kids at most schools- many of them. My bet is that most kids are not quite as genius level as parents believe them to be...many of us make that assumption. Of course some schools are better fits than others. But a less rejective school doesn't mean that there will not be intellectual engagement.

Yes, brainy kids can do this. My DC may well have to, and I imagine it will foster creativity and resilience. However, if one can't expect for an intellectual enviroment of peers AT A UNIVERSITY, that's a bummer.

I'm not just talking smart here -- lots of smart kids (and adults) are not intellectual. Their lives are no less rich and valuable.

I work in universities, and have worked at a T20 and a top 40 SLAC. There was much less intellectual engagement at the T40 SLAC. Doesn't mean there wasn't ANY intellectual engagement, but it would have been sub-optimal for my kid.

Much in life is sub-optimal, and making the best of things is an important skill. But being in an environment that allows one's best self to flourish is what we want for our kids, no? I don't think my kid needs a T10 to thrive, but I do think that being at a non-selective school wouldn't be as exciting or fun for her. Anything in the T40 range would probably be a good target -- but lots of T20-40 schools yield protect.

Not sure how I feel about this. My kid is similar high stats and brainy. I was too and going to a T5 college was life changing for me - the first time I could be around peers who thought like me. I would like this for my DC, who will be applying next year.

But later on I lived in a group house with several people who had met at an honors college at a state school. They were just as intellectual as what I found at the T5. Their parents were not wealthy enough to send them to T5 schools so they never even bothered to apply. And in adult life I’ve found the same as well. There are plenty of quite intelligent people who didn’t go to fancy schools.

But that was a different era when where you applied to college wasn’t so obsessively considered, and elite colleges weren’t as accessible by middle class and below income families. I can see that now maybe it’s not as random where people end up. So I’m thoughtful about the PP mentioning it’s not as intellectual an environment at a T40 as at a T20. I’d imagine that the size of school matters too - maybe at a big state school there’s still more likelihood of finding one’s intellectual tribe rather than at a similarly ranked SLAC?

+ 1 million. You have to remember DCUM is still largely populated by a bunch of people who come from upper middle class backgrounds and benefitted from legacy preferences. They have no idea about “the real world.”

Simple “real world” demographics and statistics will demonstrate to you that, no, the vast majority of folks from upper middle class backgrounds did not benefit from legacy preferences. Please leave your imaginary world and return to the real one. Perhaps Elon can pick you up, if you are stranded, on his rocket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those with disappointing early results, can you state the major?

Our CCO has basically told the juniors that if you apply for CS or Eng or Business (or Math - apparently that is growing huge), that you need to look for targets that are most other people's safeties. Meaning go down a level (or two), that these majors have very few real targets. So it's only safety and reach.

If you aren't happy with that strategy, look at your transcript, EC list, awards, and who is writing your LOR for other "evidence for a major" in the college or arts & sciences or an adjacent college.

I fully agree with making sure kids’ lists include enough targets that may be other people’s safeties. However, I disagree that applicants who wish to study CS/engineering/business/whatever should pretend otherwise. In my humble opinion, kids should be true to themselves (and if a particular college doesn’t appreciate what they bring to the table, then that’s the college’s loss, not the kid’s). My DC displayed their authentic passion for CS/Math in all its nerdy glory throughout their activities section and supplementals, and got into their first choice T5 this past December. Had that school not appreciated them for who they genuinely are, they would’ve found a school in RD who did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brainy kids who seek a plurality of peers can look well outside a college. Just like these kids did in high school- the truly exceptional ones. My one student is the typical smart kid, math competitions and CTY in elementary- some "fun" enrichment outside of his school. Online groups for fancy origami, chess with adults in the community center in high school. These things are all available outside of college as well. That kid may not have done well in rural Minnesota, but Pitt? Sure. Stevens? Absolutely. And he is not the brainy one.
My brainy one- graduated from an IVY. Also looked beyond the scope of in-school peers/clubs/groups for things that interested her: theater. Had applied to a small LAC as a safety knowing she would find or create what she is looking for. And where she started and where she ended in terms of interest/career was all guided by works she did outside of school and after time abroad, not because of anything gained by being in a pool of "brainy" kids.
There are smart kids at most schools- many of them. My bet is that most kids are not quite as genius level as parents believe them to be...many of us make that assumption. Of course some schools are better fits than others. But a less rejective school doesn't mean that there will not be intellectual engagement.

Yes, brainy kids can do this. My DC may well have to, and I imagine it will foster creativity and resilience. However, if one can't expect for an intellectual enviroment of peers AT A UNIVERSITY, that's a bummer.

I'm not just talking smart here -- lots of smart kids (and adults) are not intellectual. Their lives are no less rich and valuable.

I work in universities, and have worked at a T20 and a top 40 SLAC. There was much less intellectual engagement at the T40 SLAC. Doesn't mean there wasn't ANY intellectual engagement, but it would have been sub-optimal for my kid.

Much in life is sub-optimal, and making the best of things is an important skill. But being in an environment that allows one's best self to flourish is what we want for our kids, no? I don't think my kid needs a T10 to thrive, but I do think that being at a non-selective school wouldn't be as exciting or fun for her. Anything in the T40 range would probably be a good target -- but lots of T20-40 schools yield protect.

Not sure how I feel about this. My kid is similar high stats and brainy. I was too and going to a T5 college was life changing for me - the first time I could be around peers who thought like me. I would like this for my DC, who will be applying next year.

But later on I lived in a group house with several people who had met at an honors college at a state school. They were just as intellectual as what I found at the T5. Their parents were not wealthy enough to send them to T5 schools so they never even bothered to apply. And in adult life I’ve found the same as well. There are plenty of quite intelligent people who didn’t go to fancy schools.

But that was a different era when where you applied to college wasn’t so obsessively considered, and elite colleges weren’t as accessible by middle class and below income families. I can see that now maybe it’s not as random where people end up. So I’m thoughtful about the PP mentioning it’s not as intellectual an environment at a T40 as at a T20. I’d imagine that the size of school matters too - maybe at a big state school there’s still more likelihood of finding one’s intellectual tribe rather than at a similarly ranked SLAC?

+ 1 million. You have to remember DCUM is still largely populated by a bunch of people who come from upper middle class backgrounds and benefitted from legacy preferences. They have no idea about “the real world.”

Simple “real world” demographics and statistics will demonstrate to you that, no, the vast majority of folks from upper middle class backgrounds did not benefit from legacy preferences. Please leave your imaginary world and return to the real one. Perhaps Elon can pick you up, if you are stranded, on his rocket.

Really? This is my lived experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those with disappointing early results, can you state the major?

Our CCO has basically told the juniors that if you apply for CS or Eng or Business (or Math - apparently that is growing huge), that you need to look for targets that are most other people's safeties. Meaning go down a level (or two), that these majors have very few real targets. So it's only safety and reach.

If you aren't happy with that strategy, look at your transcript, EC list, awards, and who is writing your LOR for other "evidence for a major" in the college or arts & sciences or an adjacent college.

If you do not listen to this advice, you will regret it. And junior year is too late to build up evidence of a major to make any difference. Your transcript probably already outs you as a STEM or business/Econ type anyway.

You can still apply to a target (not a reach that you think is a target) if you apply ED1. Keep in mind that top 20 universities and top 10 SLACs are reaches for everyone.

agree 100%.
I'm surprised by how much major matters.