Colleges for the slow-to-mature kids

[Anonymous]

For those folks that recommended CTCLs. thank you! Coincidentally, I met a friend for lunch this afternoon that had the same recommendation. His daughter goes to one and he had nothing but great things to say about 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?

I will say people with good social and political skills.
They end up managing technically smarter people and taking the credit.

[Anonymous]

I went to great schools— i guess i had a prematurely developed frontal lobe, who knew— but I’m not pushing that expectation on my also very smart kids. Why? I work with and know so many bright adults who went to less selective schools who are just as capable if not more capable and impressive. I think I peaked early and just wasn't interested in the rat race for careers. I work in nonprofits with really smart people. I got a 99 percentile on the lsat but never applied to law school, and i don't regret it! Most lawyers i know are either miserable, working on the wring side of issues, or making as much or less than I am in government or nonprofits. I was never cut out for STEM, nor was I interested. Let your kid chart their course!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, my message wasn't really "there's a school for everyone" (although no doubt there is) but that large state flagships - though not beloved of DCUM chatterati - can offer a greater opportunity than comparably-ranked private schools for applicants with imperfect records to gain admission to a "top-ranked" school that reflects where their high school trajectory ended rather than where it started.

But you seem to be asking, why can't my DC's under-performance/late-blooming during the first two years of high-school be treated as the same sort of "handicap" that applicants from historically under-represented populations enjoy. I can't help you there. Except maybe to advise your DC against making this the subject of his application essay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

YIKES! Well there it is. You think your white "late bloomer" deserves to have preference over "those people." Really, this is just gross.

[Anonymous]

pp here. No one cares where you get your undergrad, except DCUM. Get over yourself. Have your son attend a decent state school. IF you still feel you need to brag where your kid went, make sure he blooms during undergrad so he can beat out all those undeserving for grad school.

[Anonymous]

My neighbors' late bloomer younger daughter ended up at Purdue and seems to be doing well. Other late bloomers we know ended up at Penn State, Pitt, OSU, UMD, Allegheny College, Beloit College, and Wooster. Most are doing well in their respective fields and majors, have landed impressive internships, and have matured a lot since high school. So I second the recommendations for a "large state flagship" and/or a CTCL schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

YIKES! Well there it is. You think your white "late bloomer" deserves to have preference over "those people." Really, this is just gross.

Fu*k off! What are you? The thought police? OP was asking a valid question that should be addressed by schools. Do you think an ADHD white kid does not carry the same level of disadvantage as a black or latino kid with zero issues?

[Anonymous]

OP, I think your premise that kids who are focused from 9th on are the subject of helicoptering is flawed. Obviously, plenty of kids are just hard-wired that way. Why shouldn’t a kid like that be rewarded more than one who didn’t dial it in until their junior year? At most, those late bloomers are then submitting three semesters of grades that they want considered, compared to seven semesters for kids who worked hard from day 1. It’s really a perfect example of cause and effect in terms of college admissions, and that’s a great lesson for all kids to learn. Disregarding records of half of high school would be a huge disincentive for so many kids. Both the driven kids and the late bloomers should end up at schools that are reflective of the work they put in during their high school years. If late bloomers continue their trajectory, they will succeed in life, and that’s the real goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

YIKES! Well there it is. You think your white "late bloomer" deserves to have preference over "those people." Really, this is just gross.

Fu*k off! What are you? The thought police? OP was asking a valid question that should be addressed by schools. Do you think an ADHD white kid does not carry the same level of disadvantage as a black or latino kid with zero issues?

It’s just not a valid comparison because the minority students that are getting into top schools are students that still outperformed OP’s son. They are students with at most one B per year instead of straight A, in rigorous classes. And their SAT are 1490-1590 instead of perhaps 1550-1600.
Also OP’s son doesn’t have ADHD (at least not as reported), he is a “late bloomer” so that is not a disability category.
Also, you do a disservice to the male gender by acting like most are not mature enough to do well in high school from the start. My DS has many friends that are academically motivated and do extremely well in school with top college admissions. So it’s not just girls doing well in 9th and 10th grade.
The reality is that there are enough students that have done very well all through high school to fill top schools many times over. Most of these students are not cheaters with helicopter parents. They are students that enjoy school and dedicate themselves to doing well. Not sure why anyone would want to disparage them for doing so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

YIKES! Well there it is. You think your white "late bloomer" deserves to have preference over "those people." Really, this is just gross.

Fu*k off! What are you? The thought police? OP was asking a valid question that should be addressed by schools. Do you think an ADHD white kid does not carry the same level of disadvantage as a black or latino kid with zero issues?

It’s just not a valid comparison because the minority students that are getting into top schools are students that still outperformed OP’s son. They are students with at most one B per year instead of straight A, in rigorous classes. And their SAT are 1490-1590 instead of perhaps 1550-1600.
Also OP’s son doesn’t have ADHD (at least not as reported), he is a “late bloomer” so that is not a disability category.
Also, you do a disservice to the male gender by acting like most are not mature enough to do well in high school from the start. My DS has many friends that are academically motivated and do extremely well in school with top college admissions. So it’s not just girls doing well in 9th and 10th grade.
The reality is that there are enough students that have done very well all through high school to fill top schools many times over. Most of these students are not cheaters with helicopter parents. They are students that enjoy school and dedicate themselves to doing well. Not sure why anyone would want to disparage them for doing so.

Oh please. You are overlooking how many of those "disabled" kids are under high pressure to be "the best" and that formalized "disability" has taken quite a bit of effort to obtain.

[Anonymous]

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

Any college can change your God damn life.

[Anonymous]

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.

OOF. Wow, OP.

As a PP put it, even the kids getting a slight leg up for "diversity" purposes have better stats than your kid. So, no, colleges are not inclined to treat maturing later as a disability, and your kid is already getting a boost by being male in a field of applicants where many of the top students are female.

If your kid matured late, then maybe it's worth doing a gap year and taking even more time. But you seem to be really hung up on him getting into "the best school possible for his profile" and going exactly on time with his earlier-maturing peers when maybe you need to think outside the box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think your premise that kids who are focused from 9th on are the subject of helicoptering is flawed. Obviously, plenty of kids are just hard-wired that way. Why shouldn’t a kid like that be rewarded more than one who didn’t dial it in until their junior year? At most, those late bloomers are then submitting three semesters of grades that they want considered, compared to seven semesters for kids who worked hard from day 1. It’s really a perfect example of cause and effect in terms of college admissions, and that’s a great lesson for all kids to learn. Disregarding records of half of high school would be a huge disincentive for so many kids. Both the driven kids and the late bloomers should end up at schools that are reflective of the work they put in during their high school years. If late bloomers continue their trajectory, they will succeed in life, and that’s the real goal.

“Plenty of kids” are NOT hardwired that way. They are not LATE bloomers, they are normal. If we stopped all the cheating, buying test prep, and tiger parenting, a 4.5 and 1500 with 6 years of travel sports would not be so ubiquitous.

[Anonymous]

I was a late bloomer. Went to a no-name lac for undergrad although with a lot of merit aid which was very helpful.
Ended up at MIT for grad school. There are many on-ramps in life.