Did your children get admitted to colleges that you thought matched their stats?

[Anonymous]

Yes. He was around the 75th % but applied ED at a school that gives a big bump for ED.

[Anonymous]

I used college vine, a free chart made by a college counselor and verified with cds data. Naviance isn’t useful for us because the school is small.

[Anonymous]

At bigger schools, yes; at the small SLACS, no. There just aren't enough spots for every kid with the chops, so it really is kind of a crap shoot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS got into a school that we labeled a reach. Strategy played a big role in this I think.

So...what was the strategy?

Maybe labeling it a reach, even though another person looking at exactly the same child might have labeled it a match

That’s what I was thinking. And “strategy” usually means applying ED. There’s not much strategy to this process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS got into a school that we labeled a reach. Strategy played a big role in this I think.

So...what was the strategy?

I meant approaching college admissions like the game it is with a strategy suited to your kid and situation. For us, our DS22 was very high stats but otherwise unhooked. We were full pay. His top goal was admission to a top 20 school that was a good fit. Our strategy was studying the admissions data from a handful of colleges to see where a good ED candidate was. He chose one of those where the data (both Naviance and the school’s) showed that his school admitted kids like him, similar stats and unhooked-ness. The data isn’t perfect but by triangulating it and backing out known factors, the data isn’t that bad. The strategy worked, though I imagine it could easily could have failed too. We did our best educated guessing and he played his cards.

Full pay is a hook.

So I was right. ED was the “strategy.” Plus full pay was a hook.

[Anonymous]

Yes.

We used Naviance, as well as published admit stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS got into a school that we labeled a reach. Strategy played a big role in this I think.

So...what was the strategy?

I meant approaching college admissions like the game it is with a strategy suited to your kid and situation. For us, our DS22 was very high stats but otherwise unhooked. We were full pay. His top goal was admission to a top 20 school that was a good fit. Our strategy was studying the admissions data from a handful of colleges to see where a good ED candidate was. He chose one of those where the data (both Naviance and the school’s) showed that his school admitted kids like him, similar stats and unhooked-ness. The data isn’t perfect but by triangulating it and backing out known factors, the data isn’t that bad. The strategy worked, though I imagine it could easily could have failed too. We did our best educated guessing and he played his cards.

Full pay is a hook.

So I was right. ED was the “strategy.” Plus full pay was a hook.

Is full pay a hook only if you indicate that you are not seeking financial aid? Or is it based on the college’s determination that you are full pay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DS got into a school that we labeled a reach. Strategy played a big role in this I think.

So...what was the strategy?

I meant approaching college admissions like the game it is with a strategy suited to your kid and situation. For us, our DS22 was very high stats but otherwise unhooked. We were full pay. His top goal was admission to a top 20 school that was a good fit. Our strategy was studying the admissions data from a handful of colleges to see where a good ED candidate was. He chose one of those where the data (both Naviance and the school’s) showed that his school admitted kids like him, similar stats and unhooked-ness. The data isn’t perfect but by triangulating it and backing out known factors, the data isn’t that bad. The strategy worked, though I imagine it could easily could have failed too. We did our best educated guessing and he played his cards.

Full pay is a hook.

So I was right. ED was the “strategy.” Plus full pay was a hook.

Is full pay a hook only if you indicate that you are not seeking financial aid? Or is it based on the college’s determination that you are full pay?

I’ve asked this question on this forum and elsewhere and no one has been able to answer. I don’t know. But it’s only a hook at need-aware schools, so not very applicable at T20. Still an advantage to be ABLE to apply ED without financial concern but not really a hook at need-blind schools like the Ivy League.

[Anonymous]

No. Last year’s admissions process was a sh!tshow. My son was WL at one of his target schools and rejected from from another target school. He got in at two safeties and received merit from both; he is very happy where he landed and it really is a good fit.

[Anonymous]

Yes. My kid was average by DCUM standards, but had a nice, well-rounded portfolio. Naviance was a fair guide and he got in everywhere. Nice mix of state and private schools: Penn State, Pitt, Delaware, St. Joe's, Syracuse, Fairfield. Picked Penn State and is very happy.

[Anonymous]

My 3.3 GPA kid with no APs got admitted to the following:

CNU
GMU
UMW with merit
Roanoke with generous merit
McDaniel with generous merit

Stats matched. Only applied to these schools, so not rejections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. Last year’s admissions process was a sh!tshow. My son was WL at one of his target schools and rejected from from another target school. He got in at two safeties and received merit from both; he is very happy where he landed and it really is a good fit.

Somewhat the same. Some schools that should have been a match or safety, WL. They eventually admitted, but by then DC had already made a decision on a lower ranked school and didn't want to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. Last year’s admissions process was a sh!tshow. My son was WL at one of his target schools and rejected from from another target school. He got in at two safeties and received merit from both; he is very happy where he landed and it really is a good fit.

I think the lesson is not that last year was a "sh!show" but maybe rather that people aren't accurately assessing targets vs. safeties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Last year’s admissions process was a sh!tshow. My son was WL at one of his target schools and rejected from from another target school. He got in at two safeties and received merit from both; he is very happy where he landed and it really is a good fit.

I think the lesson is not that last year was a "sh!show" but maybe rather that people aren't accurately assessing targets vs. safeties.

You would be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Last year’s admissions process was a sh!tshow. My son was WL at one of his target schools and rejected from from another target school. He got in at two safeties and received merit from both; he is very happy where he landed and it really is a good fit.

I think the lesson is not that last year was a "sh!show" but maybe rather that people aren't accurately assessing targets vs. safeties.

3.85 gpa and a 1470 SAT is not good enough for JMU to be a target school? Confused.