Where is your 3.7ish weighted full-pay accepted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the “full pay” part. OP assuming she can buy success for her mediocre student. So typically DCUM.

Lolz

Full pay is a hook most places. That's just reality.

Yep. Someone has to fund the school. Helps them offer need based aid to others.

[Anonymous]

V-Tech
UVA
UMD
UMBC
Purdue

[Anonymous]

Forgot to add. Kid now has a 3.9+ at said SLAC as a junior. Is involved in several ECs in College. Has interned for two US Senators and a Public Interest Org. Sometimes you just gotta give a kid a chance. Look at SLACs, more holistic I think

That's wonderful congrats to your kid. How did they go from a 3.3 at a top private to 3.9+ at a top LAC by the way?

[Anonymous]

Well that's obvious. The big 3 are on the 4.0 system. And 3.7s even on that system shouldn't be applying to Ivies unless they are hooked. We are talking here about the public system which often goes up to 4.7 and beyond.
[Report Post]


Why shouldn't those kids apply to Ivies? Are the 3.7 kids the top 10% at the big 3 or no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Forgot to add. Kid now has a 3.9+ at said SLAC as a junior. Is involved in several ECs in College. Has interned for two US Senators and a Public Interest Org. Sometimes you just gotta give a kid a chance. Look at SLACs, more holistic I think

That's wonderful congrats to your kid. How did they go from a 3.3 at a top private to 3.9+ at a top LAC by the way?

So she had a high-ish ACT (32/33) depending on super score. I think SLACs are more holistic. Really good ECs n high school. Pandemic helped--colleges were scrambling that year with the deferrals. She was wait listed where she is now and got in pretty early over the Summer.

She got into to one other top SLAC and William and Mary right away and was deciding between the two when the other SLAC came through. She grabbed it. Now I have to pay double the tuition lol. But she loves the school.

Honestly, I think it was the SLACs being holistic, full pay, really good ECs, ACT around there average or slightly better, etc. Had a lot going for her other than GPA. The private school she came from did not have a history with this SLAC per Naviance.

[Anonymous]

Congrats to your daughter. She sounds great!

[Anonymous]

I hate threads like this. The idea that “full pay” makes a lot of difference is both elitist and wrong. Most schools that take ability to pay into account only do it at the margins and most decent schools don’t do it at all. So, no, you can’t buy your kid’s way into college just buy showing you can pay the tuition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate threads like this. The idea that “full pay” makes a lot of difference is both elitist and wrong. Most schools that take ability to pay into account only do it at the margins and most decent schools don’t do it at all. So, no, you can’t buy your kid’s way into college just buy showing you can pay the tuition.

No one said "a lot".
Top school are need blind.
Most everywhere else, it matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tufts

Weighted 3.7 at Tufts would be under their 50% mark. Would be interested to know what hooks your kid had!

A 3.7 at my DC’s school are the kids applying to Ivies. Big3 private. I wouldn’t assume this was a public school kid.

Well that's obvious. The big 3 are on the 4.0 system. And 3.7s even on that system shouldn't be applying to Ivies unless they are hooked. We are talking here about the public system which often goes up to 4.7 and beyond.

At my kid's Big3 at 3.7/4.0 is top 10%. These kids DO end up at the Ivies. They're the top academic kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well that's obvious. The big 3 are on the 4.0 system. And 3.7s even on that system shouldn't be applying to Ivies unless they are hooked. We are talking here about the public system which often goes up to 4.7 and beyond.
[Report Post]


Why shouldn't those kids apply to Ivies? Are the 3.7 kids the top 10% at the big 3 or no?

I think the thing is that it really depends on the school. They don't all grade the same.

I know your next question is, "well how do they compare?" That i'm not sure. NCS is crazy grade deflated...there are entire core classes where no one gets an A. STA is less grade deflated. Those are the only two I know well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate threads like this. The idea that “full pay” makes a lot of difference is both elitist and wrong. Most schools that take ability to pay into account only do it at the margins and most decent schools don’t do it at all. So, no, you can’t buy your kid’s way into college just buy showing you can pay the tuition.

So naïve. There are a small number of need-blind schools (most of which have both gargantuan endowments and "high rankings") where "full pay" truly doesn't matter. Every other school will take a student who will pay $60K in tuition over an equivalent student who will pay $20K or $40K. The vast majority will take a moderately weaker $60K candidate over a moderately stronger $40K candidate or a meaningfully weaker $60K candidate over a meaningfully stronger $20K candidate. Admission officers hate that, of course, but the schools need to keep their lights on. No margin, no mission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Well that's obvious. The big 3 are on the 4.0 system. And 3.7s even on that system shouldn't be applying to Ivies unless they are hooked. We are talking here about the public system which often goes up to 4.7 and beyond.
[Report Post]


Why shouldn't those kids apply to Ivies? Are the 3.7 kids the top 10% at the big 3 or no?



I think the thing is that it really depends on the school. They don't all grade the same.

I know your next question is, "well how do they compare?" That i'm not sure. NCS is crazy grade deflated...there are entire core classes where no one gets an A. STA is less grade deflated. Those are the only two I know well.


Thanks does anyone know about gds? How grade related or not it is - and whether 3.7 is top 10% give or take?

[Anonymous]

I'm assuming everyone is talking about GPA (3.7 weighted) at the end of Jr. year, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate threads like this. The idea that “full pay” makes a lot of difference is both elitist and wrong. Most schools that take ability to pay into account only do it at the margins and most decent schools don’t do it at all. So, no, you can’t buy your kid’s way into college just buy showing you can pay the tuition.

So naïve. There are a small number of need-blind schools (most of which have both gargantuan endowments and "high rankings") where "full pay" truly doesn't matter. Every other school will take a student who will pay $60K in tuition over an equivalent student who will pay $20K or $40K. The vast majority will take a moderately weaker $60K candidate over a moderately stronger $40K candidate or a meaningfully weaker $60K candidate over a meaningfully stronger $20K candidate. Admission officers hate that, of course, but the schools need to keep their lights on. No margin, no mission.

How do the schools necessarily know whether you're willing to be full pay or not? Take Dayton, for example, which was mentioned on this thread. There is no question on the application whether you will be "full pay," obviously. Just because you don't qualify for aid based on FAFSA, and many, many people don't, does not mean that you will be willing to pay $60K for Dayton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate threads like this. The idea that “full pay” makes a lot of difference is both elitist and wrong. Most schools that take ability to pay into account only do it at the margins and most decent schools don’t do it at all. So, no, you can’t buy your kid’s way into college just buy showing you can pay the tuition.

So naïve. There are a small number of need-blind schools (most of which have both gargantuan endowments and "high rankings") where "full pay" truly doesn't matter. Every other school will take a student who will pay $60K in tuition over an equivalent student who will pay $20K or $40K. The vast majority will take a moderately weaker $60K candidate over a moderately stronger $40K candidate or a meaningfully weaker $60K candidate over a meaningfully stronger $20K candidate. Admission officers hate that, of course, but the schools need to keep their lights on. No margin, no mission.

How do the schools necessarily know whether you're willing to be full pay or not? Take Dayton, for example, which was mentioned on this thread. There is no question on the application whether you will be "full pay," obviously. Just because you don't qualify for aid based on FAFSA, and many, many people don't, does not mean that you will be willing to pay $60K for Dayton.

Applicants who don’t fill out the FAFSA and zip code analysis.