DS Was Deferred At All Early Action

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's why Michigan can't be a safety (or even a likely) even if you "have the stats." At highly and moderately selective schools, 75-80% of applicants "have the stats." Even if that number is on the low end (75%) for Michigan's OOS pool, and even if Michigan's OOS acceptance rate remains as high as last year's (17%), an OOS kid who "has the stats" is ~77% likely to be rejected by Michigan. (That's oversimplified for any individual case, of course, but it's correct in aggregate.)

What’s the source of your 75 to 80 percent number, because I seriously doubt it is correct in the test optional world. Even if the numbers are half that though, there are still tens of thousand of qualified kids vying for a few thousand spots.

Try to find a number lower than that from any AO asked what percentage of her applicant pool is academically qualified to attend her college or university. And if you find one, link it. Good luck.

Or think about the flip-side: If only 40% of kids applying to Michigan are academically qualified, you'd expect, in aggregate, that kids applying to highly and moderately selective schools would be academically qualified for only 40% of the schools to which they've applied. Do you know any kid who doesn't "have the numbers" to apply to six of the ten schools to which he's applied? I don't. I'm sure those kids exist, but they're few and far between. One "flyer" for every four "realistic" schools is much more consistent with my experience.

I strongly suspect that 75-80% figure is correct and that, if you're telling yourself it's lower than that, you're guilty of underestimating the competition.

I simply asked you for a source, which you still have not provided.

Mentioned regularly on this excellent podcast: https://yourcollegeboundkid.com/category/episodes/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how Early Action is helpful in any way. It doesn’t boost students admission chance. It doesn’t help the colleges with yield because kids can sit on acceptances. Smartest kids get accepted first in EA and they apply early action to safeties. Then those kids wait to see if they get accepted someplace else or better.

I can't dispute that you don't understand, but if the schools didn't find it useful they wouldn't offer it and if the kids didn't find it useful they wouldn't apply EA. (Less snarky: the earlier information narrows uncertainty on both sides of the market.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been thinking about this as well. My oldest kid is a high stats kid with great EC's at a Big 3. Rejected early from an Ivy, thankfully into one safety with "merit $" and into one one target/safety.

The rest of my senior kid's applications are all reaches. I think my kid will end up at the target safety - a school thankfully they love and are excited to attend.

Here is the issue
I have a junior applying next year. Great kid - medium/high stats, medium extracurriculars. I'm petrified about this kid finding safeties.. A friend of my senior kid has similar stats to our junior and also was deferred or rejected everywhere early like OP. I am hearing safeties are no longer safeties. I think the college advising offices are shocked by what is happening and playing catch up. When the safeties are also a lottery, it's hard to make good application decisions.

For the first time ever I have heard of good qualified kids getting shut out. Its worrisome.

Not to say it doesn’t happen but I haven’t heard of a high stat kid getting completely shut out by RD notifications timeframe if they applied to a balanced list of schools with consideration of major and being OOS when that impacts the acceptance rate, showed interest to safety/targets where that mattered, applied to the state schools that were more of the safeties on the earlier end, and pivoted if needed if ED/EA weren’t favorable (look at essay, see if need to add more safeties/targets, is there anything else that could be off in the application package). Usually something works out - just maybe not as expected - like spring admission to a more competitive school or rejected or spring UMD for EA but in at a competitive LAC or university in RD, or maybe just got into some safeties and not the target or reaches.

The pitfall for the near shutouts IMO tend to be that schools on the list as safeties/soft target are very competitive in their major I.e. Engineering at Virginia Tech or Newhouse School at Syracuse, or as OOS it’s even tougher between explicit caps on OOS and the number of in-state high stats kids applying either because of reputation and/or merit programs to encourage them to stay in-state I.e. UNC, UVA, William and Mary, and UGA. Or they apply late in the game like applying in January to University Delaware when the same application in October would have gotten admission with merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's why Michigan can't be a safety (or even a likely) even if you "have the stats." At highly and moderately selective schools, 75-80% of applicants "have the stats." Even if that number is on the low end (75%) for Michigan's OOS pool, and even if Michigan's OOS acceptance rate remains as high as last year's (17%), an OOS kid who "has the stats" is ~77% likely to be rejected by Michigan. (That's oversimplified for any individual case, of course, but it's correct in aggregate.)

What’s the source of your 75 to 80 percent number, because I seriously doubt it is correct in the test optional world. Even if the numbers are half that though, there are still tens of thousand of qualified kids vying for a few thousand spots.

Try to find a number lower than that from any AO asked what percentage of her applicant pool is academically qualified to attend her college or university. And if you find one, link it. Good luck.

Or think about the flip-side: If only 40% of kids applying to Michigan are academically qualified, you'd expect, in aggregate, that kids applying to highly and moderately selective schools would be academically qualified for only 40% of the schools to which they've applied. Do you know any kid who doesn't "have the numbers" to apply to six of the ten schools to which he's applied? I don't. I'm sure those kids exist, but they're few and far between. One "flyer" for every four "realistic" schools is much more consistent with my experience.

I strongly suspect that 75-80% figure is correct and that, if you're telling yourself it's lower than that, you're guilty of underestimating the competition.

I simply asked you for a source, which you still have not provided.

Mentioned regularly on this excellent podcast: https://yourcollegeboundkid.com/category/episodes/

Oh come on, that’s hardly a reliable source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:50% acceptance rate isn’t high enough to consider a school a safety.

It's a combination of the above--but sure, if you feel more comfortable, make it 70%. Main point is that anything under 50% is certainly NOT a safety, no matter what your stats.

If you plan your list accurately you will have decent acceptances.

My 2022 kid:
3 Reaches (1 T10, 1T30, and Northeastern which is a reach for anyone with 90K applicants)
3 Targets (Flagship state school in T50, one ranked near 30, one ranked near 40---kid was at 75%+ for stats/gpa, rigor)
3 safeties (2 were a guarantee--over 70% acceptance rate the other only 45-50% but with a female in engineering at an engineering school looking to increase the F/M balance and at 85-90% for stats felt it was a safety)

My kid got into all safeties and targets. Got ED deferred then rejected at T10, WL at T30 with an acceptance rate of 7%, and NUIn at Northeastern)
So it worked out as planned---key is to pick the right targets and safeties and not get "too in love" with your reaches.
Sure, they didn't get into their reaches, but that's a crap shoot when acceptance rates at all of those were less than 7% that year. In reality, the WL and NUIn is a "you are material for our school, but we don't have space because we got too many applications". My kid is now happy at a target school, which in reality was probably their 2nd choice (after the ED) when they step back and actually look clearly...they only wanted the other 2 reaches more because of location, not the academics. They ended up at an excellent fit school for them.

Note: my kid loved the one safety so much they seriously considered it up until about 1 week before making a decision, and even revisited it in April before deciding.

Put in the effort to have a good, balanced list of schools, show demonstrated interest everywhere and be excited about all choices (it's not a safety if you don't want to attend)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's why Michigan can't be a safety (or even a likely) even if you "have the stats." At highly and moderately selective schools, 75-80% of applicants "have the stats." Even if that number is on the low end (75%) for Michigan's OOS pool, and even if Michigan's OOS acceptance rate remains as high as last year's (17%), an OOS kid who "has the stats" is ~77% likely to be rejected by Michigan. (That's oversimplified for any individual case, of course, but it's correct in aggregate.)

What’s the source of your 75 to 80 percent number, because I seriously doubt it is correct in the test optional world. Even if the numbers are half that though, there are still tens of thousand of qualified kids vying for a few thousand spots.

Try to find a number lower than that from any AO asked what percentage of her applicant pool is academically qualified to attend her college or university. And if you find one, link it. Good luck.

Or think about the flip-side: If only 40% of kids applying to Michigan are academically qualified, you'd expect, in aggregate, that kids applying to highly and moderately selective schools would be academically qualified for only 40% of the schools to which they've applied. Do you know any kid who doesn't "have the numbers" to apply to six of the ten schools to which he's applied? I don't. I'm sure those kids exist, but they're few and far between. One "flyer" for every four "realistic" schools is much more consistent with my experience.

I strongly suspect that 75-80% figure is correct and that, if you're telling yourself it's lower than that, you're guilty of underestimating the competition.

I simply asked you for a source, which you still have not provided.

Mentioned regularly on this excellent podcast: https://yourcollegeboundkid.com/category/episodes/

Oh come on, that’s hardly a reliable source.

I’ll add, my spouse interviews for Harvard, between 4 and 6 kids a year. Maybe one or two of those kids each year is actually the kind of superstar Harvard is going to possibly accept.

[Anonymous]

It's not realistic to consider many flagships safeties if OOS as they often give preference to in state students. For that reason many OOS students with great stats will not get accepted. I think Michigan, UMD, and UW Wisconsin EA decisions might be forthcoming today. One can just monitor CC tonight for the head scratching that will occur as some with great stats are accepted and some with similar or better are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50% acceptance rate isn’t high enough to consider a school a safety.

It's a combination of the above--but sure, if you feel more comfortable, make it 70%. Main point is that anything under 50% is certainly NOT a safety, no matter what your stats.

If you plan your list accurately you will have decent acceptances.

My 2022 kid:
3 Reaches (1 T10, 1T30, and Northeastern which is a reach for anyone with 90K applicants)
3 Targets (Flagship state school in T50, one ranked near 30, one ranked near 40---kid was at 75%+ for stats/gpa, rigor)
3 safeties (2 were a guarantee--over 70% acceptance rate the other only 45-50% but with a female in engineering at an engineering school looking to increase the F/M balance and at 85-90% for stats felt it was a safety)

My kid got into all safeties and targets. Got ED deferred then rejected at T10, WL at T30 with an acceptance rate of 7%, and NUIn at Northeastern)
So it worked out as planned---key is to pick the right targets and safeties and not get "too in love" with your reaches.
Sure, they didn't get into their reaches, but that's a crap shoot when acceptance rates at all of those were less than 7% that year. In reality, the WL and NUIn is a "you are material for our school, but we don't have space because we got too many applications". My kid is now happy at a target school, which in reality was probably their 2nd choice (after the ED) when they step back and actually look clearly...they only wanted the other 2 reaches more because of location, not the academics. They ended up at an excellent fit school for them.

Note: my kid loved the one safety so much they seriously considered it up until about 1 week before making a decision, and even revisited it in April before deciding.

Put in the effort to have a good, balanced list of schools, show demonstrated interest everywhere and be excited about all choices (it's not a safety if you don't want to attend)

Northeastern is not a reach if a kid applies ED, the acceptance rate is close to 40 percent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's why Michigan can't be a safety (or even a likely) even if you "have the stats." At highly and moderately selective schools, 75-80% of applicants "have the stats." Even if that number is on the low end (75%) for Michigan's OOS pool, and even if Michigan's OOS acceptance rate remains as high as last year's (17%), an OOS kid who "has the stats" is ~77% likely to be rejected by Michigan. (That's oversimplified for any individual case, of course, but it's correct in aggregate.)

What’s the source of your 75 to 80 percent number, because I seriously doubt it is correct in the test optional world. Even if the numbers are half that though, there are still tens of thousand of qualified kids vying for a few thousand spots.

Try to find a number lower than that from any AO asked what percentage of her applicant pool is academically qualified to attend her college or university. And if you find one, link it. Good luck.

Or think about the flip-side: If only 40% of kids applying to Michigan are academically qualified, you'd expect, in aggregate, that kids applying to highly and moderately selective schools would be academically qualified for only 40% of the schools to which they've applied. Do you know any kid who doesn't "have the numbers" to apply to six of the ten schools to which he's applied? I don't. I'm sure those kids exist, but they're few and far between. One "flyer" for every four "realistic" schools is much more consistent with my experience.

I strongly suspect that 75-80% figure is correct and that, if you're telling yourself it's lower than that, you're guilty of underestimating the competition.

I simply asked you for a source, which you still have not provided.

Mentioned regularly on this excellent podcast: https://yourcollegeboundkid.com/category/episodes/

Oh come on, that’s hardly a reliable source.

I’ll add, my spouse interviews for Harvard, between 4 and 6 kids a year. Maybe one or two of those kids each year is actually the kind of superstar Harvard is going to possibly accept.

Those are different goalposts. The question is "have the numbers" or "are academically qualified." But even using your shifted goalposts, and even taking the most extreme case you offered (i.e., 1 out of 6 interviewees really being in the game), that's 17% "superstar" applicants for a school that accepts 4%--so more than 3/4 of those superstars are going to be rejected. Just like at Michigan. Seeing the pattern yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's why Michigan can't be a safety (or even a likely) even if you "have the stats." At highly and moderately selective schools, 75-80% of applicants "have the stats." Even if that number is on the low end (75%) for Michigan's OOS pool, and even if Michigan's OOS acceptance rate remains as high as last year's (17%), an OOS kid who "has the stats" is ~77% likely to be rejected by Michigan. (That's oversimplified for any individual case, of course, but it's correct in aggregate.)

What’s the source of your 75 to 80 percent number, because I seriously doubt it is correct in the test optional world. Even if the numbers are half that though, there are still tens of thousand of qualified kids vying for a few thousand spots.

Try to find a number lower than that from any AO asked what percentage of her applicant pool is academically qualified to attend her college or university. And if you find one, link it. Good luck.

Or think about the flip-side: If only 40% of kids applying to Michigan are academically qualified, you'd expect, in aggregate, that kids applying to highly and moderately selective schools would be academically qualified for only 40% of the schools to which they've applied. Do you know any kid who doesn't "have the numbers" to apply to six of the ten schools to which he's applied? I don't. I'm sure those kids exist, but they're few and far between. One "flyer" for every four "realistic" schools is much more consistent with my experience.

I strongly suspect that 75-80% figure is correct and that, if you're telling yourself it's lower than that, you're guilty of underestimating the competition.

I simply asked you for a source, which you still have not provided.

Mentioned regularly on this excellent podcast: https://yourcollegeboundkid.com/category/episodes/

Oh come on, that’s hardly a reliable source.

When the alternative on offer is a random DCUM blowhard? I'm going with the guy who actually talks with AOs everyday and makes his living working with college applicants...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand how Early Action is helpful in any way. It doesn’t boost students admission chance. It doesn’t help the colleges with yield because kids can sit on acceptances. Smartest kids get accepted first in EA and they apply early action to safeties. Then those kids wait to see if they get accepted someplace else or better.

It helps because if I were an AO, I'd want to accept the majority of my freshman class via ED and EA. ED guarantees yield. EA demonstrates interest and the ability to complete applications on time, so organization and knowledge that the kid wants to attend your school (sure it might be a safety, but they have their act together and are done applying by Nov 1 or Nov 15 (or whenever the EA is, it's before RD date).
I suspect many schools fill 80-90% with ED and EA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50% acceptance rate isn’t high enough to consider a school a safety.

It's a combination of the above--but sure, if you feel more comfortable, make it 70%. Main point is that anything under 50% is certainly NOT a safety, no matter what your stats.

If you plan your list accurately you will have decent acceptances.

My 2022 kid:
3 Reaches (1 T10, 1T30, and Northeastern which is a reach for anyone with 90K applicants)
3 Targets (Flagship state school in T50, one ranked near 30, one ranked near 40---kid was at 75%+ for stats/gpa, rigor)
3 safeties (2 were a guarantee--over 70% acceptance rate the other only 45-50% but with a female in engineering at an engineering school looking to increase the F/M balance and at 85-90% for stats felt it was a safety)

My kid got into all safeties and targets. Got ED deferred then rejected at T10, WL at T30 with an acceptance rate of 7%, and NUIn at Northeastern)
So it worked out as planned---key is to pick the right targets and safeties and not get "too in love" with your reaches.
Sure, they didn't get into their reaches, but that's a crap shoot when acceptance rates at all of those were less than 7% that year. In reality, the WL and NUIn is a "you are material for our school, but we don't have space because we got too many applications". My kid is now happy at a target school, which in reality was probably their 2nd choice (after the ED) when they step back and actually look clearly...they only wanted the other 2 reaches more because of location, not the academics. They ended up at an excellent fit school for them.

Note: my kid loved the one safety so much they seriously considered it up until about 1 week before making a decision, and even revisited it in April before deciding.

Put in the effort to have a good, balanced list of schools, show demonstrated interest everywhere and be excited about all choices (it's not a safety if you don't want to attend)

Northeastern is not a reach if a kid applies ED, the acceptance rate is close to 40 percent.

As stated above, my kid ED to a T10 school that was their top choice. So NEU was a Reach. Ultimately, my kid decided NEU was not for them (too big, too crowded, didn't want to start off campus first year, etc---for many reasons it was not their top choice and they are attending a much better school so no loss to my kid).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's why Michigan can't be a safety (or even a likely) even if you "have the stats." At highly and moderately selective schools, 75-80% of applicants "have the stats." Even if that number is on the low end (75%) for Michigan's OOS pool, and even if Michigan's OOS acceptance rate remains as high as last year's (17%), an OOS kid who "has the stats" is ~77% likely to be rejected by Michigan. (That's oversimplified for any individual case, of course, but it's correct in aggregate.)

What’s the source of your 75 to 80 percent number, because I seriously doubt it is correct in the test optional world. Even if the numbers are half that though, there are still tens of thousand of qualified kids vying for a few thousand spots.

Try to find a number lower than that from any AO asked what percentage of her applicant pool is academically qualified to attend her college or university. And if you find one, link it. Good luck.

Or think about the flip-side: If only 40% of kids applying to Michigan are academically qualified, you'd expect, in aggregate, that kids applying to highly and moderately selective schools would be academically qualified for only 40% of the schools to which they've applied. Do you know any kid who doesn't "have the numbers" to apply to six of the ten schools to which he's applied? I don't. I'm sure those kids exist, but they're few and far between. One "flyer" for every four "realistic" schools is much more consistent with my experience.

I strongly suspect that 75-80% figure is correct and that, if you're telling yourself it's lower than that, you're guilty of underestimating the competition.

I simply asked you for a source, which you still have not provided.

Mentioned regularly on this excellent podcast: https://yourcollegeboundkid.com/category/episodes/

Oh come on, that’s hardly a reliable source.

I’ll add, my spouse interviews for Harvard, between 4 and 6 kids a year. Maybe one or two of those kids each year is actually the kind of superstar Harvard is going to possibly accept.

Those are different goalposts. The question is "have the numbers" or "are academically qualified." But even using your shifted goalposts, and even taking the most extreme case you offered (i.e., 1 out of 6 interviewees really being in the game), that's 17% "superstar" applicants for a school that accepts 4%--so more than 3/4 of those superstars are going to be rejected. Just like at Michigan. Seeing the pattern yet?

I don’t understand what you are trying to prove. That would mean 80 percent of applicants aren’t ever in the running (and over ten plus years, none of the kids he has felt are just ordinary smart kids have been admitted). Of the superstar kids, about a third have been admitted.

I never said that competition wasn’t crazy just that your ratios are off. Say just 30 percent of the Michigan kids are highly qualified, that would be 30,000 highly qualified kids competing for maybe 8000 offers. So more than two thirds of the kids who look to be sure admits are put in the deny pile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's why Michigan can't be a safety (or even a likely) even if you "have the stats." At highly and moderately selective schools, 75-80% of applicants "have the stats." Even if that number is on the low end (75%) for Michigan's OOS pool, and even if Michigan's OOS acceptance rate remains as high as last year's (17%), an OOS kid who "has the stats" is ~77% likely to be rejected by Michigan. (That's oversimplified for any individual case, of course, but it's correct in aggregate.)

What’s the source of your 75 to 80 percent number, because I seriously doubt it is correct in the test optional world. Even if the numbers are half that though, there are still tens of thousand of qualified kids vying for a few thousand spots.

Try to find a number lower than that from any AO asked what percentage of her applicant pool is academically qualified to attend her college or university. And if you find one, link it. Good luck.

Or think about the flip-side: If only 40% of kids applying to Michigan are academically qualified, you'd expect, in aggregate, that kids applying to highly and moderately selective schools would be academically qualified for only 40% of the schools to which they've applied. Do you know any kid who doesn't "have the numbers" to apply to six of the ten schools to which he's applied? I don't. I'm sure those kids exist, but they're few and far between. One "flyer" for every four "realistic" schools is much more consistent with my experience.

I strongly suspect that 75-80% figure is correct and that, if you're telling yourself it's lower than that, you're guilty of underestimating the competition.

I simply asked you for a source, which you still have not provided.

Mentioned regularly on this excellent podcast: https://yourcollegeboundkid.com/category/episodes/

Oh come on, that’s hardly a reliable source.

When the alternative on offer is a random DCUM blowhard? I'm going with the guy who actually talks with AOs everyday and makes his living working with college applicants...

Hmm, most of the college consultants I’ve heard speak are the very definition of blowhards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:50% acceptance rate isn’t high enough to consider a school a safety.

It's a combination of the above--but sure, if you feel more comfortable, make it 70%. Main point is that anything under 50% is certainly NOT a safety, no matter what your stats.

If you plan your list accurately you will have decent acceptances.

My 2022 kid:
3 Reaches (1 T10, 1T30, and Northeastern which is a reach for anyone with 90K applicants)
3 Targets (Flagship state school in T50, one ranked near 30, one ranked near 40---kid was at 75%+ for stats/gpa, rigor)
3 safeties (2 were a guarantee--over 70% acceptance rate the other only 45-50% but with a female in engineering at an engineering school looking to increase the F/M balance and at 85-90% for stats felt it was a safety)

My kid got into all safeties and targets. Got ED deferred then rejected at T10, WL at T30 with an acceptance rate of 7%, and NUIn at Northeastern)
So it worked out as planned---key is to pick the right targets and safeties and not get "too in love" with your reaches.
Sure, they didn't get into their reaches, but that's a crap shoot when acceptance rates at all of those were less than 7% that year. In reality, the WL and NUIn is a "you are material for our school, but we don't have space because we got too many applications". My kid is now happy at a target school, which in reality was probably their 2nd choice (after the ED) when they step back and actually look clearly...they only wanted the other 2 reaches more because of location, not the academics. They ended up at an excellent fit school for them.

Note: my kid loved the one safety so much they seriously considered it up until about 1 week before making a decision, and even revisited it in April before deciding.

Put in the effort to have a good, balanced list of schools, show demonstrated interest everywhere and be excited about all choices (it's not a safety if you don't want to attend)

I like the way you laid this out. I'll try it.

1 Reach- T25- EA
1 Target- T50 - We considered this a target but was told by counselor that this school is a reach for everyone. DC was right in the middle of 25th and 75th percentile of GPA and SAT scores. Accepted ED.
1 "Safety"- T75 - EA. Just calling this safety due to the >50% acceptance rate but DC wasn't convinced about going there.

Out of these 3, DC really only wanted to go to the ED school. Already talked to the school about a plan B laid since the school had other options for admissions.
Was going to apply RD at 2 other safety schools with >75% acceptance with later deadlines if these first 3 didn't pan out. Couldn't find the real safeties DC was happy with.