Kids who applied to Stanford and Berkeley

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP— I have a kid at TJ.

I don't have a kid at TJ but am a consultant in the field and have many students who have gone through the process.

The bad news. The kids getting into Stanford aren’t just impressive for this area or the smartest kid in your neighborhood. They have demonstrated world class talent. The National chess champion. US international traveling math, bio, chem or physics olympics team. The Intel and Siemens finalists. The National student journalist of the year. These are the kids getting offers. Not NMSFs, 99th % SATs, great grades, student body President. If your kid isn’t nationally or internationally recognized in something impressive, a URM/first Gen, an elite athlete, or donating a building, I she should still apply, but I would not let her get her hopes up. Because with 5% admissions rate, URMS, athletes and legacies filling sports, and all the applicants being impressive, the odds are bad.


I agree with all of this. Same for the Ivies. Legacy doesn't count unless you are talking seven digits. I had a triple legacy at Yale turned down. He had all the stats but wasn't URM, low-income, etc. etc. but did have national awards. Please tell your kids this is going to be like throwing craps at Vegas. You might get lucky but the odds are stacked against you. And apply EA, SCEA or ED - take advantage of that. The game is now being played out there, not at the RD level.

Better news: Berkley might be doable for a kid who is just bright, and hardworking with excellent SATs and not also a superhero on the side. If she’s interested in CA, maybe one of the Claremont colleges, depending on what she wants to study? One of them is all female, but they share a co-ed campus. Occidental also seems to be getting a lot of buzz right now.

Berkeley is going to become even more difficult to get into because OOS (including internationals) will now be capped at only 20% of entering class. So past Naviance figures for your school are not relevant. OP needs to widen the field of schools for her daughter to at least ten.

I highly recommend the Claremont Colleges, Pomona first. The all-female college is Scripps. I know some students who did not get into Pomona, CMC, etc., but got into Scripps and took courses at the other colleges. Selectivity is very low for Pomona, @ 9% and dropping.

No to Occidental. It has lost its way. Selectivity is at 45% and climbing. You can do much better for same expense.

Even better news: I know two kids who were bright, hard working, and talented, but not superhuman that are at Stanford right now in grad school—one from Case Western and one from Northwestern. And when push comes to shove, your terminal degree is the one people care about. I know your DD has worked so hard, and given 100% and wants Stanford for undergrad. And she could probably do well there.

Which grad school? The law school wants to see children of URMS who attended Stanford so they can check off three boxes: wealthy (called development cases); URM; legacy.

But help her manage expectations and look at the big picture. Stanford (and Berkley and the Ivys) will still be there in 4 years. She’s clearly capable of doing great things in college. And if she does, she will have a realistic shot at her dream school for grad school.

Not unless she's a URM and legacy. Remember the "Black Lives Matter" essay?? That's what they are looking for, even at the grad school level.

[Anonymous]

Sorry for the garbled answer above. I was trying to address the points made in 23:47's post paragraph by paragraph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford has a slightly higher freshman retention rate (98%) than the other California schools in the top 25 (CalTech 97% Cal, USC, UCLA all 96%), but even 96% is very strong and no need concern. As others have noted, Stanford (~7K) has a far smaller undergrad population (USC~18K, Cal & UCLA ~30K)

Harvey Mudd and Pomona also have 98% retention rates and I would put them right in line with the other top 25 universities. Much smaller, though, but for a student desiring a Stanford like experience with a diversity of strong programs and bright undergraduates, the Claremont Colleges collectively are a good and less selective alternative.

Ehhhh. Depends. Pomona has an 8.4% acceptance rate and and Mudd is closer to 12%. But these two are as hard or hard than an Ivy from the DMV. They want to get every single state and a bunch of countries and all sorts of other diversity represented in a class of 400 kids. This is great of you are from North Dakota. Practically speaking, you are only looking at a very few DMV acceptances. Plus, you need to be hardcore STEM for Mudd. Pomona is a humanities college, so it is easier for men to get in. Most recently, they had 26 students from VA at Pomona. That’s 6.2 a year. And they will not all be from NOVA. TJ usually sends a kid. Maggie Walker usually sends a kid. VA kids going to the top privates count in the VA numbers. You end up with 1-2 slots left for the NOVA publics.

https://www.pomona.edu/sites/default/files/pomona-college-admissions-profile.pdf

Mudd for a girl with a serious STEM background might be posssible though.



Scripts and Pitzer should be very doable though. And OP’s DD is probably right on target for CMC. But the schools are specialized enough that you need to have some idea about your field of study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP— I have a kid at TJ.

I don't have a kid at TJ but am a consultant in the field and have many students who have gone through the process.

The bad news. The kids getting into Stanford aren’t just impressive for this area or the smartest kid in your neighborhood. They have demonstrated world class talent. The National chess champion. US international traveling math, bio, chem or physics olympics team. The Intel and Siemens finalists. The National student journalist of the year. These are the kids getting offers. Not NMSFs, 99th % SATs, great grades, student body President. If your kid isn’t nationally or internationally recognized in something impressive, a URM/first Gen, an elite athlete, or donating a building, I she should still apply, but I would not let her get her hopes up. Because with 5% admissions rate, URMS, athletes and legacies filling sports, and all the applicants being impressive, the odds are bad.


I agree with all of this. Same for the Ivies. Legacy doesn't count unless you are talking seven digits. I had a triple legacy at Yale turned down. He had all the stats but wasn't URM, low-income, etc. etc. but did have national awards. Please tell your kids this is going to be like throwing craps at Vegas. You might get lucky but the odds are stacked against you. And apply EA, SCEA or ED - take advantage of that. The game is now being played out there, not at the RD level.

Better news: Berkley might be doable for a kid who is just bright, and hardworking with excellent SATs and not also a superhero on the side. If she’s interested in CA, maybe one of the Claremont colleges, depending on what she wants to study? One of them is all female, but they share a co-ed campus. Occidental also seems to be getting a lot of buzz right now.

Berkeley is going to become even more difficult to get into because OOS (including internationals) will now be capped at only 20% of entering class. So past Naviance figures for your school are not relevant. OP needs to widen the field of schools for her daughter to at least ten.

I highly recommend the Claremont Colleges, Pomona first. The all-female college is Scripps. I know some students who did not get into Pomona, CMC, etc., but got into Scripps and took courses at the other colleges. Selectivity is very low for Pomona, @ 9% and dropping.

No to Occidental. It has lost its way. Selectivity is at 45% and climbing. You can do much better for same expense.

Even better news: I know two kids who were bright, hard working, and talented, but not superhuman that are at Stanford right now in grad school—one from Case Western and one from Northwestern. And when push comes to shove, your terminal degree is the one people care about. I know your DD has worked so hard, and given 100% and wants Stanford for undergrad. And she could probably do well there.

Which grad school? The law school wants to see children of URMS who attended Stanford so they can check off three boxes: wealthy (called development cases); URM; legacy.

But help her manage expectations and look at the big picture. Stanford (and Berkley and the Ivys) will still be there in 4 years. She’s clearly capable of doing great things in college. And if she does, she will have a realistic shot at her dream school for grad school.

Not unless she's a URM and legacy. Remember the "Black Lives Matter" essay?? That's what they are looking for, even at the grad school level.

Both heterosexual white males from UMC DMV households. Both accepted to STEM PhD programs, not the professional schools. One was physics and the other was CS (I think. Maybe CS adjacent). They were very impressive kids. But theynwere the same kids that Stanford had turned down coming out of good DMV base HSs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP— I have a kid at TJ.

I don't have a kid at TJ but am a consultant in the field and have many students who have gone through the process.

The bad news. The kids getting into Stanford aren’t just impressive for this area or the smartest kid in your neighborhood. They have demonstrated world class talent. The National chess champion. US international traveling math, bio, chem or physics olympics team. The Intel and Siemens finalists. The National student journalist of the year. These are the kids getting offers. Not NMSFs, 99th % SATs, great grades, student body President. If your kid isn’t nationally or internationally recognized in something impressive, a URM/first Gen, an elite athlete, or donating a building, I she should still apply, but I would not let her get her hopes up. Because with 5% admissions rate, URMS, athletes and legacies filling sports, and all the applicants being impressive, the odds are bad.


I agree with all of this. Same for the Ivies. Legacy doesn't count unless you are talking seven digits. I had a triple legacy at Yale turned down. He had all the stats but wasn't URM, low-income, etc. etc. but did have national awards. Please tell your kids this is going to be like throwing craps at Vegas. You might get lucky but the odds are stacked against you. And apply EA, SCEA or ED - take advantage of that. The game is now being played out there, not at the RD level.

Better news: Berkley might be doable for a kid who is just bright, and hardworking with excellent SATs and not also a superhero on the side. If she’s interested in CA, maybe one of the Claremont colleges, depending on what she wants to study? One of them is all female, but they share a co-ed campus. Occidental also seems to be getting a lot of buzz right now.

Berkeley is going to become even more difficult to get into because OOS (including internationals) will now be capped at only 20% of entering class. So past Naviance figures for your school are not relevant. OP needs to widen the field of schools for her daughter to at least ten.

I highly recommend the Claremont Colleges, Pomona first. The all-female college is Scripps. I know some students who did not get into Pomona, CMC, etc., but got into Scripps and took courses at the other colleges. Selectivity is very low for Pomona, @ 9% and dropping.

No to Occidental. It has lost its way. Selectivity is at 45% and climbing. You can do much better for same expense.

Even better news: I know two kids who were bright, hard working, and talented, but not superhuman that are at Stanford right now in grad school—one from Case Western and one from Northwestern. And when push comes to shove, your terminal degree is the one people care about. I know your DD has worked so hard, and given 100% and wants Stanford for undergrad. And she could probably do well there.

Which grad school? The law school wants to see children of URMS who attended Stanford so they can check off three boxes: wealthy (called development cases); URM; legacy.

But help her manage expectations and look at the big picture. Stanford (and Berkley and the Ivys) will still be there in 4 years. She’s clearly capable of doing great things in college. And if she does, she will have a realistic shot at her dream school for grad school.

Not unless she's a URM and legacy. Remember the "Black Lives Matter" essay?? That's what they are looking for, even at the grad school level.

Both heterosexual white males from UMC DMV households. Both accepted to STEM PhD programs, not the professional schools. One was physics and the other was CS (I think. Maybe CS adjacent). They were very impressive kids. But theynwere the same kids that Stanford had turned down coming out of good DMV base HSs.

I don't know why you think the fact that the undergrad institution turned down a student is in any way relevant to that student's acceptance to a graduate school. They are apples and oranges. Admission to the grad school turns solely on college performance, college grades, GRE scores, LSAT, internships, summer activities during college and letters of recommendation. And of course whatever else (URM, geographic diversity, international diversity, legacy, etc.) that the grad/professional school is seeking. A high school dud might become a college superstar and vice versa. The admissions offices of the grad/professional schools operate completely separate from the undergrad admissions. The fact that I am a legacy for Stanford Law has zero influence on my child's application to Stanford undergrad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford has a slightly higher freshman retention rate (98%) than the other California schools in the top 25 (CalTech 97% Cal, USC, UCLA all 96%), but even 96% is very strong and no need concern. As others have noted, Stanford (~7K) has a far smaller undergrad population (USC~18K, Cal & UCLA ~30K)

Harvey Mudd and Pomona also have 98% retention rates and I would put them right in line with the other top 25 universities. Much smaller, though, but for a student desiring a Stanford like experience with a diversity of strong programs and bright undergraduates, the Claremont Colleges collectively are a good and less selective alternative.

Ehhhh. Depends. Pomona has an 8.4% acceptance rate and and Mudd is closer to 12%. But these two are as hard or hard than an Ivy from the DMV. They want to get every single state and a bunch of countries and all sorts of other diversity represented in a class of 400 kids. This is great of you are from North Dakota. Practically speaking, you are only looking at a very few DMV acceptances. Plus, you need to be hardcore STEM for Mudd. Pomona is a humanities college, so it is easier for men to get in. Most recently, they had 26 students from VA at Pomona. That’s 6.2 a year. And they will not all be from NOVA. TJ usually sends a kid. Maggie Walker usually sends a kid. VA kids going to the top privates count in the VA numbers. You end up with 1-2 slots left for the NOVA publics.

https://www.pomona.edu/sites/default/files/pomona-college-admissions-profile.pdf

Mudd for a girl with a serious STEM background might be posssible though.



Scripts and Pitzer should be very doable though. And OP’s DD is probably right on target for CMC. But the schools are specialized enough that you need to have some idea about your field of study.

Pomona dropped to 6.9% selectivity in March, 2018.

[Anonymous]

I have a DC currently attending Stanford -applied regular decision with no hook. The students seem like your typical, normal, young adults. I’ve taken multi groups out to breakfast, lunch, and dinner. All sweet kids. No apparent difference to the friend group in high school. At a dinner with the parents of the freshman year friend group, one mom asked me why I thought our kids got in and others didn’t. It is luck is my opinión - having your application resonate with the admissions officer reading it. However, what I have observed is that there are a LOT of really rich kids. They seem to gravitate towards each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford has a slightly higher freshman retention rate (98%) than the other California schools in the top 25 (CalTech 97% Cal, USC, UCLA all 96%), but even 96% is very strong and no need concern. As others have noted, Stanford (~7K) has a far smaller undergrad population (USC~18K, Cal & UCLA ~30K)

Harvey Mudd and Pomona also have 98% retention rates and I would put them right in line with the other top 25 universities. Much smaller, though, but for a student desiring a Stanford like experience with a diversity of strong programs and bright undergraduates, the Claremont Colleges collectively are a good and less selective alternative.

Ehhhh. Depends. Pomona has an 8.4% acceptance rate and and Mudd is closer to 12%. But these two are as hard or hard than an Ivy from the DMV. They want to get every single state and a bunch of countries and all sorts of other diversity represented in a class of 400 kids. This is great of you are from North Dakota. Practically speaking, you are only looking at a very few DMV acceptances. Plus, you need to be hardcore STEM for Mudd. Pomona is a humanities college, so it is easier for men to get in. Most recently, they had 26 students from VA at Pomona. That’s 6.2 a year. And they will not all be from NOVA. TJ usually sends a kid. Maggie Walker usually sends a kid. VA kids going to the top privates count in the VA numbers. You end up with 1-2 slots left for the NOVA publics.

https://www.pomona.edu/sites/default/files/pomona-college-admissions-profile.pdf

Mudd for a girl with a serious STEM background might be posssible though.



Scripts and Pitzer should be very doable though. And OP’s DD is probably right on target for CMC. But the schools are specialized enough that you need to have some idea about your field of study.

Maybe. But pitzer is about 13% acceptance rate...

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting thread that has kind of veered away from Stanford and Berkeley to how depressing/difficult the process can be. There is an excellent video around (a Ted Talk if I remember correctly) that gives really good advice, which is simple too, and that is do not fall in love with any one school. Your student should find a group of schools that are interesting and where he/she would be happy, and then spin the wheel. The talk shows how getting into college is actually easier today than it was a decade ago, contrary to public opinion, though getting into any particular college is more difficult. Keep n mind that most kids, not all but most, love college and that is true for students who end up in unexpected places. It is a great experience andnot dependent on that one brass ring.i

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stanford has a slightly higher freshman retention rate (98%) than the other California schools in the top 25 (CalTech 97% Cal, USC, UCLA all 96%), but even 96% is very strong and no need concern. As others have noted, Stanford (~7K) has a far smaller undergrad population (USC~18K, Cal & UCLA ~30K)

Harvey Mudd and Pomona also have 98% retention rates and I would put them right in line with the other top 25 universities. Much smaller, though, but for a student desiring a Stanford like experience with a diversity of strong programs and bright undergraduates, the Claremont Colleges collectively are a good and less selective alternative.

Ehhhh. Depends. Pomona has an 8.4% acceptance rate and and Mudd is closer to 12%. But these two are as hard or hard than an Ivy from the DMV. They want to get every single state and a bunch of countries and all sorts of other diversity represented in a class of 400 kids. This is great of you are from North Dakota. Practically speaking, you are only looking at a very few DMV acceptances. Plus, you need to be hardcore STEM for Mudd. Pomona is a humanities college, so it is easier for men to get in. Most recently, they had 26 students from VA at Pomona. That’s 6.2 a year. And they will not all be from NOVA. TJ usually sends a kid. Maggie Walker usually sends a kid. VA kids going to the top privates count in the VA numbers. You end up with 1-2 slots left for the NOVA publics.

https://www.pomona.edu/sites/default/files/pomona-college-admissions-profile.pdf

Mudd for a girl with a serious STEM background might be posssible though.



Scripts and Pitzer should be very doable though. And OP’s DD is probably right on target for CMC. But the schools are specialized enough that you need to have some idea about your field of study.

Maybe. But pitzer is about 13% acceptance rate...

I actually know someone who got into Yale, Pomona, and Brown, but not Pitzer (flat out rejected). Definitely not a "very doable" school with a 13% acceptance rate. They're very particular about what they're seeking out and it's much more subjective than high test scores/GPA.

[Anonymous]

My daughter had a 1540 SAT and weighted 4.6 gpa. Rowed crew. She got into Berkeley (in-state) and not Stanford. Is loving Berkeley.

1 year later my son with identical stats, also a rower, also did not get into Stanford. He was waitlisted at Berkeley and had otherwise identical results at other schools. Is currently attending another school, having not made it off the waitlist.

Hard to tell what the difference was, other than rapidly increasing numbers of applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD - 1550 SAT, Top 2% of class (in the top 10 students) at a well regarded public high school. Not full pay. 4.0 UW, not sure of Waited but I want to say 4.6 or 4.7.

It wasn't pretty. We had a wide range but we did apply to a couple of top schools.

Denied at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Wellesley.

Wait-listed at Middlebury, Rice, and Barnard.

Accepted with lots of merit aid at Tulane, Fordham, Lafayette and some decent publics.

Accepted with No Merit at U Richmond, W&L.

I do think being a female hurt her especially at the SLACs. I would very much caution expectation setting.

Surprised at the "no merit at U Richmond. They are courting high stats kids big time.

PP here. That's what I thought. And I called them to express interest and they weren't biting. I do think if my DD was a DS it would have helped at the SLACs, and maybe at Richmond. I would not plan on the notion that URichmond is courting high stats kids. My DD stats were higher than all their 75% percentile and they weren't the least bit interested. I was told "it was a tough year and we wish your DD well".

Who in the world would even want to go to the University of Richmond?? Why is this even part of the discussion? It’s an average university in a pretend city with a snotty attitude, surrounded by opioid addicts. Whenever my credit card number is stolen it’s always charged up in Richmond. Blech

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP— I have a kid at TJ.

I don't have a kid at TJ but am a consultant in the field and have many students who have gone through the process.

The bad news. The kids getting into Stanford aren’t just impressive for this area or the smartest kid in your neighborhood. They have demonstrated world class talent. The National chess champion. US international traveling math, bio, chem or physics olympics team. The Intel and Siemens finalists. The National student journalist of the year. These are the kids getting offers. Not NMSFs, 99th % SATs, great grades, student body President. If your kid isn’t nationally or internationally recognized in something impressive, a URM/first Gen, an elite athlete, or donating a building, I she should still apply, but I would not let her get her hopes up. Because with 5% admissions rate, URMS, athletes and legacies filling sports, and all the applicants being impressive, the odds are bad.


I agree with all of this. Same for the Ivies. Legacy doesn't count unless you are talking seven digits. I had a triple legacy at Yale turned down. He had all the stats but wasn't URM, low-income, etc. etc. but did have national awards. Please tell your kids this is going to be like throwing craps at Vegas. You might get lucky but the odds are stacked against you. And apply EA, SCEA or ED - take advantage of that. The game is now being played out there, not at the RD level.

Better news: Berkley might be doable for a kid who is just bright, and hardworking with excellent SATs and not also a superhero on the side. If she’s interested in CA, maybe one of the Claremont colleges, depending on what she wants to study? One of them is all female, but they share a co-ed campus. Occidental also seems to be getting a lot of buzz right now.

Berkeley is going to become even more difficult to get into because OOS (including internationals) will now be capped at only 20% of entering class. So past Naviance figures for your school are not relevant. OP needs to widen the field of schools for her daughter to at least ten.

I highly recommend the Claremont Colleges, Pomona first. The all-female college is Scripps. I know some students who did not get into Pomona, CMC, etc., but got into Scripps and took courses at the other colleges. Selectivity is very low for Pomona, @ 9% and dropping.

No to Occidental. It has lost its way. Selectivity is at 45% and climbing. You can do much better for same expense.

Even better news: I know two kids who were bright, hard working, and talented, but not superhuman that are at Stanford right now in grad school—one from Case Western and one from Northwestern. And when push comes to shove, your terminal degree is the one people care about. I know your DD has worked so hard, and given 100% and wants Stanford for undergrad. And she could probably do well there.

Which grad school? The law school wants to see children of URMS who attended Stanford so they can check off three boxes: wealthy (called development cases); URM; legacy.

But help her manage expectations and look at the big picture. Stanford (and Berkley and the Ivys) will still be there in 4 years. She’s clearly capable of doing great things in college. And if she does, she will have a realistic shot at her dream school for grad school.

Not unless she's a URM and legacy. Remember the "Black Lives Matter" essay?? That's what they are looking for, even at the grad school level.

Both heterosexual white males from UMC DMV households. Both accepted to STEM PhD programs, not the professional schools. One was physics and the other was CS (I think. Maybe CS adjacent). They were very impressive kids. But theynwere the same kids that Stanford had turned down coming out of good DMV base HSs.

I don't know why you think the fact that the undergrad institution turned down a student is in any way relevant to that student's acceptance to a graduate school. They are apples and oranges. Admission to the grad school turns solely on college performance, college grades, GRE scores, LSAT, internships, summer activities during college and letters of recommendation. And of course whatever else (URM, geographic diversity, international diversity, legacy, etc.) that the grad/professional school is seeking. A high school dud might become a college superstar and vice versa. The admissions offices of the grad/professional schools operate completely separate from the undergrad admissions. The fact that I am a legacy for Stanford Law has zero influence on my child's application to Stanford undergrad.

It's that "whatever else" part that worries a lot of non-URM families. Your statement applies to undergrad programs as well as grad programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD - 1550 SAT, Top 2% of class (in the top 10 students) at a well regarded public high school. Not full pay. 4.0 UW, not sure of Waited but I want to say 4.6 or 4.7.

It wasn't pretty. We had a wide range but we did apply to a couple of top schools.

Denied at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Wellesley.

Wait-listed at Middlebury, Rice, and Barnard.

Accepted with lots of merit aid at Tulane, Fordham, Lafayette and some decent publics.

Accepted with No Merit at U Richmond, W&L.

I do think being a female hurt her especially at the SLACs. I would very much caution expectation setting.

Surprised at the "no merit at U Richmond. They are courting high stats kids big time.

PP here. That's what I thought. And I called them to express interest and they weren't biting. I do think if my DD was a DS it would have helped at the SLACs, and maybe at Richmond. I would not plan on the notion that URichmond is courting high stats kids. My DD stats were higher than all their 75% percentile and they weren't the least bit interested. I was told "it was a tough year and we wish your DD well".

Who in the world would even want to go to the University of Richmond?? Why is this even part of the discussion? It’s an average university in a pretend city with a snotty attitude, surrounded by opioid addicts. Whenever my credit card number is stolen it’s always charged up in Richmond. Blech

And then the moron arrived. Hi dummy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DD - 1550 SAT, Top 2% of class (in the top 10 students) at a well regarded public high school. Not full pay. 4.0 UW, not sure of Waited but I want to say 4.6 or 4.7.

It wasn't pretty. We had a wide range but we did apply to a couple of top schools.

Denied at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Wellesley.

Wait-listed at Middlebury, Rice, and Barnard.

Accepted with lots of merit aid at Tulane, Fordham, Lafayette and some decent publics.

Accepted with No Merit at U Richmond, W&L.

I do think being a female hurt her especially at the SLACs. I would very much caution expectation setting.

Holy crap I’m so depressed.