Did any high stats kids get rejected from all top 20s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. “Safeties” are not right below the top 20. Almost everyone needs to apply to at least one college that accepts more than it rejects. Being >75th percentile in GPA and SAT doesn’t guarantee you admission.

This is the truth nobody wants to believe.

20-50 is not a safety school.

75% acceptance is

This needs to be pinned at the top.

Even 75% acceptance is not safety. Remember 25% are getting rejected

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious if your child with high stats got rejected from all selective schools and what are they going to do next year? Are they okay going to a safety?

What's your definition of high stats? 1600 SAT, 4.7/5.0 GPA,16 APs with all 5s or 1450 SAT, 5.1/6.0 GPA, 7 APs with 3 5s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. “Safeties” are not right below the top 20. Almost everyone needs to apply to at least one college that accepts more than it rejects. Being >75th percentile in GPA and SAT doesn’t guarantee you admission.

Some of those colleges may yield protect so for high stats kids, they could get flat out rejected.

It's your job to convince a "safety school" that you actually want to attend. Just like it's the school's job to manage yield and keep it high.
If you do your job, you will most likely get accepted at your safety, same for targets

This is true but just ridiculous. Imagine employers not trying to hire the best candidate because they don’t think the person will accept. The high stats kids applied so obviously they are interested. Assuming they are not and making them do extra work is just wrong.

I live in the Detroit area. I have heard from multiple sources that the auto companies routinely reject coastal applicants for engineering jobs because those people often move to the Midwest, find it lacking in glamour, & move back to the coasts. The auto companies apparently prefer Rust Belt applicants who will appreciate the many things the local area has to offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. “Safeties” are not right below the top 20. Almost everyone needs to apply to at least one college that accepts more than it rejects. Being >75th percentile in GPA and SAT doesn’t guarantee you admission.

Some of those colleges may yield protect so for high stats kids, they could get flat out rejected.

My DC, 1560 SAT, 4.0 u/w, 6APs only applied to SLACs. We are perplexed with the outcome.

Got accepted into Carleton, Grinnell, Haverford, Davidson and Vassar. Accepted Grinnell's offer.

Rejected by lower ranked LACs Skidmore, F&M, Oberlin, Mount Holyoke. Waitlisted by St. Olaf and Depauw. Which one of these colleges yield protect?

Other rejections were Bryn Mawr, Smith, Barnard and Wellesley.

Wellesley was her top choice. Still confused what happened.

The only explanation is yield protection with the exception of Barnard and Wellesley. Did your DC apply ED to Wellesley? That would have made a big difference in the outcome.

No, she didn't apply ED to Wellesley.

few more details, no great ECs.. just published a few articles, tutoring at schoolhouse.world etc

Your DC's SAT is great, but 6APs is too little. My DC has 13 APs, national award, SAT 1590, strong EC , admitted to Wellesley, but WL at Barnard, no idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, of course, ALL THE TIME! Are you new here? There’s NEVER a guarantee of getting into a top 20, no matter how high the stats. And if the child is an UMC white kid from the suburbs who isn’t a recruited athlete, it’s more likely that they won’t get in.

Especially if you're a high-status kid who doesn't take many challenging classes, wins national awards, or at least gets their parents to submit serious research papers or start a non-profit for them.

[Anonymous]

Yes—high stats rejected at 4 T20s, waitlisted at 1 T20. Accepted to UNC/UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. “Safeties” are not right below the top 20. Almost everyone needs to apply to at least one college that accepts more than it rejects. Being >75th percentile in GPA and SAT doesn’t guarantee you admission.

This is the truth nobody wants to believe.

20-50 is not a safety school.

75% acceptance is

This needs to be pinned at the top.

Also a lot of those schools track demonstrated interest…so you can’t hop on the bandwagon in December…..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But, this was manufactured and untrue. In the year before SC ruling, the large majority of T20 admits were white and Asian. Not many URMs. Students for Fair Admissions and similar lobby groups promoted this false narrative to advance an anti AA agenda. Yes, many kids got rejected. They still do. Many rejected kids were white and Asian. They still are. But, they are and were bith over-represented in T20 student bodies.
Look at the graduating classes for these schools. Go to their campuses. See for yourself. The students there are all pre SC ruling. They are largely Asian and white.

This in inaccurate. In the past several years, whites have been underrepresented at many elite academic institutions based on percentages of US population, and other groups have been overrepresented using the same metric. I am not arguing that this should not have happened, just pointing out that it did.

Wrong. Just Google the demographics of any top school and you will see the majority of students are white or Asian.

+1

DP. This is all super irrelevant. If whites and Asians have better scores then their being “overrepresented” is unimportant.

Sigh. You haven't figured out that scores are neither an indication of intelligence nor the major index for admissions. They are one data point among many. This is part of the problem -- people equate high scores with best applicant. It just isn't true and reflects a bias of cultures that put too much emphasis on scores. You really think the kid whose parents made them prep w/ Kumon and AOPS, bump up math, and prep for entrance exams to magnet schools, scored well on tests because they are "smarter" than a kid who did not have those resources and did well but didn't score as high? White and Asian kids have a higher rate of enrichment resources that URM kids. URM students have equal potential as other over represented groups, yet they are underrepresented on top campuses. Test scores are not a litmus test.

If you take a group of low income Asian kids and compare their scores with low income black kids, I think you know which group will have the higher stats.

+1, Fairfax county tried all the tricks they can think of, like paying prep classes for URMs, etc. none yields results. After first semester of TJ's new admission policy,
I heard close to 100 drop out.