Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the kids I know it was usually one of the two:

1. ECs were not that strong and/or couldn't convey the drive behind the ECs.
2. Put lots of effort into preparing the app for their top choice, got rejected or deferred in the early round, were blindsided by that and spread themselves too thin preparing apps for another 20 top schools.

How do you know this? You have no real idea. Pure conjecture.

Like anyone has a real idea. You don’t get to see your file with AO notes

Anonymous wrote:For the kids I know it was usually one of the two:

1. ECs were not that strong and/or couldn't convey the drive behind the ECs.
2. Put lots of effort into preparing the app for their top choice, got rejected or deferred in the early round, were blindsided by that and spread themselves too thin preparing apps for another 20 top schools.

How do you know this? You have no real idea. Pure conjecture.

It's simple math, 30,000 HS in the US, 20,000 ivy seats, so even if only the val's are considered there are still 1/3 rejected.

Add in all the sal's, athletes, and other types of applicants and you realize even as the top student at your HS, admission to a top 20 school is incredibly good fortune (assuming you want that).

There is no shame in a top student not getting admitted, no flaw in application, nothing other than bad luck of a sort (even though painful).

Top students who have been rejected are still top students, with much to be proud of, and as every study shows, highly likely to remain successful in life regardless of their alma mater!

Anonymous wrote:If your kid had perfect or close to perfect grades in AP classes, high SAT scores, strong extracurricular activities and got rejected from all the top schools, what do you think went wrong?

Didn't make strategic use of ED?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the kids I know it was usually one of the two:

1. ECs were not that strong and/or couldn't convey the drive behind the ECs.
2. Put lots of effort into preparing the app for their top choice, got rejected or deferred in the early round, were blindsided by that and spread themselves too thin preparing apps for another 20 top schools.

Please. The core period of these kids' high school experience was during the pandemic. Strong EC opportunities were not even available to most of them, especially in this area.

I feel like schools forgot this. The pandemic killed my kid’s 40 hour a week EC and changed their career path. Starting all new ECs in the middle of high school online during a pandemic is unrealistic.

i interview for a reasonably competitive college. i was very impressed with and tried to write really nice recommendations for most of the students this year. most of my interviewees were either denied or waitlisted. there are a very large number of talented students applying nationally.

being a well-rounded smart kid does not stand out anymore. encourage your child to go be successful and have a good experience where they got in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the kids I know it was usually one of the two:

1. ECs were not that strong and/or couldn't convey the drive behind the ECs.
2. Put lots of effort into preparing the app for their top choice, got rejected or deferred in the early round, were blindsided by that and spread themselves too thin preparing apps for another 20 top schools.

Please. The core period of these kids' high school experience was during the pandemic. Strong EC opportunities were not even available to most of them, especially in this area.

I guess you did not read the second part of that sentence.

Sure I did.

Definition of “top” colleges was too narrow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the kids I know it was usually one of the two:

1. ECs were not that strong and/or couldn't convey the drive behind the ECs.
2. Put lots of effort into preparing the app for their top choice, got rejected or deferred in the early round, were blindsided by that and spread themselves too thin preparing apps for another 20 top schools.

Please. The core period of these kids' high school experience was during the pandemic. Strong EC opportunities were not even available to most of them, especially in this area.

I guess you did not read the second part of that sentence.

Anonymous wrote:For the kids I know it was usually one of the two:

1. ECs were not that strong and/or couldn't convey the drive behind the ECs.
2. Put lots of effort into preparing the app for their top choice, got rejected or deferred in the early round, were blindsided by that and spread themselves too thin preparing apps for another 20 top schools.

Please. The core period of these kids' high school experience was during the pandemic. Strong EC opportunities were not even available to most of them, especially in this area.

Anonymous wrote:Nothing “went wrong.” If a school has a 5% acceptance rate, that means 95% of kids are rejected and many (most?) of those are going to be “top students.”

This, 100%.

What do people not get about this very simple math?

For the kids I know it was usually one of the two:

1. ECs were not that strong and/or couldn't convey the drive behind the ECs.
2. Put lots of effort into preparing the app for their top choice, got rejected or deferred in the early round, were blindsided by that and spread themselves too thin preparing apps for another 20 top schools.

Nothing “went wrong.” If a school has a 5% acceptance rate, that means 95% of kids are rejected and many (most?) of those are going to be “top students.”

If your kid had perfect or close to perfect grades in AP classes, high SAT scores, strong extracurricular activities and got rejected from all the top schools, what do you think went wrong?