Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Reach: Bowdoin
Safety: UVM
I like this one.
I like this too!
Ours is Reach: MIT and Bowdoin
Target: Bryn Mawr and University of Toronto
Safety: UVM and URI
We are DC residents.
Can you explain how? It seems like you can’t choose between big rigorous hard colleges and easy liberal arts schools. They have nothing in common
What can I say-- my kid "contains multitudes". She has compelling reasons to go to any of them.
Anyway, I consider neither Bowdoin, nor Bryn Mawr "easy"-- she plans to major in math and evidently both schools have exceptional math programs that she is excited to be a part of.
Anonymous wrote:Reach(rejected): Duke, Stanford, Northwestern, Columbia & Cornell
Reach(accepted): Notre Dame, Boston College Michigan(oos), USC
Reach(wl): Emory, Boston U
Target(accepted): Georgia, Florida, Santa Clara
Safety(accepted): Colorado, Oregon
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:UVA the safety.
HYP reach
Remaining IVY’s the target.
Are you saying your child did not apply to any school lower than UVA? Ballsy
I don’t think that part is ballsy, mine has UNC (in-state) as safety. I know it isn’t based on acceptance numbers, but being top of class it was a lock. Calling the remaining ivies a target is insane.
I know a kid who was nominated at the Jeff scholar for his high school who didn’t get into UVA. He thought of it as his safety, and it sends that UVA figured that they were the safety, too.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Reach: Bowdoin
Safety: UVM
I like this one.
I like this too!
Ours is Reach: MIT and Bowdoin
Target: Bryn Mawr and University of Toronto
Safety: UVM and URI
We are DC residents.
Can you explain how? It seems like you can’t choose between big rigorous hard colleges and easy liberal arts schools. They have nothing in common
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:UVA the safety.
HYP reach
Remaining IVY’s the target.
Are you saying your child did not apply to any school lower than UVA? Ballsy
I don’t think that part is ballsy, mine has UNC (in-state) as safety. I know it isn’t based on acceptance numbers, but being top of class it was a lock. Calling the remaining ivies a target is insane.
Anonymous wrote:last year
Reach: Cambridge, UK accepted
Reach: Harvard - accepted
Safeties: St. Andrews, UMD, etc..
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Reach/Target: W&M (accepted ED—in state, 1490, weighted 4.2); Haverford, Davidson
Safety: Elon, Dickinson
Interesting. I thought W&M and Dickinson had similar acceptance rates around 35%.
WF: 1450 (50% submitting scores)
W&M: 1470 (60% submitting scores)
Tulane: 1450 (45% submitting scores)
BU: 1450 (40% submitting scores)
BC: 1470 (50% submitting scores)
Dickinson: 1360 (25% submitting scores)
Pepperdine: 1360 (21% submitting scores)
Seems like Dickinson is closer to Pepperdine in terms of stats and could be easier to get into.
Dickinson is basically “test blind.” They stopped requiring scores before the pandemic, and unlike most schools, list test scores as “considered” in the CDS. William and Mary lists them as “very important” in their CDS.
And both are resoundingly boring and basic
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Reach/Target: W&M (accepted ED—in state, 1490, weighted 4.2); Haverford, Davidson
Safety: Elon, Dickinson
Interesting. I thought W&M and Dickinson had similar acceptance rates around 35%.
WF: 1450 (50% submitting scores)
W&M: 1470 (60% submitting scores)
Tulane: 1450 (45% submitting scores)
BU: 1450 (40% submitting scores)
BC: 1470 (50% submitting scores)
Dickinson: 1360 (25% submitting scores)
Pepperdine: 1360 (21% submitting scores)
Seems like Dickinson is closer to Pepperdine in terms of stats and could be easier to get into.
Dickinson is basically “test blind.” They stopped requiring scores before the pandemic, and unlike most schools, list test scores as “considered” in the CDS. William and Mary lists them as “very important” in their CDS.
And both are resoundingly boring and basic