Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I focused my kid on schools that had "name recognition" among my set. Places like Williams and Swarthmore. The real name recognition -- as a brand and at a national level -- are those big football schools my snobby self prevented my kid from exploring. Alabama, Auburn, Ohio State, etc. He would have had a wonderful college experience at any one of these places, and no doubt landed a cush job with the fanatical alum network. Instead, he's in at a barely Top 50 SLAC and hoping and praying for wait list movement with a lower NESCAC school that most of America has never heard of.

NP and I'm falling into this trap with my Junior! If we're going to take out loans I want it to be for a "top" college with good ROI but then what if she doesn't get into those places? Regarding big, less prestigious schools like Wisconsin or Clemson -- I could get on board with those BUT my daughter is shy and really wants to go to a small school!

Not sure what to do!? A non-top SLAC might be a great fit for her but not for our budget.

Luckily it's the non-top SLACs that often give a good amount of merit aid. If you find specific schools that would be a great fit, you can find out a lot about potential funding (either here or elsewhere).

My DS1 really wanted a small school and for financial reasons ended up at one with relatively little name recognition. He had a fantastic experience there: got to know his professors really well, was a TA for 2 of them, was active in campus ECs, had 2 great internships, studied abroad, graduated with highest honors. He landed a good job in his field of choice shortly after graduation and appears to be doing very well there. With his merit scholarship, it cost us not much more than it would have to send him to our (expensive) in- state flagship. It's hard to see how paying a lot more for a top SLAC would have had a higher ROI for him/us.

Anonymous wrote:What do the boxes say after most rigorous?

Anonymous wrote:Remember that what really matters is where they go to grad school

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was my 3rd going through, and I’m vocal as to how brutal it was for us. My take-always - if they know what they want to study, do the legwork up front. Compare programs. You may be surprised by which schools you eliminate, or in our case, added and ultimately got accepted to.

Make sure your child understands the “most rigorous” box on the application and which schools (reaches) this matters to.

Visit schools early, just to get an understanding of how big a public flagship is vs SLAC. It’s expensive and time-consuming to get accepted to a mix of schools and then have to answer what you like/dislike when that could have been done early.

Which brings me to the final - set expectations that they may not know til April or later. My first too were accepted ED and know by Thanksgiving. Tons of time to celebrate, sweatshirts for everyone for Christmas, time to find roommates, and visit. And if waitlisted - ugh! Some schools allow for dorm selections once admitted, and if there isn’t enough housing, then there is so much anxiety because all the ED and EA kids get priority. We are eliminating one for this very reason.

Sorry, can you explain what this means?

On what the school counselor submits, there is a question asking whether the student took the most rigorous curriculum available. If, for example, the school offered Calc BC but student only took AB, counselor will not check that box. Ivys and highly selective schools sift applications based on this. There is ample discussion on this on this forum.

It's a scale. It's not yes or no. My kid didn't have the top box checked, or even the next one down, and he's going to Georgetown next year. Don't let this poster scare you. You take the most rigorous courses for you[i]. That's the point.

+1 million

The "most rigorous courses" thing is soooooooo overblown. It's the urban legend of choice for the College Confidential set.

Anonymous wrote:Ours would have applied to Toronto. It has a really good CS program and has rolling admissions. Plus, tuition is in line with other out of state colleges

Anonymous wrote:I would encourage my kid to apply ED to a "high match" but not a reach school. The ED numbers for reaches are skewed by athletic recruits and at the end of it all, the bump she got (if any) from ED at her reach was minimal. Meanwhile, the ED deferrals of the other kids at her matches made for a competitive regular decision round and ultimately resulted in rejections from her matches when Naviance showed her to be well within the range. In hindsight, I would have suggested an ED to her top match school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a high stats kid how many matches/reaches would you suggest including if they’re applying to 10 schools total? (And by matches/reaches I mean BU/Colgate type schools, not ivies.)

50-50
Based on how kids from your school have performed in those schools. Use Naviance. Also, talk to your counselor.

Ugh sorry. For high stat kids - the match and reach are the same.

I was using match/reach as one category and safeties as another.

Naviance will even show Harvard as a Match for a High Stat kid. It is not. Nope. High stat kids are usually working with only two categories of schools in Naviance, but don't get fooled. The matches are actually reaches.

+1

Wish someone had told us this very, very very important piece of information.

I mean, couldn't you figure this out by looking at the acceptance rate? I sort of feel like a student that aspires to a top school should have this level of critical thinking skills.

There are thousands of smart kids with strong GPAs and test scores that are the captain of their debate team or 3-letter varsity sports or whatever. These kids are populating every school not just in the USA but around the world. And some of them are publishing books or winning national science prizes or going to the Olympics or finding ways to electrify their rural villages with solar power or whatever on top of all that. The mistake is to not understand the level of competition that is out there and to overestimate your own child's achievements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I focused my kid on schools that had "name recognition" among my set. Places like Williams and Swarthmore. The real name recognition -- as a brand and at a national level -- are those big football schools my snobby self prevented my kid from exploring. Alabama, Auburn, Ohio State, etc. He would have had a wonderful college experience at any one of these places, and no doubt landed a cush job with the fanatical alum network. Instead, he's in at a barely Top 50 SLAC and hoping and praying for wait list movement with a lower NESCAC school that most of America has never heard of.

NP and I'm falling into this trap with my Junior! If we're going to take out loans I want it to be for a "top" college with good ROI but then what if she doesn't get into those places? Regarding big, less prestigious schools like Wisconsin or Clemson -- I could get on board with those BUT my daughter is shy and really wants to go to a small school!

Not sure what to do!? A non-top SLAC might be a great fit for her but not for our budget.

Luckily it's the non-top SLACs that often give a good amount of merit aid. If you find specific schools that would be a great fit, you can find out a lot about potential funding (either here or elsewhere).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you realize that acceptance rates are not a measure of educational quality or outcomes, it makes the process a lot easier.

here here!

I was a low stat kid who went to a uni that accepted most people for undergrad but was competitive for grad school. Therefore, as an undergrad, I had ample opportunities to do research. I did research in 5 labs i think; published twice before graduating and got a fancy research award. The result: FREE GRAD SCHOOL at a top 10 public.

I was too poor to be a high stat kid in high school and in college my grades were on the bottom cusp of what the grad schools accepted. I got into two full-pay and went to the "better" one. The differentiator, of course, research and publications.

BS. I was a low-income high stats kid. Income has nothing to do with academic performance. Quit making excuses.