The change is that more people are aware of the "top" schools and are aspiring for them, so there's more competition for the ~50 schools that are deemed "the best." I grew up in a family that was into college prestige, but very few of my classmates were. Most people went to college within an hour or two of home.

Ignore the hype and help your kid research schools that have what they genuinely need when it comes to academics and social life.

Only a handful of colleges are actually selective, but they are the ones people obsess over, so it gives kids the impression that it's impossible to get into college. It isn't if you have an appropriate list and realistic expectations.

Common App has made it super easy for kids to apply to 15-20 schools at a time, rather than 5-10.

Combine that with the increase in international applications, and accessibility for URM/Economic cases and it make it much more difficult for UMC white kids whose parents and/or grandparents dominated this space.

For society, that is a good thing, but it is tough for the kids applying these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything in this thread about grades is wrong if you look at Naviance data. The applicant pool from our high SES school to the top 10 (hypsm and any other 5 you want) are centered on roughly a 3.92/1500. That’s 4 semester B grades over 3.5 years so still very strong.

That doesn’t mean you’ll get admitted with those stats but it does mean that you’ll be solidly in the strongest group. So no your kid doesn’t need to cure cancer or whatever.

The advice to take the most demanding courses is good. And it’s worth studying for the standardized tests.

The Naviance data has to be taken with a huge shaker of salt because many of those admits (perhaps as many as 50%) are probably recruited athletes, ED applicants, URM, legacy, first generation etc. For kids without any of those hooks, the average is probably a 4.0/1550.

PP. You’re missing my point. The applicant pool is centered there, not the admit pool.

That is telling you that the typical competitive applicant to Top 30-40 schools (if CS, roughly UC Irvine or NYU) or better are not 4.0/1500 by a long shot.

Also, W school so hooked are not development cases (those kids are Big 3) or URM. Recruited athletes at that level are rare enough that they don’t dominate the sample.

It is you who are confused. The applicant pool displayed on Naviance does not tell you who is a "competitive" applicant for an Ivy+ school when 90% of the applicants on the scattergram are not admitted. Many of those kids applying are simply not competitive at all and never should have wasted their application in the first place -- particularly if they are not ED, legacy, URM, athlete, etc.

And even when the admit pool is centered at 3.92 and 1500 that does not mean those stats are competitive for an unhooked applicant given the prevalence of ED, legacy, URM and athlete admits at a high SES school like a W school.

OP to answer your actual question, a family friend worked with a consultant for both her HS kids over consecutive years and this is what they did:

They looked at the SAT/ ACT Tests and GPA then they found colleges that were a solid MATCH where the kid would like to go geographically and in terms of possible majors.

They picked one of those and applied ED

Both times they got in. I'm sure it would work for a safety choice at a State school if you needed FA / Merit aid but in this case neither kid needed financial assistance, though the schools they applied ED to and got into were not particularly expensive choices either. So I guess the parents were happy with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything in this thread about grades is wrong if you look at Naviance data. The applicant pool from our high SES school to the top 10 (hypsm and any other 5 you want) are centered on roughly a 3.92/1500. That’s 4 semester B grades over 3.5 years so still very strong.

That doesn’t mean you’ll get admitted with those stats but it does mean that you’ll be solidly in the strongest group. So no your kid doesn’t need to cure cancer or whatever.

The advice to take the most demanding courses is good. And it’s worth studying for the standardized tests.

The Naviance data has to be taken with a huge shaker of salt because many of those admits (perhaps as many as 50%) are probably recruited athletes, ED applicants, URM, legacy, first generation etc. For kids without any of those hooks, the average is probably a 4.0/1550.

PP. You’re missing my point. The applicant pool is centered there, not the admit pool.

That is telling you that the typical competitive applicant to Top 30-40 schools (if CS, roughly UC Irvine or NYU) or better are not 4.0/1500 by a long shot.

Also, W school so hooked are not development cases (those kids are Big 3) or URM. Recruited athletes at that level are rare enough that they don’t dominate the sample.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t forget the percentage of international students really cut into the ‘normal’ American kids getting accepted to selective schools. Profit margins increased with full pay foreign students. Once you also were considered unique if you lived abroad - were the child of missionaries or diplomats. Now they simply recruit directly from the place your family was ‘posted.’ You don’t seem very unique against an international student who pays full freight. Also, agreed on quality drop in American high schools. Probably combination of factors there but seems everyone gets a medal type of thinking...

What selective colleges do this? Please be specific.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer. Everyone on this site has plenty of theories supported by a paucity of facts.

Anonymous wrote:Everything in this thread about grades is wrong if you look at Naviance data. The applicant pool from our high SES school to the top 10 (hypsm and any other 5 you want) are centered on roughly a 3.92/1500. That’s 4 semester B grades over 3.5 years so still very strong.

That doesn’t mean you’ll get admitted with those stats but it does mean that you’ll be solidly in the strongest group. So no your kid doesn’t need to cure cancer or whatever.

The advice to take the most demanding courses is good. And it’s worth studying for the standardized tests.

The Naviance data has to be taken with a huge shaker of salt because many of those admits (perhaps as many as 50%) are probably recruited athletes, ED applicants, URM, legacy, first generation etc. For kids without any of those hooks, the average is probably a 4.0/1550.

Anonymous wrote:Secret is there is no secret.

But do a careful job on the applications.

Anonymous wrote:Don’t forget the percentage of international students really cut into the ‘normal’ American kids getting accepted to selective schools. Profit margins increased with full pay foreign students. Once you also were considered unique if you lived abroad - were the child of missionaries or diplomats. Now they simply recruit directly from the place your family was ‘posted.’ You don’t seem very unique against an international student who pays full freight. Also, agreed on quality drop in American high schools. Probably combination of factors there but seems everyone gets a medal type of thinking...

What selective colleges do this? Please be specific.

Don’t forget the percentage of international students really cut into the ‘normal’ American kids getting accepted to selective schools. Profit margins increased with full pay foreign students. Once you also were considered unique if you lived abroad - were the child of missionaries or diplomats. Now they simply recruit directly from the place your family was ‘posted.’ You don’t seem very unique against an international student who pays full freight. Also, agreed on quality drop in American high schools. Probably combination of factors there but seems everyone gets a medal type of thinking...

Everything in this thread about grades is wrong if you look at Naviance data. The applicant pool from our high SES school to the top 10 (hypsm and any other 5 you want) are centered on roughly a 3.92/1500. That’s 4 semester B grades over 3.5 years so still very strong.

That doesn’t mean you’ll get admitted with those stats but it does mean that you’ll be solidly in the strongest group. So no your kid doesn’t need to cure cancer or whatever.

The advice to take the most demanding courses is good. And it’s worth studying for the standardized tests.

From a NOVA public, three of my sons got into SLACs with athletic hooks. They were smart, had good grades, and decent test scores, but let’s not kid ourselves, without being athletic recruits, their applications would have been placed in the discard pile.

Anonymous wrote:There's too much grade inflation.

Your 4.5 GPA students off are very mediocre at a real university.

Believe me, I've taught your kids and had to grade their work at the university level. So many kids are 'shocked' to learn they're on average when they get to college and there's no grade inflation. They have a mental breakdown when they get an A- or less.

High schools in the US are a joke these days that pander to feelings and the lowest common denominators. Everyone gets an A.

lol, troll.

There's too much grade inflation.

Your 4.5 GPA students off are very mediocre at a real university.

Believe me, I've taught your kids and had to grade their work at the university level. So many kids are 'shocked' to learn they're on average when they get to college and there's no grade inflation. They have a mental breakdown when they get an A- or less.

High schools in the US are a joke these days that pander to feelings and the lowest common denominators. Everyone gets an A.

Anonymous wrote:What’s changed is grade inflation. So, our 3.5 is now like a 4.5.

This. Grades don’t fall along a bell curve anymore but are more bunched near the top. It’s hard to differentiate the smart kids from the very smart kids. That explains the overloading of extracurriculars and the test prep industrial complex.