Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Weighted GPAs are worthless

2. High unweighted GPAs are not going to get you anywhere in the top 25 without a very rigorous course load with 4 years of every academic subject including foreign language.

3. Any college with a 25% or less acceptance rate is a lottery for kids with nearly perfect stats

4. Naviance does not account for recruits, legacies, courseload, first gen status, full pay status, etc.

5. It’s a tool, not a crystal ball.

Does AP Psych (after APUSH, AP Gov, and AP World) count as a decent 4th social studies/social science course? I'm not sure if the top schools want a fourth year of history or simply a 4th social studies course. Guidance counselor is not giving any advice in this area. I know of seniors who sign up for 4 arts classes (not even the most rigorous ones) and are disappointed when they don't get into their dream schools. Why do guidance counselors let capable students sign up for idiotic senior year schedules?

I have the same question. Does AP Psych count as a decent 4th social studies credit? Is there a better one?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Weighted GPAs are worthless

2. High unweighted GPAs are not going to get you anywhere in the top 25 without a very rigorous course load with 4 years of every academic subject including foreign language.

3. Any college with a 25% or less acceptance rate is a lottery for kids with nearly perfect stats

4. Naviance does not account for recruits, legacies, courseload, first gen status, full pay status, etc.

5. It’s a tool, not a crystal ball.

Does AP Psych (after APUSH, AP Gov, and AP World) count as a decent 4th social studies/social science course? I'm not sure if the top schools want a fourth year of history or simply a 4th social studies course. Guidance counselor is not giving any advice in this area. I know of seniors who sign up for 4 arts classes (not even the most rigorous ones) and are disappointed when they don't get into their dream schools. Why do guidance counselors let capable students sign up for idiotic senior year schedules?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Weighted GPAs are worthless

2. High unweighted GPAs are not going to get you anywhere in the top 25 without a very rigorous course load with 4 years of every academic subject including foreign language.

3. Any college with a 25% or less acceptance rate is a lottery for kids with nearly perfect stats

4. Naviance does not account for recruits, legacies, courseload, first gen status, full pay status, etc.

5. It’s a tool, not a crystal ball.

DD had straight As, even in APs and honors, won the Wellesley Book Award, was a STEM student, could pay full tuition anywhere, cash. Played sports as well. Great SAT scores. White female with no legacy, rejected from everything but her safeties. Applied to no Ivys by choice.

Don’t tell me her race didn’t play a role in this liberal academic environment

I worked in admissions and am currently an alum interviewer for my college. Your daughter sounds like an excellent student, so I can understand your disappointment, but there's a lot more to admissions than GPA and SAT scores. Before you play the race card, consider:

What were her recommendations like?
How did she do in interviews?
Did her essay add dimension to her profile as a strong student?
Did she hold any leadership positions -- you mention that she played sports, but was she a team captain?
Did she excel in any national STEM competitions?

This team captain business is overrated. I went to a small private school, I was one of two seniors on a certain sports team, and I was a captain. It really was no big deal.

Look beyond your narrow personal experience. Being captain of a team at a large public or private school is a big deal -- does not happen without lots of discipline, dedication, and leadership skills.

Ha! I was team captain of a large public high school sport and it was because the coach couldn't stand having to deal with the other girls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Weighted GPAs are worthless

2. High unweighted GPAs are not going to get you anywhere in the top 25 without a very rigorous course load with 4 years of every academic subject including foreign language.

3. Any college with a 25% or less acceptance rate is a lottery for kids with nearly perfect stats

4. Naviance does not account for recruits, legacies, courseload, first gen status, full pay status, etc.

5. It’s a tool, not a crystal ball.

DD had straight As, even in APs and honors, won the Wellesley Book Award, was a STEM student, could pay full tuition anywhere, cash. Played sports as well. Great SAT scores. White female with no legacy, rejected from everything but her safeties. Applied to no Ivys by choice.

Don’t tell me her race didn’t play a role in this liberal academic environment

I worked in admissions and am currently an alum interviewer for my college. Your daughter sounds like an excellent student, so I can understand your disappointment, but there's a lot more to admissions than GPA and SAT scores. Before you play the race card, consider:

What were her recommendations like?
How did she do in interviews?
Did her essay add dimension to her profile as a strong student?
Did she hold any leadership positions -- you mention that she played sports, but was she a team captain?
Did she excel in any national STEM competitions?

This team captain business is overrated. I went to a small private school, I was one of two seniors on a certain sports team, and I was a captain. It really was no big deal.

Look beyond your narrow personal experience. Being captain of a team at a large public or private school is a big deal -- does not happen without lots of discipline, dedication, and leadership skills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Weighted GPAs are worthless

2. High unweighted GPAs are not going to get you anywhere in the top 25 without a very rigorous course load with 4 years of every academic subject including foreign language.

3. Any college with a 25% or less acceptance rate is a lottery for kids with nearly perfect stats

4. Naviance does not account for recruits, legacies, courseload, first gen status, full pay status, etc.

5. It’s a tool, not a crystal ball.

DD had straight As, even in APs and honors, won the Wellesley Book Award, was a STEM student, could pay full tuition anywhere, cash. Played sports as well. Great SAT scores. White female with no legacy, rejected from everything but her safeties. Applied to no Ivys by choice.

Don’t tell me her race didn’t play a role in this liberal academic environment

I worked in admissions and am currently an alum interviewer for my college. Your daughter sounds like an excellent student, so I can understand your disappointment, but there's a lot more to admissions than GPA and SAT scores. Before you play the race card, consider:

What were her recommendations like?
How did she do in interviews?
Did her essay add dimension to her profile as a strong student?
Did she hold any leadership positions -- you mention that she played sports, but was she a team captain?
Did she excel in any national STEM competitions?

This team captain business is overrated. I went to a small private school, I was one of two seniors on a certain sports team, and I was a captain. It really was no big deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Weighted GPAs are worthless

2. High unweighted GPAs are not going to get you anywhere in the top 25 without a very rigorous course load with 4 years of every academic subject including foreign language.

3. Any college with a 25% or less acceptance rate is a lottery for kids with nearly perfect stats

4. Naviance does not account for recruits, legacies, courseload, first gen status, full pay status, etc.

5. It’s a tool, not a crystal ball.

DD had straight As, even in APs and honors, won the Wellesley Book Award, was a STEM student, could pay full tuition anywhere, cash. Played sports as well. Great SAT scores. White female with no legacy, rejected from everything but her safeties. Applied to no Ivys by choice.

Don’t tell me her race didn’t play a role in this liberal academic environment

I worked in admissions and am currently an alum interviewer for my college. Your daughter sounds like an excellent student, so I can understand your disappointment, but there's a lot more to admissions than GPA and SAT scores. Before you play the race card, consider:

What were her recommendations like?
How did she do in interviews?
Did her essay add dimension to her profile as a strong student?
Did she hold any leadership positions -- you mention that she played sports, but was she a team captain?
Did she excel in any national STEM competitions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Weighted GPAs are worthless

2. High unweighted GPAs are not going to get you anywhere in the top 25 without a very rigorous course load with 4 years of every academic subject including foreign language.

3. Any college with a 25% or less acceptance rate is a lottery for kids with nearly perfect stats

4. Naviance does not account for recruits, legacies, courseload, first gen status, full pay status, etc.

5. It’s a tool, not a crystal ball.

DD had straight As, even in APs and honors, won the Wellesley Book Award, was a STEM student, could pay full tuition anywhere, cash. Played sports as well. Great SAT scores. White female with no legacy, rejected from everything but her safeties. Applied to no Ivys by choice.

Don’t tell me her race didn’t play a role in this liberal academic environment

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Weighted GPAs are worthless

2. High unweighted GPAs are not going to get you anywhere in the top 25 without a very rigorous course load with 4 years of every academic subject including foreign language.

3. Any college with a 25% or less acceptance rate is a lottery for kids with nearly perfect stats

4. Naviance does not account for recruits, legacies, courseload, first gen status, full pay status, etc.

5. It’s a tool, not a crystal ball.

DD had straight As, even in APs and honors, won the Wellesley Book Award, was a STEM student, could pay full tuition anywhere, cash. Played sports as well. Great SAT scores. White female with no legacy, rejected from everything but her safeties. Applied to no Ivys by choice.

Don’t tell me her race didn’t play a role in this liberal academic environment

Anonymous wrote:My white child did better with acceptances than we expected.

We believe his total package... ECs, sincere youthful essay, and carefully presented common application explain it.

Not every single kid kid did worse than expected.

Anonymous wrote:

DD had straight As, even in APs and honors, won the Wellesley Book Award, was a STEM student, could pay full tuition anywhere, cash. Played sports as well. Great SAT scores. White female with no legacy, rejected from everything but her safeties. Applied to no Ivys by choice.

Don’t tell me her race didn’t play a role in this liberal academic environment

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For my son, white male, high stats, good but not out of the park ecs and awards, no hooks--Naviance was a surprisingly spot on predictor for schools where there was sufficient data. For schools where under 20 or so from his public high school applied in the last 3 years and/or less than 20% are admitted overall, I didn't make assumptions based on Naviance but instead looked at their Common Data Sets and considered them reaches unless he was above the 75% in which case they became targets (not safeties). I would say those were pretty spot on too. He got into all his targets and safeties and one of his reaches. But I work with data sets and statistics a lot as part of my job so I understand the many limits on the kinds of inferences I can make from different data sources so maybe I'm more cautious in calling something a "target" vs. a "safety" vs a "reach" than others.

Can you comment on what other factors besides 75%ile we should look at in the Common Data Sets to help understand the institution and fit with our DCs? I'm new to this and not clear on what to be looking at/for with these college stats.

The main other thing to look at besides 75%ile mark is the overall acceptance rate (and to look at the overall acceptance rate for Regular Decision if you're not applying Early Decision). We just said nothing is a total "safety" unless Regular Decision acceptance rate is over 50% and DCs scores are above 75%ile mark. Targets were schools that had acceptance rates above 20% AND DC was above their 75% mark or schools that had acceptance rates above 50% and DC was above their median. Reaches were anything that were more stringent than these criteria. This helps you make sure you have a true array of safeties (some call them "likelies"), targets and reaches.