Guys - with so many applications, chances are AI screens your kids app and it’s likely not even read.

The poster above about finding a way - any way - to distinguish the applicant is right.

Weird majors /applications to under the radar programs will be more and more relevant in coming years…..and kids won’t be able to switch so they need to make that major/field of study authentic to their applications

Anonymous wrote:I think people are missing the math on reaches.

My kid is waiting on 5 reach RD schools. College vine says we have the following chances to get in:

25%
20%
20%
15%
15%

So chance of rejection:
75%
80%
80%
85%
85%

Multiply all the rejection % .75*.8*.8*.85*.835 = 35%

We have a 35% chance to be rejected by the 5 remaining reaches. So he’s not counting too much on the reaches.

And that’s with a good recommendation and good essays.

That is not how it works.

Anonymous wrote:My average student has done quite well. I could be wrong but maybe it’s effecting the high stat kids more. Just look outside the same 50 schools everyone is applying to and apply broadly and your student will get into some. It’s a numbers game. But don’t despair it’s not as bad as people on DCUM/CC make it out to be.

Because you most likely had your kid applying to target and safety schools.
My average kid (5 years ago) got into ALL of their choices, I helped manage it (don't need a counselor for a kid with a 26 ACT/3.5UW) That's because they applied to all Target and safety schools. There were no Reach schools they considered.
IN fact majority had acceptance rates of 50%+ but I called some targets because my kid was only at 50-60% (not 75%+). My kid got into 7 schools in the 60-100 range and another 3 in the 100-130 range. Most with excellent merit (all the privates, none for the OOS publics)

Once you go 50+ it is not that difficult to get many acceptances

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ full disclosure - I am also the parent of a current senior. Is it the worst year? All I know is that the US college admission process, when you want selective schools, is very stressful compared to those in other countries.

Because in other countries, your kids are tracked starting at age 11/12. A one day test at that age determines your path thru rest of MS/HS level. If you do poorly then, you are not on the STEM college track or even the humanities/SS college track, you are on the "not going to college" track. So by time you reach 12th grade level, you are only competing with the kids on your track. It's hard to switch tracks (unless you go expensive private).

IMO, I'd much rather let my kid (and others) have the chance to grow in their teens and be able to pick what track/majors they want at the college level, not at age 11/12. I know way too many kids who didn't blossom until late HS or college.

+1 my DS especially was a mediocre student in middle school. Friends who hadn't spent much time with us during HS were really surprised at his college outcomes because they didn't know that by senior year of HS he had turned into a math super star, taking nearly all AP classes and straight As in 11-12th grade. Definitely heard some "how did HE get in there when X (great MS student) did not?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great point about many schools going TO. That said, I'm also seeing an incredible number of students with 1400+ SAT scores. I get that I need to not draw from my experience in the 90s when it was rare to hear of someone getting such high or near perfect scores but what is up with so many high scores these days? Has the scoring changed since I remember it? Or has the test itself gotten easier? Or maybe those are the only ones we hear about on here?

SAT scores have been "recentered" a couple of times since the 90s. Subtract about 150 points for the score equivalent back then.

No, that's not how it works. There are more sophisticated adjustments psychometrically now, but percentiles tell you the situation--look at the percentile rank of any given score. It's also in part that you hear from a highly educated group on forums.

By and large, you add 100-150 points to your score pre1995 to get "today's equivalent". Not perfect but very close. Fact is back then, scoring over 1350 was a "Top score". There were not that many scores over 1400. Also kids took it 1-2 times typically, most in my HS took it once and done, and your test prep was the PSAT and maybe 1-2 hours with a big practice book, not months of intensive practice, also no super scoring

Anonymous wrote:^ full disclosure - I am also the parent of a current senior. Is it the worst year? All I know is that the US college admission process, when you want selective schools, is very stressful compared to those in other countries.

Because in other countries, your kids are tracked starting at age 11/12. A one day test at that age determines your path thru rest of MS/HS level. If you do poorly then, you are not on the STEM college track or even the humanities/SS college track, you are on the "not going to college" track. So by time you reach 12th grade level, you are only competing with the kids on your track. It's hard to switch tracks (unless you go expensive private).

IMO, I'd much rather let my kid (and others) have the chance to grow in their teens and be able to pick what track/majors they want at the college level, not at age 11/12. I know way too many kids who didn't blossom until late HS or college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should recenter the sat to bring the scores down again so a 1500 or 1600 is more meaningful. There’s too much compression at the top. Grades are so random, even within a school. My kid has a math teacher where only one kid in class got an A but the other teacher for same class gave mostly As.

This is why standardized testing is better than looking at GPAs.

Grading is subjective; test scores are not.

My kid got a 1580, 4.0 uwgpa, but got deferred/rejected from top schools, even though on paper, they were target schools.

They got into the in state school for a very competitive program. I was happy with it, but DC was not. I think even kids don't realize what a crapshoot college admissions is these days.

Umm, "top schools" are reaches for everyone! Any thing with an acceptance rate below 20% is a reach. Plenty of others with similar stats are also rejected, because acceptance rates for most T25 schools are single digits. They are highly rejective, and yes, most they reject are Highly qualified.
The mistake is that you think they were "target schools".

It’s a dog eat dog world in college admissions. You need to make sure your kids’ application is actually even thoroughly read and review. With the sheer #s and sai, that’s no longer a given.

How can you ensure that happens if no hook (URM, recruit; donor; legacy; faculty)?

1. Private high school that feeds into elite colleges
2. Personal recommendations sent directly to AO (inflential professors; board members; big donors)
3. Pointy or extremely unique/ unconventional interests and a highly curated or tailored application that is distinct and unique for each college

Only relevant if Uber-connected and at a private high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should recenter the sat to bring the scores down again so a 1500 or 1600 is more meaningful. There’s too much compression at the top. Grades are so random, even within a school. My kid has a math teacher where only one kid in class got an A but the other teacher for same class gave mostly As.

This is why standardized testing is better than looking at GPAs.

Grading is subjective; test scores are not.

My kid got a 1580, 4.0 uwgpa, but got deferred/rejected from top schools, even though on paper, they were target schools.

They got into the in state school for a very competitive program. I was happy with it, but DC was not. I think even kids don't realize what a crapshoot college admissions is these days.

Umm, "top schools" are reaches for everyone! Any thing with an acceptance rate below 20% is a reach. Plenty of others with similar stats are also rejected, because acceptance rates for most T25 schools are single digits. They are highly rejective, and yes, most they reject are Highly qualified.
The mistake is that you think they were "target schools".

It’s a dog eat dog world in college admissions. You need to make sure your kids’ application is actually even thoroughly read and review. With the sheer #s and sai, that’s no longer a given.

How can you ensure that happens if no hook (URM, recruit; donor; legacy; faculty)?

1. Private high school that feeds into elite colleges
2. Personal recommendations sent directly to AO (inflential professors; board members; big donors)
3. Pointy or extremely unique/ unconventional interests and a highly curated or tailored application that is distinct and unique for each college

Let us know if these letters work….I’m hearing more of that at our private.

Maybe it was always there but bc I didn’t have a senior before I wasn’t clued in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are missing the math on reaches.

My kid is waiting on 5 reach RD schools. College vine says we have the following chances to get in:

25%
20%
20%
15%
15%

So chance of rejection:
75%
80%
80%
85%
85%

Multiply all the rejection % .75*.8*.8*.85*.835 = 35%

We have a 35% chance to be rejected by the 5 remaining reaches. So he’s not counting too much on the reaches.

And that’s with a good recommendation and good essays.

The stats don't really work that way. These are not fully independent chances. Similar students are applying to all of these and they are likely all looking for similar things. You chance of rejections from all 5 is likely closer to the 75%.

+1 this is how kids end up with totally unrealistic lists. Applying to a ton of reaches does not make it more likely that you will get into them. And, might actually make you less likely if spreading your efforts out means you don't put together as good an application as you might with a more focused list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should recenter the sat to bring the scores down again so a 1500 or 1600 is more meaningful. There’s too much compression at the top. Grades are so random, even within a school. My kid has a math teacher where only one kid in class got an A but the other teacher for same class gave mostly As.

This is why standardized testing is better than looking at GPAs.

Grading is subjective; test scores are not.

My kid got a 1580, 4.0 uwgpa, but got deferred/rejected from top schools, even though on paper, they were target schools.

They got into the in state school for a very competitive program. I was happy with it, but DC was not. I think even kids don't realize what a crapshoot college admissions is these days.

It doesn't matter who you are, there is no such thing as a "top" school also being a "target" school. When admission rates are below 10%, it is a crapshoot for every unhooked applicant.

For people whose kids are supposedly so smart, it is amazing that people cannot figure this out.

FYI, if you select a well balanced list of reaches, targets and safeties, your kid should get into at least 50% of their targets and safeties.

Target Definition: acceptance rate of 25%-50% (some say 60%), kid stats at/above 50%
Safety Definition: acceptance rate of 50/60%+, kid stats at/above 75/80%

My fall 23 kid results:
ED1 T10, Deferred, then rejected RD (high reach)
T30, WL (reach)
T40, Accepted EA (target)
T50, Accepted EA, top merit package (target)
T50, State flagship, accepted EA into Engineering (Direct admit) (target)
T55, Accepted EA, study abroad first year with their program (reach due to 90K+ applicants, single digit acceptance rates)
T70, Accepted EA, great merit award (top safety)
T100, Accepted EA, (safety)
T120 Accepted EA (Safety)

It went exactly as planned: Rejected at high reach (but got lucky with deferral), WL at reach, and then accepted at ALL targets and safeties. Why? Because we carefully crafted a good list and made sure we loved the targets and safeties. In reality, I think the top 2 targets and the top safety were the "best schools for my kid" and that's the final 3 they considered. They ended up at the T40 target and in reality it's probably a better fit than either of their reaches.

But that is how you do it---you don't just randomly apply to all Top schools and hope. You search for right targets and safeties. Notice that my kid kept their top safety in the final decision process, because it's that good of a school. They only ditched it because of the 7 week quarters and fast pace---my kid smartly decided that as a procrastinator, that might not be the best system for them, but otherwise they seriously considered that school it's that good.

Anonymous wrote:I think people are missing the math on reaches.

My kid is waiting on 5 reach RD schools. College vine says we have the following chances to get in:

25%
20%
20%
15%
15%

So chance of rejection:
75%
80%
80%
85%
85%

Multiply all the rejection % .75*.8*.8*.85*.835 = 35%

We have a 35% chance to be rejected by the 5 remaining reaches. So he’s not counting too much on the reaches.

And that’s with a good recommendation and good essays.

The stats don't really work that way. These are not fully independent chances. Similar students are applying to all of these and they are likely all looking for similar things. You chance of rejections from all 5 is likely closer to the 75%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should recenter the sat to bring the scores down again so a 1500 or 1600 is more meaningful. There’s too much compression at the top. Grades are so random, even within a school. My kid has a math teacher where only one kid in class got an A but the other teacher for same class gave mostly As.

This is why standardized testing is better than looking at GPAs.

Grading is subjective; test scores are not.

My kid got a 1580, 4.0 uwgpa, but got deferred/rejected from top schools, even though on paper, they were target schools.

They got into the in state school for a very competitive program. I was happy with it, but DC was not. I think even kids don't realize what a crapshoot college admissions is these days.

Umm, "top schools" are reaches for everyone! Any thing with an acceptance rate below 20% is a reach. Plenty of others with similar stats are also rejected, because acceptance rates for most T25 schools are single digits. They are highly rejective, and yes, most they reject are Highly qualified.
The mistake is that you think they were "target schools".

It’s a dog eat dog world in college admissions. You need to make sure your kids’ application is actually even thoroughly read and review. With the sheer #s and sai, that’s no longer a given.

How can you ensure that happens if no hook (URM, recruit; donor; legacy; faculty)?

1. Private high school that feeds into elite colleges
2. Personal recommendations sent directly to AO (inflential professors; board members; big donors)
3. Pointy or extremely unique/ unconventional interests and a highly curated or tailored application that is distinct and unique for each college

I think people are missing the math on reaches.

My kid is waiting on 5 reach RD schools. College vine says we have the following chances to get in:

25%
20%
20%
15%
15%

So chance of rejection:
75%
80%
80%
85%
85%

Multiply all the rejection % .75*.8*.8*.85*.835 = 35%

We have a 35% chance to be rejected by the 5 remaining reaches. So he’s not counting too much on the reaches.

And that’s with a good recommendation and good essays.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should recenter the sat to bring the scores down again so a 1500 or 1600 is more meaningful. There’s too much compression at the top. Grades are so random, even within a school. My kid has a math teacher where only one kid in class got an A but the other teacher for same class gave mostly As.

This is why standardized testing is better than looking at GPAs.

Grading is subjective; test scores are not.

My kid got a 1580, 4.0 uwgpa, but got deferred/rejected from top schools, even though on paper, they were target schools.

They got into the in state school for a very competitive program. I was happy with it, but DC was not. I think even kids don't realize what a crapshoot college admissions is these days.

Umm, "top schools" are reaches for everyone! Any thing with an acceptance rate below 20% is a reach. Plenty of others with similar stats are also rejected, because acceptance rates for most T25 schools are single digits. They are highly rejective, and yes, most they reject are Highly qualified.
The mistake is that you think they were "target schools".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're thinking about it all wrong. There are many more great schools, students, and professors than there were when we were kids. That's cause for celebration, not despair. It's only if you refuse to broaden your view to acknowledge that improvement beyond the traditional elites that things look grim. Adjust your thinking to fit reality for the sake of your own mental health--and especially for your kid's.

OP, you should stop posting now. People are not allowed to be upset about the schools their kids don't get into. People are not allowed to be upset for how much you'll have to spend or how little aid you'll receive.

You need to be happy with the scraps you get. And if you're not, this group of harpies will just go full on flamethrower on you.

So do yourself a favor, and stop checking this Board and asking these questions/expressing your opinions and feelings. I largely have and just check for giggles mostly, no. And it doesn't disappoint.

You would be much happier with a better attitude. Your kid only ends up with "scraps" when you think you are entitled to a T25 acceptance and don't plan. If you select true targets and safeties (and they need to be schools your kid loves and excited to attend), you will not have scraps---because you don't apply to schools you view as "scraps". Smart people pick their safeties and fall in love with them as well.