I have a senior DC this year. Based on what I have read and heard through the grapevine in past years i was bracing myself. So far, I have only heard good things and people getting into their 1st and/or second choices. I have seen many get into their reach schools. It has been the opposite of brutal and was I was led to believe. DC got into Virginia Tech Engineering and based on what everyone said would happen, he should not have. One of his good friends got in W&M when he didn't think he had a chance. Both had solid grades, but not stellar. Both have taken AP based on their interests and abilities. They go to one of the 5 HS frequently named in FCPS as the most rigorous. So far it has been an excellent year and I am happy for so many kids.

"brutalize your kids"?! Really OP?! The kids will be just find disappointment is part of life.

Yup. Basically, I think we're seeing the privatization of the strongest state universities as the result of budgetary pressures. Those OOS tuitions are tempting and the fact that OOS students with strong credentials are willing to pay them only makes the state school more prestigious. It becomes a national university with a more diverse student body.

What's really messed up is that if 3-4 such schools could just shift a significant minority (10-25% total) of their in-state candidates to the others, they'd all end up with more $ and prestige will serving pretty much the exact same demographic. Meanwhile, lots of parents whose taxes have been supporting each system will find themselves paying Ivy/SLAC prices to send their kids to a state school.

My DD was accepted to Wisconsin and Michigan, but not UMD, thats brutal to my pocketbook!

Sounds about right to me. DC knows 3 seniors well (different class) and they're headed to Columbia, Michigan and Penn. First choice for two of the three.

So here's the big question: how many kids couldn't get in 1 school that was appropriate or commensurate with their high school performance? That would be our definition of "brutal"

Our read: the kids who got mainly A's all got into something that would be considered academic. Not necessarily Ivy, but state flagship, good private, something strong. A/B kids may have gotten flagship offers, 2nd tier state, plenty of private if they can pay. B students mainly state schools both here and OOS, and lots of C kids got into OOS SEC schools or low tier in-state.

After watching this a few times I am convinced that the best results come to the least hysterical and who are the most realistic as early as possible. They end up with more choices and for the most part satisfied. But even those who miscalculate seem to end up just fine.

So what are the overall takeaways from your school? Was it really a "brutal" year as the title of the thread suggests?

At my kid's non-DC metro-area private school, it was a tough, but slightly less than brutal, year.

Early Action and Early Decision actually went pretty well. Even Round 2 ED was good, for kids that didn't get Ivy but then regrouped for a NESCAC-caliber school.

But Regular Decision, especially at the Ivies, was extremely tough, maybe the toughest ever. Kids who weren't happy after the early rounds tended up to stay unhappy with their results. The one place where results seemed kind of positive was in that tier of non-NESCAC liberal arts schools like Kenyon and Vassar, which accepted some kids you might not have thought were going to get in.

Lots of Wait List offers - it makes me feel like colleges' yield models haven't caught up to the growing number of kids applying to a dozen-plus schools and so they put out a big Wait List to hedge against coming up short on their enrollment numbers. Though I saw a lot of kids outright refuse Wait List spots - the process starts so early now that a lot of these kids are sick of it and just want it to be over, even if it means skipping the Wait List and potentially forgoing a shot at their dream school.

Also, admissions decisions seemed very numbers-driven. As much lip service as there is about "holistic" admissions processes, there were clear lines of demarcation where kids with scores above the line got into certain scores, and kids below the line getting rejected. One school asked my kid's friend - a first-generation URM - to retake the SAT this spring to try to get his score up 30 points. At least at that school, there was clearly a target score number the Admissions Office had been told to strive for in admitting this year's class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should read Justice Sotomayer"s book. Then, come back and discuss the issue of Affirmative Action or holistic admissions.

Because she's not biased? Please!

Read the book. and then come back.

I already did, when it came out. And in Spanish (very good translation; I think she wrote it in English).

It is a great book. I admire her in many respects. And, yet, I believe her Affirmative Action words, at least her stance re. Wisconsin decision last year, was wrong. I'd love to see a true meritocracy at work - get rid of affirmative action, AND sports, AND legacy. Kind of the European model. If voters choose to start with AA, well, it's their democratic right to do so.

But are you the PP with the son with LDs? In the European model, he likely would not have been considered college material.

If you like the European model, there is Europe for that. I lived in Europe and can't tell you how many kids envied our colleges because they were about the whole kid, learning, sports, etc.

Yep! And everyone can go to college and YOU decide, not some teacher that tracks you when you're 10. I have a child that has LDs (not the other poster with a child with LDs). She'd be headed for vocations education, when I suspect that in 5 years she will be in a much better place academically and can become a teacher like she would like, instead of being forced to choose hairdressing or insurance adjusting at 10.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't most European models assume a national curriculum?

They need to conform to some very broad standards.

And?

(That way, no crazies around influencing what is being said about evolution, vaccination or anticonceptives)

The British A-level and French bac exam questions I've seen look very different from SAT questions. And, in fact, they look like they'd yield answers that would enable a reader to make intelligent decisions about a student's readiness and aptitude for college-level work.

In the absence of a national curriculum, I wonder whether the U.S. could develop similar tests. Thus far, AP is the main contender but, of course, if we based college admissions on AP results, we'd really be screwing over kids whose schools didn't offer these courses. And the SAT, while perhaps useful in doing a gross sort among test-takers and as a bit of a reality check on GPAs, is pretty useless in assessing the capabilities of kids at the very high end which, after all, is what many highly selective universities are trying to do. Which is one of the reasons that they don't do admissions based solely on grades and standardized test scores.

Basically, in the US college admissions officers confront an applicant pool whose preparation, often through no fault of individual students or their families, has been widely variable. I think we'd have to do a much better job of equalizing secondary school education (and then radically reform the SAT) before we could make any plausible claim that basing college admissions strictly on grades and standardized test scores would be meritocratic.

Very good point. Unfortunately the Common Core is not getting the traction it deserves...and that is part of the challenge.

Just checked the English National Curriculum and it has statutory requirements that include lists of spelling words for various levels. And the French curriculum is even more standardized. These aren't just very broad standards. They represent a national commitment to creating a consistent education regardless of which state-run primary or secondary school a child attends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should read Justice Sotomayer"s book. Then, come back and discuss the issue of Affirmative Action or holistic admissions.

Because she's not biased? Please!

Read the book. and then come back.

I already did, when it came out. And in Spanish (very good translation; I think she wrote it in English).

It is a great book. I admire her in many respects. And, yet, I believe her Affirmative Action words, at least her stance re. Wisconsin decision last year, was wrong. I'd love to see a true meritocracy at work - get rid of affirmative action, AND sports, AND legacy. Kind of the European model. If voters choose to start with AA, well, it's their democratic right to do so.

But are you the PP with the son with LDs? In the European model, he likely would not have been considered college material.

If you like the European model, there is Europe for that. I lived in Europe and can't tell you how many kids envied our colleges because they were about the whole kid, learning, sports, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't most European models assume a national curriculum?

They need to conform to some very broad standards.

And?

(That way, no crazies around influencing what is being said about evolution, vaccination or anticonceptives)

The British A-level and French bac exam questions I've seen look very different from SAT questions. And, in fact, they look like they'd yield answers that would enable a reader to make intelligent decisions about a student's readiness and aptitude for college-level work.

In the absence of a national curriculum, I wonder whether the U.S. could develop similar tests. Thus far, AP is the main contender but, of course, if we based college admissions on AP results, we'd really be screwing over kids whose schools didn't offer these courses. And the SAT, while perhaps useful in doing a gross sort among test-takers and as a bit of a reality check on GPAs, is pretty useless in assessing the capabilities of kids at the very high end which, after all, is what many highly selective universities are trying to do. Which is one of the reasons that they don't do admissions based solely on grades and standardized test scores.

Basically, in the US college admissions officers confront an applicant pool whose preparation, often through no fault of individual students or their families, has been widely variable. I think we'd have to do a much better job of equalizing secondary school education (and then radically reform the SAT) before we could make any plausible claim that basing college admissions strictly on grades and standardized test scores would be meritocratic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should read Justice Sotomayer"s book. Then, come back and discuss the issue of Affirmative Action or holistic admissions.

Because she's not biased? Please!

Read the book. and then come back.

Everything that comes out of that woman's mouth is ridiculous. Reading her book would tell me nothing.

It is nice to know you have an open mind.

If I didn't have an open mind to begin with, I would not be aware of the statements she's made in the past and what she deems important. In my opinion, her experiences have closed her mind and made her doggedly pursue what she thinks would heal her personally. That's not a judge's job. Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should read Justice Sotomayer"s book. Then, come back and discuss the issue of Affirmative Action or holistic admissions.

Because she's not biased? Please!

Read the book. and then come back.

I already did, when it came out. And in Spanish (very good translation; I think she wrote it in English).

It is a great book. I admire her in many respects. And, yet, I believe her Affirmative Action words, at least her stance re. Wisconsin decision last year, was wrong. I'd love to see a true meritocracy at work - get rid of affirmative action, AND sports, AND legacy. Kind of the European model. If voters choose to start with AA, well, it's their democratic right to do so.

But are you the PP with the son with LDs? In the European model, he likely would not have been considered college material.

Anonymous wrote:Don't most European models assume a national curriculum?

They need to conform to some very broad standards.

And?

(That way, no crazies around influencing what is being said about evolution, vaccination or anticonceptives)