Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No acceptances so far. Applied to six, with three rejections (2 after deferrals for EA and ED), and now on 3 waitlists. Was outright rejected by "safety" school. We probably needed a REAL safety (hindsight). Didn't apply to Ivies, but comparably selective schools. It's been sobering. We're now just praying for a wait list spot. So yes, brutal for us anyway.

We are "sort of" in the same boat....several "rejects". Accepted at one safety (but DC doesn't want to attend). 5, yes count them 5, waitlists. All of the wait lists were schools clearly in reach. School counselor stunned (as are we). Go figure. Holistic admissions at work.

That happened to my DC last year. 4 waitlists at schools that should have been well within reach. 2 of the schools didn't even go to the WL, the other 2 barely did and DC wasn't one of the lucky ones. Accepted at 3 safeties (although all 3 were schools she would have been fine with attending). The silver lining is that she ended up very happy at her choice and while there was talk of transferring before she went she wouldn't even consider it now.

Re randomness. Yes, of course. That's why I specified within a non-reach category and defined what I meant by that.

Applying to more schools increases the odds of acceptance if admission is totally random--that is, if there is no relationship between admission to 1 school and admission to another. But this isn't totally true. A student who is admitted to Harvard is much more likely to be admitted to Yale and Princeton than a student who is rejected from Harvard. If you have an SAT score of 1800, you are not likely to be admitted to an Ivy League or NESCAC school no matter how many applications you send out.

Anonymous wrote:No acceptances so far. Applied to six, with three rejections (2 after deferrals for EA and ED), and now on 3 waitlists. Was outright rejected by "safety" school. We probably needed a REAL safety (hindsight). Didn't apply to Ivies, but comparably selective schools. It's been sobering. We're now just praying for a wait list spot. So yes, brutal for us anyway.

Do you have a daughter or son? Girls have gotten clobbered in exactly the situation you are describing.

Anonymous wrote:One of my DC's friends was discouraged by the school counselor from applying to the usual high number of 12-15 schools. I've also seen that 'advice' in this forum. DC and parents disregarded the advice and went full throttle. Out of the 15 was admitted to four and will attend the 'reach' school which is Tufts. No Ivy schools were on the list.

I wonder if the family had heeded the advice of the counselor and others offering what they thought was well-meaning advice would this kid be in the same boat as OP.

Yeah, we kinda wondered about that. I mean if admissions, within a non-reach category (i.e. at a school where the applicant would have middle-of-the-pack credentials) looks like a roll of the dice anyway, doesn't it make strategic sense to roll the dice as many times as you can? (which, presumably is why HS wants to limit the number of apps -- tons of extra work if everyone takes this approach.) Assuming that the applicant fits the general profile, it's impossible to know which demographic attributes are pluses or minuses in any given year, especially because they come bundled -- e.g. This year, college x's legacies are disproportionately white girls from private schools who want to be liberal arts majors, while the strongest candidates in college y's DC pool this year are disproportionately male and STEM-oriented.

Anonymous wrote:Do you think applying to 13 versus 5 mattered? If PP had applied to just the reach school she was admitted to would the outcome have changed? Is there any proof colleges like applicants who apply more places? Or is it more likely that if you send in more than a dozen applications you have expanded your definition of what is realistic?

I think it mattered big time by increasing the odds. If the PP had been discouraged in applying to Tufts or other similar reach schools and took the advice, of course the outcome would be different.

While I understand your argument, playing the odds appears to have won out. However, you will never know if those four acceptances would have been part of the typical 5-6 applications most do or increasing the odds with more applications. Another thought is if you're looking for a job, you might send out 5 resumes but increase the chances with 20. Again, you may get nothing. I prefer increasing the odds but to each his own.

Do you think applying to 13 versus 5 mattered? If PP had applied to just the reach school she was admitted to would the outcome have changed? Is there any proof colleges like applicants who apply more places? Or is it more likely that if you send in more than a dozen applications you have expanded your definition of what is realistic?

One of my DC's friends was discouraged by the school counselor from applying to the usual high number of 12-15 schools. I've also seen that 'advice' in this forum. DC and parents disregarded the advice and went full throttle. Out of the 15 was admitted to four and will attend the 'reach' school which is Tufts. No Ivy schools were on the list.

I wonder if the family had heeded the advice of the counselor and others offering what they thought was well-meaning advice would this kid be in the same boat as OP.

Anonymous wrote:No acceptances so far. Applied to six, with three rejections (2 after deferrals for EA and ED), and now on 3 waitlists. Was outright rejected by "safety" school. We probably needed a REAL safety (hindsight). Didn't apply to Ivies, but comparably selective schools. It's been sobering. We're now just praying for a wait list spot. So yes, brutal for us anyway.

We are "sort of" in the same boat....several "rejects". Accepted at one safety (but DC doesn't want to attend). 5, yes count them 5, waitlists. All of the wait lists were schools clearly in reach. School counselor stunned (as are we). Go figure. Holistic admissions at work.

Google NACAC list. These are all thw schools still accepting applications.

Or maybe look at Canadian schools with later application deadlines. DC is still getting emails from a few with May or June deadlines

Anonymous wrote:No acceptances so far. Applied to six, with three rejections (2 after deferrals for EA and ED), and now on 3 waitlists. Was outright rejected by "safety" school. We probably needed a REAL safety (hindsight). Didn't apply to Ivies, but comparably selective schools. It's been sobering. We're now just praying for a wait list spot. So yes, brutal for us anyway.

Not the end of the world. Have your DC apply to some of the rolling admissions schools for a January start date or a Fall 2106 start date and start planning a killer gap year.

No acceptances so far. Applied to six, with three rejections (2 after deferrals for EA and ED), and now on 3 waitlists. Was outright rejected by "safety" school. We probably needed a REAL safety (hindsight). Didn't apply to Ivies, but comparably selective schools. It's been sobering. We're now just praying for a wait list spot. So yes, brutal for us anyway.

Yes, I think that's where it's headed and what I meant when I characterized what is going on as privatization.

Anonymous wrote: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.

I have been thinking along a different tack. I think the Sate schools have raised their out of state prices to the limit and now will be raising the in state tuitions faster as that is still their highest % of students. they will justify it by saying that they are getting increasingly decreasing %s of support from the state. Soon, there will be no state support and In-state/out of state will have no meaning. The distinction between private and state will only be historical.