Talk to your college counselor. They visit many schools and will have good ideas for a match school.

B/B+ student has different meanings depending on the high school. Based on rigor some B+ could have been 4.0 + if attending different schools. Add in GPA boosts for AP or Honors enrollment and high schools with extremely rigorous grading and no boosts are not the best choice for college admissions.

Some colleges admissions staff are far more cognizant of this issue. It is not related to the size of the college.

Tulane?

Anyone able to compare Auburn and Clemson?

from Bucknell's website:

For students entering 2011-12, fees have been set to:

$43,628 for tuition
$10,374 for basic room and board (your costs may be higher depending upon your selections)
$238 for student activity fees
Total: $54,240

Wow.

Several posters have mentioned Auburn and Clemson. Can anyone attempt a compare/contrast for these two school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just been through this with DS: Vanderbilt and Emory are top tier in terms of admissions requirements (and Tulane is not far behind). I don't think there's anything smallish about Auburn or Temple (both 20,000+ undergrads). Even Clemson has 12,000 undergrads. So that leaves Bucknell.

I mentioned Auburn because of the overall southern, friendly "feel" of the school and the fact that the town isn't that big. It's very different from a large university like the U. of Florida.

I was going to suggest Auburn but you beat me to it! As a 2003 grad, it was the perfect fit for me...it is a large school but feels MUCH smaller because it is in a small town. Auburn students have tremendous school spirit and has a much different feel than a lot of large schools (as the PP pointed out).

In one year alone, from 2010 to 2011 Bucknell, as an example, dropped from a 31.3% admit rate to a 27.23%.

Check out these acceptance rates from the NYTs:

http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2011-admission-decisions-chart/?ref=edlife

^^^ To underscore this point remember that 40% of Williams classes are recruited athletes as discussed in another thread on this site. That means that the stats for the remaining 60% have to be stellar not in the middle of the pack.

I'm just saying that admissions are really tough. Students with B averages and middling SATs don't get into top 25 or top 30 schools - especially girls - unless there are other criteria (recruited athletes, URM, legacy admissions) at play. My child was a varsity athlete with decent extracurriculars, had a 95+ weighted average, 8 APs and a 2060 on the SAT. With the exception of one school to get a "yes" from any of the dozen or so colleges my child applied to required SAT scores at or above the 75% mark as listed in the 2011 Princeton Review. BTW I have no vested interest in Bucknell (SAT scores at the top of middle 50% band or roughly at the 75% mark are 2090) and my child didn't apply there. I elaborate here because when we go through this with our next child I will be much more savvy about how to look at the stats offered up by the Princeton Review or Fiske) and realize that to get into a top 25 or 30 school some kind of A average and board scores at the 75% mark in addition to athletics and extracurriculars are required.

Sorry -- meant to say Bucknell #30 among "national liberal arts colleges".

US News (FWIW) has Bucknell ranked 30th among "national universities".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just been through this with DS: Vanderbilt and Emory are top tier in terms of admissions requirements (and Tulane is not far behind). I don't think there's anything smallish about Auburn or Temple (both 20,000+ undergrads). Even Clemson has 12,000 undergrads. So that leaves Bucknell.

Bucknell is very competitive. Not for the B to B+ student. Probably more for the B+ to A- students with a 2100 SAT.

The middle 50% of admitted students at Bucknell score between 1850-2090 on the SAT. An applicant with a 2100 is going to be in the top 25% of admitted students; even with a B/B+ transcript, he/she would be in pretty good shape.

Guess you didn't participate in the college admission process this year. I don't know anyone (unless they were admitted for athletic, URM or legacy purposes) this year who didn't have scores at the VERY upper end of the middle 50%. I'll be interested to look at the Princeton Review this year since I'm sure the stats are even higher than those published in the 2011 edition. Take a look at the Choice blog on the New York Times if you think I'm misinformed. 2100 is just not that competitive a score anymore for a top 25 or so school.

The stats on SAT scores are from the Fiske Guide, which is pretty reliable. As far as grades, you have to keep in mind that the same GPA can be viewed differently depending on where the student attended high school and which courses he/she took. That said, I do agree that Bucknell is becoming more selective.