Anonymous wrote:As a teacher, I hate that Naviance means the college counselling team gets to review my "confidential" letters of rec. This past year, they asked me to change multiple letters. This means I will be graciously refusing to write recs for many students next year.

I put a lot of time into my letters of rec, and I gave specific detail in support of my students. I know these students well. I've been doing this a long time, and I know what information is useful in letters of rec. The "college counselling" team at our school have weakened some candidates' letters of rec by demanding these changes. I do not feel satisfied or comfortable having these people review what used to be truly confidential letters of rec, from me to college admissions officers.

Good for you, teacher!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:white kid?

Oh shut the f up.

I could have said "Asian kid"? Would that have been okay? Anyone who doesn't think the applicant's race is significant factor in the decision process is very naive.

+1

Anonymous wrote:I let my child pick her reaches, but also said if ~90% of the kids who apply there are rejected...what outcome are you most like to experience? She said rejection (which is true), and I said “Right (pause to make sure that sank in...),”but it is not zero...and it is fine to aim high, so I support your decision” Point being that getting rejected from a reach should not come as some big shattering shock, unless you have not made sure to discuss probabilities an advance with your child.

(Or up to now you have insulated them from reality, by pulling lots of strings behind the scenes). This really is a growth experience, just not the one you hoped for.

This is an excellent post that pertains to most parents in this geographical area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t trust naviance. My son with near perfect SAT score and 4.89 GPA was rejected from every single school except for his safeties.

Let me guess, the rejections were from colleges with <25% acceptance rates? Then yeah, don’t count on those.

+1

Target schools for kids like this are still reaches, statistically speaking.

+1

NP here. I asked this question a couple of weeks ago and got slammed here. Posters don't want to help, they just want to try to make themselves feel better by being snarky. Truth is, they never really feel better.....I was taught growing up that only losers act that way (bitter, snarky, unhelpful...) toward other people. Starting to believe it now.

Anonymous wrote:As a teacher, I hate that Naviance means the college counselling team gets to review my "confidential" letters of rec. This past year, they asked me to change multiple letters. This means I will be graciously refusing to write recs for many students next year.

I put a lot of time into my letters of rec, and I gave specific detail in support of my students. I know these students well. I've been doing this a long time, and I know what information is useful in letters of rec. The "college counselling" team at our school have weakened some candidates' letters of rec by demanding these changes. I do not feel satisfied or comfortable having these people review what used to be truly confidential letters of rec, from me to college admissions officers.

What were they asking you to change?

Anonymous wrote:Don’t trust naviance. My son with near perfect SAT score and 4.89 GPA was rejected from every single school except for his safeties.

. What was his unweighted GPA? WHat were the target schools where he was not admitted? The crap shoot schools are crap shoots for nearly everyone.

The only schools that practice yield protection these days are lower tier. It used to be associated with Tufts, but they don’t need to anymore.

Naviance is great for getting ideas, but everyone knows essays and recommendations are big factors when everyone gets As (and if the school has GPAs that hit 4.89, there is a whole lot of inflation happening).

Continuation of 12:43 - The 6 accepted students I'm referring to also have a WGPA of at least 4.15; so, there's that baseline as well. (Honestly, that's not that high).

I let my child pick her reaches, but also said if ~90% of the kids who apply there are rejected...what outcome are you most like to experience? She said rejection (which is true), and I said “Right (pause to make sure that sank in...),”but it is not zero...and it is fine to aim high, so I support your decision” Point being that getting rejected from a reach should not come as some big shattering shock, unless you have not made sure to discuss probabilities an advance with your child.

(Or up to now you have insulated them from reality, by pulling lots of strings behind the scenes). This really is a growth experience, just not the one you hoped for.

Here's an example from DD's Naviance: I'm picking NYU, because it's popular, but my DD doesn't want to go there. In the last 3 years, 33 students have applied and 6 have been accepted. That's an acceptance rate of 18%, which is much lower than the national acceptance rate for NYU. Looking more closely at the Scattergram, 6 out of 7 students who applied with an SAT over 1400 got accepted. (I'm not sure how many years of application cycles the Scattergrams cover). There were many students waitlisted who scored between 1350 and 1400.

My DD is at a school with a high poverty rate. Less than 50% of students go directly to a 4 year university. A small percentage go out of state. I think that in this circumstance, a high SAT counts for a lot, because universities can't trust that an A means a lot (there isn't much competition). We have a very diverse school, and I want to assure the public that URM's are not getting high acceptance rates simply because they are URM.

It's also possible that NYU doesn't bother to admit many students from DD's school because NYU knows that it offers crappy financial aid. The yield is not likely to be high once students see the bottom line. My conclusion is that IF DD wanted to go to NYU, she would have a very good chance with a 1400+ SAT, but nothing is guaranteed. Thoughts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:white kid?

Oh shut the f up.

I could have said "Asian kid"? Would that have been okay? Anyone who doesn't think the applicant's race is significant factor in the decision process is very naive.

Where did he apply?

Naviance looks backward -- Total's admissions landscape at top 50 schools is different now...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:white kid?

Oh shut the f up.

why? grades and test by themselves scores don't tell you much.

PP...of course it’s more difficult to get in these days for a white kid. Get your head out of the sand.