So this kid speaks two languages, has mid 1550, near 4.0 average, volunteers with seniors, and still only got into one true safety with a high acceptance rate?

What the heck? I am worried. Parent of an eighth grade boy.

22 pages that I won't sift through.

OP - with those STATS, it seems like your kid didn't *really* account for any safeties. How is it possible that your kid didn't get into one.single.college? My kid has great but not the kinda stats yours does and she got waitlisted at 1 and accepted to 8. I feel pretty proud of the choices she made in which schools she applied to. Still waiting on one reach that will probably be a rejection.

Sorry to rub it in but with all the college choices out there, someone led your kid wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing this.. Sure. I don't have a right to their education. I should also have the right to not have my tax $ subsidize them, shouldn't I? Why not remove the non-profit nature of these institutions? After all, they operate like a secret cabal, with ambiguous admission rules that pretty much guarantees that 99.99% of all children (i.e. future tax payers) will not benefit from them. Why not pull the tax benefit? Their fees will go up, you say? Sure. Let it. Let it quadruple for all I care. See how quickly they drop all their "URM" and "first-gen" pretenses.

This stupid argument again. Can we make the same rules for all non-profits? Because there are plenty of churches that I don't like how they operate, and political PACs, and country clubs, and the NRA... but that's not how any of this works. Your vitriolic statement indicates a complete lack of understanding of basic civics.

I'm the PP you are responding to. You post the same response each time. Yes, get rid of non-profit status for everyone. Why should I have to subsidize entities that are really out to make money? Why is my statement "vitriolic"? Look in the mirror. You might find that "vitriolic, stupid" person you are looking for..

Yes I post the same obvious rebuttal to your same stupid comment. Hence my use of the word "again". And I will continue to do so.

I will bet money you only make these objections WRT college admissions policies. That's why you are in a college forum and there are no "get rid of all non-profits" posts in the politics forum by you or anyone else. It's entirely disingenuous and if you don't like that hypocrisy being pointed out I suggest you stop posting the stupid canard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know people want to think this year is “very” different but it’s not. This is the same story every year. People want to blame COVID or No SATs.

But it’s not different.

Kids realize their likely schools were actually reaches every year, counselors act aghast every year.

Hmm. Every single authority on college admissions disagrees with you.

I do not know many kids in this age group but know of 4 who took a gap year this year. Were applications way up with lots of kids taking a gap year rather than having their first year in the middle of a pandemic?

Gap years are very common ... it’s not always common to call them gap years until this year.

Stop blaming the world on a normal situation. Kids apply to schools that are reaches even though they think they are likely and they get it wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing this.. Sure. I don't have a right to their education. I should also have the right to not have my tax $ subsidize them, shouldn't I? Why not remove the non-profit nature of these institutions? After all, they operate like a secret cabal, with ambiguous admission rules that pretty much guarantees that 99.99% of all children (i.e. future tax payers) will not benefit from them. Why not pull the tax benefit? Their fees will go up, you say? Sure. Let it. Let it quadruple for all I care. See how quickly they drop all their "URM" and "first-gen" pretenses.

This stupid argument again. Can we make the same rules for all non-profits? Because there are plenty of churches that I don't like how they operate, and political PACs, and country clubs, and the NRA... but that's not how any of this works. Your vitriolic statement indicates a complete lack of understanding of basic civics.

I'm the PP you are responding to. You post the same response each time. Yes, get rid of non-profit status for everyone. Why should I have to subsidize entities that are really out to make money? Why is my statement "vitriolic"? Look in the mirror. You might find that "vitriolic, stupid" person you are looking for..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know people want to think this year is “very” different but it’s not. This is the same story every year. People want to blame COVID or No SATs.

But it’s not different.

Kids realize their likely schools were actually reaches every year, counselors act aghast every year.

Hmm. Every single authority on college admissions disagrees with you.

Hmm every Sikhs authority in college admissions says the same thing every year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing this.. Sure. I don't have a right to their education. I should also have the right to not have my tax $ subsidize them, shouldn't I? Why not remove the non-profit nature of these institutions? After all, they operate like a secret cabal, with ambiguous admission rules that pretty much guarantees that 99.99% of all children (i.e. future tax payers) will not benefit from them. Why not pull the tax benefit? Their fees will go up, you say? Sure. Let it. Let it quadruple for all I care. See how quickly they drop all their "URM" and "first-gen" pretenses.

This stupid argument again. Can we make the same rules for all non-profits? Because there are plenty of churches that I don't like how they operate, and political PACs, and country clubs, and the NRA... but that's not how any of this works. Your vitriolic statement indicates a complete lack of understanding of basic civics.

Churches I don't like don't discriminate. I am pretty sure they'd love to have me there. PACs, country clubs, and the NRA aren't racists.

Now THIS is the funniest thing I will read all day. Join us in reality sometime, PP.

I think they forgot the /s or their insane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing this.. Sure. I don't have a right to their education. I should also have the right to not have my tax $ subsidize them, shouldn't I? Why not remove the non-profit nature of these institutions? After all, they operate like a secret cabal, with ambiguous admission rules that pretty much guarantees that 99.99% of all children (i.e. future tax payers) will not benefit from them. Why not pull the tax benefit? Their fees will go up, you say? Sure. Let it. Let it quadruple for all I care. See how quickly they drop all their "URM" and "first-gen" pretenses.

This stupid argument again. Can we make the same rules for all non-profits? Because there are plenty of churches that I don't like how they operate, and political PACs, and country clubs, and the NRA... but that's not how any of this works. Your vitriolic statement indicates a complete lack of understanding of basic civics.

Churches I don't like don't discriminate. I am pretty sure they'd love to have me there. PACs, country clubs, and the NRA aren't racists.

You forgot the /s

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing this.. Sure. I don't have a right to their education. I should also have the right to not have my tax $ subsidize them, shouldn't I? Why not remove the non-profit nature of these institutions? After all, they operate like a secret cabal, with ambiguous admission rules that pretty much guarantees that 99.99% of all children (i.e. future tax payers) will not benefit from them. Why not pull the tax benefit? Their fees will go up, you say? Sure. Let it. Let it quadruple for all I care. See how quickly they drop all their "URM" and "first-gen" pretenses.

This stupid argument again. Can we make the same rules for all non-profits? Because there are plenty of churches that I don't like how they operate, and political PACs, and country clubs, and the NRA... but that's not how any of this works. Your vitriolic statement indicates a complete lack of understanding of basic civics.

Churches I don't like don't discriminate. I am pretty sure they'd love to have me there. PACs, country clubs, and the NRA aren't racists.

Now THIS is the funniest thing I will read all day. Join us in reality sometime, PP.

Anonymous wrote:OP - is schooling in your spouse's foreign country an option?

We are in a similar boat in which I am Asian American and my spouse is from the EU. We are planning on sending children to my spouse's alma mater unless DC gets merit aid from a top choice in the US. We figured this is a good option especially since professional schooling in the US requires a bachelor's first.

Congratulate your son on his likely - he can always go to his likely (or a CC) and transfer but know that hard work and perseverance will pay off in the end.

OP- I also think that if your son takes time off, to perhaps work on finding an academic focus. I used to do college interviews for my alma mater -- a top college that is talked about frequently here. When I think back at students who interviewed with very little career direction versus those who had crafted a nice path that coincided with some of the strengths of my school, it made a difference in how I viewed that student. I said to myself "this is a top college that this student is interviewing with. Could this student come in on day one and fit in/contribute to the conversation?" To make sure that I wasn't too harsh, I had shared my experience generically with a few select alumni at an outing (student name withheld). Oddly enough, they were more harsh than I was. And these were alum who went to the same caliber of top level grad schools (top 10). So I think we pretty much held the same approach to what type of students should get the nod. It wasn't just smarts and top numbers that impressed because many students had that. We wanted the story.

I am sure the same comes across in admissions essays where the student will have to state why they want to attend that school. Emory's stats and reputation have really increased over time. I think that it's hard to go in undecided or without a path of some sort or another, into a top school these days.

Some colleges will care less about career/major direction etc. But others will care because they force the student to apply to one of the divisions/departments for admissions. If you don't get into the division, you usually don't get into that college.We experienced that and it was a tough learning.

Having said all of that, again, I really wish you the best of luck. Your son will find a good path forward. And thanks for sharing so that others can learn.

The stats OP posted would generate fat merit aid at a lot of colleges. So spare me that it was all for nothing. And if the kid is self-motived he'll be top of the class at whatever safety he lands at. And lastly, most colleges are safeties. There are honestly less than 40 or 50 selective colleges nationwide.

Anonymous wrote:I give up. It’s hard to to stay optimistic. He worked his ass off at his private school, got mid-1500 on his SAT, continued his in person volunteering throughout the pandemic (which I was not excited about, but he wanted to do it). He has had one B+ his entire 4 years of college, the rest As. His teachers speak highly of him and I believe they must have written good letters...

This is either a lie to troll or a gross exaggeration. And slim chance it's not, aggressive self-motivated kids go to the safety college, get all A's first semester and transfer out. If your kid wasn't self-motived they'll fall in with who they want to fall in with at the less selective school and you'll realize all this pressure and status obsession was you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing this.. Sure. I don't have a right to their education. I should also have the right to not have my tax $ subsidize them, shouldn't I? Why not remove the non-profit nature of these institutions? After all, they operate like a secret cabal, with ambiguous admission rules that pretty much guarantees that 99.99% of all children (i.e. future tax payers) will not benefit from them. Why not pull the tax benefit? Their fees will go up, you say? Sure. Let it. Let it quadruple for all I care. See how quickly they drop all their "URM" and "first-gen" pretenses.

This stupid argument again. Can we make the same rules for all non-profits? Because there are plenty of churches that I don't like how they operate, and political PACs, and country clubs, and the NRA... but that's not how any of this works. Your vitriolic statement indicates a complete lack of understanding of basic civics.

Churches I don't like don't discriminate. I am pretty sure they'd love to have me there. PACs, country clubs, and the NRA aren't racists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing this.. Sure. I don't have a right to their education. I should also have the right to not have my tax $ subsidize them, shouldn't I? Why not remove the non-profit nature of these institutions? After all, they operate like a secret cabal, with ambiguous admission rules that pretty much guarantees that 99.99% of all children (i.e. future tax payers) will not benefit from them. Why not pull the tax benefit? Their fees will go up, you say? Sure. Let it. Let it quadruple for all I care. See how quickly they drop all their "URM" and "first-gen" pretenses.

This stupid argument again. Can we make the same rules for all non-profits? Because there are plenty of churches that I don't like how they operate, and political PACs, and country clubs, and the NRA... but that's not how any of this works. Your vitriolic statement indicates a complete lack of understanding of basic civics.

There's a difference here, though. PP isn't talking about picking and choosing certain institutions, but rather whether or not our tax dollars should fund a broad category of institutions: those that artificially keep their numbers down to inflate the value of their degrees. I think it goes back to the purpose of higher education -- if our government is subsidizing higher ED because 1) learning is a social good and 2) increased opportunities are beneficial to society as a whole, then that's the kind of institution they should fund. Some of these institutions seem to be working against those principles, and that's fine, if that's their business model. But we shouldn't subsidize it.

No, there is no difference whatsoever. PP is explicitly talking about a VERY SMALL number of elite colleges with big endowments. It is exactly the definition of "picking and choosing certain institutions" and it is laughable to suggest otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing this.. Sure. I don't have a right to their education. I should also have the right to not have my tax $ subsidize them, shouldn't I? Why not remove the non-profit nature of these institutions? After all, they operate like a secret cabal, with ambiguous admission rules that pretty much guarantees that 99.99% of all children (i.e. future tax payers) will not benefit from them. Why not pull the tax benefit? Their fees will go up, you say? Sure. Let it. Let it quadruple for all I care. See how quickly they drop all their "URM" and "first-gen" pretenses.

This stupid argument again. Can we make the same rules for all non-profits? Because there are plenty of churches that I don't like how they operate, and political PACs, and country clubs, and the NRA... but that's not how any of this works. Your vitriolic statement indicates a complete lack of understanding of basic civics.

There's a difference here, though. PP isn't talking about picking and choosing certain institutions, but rather whether or not our tax dollars should fund a broad category of institutions: those that artificially keep their numbers down to inflate the value of their degrees. I think it goes back to the purpose of higher education -- if our government is subsidizing higher ED because 1) learning is a social good and 2) increased opportunities are beneficial to society as a whole, then that's the kind of institution they should fund. Some of these institutions seem to be working against those principles, and that's fine, if that's their business model. But we shouldn't subsidize it.