Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brainy kids who seek a plurality of peers can look well outside a college. Just like these kids did in high school- the truly exceptional ones. My one student is the typical smart kid, math competitions and CTY in elementary- some "fun" enrichment outside of his school. Online groups for fancy origami, chess with adults in the community center in high school. These things are all available outside of college as well. That kid may not have done well in rural Minnesota, but Pitt? Sure. Stevens? Absolutely. And he is not the brainy one.
My brainy one- graduated from an IVY. Also looked beyond the scope of in-school peers/clubs/groups for things that interested her: theater. Had applied to a small LAC as a safety knowing she would find or create what she is looking for. And where she started and where she ended in terms of interest/career was all guided by works she did outside of school and after time abroad, not because of anything gained by being in a pool of "brainy" kids.
There are smart kids at most schools- many of them. My bet is that most kids are not quite as genius level as parents believe them to be...many of us make that assumption. Of course some schools are better fits than others. But a less rejective school doesn't mean that there will not be intellectual engagement.

Yes, brainy kids can do this. My DC may well have to, and I imagine it will foster creativity and resilience. However, if one can't expect for an intellectual enviroment of peers AT A UNIVERSITY, that's a bummer.

I'm not just talking smart here -- lots of smart kids (and adults) are not intellectual. Their lives are no less rich and valuable.

I work in universities, and have worked at a T20 and a top 40 SLAC. There was much less intellectual engagement at the T40 SLAC. Doesn't mean there wasn't ANY intellectual engagement, but it would have been sub-optimal for my kid.

Much in life is sub-optimal, and making the best of things is an important skill. But being in an environment that allows one's best self to flourish is what we want for our kids, no? I don't think my kid needs a T10 to thrive, but I do think that being at a non-selective school wouldn't be as exciting or fun for her. Anything in the T40 range would probably be a good target -- but lots of T20-40 schools yield protect.

Not sure how I feel about this. My kid is similar high stats and brainy. I was too and going to a T5 college was life changing for me - the first time I could be around peers who thought like me. I would like this for my DC, who will be applying next year.

But later on I lived in a group house with several people who had met at an honors college at a state school. They were just as intellectual as what I found at the T5. Their parents were not wealthy enough to send them to T5 schools so they never even bothered to apply. And in adult life I’ve found the same as well. There are plenty of quite intelligent people who didn’t go to fancy schools.

But that was a different era when where you applied to college wasn’t so obsessively considered, and elite colleges weren’t as accessible by middle class and below income families. I can see that now maybe it’s not as random where people end up. So I’m thoughtful about the PP mentioning it’s not as intellectual an environment at a T40 as at a T20. I’d imagine that the size of school matters too - maybe at a big state school there’s still more likelihood of finding one’s intellectual tribe rather than at a similarly ranked SLAC?

Any state flagship will have very smart kids, very smart: you are far more likely to find them at a flagship than at a top 20-40 SLAC. The top 10% of any mid-tier flagship = the middle 50% of any Ivy (and far exceeds the bottom 25% of those same Ivies). Sad that more people don’t know this. The most ignorant on this front tend to be from Ivies and top SLACs themselves…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admission is much easier for boys then girls even when major is accounted for.
My girl boy twins have seen this play out with them and their friends.

Gosh especially true this year. Wow it’s so noticeable.

Given this, are there any majors that have a demand or preference for girls?

Yep. CS and Eng’r.

Anonymous wrote:I’m surprised that DH is surprised by DC’s results.

DC is a prospective engineering student with great grades and test scores - just like the bulk of their magnet peers. Results are rejections (at a few highly ranked schools) and acceptances with lots of merit everywhere else. They have lots of good choices at schools they’re interested in, all for roughly the same price as in-state public.

Kid seems fine with it, and it’s what I expected, but DH just can’t believe it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised that, for high stats (i.e., 1550+ with perfect GPA and top rigor the school offers), there really are no target schools.

All T20s are reaches, and in the next tier down, almost every school yield protects (even state schools for OOS applicants).

As a result, kids need to apply to a v large number of schools, which is time consuming, emotionally draining, and $$$.

So much uncertainty . . . .

People on this site always say 'have a safety DC loves!'. But which school that accepts more than 50% of students is likely to be a great fit for a kid with perfect GPA and scores?

“My kid is too special and smart to actually go to a school that will admit them no questions asked.”

Like they aren’t going to die if they go to SUNY Binghamton or UMass Amherst.

No, they aren't going to die. But if they are going to end up at Binghamton, do they have to spend hours and hours and close to $2K on the way there?

Trying their best and achieving and growing should be an end in itself.

I feel like a substantial numbers of posters here would be perfect fine with DC learning absolutely nothing at colleges as long as they went somewhere that could boost them into a job they approve of based solely on the prestige of the degree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admission is much easier for boys then girls even when major is accounted for.
My girl boy twins have seen this play out with them and their friends.

Gosh especially true this year. Wow it’s so noticeable.

Given this, are there any majors that have a demand or preference for girls?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those with disappointing early results, can you state the major?

Our CCO has basically told the juniors that if you apply for CS or Eng or Business (or Math - apparently that is growing huge), that you need to look for targets that are most other people's safeties. Meaning go down a level (or two), that these majors have very few real targets. So it's only safety and reach.

If you aren't happy with that strategy, look at your transcript, EC list, awards, and who is writing your LOR for other "evidence for a major" in the college or arts & sciences or an adjacent college.

If you do not listen to this advice, you will regret it. And junior year is too late to build up evidence of a major to make any difference. Your transcript probably already outs you as a STEM or business/Econ type anyway.

You can still apply to a target (not a reach that you think is a target) if you apply ED1. Keep in mind that top 20 universities and top 10 SLACs are reaches for everyone.

agree 100%.
I'm surprised by how much major matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But which school that accepts more than 50% of students is likely to be a great fit for a kid with perfect GPA and scores?

The sad fact is that posting about a school that satisfies this (and I have one in mind), would only prompt the jackasses on DCUM to savage it. But my 1560, 4.0 UW, NMF student from a well-known private school is in to a college that has a 48% admit rate, where she received a generous scholarship, and where she would have absolutely loved to go. It has one of the highest graduate school placement ratios, and is known for stellar undergraduate teaching. If none of her other schools had worked out, she would have loved going there.

I'm sympathetic to the "true likelies that are still desirable are hard to find" concerns, but the schools are out there.

Hendrix, Rhodes, Rose-Hulman

Huh?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But which school that accepts more than 50% of students is likely to be a great fit for a kid with perfect GPA and scores?

The sad fact is that posting about a school that satisfies this (and I have one in mind), would only prompt the jackasses on DCUM to savage it. But my 1560, 4.0 UW, NMF student from a well-known private school is in to a college that has a 48% admit rate, where she received a generous scholarship, and where she would have absolutely loved to go. It has one of the highest graduate school placement ratios, and is known for stellar undergraduate teaching. If none of her other schools had worked out, she would have loved going there.

I'm sympathetic to the "true likelies that are still desirable are hard to find" concerns, but the schools are out there.

Hendrix, Rhodes, Rose-Hulman

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But which school that accepts more than 50% of students is likely to be a great fit for a kid with perfect GPA and scores?

The sad fact is that posting about a school that satisfies this (and I have one in mind), would only prompt the jackasses on DCUM to savage it. But my 1560, 4.0 UW, NMF student from a well-known private school is in to a college that has a 48% admit rate, where she received a generous scholarship, and where she would have absolutely loved to go. It has one of the highest graduate school placement ratios, and is known for stellar undergraduate teaching. If none of her other schools had worked out, she would have loved going there.

I'm sympathetic to the "true likelies that are still desirable are hard to find" concerns, but the schools are out there.