Anonymous wrote:It appears that it is harder to get into college than when we all applied. But what about for the very high stats kids?

Can some of you please share how it went for your child who went through the process if your kid was max rigor, 1550 plus, top grades, great but not national award winning extracurricular.

My child is having trouble finishing up their college lists and part of the reason is we really just have no idea how it will all go with the reach schools. We also don't know what school is "worth" taking your shot early. This child will be happiest with an intense, highly academic crowd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It appears that it is harder to get into college than when we all applied. But what about for the very high stats kids?

Can some of you please share how it went for your child who went through the process if your kid was max rigor, 1550 plus, top grades, great but not national award winning extracurricular.

My child is having trouble finishing up their college lists and part of the reason is we really just have no idea how it will all go with the reach schools. We also don't know what school is "worth" taking your shot early. This child will be happiest with an intense, highly academic crowd.

This was my kid. He’s attending UMDCP. No luck at any of the highly ranked privates but in the end I think he wound up right where he’s supposed to be. Good luck!

Same for my super high stats DC (higher than OP's kid). They are pretty happy there. Bonus for going to UMD in state is that UMD took most of their credits - 56 total, and got merit. They will have two bachelors and +1 masters in 4 years for under $130K.

Got a great internship, having a blast, and making decent money.

It was an ego hit when they were rejected to T15, but in the end, they said they are at where they are meant to be, and they are happy. I have seen DC grow in the past 2 years while in college, and it's been an amazing journey for DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1550 is not considered high.

You are stuck in 2023.

A 1550 on the digital SAT is an exceptionally high score, placing a test-taker in the 99th percentile. The move to the digital, adaptive format in 2024 makes the score of 1550 a top-tier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kid had 1580 SAT/36 ACT.
Salutatorian. Private HS in Texas. Basically maxed out GPA with 10 APs at 5.

Great ECs.

Denied at H,P,S
Accepted Vandy, Duke and Oxford.

This is crazy. Harvard, Princeton, Stanford is such a crap shoot even with these stats….so frustrating.
Where is you kid going between Vandy, Duke and Oxford?

None of this is crazy. This person could’ve gotten rejected more than a decade ago. Just having a good score isn’t unique- a lot of people have good scores with course rigor.

+1 Parents don't grasp this until their kid experiences it themselves. These schools are rejecting 95 out of every 100 applicants (it is actually probably more like rejecting 97/98 out 100 if you take out the spots that are essentially reserved for athletes, kids of donors/legacy and questbridge). Your outstanding kid is competing with literally thousands of other equally qualified students for a couple of spots.

Im the parent of the kid denied at H,P and S and accepted to Vandy, Duke and Oxford.
The frustrating part for him is that little sister just got in Stanford, same major, worst stats. 1550/35 top 3% but not salutatorian and quite frankly, worse ECs than her brother.

DS was rejected from all of the Ivy plus schools and ended up at Georgetown. His younger sister had a worse GPA and SAT score but got into Princeton. That's why this admissions game is a crapshoot at the very elite schools. Your DS had some great choices - which one did he pick of the three?

I’m surprised by these 2 posts above. I know a lot of high state Ivy legacies and literally no one could get their kid into Stanford unless a legit Olympic candidate. For Princeton we only see first gen/quest bridge getting in. Are these two sisters from a feeder private or applied to some unusual majors?

I was the poster with kids at Georgetown and Princeton and I missed this. I can only speculate on what happened here. DC at Georgetown applied for and got into the McDonough/business school while DD at Princeton applied for English major. Also, DC had very high stats and was, I think number 2 or 3 in the class, but the valedictorian that year (a brilliant kid) basically got into all of the Ivy plus schools so that may have reduced his odds. DD's class did not have as many go-getter, crazy-smart kids, so DD must have somehow managed to stick out. DD did not get into any other Ivy plus schools, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kid had 1580 SAT/36 ACT.
Salutatorian. Private HS in Texas. Basically maxed out GPA with 10 APs at 5.

Great ECs.

Denied at H,P,S
Accepted Vandy, Duke and Oxford.

This is crazy. Harvard, Princeton, Stanford is such a crap shoot even with these stats….so frustrating.
Where is you kid going between Vandy, Duke and Oxford?

None of this is crazy. This person could’ve gotten rejected more than a decade ago. Just having a good score isn’t unique- a lot of people have good scores with course rigor.

+1 Parents don't grasp this until their kid experiences it themselves. These schools are rejecting 95 out of every 100 applicants (it is actually probably more like rejecting 97/98 out 100 if you take out the spots that are essentially reserved for athletes, kids of donors/legacy and questbridge). Your outstanding kid is competing with literally thousands of other equally qualified students for a couple of spots.

Im the parent of the kid denied at H,P and S and accepted to Vandy, Duke and Oxford.
The frustrating part for him is that little sister just got in Stanford, same major, worst stats. 1550/35 top 3% but not salutatorian and quite frankly, worse ECs than her brother.

DS was rejected from all of the Ivy plus schools and ended up at Georgetown. His younger sister had a worse GPA and SAT score but got into Princeton. That's why this admissions game is a crapshoot at the very elite schools. Your DS had some great choices - which one did he pick of the three?

I’m surprised by these 2 posts above. I know a lot of high state Ivy legacies and literally no one could get their kid into Stanford unless a legit Olympic candidate. For Princeton we only see first gen/quest bridge getting in. Are these two sisters from a feeder private or applied to some unusual majors?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went through this for DS who had high stats and good EC's.

Outside of U Pitt and Ohio State we were not sure of any college. We knew he had a good shot, but we knew he could be shut out of every other college.

Ended up getting admitted to 2 of HYPSM, Rice, Duke, U Penn, CMU, U Mich, UVA and couple others.

Your DS got into all these from RD? Are you full pay and from a feeder private?

Different poster. My kids attend a "feeder private" and interestingly enough, I'd say that 95% of the Ivy-bound kids were only accepted to a single Ivy and most only accepted to a single top20 school.
I have a 2025 grad who is one of this cohort and she knew all the Ivy-bound kids well as they were generally in the same classes.
She knows a kid going to Harvard who was also accepted to Yale but that's about it in terms of multiple admits.
Why is this?
-more SCEA and ED admits and hooked admits
-less shot-gunning of schools--college counseling really discourages this especially for top kids because it will harm classmates' chances.
-college guidance will advocate or call for ONE school for top kids. They're not going to call Yale and Penn or even Yale and Northwestern for the same kid.

Most of the "I was accepted to 5 Ivies and 4 other top 20 schools' are all public school superstars.

That must be some serious steering from your high school. At some schools at least in the old time they'd rank the kids for each ivy/t20, and indicate that ranking somewhere either in the rec or a phone call. It's not about short gunning. I suspect the kids who short gunned still only get one or two because of the internal ranking by high school.
I thought most high schools had stopped ranking, even the privates? Ours guides my percentiles only though as senior year progresses it becomes clear which few kids are in the running for Valedictorian etc. and I suspect the school counselor recommendations are coded to disclose this type of information

There are ways to signal that information, I would think?
How exactly they do it which I don't know. But if they were to use recommendation letters, every kid would have at least two recommendation letters, one for the ivy their high school wants to send them to, and one for every other colleges.

Anonymous wrote:1550 is not considered high.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went through this for DS who had high stats and good EC's.

Outside of U Pitt and Ohio State we were not sure of any college. We knew he had a good shot, but we knew he could be shut out of every other college.

Ended up getting admitted to 2 of HYPSM, Rice, Duke, U Penn, CMU, U Mich, UVA and couple others.

Your DS got into all these from RD? Are you full pay and from a feeder private?

Different poster. My kids attend a "feeder private" and interestingly enough, I'd say that 95% of the Ivy-bound kids were only accepted to a single Ivy and most only accepted to a single top20 school.
I have a 2025 grad who is one of this cohort and she knew all the Ivy-bound kids well as they were generally in the same classes.
She knows a kid going to Harvard who was also accepted to Yale but that's about it in terms of multiple admits.
Why is this?
-more SCEA and ED admits and hooked admits
-less shot-gunning of schools--college counseling really discourages this especially for top kids because it will harm classmates' chances.
-college guidance will advocate or call for ONE school for top kids. They're not going to call Yale and Penn or even Yale and Northwestern for the same kid.

Most of the "I was accepted to 5 Ivies and 4 other top 20 schools' are all public school superstars.

That must be some serious steering from your high school. At some schools at least in the old time they'd rank the kids for each ivy/t20, and indicate that ranking somewhere either in the rec or a phone call. It's not about short gunning. I suspect the kids who short gunned still only get one or two because of the internal ranking by high school.
I thought most high schools had stopped ranking, even the privates? Ours guides my percentiles only though as senior year progresses it becomes clear which few kids are in the running for Valedictorian etc. and I suspect the school counselor recommendations are coded to disclose this type of information

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this for a reality check:

4.0 UW, 4.86 W
1560 SAT, 13 AP 8 5s, 5 4s (non-STEM), AP Calc BC 10th grade, through MVC and Linear algebra
4 year varsity athlete
national CS awards
part time job

Rejected: Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Brown
WL: Cornell, Northeastern, Case Western
Accepted: UMD, RIT, RPI

CS major
MCPS Magnet
At UMD on scholarship

Unbelievable that your kid had those stats and did not get into CMU/Cornell. CMU loooks for Math-y kids and Cornell loves student-athletes which is why I am surprised by your kid’s outcomes. Just shows that so much more goes into decisions — including institutional priorities — than just stats.

🤔 I think it shows what we hear all the time: once you have minimum stats based on your profile (geographic area, etc), the whole package comes into play. Kid def had the stats: perfect GPA, good testing, high rigor,

CS aWards are great.

But:

varsity athlete is essentially a tiny EC
+ part time job

Those were the listed ECs. That’s nothing. Leadership? Impact? The kid was denied most places bc ECs were very weak.

Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else. I do love how everyone likes to blame the kids versus a broken system that labels kids not meeting the Ivy/Ivy plus as some kind of failure. I only share this to help other understand the situation.

Huh? where did I ever say the kid was some kind of a failure for not meeting ivy or ivy plus standards. Once we take away the hooked kids, we are left with unhooked ones. First, the ones who don't have the minimum standards academically are largely eliminated. Next, the schools look for institutional priorities + what the kid will bring to their school to help their school community + what else rounds the kid out. While I do think there is a lot wrong with the system, this part is fair. Obviously, there has to be something that differentiates a kid who did what yours did academically but did very little EC-wise, from a kid who did what yours did academically and did a ton EC wise. This doesn't mean your kid is in any way a failure, but it does mean that your kid's profile is not one that would typically get into a highly selective school because the ECs are very, very mediocre. Other kids are handling rigorous course loads and also doing a ton of ECs. Do you not think those kids' profiles would be more appealing to an AO? Your kid is absolutely not a failure but your kid has a weak overall profile. Not sure how you could be on these boards and yet not know this.

Again you are assuming...

Clarify, please. What am I assuming based on what you've said.

You are assuming weak ECs based on listing a sample. Not putting every little detail about my kid out there.

Every one of these threads on stats degrades to this. High stats bad results must be something wrong. My point is nothing was wrong, there are tons of kids with a strong profile and not enough space for all of of them. I wish more people understood this so I share my kids story.

I'm assuming weak ECs based on exactly what YOU said. No one needs every little detail but when you said the kid was a varsity athlete + a part time employee as the only ECs and then you add, "Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else" it is clear the ECs were weak. You can add more...but YOU said there wasn't much time for ECs. So yeah, I didn't assume anything. While sometimes high stats + ECs + excellent apps still doesn't mean hoped-for results. In your kid's case, there was "something wrong" which was that his ECs were a big weak spot of the app (even if the ECs were more than the two you listed).

Was being sarcastic. There was leadership and school recognition in the 2 clubs.

I am not sure why I'm bothering but leadership and school recognition in 2 clubs is still very little EC-wise. You don't seem to want to hear this and don't like the kid getting "blame" but it is true. And I'm not blaming your kid...but a fair assessment of how you've presented this kid indicates this applicant would not be strong for highly competitive schools/programs.

IME, unless one is a recruited athlete or musically gifted, most of the stellar ECs are completely manufactured by parents or college prep companies.

I heard a former AO say this:
colleges are looking for external validation of talent, ability or intellect. That's what any "award", national anything, sports recognition, musical recognition etc. does. It gives them some sense for how special you are.
The more special, the better for T20.
And if it's random and rare and not something they see a lot, that's even better. To them it = passion. Which is after all, what they are hunting for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went through this for DS who had high stats and good EC's.

Outside of U Pitt and Ohio State we were not sure of any college. We knew he had a good shot, but we knew he could be shut out of every other college.

Ended up getting admitted to 2 of HYPSM, Rice, Duke, U Penn, CMU, U Mich, UVA and couple others.

Your DS got into all these from RD? Are you full pay and from a feeder private?

Different poster. My kids attend a "feeder private" and interestingly enough, I'd say that 95% of the Ivy-bound kids were only accepted to a single Ivy and most only accepted to a single top20 school.
I have a 2025 grad who is one of this cohort and she knew all the Ivy-bound kids well as they were generally in the same classes.
She knows a kid going to Harvard who was also accepted to Yale but that's about it in terms of multiple admits.
Why is this?
-more SCEA and ED admits and hooked admits
-less shot-gunning of schools--college counseling really discourages this especially for top kids because it will harm classmates' chances.
-college guidance will advocate or call for ONE school for top kids. They're not going to call Yale and Penn or even Yale and Northwestern for the same kid.

Most of the "I was accepted to 5 Ivies and 4 other top 20 schools' are all public school superstars.

That must be some serious steering from your high school. At some schools at least in the old time they'd rank the kids for each ivy/t20, and indicate that ranking somewhere either in the rec or a phone call. It's not about short gunning. I suspect the kids who short gunned still only get one or two because of the internal ranking by high school.
I thought most high schools had stopped ranking, even the privates? Ours guides my percentiles only though as senior year progresses it becomes clear which few kids are in the running for Valedictorian etc. and I suspect the school counselor recommendations are coded to disclose this type of information

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We went through this for DS who had high stats and good EC's.

Outside of U Pitt and Ohio State we were not sure of any college. We knew he had a good shot, but we knew he could be shut out of every other college.

Ended up getting admitted to 2 of HYPSM, Rice, Duke, U Penn, CMU, U Mich, UVA and couple others.

Your DS got into all these from RD? Are you full pay and from a feeder private?

Different poster. My kids attend a "feeder private" and interestingly enough, I'd say that 95% of the Ivy-bound kids were only accepted to a single Ivy and most only accepted to a single top20 school.
I have a 2025 grad who is one of this cohort and she knew all the Ivy-bound kids well as they were generally in the same classes.
She knows a kid going to Harvard who was also accepted to Yale but that's about it in terms of multiple admits.
Why is this?
-more SCEA and ED admits and hooked admits
-less shot-gunning of schools--college counseling really discourages this especially for top kids because it will harm classmates' chances.
-college guidance will advocate or call for ONE school for top kids. They're not going to call Yale and Penn or even Yale and Northwestern for the same kid.

Most of the "I was accepted to 5 Ivies and 4 other top 20 schools' are all public school superstars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this for a reality check:

4.0 UW, 4.86 W
1560 SAT, 13 AP 8 5s, 5 4s (non-STEM), AP Calc BC 10th grade, through MVC and Linear algebra
4 year varsity athlete
national CS awards
part time job

Rejected: Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Brown
WL: Cornell, Northeastern, Case Western
Accepted: UMD, RIT, RPI

CS major
MCPS Magnet
At UMD on scholarship

Unbelievable that your kid had those stats and did not get into CMU/Cornell. CMU loooks for Math-y kids and Cornell loves student-athletes which is why I am surprised by your kid’s outcomes. Just shows that so much more goes into decisions — including institutional priorities — than just stats.

🤔 I think it shows what we hear all the time: once you have minimum stats based on your profile (geographic area, etc), the whole package comes into play. Kid def had the stats: perfect GPA, good testing, high rigor,

CS aWards are great.

But:

varsity athlete is essentially a tiny EC
+ part time job

Those were the listed ECs. That’s nothing. Leadership? Impact? The kid was denied most places bc ECs were very weak.

Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else. I do love how everyone likes to blame the kids versus a broken system that labels kids not meeting the Ivy/Ivy plus as some kind of failure. I only share this to help other understand the situation.

Huh? where did I ever say the kid was some kind of a failure for not meeting ivy or ivy plus standards. Once we take away the hooked kids, we are left with unhooked ones. First, the ones who don't have the minimum standards academically are largely eliminated. Next, the schools look for institutional priorities + what the kid will bring to their school to help their school community + what else rounds the kid out. While I do think there is a lot wrong with the system, this part is fair. Obviously, there has to be something that differentiates a kid who did what yours did academically but did very little EC-wise, from a kid who did what yours did academically and did a ton EC wise. This doesn't mean your kid is in any way a failure, but it does mean that your kid's profile is not one that would typically get into a highly selective school because the ECs are very, very mediocre. Other kids are handling rigorous course loads and also doing a ton of ECs. Do you not think those kids' profiles would be more appealing to an AO? Your kid is absolutely not a failure but your kid has a weak overall profile. Not sure how you could be on these boards and yet not know this.

Again you are assuming...

Clarify, please. What am I assuming based on what you've said.

You are assuming weak ECs based on listing a sample. Not putting every little detail about my kid out there.

Every one of these threads on stats degrades to this. High stats bad results must be something wrong. My point is nothing was wrong, there are tons of kids with a strong profile and not enough space for all of of them. I wish more people understood this so I share my kids story.

I'm assuming weak ECs based on exactly what YOU said. No one needs every little detail but when you said the kid was a varsity athlete + a part time employee as the only ECs and then you add, "Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else" it is clear the ECs were weak. You can add more...but YOU said there wasn't much time for ECs. So yeah, I didn't assume anything. While sometimes high stats + ECs + excellent apps still doesn't mean hoped-for results. In your kid's case, there was "something wrong" which was that his ECs were a big weak spot of the app (even if the ECs were more than the two you listed).

Was being sarcastic. There was leadership and school recognition in the 2 clubs.

I am not sure why I'm bothering but leadership and school recognition in 2 clubs is still very little EC-wise. You don't seem to want to hear this and don't like the kid getting "blame" but it is true. And I'm not blaming your kid...but a fair assessment of how you've presented this kid indicates this applicant would not be strong for highly competitive schools/programs.

IME, unless one is a recruited athlete or musically gifted, most of the stellar ECs are completely manufactured by parents or college prep companies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this for a reality check:

4.0 UW, 4.86 W
1560 SAT, 13 AP 8 5s, 5 4s (non-STEM), AP Calc BC 10th grade, through MVC and Linear algebra
4 year varsity athlete
national CS awards
part time job

Rejected: Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Brown
WL: Cornell, Northeastern, Case Western
Accepted: UMD, RIT, RPI

CS major
MCPS Magnet
At UMD on scholarship

Unbelievable that your kid had those stats and did not get into CMU/Cornell. CMU loooks for Math-y kids and Cornell loves student-athletes which is why I am surprised by your kid’s outcomes. Just shows that so much more goes into decisions — including institutional priorities — than just stats.

🤔 I think it shows what we hear all the time: once you have minimum stats based on your profile (geographic area, etc), the whole package comes into play. Kid def had the stats: perfect GPA, good testing, high rigor,

CS aWards are great.

But:

varsity athlete is essentially a tiny EC
+ part time job

Those were the listed ECs. That’s nothing. Leadership? Impact? The kid was denied most places bc ECs were very weak.

Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else. I do love how everyone likes to blame the kids versus a broken system that labels kids not meeting the Ivy/Ivy plus as some kind of failure. I only share this to help other understand the situation.

Huh? where did I ever say the kid was some kind of a failure for not meeting ivy or ivy plus standards. Once we take away the hooked kids, we are left with unhooked ones. First, the ones who don't have the minimum standards academically are largely eliminated. Next, the schools look for institutional priorities + what the kid will bring to their school to help their school community + what else rounds the kid out. While I do think there is a lot wrong with the system, this part is fair. Obviously, there has to be something that differentiates a kid who did what yours did academically but did very little EC-wise, from a kid who did what yours did academically and did a ton EC wise. This doesn't mean your kid is in any way a failure, but it does mean that your kid's profile is not one that would typically get into a highly selective school because the ECs are very, very mediocre. Other kids are handling rigorous course loads and also doing a ton of ECs. Do you not think those kids' profiles would be more appealing to an AO? Your kid is absolutely not a failure but your kid has a weak overall profile. Not sure how you could be on these boards and yet not know this.

Again you are assuming...

Clarify, please. What am I assuming based on what you've said.

You are assuming weak ECs based on listing a sample. Not putting every little detail about my kid out there.

Every one of these threads on stats degrades to this. High stats bad results must be something wrong. My point is nothing was wrong, there are tons of kids with a strong profile and not enough space for all of of them. I wish more people understood this so I share my kids story.

I'm assuming weak ECs based on exactly what YOU said. No one needs every little detail but when you said the kid was a varsity athlete + a part time employee as the only ECs and then you add, "Just listed a few of the ECs but yes in between taking 8 classes including 5 AP at same time+college math class, practice for sports, and 2 clubs there was not enough time to do much else" it is clear the ECs were weak. You can add more...but YOU said there wasn't much time for ECs. So yeah, I didn't assume anything. While sometimes high stats + ECs + excellent apps still doesn't mean hoped-for results. In your kid's case, there was "something wrong" which was that his ECs were a big weak spot of the app (even if the ECs were more than the two you listed).

Was being sarcastic. There was leadership and school recognition in the 2 clubs.

I am not sure why I'm bothering but leadership and school recognition in 2 clubs is still very little EC-wise. You don't seem to want to hear this and don't like the kid getting "blame" but it is true. And I'm not blaming your kid...but a fair assessment of how you've presented this kid indicates this applicant would not be strong for highly competitive schools/programs.