Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP here- my DC applied to Pitt(accepted with 40k merit), UMBC (accepted with 36k merit), Fordham (accepted), case western, VA tech and UMD. My DC did not want a very competitive school environment. But I feel maybe should have pushed him to aim slightly higher
It's a nice list for a STEM major. If he is applying for CS or engineering I wouldn't aim any higher, but maybe if biology or something else. I see no need to apply anywhere else, what is he looking for that you don't see in this list of colleges?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DC with an ACT of 33 (generally considered to be in the 1460-1490 SAT range) and 3.9UW/4.5W rejected ED from SLAC (think "elite" but not "uber elite" SLAC).
Oh no! So hard to know what is diff between elite/uber elite now. Feel like anything below 20% is uber elite, but even sub 25% is still quite tough. DC's college counselor said that any school with admit rates that dropped below 20% last year, especially if single digits, does not want that rate to creep back up in subsequent cycles. Our DC had a 34 with slightly lower GPA (no APs offered at school so no weighting) - got in ED @ a very competitive SLAC, but off the beaten track.
What school?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DC with an ACT of 33 (generally considered to be in the 1460-1490 SAT range) and 3.9UW/4.5W rejected ED from SLAC (think "elite" but not "uber elite" SLAC).
Oh no! So hard to know what is diff between elite/uber elite now. Feel like anything below 20% is uber elite, but even sub 25% is still quite tough. DC's college counselor said that any school with admit rates that dropped below 20% last year, especially if single digits, does not want that rate to creep back up in subsequent cycles. Our DC had a 34 with slightly lower GPA (no APs offered at school so no weighting) - got in ED @ a very competitive SLAC, but off the beaten track.
Anonymous wrote:Name the school, the major, demographics (Gender, race, SES), hook. Otherwise it is all worthless.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why do posters have to be so coy about naming schools. Every school that gets batted around on threads like these gets many applicants from many DMV schools -- private and public. There's no danger that you'll out yourself, and naming the school is much more helpful.
Yeah, well, I'd rather protect DC's privacy (and provide some limited help) than overshare and risk someone IDing my kid (or even worse becoming convinced my kid is someone else's kid)....and there is not really a need for more specificity. Knowing that this school was in the same league as Davidson and that my kid was denied with the stats I listed is really every bit as helpful as knowing the specific school. The point is, for this category of highly selective SLACs, these stats aren't a guarantee of ED admission.
You're certainly free to withhold the name the school but to assume that "the same league as Davidson" is helpful to me, is wrong.
Not the prior poster but it's not that hard...figure "in the league" is a SLAC ranked somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-20 on USNews...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why do posters have to be so coy about naming schools. Every school that gets batted around on threads like these gets many applicants from many DMV schools -- private and public. There's no danger that you'll out yourself, and naming the school is much more helpful.
Yeah, well, I'd rather protect DC's privacy (and provide some limited help) than overshare and risk someone IDing my kid (or even worse becoming convinced my kid is someone else's kid)....and there is not really a need for more specificity. Knowing that this school was in the same league as Davidson and that my kid was denied with the stats I listed is really every bit as helpful as knowing the specific school. The point is, for this category of highly selective SLACs, these stats aren't a guarantee of ED admission.
You're certainly free to withhold the name the school but to assume that "the same league as Davidson" is helpful to me, is wrong.