Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, OP. There definitely is a sweet spot in terms of admissibility to most schools. A 3.8 (unweighted), 3-5 APs, and a 30/1300 will get you into the majority of schools out there, and there is a lot less pressure on these kids to get into a top 20 school (which is a crapshoot no matter what your stats are).

This is the correct take. High-stats kids don’t inherit those stats like a trust fund. They work for them. The work is stressful and often requires the kids to forego most of the stuff that makes life worth living. Then they spend senior year wondering if all that sacrifice was worth it.

If you’re already a senior, it’s better to be high-stats. If you’re in 8th grade, the question is whether it’s worth the effort to accumulate them. And I increasingly think that, if you can be the 3.8/1300 kid while maintaining a normal sleep schedule and happy life, it is actually unwise to shoot for the higher stats.

The 3.8/1300 kid is still 90th percentile. Impressive.

OP, I agree and get what you are saying. I have a high, but not high enough stat kid and it's been grueling process.

Just spoke with a friend whose kid who applied early to a lower-ranked school and got in. He knew where he stood in the process and didn't try to aim higher. I think this was the perfect way to go. He's happy, parents happy. Meanwhile, we have a miserable kid.

Yield protection is real though for 1550+ Kids

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, OP. There definitely is a sweet spot in terms of admissibility to most schools. A 3.8 (unweighted), 3-5 APs, and a 30/1300 will get you into the majority of schools out there, and there is a lot less pressure on these kids to get into a top 20 school (which is a crapshoot no matter what your stats are).

This is the correct take. High-stats kids don’t inherit those stats like a trust fund. They work for them. The work is stressful and often requires the kids to forego most of the stuff that makes life worth living. Then they spend senior year wondering if all that sacrifice was worth it.

If you’re already a senior, it’s better to be high-stats. If you’re in 8th grade, the question is whether it’s worth the effort to accumulate them. And I increasingly think that, if you can be the 3.8/1300 kid while maintaining a normal sleep schedule and happy life, it is actually unwise to shoot for the higher stats.

Life doesn't end at the end of high school.

In fact, life doesn't end in college.

Same ole' hand-wringing and angst-ridden posts every years. You can buy a tropical vacation, unique summer internships, infinite SAT prep sessions.....but you can't simply buy your way into T10 schools. The rest of us know this and aren't whining about it. Deal. With. It.

Anonymous wrote:I agree, OP. There definitely is a sweet spot in terms of admissibility to most schools. A 3.8 (unweighted), 3-5 APs, and a 30/1300 will get you into the majority of schools out there, and there is a lot less pressure on these kids to get into a top 20 school (which is a crapshoot no matter what your stats are).

This is the correct take. High-stats kids don’t inherit those stats like a trust fund. They work for them. The work is stressful and often requires the kids to forego most of the stuff that makes life worth living. Then they spend senior year wondering if all that sacrifice was worth it.

If you’re already a senior, it’s better to be high-stats. If you’re in 8th grade, the question is whether it’s worth the effort to accumulate them. And I increasingly think that, if you can be the 3.8/1300 kid while maintaining a normal sleep schedule and happy life, it is actually unwise to shoot for the higher stats.

Most "average kids" and parents of "average kids" are more realistic about college aspirations and top tier attainment.

The superior kids and parents of thought-to-be-superior kids suffer from the delusion that a top tier college is the holy grail and sole path to greatness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the piece of OP’s post that people are ignoring is that kids with very high stats are not getting into schools that you would expect they would because of yield protection. Schools assume the stats are high, the kid will have other options, so the kid does not get into the school where they are at or above the 75% level. Meanwhile, the same kid is also rejected from all the “lottery” schools, so is left with few options. A different kid with stats at the 50% level for the school May actually be in a better position, because the school won’t yield protect that kid. With respect to that point, OP makes sense.

I think the “yield protection” happens because the kids do not demonstrate interest to the schools and probably write supplemental essays that are wel because they aren’t really interested. It’s just a safety. I have a high stats kid that got into the more “safety” LACs because they picked all schools where they felt they could be happy and showed the same love to the safeties as the reaches.

+10000

I am so tired of people griping about the "highest stats" kids at my kids school being "yield protected" because they were deferred at their "safeties". Do you know what their safeties were? University of Michigan, Northeastern, UVA. These schools are extremely difficult to get into (acceptance <20 percent last year and probably much lower this year) and these kids treated the schools like safeties--did not visit, did not attend the sessions when the regional reps came to the school, etc. Now they are pissed off because other kids--who are also high achievers but "lower ranked" got in. However, these kids showed put in the time to learn about the school and demonstrated that they actually want to go there.

I hate a lot of the factors that colleges use in admissions (athletics, legacy in particular) and everyone should realize that there is a lot of randomness in who ultimately gets in. But the fact that colleges care that kids demonstrate interest? That is 100 percent appropriate.

think the piece of OP’s post that people are ignoring is that kids with very high stats are not getting into schools that you would expect they would because of yield protection. Schools assume the stats are high, the kid will have other options, so the kid does not get into the school where they are at or above the 75% level. Meanwhile, the same kid is also rejected from all the “lottery” schools, so is left with few options. A different kid with stats at the 50% level for the school May actually be in a better position, because the school won’t yield protect that kid. With respect to that point, OP makes sense.


Are these students engaging with these schools at all? My kid engaged a number of times with regional recruiters; attended local meetings with recruiters; set up a tour that included meeting with the pertinent academic department. He did that for his top two choices. And it worked.

Did this work even at schools who publicly state that they do not track interest? My kid is looking at some SLACs that say demonstrated interest is not a factor- he gets emails, we are visiting campuses, but I thought that these schools don’t care about that (because they said they don’t).

Anonymous wrote:Think about how lucky the bellow average kids are though.

Especially if they are paupers

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I tend to agree - 30 ACT and in to 10 schools

Again, a 30 ACT is 93rd percentile. Average ACT is 21. Why does everyone on here seem to think everyone gets 33+? It’s just not mathematically possible.

They think that because those kids do not matter to them.

Anonymous wrote:Average income people have it so much easier than high income. I mean, high income have to hire accountants to shield their taxes and wealth managers to help them beat the markets. It takes a lot to manage both a winter home AND a summer home. Have some sympathy. Average income people don’t have these kinds of problems.

Another shout-out for this comment!

I agree, OP. There definitely is a sweet spot in terms of admissibility to most schools. A 3.8 (unweighted), 3-5 APs, and a 30/1300 will get you into the majority of schools out there, and there is a lot less pressure on these kids to get into a top 20 school (which is a crapshoot no matter what your stats are).

Anonymous wrote:I think the piece of OP’s post that people are ignoring is that kids with very high stats are not getting into schools that you would expect they would because of yield protection. Schools assume the stats are high, the kid will have other options, so the kid does not get into the school where they are at or above the 75% level. Meanwhile, the same kid is also rejected from all the “lottery” schools, so is left with few options. A different kid with stats at the 50% level for the school May actually be in a better position, because the school won’t yield protect that kid. With respect to that point, OP makes sense.

AOs at 2nd tier schools are not assuming high stats kids are getting in elsewhere so they skip over them for “yield protection”. They are looking for evidence that a high stat kid actually wants to attend the school and would be a good fit there. Just because their average is lower doesn’t mean they don’t admit high stat kids (who then go on to attend).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, please. OP, all you are doing is showing how you didn’t understand the process and thought your DC was somehow extra special and high stats meant they were more deserving of top slots than other equally qualified kids. This has always been a numbers game. There are far more top stat kids than T20 spaces. You needs to manage expectations and be more strategic about applications. I’ve had two top stat kids (1550+ SAT, 4.5+ WGPA, ECs) get into top schools - one with only 6 applications (accepted at all 6, one T20), one with 7 (accepted 5 (3 T10), 2 waitlist, 1 reject). They both did EA and RD. They both really identified schools that were a good fit for them and that they brought something to. There was a strategy about rolling decision, then EA and then RD priorities. EA included actual targets (hello best fir state school.) EA admits meant many schools dropped off the RD list. If you have a good strategy and realistic expectations, your top stats kid doesn’t need to be stressed all year.

So the OP does not get that there are "not enough spots" and to illustrate that you share that your kids both got into top schools? In fact, most of all the top schools they applied to? Talk about tone deaf.

Reading comprehension? I’m not trying to empathize with OP. I’m providing counter evidence. My kids didn’t apply to 20+ schools “because it’s so random!!!” Kid #1 applied to one well selected T20 school and was accepted (and chose state school, BTW). Kid #2 applied to 5 T20, accepted at three, chose one. The rest of the applications were well chosen matches they were all accepted at, which OP claims they would be denied from due to yield protection.