Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No. Last year’s admissions process was a sh!tshow. My son was WL at one of his target schools and rejected from from another target school. He got in at two safeties and received merit from both; he is very happy where he landed and it really is a good fit.
I think the lesson is not that last year was a "sh!show" but maybe rather that people aren't accurately assessing targets vs. safeties.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No. Last year’s admissions process was a sh!tshow. My son was WL at one of his target schools and rejected from from another target school. He got in at two safeties and received merit from both; he is very happy where he landed and it really is a good fit.
I think the lesson is not that last year was a "sh!show" but maybe rather that people aren't accurately assessing targets vs. safeties.
Anonymous wrote:No. Last year’s admissions process was a sh!tshow. My son was WL at one of his target schools and rejected from from another target school. He got in at two safeties and received merit from both; he is very happy where he landed and it really is a good fit.
Anonymous wrote:No. Last year’s admissions process was a sh!tshow. My son was WL at one of his target schools and rejected from from another target school. He got in at two safeties and received merit from both; he is very happy where he landed and it really is a good fit.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DS got into a school that we labeled a reach. Strategy played a big role in this I think.
So...what was the strategy?
I meant approaching college admissions like the game it is with a strategy suited to your kid and situation. For us, our DS22 was very high stats but otherwise unhooked. We were full pay. His top goal was admission to a top 20 school that was a good fit. Our strategy was studying the admissions data from a handful of colleges to see where a good ED candidate was. He chose one of those where the data (both Naviance and the school’s) showed that his school admitted kids like him, similar stats and unhooked-ness. The data isn’t perfect but by triangulating it and backing out known factors, the data isn’t that bad. The strategy worked, though I imagine it could easily could have failed too. We did our best educated guessing and he played his cards.
Full pay is a hook.
So I was right. ED was the “strategy.” Plus full pay was a hook.
Is full pay a hook only if you indicate that you are not seeking financial aid? Or is it based on the college’s determination that you are full pay?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DS got into a school that we labeled a reach. Strategy played a big role in this I think.
So...what was the strategy?
I meant approaching college admissions like the game it is with a strategy suited to your kid and situation. For us, our DS22 was very high stats but otherwise unhooked. We were full pay. His top goal was admission to a top 20 school that was a good fit. Our strategy was studying the admissions data from a handful of colleges to see where a good ED candidate was. He chose one of those where the data (both Naviance and the school’s) showed that his school admitted kids like him, similar stats and unhooked-ness. The data isn’t perfect but by triangulating it and backing out known factors, the data isn’t that bad. The strategy worked, though I imagine it could easily could have failed too. We did our best educated guessing and he played his cards.
Full pay is a hook.
So I was right. ED was the “strategy.” Plus full pay was a hook.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DS got into a school that we labeled a reach. Strategy played a big role in this I think.
So...what was the strategy?
I meant approaching college admissions like the game it is with a strategy suited to your kid and situation. For us, our DS22 was very high stats but otherwise unhooked. We were full pay. His top goal was admission to a top 20 school that was a good fit. Our strategy was studying the admissions data from a handful of colleges to see where a good ED candidate was. He chose one of those where the data (both Naviance and the school’s) showed that his school admitted kids like him, similar stats and unhooked-ness. The data isn’t perfect but by triangulating it and backing out known factors, the data isn’t that bad. The strategy worked, though I imagine it could easily could have failed too. We did our best educated guessing and he played his cards.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DS got into a school that we labeled a reach. Strategy played a big role in this I think.
So...what was the strategy?
Maybe labeling it a reach, even though another person looking at exactly the same child might have labeled it a match