Anonymous wrote:That kids who attend any school less than a T20 are bound to be jobless.

My kid attends an OOS flagship that is probably T40-60 and is currently doing a paid internship abroad doing research alongside PhDs and postdocs at a lab.

+1 I wonder who these people are who believe this. Do they really think all the professionals they interact with, all their UMC neighbors, coworkers, etc. went to the same small set of schools?

My kid at a non-flagship public U had a great internship last summer that resulted in a good-paying data scientist job for after graduation. My kid at a mid-range LAC has had summer jobs in her field each year and is also building her resume through experience she's getting on campus.

I'm not surprised since DH and I have done well in our careers with our low/mid ranked public university degrees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That your kid's top stats (grades, rigor, and scores) will be reconsidered by the committee as part of the AO committee's holistic review; and that those top-tier stats will add a bump to your kid's application.

[reality - the grades/rigor/scores get you to the room, then are never looked at again. It's about everything else]

My understanding has always been that your stats can get you put in a different stack for consideration with different standards. For example, stats above 75% may put you in a pile where 2/3 of those in the stack get offers, while stats below 25% may mean that only 1/20 in that pile get offers (so you'd need some extraordinary factor). Those with hooks end up sorted into different stacks entirely.

Back in the day these were literal stacks. Now they're figurative because everything is virtual.

Nope. Definitely not.

It’s based on a point system. For example, at Harvard to 33 and a 36 get you the same point. So I want you to extrapolate and think how different these stacks really are. The biggest points actually come in the other categories. You would do best to familiarize yourself with how these things are scored in the modern era.

I don’t agree with this, at the two privates my kids attend, admissions closely follow class rank and test scores. If a kid is top stats but really weak ecs, then they might not do as well as other kids with same stats, but it is very correlated with stats. They don’t officially rank, but clearly elite schools know how to read transcripts and the named awards.

I had to check if I wrote this (I did not) because it's exactly our experience at 2 different privates.

Coming from these privates, admissions correlate exactly with stats, not extracurriculars.

At our private a tier 1 EC (Olympian, actor with some public acclaim, or even national championship in your sport) will allow your kid to jump the stats.
That’s it.

Anonymous wrote:There are a lot of posts about how different schools are looking for different things, and how the rankings don’t indicate much.

I have twins who are high school seniors and each applied to a bunch of schools. You could draw a line in the us news rankings for each of them and they were rejected above that line, waitlisted at the line and accepted below that line. One of my kids was waitlisted at two schools who are tied on the us news reports rankings.

Public or private HS?
Any special or unique ECs or awards?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That your kid's top stats (grades, rigor, and scores) will be reconsidered by the committee as part of the AO committee's holistic review; and that those top-tier stats will add a bump to your kid's application.

[reality - the grades/rigor/scores get you to the room, then are never looked at again. It's about everything else]

My understanding has always been that your stats can get you put in a different stack for consideration with different standards. For example, stats above 75% may put you in a pile where 2/3 of those in the stack get offers, while stats below 25% may mean that only 1/20 in that pile get offers (so you'd need some extraordinary factor). Those with hooks end up sorted into different stacks entirely.

Back in the day these were literal stacks. Now they're figurative because everything is virtual.

Nope. Definitely not.

It’s based on a point system. For example, at Harvard to 33 and a 36 get you the same point. So I want you to extrapolate and think how different these stacks really are. The biggest points actually come in the other categories. You would do best to familiarize yourself with how these things are scored in the modern era.

I don’t agree with this, at the two privates my kids attend, admissions closely follow class rank and test scores. If a kid is top stats but really weak ecs, then they might not do as well as other kids with same stats, but it is very correlated with stats. They don’t officially rank, but clearly elite schools know how to read transcripts and the named awards.

I had to check if I wrote this (I did not) because it's exactly our experience at 2 different privates.

Coming from these privates, admissions correlate exactly with stats, not extracurriculars.

There are a lot of posts about how different schools are looking for different things, and how the rankings don’t indicate much.

I have twins who are high school seniors and each applied to a bunch of schools. You could draw a line in the us news rankings for each of them and they were rejected above that line, waitlisted at the line and accepted below that line. One of my kids was waitlisted at two schools who are tied on the us news reports rankings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That your kid's top stats (grades, rigor, and scores) will be reconsidered by the committee as part of the AO committee's holistic review; and that those top-tier stats will add a bump to your kid's application.

[reality - the grades/rigor/scores get you to the room, then are never looked at again. It's about everything else]

My understanding has always been that your stats can get you put in a different stack for consideration with different standards. For example, stats above 75% may put you in a pile where 2/3 of those in the stack get offers, while stats below 25% may mean that only 1/20 in that pile get offers (so you'd need some extraordinary factor). Those with hooks end up sorted into different stacks entirely.

Back in the day these were literal stacks. Now they're figurative because everything is virtual.

Nope. Definitely not.

It’s based on a point system. For example, at Harvard to 33 and a 36 get you the same point. So I want you to extrapolate and think how different these stacks really are. The biggest points actually come in the other categories. You would do best to familiarize yourself with how these things are scored in the modern era.

DP. You sound like an incredibly tiresome know-it-all.

Anonymous wrote:The dumbest myth perpetuated on this board (by loser parents of kids who didn't get in) is that the University of Richmond is not an elite school.

Who's going to tell him/her...

Myth: unless a school is Top 40-50, national reputation doesn’t matter.

Reality: A cozy, high admit rate SLAC may deliver a better college experience, but attending a college people have heard of, even if it’s not in league with Stanford or Michigan or even NYU, is almost always a better bet for lifelong employment prospects.

Myth - Georgetown looks at every SAT/ACT score so therefore if you have one good score and a few bad scores, you are out.
Wrong. They ignored two lackluster scores in our case, which is actually what they said they will do. They said they only use these additional scores to your advantage.

Should you take the SAT 5+ times? No. But a few bad scores won't hurt you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That your kid's top stats (grades, rigor, and scores) will be reconsidered by the committee as part of the AO committee's holistic review; and that those top-tier stats will add a bump to your kid's application.

[reality - the grades/rigor/scores get you to the room, then are never looked at again. It's about everything else]

+100

And the corollary myth is that an absolutely fantastic experience/award can compensate. No, you have to get in the room first. Period.

Anonymous wrote:that northeastern gamed the system for rankings

If not for rankings, for what?

Anonymous wrote:What is an outdated stereotype or a false narrative that is prevalent online about a college your kid attends? I personally think this exists a lot, places like A2C are an echo chamber of bad info sometimes that then gets shared like it’s gospel.

A2C is an echo chamber of bad info? Ummm

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That your kid's top stats (grades, rigor, and scores) will be reconsidered by the committee as part of the AO committee's holistic review; and that those top-tier stats will add a bump to your kid's application.

[reality - the grades/rigor/scores get you to the room, then are never looked at again. It's about everything else]

My understanding has always been that your stats can get you put in a different stack for consideration with different standards. For example, stats above 75% may put you in a pile where 2/3 of those in the stack get offers, while stats below 25% may mean that only 1/20 in that pile get offers (so you'd need some extraordinary factor). Those with hooks end up sorted into different stacks entirely.

Back in the day these were literal stacks. Now they're figurative because everything is virtual.

Nope. Definitely not.

It’s based on a point system. For example, at Harvard to 33 and a 36 get you the same point. So I want you to extrapolate and think how different these stacks really are. The biggest points actually come in the other categories. You would do best to familiarize yourself with how these things are scored in the modern era.

I don’t agree with this, at the two privates my kids attend, admissions closely follow class rank and test scores. If a kid is top stats but really weak ecs, then they might not do as well as other kids with same stats, but it is very correlated with stats. They don’t officially rank, but clearly elite schools know how to read transcripts and the named awards.

A common issue is when people assume Acceptance Rate is the same as selectivity. A school with a high Acceptance Rate can be more "selective" than a school with a low Acceptance Rate.

Another common mistake is to mix Accepted Freshmen statistics with Enrolled Freshmen statistics. The latter is usually more meaningful.

UVA is superior to W&M, or vice versa. They are both GREAT schools and those admitted have similar stats, but completely different vibes.