I think I am describing something different. You can only list ten things anyway. I talking about my kid being advised to actually quit activities he loved and enjoyed (but for example wasn't a leader in) so he would have more time to invest in the things he excelled in and have a more impressive portfolio of activities in that particular area.

Anonymous wrote:My kid deliberately made a choice not to do this specialization. Because he enjoys and finds meaning in many things. Not all of them will lead to a T20 college admit but make him a happy person pursuing things he loves with people he enjoys being with. We had a college counselor meeting where they wanted him to quit some activities to double down on others and he declined to do so. He is "high stats" with some cool ECs but only got one T20 admit (and actually decided to attend a T40 instead). So I agree that specialization and a very focused passion is what top schools want but wonder if that is really a good approach for may high school students. Who wants to be curated at 16?

You don't need curation. In April/May of junior year, look at your activities. Keep doing what you love, but only highlight the 10 activities that are narrowly focused or related to that specialized interest or passion. So, for example, if the kid plays multiple sports, you get no benefit on the app for all of that. Just include the one with leadership. Same for random community service if it is not tied in.

Parents make this into a weirdly philosophical argument. It's not. Its not about "being curated at 16". Give it a rest.

It's like interviewing for a job. Do you tell them everything about yourself? No! you highlight the aspects of your skills and experience that align with the job description to better sell yourself to the employer and show how you will add immediate value.
Exact same thing here.

My kid deliberately made a choice not to do this specialization. Because he enjoys and finds meaning in many things. Not all of them will lead to a T20 college admit but make him a happy person pursuing things he loves with people he enjoys being with. We had a college counselor meeting where they wanted him to quit some activities to double down on others and he declined to do so. He is "high stats" with some cool ECs but only got one T20 admit (and actually decided to attend a T40 instead). So I agree that specialization and a very focused passion is what top schools want but wonder if that is really a good approach for may high school students. Who wants to be curated at 16?

Anonymous wrote:The post is now deleted but I read it. No he didn’t get screwed. He is going to UCLA. His list was a prestige list, and didn’t have any real targets or safeties. And he didn’t ED 1 or 2 anywhere.

This is what happens when you apply to all Reach schools. Really simple to understand but many do not

Anonymous wrote:They applied to 21 schools!!! I’d guess every top 20% kid did close to the same, which means the odds are fully and completely against you. 55,000 applicants for 1,800 spots and they are surprised by their admission results. 🙄

Yes, applicant, you truly overestimated the strength of your application.

Yes for seemingly "very smart students" they don't seem to grasp simple stats. That is the acceptance rate is only single digits, that means the rejection rate is 90%+. And no, "they are not special" 85%+ of the applicant probably meet the "academic criteria", and then they move onto the rest of the application, where once again, everyone has great ECs and good essays.
SO you should not be shocked to learn you can do all that and still get rejected at all the T25 schools you apply to. Mathematically, it's the most logical result.

So if you get into a few, that is a great result

Anonymous wrote:There may be thousands of kids with great raw material for selective college admissions, but they don’t have parents who are in a position to spend time and money financing, curating and packaging that raw material. Even where parents don’t set out to cultivate and curate, there are other things at work in UC and UMC circles- peer pressure, messaging from parents and teachers, wanting to participate in certain activities to be with their peers, and exposure to adults who have attended certain kinds of schools and have had the luxury of certain kinds of experiences (hobbies, travel, volunteer work)

In looking at things on the Reddit forums it looks like some kids think bigger is better. The more they do the better it is. That’s the exact wrong strategy.

They are looking for specialists who do one thing and one thing extraordinarily well. Who know they who they will be once they get on campus and don’t need to waste time trying to figure it out.

Even better if that specialized one thing is something very few other people have articulated.

There may be thousands of kids with great raw material for selective college admissions, but they don’t have parents who are in a position to spend time and money financing, curating and packaging that raw material. Even where parents don’t set out to cultivate and curate, there are other things at work in UC and UMC circles- peer pressure, messaging from parents and teachers, wanting to participate in certain activities to be with their peers, and exposure to adults who have attended certain kinds of schools and have had the luxury of certain kinds of experiences (hobbies, travel, volunteer work)

This Reddit post is great for seeing comparable stats.

https://www.reddit.com/r/collegeresults/s/NTIhhe67uT

No

Too many students competing for very few spots. Be happy with lower ranked colleges.

Anonymous wrote:Why is any of this of import?

Every admissions cycle thousands of students get rejected from Ivies, top 20's, top 50's.

You can be rejected from UCLA and accepted to Harvard. Accepted to Emory and rejected from Va Tech.

That's why you apply to safeties.

If you read the original post, it’s because this kid had a lot to work with and maybe squandered it in the application process.

Why is any of this of import?

Every admissions cycle thousands of students get rejected from Ivies, top 20's, top 50's.

You can be rejected from UCLA and accepted to Harvard. Accepted to Emory and rejected from Va Tech.

That's why you apply to safeties.

I read the original post. There seem to be so many students like this one. I didn't see anything that jumped out. Maybe the essay was boring. Who knows? It's kind of a crapshoot at these top schools anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't bother applying to a T10 (T25) unless you are top 10% (20%) of your class

unless you are:
A recruited athlete
URM or First Gen
Dean's special priority (celebrity kid, donor's kid, or VIP)

Legacy doesn't matter unless you have the stats and AOs are bored to death with your dorky ECs or ho-hum leadership positions.

Private schools don’t rank. If you look at the scattergram, the ones who are accepted are in a range broad enough to cover a lot of students. They also don’t weigh. So two 3.8 are not the same in terms of rigor. Your CCO is the one who can best advise you where to apply.

Agree.
Two private (non-DMV) kids.
Older (3.8uw/34 normalish ECs and one long term personal/ unique project) at Ivy. Lots of rejections and WL. Male stem major.

Current female senior (3.84uw/TO; exceptionally ECs and national award/ranking in sport - tied to humanities major in project) in at one T10; 3 T20; 2 T10 SLAC; WL at 1 Ivy. Only rejected at Stanford. Did not shotgun and picked RD list strategically.