OP— I have a kid at TJ.

The bad news. The kids getting into Stanford aren’t just impressive for this area or the smartest kid in your neighborhood. They have demonstrated world class talent. The National chess champion. US international traveling math, bio, chem or physics olympics team. The Intel and Siemens finalists. The National student journalist of the year. These are the kids getting offers. Not NMSFs, 99th % SATs, great grades, student body President. If your kid isn’t nationally or internationally recognized in something impressive, a URM/first Gen, an elite athlete, or donating a building, I she should still apply, but I would not let her get her hopes up. Because with 5% admissions rate, URMS, athletes and legacies filling sports, and all the applicants being impressive, the odds are bad.

Better news: Berkley might be doable for a kid who is just bright, and hardworking with excellent SATs and not also a superhero on the side. If she’s interested in CA, maybe one of the Claremont colleges, depending on what she wants to study? One of them is all female, but they share a co-ed campus. Occidental also seems to be getting a lot of buzz right now.

Even better news: I know two kids who were bright, hard working, and talented, but not superhuman that are at Stanford right now in grad school—one from Case Western and one from Northwestern. And when push comes to shove, your terminal degree is the one people care about. I know your DD has worked so hard, and given 100% and wants Stanford for undergrad. And she could probably do well there.

But help her manage expectations and look at the big picture. Stanford (and Berkley and the Ivys) will still be there in 4 years. She’s clearly capable of doing great things in college. And if she does, she will have a realistic shot at her dream school for grad school.

NP - just want to chime in to note that the PP who said the game is played at the ED, EA, SCEA point of time and not at RD is spot on. DS tried for SCEA at an Ivy but was deferred but got in EA where EA applications were allowed. All of his EAs. And his friends got into all of their EAs, as well. DS did not get into a single of his RDs (granted, all lottery schools) but the same happened to all of his friends. My DD had the same experience. So I would advise frontloading as much as possible, which might mean foregoing an ED or SCEA in favor of a wider EA sweep. Also, throw in an early rolling application just to get one acceptance in early on - it helps the student relax and gain perspective that this is all one big game of craps.

Anonymous wrote:Stanford has a slightly higher freshman retention rate (98%) than the other California schools in the top 25 (CalTech 97% Cal, USC, UCLA all 96%), but even 96% is very strong and no need concern. As others have noted, Stanford (~7K) has a far smaller undergrad population (USC~18K, Cal & UCLA ~30K)

Harvey Mudd and Pomona also have 98% retention rates and I would put them right in line with the other top 25 universities. Much smaller, though, but for a student desiring a Stanford like experience with a diversity of strong programs and bright undergraduates, the Claremont Colleges collectively are a good and less selective alternative.

Stanford has a slightly higher freshman retention rate (98%) than the other California schools in the top 25 (CalTech 97% Cal, USC, UCLA all 96%), but even 96% is very strong and no need concern. As others have noted, Stanford (~7K) has a far smaller undergrad population (USC~18K, Cal & UCLA ~30K)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD - 1550 SAT, Top 2% of class (in the top 10 students) at a well regarded public high school. Not full pay. 4.0 UW, not sure of Waited but I want to say 4.6 or 4.7.

It wasn't pretty. We had a wide range but we did apply to a couple of top schools.

Denied at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Wellesley.

Wait-listed at Middlebury, Rice, and Barnard.

Accepted with lots of merit aid at Tulane, Fordham, Lafayette and some decent publics.

Accepted with No Merit at U Richmond, W&L.

I do think being a female hurt her especially at the SLACs. I would very much caution expectation setting.

Wow, I think this post may suggest how strong an advantage full pay private school kids have in college admissions. Haven’t seen outcomes like this at DC’s Big 3.

No, my full pay, private kid with similar stats had roughly similar outcomes, except that she knew better than to even try at ivies.

At a DC Big 3 school?

Not pp. but similar stats and results for my dc from a “big 3”. And while I am not privy to all details seemed like it was a disappointing year for many 2022 applicants from dc’s school. Very different in comparison to 2020 and earlier kids.

^^Right. I should have said SCEA makes almost no difference for an unhooked kid. For that group, it's not a school like Northwestern where being strategic with the ED card can make a big difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD - 1550 SAT, Top 2% of class (in the top 10 students) at a well regarded public high school. Not full pay. 4.0 UW, not sure of Waited but I want to say 4.6 or 4.7.

It wasn't pretty. We had a wide range but we did apply to a couple of top schools.

Denied at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Wellesley.

Wait-listed at Middlebury, Rice, and Barnard.

Accepted with lots of merit aid at Tulane, Fordham, Lafayette and some decent publics.

Accepted with No Merit at U Richmond, W&L.

I do think being a female hurt her especially at the SLACs. I would very much caution expectation setting.

Wow, I think this post may suggest how strong an advantage full pay private school kids have in college admissions. Haven’t seen outcomes like this at DC’s Big 3.

No, my full pay, private kid with similar stats had roughly similar outcomes, except that she knew better than to even try at ivies.

geez. reading that...why even try now.

Curious, was dc pushed to achieve those stats? Have you hired private tutors, send kids to summer learning camps, etc...?

My question for the PP who shared these results is whether any of her applications were ED, or all were RD.

ED is becoming an essential strategy if you want to crack the top schools. Which is unfortunately IMO, but that seems to be the state of play.

PP - no ED as we are not full pay. EA where applicable. Again, this is not sour grapes as college's are businesses but I do believe full pay is a hook and if you are able to apply ED you are less concerned about comparing financial aid packages. We needed to be able to compare offers. Some were generous - some not so much. Having gone through this the year before with my DS I know my DD did not get the same offers from the SLACs. My DS had good, not great, stats and his offers were stronger - now that said he was denied from quite a few schools that accepted my DD but for those that accepted both he got better offers. So my take is that it's not easy on the high stat females.

Agree - ability to apply ED is a hook, and it's a powerful. So is being a recruitable athlete or a standout or accomplished scientist

To go back to OP's question, if her child is unhooked, or not willing to apply ED, prepare her for rejection from Stanford. The chances are infintesimal.

ED (SCEA) will make virtually no difference in your odds at Stanford. There is no reason whatsoever for OPs kid not to apply, and maybe her ECs will do the trick. But everyone applying there should be prepared for disappointment.

ED doubles chances of admission to Stanford, but the odds are still overwhelmingly low. Hooks will be the majority of early admits.
https://www.toptieradmissions.com/resources/college-admissions-statistics/stanford-acceptance-rates/

Regarding the top colleges, DD's college counselor explained to me that most of those schools are 'lottery' schools. Stats won't get you in.

Still DD, self-motivated and really smart, is going to apply to 3 or 4. NU ED.

One of the reasons I hired the counselor was to get some help scouring the country for the best colleges for DD. She is going to apply to 15 colleges. Seems excessive I know but with it all being digital and as she is willing to do the work why not.

She is currently taking a 2 week seminar at NU. We are hopeful that could help her. But who knows?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD - 1550 SAT, Top 2% of class (in the top 10 students) at a well regarded public high school. Not full pay. 4.0 UW, not sure of Waited but I want to say 4.6 or 4.7.

It wasn't pretty. We had a wide range but we did apply to a couple of top schools.

Denied at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Wellesley.

Wait-listed at Middlebury, Rice, and Barnard.

Accepted with lots of merit aid at Tulane, Fordham, Lafayette and some decent publics.

Accepted with No Merit at U Richmond, W&L.

I do think being a female hurt her especially at the SLACs. I would very much caution expectation setting.

Wow, I think this post may suggest how strong an advantage full pay private school kids have in college admissions. Haven’t seen outcomes like this at DC’s Big 3.

No, my full pay, private kid with similar stats had roughly similar outcomes, except that she knew better than to even try at ivies.

geez. reading that...why even try now.

Curious, was dc pushed to achieve those stats? Have you hired private tutors, send kids to summer learning camps, etc...?

I'm the previous PP who posted the stats. No private tutors (although my DD did tutor), no summer learning camps. Just plain old persistence and grit.

Don't feel defensive because of the obnoxious post insinuating that your child was pushed and high stats was due to tutors & summer learning camps. Just because her child couldn't reach high stats without that kind of help... So rude. Some parents who have lazy kids just can't believe that there are kids who are motivated on their own to work hard.

I’m the poster who was inquiring about pushing. I am new to raising kids with education as a focus. Most high performing kids in knew from high school were raised in a tiger parent environment. Learning about the other side where kids are self motivated is new to me. I would like to raise a self motivated student like OPs, but the more I read about “those kids”, it seems like luck (Natural enjoyment for learning, hating to fail, or the competition amongst peers).

I'm the PP and no offense taken - parenting is hard.

I have three kids and they are all different and have been since they were born. We could do a better job at setting expectations regarding school work but frankly we both work and its hard at the end of the day. My DD has an innate drive - always has and we do the best we can to provide support and encouragement. I do not think there is anything we could have done as parents that would have instilled in my DD her innate drive - I truly think she was born with it and it is who she is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD - 1550 SAT, Top 2% of class (in the top 10 students) at a well regarded public high school. Not full pay. 4.0 UW, not sure of Waited but I want to say 4.6 or 4.7.

It wasn't pretty. We had a wide range but we did apply to a couple of top schools.

Denied at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Wellesley.

Wait-listed at Middlebury, Rice, and Barnard.

Accepted with lots of merit aid at Tulane, Fordham, Lafayette and some decent publics.

Accepted with No Merit at U Richmond, W&L.

I do think being a female hurt her especially at the SLACs. I would very much caution expectation setting.

Wow, I think this post may suggest how strong an advantage full pay private school kids have in college admissions. Haven’t seen outcomes like this at DC’s Big 3.

I knew this was coming . . . you have NO idea if private school made the difference. Full pay maybe.

Private schools provide a very strong education. I too was surprised by the admissions stats at my DD’s private school.
How to work on getting a similar education at the public school is the question maybe?

I suspect you may be confusing causation and correlation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD - 1550 SAT, Top 2% of class (in the top 10 students) at a well regarded public high school. Not full pay. 4.0 UW, not sure of Waited but I want to say 4.6 or 4.7.

It wasn't pretty. We had a wide range but we did apply to a couple of top schools.

Denied at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Wellesley.

Wait-listed at Middlebury, Rice, and Barnard.

Accepted with lots of merit aid at Tulane, Fordham, Lafayette and some decent publics.

Accepted with No Merit at U Richmond, W&L.

I do think being a female hurt her especially at the SLACs. I would very much caution expectation setting.

Wow, I think this post may suggest how strong an advantage full pay private school kids have in college admissions. Haven’t seen outcomes like this at DC’s Big 3.

No, my full pay, private kid with similar stats had roughly similar outcomes, except that she knew better than to even try at ivies.

At a DC Big 3 school?

I bet not. My daughter went to Holton and almost nobody had a 4.0 UW. Those who did could definitely get into top schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD - 1550 SAT, Top 2% of class (in the top 10 students) at a well regarded public high school. Not full pay. 4.0 UW, not sure of Waited but I want to say 4.6 or 4.7.

It wasn't pretty. We had a wide range but we did apply to a couple of top schools.

Denied at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Wellesley.

Wait-listed at Middlebury, Rice, and Barnard.

Accepted with lots of merit aid at Tulane, Fordham, Lafayette and some decent publics.

Accepted with No Merit at U Richmond, W&L.

I do think being a female hurt her especially at the SLACs. I would very much caution expectation setting.

Wow, I think this post may suggest how strong an advantage full pay private school kids have in college admissions. Haven’t seen outcomes like this at DC’s Big 3.

No, my full pay, private kid with similar stats had roughly similar outcomes, except that she knew better than to even try at ivies.

geez. reading that...why even try now.

Curious, was dc pushed to achieve those stats? Have you hired private tutors, send kids to summer learning camps, etc...?

I'm the previous PP who posted the stats. No private tutors (although my DD did tutor), no summer learning camps. Just plain old persistence and grit.

Don't feel defensive because of the obnoxious post insinuating that your child was pushed and high stats was due to tutors & summer learning camps. Just because her child couldn't reach high stats without that kind of help... So rude. Some parents who have lazy kids just can't believe that there are kids who are motivated on their own to work hard.

I’m the poster who was inquiring about pushing. I am new to raising kids with education as a focus. Most high performing kids in knew from high school were raised in a tiger parent environment. Learning about the other side where kids are self motivated is new to me. I would like to raise a self motivated student like OPs, but the more I read about “those kids”, it seems like luck (Natural enjoyment for learning, hating to fail, or the competition amongst peers).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD - 1550 SAT, Top 2% of class (in the top 10 students) at a well regarded public high school. Not full pay. 4.0 UW, not sure of Waited but I want to say 4.6 or 4.7.

It wasn't pretty. We had a wide range but we did apply to a couple of top schools.

Denied at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Wellesley.

Wait-listed at Middlebury, Rice, and Barnard.

Accepted with lots of merit aid at Tulane, Fordham, Lafayette and some decent publics.

Accepted with No Merit at U Richmond, W&L.

I do think being a female hurt her especially at the SLACs. I would very much caution expectation setting.

Wow, I think this post may suggest how strong an advantage full pay private school kids have in college admissions. Haven’t seen outcomes like this at DC’s Big 3.

I knew this was coming . . . you have NO idea if private school made the difference. Full pay maybe.

Private schools provide a very strong education. I too was surprised by the admissions stats at my DD’s private school.
How to work on getting a similar education at the public school is the question maybe?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you aware that UCLA and Berkeley now take only 20% OOS (that includes international students) students? Californians were upset they couldn't access their own schools. Ergo it is now a lot more difficult to get into Berkeley now - and your naviance records may not take that into account. Check with your high school counselor.

Even so, Berkeley and UCLA each have undergraduate student bodies of right at 30K. 20% is still about the same as the entire undergraduate school at Stanford (7K).

The point is that it is even more difficult this year to get into UCLA and Berkeley in the past because of fewer seats allotted for OOS. OP needs to talk to college counselor about this and reassess DD's chances in light of changed circumstances. The Naviance won't be accurate because it takes into account a history of the high school's graduates getting in when OOS percentage was larger. OP needs to get her DD to enlarge the list of number of schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DD - 1550 SAT, Top 2% of class (in the top 10 students) at a well regarded public high school. Not full pay. 4.0 UW, not sure of Waited but I want to say 4.6 or 4.7.

It wasn't pretty. We had a wide range but we did apply to a couple of top schools.

Denied at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Wellesley.

Wait-listed at Middlebury, Rice, and Barnard.

Accepted with lots of merit aid at Tulane, Fordham, Lafayette and some decent publics.

Accepted with No Merit at U Richmond, W&L.

I do think being a female hurt her especially at the SLACs. I would very much caution expectation setting.

Wow, I think this post may suggest how strong an advantage full pay private school kids have in college admissions. Haven’t seen outcomes like this at DC’s Big 3.

No, my full pay, private kid with similar stats had roughly similar outcomes, except that she knew better than to even try at ivies.

geez. reading that...why even try now.

Curious, was dc pushed to achieve those stats? Have you hired private tutors, send kids to summer learning camps, etc...?

My question for the PP who shared these results is whether any of her applications were ED, or all were RD.

ED is becoming an essential strategy if you want to crack the top schools. Which is unfortunately IMO, but that seems to be the state of play.

PP - no ED as we are not full pay. EA where applicable. Again, this is not sour grapes as college's are businesses but I do believe full pay is a hook and if you are able to apply ED you are less concerned about comparing financial aid packages. We needed to be able to compare offers. Some were generous - some not so much. Having gone through this the year before with my DS I know my DD did not get the same offers from the SLACs. My DS had good, not great, stats and his offers were stronger - now that said he was denied from quite a few schools that accepted my DD but for those that accepted both he got better offers. So my take is that it's not easy on the high stat females.

Agree - ability to apply ED is a hook, and it's a powerful. So is being a recruitable athlete or a standout or accomplished scientist

To go back to OP's question, if her child is unhooked, or not willing to apply ED, prepare her for rejection from Stanford. The chances are infintesimal.

ED (SCEA) will make virtually no difference in your odds at Stanford. There is no reason whatsoever for OPs kid not to apply, and maybe her ECs will do the trick. But everyone applying there should be prepared for disappointment.