Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Top local private."

This makes a difference. What do her grades actually look like? Does she always get A's in certain subjects? Are the B's grouped in other certain subjects? Or does she randomly get As and Bs?

If she has a strong group of subjects and if she takes the most rigorous courses in that group, getting Bs in her weak subjects even if they are basically "on grade level" won't matter. If she applies to every top 50 SLAC she will get in somewhere.

If she culls through the top 50 for the 20 or 25 that she likes best (read DO NOT just apply to the top 20 or 25) making sure to have the same number in each group of 1-10/11-20/21-30, she will get in somewhere.

If she has a strong suit where she stands out, the schools will know she can do the work and if OP you can pay the bill, it will work out.

LOL top local private makes no difference. Colleges/universities have many applicants who with stronger stats from other private and public schools.

This is just not true. DD got into Amherst (four yrs ago, but still pretty recent) with a 3.68 gpa and nearly perfect test scores from top local private. She was top 15% of her class with the most rigorous coursework. No way would she have gotten in from a local public even with the same relative stats (aka grade weighting for aps, etc).

How on earth would you know that? Idiotic comment.

DP here with a kid at Amherst. That is NOT an idiotic comment. Amherst likes certain schools - the top local privates and the public magnets, and the only way a kid from a regular public school is getting in with those numbers is if they're a URM, recruited athlete or legacy.

Does she play a sport? DS got into A few highly competitive SLACs because he plays football in a hard to fill position. His athletic ability balanced out his 3.4 UW GPA and 29 on ACT. He’s a junior at Carleton. His academic record was bare minimum but Coach spent a slot on him and he didn’t need FA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Top local private."

This makes a difference. What do her grades actually look like? Does she always get A's in certain subjects? Are the B's grouped in other certain subjects? Or does she randomly get As and Bs?

If she has a strong group of subjects and if she takes the most rigorous courses in that group, getting Bs in her weak subjects even if they are basically "on grade level" won't matter. If she applies to every top 50 SLAC she will get in somewhere.

If she culls through the top 50 for the 20 or 25 that she likes best (read DO NOT just apply to the top 20 or 25) making sure to have the same number in each group of 1-10/11-20/21-30, she will get in somewhere.

If she has a strong suit where she stands out, the schools will know she can do the work and if OP you can pay the bill, it will work out.

LOL top local private makes no difference. Colleges/universities have many applicants who with stronger stats from other private and public schools.

This is just not true. DD got into Amherst (four yrs ago, but still pretty recent) with a 3.68 gpa and nearly perfect test scores from top local private. She was top 15% of her class with the most rigorous coursework. No way would she have gotten in from a local public even with the same relative stats (aka grade weighting for aps, etc).

How on earth would you know that? Idiotic comment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’ve also been LAC hunting with a 33 ACT and a 3.6uw/4.1w

Our list includes:

Reaches:
Colgate
Vassar

Matches:
Franklin and Marshall
Bucknell
Lafayette
Skidmore

Safeties:
Marist
Union
CNU
Wooster

Any reason you did not include Bard on the list? Very close in proximity to Vassar and Marist, and similar type of school. I would add it as a match.

She drew a hard line at 2,000 student minimum. If I recall correctly, Bard has about 1800. I know it’s a difference of only 200 students, but it’s not my college search, so I let her call most of the shots.

Anonymous wrote:We’ve also been LAC hunting with a 33 ACT and a 3.6uw/4.1w

Our list includes:

Reaches:
Colgate
Vassar

Matches:
Franklin and Marshall
Bucknell
Lafayette
Skidmore

Safeties:
Marist
Union
CNU
Wooster

Any reason you did not include Bard on the list? Very close in proximity to Vassar and Marist, and similar type of school. I would add it as a match.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Top local private."

This makes a difference. What do her grades actually look like? Does she always get A's in certain subjects? Are the B's grouped in other certain subjects? Or does she randomly get As and Bs?

If she has a strong group of subjects and if she takes the most rigorous courses in that group, getting Bs in her weak subjects even if they are basically "on grade level" won't matter. If she applies to every top 50 SLAC she will get in somewhere.

If she culls through the top 50 for the 20 or 25 that she likes best (read DO NOT just apply to the top 20 or 25) making sure to have the same number in each group of 1-10/11-20/21-30, she will get in somewhere.

If she has a strong suit where she stands out, the schools will know she can do the work and if OP you can pay the bill, it will work out.

LOL top local private makes no difference. Colleges/universities have many applicants who with stronger stats from other private and public schools.

This is just not true. DD got into Amherst (four yrs ago, but still pretty recent) with a 3.68 gpa and nearly perfect test scores from top local private. She was top 15% of her class with the most rigorous coursework. No way would she have gotten in from a local public even with the same relative stats (aka grade weighting for aps, etc).

That’s just not the case. My DC went to a top local public and several of his classmates went to Amherst with similar profiles (higher GPAs of course). 60% of the class comes from public schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the Colleges that Change Lives schools!

(chuckle chuckle)

Okay, I'm newer to this forum. I'm only a little bit familiar with Colleges that Change Lives schools. So, for the novice, let me in on the joke!

There's a running argument about Colleges that Change Lives. One side (which apparently includes PP) thinks that CTCL is a marketing ploy by third tier schools to get noticed, and that no one seriously would attend one of these schools if they had any other choices. The other side thinks that CTCL has great advice and that students who attend those colleges (or other schools like them) are happier and have better outcomes than PP would anticipate.

It breaks down to a prestige, competitive admissions strategy vs. a holistic admissions strategy. Do you want your kid to win the college admissions game? Or do you want your kid to find a school that is a good match and will further their development as a person, in addition to furthering their career goals?

VERY well stated. +1000

+1

I have 2 who went for prestige and one who went to a CTCL. The latter had an overwhelmingly better academic experience, much closer relationships with professors, much better research opportunities, and much better guidance for grad schools and careers. The 2 who went for prestige have some pretty big regrets with their choice.

You people are so dense. For the umpteenth time, no one is saying that the prestige schools are invariably better. Again, the point is that the CTCL schools don’t own the market on good non-prestige schools. There are 100 others that are just as good. A marketing ploy!

+1 (and there are many “non-prestige” schools that are much better than some of the ctcl schools!)

And how are we supposed to know about them if they don’t market themselves? Why penalize the CTCL for getting out the word about their school’s?

No one is saying that they should be penalized, just that they shouldn't be put on a pedestal.

And I didn't put them on a pedestal. I clearly stated CCTL OR OTHER SCHOOLS LIKE THEM.

And there is a lot of criticism on DCUM not just for CCTL marketing, but for the whole "right fit, right school, right kid" approach vs. "highest ranking school that that the kid can get into."

Then all you had to say is "my kid went to school X" or "my kid did not go to an elite SLAC but." By pointing out that it's in the book, you are buying into the idea that colleges in the book are somehow special -- when they're not any different from 100 others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the Colleges that Change Lives schools!

(chuckle chuckle)

Okay, I'm newer to this forum. I'm only a little bit familiar with Colleges that Change Lives schools. So, for the novice, let me in on the joke!

There's a running argument about Colleges that Change Lives. One side (which apparently includes PP) thinks that CTCL is a marketing ploy by third tier schools to get noticed, and that no one seriously would attend one of these schools if they had any other choices. The other side thinks that CTCL has great advice and that students who attend those colleges (or other schools like them) are happier and have better outcomes than PP would anticipate.

It breaks down to a prestige, competitive admissions strategy vs. a holistic admissions strategy. Do you want your kid to win the college admissions game? Or do you want your kid to find a school that is a good match and will further their development as a person, in addition to furthering their career goals?

VERY well stated. +1000

+1

I have 2 who went for prestige and one who went to a CTCL. The latter had an overwhelmingly better academic experience, much closer relationships with professors, much better research opportunities, and much better guidance for grad schools and careers. The 2 who went for prestige have some pretty big regrets with their choice.

You people are so dense. For the umpteenth time, no one is saying that the prestige schools are invariably better. Again, the point is that the CTCL schools don’t own the market on good non-prestige schools. There are 100 others that are just as good. A marketing ploy!

+1 (and there are many “non-prestige” schools that are much better than some of the ctcl schools!)

And how are we supposed to know about them if they don’t market themselves? Why penalize the CTCL for getting out the word about their school’s?

No one is saying that they should be penalized, just that they shouldn't be put on a pedestal.

And I didn't put them on a pedestal. I clearly stated CCTL OR OTHER SCHOOLS LIKE THEM.

And there is a lot of criticism on DCUM not just for CCTL marketing, but for the whole "right fit, right school, right kid" approach vs. "highest ranking school that that the kid can get into."

Life is full of disappointments. Just make sure she applies to more safeties.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Top local private."

This makes a difference. What do her grades actually look like? Does she always get A's in certain subjects? Are the B's grouped in other certain subjects? Or does she randomly get As and Bs?

If she has a strong group of subjects and if she takes the most rigorous courses in that group, getting Bs in her weak subjects even if they are basically "on grade level" won't matter. If she applies to every top 50 SLAC she will get in somewhere.

If she culls through the top 50 for the 20 or 25 that she likes best (read DO NOT just apply to the top 20 or 25) making sure to have the same number in each group of 1-10/11-20/21-30, she will get in somewhere.

If she has a strong suit where she stands out, the schools will know she can do the work and if OP you can pay the bill, it will work out.

LOL top local private makes no difference. Colleges/universities have many applicants who with stronger stats from other private and public schools.

This is just not true. DD got into Amherst (four yrs ago, but still pretty recent) with a 3.68 gpa and nearly perfect test scores from top local private. She was top 15% of her class with the most rigorous coursework. No way would she have gotten in from a local public even with the same relative stats (aka grade weighting for aps, etc).

Getting baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack on topic.

OP, I'm somewhat hesitant to give advice because the college game has changed greatly, with admissions getting increasingly tougher each year so what was feasible five years ago is not so much today. The best is to really talk to the school's college counselor. They will have hard data from the school's own students and can give a pretty good idea of what's realistic in a rapidly changing environment.

I will say that it used to be the case that an applicant like your daughter, from an excellent private school in Washington, would have a reasonable chance at ED admissions at most of the SLACs outside Amherst/Williams/Swarthmore. Even at places like Bowdoin, with those grades and scores + one other major factor, she would have a reasonable shot in ED. That "major factor" is the hook, for some it would be legacy, recruited athlete, full freight, or minority (ideally a combination of the above).

And your daughter is of Asian heritage. This may be her big hook. The LACs are still struggling to reach their diversity goals compared to the big name Ivies who pretty much hoover up the talented POC applicants. A non-trad Asian background is more unique and that helps. But I would talk to the school's college counselor.

I would also look at places like Kenyon, which is very similar to many of the eastern LACs except for the location. Denison as well. Oberlin? Hamilton?

Be very careful about the women's colleges. It is a different environment than a coed school. It's not for everyone, so don't be tempted to go to a "name" women's college like Bryn Mawr or Smith just because it's the highest ranked school you got into. You really need to want to be at a women's college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the Colleges that Change Lives schools!

(chuckle chuckle)

Okay, I'm newer to this forum. I'm only a little bit familiar with Colleges that Change Lives schools. So, for the novice, let me in on the joke!

There's a running argument about Colleges that Change Lives. One side (which apparently includes PP) thinks that CTCL is a marketing ploy by third tier schools to get noticed, and that no one seriously would attend one of these schools if they had any other choices. The other side thinks that CTCL has great advice and that students who attend those colleges (or other schools like them) are happier and have better outcomes than PP would anticipate.

It breaks down to a prestige, competitive admissions strategy vs. a holistic admissions strategy. Do you want your kid to win the college admissions game? Or do you want your kid to find a school that is a good match and will further their development as a person, in addition to furthering their career goals?

VERY well stated. +1000

+1

I have 2 who went for prestige and one who went to a CTCL. The latter had an overwhelmingly better academic experience, much closer relationships with professors, much better research opportunities, and much better guidance for grad schools and careers. The 2 who went for prestige have some pretty big regrets with their choice.

You people are so dense. For the umpteenth time, no one is saying that the prestige schools are invariably better. Again, the point is that the CTCL schools don’t own the market on good non-prestige schools. There are 100 others that are just as good. A marketing ploy!

+1 (and there are many “non-prestige” schools that are much better than some of the ctcl schools!)

And how are we supposed to know about them if they don’t market themselves? Why penalize the CTCL for getting out the word about their school’s?

No one is saying that they should be penalized, just that they shouldn't be put on a pedestal.

Schools

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the Colleges that Change Lives schools!

(chuckle chuckle)

Okay, I'm newer to this forum. I'm only a little bit familiar with Colleges that Change Lives schools. So, for the novice, let me in on the joke!

There's a running argument about Colleges that Change Lives. One side (which apparently includes PP) thinks that CTCL is a marketing ploy by third tier schools to get noticed, and that no one seriously would attend one of these schools if they had any other choices. The other side thinks that CTCL has great advice and that students who attend those colleges (or other schools like them) are happier and have better outcomes than PP would anticipate.

It breaks down to a prestige, competitive admissions strategy vs. a holistic admissions strategy. Do you want your kid to win the college admissions game? Or do you want your kid to find a school that is a good match and will further their development as a person, in addition to furthering their career goals?

VERY well stated. +1000

+1

I have 2 who went for prestige and one who went to a CTCL. The latter had an overwhelmingly better academic experience, much closer relationships with professors, much better research opportunities, and much better guidance for grad schools and careers. The 2 who went for prestige have some pretty big regrets with their choice.

You people are so dense. For the umpteenth time, no one is saying that the prestige schools are invariably better. Again, the point is that the CTCL schools don’t own the market on good non-prestige schools. There are 100 others that are just as good. A marketing ploy!

+1 (and there are many “non-prestige” schools that are much better than some of the ctcl schools!)

And how are we supposed to know about them if they don’t market themselves? Why penalize the CTCL for getting out the word about their school’s?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the Colleges that Change Lives schools!

(chuckle chuckle)

Okay, I'm newer to this forum. I'm only a little bit familiar with Colleges that Change Lives schools. So, for the novice, let me in on the joke!

There's a running argument about Colleges that Change Lives. One side (which apparently includes PP) thinks that CTCL is a marketing ploy by third tier schools to get noticed, and that no one seriously would attend one of these schools if they had any other choices. The other side thinks that CTCL has great advice and that students who attend those colleges (or other schools like them) are happier and have better outcomes than PP would anticipate.

It breaks down to a prestige, competitive admissions strategy vs. a holistic admissions strategy. Do you want your kid to win the college admissions game? Or do you want your kid to find a school that is a good match and will further their development as a person, in addition to furthering their career goals?

VERY well stated. +1000

+1

I have 2 who went for prestige and one who went to a CTCL. The latter had an overwhelmingly better academic experience, much closer relationships with professors, much better research opportunities, and much better guidance for grad schools and careers. The 2 who went for prestige have some pretty big regrets with their choice.

You people are so dense. For the umpteenth time, no one is saying that the prestige schools are invariably better. Again, the point is that the CTCL schools don’t own the market on good non-prestige schools. There are 100 others that are just as good. A marketing ploy!

+1 (and there are many “non-prestige” schools that are much better than some of the ctcl schools!)