Mine is normal and we are not pushing him. We want high school to be challenging but manageable and not overwhelming. He is a sophomore and taking ONE AP, ONE Honors class and the rest are regular classes. He will likely do the same next year and senior year. He plays sports and has a job and is enjoying his high school years without stressing about getting into a top university, doing too many extra activities to try and impress admissions counselors, etc. I know he will find the perfect school for HIM- we already did this and now it is his journey and we are here to support him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does everyone on this board seem to have a child with a near perfect SAT score and a 4.0 GPA? Where are the normal kids? The kids who are not cutthroat or taking 6 APs a year? I can’t believe so many kids have perfect SaT scores. Anyone “ normal” out there???

6 APS? Normal at our school is 11+

She said “a year”, but go in trying to feel so superior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous board = lying

No, I don't think so. There is nothing to gain from posting fake info on an anonymous board. Instead, it's selection bias. People who are more focused on the education of their kids to the point of posting on a forum like this is likely to have kids that do better than average.

There is also the factor that people tend to post the highlights of their life, and not share the things they are not particularly excited about, even if they do care about it.

Yet another point is that I am under the impression that grade inflation is a serious issue. My kid has so called impressive stats, but it seems most of his friends also have impressive stats. One kid has a 3.7 and 1400 SAT and was described as a very average kid. Back in my day, that was a pretty strong student. For reference, I was average, graduating with a 3.1 and had a 1200 SAT. I went to University of Maryland.

I don't think so either. I know too many people in real life whose kids are just doing that well. They really are. I am shocked by the norm in getting an SAT score of 1300/1400/1500 these days. Back in the 80s it wasn't quite as normal even in my small private school with lots of high achieving students who went on to selective schools.

You are incorrect in your assumptions, PP. 20 years ago, we did indeed get the majority of our entering JD classes from 25 or or so feeder schools. That is no longer the case by any stretch. I have served several times on our admissions committee in recent years, and I am very familiar with the profile of our entering classes. Your assumptions are out of date. We do not admit average kids from either the top 25 schools OR obscure schools, because we have learned that the best predictor of law school grades is being in the top 25% of the student’s college class. Kids from the top 25th% at obscure colleges outperform kids from the 50th percentile at elite colleges, in our experience. The kids who do well at their college, whatever their college was, do well in law school. whether this is true at other T 14 schools, I have no idea, but speaking for ours, a kid who does well at any school in the country and as well on the LSAT had as good a chance of admission as a kid from a top 25 school.

And here’s the thing: USNews does not care which colleges our students come from; They care only about the GPA and test scores of entering students. We have absolutely no incentive to take low stats kids from fancier schools over high stats kids from obscure schools.

You did an analysis of internal data, meaning these were all kids who had managed to get admitted to a T14. You know as well as anybody that the vast majority of the students at your T14 come from about 25 very selective undergraduate schools. The minority of students who came from UMBC and Cal State Northridge are not at all representative of all graduates from those schools. All that your analysis tells you is that once a student has surmounted some really high barriers, the undergraduate college selectivity is less of a factor in their success in a T14 law school.

Please tell me that you understand that you cannot draw the conclusion from such an analysis that the average student at UMBC or Cal State Northridge has the same chance of succeeding at a T14 law school as the average Columbia University graduate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How fun! A law professor who doesn't know the first thing about statistics.

That's par for the course.

How fun! DCUM posters who just post nasty responses instead of asking questions!

Law prof here. This is not just my own anecdotal info. We did internal studies to see if there were correlations, and there were not.

Anonymous wrote:How fun! A law professor who doesn't know the first thing about statistics.

That's par for the course.

How fun! A law professor who doesn't know the first thing about statistics.

I teach at a T14 law school. Our law students come from colleges that are all over the rankings, from HYP to obscure schools I've never heard of. I can tell you from 25 years of teaching at elite law schools that there is zero correlation between success in law school and ranking of undergrad institution. And they will all be T14 law school grads....

It's like the old joke:
Q: what do you call the person who's last in their class at medical school?
A: Doctor.

The normal kids will be fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, I have two cousins within one grade of each other. One went to Cornell and one went to SUNY Fredonia. Both became elementary school teachers. I doubt Cormell is earning significantly more than Fredonia.

Another two of my cousins: one went to Brown, and one went to Worcester State U. Brown became a yoga teacher part time. Worcester went to grad school and now is a speech pathologist. An impressive-sounding school doesn't always lead to an impressive career.

Educators are always trashed on here. It is an admirable profession and there is a significant difference between a gifted driven teacher and one with less talent. And either one could come from cornell or fredonia. But there is nothing wrong with getting a high level education and using it to teach.

Right except they chose to major in education because it was one of the easiest major not because of any burning desire to teach and make minimum wages. Also, most went to third rate colleges and lack substantive subject matter knowledge except for few.

I thought they became teachers because they like getting paid 12 months for working 9 months.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, I have two cousins within one grade of each other. One went to Cornell and one went to SUNY Fredonia. Both became elementary school teachers. I doubt Cormell is earning significantly more than Fredonia.

Another two of my cousins: one went to Brown, and one went to Worcester State U. Brown became a yoga teacher part time. Worcester went to grad school and now is a speech pathologist. An impressive-sounding school doesn't always lead to an impressive career.

Educators are always trashed on here. It is an admirable profession and there is a significant difference between a gifted driven teacher and one with less talent. And either one could come from cornell or fredonia. But there is nothing wrong with getting a high level education and using it to teach.

Right except they chose to major in education because it was one of the easiest major not because of any burning desire to teach and make minimum wages. Also, most went to third rate colleges and lack substantive subject matter knowledge except for few.

Anonymous board = parents fantasizing about their kids' stats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous board = lying

No, I don't think so. There is nothing to gain from posting fake info on an anonymous board. Instead, it's selection bias. People who are more focused on the education of their kids to the point of posting on a forum like this is likely to have kids that do better than average.

There is also the factor that people tend to post the highlights of their life, and not share the things they are not particularly excited about, even if they do care about it.

Yet another point is that I am under the impression that grade inflation is a serious issue. My kid has so called impressive stats, but it seems most of his friends also have impressive stats. One kid has a 3.7 and 1400 SAT and was described as a very average kid. Back in my day, that was a pretty strong student. For reference, I was average, graduating with a 3.1 and had a 1200 SAT. I went to University of Maryland.

I agree with this poster: definitely selection bias and definitely grade inflation. The fact kids can take standardized tests monthly and super score has made really high scores much more common. A true score taken in one sitting is less common but super scores are equally accepted so there is no advantage. Also, realizing I sound old, a C is considered low, rather than average.

Another poster mentioned another point with which I agree: it feels a little more obvious what schools an “average” kid would apply - and I do see posts sharing info on these schools. What likely draws people to this forum is how few choices there seems to be for high stats kids. They are seeking any sliver of advice that may help their kid.

There are plenty of choices for high stats kids. Just not the schools with acceptance rates below 10%. Expectations need to be tempered there.

CCO office said they are seeing colleges accept lower stats kids and defer/reject higher stats kids in the current cycle - they said it left my kid a little exposed and to be concerned. I would be happy to be wrong, but CCO said to worry so I am.

Normal or average?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anonymous board = lying

No, I don't think so. There is nothing to gain from posting fake info on an anonymous board. Instead, it's selection bias. People who are more focused on the education of their kids to the point of posting on a forum like this is likely to have kids that do better than average.

There is also the factor that people tend to post the highlights of their life, and not share the things they are not particularly excited about, even if they do care about it.

Yet another point is that I am under the impression that grade inflation is a serious issue. My kid has so called impressive stats, but it seems most of his friends also have impressive stats. One kid has a 3.7 and 1400 SAT and was described as a very average kid. Back in my day, that was a pretty strong student. For reference, I was average, graduating with a 3.1 and had a 1200 SAT. I went to University of Maryland.

I agree with this poster: definitely selection bias and definitely grade inflation. The fact kids can take standardized tests monthly and super score has made really high scores much more common. A true score taken in one sitting is less common but super scores are equally accepted so there is no advantage. Also, realizing I sound old, a C is considered low, rather than average.

Another poster mentioned another point with which I agree: it feels a little more obvious what schools an “average” kid would apply - and I do see posts sharing info on these schools. What likely draws people to this forum is how few choices there seems to be for high stats kids. They are seeking any sliver of advice that may help their kid.

There are plenty of choices for high stats kids. Just not the schools with acceptance rates below 10%. Expectations need to be tempered there.