Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out Macalester--great school, urban-ish, strong international bent, she sounds like a likely admit.

If you visit Macalester, you should also visit Gustavus Adolphus and Carelton and St. Olaf's while you are in Minnesota

Junior DS and I are doing St. Olaf’s and Macalaster and then renting a car and driving to Grinnell this spring. It’s about 4-5 hours. But worth the drive because Grinnell could be a great fit. I don’t want to have to fly into Minneapolis one weekend and Iowa the next.

Op— ED Oberlin and Kenyon. Look at Denison. I was super impressed by Wooster when we visited for my STEM kid. Skidmore. Layfayette. Dickinson. Macalaster. St. Olaf’s, Union, Hamilton. Washington and Lee and U Richmond if she likes the southern, conservative feel. All probably doable. Carleton, Grinnell and Davidson will be reaches. Amherst, Williams, Swat, Haverford, Pomona are not going to happen. They are as hard to get into— or harder— than Ivys. She’s going to have a hard time— or find it impossible— to get into the top 10-15 SLACs. You aren’t doing her any favors by letting her focus on schools she can’t get into.

Pull the common data set for these colleges. If she is an unhooked, Asian female who isn’t first gen, her ACT needs to line up with the 75%. Women have a harder time getting into SLACs than men. What you are doing is like taking a kid with you kids SATs and focusing on just Harvard, Yale and Stanford, then asking if you should look and Columbia or Brown next. When you should aim for Emory, Vandy, Wake Forest, etc. as reach schools, and also have matches.

BTW— small undergrad school, beautiful campus, LAC vibe, test optional, great for kids who are pre-professional— look at Wake. I attended back and the day and it had the same feel as the SLAC colleges DS is looking at. He will be applying, although he is concerned about the frat scene/ conservative bent.

There are great schools out there that do what she wants. Help her focus on Davidson, Grinnell, Carleton, etc as reaches and find some good Macalaster, etc matches.

+1 This is a very helpful post PP - I hope the OP sees it.

Agreed, but there are some odd inclusions. Washington & Lee and Hamilton for a kid with mediocre grades? Good luck with that. High-90’s percentile of admitted students are in top quarter of their class rank. Kid better have a high-90’s fastball too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:….

These are your kid’s targets or matches based on test scores. They hit at 75%, which an unhooked girl from the DMV needs to. They will likely get in, so why waste an ED?

You can encourage your kid to swing for the fences and ED Amherst. Maybe she wants it so badly that she does it so she knows she did everything she could. But the smart move is to move down to the one level and ED a school like Kenyon or Davidson or Grinnell where ED might well be the difference between getting in or not.

And BTW— where do kids from Kenyon, Davidson and Grinnell go to grad school, law school, med school? The same places as kids from Amherst and Williams. These are highly respected in academic circle

(NP here)
That is really insightful. Thank you! DCUM is worth it because of people like you. I hope you have a lovely evening.

Awww. Thanks. pretty sure my kid thinks I’m psycho about college stuff, so it’s nice to hear something nice. Mostly just trying to get my kid through, same as 1000s of other DMV parents. Being data driven helps me feel calmer, and like there are good schools out there he will get into.

Anonymous wrote:….

These are your kid’s targets or matches based on test scores. They hit at 75%, which an unhooked girl from the DMV needs to. They will likely get in, so why waste an ED?

You can encourage your kid to swing for the fences and ED Amherst. Maybe she wants it so badly that she does it so she knows she did everything she could. But the smart move is to move down to the one level and ED a school like Kenyon or Davidson or Grinnell where ED might well be the difference between getting in or not.

And BTW— where do kids from Kenyon, Davidson and Grinnell go to grad school, law school, med school? The same places as kids from Amherst and Williams. These are highly respected in academic circle

(NP here)
That is really insightful. Thank you! DCUM is worth it because of people like you. I hope you have a lovely evening.

Reality check time, OP. On the issue of grades, I have a TJ kid. So boy do I get that grade deflation is real and kids at some schools work harder for Bs than kids at other schools work for As. I have a 4.1W/1530 senior not applying to Amherst, Willams or Swat either. Despite the high SAT. Because middle of the pack GPA. So I am not busting on you. I am encouraging you to be realistic.

I would trust regional admissions directors to have a handle on whether your kids GPA measures up internally But when people say almost no one graduates from top privates with UW 4.0s, it’s the same deal as TJ. Almost no one graduates with anything close to an UW 4.0. But the ones who do are the ones competitive for the Williams, Amherst schools. And Amherst isn’t going to admit a dozen kids from your DD’s school. They will take 1 or maybe 2. Because there are lots of good schools, and only 400 or so slots. And many fewer after legacies, URMs, athletes, etc.

Reality is Amherst could easily fill a class of qualified kids who want to be there just from the DMV. But they want a kid from every state and a number of countries. Geographic diversity.

A 31-32 ACT just won’t do it.

Here are the 25%-75% ACTs from the Common data set for last year.

Amherst. 32-34
Williams 31-35
Swat 31-34
Haverford 31-34
Bowdoin. 30-34

Your kid is at the 25% of these schools. You see this and say hey! Kids get in with 31s. And they do. But yours won’t. The 31s URMs, recruited athletes, first Gen, legacies, nationally recognized at something and other hooks. And PP is right. Boys get in most places with lower scores. Your kid can waste an ED here. But an affluent, unhooked private school kid (or TJ kid) won’t get in with a 31-32 and middle of the pack grades.

But go down a bit, and the news gets better:

Grinnell. 30-33
Davidson 30-33
Kenyon 29-33
Hamilton 31-33

I would use an ED on this tier. Your kid is about median in test scores, but they are an unhooked. So median =/= admitted. So ED could actually make a difference between yes and no. An ED Amherst has almost no shot. An ED Davidson or Kenyon might. .

And go down further

Macalaster, 29-32
Skidmore 27-31
Dickinson 27-32
Denison 29-31

These are your kid’s targets or matches based on test scores. They hit at 75%, which an unhooked girl from the DMV needs to. They will likely get in, so why waste an ED?

You can encourage your kid to swing for the fences and ED Amherst. Maybe she wants it so badly that she does it so she knows she did everything she could. But the smart move is to move down to the one level and ED a school like Kenyon or Davidson or Grinnell where ED might well be the difference between getting in or not.

And BTW— where do kids from Kenyon, Davidson and Grinnell go to grad school, law school, med school? The same places as kids from Amherst and Williams. These are highly respected in academic circles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out Macalester--great school, urban-ish, strong international bent, she sounds like a likely admit.

If you visit Macalester, you should also visit Gustavus Adolphus and Carelton and St. Olaf's while you are in Minnesota

Junior DS and I are doing St. Olaf’s and Macalaster and then renting a car and driving to Grinnell this spring. It’s about 4-5 hours. But worth the drive because Grinnell could be a great fit. I don’t want to have to fly into Minneapolis one weekend and Iowa the next.

Op— ED Oberlin and Kenyon. Look at Denison. I was super impressed by Wooster when we visited for my STEM kid. Skidmore. Layfayette. Dickinson. Macalaster. St. Olaf’s, Union, Hamilton. Washington and Lee and U Richmond if she likes the southern, conservative feel. All probably doable. Carleton, Grinnell and Davidson will be reaches. Amherst, Williams, Swat, Haverford, Pomona are not going to happen. They are as hard to get into— or harder— than Ivys. She’s going to have a hard time— or find it impossible— to get into the top 10-15 SLACs. You aren’t doing her any favors by letting her focus on schools she can’t get into.

Pull the common data set for these colleges. If she is an unhooked, Asian female who isn’t first gen, her ACT needs to line up with the 75%. Women have a harder time getting into SLACs than men. What you are doing is like taking a kid with you kids SATs and focusing on just Harvard, Yale and Stanford, then asking if you should look and Columbia or Brown next. When you should aim for Emory, Vandy, Wake Forest, etc. as reach schools, and also have matches.

BTW— small undergrad school, beautiful campus, LAC vibe, test optional, great for kids who are pre-professional— look at Wake. I attended back and the day and it had the same feel as the SLAC colleges DS is looking at. He will be applying, although he is concerned about the frat scene/ conservative bent.

There are great schools out there that do what she wants. Help her focus on Davidson, Grinnell, Carleton, etc as reaches and find some good Macalaster, etc matches.

+1 This is a very helpful post PP - I hope the OP sees it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of good suggestions for SLACs, but it wasn't entirely clear to me from your post that she even wants an SLAC. Just that she is interested because she thinks it would be easier to get into ED. Am I misunderstanding the priorities and thinking?

There are many reasons why someone would like a SLAC but is that what she wants or does she just think she is more likely to get in?

Sorry for the late response. OP here. Little of both. She likes the smaller atmosphere and also thinks it might be easier to get in given the ED rates for an Amherst or a Middlebury.

OP, as another poster mentioned, those ED rates are falsely inflated by the recruited athletes, URMs and legacies who are have a considerably higher chance of admission. Take those special cases out and an unhooked applicant has no better chance at admission than they would during RD.

With more B's than A's, Middlebury and Amherst are going to be tough.

So focus on UVA and William and Mary? William and Mary is smaller so probably a better fit.

Top local private? Is OP’s kid in state or OOS? And OOS (MD or VA) girl is probably SOL for WM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out Macalester--great school, urban-ish, strong international bent, she sounds like a likely admit.

If you visit Macalester, you should also visit Gustavus Adolphus and Carelton and St. Olaf's while you are in Minnesota

Junior DS and I are doing St. Olaf’s and Macalaster and then renting a car and driving to Grinnell this spring. It’s about 4-5 hours. But worth the drive because Grinnell could be a great fit. I don’t want to have to fly into Minneapolis one weekend and Iowa the next.

Op— ED Oberlin and Kenyon. Look at Denison. I was super impressed by Wooster when we visited for my STEM kid. Skidmore. Layfayette. Dickinson. Macalaster. St. Olaf’s, Union, Hamilton. Washington and Lee and U Richmond if she likes the southern, conservative feel. All probably doable. Carleton, Grinnell and Davidson will be reaches. Amherst, Williams, Swat, Haverford, Pomona are not going to happen. They are as hard to get into— or harder— than Ivys. She’s going to have a hard time— or find it impossible— to get into the top 10-15 SLACs. You aren’t doing her any favors by letting her focus on schools she can’t get into.

Pull the common data set for these colleges. If she is an unhooked, Asian female who isn’t first gen, her ACT needs to line up with the 75%. Women have a harder time getting into SLACs than men. What you are doing is like taking a kid with you kids SATs and focusing on just Harvard, Yale and Stanford, then asking if you should look and Columbia or Brown next. When you should aim for Emory, Vandy, Wake Forest, etc. as reach schools, and also have matches.

BTW— small undergrad school, beautiful campus, LAC vibe, test optional, great for kids who are pre-professional— look at Wake. I attended back and the day and it had the same feel as the SLAC colleges DS is looking at. He will be applying, although he is concerned about the frat scene/ conservative bent.

There are great schools out there that do what she wants. Help her focus on Davidson, Grinnell, Carleton, etc as reaches and find some good Macalaster, etc matches.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of good suggestions for SLACs, but it wasn't entirely clear to me from your post that she even wants an SLAC. Just that she is interested because she thinks it would be easier to get into ED. Am I misunderstanding the priorities and thinking?

There are many reasons why someone would like a SLAC but is that what she wants or does she just think she is more likely to get in?

Sorry for the late response. OP here. Little of both. She likes the smaller atmosphere and also thinks it might be easier to get in given the ED rates for an Amherst or a Middlebury.

OP, as another poster mentioned, those ED rates are falsely inflated by the recruited athletes, URMs and legacies who are have a considerably higher chance of admission. Take those special cases out and an unhooked applicant has no better chance at admission than they would during RD.

With more B's than A's, Middlebury and Amherst are going to be tough.

So focus on UVA and William and Mary? William and Mary is smaller so probably a better fit.

GPA matter more at UVA/W&M than many private SLACs. Although both are holistic in their application process, not to the same degree as smaller private SLACs. Average GPA from FCPS is 4.3/4.4 with 1430 SAT.

GPAs are not a factor in USNews, so private schools do not focus on it as much as publics like UVA and W&M. Yes, they look at grades, but not having to publish it gives them more latitude in evaluation. Some privates like Vanderbilt have used this "loophole" to focus on ratcheting up standardized test scores, which has helped them improve rankings.

Denison, Dickinson, Skidmore, Holy Cross, Gettysburg, Bucknell, Lehigh, Lafayette Sewanee and many other small less competitive SLACs may be the sorts of places where she does really well

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of good suggestions for SLACs, but it wasn't entirely clear to me from your post that she even wants an SLAC. Just that she is interested because she thinks it would be easier to get into ED. Am I misunderstanding the priorities and thinking?

There are many reasons why someone would like a SLAC but is that what she wants or does she just think she is more likely to get in?

Sorry for the late response. OP here. Little of both. She likes the smaller atmosphere and also thinks it might be easier to get in given the ED rates for an Amherst or a Middlebury.

OP, as another poster mentioned, those ED rates are falsely inflated by the recruited athletes, URMs and legacies who are have a considerably higher chance of admission. Take those special cases out and an unhooked applicant has no better chance at admission than they would during RD.

With more B's than A's, Middlebury and Amherst are going to be tough.

So focus on UVA and William and Mary? William and Mary is smaller so probably a better fit.

GPA matter more at UVA/W&M than many private SLACs. Although both are holistic in their application process, not to the same degree as smaller private SLACs. Average GPA from FCPS is 4.3/4.4 with 1430 SAT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of good suggestions for SLACs, but it wasn't entirely clear to me from your post that she even wants an SLAC. Just that she is interested because she thinks it would be easier to get into ED. Am I misunderstanding the priorities and thinking?

There are many reasons why someone would like a SLAC but is that what she wants or does she just think she is more likely to get in?

Sorry for the late response. OP here. Little of both. She likes the smaller atmosphere and also thinks it might be easier to get in given the ED rates for an Amherst or a Middlebury.

OP, as another poster mentioned, those ED rates are falsely inflated by the recruited athletes, URMs and legacies who are have a considerably higher chance of admission. Take those special cases out and an unhooked applicant has no better chance at admission than they would during RD.

With more B's than A's, Middlebury and Amherst are going to be tough.

So focus on UVA and William and Mary? William and Mary is smaller so probably a better fit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of good suggestions for SLACs, but it wasn't entirely clear to me from your post that she even wants an SLAC. Just that she is interested because she thinks it would be easier to get into ED. Am I misunderstanding the priorities and thinking?

There are many reasons why someone would like a SLAC but is that what she wants or does she just think she is more likely to get in?

Sorry for the late response. OP here. Little of both. She likes the smaller atmosphere and also thinks it might be easier to get in given the ED rates for an Amherst or a Middlebury.

OP, as another poster mentioned, those ED rates are falsely inflated by the recruited athletes, URMs and legacies who are have a considerably higher chance of admission. Take those special cases out and an unhooked applicant has no better chance at admission than they would during RD.

With more B's than A's, Middlebury and Amherst are going to be tough.

Anonymous wrote:When I hear about strategies for helping your kid SQUEAK into a highly selective school, it makes me wonder, "won't that child struggle" and be high risk for failure?

Why would you want your child at a place where he or she is in the bottom quarter of the students? Have you heard Malcolm Gladwell talk about the importance of being a big fish in small pond, as you are forming your self-esteem as an adult?

This is one of the many reasons I am a member of the "fit over rank" club. Plus, I am more focused on my child's welfare than what my friends and colleagues think.

If it is a private school over a public, then u want it as the amount of resources are tremendous. I have 2 DCs - one at public and one at private. Same stats. The private school with grade inflation and more hand holding - will graduate w better results on paper which sets up for better grad schools and jobs.

When I hear about strategies for helping your kid SQUEAK into a highly selective school, it makes me wonder, "won't that child struggle" and be high risk for failure?

Why would you want your child at a place where he or she is in the bottom quarter of the students? Have you heard Malcolm Gladwell talk about the importance of being a big fish in small pond, as you are forming your self-esteem as an adult?

This is one of the many reasons I am a member of the "fit over rank" club. Plus, I am more focused on my child's welfare than what my friends and colleagues think.

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?[/

Excuse me while I vomit. The point of the CTCL skeptics isn't that the listed schools aren't good, it's that [b]there's nothing so special about them that distinguishes them in any meaningful way from hundreds of other schools with similar admissions standards other than their being in the book -- hence, the view that it's nothing but a marketing tool for the listed schools.

For my DC who is at a CTCL school, there are a lot of special things about it that distinguish it from higher-ranked SLACs.

First, DC got a big merit aid package, which enabled us to send him to the exact right-fit school.

Second, the academic supports are tremendous, and have helped DC to succeed in ways that were not possible in high school. This in turn has built his confidence such that every success begets another.

Third, his mentors at school have been amazing.

Fourth, paid internships and research.

Fifth, the loyal alumni network.

I went to a NESCAC and the resources there pale compared to the ones at DC's school.

Oh your one NESCAC school didn’t have those resources (many years ago)? Well that’s it folks. Argument is over.

Yes, NESCAC schools have really stepped up their game from when I went there. I'm a Bates grad and was frustrated with the career office back then and many grads at the time expressed that. Fast forward to 2018 and it's amazing what they're doing for current students in terms of aligning them with alumni for internships, providing budget for non paying internships, bringing students together with top companies, their whole purposeful work initiative etc. It's really not an apples to apples comparison if you're looking at your NESCAC from 1990 or earlier and another school in 2018.