Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

I don't like the pessimism of the people on this board. Absolutely disgusting. The truth is that scores obviously matter, but not tremendously. It is much more important for a high school student to spend time developing herself, having fun, doing extracurricular activities, and even studying, than to be discouraged by the pessimists on this board who stress and lament because they know that they are not strong enough to get into their dream school simply by being unique and determined. Does a 1600 guarantee sucess? No. Does being an incredible, creative person guarantee sucess? Much more so than a 1600.

By jenniferpa on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 12:48 pm: Edit

Really, I think most poster here are realistic, rather than anything else. I'm not sure how many messages you've actually read, but I hardly think that making individuals aware of how tough it CAN be, and how nothing is certain can be considered anything but compassionate. In fact, my general impression of this board is that far from emphasizing the necessity of getting high test scores, the posters here actively encourage students to expand their potential in other areas simply because a 1600 is no guarantee of anything. Further, they recognize that frequently students may consider a school their "dream" simply because they haven't considered the alternatives, and are simply responding to the name. Since I personally believe that every student is unique, but that not every person who wishes to can get into the school of their dreams, I think you have to recognize that uniqueness and determination are not, sadly, enough in all situations.

So realism, not pessimism.

Jennifer

By Dad in Chicago on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 01:52 pm: Edit

I agree with jenniferpa that this board is remarkably clear on the value of SAT scores. The fact is that adcoms appear to use them more than they say so as to increase applications, but on the other hand they do not just accept people blindly on the basis of these scores. This is good -- truly accomplished people benefit; this is also disorienting -- some people who look great on paper don;t get into their dream schools. Finally, the process appears whimsical -- some are accepted and others rejected for no apparent reason. This is the way it is; not pessimistic, not optimistic.

By Non-pro on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 02:26 pm: Edit

Read these messages carefully, no one here ever insisted a 1600 guarantees success! You may be getting that message from somewhere but it's not from here.

No one hear tells anyone that they should NOT be "spend(ing) time developing herself, having fun, doing extracurricular activities, and even studying."

What you see is commentary on the process, not philosophy on how people should or shouldn't live their lives. Although aspects may seem whimsical to Dad in Chicago (and I agree they are to some extent), a pro-active person can take steps to improve their chances.

I don't think anyone here has ever been told not to apply to their dream school even when their chances seem slim.

People on this board are no more pessimistic than necessary, they presume that questioners want honest, realistic answers. If people were told you what you wanted to hear, it would be very misleading. Be thankful that collegeconfidential.com posters are tactful!

By Dadster on Thursday, June 20, 2002 - 03:44 pm: Edit

Unfortunately, a bit of pessimism is essential when it comes to elite admissions. The fact is that the toughest colleges reject almost nine out of ten applicants, the majority of whom are highly qualified and fully capable of doing a great job at an elite college.

Personally, I try to strike a balance: apply to the schools you are interested in, but be prepared for the possibility that you will be part of the nine (or seven, or six...) that don't get in instead of the one that does. Have some excellent backup targets, i.e., schools that are happy to accept outstanding students.

I couldn't agree more that students shouldn't obsess about SAT scores, and should choose ECs in high school that they enjoy, not what looks good on a resume. The fact is, though, that at a VERY small number of colleges, the admissions process has become quite crazy. Without incredible academics, fantastic accomplishments outside the classroom, or (preferably) both, admission isn't very likely. Normal, reasonably high achieving, well-balanced students (that most college admissions officers would die for) don't have a great chance.

If there's something that's disgusting, it's the system that dashes the dreams of so many kids. But you can't really blame the colleges - Harvard can't quadruple its enrollment to allow more acceptances. And nobody is forcing students to apply to Ivies in record numbers, despite the long odds. Rejecting lots of great students is just part of the process now.

If we can serve a useful purpose here, I think, it's to try to put the college selection process in perspective. Many high school students feel that if they don't get into an Ivy, or Stanford, or Caltech, etc., that their life will be ruined. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are a huge number of diverse, high quality undergrad opportunities - liberal arts colleges, big state schools, music conservatories, engineering colleges, etc. The vast majority of these have reasonable admissions standards. Kids (and parents!) need to look beyond the U.S. News select few - there are great learning experiences waiting for those students who seek them out.

By Sally Rubenstone on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 07:07 am: Edit

Here's a good anecdote. While it may not be an everyday story, I don't think it's atypical either:

About a decade ago I knew a young woman named Ann. She was first in her senior class at a public high school in a blue-collar community where few grads ever went on to prestigious colleges. She held just about every top job in that school, from student government to yearbook to head cheerleader and had won a big state-wide honor as well. Her SATs were strong but not stellar--certainly among the best to come out of that high school in ages.

When I queried Ann about where she was applying to college, she mentioned several regional Catholic universities. "What about Darmouth?" I asked her. "Have you considered Brown?" I insisted that she was passing up the golden opportunity to attend a big-name institution. But Ann replied that she liked the schools she'd already seen just fine--one of them (probably the least known in the bunch) especially pleased her. And the town she came from certainly wasn't one where parents were keeling over from Ivy League admission anxiety. In fact, it was the kind of place where students who even applied to out-of-the-area colleges were often asked why they possibly wanted to go so far from home--even if "far" was just a couple hours away.

Well, needless to say, Ann was admitted everywhere she applied, and she selected a college that probably would have sent a limo for her, if she'd requested it. Once she got there, she was singled out almost right away as an outstanding student and was soon doing special research with a professor.

Ann earned all sorts of honors during her four undergrad years, along with a fellowship to study for a Ph.D. at Stanford (!)

At that point, I had to wonder. If this small-town girl had gone to an Ivy League college straight from high school, would she have been able to make the mark that she did and end up with the rewards she reaped? I dunno.

I'm not sure exactly how the story ended. In fact, it really hasn't ended yet. The last I heard of Ann was a couple years ago. I saw her picture in the local newspaper. She was engaged to a young man with a Stanford M.B.A. who had some snazzy-sounding Silicon Valley job.

Will Ann live happily ever after? Who knows? Is she a good example of why Ivy Isn't Everything? I sure think so.

By Sensical on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 07:48 am: Edit

I don't get your point. Your disclaimers notwithstanding, are kids from blue-collar communities who succeed in college a rarity? Doesn't every college, even the most obscure, give out awards? So someone you knew happen to win some, what conclusions do you draw from that? Is it that remarkable that someone from a regional school got into a famous grad school? Are you implying that someone should pick a school with less of a reputation because the odds of their winning honors and awards will he greater?

Every college has its star, even those schools without much of a reputation. Yours is a nice enough story but I don't know what readers are supposed to take away from this anecdote.

Feminists might question including her engagement as a marker of her success, not to mention adding that the fiance has a prestigous pedigree and career.

Also it's ironic that you wouldn't even name the undergrad but listed Stanford without hesitation. Your position is that prestige (ivy) doesn't matter yet you mention Stanford, its equivalent, for impact.

I don't disbelieve your story nor dispute what seems to be your point but wonder what role anecdotal evidence plays here. Doesn't it go without saying that non-ivy students can lead happy and productive lives?

By jenniferpa on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 11:42 am: Edit

Something else to throw into this pot. While I would never suggest that standardized tests are the ONLY measure of an individual's intellectual ability, and while I feel that there may be very little difference between the intellectual abilities of a student with a 1600 and one with a 1500 on the SAT, I think few people would disagree that a student who gets, for example, 1200 on the SAT, assuming they had prepared for it adequately, is quite possibly NOT as intellectually capable as one who gets a 1600. Please note, I'm not saying that that student is any less unique, worthy or anything else. Also, I recognize that the SAT does not adequately test for all those elements that go into making up a sucessful student. Given all those provisos, however, perhaps it is unfair to suggest to the 1200 student that they would be happy and successful in a environment where the expectation is that the student body is more intellectually capable than they are. Perhaps I have an unrealistic view of the teaching process at some of our "finer" universities, but I would suspect that in most cases it is targeted at the middle, rather than the bottom. I realize that it's not politically correct, but pushing a student towards a school where, with all the assistance that may be available, they are constantly struggling strikes me as being both fruitless and cruel. No one wishes to destroy someones hopes and aspirations but determination, no matter how focused, cannot always overcome the cards that life (and genetics) have handed you. I personally have one child who is intellectually capabable enough to be admitted to MIT. However, her personality and interests are such that she just wouldn't last a semester there, let alone 4 years. My other child would desperately love to go, yet he'll be lucky to break 1200. Would I actively discourage attendence at a school where their father is an alum.? Absolutely. I suppose it all comes down to "fit".

Jennifer

By Dadster on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 12:16 pm: Edit

>>Doesn't it go without saying that non-ivy students can lead happy and productive lives?<<

Not in some families, and not if you hang out around some other college discussion forums. Unfortunately, college is a name game for many people. They simply do not believe that a student can get a great education at a college that isn't in the US News Top 20 (and those in the teens may be a bit dicey, too... )

This couldn't be further from the truth, but it's a popular misconception. That's no doubt one reason for the ever-increasing number of apps at the top colleges. That's not to say that some of these schools don't have unique advantages, but life doesn't cease outside the Ivy walls...

JenniferPA: I agree with your SAT comments. While we hear a lot about what a poor predictor of undergrad success the SAT is, IMO that's because of the self-selecting populations. I.e., since MIT admits students in given range of ability, different SAT scores in that selected population may not predict much.

(The admissions office may use other indicators to compensate for SAT scores, too, further skewing the population. For example, they may admit some students with low SAT scores who demonstrate their ability in other ways, e.g., a 5 on an AP Calc test.)

On the other hand, if you took a random group of 1600-scorers and a similar group of 1100-scorers and threw both groups into MIT, I suspect the correlation between SAT and college GPA would be quite remarkable.

By Sally Rubenstone on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 12:22 pm: Edit

My point was simply that Ann chose not to attend an Ivy-caliber college although she probably had the potential to be admitted. She was wise enough to know herself and realize that she might be most successful as a big fish in a small pond, and she could then capitalize on that success and move on to a bigger pond (and Stanford might
qualify as more of a "lake" or "ocean") once she was ready.

Of course, many students from all sorts of backgrounds make smooth transitions to the most competitive colleges, but the story was selected to illustrate that "success" (which includes Ann's Ph.D. free ride much more than her engagment ring) was not the result of an Ivy diploma but of a prudent undergraduate choice.

BTW, I don't believe that "Ivy doesn't matter." Sometimes it does. In fact, for students from working-class communities, it MAY be more important than for those from well-heeled backgrounds who have already been exposed to the best high schools, fancy travel experiences, potential professional connections, etc.

The key is to make a match that you think will work for you (or your child) and not to be too heavily swayed by magazine rankings, media frenzy, or which decal you want on the back of your car.

By Sensical on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 02:46 pm: Edit

Dadster, I've probably seen the same forums as you and the only posters who talk in dramatic absolutes are usually recognized as trolls. I have read -many- complaints about talk insisting that an ivy degree is needed for a happy and productive life but I've yet to see -one- credible posting with that message. Sometimes it looks like people -rely- on flamebait like that to have something to refute.

I know your heart and Sally's are in the right place but one success story should be no more encouraging/discouraging than one tale of woe.

The bigger predictor of success is within the student, a student with so little sense or self-esteem as to buy into unsubstantiated flames from the internet over rational advice that stands on its own merit will have obstacles no matter what college he chooses. Also, the inclination to improve one's chances of success by selecting a school with minimal competition deserves a thread of its own. ;+) Truly successful people are driven from within and don't count on other people's approval for their motivation.

By Shennie (Shennie) on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 03:21 pm: Edit

I think that it is really about realism, not pessimism. When I've told people my son's stats in my midwest town, I have had several folks say, "Wow, he can go anywhere. He can write his own ticket!" But reality says that is not true. Yes, he would be a top prospect at most schools, but if he had his heart set on a top 10, there would be no guarentees. If he had wanted to apply to Ivys I would have certainly supported that, but I don't know if he would have gotten in, in spite of his excellent stats.

The point is, I think that a lot of kids think that they have a great shot, when the fact is, very few have a GREAT shot. That doesn't mean don't apply. It just means that students need to be realistic about their chances and cover their bases.

By 1sttimecollegemom on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 04:07 pm: Edit

"I think few people would disagree that a student
who gets, for example, 1200 on the SAT, assuming they had prepared for it adequately,
is quite possibly NOT as intellectually capable as one who gets a 1600."

I guess I'm one of those who would disagree with this statement. There are numerous kids in our school district which is a small rural midwest district who have no idea what the SAT even is. They may have heard of it perhaps, but there is no prep courses locally, no guidance counselor to help guide them into studying. I personally don't think a test in which a score can be raised dramatically just by paying money to take a prep course can measure how a person will do academically at an institution of higher learning.

What about those kids who excel at one or the other SAT sections. A kid who perhaps excels at Math, yet has a normal score on the Verbal will still score a lower SAT score, yet perhaps would blow the competition away at MIT in the math courses. It's unfortunate, that so many bright kids will unfortunately fall through the SAT cracks, branded by others as not being as "intellectually capable" just because they either don't have access to the prep or because they are better at one side of the test than the other.

By jenniferpa on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 05:38 pm: Edit

Well, that was my point about adequate preparation, and appropriate support at college. I also think you need to remember that even a math major needs to be able to write a coherent paper. My point, if I have one, is that any student needs to consider not just getting in, but STAYING in. While your points are undoubtedly valid, (and I believe are considered by adcoms), I still say a student who gets an 800 on the math sat, but say 400-500 on the verbal portion is going to struggle in a community of students who, for whatever reason, have a much high score overall. For a start, this isn't kindergarten here: these adolescents are expected to hit the ground running. Too much remedial work in a pressure-cooker environment will cause those students to potentially fall too far behind. Is it fair? No it's not. Is it realistic? Yes I believe it is. I have hesitated in the past to express these views in response to posters who have posted their stats. In a forum such as this, we have no idea how emotionally fragile any given poster may be, and it behooves us as to be cautious about stepping on anyone's dreams. Further, we don't have the whole story. However, pointing out the whole competitiveness of college admissions is both prudent and compassionate. Threads such as this allow us to be perhaps more honest than would otherwise be advisable.

Jennifer

By 1sttimecollegemom on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 06:05 pm: Edit

I'm sorry if that came off sounding bad, but it is a pet peeve of mine that people classify kids intellectually by SAT scores. I have seen both sides of the fence, hearing from those in my community how my son can choose his school because he excells academically here, then 20 minutes later reading the PR board and hearing that basically he's an idiot because he can't bust 1300 on the SAT or 30 on the ACT, due in big part to the Verbal sections.

He can write a coherent paper, especially if it was on a biology/chemistry subject, but he's not one to embelish anything. Straight facts, straightfoward sentences, no BS things professors like to read I'm sure, but none the less a competent paper. So, consequently he must choose a "lesser" academic college, or so I've been told, and I can't help but wonder what kind of education he is going to get. One minute you hear go for the most prestige, the next minute you hear go for match. As a parent, I'm confused, dazed, amazed, and aggrivated all at the same time, with this whole college selection process.

By joanne t (Joanne0012) on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 06:08 pm: Edit

My cousin was accepted at MIT back in the 60s despite having a score of 453 on the SAT verbal section. He's now an economics professor.

He probably wouldn't be accepted nowadays, especially with the increased proportion of women applicants as competition (the year he entered there were 54 women in a class of over 900, now they're 40 percent of the enrollment), but the point is that he DID do just fine despite the terrible SAT score.

By jenniferpa on Friday, June 21, 2002 - 06:29 pm: Edit

Unfortunately, that was then and this is now. As someone who hangs out on these boards you obviously recognize that things change, which is one of the reasons that it is so difficult for us as parents to offer advice to our own children, let alone anyone else's.

Jennifer

By Sensical on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 07:12 am: Edit

Jennifer, I agree with you that "...there may be very little difference between the intellectual abilities of a student with a 1600 and one with a 1500 on the SAT,...few...would disagree that a student who gets, for example, 1200 on the SAT, assuming they had prepared for it adequately, is quite possibly NOT as intellectually capable as one who gets a 1600."

But I question that "perhaps it is unfair to suggest to the 1200 student that they would be happy and successful in a environment where the expectation is that the student body is more intellectually capable than they are."

I am not sure what difference between student score and average score you're talking about here but when speaking in terms of academic success as we are here, the truly successful person is one who doesn't look for the security of his own comfort level but tries to challenge himself. I don't completely disagree with you, I question where you might draw the line. A 300 point difference probably is too much, not necessarily so when it's 150 points.

1sttime said, "There are numerous kids in our... small rural midwest (school) district who have no idea what the SAT even is. They may have heard of it perhaps, but there is no prep courses locally, no guidance counselor to help guide them into studying."

This goes back to the original point - success in terms of being a creative and unique person. I don't mean to sound harsh but a truly capable student will not rely on what everyone else in his hometown is doing (or not doing) to get ready for the test, he will have the initiative to find out - on his own if necessary - all about SATs, learn what he needs to do to succeed with them and then do it. He will not wait for a guidance counselor to guide him into studying. Barring extreme circumstances like being in a reservation or ghetto, he will not accept the status quo and point to his community standards as an excuse for his performance. "No one else was studying for it either" won't wash.

1sttime says, "I personally don't think a test in which a score can be raised dramatically just by paying money to take a prep course can measure how a person will do academically at an institution of higher learning."

You are focusing on the wrong thing, 1sttime, it's not the -money- that prompts the improvement, it's the -preparation-! A student can prepare in or out of the classroom. Think of SATs they way you would any hs course, there's a correlation between attention/preparation and success. We all know kids who succeed without studying, those courses probably lacked substance and shouldn't be used as a measure of anything.

"...hearing that basically he's an idiot because he can't bust 1300 on the SAT"

It's important for you as a parent to separate the wheat from the chaff. No one who says a score of < 1300 means your son is an idiot deserves your attention, why are you giving it? Of all the things to take away from your research, why that? It's up to you as parent to use good judgment in what you bring home to your child.

Joanne, a 453 in the 60's wasn't that bad!

By Shennie (Shennie) on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 11:56 am: Edit

1sttime - You state that you are confused ad dazed by the whole process. I think that you might be stuck in the trap that there is really only one "right" school for your son and, if you can discover it, he will live happily everafter. Forget about prestige. Go for the match. Help him find those schools that have and environment that you will both feel he will thrive in and don't worry about if it is not top 20. As other posters on this thread have pointed out, in 10 years it won't really matter all that much. If he has a successful undergrad career wherever he goes, he will be able to get into a good grad school program if he chooses.

I also agree with Sensical that you need to ignore anyone who says your son is an idiot because he can't crack 1300. So what? A lot of people can't and they still lead happy and successful lives. So maybe your son won't get into a top 20 school. That's OK because there are lots of great schools out there who would love to admit your son and where he would be happy to attend.

By Sensical on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 01:54 pm: Edit

>>Forget about prestige. Go for the match.<<

Must the 2 be mutually exclusive? I don't think so. There are excellent schools, some even in the first tier, that for varying reasons have less competitive admissions, don't assume a good match cannot be among them.

By Shennie (Shennie) on Saturday, June 22, 2002 - 05:38 pm: Edit

No - of course you can have both prestige and find a good match. However, I don't think anyone should apply to a prestigious school just because it has a high rank. Students should apply to those schools that will best meet their needs, regardless of their rankings.

By 1sttimecollegemom on Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 12:35 am: Edit

Shennie, I think you may be right about the "one". The perfect one that would make his dreams come true. We've been looking and each one has it's good and bad points. So even though he's decided to apply to some of these, I've kept thinking in the back of my mind that we would find that "perfect one". A mix of prestige and match, but to no avail.

You know, after reading this thread I've come to the conclusion, that it's probably me who's hung up on the boy going to a better school than him. Here I am on a Sat. night, going over this board, and he's out with friends since he finally got a Saturday night off of work.

By Sensical on Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 08:17 am: Edit

Be careful not to confuse 2 issues:

1- A good fit and a school with prestige are not necessarily mutually exclusive. No one should be bound by rankings, but rankings shouldn't be tossed out the window either. No matter how arbitrary or objectionable they sometimes seem, there is a rhyme and reason for the outcomes. These findings aren't baseless or random; there is a methodology, even if imperfect.

2- There is more than one school that can meet a child's needs. Shennie and 1sttime are right to warn against getting hung up on one perfect school. No college is perfect in every way for everyone all the time. That's a good thing to remember especially when admission is so uncertain.

By Shennie (Shennie) on Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 01:55 pm: Edit

1sttime - As you have stated, any college will have it's good and bad points. I think what you need to help your son do is figure out those things that are most important to HIM. Then you can spend time looking for schools that are seem to be highly rated on those 3-4 things that he cares the most about. For example, Son #2 wants a school where he can participate in a lot of outdoor activities on a regular basis. Son #3 says he want to stay in the midwest (but he is only 14, so that may change.)

And maybe your son doesn't really know what he wants in a school. Then you do lots of visits to help him get a feel for it. But my guess is that there will be several or even many schools that will have the key things that he is looking for. Then you can look at repuation, "feel", and those things that may be less important but add to the overall experience. And I think there are lots of "right" schools out there for each kid, which helps make life easier for us, not more difficult.

By Roger (Admin) on Sunday, June 23, 2002 - 10:17 pm: Edit

Note - a message from Sharon & a few replies were split off into a separate thread in the Parents Forum: Smart but Unmotivated.