The original outcome remains the product: a ranked application portfolio optimized for admission probability, financial usability, and fit. The new school dossiers and comparison engine now sit underneath it so every recommendation can be audited in depth.
See the Core 10 Compare up to 3 schoolsRanked by the probability of producing a usable outcome — not by prestige. Change the SAT scenario to see where a higher score actually moves the plan.
Recommended Rank is the human-reviewed overall order. Combined Rank sorts the current SAT scenario by admission × affordability-if-admitted.
| Combined Rank | Recommended Rank | School | Admission | Cost works if admitted | Combined planning chance | Early route | Superscore | Research |
|---|
The Core 10 table answers where to apply. These pages answer what he is actually applying for.
Very high probability of admission plus potentially excellent need/merit aid. It remains a portfolio anchor even if it is not the student's preferred environment.
High admission probability + strong need-aid model + one of the most distinctive experiential business programs in the portfolio.
Near-certain admission plus Kentucky financial leverage and a real business college in a sizeable city.
Excellent undergraduate business experience with strong internship/placement metrics plus a genuine full-cost scholarship lottery ticket.
One of the strongest experiential-business fits in the list. The weakness is making total four-year cost work.
The cleanest Kentucky flagship option; tuition can be highly solvable.
If the financial model works beyond tuition, it could be one of the best overall fits and an ED leverage candidate.
Admission is realistic and business outcomes are strong; the full-cost scholarship gives it a legitimate financial path.
His 1460 is above Pitt Business's published middle range, and the new scholarship route gives it an affordability jackpot worth pursuing.
High conditional affordability and excellent career infrastructure justify the application even though the school type is not his first choice.
These are intentionally separated from the Core 10. They are high-upside applications, not schools the plan depends on.
Why: Best high-upside reach because the financial result could be excellent if admitted.
Early: ED I or ED II. Binding.
Why: Strong undergraduate business program and materially better admission odds than the ultra-reaches.
Risk: ordinary financial-aid fallback is less predictable.
Why: McDonough + family Georgetown connection + strong need aid if admitted.
Early: Georgetown EA is nonbinding but restrictive.
Why: Mendoza is excellent and the need-aid model can be very strong for this income range.
Risk: still a true selective reach; REA restrictions matter.
Why: Strong business program, excellent need aid, and geographically more reasonable than California.
Risk: academic profile is below the recent median testing range.
This stays outside the five-reach count because it serves a different purpose: the deliberate California dream application with a private-university aid model that is far more workable than the UCs for this family.
Planning estimate: roughly 5–8% at 1460, ~10% at 1500, ~12% at 1540.
GW ED I only if the official net-price calculator shows a clearly acceptable residual cost after the Revolutionary Promise and other need aid.
If GW fails or is not used, consider Vanderbilt ED II as the high-upside second shot.
Vanderbilt ED I, keeping the rest of the Core 10 moving through EA/priority deadlines.
If Vanderbilt fails, consider GW ED II only after the financial model is rechecked.