<p>I agree with those who point out the miserable (unenviable) environments of poor quality schools -- intellectually, physically, socially. And I agree with those who feel enriched by their opposite (rigorous) private school experiences. It's just that The System makes it more difficult to be recognized right now (& rewarded with appropriate college admissions) unless a student is one extreme or the other: The superstar of a great private or the superstar of a bad public. Lots of excellent students who don't fit into either category, & I feel for all of them. Many of them don't have in-State publics which are up to the quality they expect of a classroom, yet it's very difficult to obtain a private college ticket (not necessarily HYP) that reflects what the student has come to expect. It's certainly possible to appreciate the superior education of the private while lamenting the admissions outcomes nevertheless.</p>
<p>you said it best, epiphany.</p>
<p>I think until any of us can walk a mile in another's shoes, we should not be making assumptions about who has an "easier" or "harder" time achieving academically and otherwise. The continued "I have had it worse than you" and/or "it isn't fair that 'x' student gets an advantage over 'y' student" complaints are only serving to reinforce stereotypes of all sorts of College Confidential. If you truly do not trust in the admissions process and the people who are making these decisions, perhaps you should question why getting into college is so important to you in the first place. I know this sounds harsh, but if you aren't wanting to go to college TO LEARN and become a better person, but rather are concerned with prestige, one has to question why you want to go to college in the first place.</p>
<p>I do not agree with the sentiments that students are being "rewarded" more for overcoming unenviable circimstances in much the same way that I do not agree with the sentiments that students attending private schools are somehow being scrutinized differently in admissions offices than others to the detriment of the applicant. </p>
<p>Students who attend privates and boarding schools are given a <em>tremendous</em> advantage in the admissions process, whether they are at the top of their class or not. They are given far more benefit of the doubt than most students, including many students of color and economically-challenged students, simply because there is an assumption that these students are working harder to be standouts at their schools. They are the beneficiaries of multiple reads when others do not get them; they are the beneficiaries of gross assumptions about their abilities with no real evidence to prove the veracity of such assumptions; they are the beneficiaries of very good counseling and recommendations; they are the beneficiaries of politics between school and college. When a private school or boarding school complains to me that my college has only accepted 3 students this year out of the 20 who have applied and I respond that "x" public school had 0 acceptances out of the 30 who have applied and I STILL HEAR COMPLAINTS, it really makes me wonder exactly what is important to the school - their list of college acceptances or the education they are actually providing their students. It seems as those this attitude is perpetuated in the student body...</p>
<p>Students in unenviable circumstances are certainly the beneficiaries of <em>some</em> benefit of doubt in the admissions process. HOWEVER, just like everyone else, they are being evaluated based upon their achievements to the extent that they have done the most with what's been offered to them. How you can evaluate any student in any other way is beyond my imagination if we are all interested in being "fair." Simply because you think you are somehow being judged unfairly in the admissions process DOES NOT MEAN THAT IS WHAT IS GOING ON. On the contrary, most students would be surprised by just how fair the admissions process at most schools is. </p>
<p>Don't make gross assumptions about the admissions process or how certain students are evaluated in the process...it exposes your ignorance about what you are trying to talk about. The process might seem unfair to you, parents, counselors, and even admissions officers at times, but THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS IS NOT ONLY ABOUT YOU! IT IS ABOUT EVERYONE WHO IS APPLYING. To think you are being victimized in a process that involves hundreds of thousands of students per year is ridiculous, especially when each of those thousands of students has had a different life than your own. This process is not just about you!</p>
<p>AdOfficer,
Speaking for myself, I hope that I did not miscommunicate. I do not judge the system as "unfair" in the macro view (in fact far from it: I think colleges stretch to attempt fairness as much as is possible, from their perspective.) But I also think it is natural in a person's young stage of development to be self-absorbed in both good & "bad" ways, focusing on one's own needs, desires, dreams. I do agree that the system does not perversely award for bad environments so much as choose from among (often equally) exceptional candidates from many kinds of environments.</p>
<p>But I'm talking about numbers here. When a family takes a look at the numbers of applicants to any "selective" school (that's a lot of schools), and especially any "very selective" school (much fewer), there are really not that many places in the freshman class for "just" an excellent or even exceptional student. Not compared to the numbers of those seeking those spots, nationally & internationally. There's nothing that a college can do about that. They have a feast before them and can only "consume" so much. (Sorry for that metaphor.)</p>
<p>Should applicants be bitter about that? No. But where I do think there is room for change in college admissions -- and particularly in the awarding of financial aid -- is for ALL colleges (not just the privates) and ALL scholarship awards (including those for merit) to examine the rigor of the high school curriculum, combined with level of need, combined with how hard that (possibly very underprivileged) student worked when distributing money for a college where the curriculum level matches the student's proven abilities & demonstrated accomplishment in his or her very demanding high school. </p>
<p>Public Universities notoriously do NOT recognize the "rigor of the high school curriculum" when making admissions decisions. Not at all. Even the most outstanding public U's in the U.S. They may "weight" AP and Honors courses, but an AP in some of my local (even excellent) publics is nowhere near the level of demand as an Honors or regular level course at my D's private high school. This leaves the excellent student from an excellent private (esp. if without funds!) with much fewer options than either a wealthy student from a private school or a student from a public who is anywhere on the financial spectrum.</p>
<p>Therefore, comprehensively, "the system," everything included, still has a lot of room for improvement, i.m.o.</p>
<p>"Public Universities notoriously do NOT recognize the "rigor of the high school curriculum" when making admissions decisions. Not at all. Even the most outstanding public U's in the U.S. They may "weight" AP and Honors courses, but an AP in some of my local (even excellent) publics is nowhere near the level of demand as an Honors or regular level course at my D's private high school."</p>
<p>I am weary of broad unsubtantiated generalizations about how admissions decisions are made, and about the difficulty or lack there of in public high schools. In my experience both public and private institutions take into account the rigor of curriculum within the context of what is available at the high school. The vast majority of high school students do not get to choose their high school and must make the best of things, and shouldn't be penalized for opportunites they don't have. That aside, contrary to many of the broad assertions being made here, many public school students do work hard for their grades, even (gasp) at high schools that are neither competitive nor excellent. Both my S and D attended a middle of the road public high school from which a lucky few make it into the Ivies in some years. They don't coast through high school earning easy As to get there They work hard for their grades, have excellent stats and ECs, just like many of the private school folks on this board. And often they have to work around inadequate teaching and a general lack of information. Is their curriculum more or less demanding than that of a top private school -- I have no idea, nor do I think that true learning can be quantified in that way. If you looked at their school profile (most going to state schools or 2 year colleges) one might be tempted to assume its an easy unchallenging school and this is where generalizations can get you into trouble. One thing I do know is that they don't have the advantage of attending a competitive or public or a private school that all the Ivies are familar with. And maybe they have a slight edge in that some Ivies might look to take one of them in an effort to be fairer, but it is hardly is something one can count on. When it came to acceptances this year, there were a few Ivy acceptances (3 in all I think), and this was a good year. Those who were accepted were stellar students who would have been successful in any educational 'context', and many qualified students were denied at these same schools and others. The strange thing is I don't see them looking around for some other group to blame for this. Most are simply grateful for the chances they do have.</p>
<p>" I am weary of broad unsubtantiated generalizations about how admissions decisions are made, and about the difficulty or lack there of in public high schools."</p>
<p>And I am exceptionally weary of ignorant parents who know nothing about the huge variations in standards of curriculum & standards of performance among ranges of high schools in certain states. I live and teach in a state that probably has the most gigantic range of standards in both those areas. Yet a student who is near the top of his class (which could be a B average in a nondemanding curriculum -- those are official numbers, not merely my subjective perception) can be admitted on a special track to the State's premier & internationally recognized research U system. </p>
<p>If you want "substantiation," I can give you that in a PM, but I'm not going to bore CC readers with numbers. </p>
<p>P.S. I'm not "assuming" anything. I teach to a wide range of students & have lived in this State virtually all my life, as well as being educated here, recently & long ago.</p>
<p>epiphany...</p>
<p>I was not responding to your comments here, specifically, so no, you did not miscommunicate ;). However, I do disagree with the assertion that "When a family takes a look at the numbers of applicants to any "selective" school (that's a lot of schools), and especially any "very selective" school (much fewer of these exist), there are really not that many places in the freshman class for "just" an excellent or even exceptional student." This may be the <em>perception</em> the family has, but the truth of the matter is that there is plenty of room for these students at selective (and there are not that many, actually) and very selective schools (very few). This perception seems to be rooted in the idea that excellent students are somehow entitled to admission to these institutions. Whether the student comes from very comfortable means or not, many a hard working, intelligent, high-achieving student comes across as entitled and, quite frankly, it is not surprising - most of these students have "earned" their way to a good college. The problem arises, however, when you ask such a student or their parents what a good college is...</p>
<p>Sadly, because higher education is seen less as a social good in this country and more as a commodity for personal consumption and good, prestige has taken over the minds of many students and parents. The result? The same 100,000 students (the top of each year's graduating high school classes) are applying to the same 50-100 schools (those that are "selective" or "very selective"). In truth, there are less than 40-50 schools in the country that admit fewer than 30% of their applicants out of the 2000+ 4-year institutions in this country. However, it is these 40-50 schools that are seen as the only "good" schools to go to by many students and their parents. Thus, there are always going to be MANY disappointed students and parents who cry "foul!" when they are not admitted to one of these schools and forced to attend (oh no!) their state institution or a less selective private school. These students and parents often fail to take the time during their searches to explore less selective institutions that may provide an excellent education for the student or, dare I say, may even be a better fit for the student than a "name brand" school. </p>
<p>Surely, every parent wants the best for their child and, surely, every student wants the best for themselves. However, simply wanting the best for oneself or one's child does not equate to going to an Ivy or Stanford or Amherst. No matter how strong of a student or community service volunteer or soccer player or bassoon player or whatever a student is, there is always going to be someone else who is better or stronger in the applicant pools at these schools. No matter how wonderful a parent may think their student is, there is always going to be a more objective professional who is an expert on the institution the student has applied to who is going to decide whether or not the student will thrive at the institution. Parents and students, you just cannot take a waitlist or denial from a "name brand" school personally - it is not only about you or your child. This is hard to accept, but it is, at the end of the day, the truth. Does this mean the student or child is any less wonderful than previously thought? No...it only means that there are many wonderful students from a variety of different backgrounds applying to these schools which, as we all know, have a very limited number of spaces available.</p>
<p>Thanks for your feedback, AdOfficer. You may be right about the perception aspect. I think it's mostly related to the <em>definition</em> aspect of what a "good" school is. (The common refrain on the student forums.) However, you seem to contradict yourself between your first paragraph and your last sentence of your last paragraph. </p>
<p>I never defend "entitlement" attitudes, & I agree that even from the limited perspective here on CC, this is a problem for families & admissions committees. However, I think some of what is viewed as "entitlement" may be more appropriately defined as expectations. I've done some informal comparisons of expectations in privates as opposed to very excellent publics. It seems that students in the latter are more flexible in these expectations (particularly if not from the NE) than students in high-pressure privates from any region. When the quality of one's <em>current</em> education is quite high, it could be reasonable to expect the next step in one's educational career to be at least as high -- i.e., admitting mostly similarly high-achieving, very capable students, and providing exceptional course offerings & instructors.</p>
<p>OP - write a college application essay arguing your point. I'm sure they will be awestruck.</p>
<p>epiph...</p>
<p>It may seem like a contradiction, but in truth, it isn't just "hooked" students getting into the "brand names" or "elites." Where I think a misconception lies is that the vast majority of students applying to these colleges ARE "just" excellent and the vast majority of the students being accepted ARE actually "just" excellent, but in different ways, and not necessarily hooked, but they do not understand is what "excellent" really means FOR EACH INSTITUTION THEY ARE APPLYING TO. When a "just" excellent student is rejected from an elite college, it isn't because they aren't hooked or aren't special or excellent...it is because they are not a fit for the college like others in the applicant pool - who are just as non-hooked, special, or excellent - may be. </p>
<p>Institutional interests change year to year and there is no way for a parent or student to predict them. It is always surprising for me to see students who we have waitlisted go on to places like Harvard, Yale, Brown, Stanford, etc...these students were "just" excellent in many ways, but not a fit for us. Because 95% of the students applying to my school are "just" excellent academically, we are looking for more than just a 4.0 gpa, 2400 SAT, and a resume of activities. But these interests drive only a handful of the decisions we make...the vast majority of our decisions focus on finding students who are CLEARLY engaged learners, who are interested in affecting change, who will be leaders at our institution, who will take advantage of the opportunities at our institutions, and who convey WHY they do what they do. If you are excellent in many ways but do not convey WHY you are excellent and WHY you do what you do, you simply aren't going to be a compelling applicant! Perhaps this is why so many "just" excellent students are denied with suprise - they do not understand that stats and resumes do not speak for themselves the way many students and parents believe they do, especially at institutions where most applicants have the same stats and resumes.</p>
<p>Entitlement vs. Expectation. IMO this is a very, very fine distinction, but I do agree with your assessment/observations in this area. Sadly, however, whether the attitude is based on entitlement or expectation, the result is usually the same - an internalized disappointment that can only be explained by someone in the admissions office not knowing what the heck they are doing. It is our job to identify students who are a fit for our institutions; it is the students' job to convey WHY they are that fit, not simply compile a brag sheet, which so many application are.</p>
<p>AdOfficer, I agree with you in most every way with regard to your last post. As an example, btw, of your second paragraph, we also know someone who was outright rejected, and a few times waitlisted, by "lesser" but highly ranked schools, & by equal schools to H, yet accepted by H & very few others. It was always really clear to me that she belonged at H, and I kept on insisting this to her and to her parents. Her application statements to the other colleges, as she & her parents described them to me, were quite ambiguous & unconvincing. The message seemed to be: "I don't really know <em>why</em> I belong here, but I desperately want to go, nevertheless, and I'm a great student with the following great assets & am extremely well prepared for this college."</p>
<p>I sometimes notice similar ambiguous messages on CC, and certainly I notice quite a few <em>this</em> year in particular that feature rejections from some U's but acceptances to even more competitive schools. This could also be a yield dynamic, but it's believable that the applicant's message -- combined with how that relates to the applicant's background & the insitutional priorities -- could be factors, as wel.</p>
<p>There is definitely a two-pronged problem of self-evaluation on the part of the student (relative to the desired college) and relevant expression of fit for that college. Sometimes neither step is honestly & effectively completed. Sometimes just the first, not the second.</p>
<p>^^^^
bingo!</p>
<p>Adofficer says [private school kids]are given far more benefit of the doubt than most students, including many students of color and economically-challenged students</p>
<p>Are you kidding? There is a reason why no school will release admissions rates for "students of color". </p>
<p>Adofficer says When a private school or boarding school complains to me that my college has only accepted 3 students this year out of the 20 who have applied and I respond that "x" public school had 0 acceptances out of the 30 who have applied and I STILL HEAR COMPLAINTS</p>
<p>The reason you still hear complaints is because over at public school "y" and public school "z", students with so-so gpas and test scores are let in while many of the 17 rejected kids are much brighter and harder working</p>
<p>Adofficer says it really makes me wonder exactly what is important to the school - their list of college acceptances or the education they are actually providing their students.</p>
<p>You are dealing with the college counseling department. What do you think they care about? </p>
<p>Adofficer says Students in unenviable circumstances are certainly the beneficiaries of <em>some</em> benefit of doubt in the admissions process. </p>
<p>Wait a minute, I thought you said that private school kids "are given far more benefit of the doubt than most students, including many students of color and economically-challenged students"</p>
<p>Adofficer says On the contrary, most students would be surprised by just how fair the admissions process at most schools is. </p>
<p>The only problem is that WE see the students you admit. We know them, we know their circumstances, we know how our achievements stack up to theirs, we know how they interact with the teachers who will write their recs, we know how they write, how they present themselves, who their parents are. You can't always hide behind the "well you don't see what we see" argument. Contrary to popular belief, students DO KNOW who deserved to get into school x and who didn't. When somebody who didn't deserve to get into school x gets in, we know it was unfair. </p>
<p>Adofficer says Don't make gross assumptions about the admissions process or how certain students are evaluated in the process...it exposes your ignorance about what you are trying to talk about. </p>
<p>Name-calling doesn't win arguments.</p>
<p>trackstar, keep in mind that colleges are admitting a freshman class- not a bunch of individuals who supposedly "deserve" to get in. </p>
<p>In any case, private high schools are hardly underrepresented. At Stanford 1/3 of admits went to a private school!</p>
<p>trackstar...
There was no name-calling...</p>
<p>However, I don't get the impression you know how we make our decisions or WHY we make the decisions we do. I don't think you know WHY one application may be viewed less favorably than another student's application, nor do I think it is your prerogative. You are not the institution, nor are you an expert on it. </p>
<p>Yes, students living with unenviable circumstances do get some benefit of doubt in the admissions process. However, students from well known private schools and boarding schools are given a tremendous amount of benefit of doubt. There are assumptions made about the quality of instruction at these schools, the amount of work the students are doing at these schools, the QUALITY of work the students are doing at these schools, and the level of engagement the students at these schools possess before applications are even read. Students at these schools benefit from visits from elite college representatives every year; they benefit from personal and telephone conversations - and some times visits to deans' offices - made by their college counseling offices to discuss individual candidates that most public school students do not get; they benefit from having counselors who are dealing with FAR fewer students in their caseload than even the most elite public high schools; they benefit from having smaller classes and a better student to teacher ratio than public schools students; they benefit from political relationships that exist between schools; do I really need to go on? </p>
<p>Regardless of whether or not the curriculum of private school A is more demanding than public school B, making assumptions concerning who has "earned" their way into a particular school smacks of entitlement and elitism. How dare you make statements concerning the level of intelligence and commitment to school work of students who attend other schools! (re: "The reason you still hear complaints is because over at public school "y" and public school "z", students with so-so gpas and test scores are let in while many of the 17 rejected kids are much brighter and harder working").</p>
<p>Regardless of personal socioeconomic status, private schooled students are the beneficiaries of advantages in the college admissions process that most public school students could only dream of. When you consider the number of students attending private high schools in this country (grades 9-12 = less than 1.5 million according to the NCES) compared to the number of students attending public schools in this country (grades 9-12 = over 15 million) with respect to the student populations at the most selective colleges and universities, it is ABUNDANTLY clear that private school students are grossly over-represented. Examples? Harvard - 36% private schooled. Yale - 45% private schooled. Penn - 44%. Amherst - 43%. Middlebury - 47%. (These are numbers from these institutions' websites, although many other schools do not even publish these numbers on their sites...).</p>
<p>One cannot ignore the advantage students receive in private schools with respect to college admissions and, to an extent, the positive experiences many students have at these schools. Nevertheless, to assume that students in private schools are more intelligent, work harder, and deserve admission to elite school more so than their peers at publics is revolting. Keep in mind that we aren't just concerned about what you are doing in high school and what your peers are doing. Colleges and universities have social missions on a grander scale that most high school students don't think about because, quite frankly, they are consumed by themselves (which isn't terribly surprising - you're still quite young!). Education isn't just a private good, trackstar - it is also a public one as well. It is not simply a commodity to consume - rather, it is something which can better individuals and society. This philosophy affects and guides many of the decisions admissions offices make, whether you choose to understand it, value it, or recognize it.</p>
<p>Wow, isn't it great that a child of a prep/large city school believes he knows everything about rural and ghetto schools. I'm sure Mr. Burns fully understands all the advantages Cletus has in college admissions.</p>
<p>Adofficer, a very thoughtful post and many points are well taken. My whole point is that admissions committees are sometimes forgetting that they are not qualified to be social engineers. There are simply too many people who know how to "play the game" for an admissions committe to be able to fairly judge an applicant's circumstances. Do you think after college, when an employer looks at someon's resume they are going to say "well, the other applicants have superior work experience, better recomendations, a higher college gpa, and interview better, but obviously your opportunties were limited working at the fast food joint down the street".</p>
<p>And who do you think would be best at playing this "game": private-school kids who have grown up around people who know what needs to be done to get into elite schools (and quite possibly have well-informed guidance counselors or hired help) or the public school kids that are applying because they heard that Princeton was ranked #1 by newsweek? </p>
<p>I think you know the answer to that one.</p>
<p>And I don't appreciate the snobbish likening of a public school to a fast-food joint. Not to mention the fact that you credit Adofficer's post as "very thoughtful" yet your attitude hasn't changed one bit.</p>
<p>Trackstar: didn't you get into Yale and Duke? What are you complaining about?</p>
<p>trackstar, regarding your post 57, please keep in mind that private colleges are not in a position merely to sacrifice their reputations & desirability to social engineering. To the extent that they can accommodate BOTH their standards (academic mission) AND their social mission, they will try to do so. However, I think your perception may loom larger than reality. Generally, the kinds of students one finds working at fast food joints, or with ordinary academic backgrounds, are not those applying to Elites. Remember that a student still has to be assessed as capable of meeting a certain standard. (For example, Princeton has strict distribution requirements; it would be difficult to pass some of those courses without adequate preparation.) </p>
<p>I teach in publics made up of students with previous poor preparation and/or who lack some essential skills. I promise you that regardless of their "bad environments" (some are surrounded by gangs, others distracted by domestic situations), none of these students is applying to anything but a public college, and certainly not the flagships, because they will NOT qualify. Of those who seek further education at graduation, most will do so at community college -- which is good, because they need foundational work; a few others (fewer than that) are applying to State U's. One or two from each class is applying to the lowest & the mid levels of the University system.</p>
<p>Not a single one is ready for the least selective private of any kind.</p>