<p>
[quote]
Switching gears...Marite, local experience is the opposite. MIT has given BETTER fin aid packages than Harvard, especially to the children of divorce. It seems more willing to waive the non-custodial parent's contribution when there is a long history of failure to pay child support. Three kids from our neighborhood have gone to MIT over H for this reason.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thanks for the correction!</p>
<p>Al Gore spoke at Harvard (I believe when one of his daughters graduated). He put me to sleep.
Another alum, Yo Yo Ma has (or had?) kids at Harvard and has performed there and given classes. One of my S's friends has raved about how helpful he's been.</p>
<p>DP_
State unis get lots of government funding that the private U's don't. It is all (well... almost all) about $$. As you know, til recently, UF did their best to lure NMF's , not only to lure the best and brightest, but to be able to brag about how many NMF's they have. Do NOT get me wrong, I am all for this. In fact, I am bummed that this year they've changed the rules a bit, and that my probable-to-be NMSF will not get the same lucrative offer that older s did. Schools will, and should, use many variables, overt and covert, to put together the best class each year.</p>
<p>As an aside, when I was at UF, there was a law student (if I am remembering correctly) who was the son of a poilitian who had written some well-known legislation. When I was in undergrad there were "famous" offspring and family legacies. We do have a tendency to remember this stuff, even if it isn't why we chose those schools. GO GATORS!</p>
<p>"Give me a good state uni." Ours? Hmmmm.... If we wanted it to compare with top private schools, we'd have to be willing to fork over big bucks. And we're just beginning to shed the Taxachusetts moniker...</p>
<p>When did UF get rid of the full ride for NMFs?<br>
It's trying very hard to increase its academic respectability; Florida Brights has been a windfall for this. Perhaps they have found it is no longer <em>necessary</em> to recruit NMFs because UF is starting to get more interest?
This year was one of the bloodiest ever for admissions to UF (SAT 1220-1390; GPA 3.9-4.4). If things continue in this vein, the selectivity at UF will rival the other big *Ivy publics". BIG BIG shakeups at our high school.</p>
<p>Sorry to get sidetracked, I didn't know that NMF perks got cut.</p>
<p>"When I was in undergrad there were "famous" offspring and family legacies. We do have a tendency to remember this stuff, even if it isn't why we chose those schools. "</p>
<p>LOL when I was in undergrad, our governer sent his D OOS!</p>
<p>As I understand it dp the change was effective this year (Fall 2007). My d rec'd the NMF full-ride/honors offer from UF last year. (She was veeeerrrry tempted because indeed UF IS a real 'up and comer' with respect to prestige and selectivity.)</p>
<p>And fortunately, the last Gov of Texas with college kids I can remember had twins...one to keep home at the state flagship and one to send the ol' Ivy alma mater. ;) No PR missteps there...and looks like our current gov likes that strategy for his.)</p>
<p>Here's an anomaly- kid in my son's graduating class with SATs 1400+ (not great for Ivy, but pretty dern good for public) and grades to go with it...did NOT get into UF but DID get into an Ivy. This was a huge shakeup at the school, and my suspicion is it might have something to do with school recs/letters/disciplinary record. Of course, all the upcoming Gator wanna-be's are shook up about it, and no one's talking...</p>
<p>It would actually help to alleviate the fears and stress for upcoming kids to know why these things happen, but I can understand the privacy issue, obviously.</p>
<p>"Your personal mention did, however, infer that geography may have played a role in his acceptance to Duke--in other words, that the standards were somehow lowered for him because he was from an "underrepresented area," and because of that inference, his academic record was <em>most</em> relevant."</p>
<hr>
<p>I speaking generally and am addressing no one specific person in the following:</p>
<p>I don't think there is any doubt, inferences and implications aside, that kids from geographically underrepresented areas get a boost at elite colleges. And how they actually perform once in college is not the point. The point is they are given opportunity that is denied others. And many times if you place their admissions credentials side by side with those denied because they are from an overrepresented area (think Houston applicants and Rice University) there is an inherent superficial unfairness to the preference. But you can never look at admissions in those terms....this is about building a meaningful freshman class with diversity goals and yes, funding and name recognition goals, in mind. </p>
<p>So if your kid gets a geographic boost, more power to him...but recognize it's a boost and don't be so quick to wrinkle a nose at others who benefit in the same way.</p>
<p>Aside from the obvious hypocrisy cited by ejr1 and doubleplay, there is a more subtle form of hypocrisy evident in the admitting of students with demonstrated, sustained histories of personal misconduct and irresponsibilty.</p>
<p>I don't think there is a parent or college administrator out there who doesn't lament the general boorish behavior (or worse) rampant on many if not most college campuses. Even very normally or well-behaving kids can show serious lapses in judgment when they encounter the group or "mob mentality" phenomenon. This is even <em>more</em> reason to eliminate the selection of those who have already demonstrated serious issues around personal conduct and respect for rules in general. Why add fuel to an already problematic fire? We can hardly lament these problems when we have a part in creating them by admitting kids with huge "red flags" on their records when there are many other extremely qualified candidates who do not carry this risk.</p>
<p>Please understand that I am not including in this group those who have committed an occasional "youthful mistake." I am speaking about those whose school records are littered with all sorts of disciplinary problems. </p>
<p>Truthfully, I'm not really sure why this notion is arguable in the least or not simply an intuitive thing. It just makes sense on many, many levels.</p>
<p>It is not a univerisity's job to find every "diamond in the rough." You don't see oil companies drilling for oil on land unlikely to contain it. Sure, a wildcat is hit once in awhile ;) , but for the most part, the companies want to minimize risk and look for the better prospects. </p>
<p>If, as some here have claimed extensively, colleges are "businesses," then it makes perfect sense for them to look for the best prospects. Kids who have demonstrated records of contribution to school and society. Kids who are an asset and not a "drain." If you view it from a "business" perspective, it is logical. And, such kids are a better "risk" in the unique college environment which allows the most freedom with the least responsibility. In schools which admit some 2000 kids out of 20,000 applicants, I cannot see any reason to squander a precious spot on someone with a high risk factor.</p>
<p>Berurah- I would love to see an instance where someone whose school record is "littered with all sorts of disciplinary problems" was admitted to a highly-selective school. Would you care to share an instance where a student with a bad disciplinary record (in your eyes) was admitted to a top school, thereby depriving a model citizen a place? I will add that one of my son's classmates was expelled from perhaps the top prep boarding school in the country in mid-senior year for a serious alcohol infraction and still was accepted to many elite colleges and is attending an Ivy. I guess the schools thought his boorish behavior would guarantee his success! </p>
<p>I, personally, think many disciplinary incidents in high school lead to a HIGHER probability of success in college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even very normally or well-behaving kids can show serious lapses in judgment when they encounter the group or "mob mentality" phenomenon. This is even <em>more</em> reason to eliminate the selection of those who have already demonstrated serious issues around personal conduct and respect for rules in general. Why add fuel to an already problematic fire?
[/quote]
thats just so silly I dont know where to begin.....</p>
<p>Has any parent considered here that kids are pretty adept at showing a good face to those who want to see it? I mean COME ON. My d just attended a function where a very good friend who is brilliant and who, yes, attends an Ivy, and who is loved by all adults for being so mature, responsible, articulate and just perfect was stoned of his/her mind! Kid was a stoner all through h.s. and I guarantee you no teacher at their h.s. would have ever DREAMED this kid had this well-concealed side to him/her.</p>
<p>So even if we charged the elites with responsibility of accepting only the 'well-behaved' kids, how would they ever know they were really getting them?</p>
<p>I can't tell you how many "normal" kids showed up at my son's Ivy with fake IDs and a desire to do a lot of partying. Perhaps I should write to all the parents to apologize in case my WildChild led them astray????</p>