<p>"Yet one more element of hypocrisy" ( title as posted by Berurah).</p>
<p>There are CERTAIN mistakes one might be allowed to make and still be admitted to college. There are CERTAIN kids who pollute the entire university crazy enough to admit them (because they are a talented, dumb jock or from a wealthy family, probably) and ruin the experience for the well-behaved kids from under-represented midwestern states who eat home-baked cookies after school. I don't know- this isn't what my life experience (not to mention my religious beliefs) teaches me. </p>
<p>My son spent some time in an emotional growth school. You don't go to one of those places for fun, and families don't choose to spend the $50K plus a year just to get their kid out of the house. From my son's particular EG school (which is not where he completed high school), there are kids achieving great success- socially, academically and athletically- at places such as Yale, Penn, NYU, Wash U, USC, UVA, Rhodes, Sewanee, and many more. These kids were such problems that they were sent to a THERAPEUTIC school for part of high school! Berurah, I suppose these kids should have been sent off to a remote island instead of being admitted to challenging universities???</p>
<p>I have known kids who have littered hs disciplinary records getting accepted to selective privates. I do not know, however, of any POOR or working class kids with littered disciplinary records getting accepted though. Perhaps that's where the difference lies.</p>
<p>I feel like we keep going around and around. The next post will say, dp life's not fair, people who have money get into school ahead of others. And I'll say yes that's true but it doesn't make it right. Then it will be, how do you know what those rich, problem-ridden kids with hidden assets have. Then I'll say, money?? Then we'll be back to where this paragraph started. :)</p>
<p>Berurah-
I don't see the "obvious hypocrisy" in ejrs post (so I have inquired), and I am assuming the the "hypocricy" to which you speak of in doubleplay's post is that a strong student in his/her child's HS didn't get into UF while less strong candidates did. That is not hypocricy. As we have seen in other situations (such as Andison, if I am allowed to give an example) very qualified students are oftentimes turned away because they are overqualified, and schools may make the assumption that they are using the school as a safety (ie the old Tufts syndrome). Again- thats not hypocricy,thats business. Surely you are joking when you minimized the fact that running a college is a business. College presidents are often replaced if their fundraising efforts arent successsful enough or their admission stats arent good enough. How many times have peole said that acceptances are a "crapshoot"? There are many variables in the process that we are not privvy to. But to blame the students with a more colorful history for the potential acting-out behaviors of he more squeaky clean ones- well that is just beyond ridiculous.</p>
<p>Well- As I said before, the parents of the kids who attended my son's EG school did not buy admissions. We are not poor, but neither are we the Bushes or the Gores. Our kids all earned their own acceptances. In fact, one young man whose father owns a professional baseball team (extremely wealthy) instructed his prep school guidance counselor that under NO circumstances was there to be ANY use of his father's name or possible developmental opportunities. This kid actually declined to apply to one college because he would have needed the "tip" to assure an ED acceptance.</p>
<p>Berurah-
How would you or doubleplay know if this is true?? As for me, I'd like to read the transcripts and lists of suspensions or other behavioral interventions of the poor or working class kids, or perhaps some of the recruited athletes (for the big rah rah sports that bring in LOTS of money to the school) before I would make or agree to this statement. Soooo many assumptions and generalizations around here (and yes, my comment about a recruited athlete can be seen as a generalization too).</p>
<p>Maybe it's not so much "buying into" a college as it is a combo of paying full freight and demonstrating the potential of giving more, even it it's just a little bit, over the next four years (IOW, not dirt poor). I'm sure once you're in, mom and dad get mailing after mailing asking for $, no? (Of course, they do this everywhere.) And how many put just a little something-something into the envelope? It adds up. Contrast that with a family who is guaranteed never to give one bloody dime.
This is definitely how it works in private hs's so I can only assume it is similar at the college level. They're not collecting moo-lah <em>just</em> from the billionaires.</p>
<p>"Fitzsimmons has stated that Harvard looks for people who will be happy in the bottom quarter, given that there has to be a bottom quarter"</p>
<p>This has got to be the dumbest idea ever. They reject people who would have graduated #1 in their major. (This assumption is based on the fact that I know Harvard rejects that graduated #1 in their major at MIT.)</p>
<p>Doubleplay-
Several football and basketball players (for example) make it to the big leagues, make lots of money and give lots back to the school. Just because they are poor to begin with doesnt mean they will remain poor for the rest of their life. How many "rags to riches" stories do we read about all over the place? Many people who you wouldnt expect to donate give lots of money. I look at the mailings I get from my undergrad alumnae organization. there are people in the very high categories, giving tons of money, that I would NEVER have expected would have been as successful as they were. And there were plenty, PLENTY of my classmates from money whose names were mysteriously missing from the donation lists- year after year. Sometimes people who have less money are more generous than those with money</p>
<p>Let try an example. Poor, deprived inner city kid from a single parent home mixed up in gangs with a pretty healthy record of school disciplinary issues turns it all around during high school, shows remarkable improvement in academics, takes the SAT and scores within the acceptable range for an elite and submits poignant, well written essays about his experiences with his college applications to elite schools. Are these schools gonna walk away from his kid? HECK no! Money and power have nothing on being downtrodden and poor when it comes to college admissions.</p>
<p>I was quite concerned with this situation when my son applied to UNC, as I haven't given a freakin cent to them over the past 25 years. It didn't seem to hurt- he got in anyway.</p>
<p>And your point is well taken Doubleplay-- it wasnt the $$ or the expectation of the deep pockets that facilitated his admission. That is probably the case for the majority of students. However,those with big bucks behind them are attractive to schools. Why wouldnt they be??? What better hook is there?? Prestige, power, name regognition, money. Sounds like a hook to me.</p>
<p>ld, I believe your example is throwing in some other factors- that inner city gang kid is most likely a URM, right? Use an example of a working class kid from our area- the coast- who spends his life surfing and partying, gets into trouble with police, has a school disciplinary record; scores are within the acceptable range, yes, but not stellar, same with grades. I don't think his essay on "why I got overinvolved in surfing and hanging at the skate park but now I'm all turned around" is gonna fly. ;)</p>
<p>marite you're deadwrong about the number 10. Out of a class of 2000? More like 100++. I know alums who steadily make $10K donations year in and year out. Their 'just' qualified kids get in like greased lighting. I know a guy who gave a $1M gifts to a top school so that his kids would get in. It's easy to give $1M when you have $300M with more on the horizon. Fellow classmates and faculty would never never know what sort of gifts were going on. </p>
<p>There is FAR more money around than we realize and FAR more stealth giving than we realize. </p>
<p>MIT and CALTech also have devleopmental admits. That fellow who gave millions might not have kids who went to Caltech--but his grandchildren will get that extra look. Believe that. Heck, I know developmental admits from MIT--qualified on academic and $$$ levels.</p>
<p>Gates kid's would absolutely get a second look at Caltech and MIT if they were in the pile. Pulleeeze. It only takes a nano-fiber to tip candidates into the admit pile. Big $$$ potential is a bloody tree trunk of a tipping factor.</p>
<p>Very amusing that so many don't want to believe the reality of private educaiton. I've been on the inside of development offices. Every admit to private primary school, secondary school and university is assessed for donor potential.</p>
<p>They present themselves fairly--but folks don't hear what they don't want to hear. No school says that it admits candidates on a 100% merit basis.</p>
<p>doubleplay-
Absolutely, inner city kids are probably more likely to be URMS. Another hook. But the issue being raised was acting-out behavior. If an inner city kid has a criminal past, his hook can help him out as much as Gores kids hook helped him. </p>
<p>Your surfer dude example I assume is not a minority. Tell him/her to go into the College Confidential Cafe thread on great college application titles for some ideas. There are some doozies! :)</p>