author query

Parents Forum
1

<p>Greetings all,</p>

<p>For my forthcoming book (tentative publication date fall of 2006) to be published by the University of California Press, I would like to interview college-bound students and parents about their college preparation and planning. What are students' and parents' expectations for their children beyond high school? What social and economic factors have informed these expectations? What specific things are families doing to ensure that their expectations are met? I would like to follow a student and his or her family as they proceed through the college preparation and admissions process. Just how crazy and emotionally taxing has this process become in recent years? Most, if not all, interviews would be conducted via telephone and email. In the interest of frank and open discussion, I will consider changing names and disguising identities, but I would prefer to keep the information "on the record." Please contact me directly at <a href="mailto:psacks@cableone.net">psacks@cableone.net</a></p>

2

<br>


<br>

<p>Not crazy or emotionally taxing at all. I would describe the college search as positive and exciting. I don't imagine that fits well with your working hypothesis!</p>

3

<p>Interesteddad, don't you think that's because you are here on cc? I find that most parents who aren't here seem to be astonishingly ill-informed and therefore do experience this process as something of a nightmare. I truly do not say this to flatter our hosts. It's my experience. So...this might not be the best place for the OP to query.</p>

4

<p>No, I think CC makes the process more enjoyable for parents (sharing war stories and the like), but my daughter never set foot on these forums. Actually, when I first started browsing CC, I think it probably increased the anxiety a bit...until I figured out that the "My Stats/My Chances?" threads are completely irrelevant. At the end of the day, I would say that the vast majority of the folk in the parent's forum had good experiences, predictable outcomes, and happy endings in the college application process. I can't think of too many big surprises among the regulars here.</p>

<p>I think the process was enjoyable mostly because we approached it without any firm pre-conceived notions. Instead, we gave our daughter the opportunity to visit all different kinds of schools and kicked around the pluses and minuses with her as she slowly came to her own conclusions. </p>

<p>Perhaps the most important contributing factor was casting a wide net in terms of admissions difficulty -- building the list from the middle out. The stress comes when parents or students set some particular school (or narrow range of schools) as the only quantifiable measure of "success".</p>

<p>A third reason that the process was fairly enjoyable is that my daughter was reasonably "quantifiable". We knew which schools she couldn't get into, which she might get into, and which she probably would get into. I think the process is probably a little less predictable for "average" kids than it is for kids at the top of their classes with a legitimate shot at elite colleges. In other words, kids ranked in the second or third decile might have to cast a somewhat wider net with a little more range between their "safeties" and their "reaches".</p>

<p>I do think that a lot of people are woefully under-informed or misinformed about the process. I suspect a book about "how stressful the process is these days" would largely add to that misinformation.</p>

<p>The process was "exciting" because it was part and parcel of such a tremendous period of maturing for our daughter -- a transition from "high school" to young adult. I would say that the only period of stress, although nominally related to college apps, really had more to do with college apps being a trigger for the realization that life as she knew it was about to end, replaced by the great unknown. Of course, a college overnight visit fall of senior year turned "the unknown" into something pretty exciting that couldn't come fast enough. And, in fairness, an ED acceptance certainly relieved a lot of stress.</p>

5

<p>I found CC after my daughter had applied to college, although I had been on other college search forums which while not a great help, did provide direction for additional research, especially regarding financial aid.
Neither I nor my husband have attended a 4 yr college, so research was even more important for our daughters college search as we had only romanticized idea of what to expect.</p>

<p>It was only by chance that she ended up at a great school for her. A former neighbor was a Reed alum, and when she restricted herself geographically to the northwest, I suggested she give it a look. ( Our neighbor was very upfront about receiving lots of aid- otherwise we wouldn't have considered it)</p>

<p>I think the idea is a good one, but it reminds me of when a news crew wanted to follow my daughter for her first day of school. ( I believe we were referred by a psychologist at local university, she had been a very young premie and but was doing very well) I said " no thank you" I couldnt imagine adding any more stress to an already stressful day, let alone making her stick out by having a camera following her around.
A high school student is more able to choose however, and it would be something interesting to write about, if not for entrance essays than perhaps for scholarships.
I am seeing a wide gap in her sisters high school between what families expect for after college. It is an inner city urban school that attracts well prepared students for the many AP offerings, while it attempts to support the neighborhood kids as well.</p>

<p>While the lower income , lower education background parents aren't able to give the financial and academic support of the more prepared families, I have also seen some students forced into applying to schools that are way over their heads, and really that their parents seems to know little about other than it is a "brand" name.</p>

<p>Now that our world is smaller, I would be interested in reading a book contrasting the preparation and expectations we have in this country, with other nations, I still don't quite understand the way that they track in the UK ( or how a cricket game is run for that matter).</p>

6

<p>I wish that I had found collegeconfidential before our search; it would have made the process a lot less nerve-racking for us. From what I know now, I know we would have done better in selecting the right colleges for my son with more focus on smaller universities and LACs. We also would have done better in selecting smaller colleges as safeties. In the end, though, it turned out all right for my son. We did get a lot of help in the RD round from collegeconfidential. We also learned to settle down as a family and we were a lot calmer than we were at the beginning of senior year.</p>

<p>I agree that 'Chances' forum would make anyone anxious. The best place to ask questions is the Parents forum. Lots of parents here are a gold mine of information. And the moderators do a wonderful job of keeping the discussion polite so that people feel free to ask questions without being insulted.</p>

7

<p>Emeraldkity, I think admissions in the UK is more stats driven than here. I could be wrong. I know that Oxford and Cambridge have interviews which are important but I think those interviews test specific subject-area knowledge. </p>

<p>I think college admissions in the US is harder because most selective colleges don't base their decisions on stats alone.</p>

8

<p>Peter Sacks has a very, very specific axe to grind re: affirmative action, testing, and the so-called "meritocracy." Not that that is bad - I am just pointing out that before anyone volunteers, he or she might want to read some of the articles on is website, or his books.</p>

<p>I do tend to disagree that the admissions process is driven by "the test." I firmly believe that while the kids on the kids' board tend to be utterly obsessed, and ask silly things like whether they should re-take the SAT for an extra few points, in all my dealings with so-called "elite" schools, the whole person has been taken into consideration. But that's just me. I'm sure Mr. Sacks has the stats to prove his various points - probably because many state schools, swamped with a gazillion applications, cannot take the care to look at each one individually, and may drop some applications into the "circular file" based on scores alone.</p>

9

<p>At one point I thought I should acquaint my son with what I perceived to be the level of competition he would face at the super schools he planned to apply to; he was a top student at his well-known, highly competitive prep school, but I wanted him to know what he would be up against as an completely unhooked, bright well-rounded kid from the suburbs. I wanted to tell him that the SAT ranges published by his 6 or 7 top choices didn't apply to him, that his all-league sports honors would mean little or nothing since he had chosen not to pursue the athletic recruitment angle, that his very likely outstanding letters of recommendation would be matched by thousands around the country, and that nearly every applicant to top schools would submit transcripts stuffed with As, that he would be up against recruited athletes, URMs, and legacies, and that colleges' need for geographical distribution would work against him. I couldn't even begin to know how to suggest that his natural diffidence, his desire to put team play above individual achievement, and his dislike of standing out in a group wouldn't help him stand out among a group of 15,000 or more applicants.</p>

<p>And, of course, I wanted to do it in a way that wouldn't discourage him. I was sweating bullets, hemming and hawing, talking about the Eagles' prospects against the Patriots. So he said, "Dad, let me make this easier for you," and proceeded to tell me all of the above, and more. Where, I asked, did you acquire these views, instantaneously switching from wet blanket to cheerleader. His answer: well, he'd been spending some time online, particularly at this website, and he thought he had a pretty clear view of the lay of the land. Never did reveal his screen name, and I never figured it out. He's moved on, but I'm still here.</p>

10

<p>Just to follow up on nedad's post: <a href="http://www.petersacks.org/index.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.petersacks.org/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

11

<p>From what I can gather, Mr. Sacks believes that admission tests like the SATs have as their purpose keeping the wealthy at the top of society, since the SATs (and grades) are correlate directly with parental income.</p>

<p>He believes that most people claim America is a classless society, whereas he believes it is riddled with class privileges and attempts by the wealthy to keep themselves in power.</p>

<p>I don't really know anyone personally who believes we live in a classless society. Au contraire, everyone I speak to about such issues is well aware of class differences - not just in income, but in behavior, taste, etc. Most of us (I am speaking of people I know, not the "us" of this board) are fully cognizant that class has its privileges, and that throughout history, people in power try to do things to stay in power. We are also aware that money enables people to buy access to such things as SAT courses.</p>

<p>But I think that latter idea is WAY too overrated. I know far too many kids who did not take those expensive SAT courses, yet got top scores their first try, to put much weight on that issue. In addition, I've got relatives at several schools in the top 25 that don't even require SATs. Also, it is completely false to claim that colleges today rely solely on scores, except for very large state unversities.</p>

<p>So all in all, I don't put a whole lot of stress on SATs, though from what I read on his site, Mr. Sacks also believes grades are driven by income. </p>

<p>I suppose one side will say that if you give ANYONE money they will turn out exactly the same as the current class of (monetarily) successful people, while the Devil's Advocates among us will say that many people are monetarily successful BECAUSE they have a certain form of intelligence and drive.</p>

<p>After watching entrepreneurs and government workers close up for several decades, I would say the truth is somewhere in between. Some people are monetarily successful because of their intelligence, and some are in low-paying, collect-a-paycheck jobs because they are not the sharpest tool in the shed. Yet it is also true that SOME people are successful because they inherited money, not because of brains, while some live in poverty by choice (i.e. they chose to use their intelligence to do other things).</p>

<p>There is no simplistic one-size-fits-all theory.</p>

12

<p>Well maybe Mr. Sacks would like to tell us what the specific subject and point of view of his book will be.</p>

13

<p>emeraldkity4: just a note on the way things work here in the UK.</p>

<p>As was previously mentioned, universities here are pretty "number-driven" (although we use letters instead of numbers ;) ). The interviews are <em>crucial</em> for Oxbridge. They test your drive, determination, passion and work ethic. Basically you are thrown in at the deep end - you have to debate/argue/comment on a particular topic with the person who will actually be your tutor for the next 3/4 years. They will probably have written all the text books, be world experts and have been quoted in a million academic publications. You will be terrified and you will see people coming out of the interviews in tears.</p>

<p>They don't care what books you've read, what sports you play or what music you're into. If you're applying for biology, they don't care what grades you got in French. If you're applying for Fine Art, they don't care what you got in physics. </p>

<p>It's grinding and sometimes I wonder why I do it. But I wouldn't be anywhere else. :)</p>

14

<p>I would personally be a little leary of Mr. Sacks. Anybody can skew statistics and can take anything a parent says out of context. If we allowed certain people to have their way, there would be no nationally ranked colleges or universities and no way to discriminate between those who are able and those who aren't for those schools. What we would be left with is "pablum," nutritious for the soul, but not distinguishable from glue to the human palate..so no one would be identified as having academic talents or abilities. I see that now in NY State. In special education, you no longer can discriminate on the basis of IQ functioning so IQ testing is considered irrelevant when in comes to programming needs for children. What you have now is a hodgepodge of mixed ability level kids in "special education" classrooms where the teachers are asked to "differentiate" instruction to meet their needs. That being well and good, all children can succeed concept, when push comes to shove and they are misplaced in Regents level classrooms in HS and fail too numerous times to measure even with test modications that call for reading and even writing the answers to the examinations, you are faced with the reality that the system for this child has failed! Not every child can attend college nor should they. Our trade school and occupational education centers have had to RIF teachers because of lack of enrollment. Try to find a good auto mechanic these days! They don't exist and if they do, are in the minority! All those I call the "spit and grit" kids are sitting in community colleges, being educated for jobs that are now being outsourced to third world countries. I think we have failed our youth if we consider only the university educated as being successful.</p>

<p>I recently returned from Bavaria. Their public school system differeniates kids early on but not by "locking" them in so to speak. Their society has as much respect for the cab driver, to the farmer, to the train conductor. Everyone plays a role in society to make it liveable and congenial for all. Of course, our ancestors left those countries as they saw it as lacking opportunity...but I wonder about our ancestors sometimes. Were they the rebellious street urchins who refused to comply with the educational constraints placed upon them? Not sure. All I know is that the streets there are cleaner (someone takes pride in that), the public bathrooms smell nicer, the trains are immaculate and on time, petty crimes must be low as one of my co-travellers left her wallet with 80 Euros in it on a store counter and when she returned half hour later, she was handed her wallet with the 80 Euros in it, so there is a sense of common respect and decency. I am still wondering about our ancestors.....why did Uncle Tony flee from Naples in the early 1900's?</p>

15

<p>I was more confused over A-levels and O levels and comprehensives, publics and what is what and why the UK has degrees that only take three years.
Thanks for the explanations though :-)</p>

16

<p>I wondered why Mr Sacks was allowed to post his email and direct solicitations...but thank you, clever well-informed CC folk, for pointing out his distasteful agenda. </p>

<p>It's no the sort of book I'd buy in the first place, but I'll avoid that author in the future.</p>

17

<p>Emerald:</p>

<p>O levels are required for graduating from high school. Those who are interested in going on to university take A levels in a number of subjects. A level courses are equivalent to college-level courses in this country. Many claim that they are more rigorous than APs. This is students who have the required number of A-levels scores are allowed Advanced Standing in American colleges. University in the UK and France lasts only 3 years, during which time students take courses entirely in their field of specialization. If you think about it, American students only devote two years out of four--if that much--to their particular discipline. The reason for specializing in university is that general education in Europe is considered strong enough that it need not be continued past high school. There is something to that, though the interdisciplinary opportunities and the possibility of changing majors are reduced by this focus on specialization.</p>

<p>Public schools are actually private. It comes from the fact that the aristocracy used to educate its sons at home, privately, by tutors or the local vicar. Then, it was decided to have schools that would be open to others, unlike the private arrangements with tutors or local vicars; however, the other students also belonged largely to the aristocracy, and the fees were and are substantial. Comprehensives are an amalgamation of grammar schools and vocational schools. Grammar schools enrolled bright students who had a shot at going to university eventually. They were selected through the (in) famous eleven plus exams. Those who did not make it through the exams were steered in the direction of vocational schools. Both kinds were public, in our sense of the term.<br>
When I lived in England, I befriended an academic who came from a very modest background. His mother was a factory worker who recalled walking five miles to work (in Yorkshire) and back. He was bright and went to grammar school, and from there to university. </p>

<p>Hope this helps a bit.</p>

18

<p>thanks very much marite
I have several friends who are from the UK and they have explained how they were steered into one course or another after their tests, but I kinda need to see something to understand it, or at least have it explained to me a few times!
Now could you explain cricket?
( JK)</p>

19

<p>At CC, we receive lots of media requests. Mostly, these are looking for comments on college admissions or financial aid topics. Sometimes, a reporter or author will ask permission to post a request for input in the forum. These are infrequent, and we usually OK them if the requester can be verified as a representative of the media outlet. Mr. Sacks contacted us, we gave our OK for this post. </p>

<p>We'll defer to those who have done more research on this topic, but, as in any discussion here at CC, please be courteous to all involved. ;)</p>

20

<p>Emerald:</p>

<p>I watched a cricket match once in my life. Never again. Nothing happened for hours. Then I turned my head, and of course, the only time something did happen, happened then. :( I knew somebody from a former British colony whose relatives had pitched in to buy an apartment so they could come over and watch cricket annually. So she got to live in a fancy flat at little cost to herself. Red Sox Nation has nothing on cricket fanatics.
I attended French schools, and also got to sit exams at 11 that steered students into different tracks, though the more ambitious could double or triple (eg. combine lots of languages, literature and history, with a stronger math and science curriculum). In some ways, that exam was more nerve-wracking than the bac.</p>