<p>you need some perspective man…struggle a little…and by your standards…what i probably mean is —struggle A LOT</p>
<p>I’m going to apologize for being rude…but I have been to India recently and —trust me i know—our problems seem so grand and self-consuming…but you will find that you can actually accomplish whatever you desire regardless of your circumstance…especially if you live in a country like this one…</p>
<p>"9-10th GPA: 2.00
11th GPA: 4.00</p>
<p>The college should ignore the bad grades out of fairness. You can’t blame a student for not recognizing the importance of school. The student was just a kid after all."</p>
<p>Why should the college ignore the bad grades when most colleges don’t have room for all of the students who’d like to be admitted. How is what you propose fair to the student who got excellent grades throughout high school even though that student, too, was “just a kid”?</p>
<p>I dont think we will ever have a world where the children with caring intelligent parents dont have an advantage over those that dont. Make the best of what you have. There are many transfer opportunities for “late bloomers” Peace.</p>
<p>News flash: Life isn’t fair, and college admissions is only the beginning of a long string of things that are “not fair.” Some graduate students get into a program because they know someone or their professor is an alumna/us. Kids get into sororities/fraternities if their sister/brother was a member of that chapter more easily than other girls/boys. People get jobs because their cousin is married to the CEO or something. </p>
<p>In any event, your analogy is faulty. I went to a high school where only a small minority of students had parents who attended college; most of my peers’ parents (including my own) did not go to college. That doesn’t mean that I didn’t care for academics. On the contrary, I loved school, and my parents encouraged my good grades and expected excellence from me despite their lack of an Ivy League degree. I never took a prep class and scored a lot higher than a lot of my friends who did.</p>
<p>Colleges can only gauge future prospects by past events. They can’t predict the future; the only tools they have are past efforts. If a kid has a 2.5 in high school because he didn’t try, how are they to know that the student will try harder in college? Or that they’re not just a slacker who’s being made to apply to college because they’re expected to, or some reason? If a student really wants to go to college, they will be motivated to study and get good grades regardless of whether their parents are concerned about their college prospects. My parents couldn’t help me at all with applying to college because they never went.</p>
<p>Beyond that, if a student does poorly during their first couple years in high school and realizes in their junior year “oh man, I want to go to college,” they can always go to a community college or junior college to prove their commitment and worth to more selective colleges. Who’s fault is it that they didn’t get good grades? Their own.</p>
<p>No one’s parents are going to be around in college. Here’s a thought experiment for you – who would you rather have at your college? The kid who’s been groomed since age 9 that he has to go to Harvard or be labeled a failure and had to be pushed and prodded his entire young life to get good grades, who’s only motivation is his parents’ enthusiasm? Or the former slacker who geared up once he realized he loved learning, went to a community college and scored a 4.0 in his first year because now he has the intrinsic motivation to learn and do well?</p>
<p>Personally I want the second one.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE=OP]
I’m simply saying that it is a joke colleges punish kids for having parents who didn’t motivate them. They don’t punish kids for having parents who sent them to a school without AP courses. It’s a joke.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>LOL. I couldn’t bring myself to read all of your posts because they just seem like nonsensical rambling motivated by irrationality and bitterness. </p>
<p>If you haven’t already realized, colleges value self-motivation and independence. That’s why first-generation college kids, URM kids & kids from poor household are given a certain advantage. Kids aren’t punished by the fact that their parents are poor (and hence can’t afford private schools or wtv) because that has nothing to do with them and isn’t something they have control over. But kids are, and should be, “punished” if they don’t take the initiatives to do community service, pick up a few ECAs or contribute their time and efforts for a cause they believe in. That just shows laziness, not something they have no control over. For how long do you expect your parents to hold your hands and guide you through life anyway? Choosing your ECAs, recommending colleges, harassing admission officers, why don’t they just live your life for you?</p>
<p>My parents adopted a very hands-off approach as soon as i entered middle school, and shipped me off to a whole other country when i turned fourteen. From that point onwards, they never knew so much as what subjects i was taking in school. So yeah, i should be the one ‘complaining’ abt how unfair life is and how ‘disadvantaged’ i am. But no, unlike you, i’ve always known that my parents have nothing to do with my education besides its financial aspect. Sure, I asked for their advice from time to time, but ultimately i make my own decisions regarding my own life. Tbh, i am a little turned off my parents who are so overly concerned about their children’s college application (and SAT classes, and essay-editing services etc.). IMHO they’re just putting unnecessary pressure on their kids, and seriously if by now they can’t let their 18-yr-old kids take care of their own lives, they’re just doing them a disservice. Pardon the bad use of pronouns, but you get what i mean. </p>
<p>Whatever it is you presented has absolutely nothing to do with fairness. In fact, I fail to see the relevancy of this topic at all. </p>
<p>The only interesting thing i’ve found is Gryffon’s posts. I can’t wait to meet you and people like you in Yale! :)</p>
<p>“I did… but it fails to support your argument in any real logical way. Your entire argument is based on false assumptions of the impact of nurturing, and that parental attention/care would make students perform more optimally in school.”</p>
<p>—Are you telling me that a kid who comes from a family that practically forces them to study and do well in school and educates them of the importance of doing well in high school is not significantly more likely to succeed (that is, try) in high school than a kid who comes from a family that is not concerned whatsoever with their high school grades (so long as they are passing), does not educate them of the importance of doing well, and even advises that going to a state school is actually the best choice in college?</p>
<p>How can you possibly think this? </p>
<p>“'If we’re going to throw the bad GPA out because the student shows a possibility of “redeeming” (whatever that means… few kids change their nature because they go to college)”</p>
<p>—You completely misunderstand. It’s actually sad (no offense). Nearly all HUMANS “change their nature” when they transition from childhood to adulthood. Most humans MATURE. There are many kids, including myself, who were (as most kids are) immature as kids, but realized later on that their immaturity was stupid. Many kids didn’t understand the importance of school (as a consequence of not having motivational parents in this regard) as kids, but later realized it when they finally became mature (this can happen junior year, senior year, or later).</p>
<p>“- why not throw the standardized scores out as well? Lack of parental concern/attention clearly would have impacted their focus on attaining a high score.”</p>
<p>Standardized tests are usually taken later junior/early senior year. The only type of person my thread applies to is the sort of person that has matured by themselves late in the game (i.e. late junior year/early senior year). Test scores are unaffected by this because they would have been taken after the person has already realized the importance of doing well.</p>
<p>“- why not throw extracurricular achievements out too? Again, more attentive parents would have made sure they were involved in school and outside activities.”</p>
<p>—I mentioned this in my OP. They should disregard 10-11th assuming they have decent ones in late 11th and early 12th. </p>
<ul>
<li>“why not throw out the essays? Public school kids clearly would have had no motivation to write good essays, while those with caring parents would have got all the help they need.”</li>
</ul>
<p>—See response to standardized tests. The same counter applies.</p>
<ul>
<li>“why not throw out throw out the recommendations? The teachers/counselor would clearly know the student better if the parent took more interest and visited the educators more often. Recommendations would clearly be biased to those with doting parents.”</li>
</ul>
<p>—Recommendations can come from senior year teachers. The same counter I put forth for standardized test scores applies. </p>
<p>“Yeah! Let’s throw everything out because “college admissions are so unfair” and let’s sit everyone down, and judge them all based on arbitrary “redeemable” factors and “potential” later in life. Woo!”</p>
<hr>
<p>Your sarcastic conclusion fails because nearly all of your premises are simply wrong.</p>
<p>Also, I can’t respond to all of the posts in this thread because there are just too many.</p>
<p>But I would like to say that a lot of the criticisms and assumptions about me and the reasons I made this thread are not true.</p>
<p>By the time a student gets to high school, self-motivation should come into play unless there is some compelling reason, which is where the essay or GC recommendation comes into play. There are lots of kids who come from less than ideal backgrounds but manage to do well. My kid has a dad who is illiterate and has never been able to help her with her work. If anything, that motivated her even more in her own soul. She has issues but has suceeded. Someone else may have had legitimate issues and didn’t succeed. How would it be fair to the kid from the same playing field who managed to succeed to be judged the same as the kid who didn’t? But, ultimately, life isn’t fair and we can all do what we can.</p>
<p>lllklll is the product of the “outcome based learning” that our nations special leaders in education so bullishly propagated in the 1980’s. Well, it looks like they ****ed up.</p>
<p>"Conversely, a very intelligent kid (I’m not implying I am, by the way) has no chance at good schools if they are raised by parents who, for example, graduated with bad grades from state schools and don’t care for academics. "</p>
<p>My father didn’t graduate from high school (he dropped out, went into the service and got a GED while there). I got into a Top 20 university and turned down 2 other Top 20’s (one an Ivy) to go there. Why? Because I cared about academics and wanted to go to a good school ever since I was a little girl. It was inborn in me.</p>
<p>Life is not fair, go watch the Slumdog millionaire(vow that rhymes).</p>
<p>^^^
Freestyle battle. </p>
<p>Yo, slumdog millionaire be the shizznit, I’ve never watched it- but when I ask the critics, they be like “Yo that film just killllledd it!”. </p>
<p>Hm, I guess I could always be a rapper after I get my liberal arts degree.</p>
<p>"—Are you telling me that a kid who comes from a family that practically forces them to study and do well in school and educates them of the importance of doing well in high school is not significantly more likely to succeed (that is, try) in high school than a kid who comes from a family that is not concerned whatsoever with their high school grades (so long as they are passing), does not educate them of the importance of doing well, and even advises that going to a state school is actually the best choice in college?</p>
<p>How can you possibly think this? "</p>
<p>I would say that the answer is, not necessarily. First of all, no one can ‘force you’ to do well/be motivated. Your parents can expect good grades, but that doesn’t mean that you’ll get them. Secondly, motivation comes from within, and if the student who’s parents are relatively unconcerned as long as their passing really wants to go to a top school, he or she will seek out the resources necessary to get there.</p>
<p>Also, let’s not make a false dichotomy between “good schools” and “state schools.” Many public universities are top-notch places to be.</p>
<p>“—You completely misunderstand. It’s actually sad (no offense). Nearly all HUMANS “change their nature” when they transition from childhood to adulthood. Most humans MATURE. There are many kids, including myself, who were (as most kids are) immature as kids, but realized later on that their immaturity was stupid. Many kids didn’t understand the importance of school (as a consequence of not having motivational parents in this regard) as kids, but later realized it when they finally became mature (this can happen junior year, senior year, or later).”</p>
<p>Again, who’s fault is that? THE STUDENT’s. Assuming that we’re talking about a situation where both students are middle-class students with the same opportunities, it’s not anyone else’s fault that they didn’t work hard. Like I said, if they suddenly decide in junior year that they want to go to an elite college, they can attend a community college for a year or two, or go to a less selective college and then transfer. </p>
<p>Everyone evidences immaturity in some way during their adolescent years, but there are kids who worked hard at school from ninth grade on. It’s not fair to them to give the same reward to kids who geared up all of a sudden in 11th grade second semester.</p>
<p>Besides, learning is additive. The stuff you need in ninth grade is stuff you’ll need later in in 12th grade when you’re doing higher level stuff. It makes no sense to disregard 10th grade grades – that’s only approximately two years from the time when you apply. And what, should they only disregard bad grades from grades 10-11? That makes no sense.</p>
<p>
I find it funny he posted this around the same time as the thread about being rejected at Lafayette.</p>
<p>
Then they simply won’t feel college is important, and so it won’t matter as much that they go to community college, or go to vocational school, will it? If they can live with the possibility of not going to a top college, they won’t be too bothered; if they can’t, then perhaps they ought to do something about their lack of effort in HS? It’s still a choice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know someone who is brilliant. He comes from a well-off family, his parents went to good schools, he entered a gifted program where he was given many opportunities 99.9% of the students entering college will never get. When it was announced that his school would not require students to take the O Levels to enter junior college (or senior high), he stopped going to choir practice because he wouldn’t need it to enter junior college any more and eventually got himself kicked out of the choir. It is my understanding that because of his natural brilliance, teachers gave him a lot of leeway when it came to not doing work because they knew he could handle the work. (This is what happens when a single exam decides your fate with colleges - once you reach a certain standard, teachers let you do whatever you want.) I believe he got an ADDE for his A Levels - an A for Knowledge and Inquiry where intelligence and perception still trump hard work, and a DDE for everything else he actually needed to work hard for but couldn’t be bothered. Towards the end of his high school career he was talking about becoming an opera singer because he didn’t know what he wanted to do.</p>
<p>He is, in fact, from a certain school also known as the Gateway to the Ivy League. You can’t say he didn’t have the environment.</p>
<p>He enlisted in the army and that put some direction and focus into his life, and now he wants to become a lawyer. I know him well enough to know he would enjoy the mental and verbal stimulation and he would make an excellent lawyer, and I can believe he’s finally matured enough to understand all the chances he spat on, but only because I know (well, secondhand) the change in his person. The sympathetic part of me says I hope he makes it to law school, but look, I live in public housing (he lives in a three or four-storey house with a lift!!!). What I have, I worked for. This guy could have done so much with the opportunities he had, but he didn’t. And that’s the deal breaker.</p>
<p>Tell me that a college would want to take this brilliant kid who managed to get Ds and Es - you must understand this puts his percentile in the low single digits where his school is concerned, and he’s nowhere near disadvantaged - over the kid whose family lives on $1000 a month and who works part-time so he can have lunch in school and has a lower SAT score and a couple of Bs.</p>
<p>How compelling does his case have to be before he can get accepted to a college? I know he’s an extreme case and this is not the kind of guy you’re thinking about, but you can’t defend these students beyond a certain point, and that’s the point where colleges say they won’t give these kids another chance. Do they want the kid who’s done well because he’s taken every chance he had, or the one who’s done okay despite squandering his best chances?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The aforementioned guy is one such good student. Way intelligent, but never understood what he needed to do with his intelligence until it was too late.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The guy has changed since entering the army. He has knuckled down and done his work, and has earned himself privileges that aren’t just granted to anyone. Does this make him a competitive applicant to a top college? Sadly, no. When you’ve wasted chances, people are more hesitant to present you with new ones.</p>
<p>If you argue that his case is different since he’s already graduated, as opposed to a turnaround during high school - well, what’s the difference? Where is the loss and the unfairness, then, in someone having to go to community college, gets a 4.0 there, and moves on to a top university?</p>
<p>And where is the fairness in granting students with a freshman/soph GPA of 2.00 over the student with a 4.00 over three or four years? If you’re going to say the fairness is in negating the effect of the “family environment” on producing results when there is no other pressure to perform well, well, tish and pish. At any socioeconomic level, you’re going to find students with GPAs over the same spectrum, it’s just where those students are concentrated.</p>
<p>Now if we’re talking about a specific case for someone with 2.00, 2.00 and 4.00 for 9th, 10th and 11th vs someone with 3.5, 3.5 and 3.5 over the same three years, then perhaps your argument has some validity. But on a larger scale? It’s not likely that alone will determine your admission/rejection, unless you were borderline in the first place - in which case you can only rue your inconsistency - note, not your family background - compared to the person who got in ahead of you. Unfair?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can think this because I know the former doesn’t work. Hey - they’re teenagers. They rebel if they don’t like it. And if they’ve been educated on the importance of doing well in high school, that’s developing intrinsic motivation, not imposing extrinsic motivation. For the second family - if the state school is the best option for that kid, then what’s the matter? He’s still getting an education, he’s still going to get a job, and it won’t matter to him or his family that he’s not earning six figures on Wall Street (if anyone on Wall Street is still earning that).</p>
<p>Yes, okay, I’m frustrated too. I’m frustrated because I know I’m a competitive applicant at the colleges I’ve applied to, but I still don’t know if I can afford them. How’s that for unfairness?</p>
<p>Like everyone has been trying to tell you, make the best of the opportunities that are staring you in your face NOW, instead of thinking about how good you could have been IF ONLY and how good you will be IF you get this one chance.</p>
<p>P.S. I have a lot more stories about guys like the above, as well as people in the opposite situation (not a rich family, not education-centric, made it to law school/biz school, etc.). I gave you the most striking example, but I have enough examples to move this beyond anecdotal evidence.</p>
<p>“I find it funny he posted this around the same time as the thread about being rejected at Lafayette.”</p>
<p>I know, lol.</p>
<p>I don’t feel like responding to large posts right now, but I will before today’s end.</p>
<p>My parents never did anything special to motivate me. I was able to realize the importance of grades/SATs by doing some reading about college admissions over the summer before freshmen year.</p>
<p>You know some schools excuse freshman year grades, right?</p>
<p>A college cannot accept a student who is slow to learn the importance of grades – after all, what else can he/she be slow to learn? Perhaps freshman year is out of immaturity, yes. But sophomore year too? You’d imagine that one would learn after one mess-up. What if he/she messes up in his/her freshman year of college? “Oops, well, I’ll learn” is not a valid argument, lol.</p>
<p>Besides, it’s common knowledge that good grades = good college (excluding extraneous factors such as essays, recs, w/e). Perhaps parents can enforce it, but every child knows it.</p>
<p>lllklll - Many colleges already excuse freshmen grades, and in fact will een overlook bad sophomore grades if the junior grades are bad but the rest of the app is strong. However, it makes perfect sense togive the edge to students who performed well all four years. </p>
<p>How do colleges know the good junior grades were not just a ploy to get into college? Adcoms want consistancy. If you really want to prove yourself, go to CC, do well for two years, and transfer.</p>
<p>Has anyone pointed out recently in this thread that fairness is not something private colleges consider when admitting students? The schools admit those they want the most; that’s all there is to it.</p>