<p>One would think you would be getting a piece of the pie for bringing up these books so much. I read one of Michelle Hernandez books when D was going through the process, but I used it as reference tool, not as a bible.</p>
<p>EDIT, it is against TOS to post a blog.</p>
<p>GA2102Mom if that is your position then I think we agree. I must have misunderstood that you were claiming that only 15% of student/athletes get help with admission. In my original post stating that 30-60%(probably should be 50%) of LAC students play varsity sports and get help with admission I was including both slots and tips. It is completely true that the level of help differs and that the coach only has so much pull. Would you agree with this?</p>
<p>I brought up the book because I was stunned by how the process really worked. All the politicians on both sides talk about fairness all the while their children mostly go to the top schools. As I went through the process I came to see that Daniel Golden had it exactly correct. I must say this information did help my children make the decision to go ED. We have close two personal friends with daughters with over 4.5 weighted and 2350 SAT’s that were rejected from all the ivies but Cornell. One chose NU and the other U of Chicago but both sets of parents were upset until I loaned them this book.</p>
<p>I will only agree that the 15% have a hook. The tips can be from a sincere “ata boy, your in” to “I’m blowing smoke up your ass, but if you get in I’d love to have you walk on.”
T</p>
<p>Now GA2012MoM let’s agree that when the coach puts you on a list and takes your file for a pre-screening in front of the admission committee and then calls the applicant to tell him/her how they stand it counts as at least a mini-hook compared to the regular standard applicant. It is also true that this advantage exists for many other talents but the point remains that the vast majority of the applicants have none of these advantages and hence get admitted at lower numbers.</p>
<p>Nope, a hook is a hook, and a tip is a tip. I’m sure orchestra leader smith can convince an adcom that he needs an oboe player if the only one is set to graduate more than the coach can say I need a 4th string wide reciever. Especially at a small college would this be true.</p>
<p>bovertine. Here is the review I meant to attach. Here they quote from Golden’s Book that only 40% of the ivy freshman seats are available to non-hooked applicants. The review also discusses some of the details about Harvard Admissions that we were talking about- like 336/340 children being admitted from parents on Harvard Committees. It’s these kind of numbers that show just how stacked the admissions process is for merely excellent students. </p>
<p>[Ben’s</a> Book Blog: *** The Price of Admission by Daniel Golden](<a href=“http://bensbookblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/price-of-admission-by-daniel-golden.html]Ben’s”>Ben's Book Blog: *** The Price of Admission by Daniel Golden)</p>
<p>Here is the NYT review of the book and finally we come to the 60% number which stirred up so many people. Let’s agree that the schools will never divulge the exact number but it’s certainly a big number. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/books/review/Wolff2.t.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/books/review/Wolff2.t.html</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
We have close two personal friends with daughters with over 4.5 weighted and 2350 SAT’s that were rejected from all the ivies but Cornell. One chose NU and the other U of Chicago but both sets of parents were upset{/quote]</p>
<p>May I humbly suggest that it’s the parents of these young women who have the problem here – upset about acceptances at Cornell, Northwestern and UChicago?!? Those aren’t exactly chump change schools! Heck, my 4.5+, 2350+ kid didn’t even get into Cornell. Should I be bitter? :rolleyes: I’m guessing the parents were far more roiled up than those young women.</p>
<p>
This is where it pays to actually have the book rather than a selectively edited blog post. The full quote is -
“Robert Birgensen, chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley, told us that he once calculated the proportion of admissiona spaces open to “regular students” at one Ivy League University, which he declined to name”. He then goes on to give that 40% statistic. What nonsense. A mystery school he declined to name? This qualifies as journalism? Who the heck is this Birgenson guy and how did he come up with this? What is a “regular student?”</p>
<p>Your other link is based on this same balderdash quote.</p>
<p>It’s hard enough in reality to get into these schools, and yes, there are hooks. Why spread unsupported statistics. You have to realize that Golden is not a pure researcher. He never gives pure numbers in this book. It is always “as much as” or “possibly up to” He’s a journalist trying to entertain and make a point. That’s why he is so sloppy with his stats. That doesn’t mean his opinion is not withouth some validitiy.</p>
<p>I stand by my skepticism. I have no idea how big a number it is. Even Golden’s flights of fancy range from 30% to 60%. These are big differences. And if you are going to throw around numbers they should have a solid basis in fact.</p>
<p>
Yes, these major donors have extremely good odds. Of course some of these students may have been admitted anyway.</p>
<p>But this group has almost zero bearing onthe other admissions because, again if you read the actual book, this is spread out over many years. Of course, as is his habit, Golden doesn’t give specifics. But it works out to a handful of students every year.</p>
<p>bovertine- Obviously I have no idea of the exact number but again I’m a bit surprised that so many of you without a shred of evidence immediately don’t believe the numbers. Golden is not some unproven writer looking to write a sensational book. This guy is a well known WSJ investigative reporter who has won a Pulitzer Prize. Until someone steps forward to disprove him I think his work stands as the best resource. Moreover no one from Harvard ever came forward to dispute the numbers and the in the NYT Article the review did not challenge his facts. I agree that the children of the committee are spread out but there are many other people with influence getting similar treatment and these spots begin to add up. We personally know two kids who were put on the list for the next year so students are also competing with kids from prior years and this number is significant. Over the years I’ve paid attention to the children of celebs, CEOs, politicians etc. and it is almost guaranteed that they attend these schools. It’s a big country and if you add up all these poweful people it comes to a lot of children getting extra influence which is what Golden found going his research. My children went to a top private school and there is no question that the parents influence came into play quite often. At some of the private prep schools in the east coast something like 1/2 the class was accepted to the ivies and such a situation is included in Golden’s Book. Hey haven’t you ever wondered why the regular airport is such an unpleasant experience? Well partly it’s because none of the “important people” travel commercial any more. So think of it this way. The same crowd that flies on private jets is the same crowd that Golden’s Book is talking about. It’s a very small percentage of Amercians but they are taking a disproportionate share of the seats in these colleges. My children went to school with familes like this and my older daughter’sbest friend came from such a family. Partly it’s from first hand experience that I know that Golden is largely correct. In this familiy’s case the schools actually came to them. My daughter was there for dinner the night Yale came to their house for dinner to “recruit” their son. The true story is even worse but I don’t want to give away their identity. The son had a 4.1 weighted and SAT of 2150 and he was “offered” admission to most of the top schools. They recruited him. That is how it works for powerful people. Now someone will say he might have gotten in anyway. The chances of an unhooked student gettiing into Stanford with those stats is extremely low. And this is going on behind the scenes all over America. But we are not going to change any of this-things are the way they are. The point of my posts is to make sure families understand the system as it is and make their college plans accordingly. We have no power but by using sports and ED my older children were able to go to the schools of their choice. But without the knowledge gained from Golden’s Book and other sources things might not have turned out this way. Golden’s Book could have the numbers slightly wrong since they will change every year but the point of this book was to show the public how the admission process really works at elite schools.</p>
<p>While CC spends a lot of time talking about elite admissions at HYP etc, those schools are very much the outliers in college admissions. I also think it’s very hard to compare how things have changed between children even in your own family. And while I can only speak personally, I know that my oldest a 2003 graduate was a much different student than my son (2009) and he is different than the youngest (2012). What I do know, however, is that all things being equal, the attention to having a schedule loaded with AP’s seems to have taken a higher relevance. Summer experiences, travel abroad, volunteer hours, etc have all changed the college admissions process. But here’s the thing… when my oldest was applying it was all the rage to make that trek to Africa or some other 3rd world country. Then with my son, that wasn’t seen as the must have because frankly, the kids that did that kind of stuff were being heavily funded to participate and certainly, not everyone can afford that. Also… there seemed to be a heavy focus on extracurricular involvement in general. And while these things still matter, now it seems much more reasonable to have fewer lists and deeper involvement in those you do. For us, we’ve always just tried to capitalize on their strengths and interests rather than planning for the resume and how it will “look” to a college. </p>
<p>From my point of view, it’s about developing one’s character along the way. It was clear that by the time my daughter graduated from HS her interests were weighted heavily in the Arts, Children and Lacrosse - with a lot of overlap between the three. Her “resume” evolved organically and therefore, I believe, gave adcoms a whole picture of the kid. With our son, he was much more the athlete, but also worked a regular job in the summer which over all – yes, he had a plethoria of AP’s and was very strong academically - showed he had an incredible work ethic.</p>
<p>But here’s the thing… the crossover of these two kids and what schools made their “apply to” list were very dissimilar. Son applied to far more selective schools than D. So to compare change was as much about the schools themselves as it was the applicant pool in general. Younger D will probably have a wider mix of schools, but again… we are not focusing on what looks good for schools, but what works best for her. Frankly, there is so much to traverse with our kids growing up in general that to add more argument about what she SHOULD be doing vs what she WANTS to be doing is not a battle I wish to engage in. Her “resume” might actually end up being the thinnest of her siblings, but it goes the deepest in the things she has taken on. Hopefully, taken as a whole this will tell Adcoms that she is passionate about whatever she does and when she has a goal, she is very determined to meet it. </p>
<p>In the end, I want to be sending tuition checks to the school that will appreciate all of that and having her as a student there. Numbers may be an important clue to academic success or aptitude so we can’t discount the GPA and standardized test scores completely, but if I’ve learned anything from reading CC it’s that sometimes HS students emerge into something else entirely once they hit college… both good and not so good. Whether it’s that first taste of freedom from controlling parents or finally finding a subject that ignites them to the core… college is so much about discovering who they are as people and how they will navigate the adult world that, really all I wanted (and still want) for my kids were options.</p>
<p>When in the world will everyone realize that no one really knows what the formula is? No one can possibly know because the formula for Amherst is different than Yale’s which is different than Princeton’s. There will never be clear answers. You will NEVER know the demographic, experience or passions of the exact person that is holding your child’s application. And no one can say that that person’s makeup does not have an effect on that child’s outcome. You will never know if the music professor or a coach will go to bat for your child. You will never know if the non “perfect” ACT or SAT you submitted will be enough. Prepare your child for the path. You can’t prepare the path for your child because you don’t know the rules. It really is just madness. Encourage your child to do his or her best, find something they love, don’t be a fool and tell them music is less important than AP Calculus BC if music is what they LOVE. Maybe, just maybe, when Harvard is looking at applications, the Music department has told them to be on the look out for all Tuba players because they are graduating 3 this year. The point is, as I stated above…YOU WILL NEVER KNOW. What they need in a freshman class this year, is different than it was last year and will not be the same next year.</p>
<p>Wow. Rich important connected celebrity kids have an easier time getting what they want. Who knew? lol. …Next. </p>
<p>Golden’s book? Stating the obvious (and divisive always helps sell books, too ;)) with some made up fanciful stats to an uncritical audience? Uhhh…I’ll pass. </p>
<p>I’d bet a much more useful, practical book could have been written by any number of CC’ers. What use is there in whining about something you ain’t gonna change? But, if it makes you feel better that the field is not level for our un-hooked kids? Why not? Sure. It’s rigged and unfair and that’s why Little Johnny didn’t get in. Feel better now? ;)</p>
<p>If you look at the numbers of athletes, URMs, and legacies at the most selective schools, then it’s certainly reasonable to estimate that a third of students, more or less, are “hooked.” (Development cases and celebrities are not really enough to worry about.)</p>
<p>But I have to repeat, if we’re talking about places like Harvard, the remaining two-thirds (give or take) are not “regular students.” They are extremely high-performing students, many with quite impressive achievements in music, writing, public service, research, etc. If by “regular student” we mean a kid with high grades and scores, and a few school-based ECs, then there will be a few at Harvard, but not very many.</p>
<p>modadunn: be assured that your post is not being ignored (at least not by me, anyway)…great one…and right on target (and what makes the OP’s article almost useless…)</p>
<p>like you said (more eloquently of course) is that if it’s about “fit”, two children in the same family should really NOT have the same list of schools (or even at the same level of selectivity) unless they are clones; and, therefore, to compare their admissions experience is kinda futile…</p>