<p>Her classmates seemed to view the college admissions trials as an all out game of war, flipping cards of gender, race, class, status and ethnicity, ready to cheat. Some managed miraculously to discover their non-white ancestry just days before they had to check off their race on admissions forms.</p>
<p>Aw, man, why'd you make me read that? How depressing. </p>
<p>Our society of status-symbol parents is now raising entitlement-manipulator children. Nice. </p>
<p>Just so I'm not in a bad mood for the rest of the day, I'm gonna file this away under "sensational media exaggerating a remote problem" and "blame the parents."</p>
<p>Sounds just like CC! :)</p>
<p>If you look at the date when I joined CC and the number of posts I have you can tell I am not prone to posting but reading this piece really upset me.</p>
<p>I actually almost stopped reading after this gem...</p>
<p>"They were truly their parents’ children, this much remarked-upon generation of non-rebels, kids who had internalized all their parents’ fears about their futures, and voiced those fears in the most unquestioning, un-self-aware ways. They were convinced of their own incipient victimhood...blah blah blah..."</p>
<p>And she can reach conclusions like this based on what she heard from her nice?</p>
<p>Well, I actually live a place full of middle to upper middle class kids, many of which are white and yes the college admissions process is not fun and yes there is always anecdotal evidence that somebody played this card or the other but for the most part these kids (and if you can believe we the parents) get over the process rather well. We also have kids that will take their shirt of their back and give it to somebody that needs it, major in Special Education and Social Services, spend their college summers working in a Central American country teaching English, or who chose Teach for America after they graduate. And I am talking of what I have seen in a sample of 15 or 20 kids that were my children's closest friends and classmates.</p>
<p>If she wanted to use the topic as a way to go after the Savages and Limbaughs of the world she should have at least done her homework and spend time with the subjects of the article. No wonder Limbaugh has a field day with the "drive-by" media.</p>
<p>It is sad and all of that but there are ALWAYS going to be kids, and adults for that matter, that have no problem 'gaming' the system to get ahead. It's usually justified by the excuse that the system is unfair to begin with but rationalizations for a lack of moral fiber are not surprising.</p>
<p>artiesdad: as much as I agree that the article suffers from a lack of research and substantial evidence to support its claim I think that quote is pretty accurate. I can't tell you how close to the mark it hits to a lot of people I know and a significant number of people who post on these boards.</p>
<p>Just because it can't be statistically proven doesn't mean it isn't true.</p>
<p>The article is unfortunately very, very true. I've seen it too many times, especially on CC, that great students are turned into machines, worried about retaking high scores, their "weak GPA" of 3.97 UW (no joke), and their "mediocre ECs--no leadership positions!!" They bemoan each and every word on the applications and do everything they can to please admissions committees, worrying about the littlest of matters: should I use their labels? Will submitting early help my chances? If I attach a resume, will I get in?</p>
<p>It's rather sickening what the whole system has done to these students. Hopefully, in the years to come, the tension prevalent throughout it will lessen.</p>
<p>jwlstn </p>
<p>Do you mean the quote is a pretty accurate description of the communities as a whole? That is my problem. Not that it happens. It sure does.</p>
<p>kyledavid80</p>
<p>I also have seen examples of sad situations but, as hard as it is to believe sometimes in this board, there are many, many, many more studetns and parents that do not conform to this stereotype and the approach the admissions process in a much more civilized manner.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I've seen it too many times, especially on CC, that great students are turned into machines, worried about retaking high scores, their "weak GPA" of 3.97 UW (no joke), and their "mediocre ECs--no leadership positions!!" They bemoan each and every word on the applications and do everything they can to please admissions committees, worrying about the littlest of matters: should I use their labels? Will submitting early help my chances? If I attach a resume, will I get in?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, that's just neurotic. Sad and pitiful, but just neurotic in the end. </p>
<p>What the OP's article describes is fraudulent and unethical. </p>
<p>There's a difference.</p>
<p>Recently on CC, I have read threads about:</p>
<p>Paying a professional to write the college essay;
Whether it is legitimate to check a certain race box (or leave it blank) to gain an advantage;
Boys having an advantage over girls;
Whether admins check the legitimacy of ECs;
The ever-present racial preferences are unfair threads;
Do I have to report this or that asset or income on the FA app,;
Best test prep/how many times shall I take it threads;
Will declaring a certain major help me get in;
etc.</p>
<p>Gaming the system is a common theme here, imo.</p>
<p>I actually found the comments more enlightening than the article.</p>
<p>I agree with jude_36, but I can fathom that many people, not involved in college admissions, would gain something(s) from the article.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also have seen examples of sad situations but, as hard as it is to believe sometimes in this board, there are many, many, many more studetns and parents that do not conform to this stereotype and the approach the admissions process in a much more civilized manner.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed. I don't think the students on CC are representative, but I don't think they're the only ones, either. Competition at the top privates and publics is stiff, to the point that students are willing to do whatever they can to get in. Thus, this is probably most common in the top applicant pools, but even then, I don't think it makes up the majority.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, that's just neurotic. Sad and pitiful, but just neurotic in the end.</p>
<p>What the OP's article describes is fraudulent and unethical.</p>
<p>There's a difference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What's fraudulent and unethical? Using the ___ card? To a degree, yes, but the article's point was that those who point to others and accuse them of such are just as bad: "To accuse someone of playing some sort of card — race, gender, or whatever — is to assume they’re trying to take unfair advantage and to assert that they have no genuine right to express a grievance or even to mere self-assertion ... There’s a meanness that flows from this."</p>
<p>My point was that the same competitive force that drives what the writer just described is what brings students to that neurotic state where they not only worry about their impeccable stats, but they look to every nook and cranny to try to "game" the system, as Bay described.</p>
<p>I agree with jude_36. I was going to say something like that until I saw she posted that.</p>
<p>Years ago, I read a book by a couple of profs titled, "The Winner Take All Society." It documented the increasing tendency to reward "winners" more than everyone else. There's some logic in this - if, for example, Michael Jordan can increase team and league revenue by billions, it makes sense that he should share in that far more than a journeyman player who fills out the team but would barely be recognized by fans. Or, that all of the benefits he brought to the team should accrue to the owners.</p>
<p>Winning has permeated all segments of society. CEOs demand a higher share of increases in company value created on their watch. College football coaches demand they be compensated in proportion to the revenues they create for the schools. Star professors get big bucks, fancy facilities, and low teaching hours, while adjuncts and associates toil for low pay with little security.</p>
<p>As this tendency builds, though, it puts pressure on everyone to snag one of the few "winner" spots available. Why do some baseball players use steroids? They want to be a winner, and not in the sporting sense. A minor league player makes barely enough to live on, while one who gets promoted to the majors makes millions. And a star in the majors makes tens of millions. Is it any wonder that some players would yield to the temptation</p>
<p>When it comes to colleges, many students and parents labor under the false belief that the only key to success is to attend one of a small number of "brand name" schools. These schools are next to impossible to be admitted to, which in turn puts huge pressure on applicants to focus on every aspect of their resume as if their future depended on it. Not only does this lead to an unhealthy focus on things like squeezing out another twenty points on an already high SAT score, it also causes some to look for ways to cut corners.</p>
<p>I don't see any easy solutions to this problem.</p>
<p>Is this a good time to mention that I am .008% native american? just kidding...but yes, I have to concur that this blog describes a significant number of posters at CC. As a student applying to colleges in the fall, I have avoided coming on here - I had stopped coming here for a good 3-4 weeks before I needed to ask a question about the Stanford supplement, for which some kind people, which there are quite a few of here, helped answer - as the website tends to bring out the worst qualities in me as a person: should I retake the SAT a third time? Do I need to worry about that A-?</p>
<p>However, given that, I have met a great deal of helpful students and parents on CC that have become friends or companions to an extent in the nightmare adventure that is college admissions.</p>
<p>I see it somewhat differently. I live on LI, one of the most competitive environments in the country. Everyone and his grandmother wants to attend a "brand name" school. And I have a daughter who wanted to major in a humanities discipline, the worst admissions demographic to be sure.</p>
<p>We did not bemoan our fate or think anything was unfair. We looked at the situation, determined what was most important to each one of the kids, and found perfect places for them despite the competition. No, it wasn't HYPCM. But we were fine with that, and we don't begrudge a URM who eases into one of "those" schools with lower stats. We say bravo for negotiating a more difficult mine field.</p>
<p>My D wanted an eastern name school. Her strategy? Focus on women's colleges where her gender wouldn't be a disadvantage. She was accepted at all the women's colleges, and chose Barnard because she loves NYC. She takes almost half of her courses at Columbia (she didn't now this going in) but finds the Barnard classes more challenging.</p>
<p>S wanted a small school but bucked the eastern demographic by apply to University of Chicago as an ace up his sleeve. He was thrilled t be accepted. In the end, he chose one of the NE LAC's, but had choices too.</p>
<p>Having to compete neck and neck for admissions to schools forced them each to develop themselves more. Neither played any card; both sought leadership positions that developed them. </p>
<p>And as admissions get more competitive, the number of "brand" names increases. Schools that were back-ups are now "gets."</p>
<p>If we play our cards right, most high school kids will understand the important of really learning, doing community service, seeking opportunities to lead and excel. We will be the beneficiaries because we will develop a more capable group of young people to address problems that are only increasing in complexity.</p>
<p>If none of my descendants ever attends HYP etc. I am just fine with that as long as they all develop themselves. In the end, that's what they need to do and what society requires.</p>
<p>And I have no bitterness towards the people who have a card to play to be accepted at HYP. More power to 'em.</p>
<p>There's so much work to do, we all need to be present. If HYP is what it takes to motivate you -- so be it. Or if money is. </p>
<p>I'm glad my kids are motivated by the sheer volume of important work that is screaming to be done to make this planet a livable place for the greatest number of people.</p>
<p>They don't need HYP for that.</p>
<p>I see that one of the comments after the article raises a point I was thinking about: that part of the problem with the admissions frenzy is the large number of schools to which students are now applying.</p>
<p>Our local high school is not at all competitive. Most kids go to state colleges. Academics aren't great, either, but most of the time we prefer the school to more high-powered ones, because it is not stressful. They have just done a lot of learning on their own.</p>
<p>Our kids did not apply to certain schools because a friend or two had a greater desire to go there, than they did. These were "name" colleges that would never take more than 1 student from our small school. </p>
<p>I believe all the seniors applied to 4-6 schools, and made sure they were not in competition with someone else who was desperately eager to go to a certain place.</p>
<p>Applying to a huge number of schools does this on a larger scale, and is a symptom of a "me first" kind of attitude. </p>
<p>I am not bragging about my kids here, just grateful that they have been in an environment that doesn't create that competition. Probably, no matter how much we might try to transmit good values, a more competitive environment would have done the same thing to them. And if all their peers were applying to 15 schools, they would have done the same, perhaps. It's contagious.</p>
<p>Actually, in the highly competitive environment the kids were in, no one applied to their top school in their year. They thought outside the box a little more, but thankfully everyone wanted something slightly different. We were lucky, I guess.</p>
<p>They did insist their best friends apply to schools that were on their list too because they thought it would be a perfect match for friends. Happily, all were admitted, and friends attended.</p>
<p>I don't think competition is necessarily a bad thing, though selfishness and lack of ethics are, of course.</p>
<p>"Just because it can't be statistically proven doesn't mean it isn't true."</p>
<p>A rather odd statement. If someone puts forth a hypothesis, then one bears the burden of proof to show that it is true or provide a measure of the confidence level of the hypothesis. [It wasn't statistically proven that the moon is made of cheese a few hundred years ago but that doesn't mean it isn't true.]</p>
<p>Making statements like that essentially say nothing.</p>
<p>The college admissions rush feels analogous to the housing bubble. People desperately trying to get in regardless of the price. Falsifying documents, an eagerness to borrow money for financial independence, and the whole ugliness of the rat race. As with the housing bubble, I'm sure someone is cleaning up financially here.</p>