<p>I will re-state that one thing I don’t like about parent-paid advanced high-calibre hand-holding, tutoring of high-achieving HS students is: money makes a big difference. It just doesn’t seem right to the extent this has gone.</p>
<p>I don’t have a citation at hand, but I think it has been fully documented that parental socio-economics play a big role in SAT scores. Then the ability to pay for costly, extensive tutoring as an advantage that can raise scores “by 200 points,” according to some commercial sales claims. Around here, parents often demand their kids retake the SAT a lot to get as close as possible to perfect. Even if YOU don’t do that, your kids are affected since many of their peers act like it IS necessary. </p>
<p>Then, the ability to manage or force your child to follow a carefully prescribed route is one way to material rewards/college offers. It saddens me, doesn’t seem like the American Way of individuality and creativity.</p>
<p>This doesn’t sound like a level playing field for top college admissions based on merit to me.
Some say there have always been some quirks. I didn’t know about Columbia, but I am respectful of that story; here is another one where the wrong thing is being done, almost on a very large level.</p>
<p>2nd, I just am uncomfortable with the ethics of prepping teens ahead of a specific curriculum before taking it for a grade. We didn’t do it, and I do admit I resent those who did (a very large # in our high achieving district in Silicon Valley). Such students, who sometimes don’t do their own work, may receive better grades though they didn’t really earn them themselves. Some are secretive, some boast in front of the non-hand-held kids.</p>
<p>The open, constant bragging of SAT scores, etc. is vulgar IMO.</p>
<p>Some posted their kid got great SAT scores or whatever without fancy paid tutoring, etc., and I realize there ARE, of course, some real go-getter, self-motivated and academically superstar kids out there. I’m delighted and I want them in our American universities and I want them to work in our economy! </p>
<p>However, at the same time, there are a super-duper number of fully average kids from high socio-economic in my local area who get some super uni offers that are largely based on PARENTAL actions and money. Some of these kids have stepped in front of high achievers who were not packaged to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars by parents and paid college app prepping consultancies. The admissions system should be better protected against artificial measures of achievement, grades, “success.” THis is why I suggested a verbal. I have done this myself - in terms of having a casual conversation with local teens (all of whom are capable of such a conversation and have high self esteem) – and I have indeed noted some were forced to take (and get As) in APs they had no interest in – indeed, were dismissive – or they were not retaining any knowledge at all.</p>
<p>I’m at the point where I truly believe the top unis should start giving great credibility to the kid who goes the non-prestifious route in HS as opposed to fancy parent-arranged ECs – who holds down a solid, basic job during HS yrs (no, not at the small hi-tech company owned by your mommy – as a kid at our local HS told me some yrs back…</p>
<p>You can’t prevent people from using their connections, but YOUTH and EDUCATION should have some naturalness in learning, enjoyment of learning for learning’s sake, and self-otivation. There should be some accountavility and transparency in what’s going on, bc some of the middle-high-achievers who are honest, are getting shafted in the current process.</p>
(Edit: I just remembered, another elite high school’s kids WERE welcome to meet at hoity-toity school. Reciprocity among the elite?))</p>