<p>OK here is the deal............I am curious as to the general opinions out there regarding development kids, kids coming from very wealthy families whose wealth and sometimes connections compensate for a students grades or overall record. This versus a kid who has worked very very hard, is at the top of his or her class, taken every AP or IB known to mankind, acing them and doing tons of EC's, Every year the top schools are faced with admissions dilemmas of choosing between the above. You might have a B student who got average SAT score applying for an Ivy where normally she has no business applying but because of her extraordinary wealth her parents have made it clear to admissions that should their little cookie get in, they will be happy to open up their wallets or that new wing or new library,etc..............then you have your average income student with truly a stellar record, I mean almost as perfect as can be, and ultimately the development case gets in over this kid. Pretty devastating stuff to that kid who worked so hard for 4 years understanding that getting into the best college was all about the grades, the SAT's etc..............just curious as to what the general feeling is about this sort of thing. I have heard many refer to it as a necessary evil, and in many cases I have to agree but its so unfortunate and I think too prevalent. Also when you consider that many of these top top schools have such huge endowments that will take hundreds of years to use, it kind of makes you wonder.</p>
<p>grotongirlie, they don't choose between the two. Rather, the development office typically supplies the Dean of Admissions with a list of those applicants who are very important to the school. That applicant gets the added benefit of the Dean of Admissions personally reviewing that applicants application. It is not a fair process. I know of a girl who had no extra curriculars whose familiy is a several generation legacy at one of HYP who gave one of the largest gifts to the school - get in who would never be a candidate at HYP because just having SAT scores in the rantge is note enough - and but for the connection would probably be a candidate for a school more along the lines of Boston College - get accepted early, while a candidate from the same school with exceptional artistc talent who had individual international and national recognition in her extra curriculars, extraordinary community service, higher SAT scores and grades ect get deferred. I am sure that the decision to admit the first student had nothing to do with the second, and the first was never reviewed against the second. The first knew they were going to get in even before the application was submitted. The first was decided I am sure in a discussion between the Dean of Admissions and the Development office. The second was an unconnected student whose application was read I am sure only by a regional admission officer and someone in the regional committee, and advocated for by the regional admission officer. The regional admission officer probably never even saw the first students application as it was most likely pulled from the pile and given to the Dean of Admissions.
The reality is probably that when early decisions are made, regional admission officers may already be given a list of who needs to be taken in a particular state, or who the admissions committee is leaning to take. These include recruited athltes who give their applications directly to the coaches and the coaches advocate directly to the Dean of Admissions. These include development cases that are very important to the school and are advocated directly to the Dean of Admissions. Thus, the regional admission officer might really try to advocate for a particular student but in the early round when there are not that many spaces, and many are filled by these special categories, there just may not be many spaces left for those who the regional admission officer hopes will be taken.
Believe me it is a frustrating process. There are applicants out there who are not competitive who will take the spots of those who are in the name of connections. However the admissions office is not choosing between applicants. Rather they often take the connected ones whose score ect they can justifiy and then it is the remaining spots that are left for everyone else.
I have even heard of parents who say their child is not a competitior for a particular school but are applying because someone who has given a fortune to the school is helping them try to get in. It is not fair that those applicants even get a special review by the Dean of Admissions and a special meeting with him, and a prodding by the development office while the rest of have our applications read only by a regional admission officer. It does not seem fair that those who did not work hard may get the benefit that belongs to someone else in the name of privilege but it happens all the time.
Yes, endowments are big at these schools but a certain amount of money talks. The schools are particularly interested in applicants who have a grandparent who has given generously for years and may include the school in the will. If an applicant has the minimunm SAT scores often the school will not risk allienating the family.
It is an unfair process. I agree why should those born into privlege get the opportuntieis that others worked so hard for? However there is nothing I can do about it. It is beyond my control and I understand that. We put in the hard work and pursue our passions and put together a great application, and then it is out of our hands. Perhaps this is where destiny comes into play. Those who work hard and are talented will be successful wherever they go.
Realize however that the development admit who is accepted is not taking the place of another student at their school. The admissions officers are not choosing between two appliciants and say lets take this connected one. Rather, there are certain development admits who will be taken and that leaves a ccrtain number of spaces left. The reality is that of the 2,000 applicants who might be accepted at a particular school, only about 200 combined will be development admits and legacies. There are really not a huge number of students who are so wealthy and so connected to be accepted over other more qualified applicants. So when you think about college admissions just subtract that number from the available spaces and forget about it. Not every thing is fair in life.</p>
<p>Unfair on one hand, but it's those 200 families who are giving enough money to help keep the other 1800 kids in school.
They don't promise to keep them, ya know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The reality is that of the 2,000 applicants who might be accepted at a particular school, only about 200 combined will be development admits and legacies.
[/quote]
More specifically, the number of developmental admits is currently ~50 or fewer.</p>
<p>Yes, I was just going to say that developmental admits really are few and far between. It is natural to think "Oh, if it weren't for that one rich kid, I would have totally been accepted", but that really, statistically, isn't true. </p>
<p>Though I understand and in some ways agree with the arguments against developmental/legacy/atheletic/whatever kind of special case applicants, it is also erroneous to assume that all or even the majority of those applicants were otherwise unadmissable. Most are at least admissable without that hook factor, and (I would think) at least some are perfectly competitive applicants (meaning they could have reasonably gotten in without the hook) before the hook is taken into account. Of course, I say this as a biased legacy :)...but I would defy anyone to call me unqualified for admission at my parent's alma mater (I applied RD and have not yet been admitted/denied). Are there a few real stinkers who get in because of their parent's connections? Yeah, but very few.</p>
<p>Also, if you really want to do the choose between two applicants thing, it's really not the great applicant that's going to get squeezed--they are going to get in anyway. It's some really borderline kid who will be replaced.</p>
<p>For context, people should look at the thread </p>
<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=293317%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=293317</a> </p>
<p>posted by the same OP. I'll comment here about the general issue. If you like a particular college, you must like the general results of its admission policies. Whoever is admitted to the most desired colleges this year, whether they are developmental admits or academic grind admits, all think that the overall college experience is good there. The overall mix of the class, including some rich people, some famous people, some validictorians, and some athletes, is not off-putting to the people who apply. If you don't like a particular college and decry its admission policies, you can always choose not to apply to that college and instead apply somewhere else. </p>
<p>If you want to educate yourself about this issue, you can read recent</a> books about college admission or especially a whole book about the role of developmental admits at top colleges, Harvard alumnus Daniel Golden's book The</a> Price of Admission.</p>
<p>Having read "The Price of Admission", I stick by my post. I'm not going to deny, by any means, that every year at the top schools <em>some</em>--and I mean a very few, probably not even double-digits--kids get in to each top school who are plain unqualified. Their test scores, rank, and probably also extras are no where near the level of basic consideration. Are these cases annoying? Yes, they are, and "The Price of Admission" deals mostly with cases such as these from many schools over many years. There are more--still not alot, certainly not hundreds and hundreds, but more--admits who fall into the special cases file that are questionably qualfied, and this is probably the group we are talking about right now. These are admits who are admissable, but definitely needed a hook. They are a gray area, in my opinion. I don't find their admission outrageous, but it does sometimes rankle me that far less qualified kids get in mostly on the basis of their special considerations. </p>
<p>But even this group is not that big. Now, at Groton and other top prep schools, you are probably exposed to a lot more of these cases, but overall, their admission is not taking up <em>that</em> much of the college class. Like I said before, it is upsetting to me that people lump all of these kids--developmentals, legacies--together, because not all of these kids needed the advantage to be competitive. Again, the top student is not left out in the cold--the borderline kid is. And though at the micro level that sucks, in the big picture, it really isn't that big of a deal.</p>
<p>P.S. From the stories my parents tell me, a) these types of admits are far less common than they used to be and b) you would not always be correct in assuming that the developmental/special cases types kids don't add to campus. Maybe not academically, but once you get in campus, those kids can turn out to be great, if not totally qualified, people. FWIW.</p>
<p>tokenadult,</p>
<p>I would think that most people like colleges for the education that they provide rather than for their admission policies.</p>
<p>I don't think that interaction with development cases adds much to the college experience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
tokenadult,
I would think that most people like colleges for the education that they provide rather than for their admission policies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Life at the college is in part a result of its admission policies. The best education provided at some colleges is the education resulting from interacting with fellow students. I didn't mind meeting a few wealthy and well connected people during my undergrad and professional school studies. I have no idea whether or not their basis for admission was different from mine, but they certainly didn't make my education any worse by being there.</p>
<p>The position of my Dartmouth professors was that one of the main functions of the Ivy League was to provide money access to talent and talent access to money. :)</p>
<p>Groton,</p>
<p>Do you know that saying about people living in glass houses? It seems that you are complaining about someone who may be admitted as a developmental admit and what you think their money has done for them.</p>
<p>However, do you really think that your being a legacy, did not tip the scales in your favor regarding your Yale EA admissions?</p>
<p>
[quote]
am in a crisis of sorts, have worked my butt off all my high school life, am the ultimate overacheiver admittedly. </p>
<p>My parents however DREAM of me going to YALE. My dad went there and he is beside himself just thinking I may go elsewhere</p>
<p>he is a very active Yalie alum and really just thinks the world of the school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am willing to be the farm that as a very active alum, your father may have gave a little wink, wink on your behalf (I don't think anyone is going to munster a hole lot of sympathy if you feel it is a fate worse than death to attend Yale).</p>
<p>So remember when you point a finger at someone else, there are 3 more pointing back at you ;)</p>
<p>Plus remember, GrotonGirlie, that there are a lot more advantages beyond just being rich. I would say that the mere advantage of having attended Groton or a similar prep school are worth a lot in the college admissions game--more than they should be, perhaps. Consider the test prep, the extracurriculars, the excellent teachers, the superior college advising, and the generally superior atmosphere that you and other expensive prep school kids have likely gotten. That's why those schools cost what they cost. Contrast that with the experience of going to even an above average public school like my own, and I would think that you would be a little less outraged about your own position. </p>
<p>I don't say this to be cruel, or to single out you in particular. I'm hardly a poor inner-city kid who has had no advantages. But going to a huge, beat-up public school with a significant drug culture, little college advising, little test prep, and a large, bureaucratic administration that employs people who are often downright rude to the students, I have a tough time mustering up a lot of sympathy for an expensive prep school student. I'm not saying that you didn't work hard (although, I would note that a lot of people in this world work hard--probably a lot harder than you or I will ever have to work) or that your admittedly involved Yalie father got you into Yale, but I'm just not seeing the outrage here. True developmental cases are supposedly about 5 kids per year at these schools, tops. When it comes right down to it, did these kids take another, more qualified applicant's spot? Yeah, they did. But such is the (very small) trade-off in life--someone has to feed those large endowments, and gifts in the form of millions go along way towards doing that.</p>
<p>I believe that this is a very important topic. In spite of the rationalizations made by some posters (ie:tokenadult) it goes deep into the emotional core of the applicant.
No one applies to a college because of "their admission policies". You want to go somewhere because of the education, reputation, environment, location, etc..! If you are well qualified and you are passed on because of another well qualified individual, that's a different story. There is only a finite number of students that can get admitted into a class. Taking into consideration development cases, URMs and athletes is a fact of life dictated by the reality of our society. Schools want more money, they want to win sports games and do not want to be discriminatory (openly anyway...) You may want to put it as nicely and dress it up as sweetly as you want in order to swallow it. However, that is the reality of the process.
It takes a certain degree of maturity, understanding, humility and selflessness to be willing to "sacrifice" one's attending the dream university, for what could help keep up the greatness of the institution ( for those who feel that the mosaic made up by having the wealthy, the famous, the disadvantaged, etc helps creates that greatness ). What this thinking does not take into consideration is human greed and the uniqueness of the individual who may want to attend and is well qualified academically to do so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What this thinking does not take into consideration is human greed
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What role should human greed play here?</p>
<p>The fact that an individual may not care about what is best for society or others, but may want what he /she feels is best for him/her. Someone may not want to "give up" their place in the class because the university is likely to be "better" for others or for future generations with a different "mix".</p>
<p>I seriously doubt that there are too many teenagers capable of thinking that way. </p>
<p>Would you have done it tokenadult?</p>
<p>I really did try to pursue something good for humanity-at-large in my undergraduate studies. Some teenagers think that way, and some do not. I just think it is a little silly to say, "This school is bad, because of who it lets in," when the applicant is trying to get into the same school. If the school is really so bad, why apply? If the school is not bad, why decry anyone else's attempt to get in?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You want to go somewhere because of the education, reputation, environment, location, etc..!
[/quote]
Where do you think the money for that comes from? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Someone may not want to "give up" their place in the class because the university is likely to be "better" for others or for future generations with a different "mix".
[/quote]
How can they give it up if they don't have it? Most schools don't have the Texas top 10 rule, you know. Just because you have good grades or test scores doesn't mean you "deserve" a spot at a college.</p>
<p>I kind of agree with Sybbie, BUT I've posted in Grotongirlie's other thread and realized that she did make quite a few valuable points.</p>
<p>But in any case, Grotongirlie, I think that the developmental cases will inevitably take a few spots that could have gone to other remarkable students. At the top, nearly everyone is 'brilliant', so it's a tough call. </p>
<p>Though I'd have to say, I really don't think you have to worry about it! If you're a great student, then you'll be all right. And even if you don't, I'm sure you knew the low admission rates of some of these schools. My dream school is Princeton, but I know the admission rate; combined with my stats, I know it's a dream and that it'll stay a dream.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, don't worry too much about it.</p>
<p>I have no problem with people who are bitter and upset and say some rash things for a few hours or days after their rejection. When one is very upset, I agree that it is not natural to be reasonable. But I have very, very, very little sympathy or affinity for people who spend an extended (weeks turning to months) period of time railing against developmental, athletic, diversity, or legacy applicants. Why?</p>
<p>--True developmental candidates are basically non-existent (5/yr/college).
--Athletic candidates actually have a talent that will, in some way, add to the college campus.
--URM's have usually had to face disadvantages that others have not. Their lower stats are often related to these disadvantages and cannot be criticized in the same way that an underqualified developmental candidate's could. Plus nobody worth caring about wants to attend a place with only white kids.
--Legacy applicants are often qualified, are not that large a part of the pool, and are rarely favored stats-wise to the extent that the other groups are (a 650 SAT average applicant is likely to be admitted in the other groups (especially developmental and atheltic) and will most likely not be admitted in the legacy pool). I admit my bias here, but it is also true that legacy applicants often know more about the college and are much more likely to attend if admitted, making them a safer bet yield-wise. </p>
<p>I am a teenager, and I am capable of thinking this way. Also, I question a person who automatically assumes that they were rejected over less-qualified applicants. I have been rejected from things that I wanted before, and I did not assume that the process was flawed and that I was better than the kids who were accepted--I assumed that I needed to work harder (in an audition setting) or that I just didn't have what they were looking for (in a more typical application setting). Was I very disappointed? Yes, to the point of sobbing one time. But I got over it, and other people have to--and usually do--get over it as well.</p>
<p>sybbie719 You with all due respect seem to be missing my point and my Yale EA is not the topic here so lets stay on it, I would only consider it fair game IF I was not worthy of Yale except for my Dad. In this case I can honestly say I am not just a good but outstanding candidate for any ivy, I am NOT boasting and I know I am putting myself out there for thinking I am superior I am just saying that without my dad I still really believe that I was as strong a candidate as any. I have some real major accomplishments under my belt, no they didn't come easy, it came through years of relentless hard work and many sacrifices along the way. Would i do it again? Absolutely! I will not say it again but YES I KNOW I AM VERY VERY VERY LUCKY to be in at Yale so lets not go there again, I am hoping to attract a different "caliber" to this debate, a healthy debate is a great thing, but redicule,accusations,hating is just not my thing.:) Yes you are right there could have been 10 just like me and perhaps my dads legacy is in fact something that did work in my favor but I don't use my own situation as an example because in this case I was a pretty accomplished applicant even by Yale standards. I asked for opinions, not accusations.</p>