Ethics of "Chancing" students

Parent Cafe
201

I think that the app is so limited in what a kid’s real story is. It can be so deceiving, and therefore chancing can be swayed. My daughter attends a private HS in an affluent neighborhood on academic scholarship (we are not affluent). We had no idea about the importance of Subject tests, yet her school is one where colleges will assume she did (inefficient Guidance Office). D didn’t take them, yet it will appear that she didn’t do well enough to submit.

She has also always wanted to be a doctor but up until recently feared she wouldn’t be able to handle the trauma-type parts residency, so she thought maybe major in stat and do research…and has recs from a math teacher instead (had to hand those LOR requests in last March). There are no “medical” ECs on her resume. Her small school has no clubs that would make that accessible. We also had no clue about the importance of doing “research” while in HS. Aren’t some kids allowed to not know when they are 14-16 what they want to do? (I’m not asking you guys, just making a point).

She also was a three season athlete who got injured in 11th grade. That took up substantial time and prevented a lot of the EC and leadership and community service she would have done, yet appears on her app as if she just quit the sport in 11th grade.

In the end, she’s ranked #2 (despite taking unweighted classes like art and psych versus her competitive classmates bc I think a kid should pursue interests and not just buck for #1). She’s a NMSF, 35 ACT on her first try, 4.0 UW, etc., and I’m pretty sure this kid won’t get in to any highly selective schools bc her app doesn’t appear to show the early dedication and congruity.

This is part bc we didn’t know any better, part repercussions of a serious injury, and part living her life authentically without following a predetermined script for fancy college acceptances. Does that mean she isn’t just as qualified as the kid who hired a private counselor to tell him/her what to do? Not if you ask me. And therein lies the inequitable part of this whole game.

202

It seems to me that the impact of “Chance Me” threads have is to impact the number of schools a student applies to and the specific schools they apply to.

When posters are told their odds are better than they are, they are more likely to apply to fewer schools and better schools. That is a disaster waiting to happen. Unfortunately, that approach is most harmful to parents and students who know the least about college admissions.

A few months ago I talked to the parent of an unhooked white female student with a 3.8 unweighted gpa, no AP’s and volunteer work for special olympics is her best EC. The student did not have their ACT results yet at the time. The parent says that the girl wants to attend Stanford, and the GC has told them that they have “a good chance.” The mother believed the GC, and said that she is limiting the daughter to 5 applications because there is no reason to waste the money. They then visited Cornell, Princeton, Harvard and a couple more schools that I don’t recall.

I tried to help by giving the mother a more realistic perspective. I encouraged her to apply to a much broader range of schools. However, the parent (my cousin) was defensive, and just repeated that the GC says her daughter has a good chance at Stanford.

I really hope that this works out for them, but to me what the GC did is malpractice. I understand that the GC wants to encourage and motivate the student, but I think that can be done as part of guiding the student toward applying to schools that are a better fit for the student.

203

@Much2learn,

At this point, you have done what you can but the die has pretty much been cast. Would you be willing to report back in a few months as to the final outcome?

204

Applying REA can be helpful in this type of situation. If you get in REA, then the application process is far more simple with a lot less time, effort, and money. If you don’t get in, then you have a more realistic perspective for the RD round.

Applying to just 5 colleges isn’t unusual, outside of CC and similar environments. The important part is including a safety among those 5.

205

Well in theory REA can help, but I suspect that in practice someone who thinks they had “a good chance at Stanford” and is rejected in mid-December is 1) Either locked into the belief that they have a “good chance” for their other reach heavy schools, or 2) Come to the realization that they may not make it into any of their schools and are now scrambling in terms of what schools to apply to. Both bad choices.

206

Believing you have a “good chance” for Stanford is not mutually exclusive with including a safety among your applications. I’d expect there are plenty of rejected REA applicants who were planning to include a safety among their applications and don’t suddenly come to the realization that they may be rejected everywhere. In such cases the rejection can cause them to reevaluate which colleges and/or how many colleges to choose for reach applications, sort of like a negative reaction to a “chance me” thread.

207

I am the parent who doesn’t know “Jack”. I did not even know to look for him. Child 1 was ok with the small state university. There was not much to think about. Child 2 is the overachiever. We have made so many errors, too many to count.

208

Kayak24, I simply do not believe that your D won’t do well in college admissions- depending of course on how she crafted her list.

I don’t know a single kid from my town who has ever done a “medical” EC- except for one of my own kids who worked as a receptionist in a medical office and learned to code for insurance, feed the fish tank, and change the toilet paper rolls in the bathrooms (that’s a good life skill- the big industrial rolls, not the kind you use at home).

This kid had no interest in medicine btw- but wanted a summer job “in air conditioning” which knocked out camp counselor, the concession stand at the local park, and the typical teenage summer jobs.

Fast forward- I know at least 15 kids from my town who are either in med school or are young residents. None of them ever did a single “medical” EC.

Your D sounds authentic and fantastic and there are dozens of terrific colleges which would love to have her.

And don’t believe everything you read on CC (talking about the Theoretical Physics crowd, you guys have got to get real. Why HS kid knows they want to study theoretical physics? And I had a kid at MIT btw, who actually had frat brothers who DID study theoretical physics. But they didn’t know it in HS and they certainly weren’t publishing papers in HS or doing research). And my MIT kid worked in fast food in the summers btw. Why did he work in fast food? Because he needed a job and they were hiring. Believe it or not there are “normal” kids in America who do “normal” HS things and still go to college.

Kayak- your D sounds great and if she’s got a reasonable list of places you can afford, you will all be in a better frame of mind by April.

209

@hebegebe

“At this point, you have done what you can but the die has pretty much been cast. Would you be willing to report back in a few months as to the final outcome?”

Of course.

The problem is the complexity of the college process and the lack of knowledge outside of a small percentage of parents and students.
As an example, the first time I spoke with my cousin about colleges, she told me her daughter wanted to go to medical school. I replied that there are a lot of great pre-med programs to choose from. She responded that her daughter was not interested in pre-med programs, and that “She just wants to apply to medical school at Stanford.” I explained that isn’t possible and suggested she talk to her GC right away. I think for parents who are no familiar with college admissions it is very difficult to understand.

What bothers me is that it isn’t the GC or the parent who pay the price when a student gets poor guidance like this, it is the kid.

210

Even kids with clueless parents become doctors. I know a couple. There are many threads on these boards about the alleged superiority of the university system overseas, it’s cheaper, no frills, better, quicker, no wasted time on Gen Ed’s if all you want to do is learn computer programming, etc.

But one advantage of OUR university system is that even the children of the clueless can end up doing or being whatever they want to be. Kid wasn’t tracked in the highest math track in middle school because the parents didn’t know to kick up a fuss? Kid had no EC’s in HS because he/she had to take care of an elderly grandparent after school? Kid didn’t take a foreign language because the parents thought that speaking their heritage language fluently at home was sufficient?

Doesn’t matter. All of these kids with the clueless parents can go to college in America. And then grad school to become a lawyer or social media manager or neurologist or graphic designer or French teacher or agronomist.

In most parts of the world there is no such thing. You take a test in 7th or 8th grade which tracks you to university or vocational HS, you show up every day and do your thing. I’ve written before about my cousin the cake decorator (in a European country, a product of their system) who would have been an engineer in the US. Kids with extreme mathematical and spatial skills (but with ADD) in the US CAN become engineers, they don’t get shoved into an apprenticeship at 18.

Much2Learn- everyone figures it out. Kids get to college- whether a flagship state U, a directional, the local Bible college or former teacher state college and they get to figure it out. And other than becoming a ballerina and a few other occupations where the door really does close if you aren’t on track by 16-- this is the country of second chances. And third. And fourth. And you DON’T need to be pre- med to go to med school!

211

One thing that is apparent from this thread is that our personal experiences skew our own adult perspectives. As the mom of a kid who stated early on in hi.gh school that he wanted to pursue theoretical physics :wink: , yes, some kids do know and do actively pursue ECs in that area. So those types of ECs are out there for kids who want them. (Plenty of these kids hang out on the AoPS forums.)

In terms of @QuantMech’s question about DE, yes, those credits are often accepted. (Depends on the school.) Ds took both intro cal physics, modern, and 2 semesters of physical mechanics (and a similar amt of math) via DE at our local university. He submitted his syllabuses and textbook lists to the various depts after he was accepted and all of them said they would give him credit if he enrolled (he didn’t apply to schools like HYP.)

In terms of ECs, he attended astronomy camps ike SSP. He was part of our local astronomy club. He had reams of notebooks where he wrote down various thought-type experiments. He assisted a new prof at our local u in setting up his lab, etc.

And he is now in the midst of grad school apps for theoretical physics. :slight_smile:

Granted, it is anecdotal. But, my point is that when I read stuff like that that kids post, I don’t see it as “out there” since I have a kid who breathes that air. I don’t think all of them will end up on that path similarly to those who think they want to pursue engineering. But with some kids, you can sense the depth of commitment and understanding behind what they are saying. (Reactions are appropriately different when talking in terms of a kid who hasn’t taken math beyond pre-cal or physics beyond physics 1 compared to a kid who has taken MV and diffEQ and both C courses/exams, etc. One might think they know and still might. But one does obviously have greater likelihood of success due to exposure and math strength.) The kids at camps like SSP or are taking AoPS courses at younger ages do have more exposure and understanding when making comments.

212

…and we come back around to the original question - is it ethical to tell students they have a great shot at ___, where is a school that accepts very few applicants. IMO, yes, but only if the student has safeties. I think we all agree on that. But to say “you have a good shot” and support a student or family decision to apply only to reaches…no. I agree that’s malpractice, in the college advisor sense.

213

@Mom2aphysicsgeek "One thing that is apparent from this thread is that our personal experiences skew our own adult perspectives. "

I always think that when I see another endless thread about whether where you went to school matters. The right answer is that it depends. However, some people’s total personal experience is only with one part of the elephant and they have strong opinions based on that experience. So you end up with two posters arguing about what the elephant looks like, and both are accurately describing their part of the elephant.

214

Kayak24, I agree with your post #200. I am hopeful that your daughter will have the admissions outcomes that blossom suggests, but I also see that she doesn’t seem to fit the “get out there and do things that are connected to your aspirations” mandate [not an exact quotation, but the sense of it].

Speaking for the theoretical physics crowd, we are real (see #210 and probably others). I knew that I wanted to work in quantum mechanics as soon as I encountered the Schroedinger equation and the discussion of its implications in my high school chemistry text. We had only a single year of chemistry and it was non-AP, but I benefited from the Sputnik panic and the time interval between the launch of Sputnik and the time that I entered high school, so that really good textbooks could be written. A student who reads the PSSC physics book may fall in love with physics. I have met a few high-school students who are proto-theoretical physicists. blossom’s comment that the theoretical physicists weren’t publishing papers or doing research in high school speaks exactly to my point. Nearly 100% of the students who want to become theoretical physicists cannot do that–they just don’t have the requisite background. So then they can’t exactly “get out there and do things that are connected to their aspirations,” for the most part. [Luckily, I had started a biology project before I took chemistry–and extremely luckily, I had high school teachers who let me work alone in the biology lab, something that I am sure cannot happen now.]

With regard to the DE courses, I understand that the colleges will give credit for them (depending on the course and the college). I was actually raising the question about credit with regard to admissions. It seemed to me that the view of just taking courses (mentioned in an earlier post) was rather dismissive. So I wanted to know specifically with regard to admissions, whether post-AP courses were considered to be “just taking courses,” or whether they might be viewed as “getting out there and doing something connected to the aspirations” of a proto-theoretical physicist.

Finally, I am glad to hear that your son is applying to grad school for theoretical physics, Mom2aphysicsgeek! That’s great! Astronomy is the gateway field to theoretical physics for quite a few people, though not for everyone. Also, there is a lot be to said for staying on the astronomical side, too–it doesn’t have to be just a gateway. Please tell your son that the idea that theoretical physicists have their best ideas by age 30 [35, 40, whatever] is a hold-over from the “Knabenphysik” of Heisenberg and Pauli’s era, and it no longer holds true. He can continue doing great work for many years.

215

At some point, it helps to try to understand *what is. *

Yes, lots of variation across the country. So any one set of experiences in one’s own locale may or may not apply, may not reflect the reality of this particular college. May not inform.

So I do suggest kids and parents explore, not assume. Enquiring minds.

216

The differences in opinion result from more than just describing one’s own part of the elephant exclusively (budding theoretical physicists aside :slight_smile: ). In my view, the more important disagreements concern which elephants are to be preferred, in cases where the elephants are regarded by all observers, in completeness. De gustibus non est disputandum, and other disclaimers etc., etc.–but really the disagreements are grounded in philosophical differences.

To mention a feature about the Harvard students that I have known: They are pragmatically oriented toward success. They tend to be quite well oriented for advantage in the world as it is. Of course, there are Harvard grads who are trying to improve society through non-profits and other beneficent organizations; they too are oriented for advantage in the world as it is, just not for personal advantage. Ditto for Harvard innovators. And it make take years to make a mark. But I think the “success” orientation tends to be quite strong. (They generally enjoy competition quite a lot!)

When I have had discussions with Harvard grads about what a university “is” (way before Bill Clinton and the question about what “is” is), it appeared to me that for the most part, the Harvard grads took the operational view that what a university “is” equals how it actually functions in society currently, including the career and social advantages that attendance at a particular university confers. My friends and I tended to take the view that a university “is” the idealized version, based on its definition as an organization for the advancement, preservation, and dissemination of knowledge.

You can probably deduce many of the differences in opinions about admissions that would follow from that; and for the most part, those differences do follow.

If a student wants to align her/himself with the prevailing admissions philosophy, then I would recommend taking lookingforward’s posts to heart. It is what any sensible applicant would do, to optimize chances. Assessing the degree of alignment that is apparent in the application will probably lead to the most accurate chancing.

In any event, I think it is beneficial to encourage an applicant to go for a “top” school, as long as the applicant does not think he/she is very likely to be admitted (barring a direct indication of that from the college), just that the “chancer” thinks they are in the ballpark. It’s better if the “chancer” has a realistic idea about current admissions practices–in this context, please ignore me! REA/SCEA is useful, because more schools can be added to the list if needed, once the REA/SCEA result is out. A safety (desirable, affordable–they are out there) is a necessity. I’d also recommend submitting as many of the planned applications to “top” schools as possible before the REA/SCEA results show up.

217

While I agree in some respects with the last few arguments, I don’t think HS kids should lose sight of a couple of facts.

Fact 1- most universities are more similar than dissimilar, and it is unrealistic to think otherwise. The differences between Harvard and Johns Hopkins and Northwestern and Rice-- pretty subtle at 20,000 feet, and for kids to torment themselves over how to “suss out” the magic formula that Hopkins wants that Rice doesn’t- that’s crazy.

Fact 2- you can do all the matching and research you want and care to and STILL be wrong. Case in point- as I’ve mentioned (you are all likely sick of me) I interviewed for many years for Brown. If I had a dollar for every kid who pointed to his/her “artsiness” or bohemian spirit or “love of the new curriculum” (which wasn’t new by then, trust me-- the folks who put into place the new curriculum are all collecting social security)-- well, I’d have a lot of dollars. But Brown doesn’t NEED to look very far to find the artsy kids and the bohos. They have thousands of those kids in the pile. At the time, Brown wanted to be on the lookout for the applied math kids, or the kids interested in the intersection of psychology and computer science, or whatnot. And by now- given how well developed and acclaimed some of those programs are- the focus no doubt is on kids interested in political science and big data, or health policy and economics, or materials science and robotics.

Fact 3- Most of the student body at most colleges is a pretty generic pile. Not that each individual kid is generic- but every college needs the kids who run the protests and the kids who put out the newspaper, and the kids who play the cello and the kids who run the debating society. Which relates to my point number 1- don’t fetishize just how distinctive a particular college is.

Final Fact- We are talking about institutions of higher learning. period full stop. I can’t tell you the number of parents I meet in real life who can talk for half an hour about what their kid brings to the particular college that he/she is in love with, has applied to early, has called every alum trying to get an edge, has shown every form of “interest” known to man. But has the kid shown ANY motivation at all about the actual product of the university, i.e. learning and intellectual curiosity?

If more kids spent as much time ACTUALLY WANTING TO LEARN-- y’know, reading books, being curious about the world, etc. as they do polishing and strategizing, they’d be in a much better position to get into the college of their choice. I have neighbors who have sent each of their kids to some college essay bootcamp and it’s so tragic- have these parents ever taken the kids to an aquarium (there’s one three stops away on the interstate) or an art museum (commuter train ride away-- one of the biggest in the world) or a historical society (down the street)? No. Weekends are spent either watching sports or playing sports. Which is fine- and if your kid turns out to be recruitable for the sport, then I’m wrong and they are right. But most kids- who get sidelined or bored or injured-- why not a planetarium instead of the endless round of travel soccer “to get him into college”.

And kids are burnt out by senior year-- and some of them really have no interest in the main event of college, i.e. learning. They are tired, they want their ticket punched.

Pragmatically oriented towards success? That’s not Harvard, that’s our society. You want idealism? Go the Air Force Academy. You want intellectualism? Go to a Catholic college. You want a love for/appreciation for art and artistic expression? You’re on your own.

I’m being cynical but again- don’t fetishize Harvard. Its kids are no more wired for success than any other kids at a peer institution. Some Harvard grads become third grade language arts teachers and some become Supreme Court justices. And for a HS kid to twist himself into a “wired for success” kind of candidate- again, misses the point. Harvard doesn’t need to look for that- it ends up with that by default.

218

^ What? Don’t you forks spend the weekends at museums and bookstores? :slight_smile:

219

I don’t “fetishize” Harvard. No one from my extended family has ever applied there, although we have put in applications and have been admitted to multiple single-initial CC schools.

I actually do think that the students at Harvard are a bit more intense about success than the students at Yale and Princeton. This may not be true in general, but it is true of the moderate-sized subset that I know from the three schools. You have probably seen the video produced ahead of the Harvard/Yale game, in which Harvard students were stereotyping Yale students as “Student Council Vice President,” “Second Chair, First Violins,” and similar categories of first-runner-up. I would not be at all surprised if Harvard is looking for specific indicators of a success focus.

There are actually quite a few people who do not have a highly pragmatic orientation toward success–some who feel that the personal cost is too high, some who are pursuing something other than socially recognized success.

Aside from that, the whole idea of a “third grade language arts teacher” seems like something from a comparatively expensive private school to me. Out here in flyover country, in the public schools there are “third grade teachers” and then there are “third grade teachers.” Some of the school districts may have a music teacher or an art teacher who rotates among the schools, but beyond that, there is no specialization at that level.

220

Using Brown as an example, they’ve got roughly 30k apps for roughly 2k seats. What do people want them to do? Add 15k seats so every nice kiid or drreamer or closet genious can get in? (There’ve been threads suggesitng that.) It just isn’t like that. As an institution, they have limits in the various services they can provide, some mandates, some wiggle room. Like any wisely managed competiton, they set a framework and look for kids who fall within those parameters. Not unlike a hiring manager.

It doesn’t matter what we CC posters think. Lol. But we (as a whole) can try to understand the criteria (not just stats, beyond that fixation.) Of course, one is “actuallly wanting to learn.” But that’s not just saying so. The old exppression is, talk is cheap. Why can’t they look to what the kid has actually done?

And why do we convolute this with anecdotes and supposing, setting up reasons a kid can’t do this or that, or shouldn’t? Fact is, they can fill their 2k slots with the kids they think do it best, show the promise, as they define it. Not every nice kid or hard working kid will get a spot on the team roster.

Other than on CC, there is no philosophical difference to get exercised about. The school wants what IT wants. And has plenty of great kids to choose among. It’s the holistic colleges’ game and you need to qualify as they see it.

Nothing nefarious in that. If you don’t like it or can’t hack it, set your sites elsewhere than the most competitive colleges.

If you want in, you should try to understand what it is they seek. Be that sort.

It’s not that hard to get it right or close enough, if you do have the goods. And plenty do.

Any distinction is that I believe bright kids can. I’ve seen the CC kids ask- and which kids then process, vs those who insist their assumptions or hearsay are right. When someone offers a link, these kids track it down, not argue. In the course of some threads, you can see the lightbulb go on among those. I rally for them.