Family Gets Lesson in Admissions

Parents Forum
101

<p>Allmusic,</p>

<p>I agree with your conclusion. </p>

<p>I suppose one could argue that parental involvement takes place for a variety of reasons: sometimes to support the kid; sometimes to make the parent feel better; sometimes as a subtle form of control; sometimes as just the most effective way to avoid train wrecks.</p>

<p>I suspect one could also argue that helicopter parenting is a natural evolution of our changing communication capabilities. Heck, how different is it from the days when the young adult kids lived at home until marriage, then moved down the block? Those folks still became adequately functioning adults!</p>

<p>I'll stay more open minded on this issue.</p>

102

<p>Calmom, my first response was a reaction to your provacative post #80, in which you refer to kids who get help as "so high and mighty", and reduce the degree of required organizational tasks to "filling out name and address on a piece of paper", etc. You then go into great detail to justify your handling of things by describing your d's lifestyle, as if to imply that that's the norm. No one is criticizing you for how you and your d. worked things out. It's that you communicate criticism of others. This is a pattern.</p>

103

<p>This thread was bothering me all last evening. Some of what I read (a few pages ago) was pure ugliness: the resentment that this otherwise-fabulous kid, who had somehow scored under 1400 on CR/M SATs, either got into Duke at all or failed somehow to get USA Today to present himself as MUCH more grateful for his dumb luck. I was disturbed at the implication that a sub-1400er was lacking something really important, and didn't "deserve" a school like Duke, no matter what his other accomplishments and qualities. Especially if he had slacked off by failing to attent the local nationally-famous math/science magnet.</p>

<p>People, I'm as proud of my kids as the next head-over-heels parent. Like everyone, I tend to Ac-cen-tu-ate The Positive and E-lim-i-nate The Negative: "He missed the NMF cut-off? So what? He smoked those kids on his SATs first time out! The real ones! And look at that poetry prize!" But it is just wrong to cast aspersions on, or belittle, other kids, especially on the basis of something as tenuous as 100-200 SAT points. There is little or no moral quality to that at all -- and what moral quality there may be is easily overcome by real accomplishments in the real world, the kind that take more than 3 hours with a number 2 pencil to rack up. I don't love the idea of a "USA Today Academic Allstar Team", or the tone of their news story, but nothing in it led me to believe that this was other than a great kid. I'm glad he's getting to attend a fine college he likes; I think (hope) I would feel the same way if Duke had rejected one of my kids this year. (I know one kid going to Duke, with higher SATs. I sense that this kid is more impressive than the one I know, whom easy success and suburban complacency have been progressively turning into a jerk for some time now.)</p>

<p>This was brought home to be last night reading an article comparing local schools. The top private schools in this area -- which are great schools -- report average SATs in the low 1300s. That probably means that at least half the kids had SATs below 1300 (since the bell curve is not likely symmetrical due to the 800 cut-off on the high end), some well below that. I was a parent at one of those schools for 10 years, and taught there; I knew lots and lots of kids there (though none who ever admitted publicly to SATs under 1250). They are great kids, and will be great adults. They like to learn. They have gone to colleges that are considered competitive, and they have done well for the most part. Nothing about their "low" SAT scores makes them unworthy of good educational opportunities.</p>

<p>Of course, I'm not saying they are BETTER than poorer kids with higher scores and less fancy counseling, either. Just that there are lots of kids who "deserve" a really good chance, and I'm happy that as many get that chance as do.</p>

<p>AND, I would ask the "tough crowd" parents here to consider the possibility that some great kid with SATs of "only" 1300, or 1200, is reading what you write. Or the kid my daughter knows, the best student in memory at a troubled local neighborhood high school, someone who did everything there, including wearing the mascot costume at basketball games, and who impressed D as one of the greatest kids ever. With his sub-1100 SATs. Please, sneer publicly at someone else.</p>

104

<p>My post was intended to be humorous, Donemom. I keep forgetting that humor isn't allowed on these boards outside of Sinner's Alley. Given the fact that I was referring to "my kid" as being the one who oughtn't be so "high and mighty" as to expect me to do her paperwork while she paint her toenails, I don't see how others turn it around and take it as an insult. And it is becoming painfully obvious that I seem to be the only "primary wage earner" who posts on this board, so it seems that I was talking only about myself with that comment, too. (I mistakenly assumed that between a ranch and a law practice, curmudgeon would be pretty busy, but I guess not -- I still don't see how it is becomes an insult to assume that an adult is busy with important things of his own.) </p>

<p>I'm sorry, I love my kids but I don't see it as my role to shield them from the unpleasantly boring little tasks of life. As I said before, I think I did too much for my son and it didn't work out so well for him when he didn't have his mommy around to watch out for him. I'm sorry you feel insulted by my relating of personal experiences with my own kids.</p>

105

<p>It's not that calmom, it's this</p>

<p>
[quote]
But quite frankly if I didn't see that stuff going on, I'd worry. I mean, the kid is a teenager and she is normal. She had no intention of giving up a normal teenage social life for the sake of racking up college admission points, and if the hours had gotten too intense with work and organized activities, I'd have suggested that she drop something.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What does that make our kids who chose different paths? Ab-normal? You really won't try to say you weren't making comparisons, will you?</p>

<p>My kid was worried about merit scholarships because we are not financially capable of sending her to college where she wanted to go. She worked it like a job. A well-paid one , if I may. I have many times told her that her efforts have made her choices possible financially. Man that is empowering to a kid to know that. What a sense of responsibility for herself , fullfilled by her actions. She knows she can fly under her own power and pay her tuition room and board herself. I am very proud and I think she may be prouder still.</p>

106

<p>I completely agree with Donemom's Post #87.</p>

<p>And I do not see this as a black-and-white, either/or issue on many levels:</p>

<p>(1) First college app since the parent or parents' app(s) in the Pleistocene Age. (Non-"game" vs. "game")
Thus, 75% of whatever involvement I had in D#1 I will not see as necessary for D#2. That's because most of that level of involvement had to do with understanding for all intents & purposes an entirely new system. (She and I learning it together, answering each other's questions.) That was particularly true when it came to issues around EA/ED, which didn't exist during my "day."</p>

<p>(2) Family & school dynamics: whether or not this particular applicant has other adults to bounce off of.</p>

<p>(3) Individual personality: D#1 is collaborative & likes it that way; D#2, fiercely independent.</p>

<p>(4) The level of "reach" of the college(s) in question, combined with the difficulty or complexity of the app & supplements. For her UC app, she did it on her used laptop during an e.c. break out of state. (It was snowing -- eek) A straightforward process, not HYP.</p>

<p>Colleges & U's -- some of them -- make this practically like a major tax project -- complete with Schedules (pun intended). Darn tootin' a novice needs an assistant preparer.</p>

<p>Just a clarification as I understand it: Helicoptering was a term I think first used by college admins, describing parental influence at college, after matriculation. Some parents do this also in high school & elem., but in my experience as an educator, the people that the parents are trying to control & observe are the institutions, not their children. I don't think that describes most of us here, including donemom, katwithkittens, cur, etc.</p>

<p>EDIT:
(5) I forgot the fifth element: Whether or not student does or does not drive, when the only post office accepting Express Mail after school hours (which we felt important for <em>tracking</em> purposes, more than deadline purposes) is in the absolutely most dangerous part of town, which only a cold parent would allow their young D to walk alone in.</p>

107

<p>JHS, the tone the thread had taken bothered me for a different reason. I was going to post a comment yesterday and then saw that the thread had actually gone on a different tangent and the focus wasn't on the kid in the OP anymore. Therefore, I withheld my comment. </p>

<p>But since we are back to the kid in the original story, I would like to say something. I think posters should be careful about dissecting "real" people. In this case, the kid has a name, and a CCer even posted that he/she knew him. The kid in question might even be a CC reader (or poster). Can you imagine what that 17-year old would be feeling if he read our analysis of his SAT scores, ECs, etc?</p>

<p>People, this is a "real" kid with a real name and face. It is fine if you want to analyze "microson", his ACT scores, his ECs and his college acceptances. It is fine because "microson" would still be anonymous (because I don't intend to give out his name on an internet forum). Remember, most of us on this board have the luxury of preserving our anonymity. This young man does not.</p>

108

<p>First of all, thank you, cur, for highlighting why Calmom's post came across as judgemental and critical.</p>

<p>Secondly, in my post #102, I was simply explaining why I stated that my kids' lifestyle was very different from your d's. It was not NOT because you spoke about your personal experience, and not to criticize your daughter, but because you seemed to use this description as PART of why parents shouldn't use the "too busy excuse" to help their kids with mundane tasks. You seemed to be saying that NO kids can legitimatly be "too busy" to fill out forms. So that induced me to essentially say, well, yes they can.</p>

109

<p>And again, to appreciate the critical tone, Calmom,:</p>

<p>"Just don't tell me that some kid who is so talented and wonderful and amazing that he deserves to go to Princeton is incapable of spending 20 minutes filling out the demographic data on the common app." </p>

<p>How much more sarcasm can you load into a sentence?</p>

<p>In sum, you seem to have very little tolerance for people who:
1. Choose to do things differently from you<br>
2. Have the financial means or circumstance or whatever to spend time differently from you<br>
3. Have kids who aspire to attend ivy/elite colleges and have the audacity to think they have a shot</p>

110

<p>Cur, I used to have a friend who happened to be a lawyer, and if I would say "so and so is a really great lawyer"... he'd take it as an insult: "you mean I'm not?" If I said I liked my car, he'd take it as a pronouncement that my car was better than his. Needless to say, it got rather tiresome.</p>

<p>If I say how I feel about my kid it isn't an insult directed at someone else's kid.</p>

<p>My kid works really hard, but there is room in her life for socializing and relaxation. I assume that most kids also have that space -- it isn't about the choice of activities. My kid likes to shop. Maybe yours would rather take a walk or go for a swim. My point was that I expect to see my kid to have some free time for pleasure in her life; that because my kid has a reasonable amount of free time in her life, I also think she can find the time for an extra task or two; but that if I saw her life so filled up with work or structured activities that she didn't have the time for rest, relaxation, and socializing that I would see that as a problem. It's not a matter of the specific activity, its a matter of having some balance in one's life. I think that's "normal". </p>

<p>It so happens that in November, my daughter took a job and was trying to work 20 hours a week, usually working full 8 hour days on both Saturday & Sunday as well as a half shift during the week. She isn't lazy. But I was very glad after 6 weeks when she realized she couldn't handle the workload and quit the job. It was too much. It was not good for her to always be tired and be working all the time and giving up the opportunity to socialize with friends over the weekend. She was a 17 year old kid. She needed some time to relax.</p>

<p>That's what I am saying: I don't want an overworked, overstressed kid, so I am glad when I see her spending time by herself or with friends just enjoying her life and her companionship. The comments about the shoe-shopping and the myspace-writing were meant to be funny -- but it seems that the response I got is that other kids are too smart and virtuous and busy finding a cure for cancer to engage in such childish endeavors. </p>

<p>I'm sorry that people somehow take this as a personal insult. This thread started as a focus about a kid in US News whose nuclear chemist father typed his application forms and tracked his deadlines while he went about developing patents for fuel cells. If I am directing comments at anyone, it is at that family. I know it is callous of me, but somehow I think maybe it would have made more sense for the kid to type his own application while the dad engaged in chemical research. I mean, my daughter did mock trial, but her lawyer dad didn't take time off from his practice to type her pleadings. We all kind of understood that mock lawyering was less important than real lawyering. And even the father in the article now concedes that he "went overboard" and, if doing the whole thing over again, he would tone things down, have his son apply to some rolling admission schools early on and trim down the college list.</p>

111

<p>Micromom's point is well taken.<br>
As for the dad typing application forms for his son, why does it have to be an either/or proposition? He could still do his own research. That was his choice to make.</p>

<p>I took the comments about going overboard not to be about doing the typing or some other clerical work but about applying to too many colleges. Granted, trimming down the college list and applying to rolling admissions schools would have cut down on the work drastically--but that is a lesson that he learned by doing and that the family is willing to share with others. Kudoes to them for doing so.</p>

112

<p>Thank you micromom, for your caution about hurting people's feelings.
I have not been active on CC for a while but recently started reading it again.
I am not a student but some of the comments on this thread have been very harsh for me to read. I was hesitant to post my thoughts but I guess I will justgo ahead and do it.</p>

<p>My D has just completed one year at an excellent, but not most highly selective LAC. She completely loved the academics, worked very hard and earned excellent grades, made some good friends, and was involved with ECs, but was unhappy with the social atmosphere and very rural location to the extent that she could not envision herself staying there for the rest of her college years. After the first semester, she applied to transfer to two schools which she felt would better suit her. She is a person who is normally thrives in any situation, so we took her unhappiness seriously and did not discourage her transfer efforts even though she would be giving up a merit scholarship by transferring. </p>

<p>One of the schools she applied to is one of the most highly selective ones, which has been mentioned in this thread. My D has excellent credentials as far as her high school and college course of study, class rank, and GPA, her ECs, and her personal qualities, and she has done some unusual things which reveal her strong interest and ability to learn independently, but she is definitely not a superstar like the young man featured in the USA Today article or many of the kids of the other CC posters (no national awards, extraordinary talents, etc.) Her SAT score is somewhat weak in Math (for a most selective school), as this is not her strength or interest, and her total SAT score happens to be identical to that of the young man being discussed, although her verbal score is above the mean for the most selective colleges. She earned mostly 4's on her AP tests, rather than 5's, did not take AP Math or Science in hs, did not get over 710 on any of her SAT IIs, and, overall, does not have astronomically hgh test scores. </p>

<p>To make a long story short, (somewhat to my surprise) she was accepted to both of the schools to which she applied to transfer, and will be attending the one which is in the most highly selective category. Obviously, this school has rejected students with perfect SATs, extraordinary achievements, and many who were admitted to other very top schools. Apparently, my daughter's somewhat unusual academic interests, excellent recommendations from hs and college teachers, and evident interest in learning caught the eye of the admissions committee as someone they would like to have as part of their student body.</p>

<p>Fortunately, my daughter does not read CC and is not very interested in US News rankings, prestige, etc. (as soozievt has said many times about her kids.) She chose the two schools to apply to transfer because she felt that she would get an excellent education there and that the location and social atmosphere would be better for her. To tell the truth, I discouraged her from applying to the very selective school because I felt she would have a very low chance for admission, but her advisor/professor suggested that she apply when my daughter told her she was considering transferring.</p>

<p>I guess I am especially sensitive right now because my daughter is getting ready to begin her new, and hopefully happy and fulfilling life, at her new school, but reading statements like "1380 is a low SAT score, not even in the range for most top tier schools" and "acceptance to Duke (FYI - Duke is not my D's school) is far better than he deserves. No sympathy here, my nephew with a 1490, Sal, etc. was denied" jumped off the screen at me, as if they had been personally directed at my daughter.</p>

<p>We all need to remember that no one factor makes or breaks an applicant, and no one except the admissions staff really knows all of the reasons a particular student is accepted or rejected. An admitted student with a (relatively) low SAT score is just as worthy in the eyes of the admissions committee and is just as deserving of a spot at the school as any other student.</p>

113

<p>"And it is becoming painfully obvious that I seem to be the only "primary wage earner" who posts on this board, so it seems that I was talking only about myself with that comment, too."</p>

<p>Calmom-</p>

<p>I too have been and am the "primary" wage earner in my family. So no you are not alone on the board. And I do understand what you are saying about YOUR daughter and her school/work/social life. And what may seem normal to you would not be "normal" in our house.</p>

<p>With one phone line and 6 people needing it and using it someone would have a hard time using it for more than 20 minutes, no less 3 hours. DD's senior year (2005), was hectic to say the least. She had double practices daily for 2 different sports. She was in the pool before 5:30am and still wet after 10 pm. Throw in a nice 1 hour commute and she would be happy to be asleep by midnight. Homework was done at lunch, at practice, in the car, whenever she could fit it in. </p>

<p>Her clubs met during the lunch hour so she could attend. She missed only a few meetings due to regional and state championships. I know she didn't wear any makeup or did her hair other than a ponytail for 4 years of high school. 1)didnt have the money to buy it and 2)silly to put it on only to spend 2 hours in the morning and 4 in the evening in pool water. Coaches wanted one of her class periods to be weights but she wasn't giving up her extra science or Latin.</p>

<p>She's the one who figured out the Common App and all the ins and outs. She spent time showing the rest of the group!</p>

<p>I don't think this just applies to scholar athletes but certainly to those in a performing art/music and those who spent much time auditioning as Susan's girls did.</p>

<p>DD did some social things, prom, homecoming, some Friday night football games (her bros were playing), an occasional movie (as in 1-2 a semester) but not everyday nor every week. Same was true for younger brother who graduated this past June. Practice during the week, meets, tournaments and games on Saturday/Sunday, arriving home for the first time since they left at 5:30am after 10 pm would make it difficult to do some of the more mundane paperwork.</p>

<p>So we all pitched in and had a great time. Learned alot too! Mostly about each other. We have appreciated the journey but realize that ours was unique to ourselves and other families had a different approach with just as successful an outcome.</p>

<p>I also agree with Marite in that I think the dad in the OP was referring to the number of colleges. Maybe the writer wasn't clear on what the dad meant.</p>

<p>Kat</p>

114

<p>Calmom, my son was and is a social butterfly (handsome at that if I do say so myself). He loves people, loves to go out, socialize, do the myspace stuff, all of it. He always did well in school, but enjoyed his free time as well. Did sports, ECs, dating, the whole nine yards. The point is, he had time to do his own online apps too(they don't take that long, for crying out loud). Now he's in college, and I'm amazed at the amount of administrative details he has to contend with, compared with "my day." Everything is sent to him (financial, academic, administrative), not me. He registered himself for classes, and has to respond to all details regarding scholarships, deferments, and account balances himself. I'm hopeful that he'll be able to handle everything. In a way, having to keep up with all the application paperwork was sort of a rehearsal for the big show.</p>

<p>All of this is a matter of family preferences. I could care less if my kids make their beds everyday- but that might be an imperative in my neighbors house. I do care that my kids learn the value of a dollar and learn to take care of themselves in the real world, which includes taking care of little stuff (like sending things in on time).</p>

115

<p>"Aside from learning to pick himself up from disappointment, he also had to let go of nine of the 10 places he did get into. "I put a lot of stress on myself," he says. "I learned to fail; I learned to fall and get up and end up at a place I'm thrilled to be attending."</p>

<p>Okay, wow, nice way to FAIL...to think he failed is absurd...I find that irritating, glad he is happy, but to call it failure to not get into Princeton is just bad form</p>

116

<p>Sheesh, he failed to get into his first place school; in other words, he did not get in. He isn't saying he fundamentally failed at life. There are more than one meaning of the word "fail." A quite common meaning is to fall short of a goal, which is what he did, and learned from.</p>

<p>I say again, tough crowd.</p>

<p>but keep it up--you and Calmom and the rest and are teaching us all to be better human beings. I guess we fail at being proper scolds.</p>

117

<p>Let's keep all our comments in mind when December 15 rolls around and students post how disappointed they are over being rejected at their top choice schools.</p>

<p>I was taken to task for saying that I could not see why, in mid-May, a young woman was still depressed (her mom;s words, not mine) over not being admitted into "any of the Ivies" she had applied to and having to "settle for" choosing between Rice, Chicago and Wellesley. Some parents thought I was uncaring. So why is this okay to dump on this young man?</p>

<p>I wonder, too, as to why his rejection at P and Y is attributed to his SATs. Did posters not agree that SATs are not everything (see Chicago essay thread, for instance)?</p>

<p>Garland said this is a tough crowd. It's a wonder that any parent dares posting for advice on CC any more.</p>

<p>EDIT: cross-posted with Garland with whom I totally agree.</p>

118

<p>marite, </p>

<p>But it appears the SATs really do matter more to some schools than others. And Chicago has publicly stated (at least via an admissions officer elsewhere on CC) that for THEM, SATs don't count much.</p>

<p>I've never seen such an official statement from Harvard, Pton etc., so coupled with experience, many would rightly conclude that the scores do have undue importance at some schools.</p>

<p>Finally, if one wants to use actual documented sources, just take a look again at the detail in The Early Admissions Game. (or the data that used to be on Hoxby's website.) </p>

<p>To conclude that this was a fine, competitive applicant unduly criticized by a "tough crowd", at least w/r/t SAT scores, is not consistent with broader evidence, IMHO (does IMHO still work as flame insurance? :) )</p>

119

<p>I can't speak for Garland, but for me the "tough crowd" statement applies to the way the family and the student went about the process of applying and reacting to initial disappointment--not to whether he "deserved" to get into Princeton, Yale or even Duke (where some posters stated he should feel himself lucky to have been admitted). We don't know how long his disappointment lasted: six days or six weeks. I am on record as suggesting that students write their RD essays before the outcome of the ED/EA application is known, because rejection can be very demoralizing, and the time left to write good essays is short.</p>

<p>My comments about the SATs stem from the many comments that his SATS were too low for P'Ton and Yale. The fact is, as per the stats posted by admited students in December and April they are not too low, necessarily. </p>

<p>Below is an excerpt from the Harvard admission website:

[quote]
Are there minimum required SAT I, ACT, or SAT II scores?
Harvard does not have clearly defined, required minimum scores; however, the majority of students admitted to the College represent a range of scores from roughly 600 to 800 on each section of the SAT Reasoning Test as well as on the SAT Subject Tests. We regard test results as helpful indicators of academic ability and achievement when considered thoughtfully among many other factors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I heard Marilee Jones of MIT say pretty much the same thing, that is that MIT looked for SATs in the range of 600 or above. And we know that MIT is more stats-driven than HYP. </p>

<p>I fully endorse Chicago's de-emphasis on SAT scores. It seems strange to me, however, that posters who like Chicago's attitude should deem the young man not qualified for P or Y. As you know, I believe Chicago to be as if not more rigorous than HYP. </p>

<p>The fact is, we do not know what exactly in the young man's application failed to catch the fancy of adcoms at P'Ton and Yale but did catch the fancy of the adcom at Duke. And lest we think that it's because Duke is less selective than P and Y, we all know of cases where an applicant has been accepted at H or Y, or P, but rejected at supposedly "less selective" schools.</p>

<p>Anyway, this is an object lesson in not putting oneself or one's kids out for public dissection.</p>

<p>Oh, and you'll note that I never use IMHO. I have never been described as "humble" and am not about to do so even for the sake of purchasing anti-flame insurance. :)</p>

120

<p>Although "A is for admission" was published over ten years ago, its points still come as a surprise to people, it seems.</p>

<p>Also, I think the article will end up misleading people. I disagree with the fathers comment that six schools would have been enough. This is a judgement that reflects 20/20 hindsight. Without knowing precisely his list of schools, there is every chance that Duke would have been absent from that list of six, as well as whatever his second choice would have been.</p>