<p>Chedva....I wrote my post before seeing yours. But I want to clarify that when I said my kids didn't choose anything to get into college...I was speaking only of extracurricular endeavors and summer activities. I can say that with 100% assuredness. However, with regard to academics, they certainly took the most challenging curriculum and tried to get the best grades they could. They honestly do love learning. But they also knew that doing their best in school would help them get to college. So, in regards to academics, sure, they had college on their minds. And yes, with D2, she took Calculus only because taking a challenging curriculum was important and she doesn't particularly like math but was always good at it. She is never going to do math ever again, however. They also took practice SATs to help them raise their scores since SATs are a necessary evil to get into college. But as far as ECs go, college never came into that discussion or choices. Same with summers.</p>
<p>I agree with all of the foregoing. The entire process of raising kids and getting them ready for college is extremely complex. Sometimes I think an adcom's most useful information would be gained by dropping off each kid on a deserted island for 4 years and observing how they spend their time.</p>
<p>In my mind, the reason these articles are so distorting and sensationalist is that they give the impression that WITHOUT the extras, no kid stands a chance. As Garland and others have pointed out time and time again.... you can raise your kid just fine by visiting the library, the beach, feeding the ducks, and a host of activities which cost no money (but parental attention, for sure) and your kid can end up just as interesting and accomplished and socially aware as the kid who goes to Tibet and the one who goes to tennis camp.</p>
<p>That people who can afford all the extras do them.... hey, no sweat. It's a free country. It's the insidious message to those who can't that somehow these add-ons are the de minimus requirement for a top school that bugs me. Out there is a librarian married to a nurse thinking that they've got to impoverish themselves to raise enough cash to buy "enrichment" for their kid.
As it is, our kids are so over-programmed and tutored and indulged.... nobody is out there giving the message that it's ok to come home from school and play Scrabble with your sibling or do your household chores. Somehow if it doesn't involve professional training and an entry fee it's devalued.</p>
<p>And I love reading about the communities who sponsor "unplugged nights" where sports practices etc. are canceled so kids can have unstructured time. These towns have to provide professional help so these families can figure out how to spend 4 hours in each other's company with no car-pooling or coaches. C'mon!</p>
<p>Blossom, I agree that there are many worthwhile endeavors that do not cost money. I don't think students need to do activities that cost money to get into college. In fact, a job is a great activity and in fact, if one is concerned about what looks good for college...jobs do! Volunteering does as well. School-related ECs that don't cost money (school play, marching band, school team, etc.) do too. So, one need not spend money to do enriching activities. I just don't think colleges take look down on activities that cost money so much (like lessons or camps), but they are not necessarily impressive either. And if anything, a no-cost activity might be more impressive. It surely is NOT required to do activities that cost money to get into college. Same with summers. </p>
<p>As far as being a very programmed kid, I'll admit my kids are busy to the max but it is not because we ever asked them to be and not because they feel any pressure to do so. They simply WANT to do these things. Last night, in fact, in talking to my 18 year old college soph who has a mind boggling schedule all day and night, who was telling me she has so much to do and I said, "a few of those things are things you are choosing to take on" and she said, "yes, but I WANT to do these things and wouldn't have it any other way." They seem to crave these activities. I don't know how they do so much but it has nothing to do with pressures to do it but it is like this internal drive and all these interests and projects. They don't seem content to hang out, except when it is once in a great while for a day as a break, but don't like to do that on a regular basis. I think if this is what makes them happy, I have no complaints. They seem to love what they do. It IS their fun.</p>
<p>Since Blossom graciously concured with my past posts, let me second what she said. I think the most damaging thing about articles like this is the idea that you "have" to do things like this to get into a "good school." My kids, particularly my S, are not the go-go-go types. They like and crave down time. They like to sit and read just for the heck of it.</p>
<p>We had no money when they were young, so trips to the library and nature walks were their "organized" activities. We did not move to a good school system, because we couldn't afford to, and by the time we could, they wished to stay where they were with their friends. We did not send them to private school because of that, and because we lliked the extreme eclecticness of their fellow students (academic, cultural, economic, even aspirational). We did spring for a telescope and a microscope to look at stuff.</p>
<p>We never did test prep, pricey summer programs, or tutoring. No private lessons. They did go on mission trips with their confirmation class from church, but that didn't get listed on any apps because it was during middle school. They were active in church activities, but had no notion of the concept of counting community service hours. They both did sports for a while, and then didn't. They both got free music lessons in school and partipated in a lot of music activiities because they liked it, particularly S.</p>
<p>According to the mindset this article alludes to, we did everything wrong, yet they ended up at a top LAC and an Ivy.</p>
<p>So, I say, hats off to kids like Suzy's, who do what they do at an astonishing pace because that's what makes them happy; however, I feel that the notion that everyone else must do the same is just plain wrong and does a lot of damage.</p>
<p>The most important thing, to me, is to give the kid the tools and guidance to be who they are, not who they should be.</p>
<p>In all honesty, my kids chose academic curricula that they thought would help them get to college. However, their ECs were strictly because they were interested in them or because their dad and I encouraged the kids to try out some ECs that might give them an idea of what they wanted to do as a career or avocation. </p>
<p>We never had our kids do ECs as a way to get into college. We do think it's important for all teens and adults to have hobbies and other activities that productively fill up their time when they aren't in school or at work.</p>
<p>Garland and I are on the same side of the child-rearing fence but her comment about her son reminded me of another one of my peeves about these articles.</p>
<p>What about the life of the mind? It's so easy to write a sensationalist article about how much money it costs to get into a top school .... but what about all the hours of quiet contemplation that are required to get a quality intellectual experience? These articles imply that all good schools are filled with go-getters who run run run 24/7.... which is just false. For every varsity whatever out there, there's another kid, equally gifted, who is sitting in the library reading (and enjoying! Kant.) </p>
<p>The labs and libraries and museums and galleries and studios of every university in America are filled with people thinking, musing, talking to themselves (but in a good way!), experimenting, etc. That's what pushes civilization forward. Our society has turned all of these activities into something that can be prepped for, improved upon, made faster, or can become a competition.</p>
<p>We spend an inordinate amount of money nurturing one child's gifts, which provides me with great pleasure. He was never content spending hours looking at a blade of grass, and had/has an area of intense passion. We are fortunate to be able to fund it. There's some luck in that, for if he were born to parents without the means, this talent wouldn't have been nurtured.</p>
<p>I don't have a whit of guilt over the money we have spent. And it wasn't to impress an adcom or anyone else either. We did it because he had the drive and ambition, so it was the right thing to do. Nothing more than that.</p>
<p>What I objected to about the article was the double edged argument: the dismissive tone toward the Goldberg's allocation of their money coupled with the subtle message that parents not pursuing a similar strategy might damage their children's chance at getting into Harvard.</p>
<p>What I read was parents trying to steer their daughter toward colleges other than Harvard and supporting her wishes to attend academic summer programs (if she attended 3 times, she can't have been dragged there kicking and screaming just for the sake of resume-building). I can't speak to the issue of retaining a college counselor. We've been blessed with great GCs and we are pretty well informed ourselves about colelges, though not, at the beginning, about the college application process. But there are plenty of posters on CC to remind us that not all GCs are helpful (see Zoosermom on the geezer GC at her D's school, for an example).
So they spent $850 on a SAT prep course. They'd had probably done better following the Xiggi method, but then, they're not CC posters. So the D wants to go to Thailand and do something while there besides lying on the beach at Phukhet. Good for her.
Some kids like to spend their summer decompressing; others like to (or perhaps more accurately need to) get jobs that will earn them money; still others like to get involved in academc pursuits. Among the latter, some like to read books and others need more structured environments to do their learning. I really don't see how one way of spending one's summer is morally superior to another.</p>
<p>I haven't joined in on this thread because the original post didn't seem to have the complete article, so I was confused. Maybe there was more later in the article to clarify the author's purpose and the headline. Am I missing something, did I skim too fast, or is the article incomplete as posted?</p>
<p>Look, we live in a consumerist society, which means that if something doesn't cost a lot of money it must not be worth much.</p>
<p>Again, for all the wannabees out there... you got the money, spend it any way you want. I think given the huge educational divide in this country, these articles are insulting. It's hard enough for parents living out in the real world to gain access to basic educational offerings for their kids... now they're told they need more expensive stuff on top? and even then there are no guarantees?</p>
<p>FWIW, the non-technical part of the link reads ... college/harvard<em>or</em>bust.moneymag .</p>
<p>While it might be a rather unfortunate choice of link title, it still shows as a deliberate statement. Just as the caption below the picture of the student that reads Superstar Ivy Candidate. Inasmuch as I don't disagree with the posters who question the journalistic talent of the writer, I can't help wondering why the family agreed to participate. After all, nobody forced them to be the poster child for the article.</p>
<p>Having read the whole piece, the writer did a pretty good job of telling other parents not to get caught up in the spending race and even warned the girl that the Thailand trip was not likely to impress adcoms and tried to steer her efforts elsewhere. The headline is slanted and sensational, designed to grab readers' attention. Well, that's the curse of print journalism. I suspect some editors also put their own let's-jazz-this-up wording at the top, because the rest tries to make the kind of points that have been made on this thread. Problem is, to really do this story justice would take a longer, more analytical and nuanced article about current trends in college admissions ---- Thailand is out; rural farm stand is in --- than Money magazine is likely to do. I don't think this kind of article sends the spending and anxiety up another ratchet; it just describes the level that has become the norm among very driven kids of a certain income bracket. </p>
<p>xiggi: What is this program that your young friend is on that lets someone spend two years in Africa? Is he moving there with his family and going to the American School or attending boarding school there or what? :confused: I'm really curious.</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>It won't be the first time that people have consented to be part of something that did not quite turn out right for them. Borat, anyone? </p>
<p>Having read the whole article, I am unimpressed. If the girl spent three summers at TIP, she must have started as a 13 or at most 14 years old. I doubt she was dreaming of Harvard or any other college then. So she, like my S, just wanted to spend the summer having her idea of fun. I saw enough kids crying at the end of CTY to know that they'd had a ball for 3 weeks.
The one expenditure which I really disagree with is the Thailand trip because it is indeed designed to impress adcoms. But if my kids had wanted to go, I'd have funded them in a heartbeat (they're not Jewish, so didn't have bar mitzvah money).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just as the caption below the picture of the student that reads Superstar Ivy Candidate.
[/quote]
I didn't catch that! How embarassing for her.</p>
<p>Jazzymom, I am trying to obtain more details about the organization and how it works. He is going by himself and will not return home during his stay. His family is an adventurous one as his older brother is currently spending one year in one of the Baltic countries. Since the family had looked at many programs, I am not sure which one they selected. I believe it is through the Rotary Club, but I am not certain. </p>
<p>Marite, again I don't disagree with your last post. In my eyes, the issue is not about the value of summer programs. It is about how they may be undertaken --and marketed-- for the sole purpose of boosting an admission possibility. I think that we have debated this part many times, ranging from offering opinions about the programs that come with gold sealed invitations that carry multiple of 4 letters fighting for attention. People who send in their hard earned money will always extol the learning experience. Others might prefer to see through the glossy material and focus on the visible focus of the organization that keeps on reinventing itself for the sole purpose of making money from gullible parents who believe it is an INVESTMENT that could pay off when applying to schools. </p>
<p>In the end, while there is no doubt that the experience might have been pleasant or even educational, the value for admissions is zero. Just as the zeros needed to write the check to the fatcats in Washington, DC who created those programs. If the learning experience is the only objective, all is well and nobody should be disappointed. Unfortunately, that is NOT the way many programs are marketed.</p>
<p>Either the message communicated to the writer in the interview actually reflects to tone of the article or those parents have reason to raise a stink about it. I'd be writing letters and making phone calls.</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>Of all the expenditures listed, I suspect that TIP must be the lion's share. But I have a hard time believing that a kid did 3 summers of TIP with the sole purpose of looking good to colleges. That's what I find so hard to swallow in that article.
We paid good money for a summer camp whose theme was fun and games. S refused to return; that's when we investigated academic camps. He loved them and went to different ones for seven summers with nary a thought of college in his head. But I know that the last one he attended (3 summers in a row) looks good to colleges.</p>
<p>Xiggi: Thanks for seeking out more details. I'm not adventurous enough to send a 16/17 year old away for two years without visits home (my previous post notwithstanding) but maybe this program is a possibility for a gap year. S2 may very well need one.</p>