<p>
</p>
<p>Personally, I am fine with this. My kids’ admissions results were consistent with our expectations based on research other than Naviance.</p>
<p>The funny thing is, that this policy sounds rather unkind and unhelpful to those students who may have legitimate reasons for not participating.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the left. You don’t give us data so you can’t use Naviance. On the other hand, you can be an illegal alien contributing nothing but you should be able to attend public universities at in-state tuition. </p>
<p>I guess it’s the same logic as “mandate without mandating”</p>
<p>Wake up bay you have it all wrong.</p>
<p>
There might be. There might be some special hardship. There are things at school that parents have to pay for, and kids who can’t pay are often allowed to do them anyway. But kids of parents who could pay, but choose not to, don’t get to do it.</p>
<p>But it seems to me that if my suggestion is followed, you should only be allowed access to Naviance without sharing your own info if you are able to explain why some special hardship or consideration makes it a problem for you to do so. Just like if you want financial aid, you have to reveal your finances. What might be an example of a reason that would justify you getting access to the same info you don’t want to share?</p>
<p>By the way, I always thought it was conservatives who didn’t like free riders.</p>
<p>Bay, perhaps there was only one admission to Rice this year, but Naviance usually used several years of information. Our counselors put in two years worth of data the year they inaugurated Naviance AND to protect privacy they withheld scattergrams for schools with only a few data points. The only kid I can positively identify on Naviance is the kid who had the highest GPA in the history of the school - and that’s only because they announced that information at an award ceremony. I really don’t think he cares if we find out he got into Harvard and Yale, but not Princeton. </p>
<p>Is there the possibility that a few kids could be identified or the information could be used in unpredictable ways? Sure, but I think the benefits far outweigh any perceived danger. I agree with Soozie, most of the time the reason these kids are identifiable is because they are already revealing the information to their friends.</p>
<p>I’m fine with the notion that you only get a Naviance password if you agree to share information. And contrary to what some on this thread think, I think Naviance is a better predictor of acceptances than info provided by the colleges or the big books.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>An excellent idea. Let’s setup another administrative position that can review these cases. Then people like us who are not capable of determining if our reasons are acceptable to society can be overseen. </p>
<p>I like it great idea.lets mandate it .</p>
<p>What is it you want, solodad? You want to leech off my kid’s information without providing your own, and without having to explain why? Hey, how about this–let’s privatize Naviance, and sell passwords, with a contract requiring you to provide your own information later, with a deposit in escrow you forfeit if you don’t comply. Does that help you understand the concept better?</p>
<p>Hunt you really should try to understand what you read. I will tell you again. My D reported all her information because as a family we thought it could help others. I simply think that they may be legitimate reasons for not wanting to report. Furthermore I don’t think it is your place or my place to determine that legitimacy. </p>
<p>Couldn’t be simpler I just don’t like Big Brother making all our decisions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now your talking. Lets charge a fee. Your fee would be based on your ability to pay based on your FAFSA, CSS Profile and Business Farm Supplement for those of us who are self employed. This is Greatttttttttttt. Being that it is private we know it would be run more efficiently.</p>
<p>i think you are on to something.</p>
<p>
No, my premise is that we all have many choices to make in life, and tradeoffs to consider. I have a perfect right (and, conceivably, a legitimate reason) not to give my kid’s college acceptance information to his school’s guidance office. However, if I want to take advantage of the online college admissions information tool provided by that guidance office, then I may have to forfeit that right. That’s a decision I am free to make. What I’m not free to do (or shouldn’t be free to do) is say, “I want full access to information that others have freely shared, but I won’t share any information myself.” Then I become like the moocher at the potluck supper.</p>
<p>This is not a question of Big Brother. That’s ridiculous. It’s a question of fairness, of mutual obligation–in short, of community, a concept that I know right-wingers struggle with.</p>
<p>I though my kid had an reasonable reason not to share that had nothing to do with selfishness. See post number 171. After age 18 we parents legally can’t make the choice to disclose our kids’ data anyway.</p>
<p>From what I could tell on this thread, some were against providing the information even if their school didn’t have Naviance. I don’t get that. Kid can’t be identifiable to anyone but their own guidance counselor. </p>
<p>For those with Naviance, I do think the idea proposed here makes sense…if you want access to it, you have to also be a participant and share your results. </p>
<p>As I wrote in a post last night, not sure how kids are identifiable if the school only shares college scattergrams where they have multiple results, and if the kid has not shared their GPA and SATs with others (my kids surely don’t). But hey, if kids are going around sharing their stats, then they don’t care about privacy all that much.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Totally agree. </p>
<p>Also, it came up…why help your GC just because he/she wrote recs for you and sent your files to your colleges because he/she is paid to do that…yes, they are paid, but I would want my kid to feel some obligation to then share their results with the person who did that for them, paid or not.</p>
<p>See my post #146, not #171. This is an example where privacy/confidentiality was not assured and the greater good was pitted against harm to an individual. This is why I couldn’t support a mandate or quid pro quo.</p>
<p>Let me rephrase Nightchef…so there are no legitimate reasons that do not warrant somebody from not benefiting from the service.</p>
<p>Is that your premise?</p>
<p>Read post #146 and tell me again how you should judge that people should be punished for protecting their privacy</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thats great Sooz and the funny part is I agree with you. My point is that not evrybody agrees with you and they may have legitimate reasons.</p>
<p>BTW your PM box is full</p>
<p>MomPhD–was your kid’s school using Naviance? It sounds like you’re saying your son thought that if he revealed his information to the guidance people, then his individual results would become public knowledge. In that scenario I agree that withholding the information may often be completely appropriate, and many people might choose to do it. But that’s not how Naviance works. Admissions info is only available anonymously. If there are so few results for a given school that it would be easy for insiders to identify the students involved, then that school’s scattergram is blocked.</p>
<p>solodad–read my answer again, because I’ve already answered your question and your attempts to identify my “premise” are wide of the mark. Once more: a school has a perfect right to set the terms under which I take advantage of the tools they have developed. If I have a “legitimate reason” for not wanting to agree to those terms, then I accept that I won’t get access to those tools, and I move on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem that not everyone agrees with me. Not everyone does what I believe is the right thing to do in this situation. </p>
<p>However, wasn’t it you who mentioned something about how the GC is paid to write your recs, etc.? My point is that paid or not, the person did something to help your college process and it makes moral sense to me to share the results of that process with that person in confidence.</p>
<p>As far as my PM box, it fills up constantly and I can’t keep up with deleting messages. I don’t really like using the PM box as I already have my personal email and two work email accounts and facebook. So, if someone on CC wishes to contact me, they can click on my member name and click “send email” and that works better for me than continually clearing the PM box, as well as having one more place to check. I got your earlier PM but then the box filled up, sorry. Please use email, thanks.</p>
<p>Ok nitechef let me get this straight. Bear with me I’m a little slow. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So to my feeble mind that means if I choose not to participate for whatever reason the service should not be available to me.</p>
<p>Well read Post 146 tell that kid he can’t use the service because he won’t supply data and then explain to him all about your sense of community that you love to trumpet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that is what you call sense of community stay out of mine.</p>
<p>“If that is what you call sense of community stay out of mine.”</p>
<p>With pleasure…And vice versa.</p>
<p>The only problem people keep not addressing is that Naviance as a tool is helpful partly to the degree of the level of participation (public reporting within the school community). That is how the financial value of the service comes into play. For a public school, it would seem to me that parents who object to such disclosure should lobby other parents to suspend the subscription for that school. For a private school, that subscription is calculated into your tution payment, and (as I said twice earlier) could be, if stated on paper, a condition for enrollment. Financial value for the entire student body – both the withholders and the non-withholders – is partly predicated on 100% participation. That, to me, is an additiional, legitimate aspect to fairness along with individual privacy rights.</p>
<p>It seems to me that the solution is this: We – public or private school – subscribe to Naviance, which is only financially worthwhile if virtually everyone participates. Anyone concerned about confidentiality of reporting is hereby advised from the beginning of enrollment at ___School to share no information publicly about (1) their proposed college lists (2) their gpa (3) their test scores. That way, published scattergrams will not reveal your personal identity.</p>
<p>Yes, by graduation, even the most self-controlled student will be revealing the college of matriculation, and I guess really curious/nosy/whatever parents/students can then “out” or privately identify some students from those scattergrams (unless the h.s. has arranged to shut down that data just before graduation, and until the next fall, when most people will have stopped being quite so curious about this year’s graduating class). By graduation time, most normal healthy people with real lives will have moved their attentions to their and their children’s futures.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with your proposal, is that unless like my kids, the reason to non-disclose is general privacy reasons, many students won’t know in advance of receiving their admissions results, that they don’t want to share their info.</p>
<p>Here are some examples I can think of, where students might not want to share their results:</p>
<p>They are one of 7 students who have applied and are planning to attend, a small specialty college and the graph shows that the highest gpa/test scores for that school are a 3.0 and a 1400.</p>
<p>They are a URM in a school of few URMs, who is the only student admitted to any Ivies (let’s say 3) and will be attending the state u instead, and their stats are not in the top 20%.</p>
<p>A top student is the only one admitted to Harvard and wants to attend the state u instead.</p>
<p>The val has a terrible SAT score due to an undisclosed LD.</p>
<p>A top student has an undisclosed criminal record or record of cheating and is not admitted at any colleges.</p>
<p>The only legacy in a long succession is rejected from a college and was the only applicant that year and the entire family is upset.</p>
<p>Btw, someone can correct me, but if a junior student looks at the graphs of colleges they particularly like in say, March and then looks again in June, it is very easy to discern the new dots that appear and remember what has changed. The idea that GC’s “block” results that are easily identifiable is a subjective interpretation. If the threshold is 7 (I think that is what is was in our school), then the one applicant this year will be added to make it 8.</p>