<p>One of my colleagues told me that "what do the parents do is a key factor that school considers for admission of students". This is an idea I have heard the very first time.</p>
<p>This colleague has two kids finished UG already. We do an after lunch walk everyday. Since I missed Monday's walk taking DD to her interviews, he knew we have a senior. This morning at coffee machine he told me the above statement. </p>
<p>Has anyone else heard about similar thing before?</p>
<p>The key thing should be what the student does.</p>
<p>It's not a key factor, particularly at state schools, which tend to accept students purely by: whether they are in-state residents, whether they took college prep, what their gpa and SAT/ACT scores are.</p>
<p>The most highly rated schools will notice parents' education and jobs to put students' accomplishments into a context. If, for instance, a student is a valedictorian, is the top student in the state who take Latin, and is SGA president, yet lives with a single mom who was a high school drop-out and is the custodian of their school, that student's accomplishments would be more impressive than if a student made the same accomplishments yet their parent was president of an Ivy and a famous Latin scholar.</p>
<p>But, in general, the parents' accomplishments aren't that important. Colleges care most about the students' accomplishments.</p>
<p>I think what this person means is that a student is evaluated in the context of his/her background. This includes their upbringing and parents. It includes opportunities they may or may not have had. It also includes evaluating their academics in the context of the high school in which they attended. As far as the parent part.....a student whose parents did not attend college is looked at differently than a student whose parents have professional or doctorate degrees. A student whose parents work blue collar jobs may have had different opportunities than one whose parents are professionals. The student's education may be different. Even the value put on education may be different. Their having parents around to be involved in extracurriculars may be different. So, context matters. </p>
<p>No, they do not evaluate what the parents do in terms of who they want to take. But they evaluate a student in the context of their entire background. If a kid had to stay home summers to babysit siblings or work at McDonalds due to a certain background, they consider the background....whereas another kid may have gone to expensive summer programs or traveled. </p>
<p>Context matters. What a student has achieved in their own context is how things are viewed. The family background, the community where they grew up and the school they attended, and the opportunities they may or may not have had, all contribute to the context in viewing what the student has done and achieved.</p>
<p>Well, I'd be curious then to ask what context would a student, whose parents who have both been to professional school, who works work year-round be grouped into the same context as those in expensive summer programs? I don't think parent's education is an accurate gage for a student's backgrounds. You can look at my parents and say that I'm a certain level because my parents have been to graduate school? I think you need to look beyond the education--and into the jobs rather. Say there's two students, one of them having a father who went to graduate school and is the head of some company. The other whose parents went to graduate school, yet they're civil servants. I think there's a major difference there that must be noted.</p>
<p>Does anyone really regard expensive summer programs as a plus?</p>
<p>They're an option for some affluent students, but if the affluent student chooses not to participate in such things and do other ECs and summer activities (such as working) instead, I can't see how that could possibly be regarded as a negative.</p>
<p>I suppose colleges that are looking to attract more full pay students may see the expensive summer programs as plusses. Those colleges, however, tend not to be that difficult to gain entrance to.</p>
<p>I hope expensive summer programs aren't necessary; I just told my 15 year old she could not have the spot that opened up in her high school trip to dig latrines in Central America ($3,000.00 for one week).</p>
<p>In general, spending a summer working at McDonalds will impress colleges more than participating in an expensive summer program paid for by rich or doting parents.</p>
<p>Now if a kid earns the money to go on such a trip, that would impress colleges.</p>
<p>The most important indicator of how far a student will go in school is the mother's background. This is an older statistic, but I have never seen it refuted anywhere.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Say there's two students, one of them having a father who went to graduate school and is the head of some company. The other whose parents went to graduate school, yet they're civil servants. I think there's a major difference there that must be noted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what would that difference be? That one child grew up in a household of high-achieving, risk-taking strivers, and the other grew up with bureaucratic, complacent, 9 to 5ers? (No offense to anyone intended, I just think that is a bizarre assertion.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
The most important indicator of how far a student will go in school is the mother's background. This is an older statistic, but I have never seen it refuted anywhere.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's really unsettling. That's basically saying I'm doomed to be a teacher...</p>
<p>
[quote]
And what would that difference be? That one child grew up in a household of high-achieving, risk-taking strivers, and the other grew up with bureaucratic, complacent, 9 to 5ers? (No offense to anyone intended, I just think that is a bizarre assertion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that's pretty rash to say that just because your parents work for the public, they're complacent. I was hoping that someone with a more mature take on it would respond not someone who judges the people's personalities off their jobs. Just a btw but in civil service, you can achieve much--and take risks that aid the general public.</p>
<p>There are all types of summer programs, expensive, less expensive, and free, with different purposes, and they should not all be grouped together in one basket. Summer programs can provide enrichment in academics, music, sports, foreign language, arts, etc. to talented students who can benefit from something beyond what is offered by their schools. Some students (my son for example) attended summer programs in order to be challenged academically and be with other students with similar academic talents and interests. In his case, our public school does not provide many of the advanced options that some more affluent districts offer, and attending these programs (CTY, which is "expensive" and Governor's School, which is free to those accepted) opened up a whole new world of possibilities for him. These types of programs are a little different than the summer programs for travel/volunteer work in foreign countries.</p>
<p>"But they evaluate a student in the context of their entire background. If a kid had to stay home summers to babysit siblings or work at McDonalds due to a certain background, they consider the background....whereas another kid may have gone to expensive summer programs or traveled. "</p>
<p>I'm not sure I understand this. The value of summer jobs depend on whether you have to do it? What about a kid whose parents can send him to expensive summer programs or travel, but instead chooses to work at McDonalds? </p>
<p>I know for a fact that what the parents do affects admissions to private high schools. Full freight payers are valued more highly than those who require FA. If the school feels that a parent might make additional donations, even small ones, that's another plus. Full freight + ANY donations > Needs financial aid + No donations.</p>
<p>"The most important indicator of how far a student will go in school is the mother's background. This is an older statistic, but I have never seen it refuted anywhere."</p>
<p>I've seen that, too. Of course, it doesn't mean that if your mother is a teacher, you're bound to be a teacher. It does mean, though, if one's mother is a high school drop-out, it's more challenging to get to college. This makes sense since kids spend so much time with their mothers, and learn things like their vocabulary from their mothers. Mothers also tend to be the parents most involved in kids' schooling, including going to parent-teacher conferences, helping with homework, etc.</p>
<p>The kids whose mothers are comfortable interacting with teachers, helping with PTA, have the knowledge to help with homework are at an advantage over the kids whose moms lack education.</p>
<p>Just look at who tends to post and give advice in Parents Forum: Mothers far outnumber dads. Educated mothers are more likely to have the research skills and sophistication to use a site like this than are mothers who lack education. Of course, there are some dads here, and some moms who didn't go to college, but they are in the minority.</p>
<p>Kids whose mothers are reading sites like this have an advantage in finding scholarships, colleges, good matches for college, solving problems related to college than do kids whose parents are leaving college issues up to the kids and their GCs.</p>
<p>"That's really unsettling. That's basically saying I'm doomed to be a teacher ..."</p>
<p>With that attitude, I certainly hope not.</p>
<p>"'m not sure I understand this. The value of summer jobs depend on whether you have to do it? What about a kid whose parents can send him to expensive summer programs or travel, but instead chooses to work at McDonalds? "</p>
<p>First, a kid who has to stay home and babysit or work at McDonalds to earn income for the family is going to be evaluated in that context in that colleges would not penalize such a student for not having the type of ECs that a kid who has more options might have. For instance, a low income, very bright kid who's excellent in math or science might qualify for a free, elite summer program in math or science, but may have to turn it down to work for McDonalds and earn money for their family.</p>
<p>Such a kid would differ from a more affuent kid who qualified for such a program, but turned it down because they prefer to relax over the summer, not do academics. </p>
<p>A kid from an affluent home who chooses to work at McDonalds over summer travel or an expensive summer program could stand out depending on the reasons for their decision. For instance, perhaps the kid is fiercely independent, preferring to earn some money instead of doing other things. Perhaps the kid wants to eventually own their own company, and feels that the way to get a start is by working in a franchise. A college would probably view such things as a positive. I actually can't think of any reason why a college would view negatively an applicant's choosing to spend the summer working a full time job. That always would indicate a strong sense of responsibility, maturity, and a good work ethic.</p>
<p>This is what it means when colleges assess students in the context of the students' environment.</p>
<p>I was joking about the teacher thing. My mom's a teacher and I can definitely respect it as a profession.</p>
<p>You made a really interesting point. Personally, I would say that I spend more time with my father even growing up. The statistic would probably be closer to whichever parent you were closer to growing up. I mean, my dad always did the things that were cast as a mother's duty. My father isn't on here. But, I think that any parent who gets involved in trying to help their child get the best situation would have an advantage aka talking to parents whose kids are at college about it.</p>
<p>Also your point about the summer programs is really interesting. That's probably exactly what they mean. Thank you Northstarmom for clarifying!</p>
<p>I also think there's a difference between a two-income family and a one-income family as far as potential for enrichment for the child--regardless of whether the unemployed parent has a particular degree or not. I'm college-educated but am not working outside the home. Thus, no expensive classes, tutoring or test prep, or summer programs for my kids! I hope it won't be assumed that my kids had opportunities they didn't, or made the choice not to pursue certain things they could have, when in reality those things weren't real possibilities for them. </p>
<p>I do understand why context can be important as far as things like what opportunities are offered at a particular high school. For instance, adcoms can't hold it against a student that he didn't take AP classes if there aren't any offered at his school. But I must confess to being irritated at the fact that one kid's accomplishments aren't weighed as heavily as another's simply because his parents are college-educated. In the end, it's the kid who had to take the initiative to sign up for honors and AP classes and commit to studying, get involved in EC's and perhaps work hard enough to be elected as a leader, etc. We know PLENTY of families with more money and better education than our family whose kids are total slackers. In fact, you could argue that growing up in wealth and privilege is a de-motivating factor.</p>
<p>I think judgments of context can only be made with a lot of information in hand. I don't think colleges usually have enough to be able to properly assess context. For example, someone could look at a family's income and education and make a determination of social class and accessibility to opportunities when in reality the picture is quite different because a certain percentage of that income gets sent to poor relatives overseas.</p>
<p>This stuff just smacks of social engineering to me. It also relies on stereotypes (eg. better-educated parents care more and do more about their children's education than less well-educated parents). What about the kid with highly successful parents--let's say college professors--who don't give him the time of day? Are people assuming he's being mentored in academic success when in reality he was raised by the maid or nanny? Often the shoemaker's child has no shoes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that's pretty rash to say that just because your parents work for the public, they're complacent. I was hoping that someone with a more mature take on it would respond not someone who judges the people's personalities off their jobs. Just a btw but in civil service, you can achieve much--and take risks that aid the general public.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>asd,</p>
<p>I'm still waiting to hear from you about the "major difference" that should be noted by colleges, in a child who grew up with a CEO parent vs. civil servant parent.</p>
<p>BTW, before you judge me so harshly, you should know that I was a civil servant (with a graduate degree) for 9 years.</p>