<p>Regarding First Generation:</p>
<p>What makes a first generation student?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>A student whose parent's never attend college?</p></li>
<li><p>Or a student whose parent's attended by never graduated/received a degree?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<h1>1 = first generation.</h1>
<p>It is true that almost all Ivy athletes are recruited. That said, they have to show that they can be successful academically. It is a complicated process, but the standards for Ivy athletes are very high compared to scholarship schools. Many more slots are given to the "big" sports like football and ice hockey. My son, a high school junior distance runner, has already met with one Ivy coach (we initiated the contact) and got a lot of information. There is a good book on Ivy League recruiting which is a real eye-opener. It's been mentioned on these boards. It's called Playing the Game: Inside Ivy League Recruiting. Karen</p>
<h1>2 can also be first generation. I consider 1st generation anyone whose parents did not receive a 4 year college degree.</h1>
<p>interesting. so is it true that not as much is expected of a 1st generation applicant, espcecially if they are a recruited athlete?</p>
<p>The "first generation" designation is often used in tandem with the "economic and racial diversity" policy goal. It may be true that not "as much" is expected of these applicants, but a lot IS expected. </p>
<p>For example, at our local middling-caliber large CA public high school, Stanford has historically admitted our top first generation, economically-challenged URM students. These students are typically in the top 10% of the class, take all IB/AP classes, are actively involved in school ECs and have SATs above 1300. These kids are no slouches. </p>
<p>URMs who have intact families with college educated parents aren't given as much of a break. They are expected to be much higher in the class ranking, have higher SATs, etc. The idea is that it is harder for a kid without much parental support at home to achieve.</p>
<p>bumpppppppppppp</p>
<p>This may be a reflection of my naivete, but how many true development candidates (10-20+mil) could any of these schools have in any one year? If the school can adjust the class up or down a few places, would that be enough to absorb any development candidates - or are we talking about 30 kids? (30X20 million - not bad)</p>
<p>I saw this thread a while back and wanted to post on it before it disappeared. I would have to say that high level athletics trumps. I say this based on data I have seen in several college books of prep schools and also from some personal experience with athletes. If an athlete is very, very good in a sport that is important to a school, even an ivy, the school gives a lot of latitude in grades and test scores. In fact, it often just comes down to the question of whether the kid could make it at the school. At some schools and sports (Georgetown, Duke and basketball) I don't even know if they ask that question. I personally know the stats of some hockey and football starters in the ivies, and they are astonishingly low. </p>
<p>I have noticed that latitude is given to URMs on test scores, but not so much on grades. The URMs from S's school who come from special feeder programs are on full scholarship and many are hardship cases where the homelife is really tough for any kind of academic success. But none of those kids got into the most selective schools, and certainly not the ivies. And there are a number of them with 1300 SATs. Those grades seem to have to be up there. The URMs who did get into HPY did have excellent grades. The exception to this are the URMs who are excellent athetes. But then it does not seem to me that URM status means a thing in sports--they are truly color blind. The kid I know at an ivy with the lowest scores I have seen on record at such a school for both gpa and tests scores is not URM, but truly a gifted athlete. </p>
<p>I have known a number of top developement kids. And I mean names that are truly well known for $$$. The kids did not seem to get much of a break at all. Two I know were legacies and waitlisted, and their stats were within the ballpark of acceptance. Now if someone actually had a big buck deal in the works with a college and at the same time had a kid applying to that school, I wouldn't bet a dime that no concession would be made. But when you consider how many Rockefellow and Kennedy scions are walking around these days, and those going to HPY, you can see that the name, though a playing card is not an automatic in. And just because you accept one of those kids does not mean you are going to be getting a big time donation from them. Much of the money is tied up in foundations, and some of those families can be notoriously cheap in donations. </p>
<p>Adverse background, poverty, and first generation to college tend to be "tips", not hooks, in my opinion. Unless they are elevated to celebrity level. And I guess celebrity is really another hook that I feel can get a kid with a less than optimum profile into a school. Certainly if the kid did something out of the world fantabulous, they would not let low stats keep him out of even a top college. That would be an exception to the rule that they would herald.</p>
<p>Jamimom, your right. Athletic recruiting trumps everything else when it come to admissions, Urm status, legacy status, etc. And in "The Game of Life" hockey players got the biggest break with respect to SAT scores followed by wrestling of all things.</p>
<p>I also think that celebrity status may up there too, and I stress may. Chelsea Clinton, Sarah Hughes, Natalie Portmann, Brooke Shield, Albert Gore III, Barbara Bush come immediately to mind. Now they may be incredibly qualified but their celebrity certainly helps to float their application to the top of the pile.</p>
<p>The other very powerful hook for admissions is that someone in the school really wants the kid in there. And I don't mean a cousin who works there or that you have a business buddy who has a building named for his family and is on the board of trustees. If an unrelated prof or someone finds something compelling about your kid that they feel uniquely benefits the school and has rapport with the admissions office, that kid may well get in with sub par stats. That is the serendipity that adcoms love. The kid with low grades who is working on some obscure problem that is at the heart of a professor's research and the professor says he wants the kid. A true math whiz who is deep into pure math at levels that few people are in, but has few ECs and low verbal scores. Adcoms tend to have sensitive antennas as to whom they can blow off and when. They will with great delight recount how they rejected some with good stats that the president of the university recommended but won't mention some duds that they had to take cuz they knew their hides (well, their jobs) were at stake when certain names are submitted. They can smell when they have leeway and when they do not. But they do tend to be genuinely interested in someone who is a genuine unusual find and would take some who does not have the traditional profile in such cases, but usually they need an expert in the field to point out this kid's gift.</p>
<p>determined by whether either parent received a four year (baccalaureate) degree. Extreme example: Two parents with 120 hrs or more each but no FOUR year degree for either of them, then the child is considered 1st generation college for TRIO eligibility purposes (TRIO is actually 7 or 8 federal programs. -Educational Talent Search, Upward Bound, Student Support Services being the programs most frequently found on campuses).</p>
<p>Hope this helps.</p>
<p>In the case of Yale, all other things being equal, essays trump everything. Legacies passed over/deferred in SCEA have a better than others chance for admission in RD unless they are just not comparably as strong, then they are usually placed on permanent wait list which is a more gentle way of saying no.</p>
<p>I have seen some pretty lousy essays from Yale acceptees. And all other things equal, I have seen some great essays on the reject list.</p>
<p>Jamimom: The unusual find situation reminds me of Good Will Hunting.</p>
<p>jamimom --</p>
<p>It seems that the 'serendipity' you mention probably occurs regionally. Am I correct? It just seems unlikely that someone several thousand miles away would 'drop in' and be able to strike up a relationship with a faculty member at a university.</p>
<p>I am curious about this because I have seen the subject of theatre/music brought up along with the topic of recruited athletes. I have a S who is a gifted musician -- truly gifted -- but unfortunately, his passion is for piano. I resisted the temptation to off-load him to an instrument that was more marketable because it was very clear from an early age that he loved his instrument and I didn't want to tamper with this particular love affair.</p>
<p>I know pianists are a dime a dozen and that it won't help him get into college. What does a kid like this, who puts in the time but can't get recognized, do to get into a top-tier school?</p>
<p>bumpppppppppppp</p>
<p>bumpingggggggggg</p>
<p>"I know pianists are a dime a dozen and that it won't help him get into college. What does a kid like this, who puts in the time but can't get recognized, do to get into a top-tier school?"</p>
<p>The kid needs to: </p>
<p>Have good grades, a solid curriculum and be the Yoyo Ma of the piano. If your kid is doing solo concerts at Caregie Hall and has the scores/grades/curricula demonstrating he can succeed at a top tier, a top tier will want him.</p>
<p>Have good grades, a solid curriculum and be from some category (URM, an underrepresented state, low income, rural, etc.) that the top tiers want to attract</p>
<p>Have 1500-1600 scores, close to straight As in a tough curricula, excellent leadership (which could include something related to their instrument such as teaching low-income students piano or doing major fundraising so low income students can get music lessons), and an excellent essay.</p>
<p>Have excellent grades, curricula, scores, a solid essay plus an additonal demonstrated passion, preferably for something very different than piano. A piano-playing judo master would be an example. </p>
<p>Anyway, the bottom line is that being even a regionally good pianist with an A average, 1500 scores is not likely to get a kid into a very top tier school unless one's region is Alaska or something similar. There are far too many other similar students who apply to such schools.</p>
<p>NSM --</p>
<p>Someone resurrected this thread; thanks for your reply. It reinforces what I had surmised on my own. S's piano teacher has been justifiably frustrated by the increasing demands his sport places upon him. S enjoys both activities equally. I wish I could invent the 30-hour day for him. But when push comes to shove and he has to make a decision favoring one or the other that has long-term implications, the stark reality is that educationally, athletic excellence could potentially help him more than musical accomplishment. Strange but true. I will still never regret his decision to stay with the piano, even though he is not scheduled to play at Carnegie Hall any time in the near future.</p>
<p>Maybe I should start checking out real estate in Juneau...</p>