The pressure is enormous. As science-connected parents, the whole process seemed stomach-churning. Our solution was that our DD applied to competitive summer programs that paired her with a researcher. Last summer, it was one that cost money, this upcoming summer is one that’s free.
The well-run summer programs are a good solution, and at least it is transparent on applications. But the good ones are hard to get into and if she had not gotten into one, we would likely have been leaning on all our connections. It’s all so silly. When did colleges decide research was the new marker of a exceptional applicant? For STEM focused kids, it’s really a required piece of the application for T20s now.
3 Likes
I don’t agree with this. Regardless, there’s no reason most students, including tippy tops, need to apply to T20s and play the game that some think is happening.
8 Likes
No, they had pilot online courses for selected students long before this. They did not advertise them. This was in the era before ubiquitous college advice, at least at no-name private schools like mine. I received the invitation in the mail after taking the PSAT and my parents let me take it, so I did. It was with undergraduates. I will always be grateful for that class. It showed me that I really could handle college with competitive college students.
2 Likes
True, no “need” to apply to T20s. Just my observation from a single HS. Every year, about 15 kids go a T20. And for the last 5 years, I can’t think a single accepted kid that had not done an independent research project. NOT PUBLISHED, mind you. But in our county, independent mentored research has become so common that it’s become expected. Certainly not true in most parts of the country. But in some places it, unfortunately, is.
Students can still increase their chances of admission to tippytop schools without doing research. All they have to do is, in addition to the (goes without saying) very high grades in the most rigorous classes and very high SAT score, spend the 10,000 hours a la Malcolm Gladwell to become a professional level expert in something the schools value. That is not so hard, only 3 hours a day on average for a decade or so. I am being sarcastic, but it is essentially the route my kid took, out of love of the EC, although we hoped it would help. The absurdity of the level of achievement expected from the unhooked just increases by the year, as does the level of varsity blues style pay for pumping up applications with questionable achievements. And all for an education that for most applicants can be obtained for a third the price at their flagship state U.
8 Likes
So you were in HS and it was online but you were commingled with Penn undergraduate students. That sounds amazing and unique!!
What was the subject matter? I was not aware that Penn started online targeted classes for high school students immersed with Penn undergraduate students prior to launching their current program. They must have been technologically ahead of their time at Penn as most of the technology that allowed students to share a classroom experience remotely didn’t get developed or deployed prior to the pandemic in and around 2020. How exactly did that work? Interesting and surprising but I believe you.
I have kids the same age and when I was in high school the internet wasn’t a thing. I mean google didn’t even start until 1998 so that’s amazing how far ahead of technology Penn must have been.
I guess Penn is being humble when they state they started online in 2012.
1 Like
This does seem to be regional. The private our senior attends sends about a quarter of the kids to a T20 and no one has these type of research projects, and we live in a city with two major academic medical centers, so most parents are connected. Similarly, my husband interviews for the T5 Ivy he attended and hasn’t seen this, amd strangely most of his applicants are admitted ( I am convinced admissions likes his write ups and sends him kids that they are leaning towards admitting). He has seen a few kids with small side businesses (offering music lessons, selling tshirts) but none of the questionable self started non profits yet.
1 Like
I think that research opportunities are mostly about connections. Those connections are most often linked to money (like many ECs). James Burk should probably have mentioned that in his TV series.
The AOs of most colleges should know the difference between the junk pay-to-publish journals and “real” ones (i.e. those with an actual impact factor). So, the kind of junk research mentioned in the article is not going to help a student get into a good school. But publications within a good journals do (I know of specific examples).
I doubt that this practice of doing research to aid admissions will fall out of favor. For example, the college that I work at is very short on student workers. HS students are often free, and thus sometimes used to do menial tasks. However, those that demonstrate significant skills do participate and are included on papers.
1 Like
As the parent of a middle schooler, this whole topic is so disheartening. Many years back, I first heard of Cal Newport’s books when I found College Confidential. I got the High School Superstar book for my older kid, and I read it as well. I remember how negative he was about sports and musical instruments - everyone does them so you don’t “stand out”. Well, by golly, those kids playing their sports and playing their instruments are out there actually Doing Those Things For Real. Not standing next to someone kicking a ball, or paying $$ to “assist” in the drawing of a bow across some strings. There have been amazing and uncommon high school students contributing actual advancements to science, and it pains me that their accomplishments are potentially now diluted in a sea of “research” that U Penn and similar AOs don’t have time to parse. Rant over.
10 Likes
I am coming to this thread late, but I have strong opinions about this as a parent of two children where research was a fundamental part of their applications, and IMO a key reason why both did so well in college admissions.
My contribution to helping my daughter was limited to teaching her how to write a compelling email and who to target with these emails. Everything else was her doing, including the interview with the professor, convincing him to take her on and keeping them satisfied enough they kept asking her back. She did this for three summers, but the nature of this multi-year research was that there were no papers being written after 3 summers, although one eventually got published (in some major journal, perhaps Cell). So she couldn’t put down published author on her application but it shaped her neuroscience interest at the time, and that was a major part of her application.
My son entered a competitive program that selected students for research. He was selected, and his research actually did lead to publication and winning a major science contest.
Our family was relatively wealthy by the time my kids hit high school, so we could have afforded buying our way into research, but it wouldn’t have sit right either with me or my kids. And while both have benefited from wealth (for example by attending a great school system), they feel good knowing that they actually had to compete to earn these positions.
After retiring, I started volunteering to help kids with the college application process, with a particular focus on STEM kids from lower-income backgrounds. The rise of this “pay to play” research really bothers me, as it makes it harder for lower-income kids to get into any research program, and dilutes the impact even if they do because after a while AOs will be tired of seeing it.
8 Likes
Penn has to know that this will just up the arms race for everyone, so it’s a borderline irresponsible public statement to make. Not to mention how ridiculous it is to say that a good chunk of kids, after 3 years of high school have won “international accolades” and are making new discoveries (many probably apply ED so they’d have to get these awards by early senior year). Kind of insulting to those who started their scientific training when these applicants were born and are just now getting their own major NIH grant.
It doesn’t end with getting into undergrad. I don’t have time to find the references, but the same effect is trickling up into grad school, med school, residency etc. 15 years ago, only the exceptional med student had multiple publications when applying to residency. Now the “average” applicants to competitive specialties like derm and ortho have double digit citations.
It’s the “publish or perish” concept but not just for tenure track faculty- now apparently it starts in 10th grade.
I do think there is actual harm to the scientific community in this. The necessity for everyone to publish as first author on every level starting in high school, has created a whole lot more offshoot journals and a whole lot of small, similar studies that either don’t contribute very much, or could even contradict other science because they’re rushed out, statistically underpowered etc.
9 Likes
As the parent of an up and coming grad school applicant I always took with a grain of salt when undergrads would self-report having publications in “chance-me” type threads, but now I wonder.
On the other hand, applicants to grad programs can be assured of having their publication claims actually vetted by admissions committees unlike what appears to be happening for high school applicants.
1 Like
As the parent of a Penn bound kid whose research was a fundamental part of their application, I feel compelled to chime in. I disagree that Penn is irresponsible for highlighting research in their press release. They are a research university seeking to enroll students who have demonstrated interest and aptitude for research. I’m not in academia, but I think it would be helpful to have undergrads who already understand and are comfortable with the research process; it’s a ready-made workforce.
If people want to blame Penn, then they should extend that fault to college consultants who tout research as a way to stand out in a competitive applicant pool; Penn didn’t create the research arms race and I certainly don’t fault them from benefitting from it. Any applicant who has an issue with research as a Penn institutional priority is free to apply elsewhere.
As already stated, research was a fundamental part of my child’s application. DC discussed it at length in their personal statement and almost all awards listed were research related. None of the research was conducted under a pay-to-play scheme; I dislike those because, due to their cost, they signal privilege. My child was contacted directly by people who read about their research in the local paper/press releases and sought to mentor them. Through a combination of hard work and luck, DC’s research earned several awards, including a prestigious international award, and is pending publication in a reputable journal with DC listed as the first author. So, yes, after three years DC’s research did garner international accolades and, according to DC’s mentors, has pushed the bounds of academic discovery. There are a lot of kids out there like mine and many of them do end up in the Penn applicant pool.
Penn admissions reads a lot of applications (nearly 60k this cycle!). I trust they are adept at separating the wheat from the chaff. Hopefully, those applicants who participate in these pay-to-play schemes are not being rewarded with a place in the class. But, if they are, the competition at Penn will sort them out.
2 Likes
It’s important to note that Penn’s reference to the 1/3 of the admits doing research was for the class of 2026: Congratulations, Admitted Class of 2026! | Penn Admissions
There is no mention of research as an EC in the admitted Class of 2027 profile: Welcome, Admitted Class of 2027! | Penn Admissions
After the 2026 letter referencing research, there was quite a bit of consternation voiced by counselors, both HS GCs and IECs. We will never know if that had anything to do with the non-mention of research in the Class of 2027 profile, but I lean towards thinking that’s not a coincidence.
5 Likes
There is no mention of research in the final press release, but it is mentioned in the Class of 2027 ED press release: Welcoming the First Members of the Class of 2027.
2 Likes
Just a single, passing mention though. Not highlighted like last year.
1 Like
They have demonstrated that they are not capable of doing that at all. Nor are they concerned with rectifying it once they have learned about fake, stolen research. And yes, they are directly responsible for encouraging this travesty.
4 Likes
And:
“I wonder about the process," Andrade said, raising concern about how the college applications are authenticated by Penn. "It questions how the selection process has been conducted.”
Like most universities, Penn does not have a standard system for fact-checking applications and has rarely rescinded students’ acceptances for false application materials.”
1 Like
What does this mean? Ready-made for Penn to exploit, or ready-made for post-grad work? Penn is more pre-professional than most, but I wouldn’t think even they were looking to admit a “ready-made workforce” of 17- and 18-year-olds?
There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, some of which has been posted. I am sure your child was a highly qualified applicant, as are the majority of applicants — including those having done pay-to-play research. Once admitted, these students are usually not able to be “sorted out” because they are capable of keeping up.
They do a great job identifying the students they want in their class. As to ‘Separating wheat from chaff’, whether you were talking about the research piece or in the bigger picture…not happening so much on a couple of 6-8 minute reads of the app.
And this goes for recruited athletes, legacies, and URM/limited income/first gen students too
2 Likes