Here is the progression of “extra” on college resumes over the course of 3 kids.
Prior to kid #1 applying to college… ACT/SAT and good grades w/rigor + community service preferably in a foreign country helping dig wells or teach orphans. By the time kid #1 applies to college, only community service in local community, AO’s looked down on “mission trips” to far-flung places.
Kid #2 applies to college. AO’s want to see “real work”… delivering pizza, store clerk, or digging ditches… community service as well but must be “substantial”; like starting your own non-profit.
Kid #3 applies to college. We missed the trend lol. Looks like doing actual research and/or getting published is the flavor of the year for the Elite Institutions.
Future prediction: Maybe building your own rocket with Elon Musk and launching into space?
It’s amazing to me what money can buy.
My daughter did research in college and was published. The process lasted many years (beyond graduation) and was quite stressful and grueling at times.
There are HS students who participate in research and are published. My daughter met students like this when she interviewed for scholarships - these kids were quite accomplished and brilliant.
This reeks of privilege.
Very few get caught and those few who got caught face relatively insignificant consequences. If this type of cheating is rewarded most of the time, and punished lightly in rare cases when it’s discovered, more would be encouraged to cheat, wouldn’t they? If they cheat to get into a college without getting caught, wouldn’t they be more inclined to cheat in college to get their degrees and later in life?
I agree.
But, I don’t think many students are lying on their college apps, certainly lying about the nature of research and any publications isn’t common.
Outright lying may have been uncommon (although it’s doubtful any statistics are available). But there are many ways to exaggerate one’s role in research and present half truths. Some examples: Taking credit for some of mentor’s ideas in the essays. Conveniently omitting help from postdocs and graduate students, making it sound like research is just between the professor and student. Omitting what is already known, making a small, incremental progress seem like a big step forward in the essays. Already left the lab when paper was being written, but painted a picture that student was actively involved. A lot of these are hard to detect even with rec letters because mentors tend to be generous in their compliments, or don’t want to be the reason the student gets rejected.
Perhaps some of these institutions want the students who can afford and have resources to fund their research.
Anecdotally kid#2 went to a very prestigious university. He had a couple of classmates that were brought up to the disciplinary board (several times) for cheating. The school eventually suspended the students, but allowed them back the next semester. These kids came from affluent families so I do think schools are willing to overlook a few things…
Fund their research?
I can see it now- professor explaining to the provost and SVP of Sponsored Research, "Hey, I know we got a $500 million grant from Boeing to investigate new titanium alloys and corrosion, and $50 million grant from the NIH to explore the link between hypertension and maternal mortality and $100 million from NASA to develop a communications device which runs on exhaust fumes and reduces carbon in the atmosphere-- but I want to put this HS kid on my team to do ground-breaking research supervised by me because his parents will give $20K to the annual fund if I hire him, OK with you two?
Probably should have said fund donations to the school. There are lots of families who can afford to donate large amounts of money to secure their kids a spot in a school. Given the Varsity Blues scandal and how many parents were caught up, this pay-for-research gig might be the new vehicle.
It’s not illegal for people to make large donations to schools and its is a well known path to admission - those are called “developmental admits”.
Varsity blues was a story in large part because most of those people decided to go with direct bribery/fake test scores/fake ECs at a much lower cost than what it costs to be a developmental admit. Even the FBI pointed out there was a totally legal way these families could have used money to get their kids admitted.
I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say and I am not sure how to articulate my point. Accept to say that parents who are able to help their kids get research opportunities might have the ability to donate large amounts to said institutions. I am not talking about Boeing or Lockheed Martin corporate funding, but, significant private funding nonetheless.
I must be misunderstanding what you are trying to say, because while developmental admits don’t have to have Boeing money, they do have to be willing to donate millions. Depending on the school, estimates range from $2million - 10million+ on the low end.
If you don’t have that kind of money to donate - your kid isn’t going to get developmental admit priority. Maybe parents with that kind of money are trying the ‘research opportunity’ route, but not sure there’s any reason to think that.
Yeah, I don’t think that’s a fair assumption. As mentioned above, my D has done research and has been published, and…
The largest donation I have ever made to a university is a whopping $25. So…
We are neither wealthy nor connected.
D has done her own hustle for her opportunities. She also had a lot of luck in impressing the right the people who have given her these opportunities, but she earned her positions on her own merit. No pay to play, no family friends.
I have no idea how much students are lying or exaggerating on their college applications, but the pro-publica article seems to be less about lying and more about an industry that has been created to give students quasi-research experiences (and bragging rights) without much attention paid to the quality of their work.
So it seems like the question posed by the article is not really about lying as much as 1) whether admissions offices have the time or manpower to vet the quality of the research and 2) how much this industry is contributing to a rising and relentless push to make high school students engage in activities that most are not yet academically ready to pursue and 3) whether these activities are accessible to kids with fewer resources and connections.
Personally, I don’t think there is anything wrong with students seeking research experiences in high school. My two oldest kids have done research with professors (through selective but free programs). D22 wrote about her experience in one of her college application essays with pride. I’m guess D24 will do so as well. But the point was to learn more about how research is conducted in their fields of interest. And if anything, I think the colleges should view my kids’ experiences like any other academic enrichment experience. Their interest in their research questions was motivated by their intellectual curiosity about a particular topic, and it was just one of the many different types of extracurricular activities that high school students pursue. I would not expect the admissions offices to take it any more seriously than other ways that students choose to spend their summers or their time outside of school (including having a regular job). Clearly there are some high school students who do more intense or even cutting edge research, but I would find it disheartening if college admissions offices expect their applicants to have those experiences. I don’t think that is a realistic expectation for even the brightest and most motivated 17yos.
In Penn’s most recent CDS, their freshman retention rate is 97.7%. US News ranks its 4-year graduation rate (89%) as the 13th best in the country, and UPenn publishes a 96% 6-year rate. Not many are transferring or failing out.
There are high school superstars who struggle at all competitive colleges. I don’t understand what that statement is proving. Although it isn’t supported by the data, if that was your daughter’s anecdotal experience with classmates, wouldn’t it be evidence that Penn can’t separate the wheat from the chaff?
There are HS kids who dance in professional ballet companies. There are HS kids who have had their debut with a professional symphony orchestra. There are HS kids who have written novels- published by actual publishing companies with an actual editor, not self-published with Mom checking for typos.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that these kids (along with strong academics) have already achieved what many people twice their age in those fields have not accomplished. And in many cases, the presence of these kids on campus enriches the environment for everyone.
But nobody dancing at Mrs. Turner’s recital as the star of Swan Lake is claiming that they have danced with the New York City Ballet company. Nobody playing at their local civic center in a recital on a Sunday afternoon is claiming that they debuted with the Boston Symphony Orchestra. It’s the hyperbole involved in HS kids claim of “research” that rankles-- and I think is what most people on this thread are calling out.
If your role on a project was to fact-check the index- then you were a fact-checker, which is a noble academic activity, and impressive in its own right. If your role on a project was to log expenses and collate timesheets for the techs and submit them to the payroll department every Thursday by 5 pm, then describe your role accurately. You were for sure an important part of the project-- people gotta get paid. And if your role was to sanitize the record-keeping to make sure that no individual subject profile could be identified pre-publication–a HIPAA violation-- then say that.
It’s the aggrandizing which is upsetting. It is in violation of most university’s research integrity policies (better learn what those are early, kid…). And it is disrespectful to actual researchers- who in many cases spend years developing the kind of tools and knowledge required to be key contributors to a published paper-- to claim that at 17 you waltzed into a lab and without even being able to program in one of the relevant statistical packages, you somehow made groundbreaking contributions.
Deleted.
I would add that the kid who dances professionally or the acclaimed musician probably started when they were very young. And by the time success on that level arrived, at least 10 years had been dedicated to their respective pursuits.
So AP Seminar and AP Research?
Could be, one would have to ask a Penn admissions staffer.
Probably should have said fund donations to the school. There are lots of families who can afford to donate large amounts of money to secure their kids a spot in a school. Given the Varsity Blues scandal and how many parents were caught up, this pay-for-research gig might be the new vehicle.
How wealthy do you think people are doing pay-to-play research are lol?!
Pay-to-play research according to the article costs <$10,000 and I can’t imagine most college counselling costing over $50k-100k. That’s well within the reach of an upper-middle-class family.
To actually donate money to a school in a sum that matters would set one back >$5m+ at a minimum.