<p>My point in all this really is that until 3 weeks ago I knew NOTHING about CC, “hooks” “special admissions” -heyyy what IS that btw?? I honestly didn’t know about “safety schools” or “reach” schools or “legacies” or… That’s the noise I’m talking about. My wife is on a school board and I’m a dentist and I was not aware of all that. If the average parent realised this was the deal they would either be ticked off or simply not play that game. My advice to 99% of the families I now talk to is going to be to not play the game. Get a great education, but ignore all this-have to go to the right private preschool to get into the right k-12 to get into the right…noise…I live in a small rural town. We have one public school. I will advise them to send their kids locally and support their public schools and universities fully. It’s also more green :)</p>
<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>unimpresseddad’s post shows he’s unimpressed for a reason–the vindictiveness of those (like you) whose children were accepted to “elite” schools and therefore belief that any criticism of the current system–no matter how justifiable or objective it may be–is an attack upon their own children’s achievments or efforts.</p>
<p>And if I may provide a little advice, I think you need to start learning to understand what constitutes a logical argument. Stating that you worked in many educational positions does not make you anymore of an expert on the validity of the college admissions system than unimpresseddad–especially considering the total ineffectiveness of today’s educational system and its reliance upon political power to determine who does (and doesn’t) get funding or admission in a recessionary environment. </p>
<p>Also, the fact that you spent every dime on the education of your children does not automatically mean that they were de-facto more qualified than someone who didn’t spend every dime on education.</p>
<p>Next you say that unimpresseddad can’t argue that a school’s admissions system rewards more on “fit” than on “merit”, since that means he’s accusing those accepted as being “non-meritorious”. Yet, you yourself say that and I quote: </p>
<p>“No one is ‘meritorious’ in a vacuum, when it comes to Elite admissions. It is all a comparative exercise. All of it. One applicant’s merit becomes surprisingly dwarfed by another applicant’s even more impressive merit.” </p>
<p>Oh, so now people aren’t “non-meritorious”, there are levels of merit;–isn’t that exactly what unimpresseddad said.</p>
<p>Your arguments are laughable. When you have a valid argument to make, then post it. In the meantime, read more and write less–it will make people like me respect you more. As it is, I see you arguing illogically on every point. </p>
<p>P.S. I don’t totally argee with unimpresseddad’s complaints, either–his daughter should have applied to more than MIT, Harvard, and Univ of Washington–or else he should have expected the final result–but for him to be attacked relentlessly (and by someone with an attitude and through snobbish nonsensical posts) merely for saying the system at the top schools is “rigged” is ridiculous and insulting.</p>
<p>And to unimpresseddad, I’m glad to see that you realize it’s all a crazy game. My cousin is a departmental chairman at the University of Washington–and the smartest guy in his field worldwide. Your daughter will do just fine staying in-state and attending UDub.</p>
<p>What…or rather Where on earth did Techerdz get the idea that the OP was “underprivileged”? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is utterly ridiculous. Firstly, this site isn’t exactly some monsterous glob attacking us poor under-priviliged folk- whether you mean by merit or race. (I try to avoid the racial/AA discussions because the amount of White privilege makes my head want to explode, but even so) and secondly, the OP is by no means currently doing poorly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This likely means the poster is quite a bit above 100k+ in terms of income, and not at all underprivileged anymore. He may have not started out “well off” but now he is, and by extension, his family. Not every person who goes to a public high school is cripplingly poor, rude, about to knife someone, or failing. Do poorly preforming HS’s exist? Yes. Do some people get the luck of the draw, and are born into a financially well-off household? Yes. Does this often make opportunities much much easier? Of course. </p>
<p>Is the OP financially underprivileged? Probably not. Can someone from a Public school get into Harvard? Well, yes. I know one boy who got into Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and Boston U. Another who got into Yale. Is my public school over all underprivileged? No, probably not. </p>
<p>Such is the state of the world. I don’t think anyone’s arguing that those without access to the resources to understanding the “game” of admissions, so to speak, are all doing fantastically compared to the peers who are well-aware of the game, and may have more money to prep for it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t forget Senator John McCain, well known D student whose mishaps and constant breaking of the rules landed him in a prison in vietnam. In probably all of the above examples, Academic merit didn’t control their destinies, because they had an outstanding amount of wealth/familial power to begin with. </p>
<p>So if you can’t be smart, be rich. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? If it’s as simple as playing to keep up (not necessarily going to a private school), all it means is that your child will have more options for college, and maybe even ones that are more cost-beneficial. It’s silly to eliminate the whole process just because it’s partially flawed. </p>
<p>I explained to my mom how the games worked. She was surprised, but ultimately, went ahead with my ideas for getting into a strong LAC for my interests instead of local State U. We didn’t have scads of money to throw away into private school, so I just went to public school. I don’t really recall any of my ECs costing any extra money to do except one over the summer than was a birthday gift. I think you’re taking the game too far- too literal, and only including the top 20 schools. You can get into really great places other ways.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have completely misread me. I never once said that the current system is perfect. I’ve been on CC since '04, and in that history you will find much that I disagree with, in the “system.” But to say that because the system is imperfect, flawed, and designed to eliminate many qualified applicants as well as include an awful lot of the highly qualified at the same time, does not mean that the OP’s arguments are logical. They simply are not.</p>
<p>You also misunderstand my position. Given that I work daily with young people applying to college, that I have seen a lot of young people into college, that I have counseled an awful lot of CC students offline and helped them achieve their Elite U goals, and that I know a great deal about how complex the process is, I will react strongly to those who claim they “know” who does and does not deserve to get accepted to elite U’s. I mentioned my own situation in passing, but I feel far angrier about blanket statements made by people with limited knowledge of individual applications. That has nothing to do with my own D and everything to do with perception and experience of the broader situation. I don’t like narrow-mindedness – either yours as I see it in your post, or the OP’s as I read it accurately in the several posts here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whether you think so or not, my abilities at logic are superb, so I hardly need “lessons” and lectures from you. I found very little in your post, OTOH, that was coherent and proceeded logically. The problem is, I take people at their word, and when they write, I read it carefully. The OP’s post #1 was rambling and irresponsibly strung together a bunch of disjointed ideas, resulting in some “equation” by which 1A + 2A supposedly equals 7C. No.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said that. I do, however, understand it better than he does; that’s clear. Understanding it does not mean that you support it wholeheartedy, see no need for change, etc. Rather than raging at me as you have, and calling me names, it would have been more fruitful for you to have investigated my history of critiquing the college admissions system on CC. I’ve actually been one of the few who have engaged in lively debate about a future better system, idealistic as it may be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never once said or implied that. Rather, I was countering his absurd claim that those who apply to Ivies have anything but education on their mind. (“Lost in the mix”). Again, like him, apparently you do not read in context. I do read in context, and the context was reprehensible, including as it applies to all those CC students and non-CC who are underprivileged and whom I have helped. </p>
<p>Well you certainly outdid the OP in your own illogic, i.m.o., and your broad sweeping statements and stronger, more inaccurately-based insults. I responded to particular attacks of his, which were quite all-encompassing. I was hardly born yesterday. Yes, starbright is correct in that there is a great deal of innate privilege in the system. But that is a far, far cry from the OP’s crude “conclusion” that the system rewards lack of merit and punishes merit. That’s precisely what he implied, and in more than one post.</p>
<p>It is extremely arrogant for anyone to say they “know” – whether they’re a senior in high school, the OP, or anyone else – who does and does not “deserve’” (merit) admission. Yes, that’s what the word merit means: deserves. The rest of your arguments completely fall apart. The OP was not using context to discuss merit. He was discussing merit within the definition of stats, and by so doing, falling into the trap that the CC students do over on the Admissions forums: assuming that a little knowledge is sufficient to judge an entire student profile – let alone to rate that student meritorious or not versus another student. It’s preposterous.</p>
<p>The only reason, btw, I even brought up my own situation is that the OP was just so sure that Elites are for the privileged. That is so outdated as to be laughable. I could bring up many more student cases on CC, but I won’t do so. Their situations were similar to my own D’s and to many other parents who have posted here, before you became a member, after you became a member, and very recently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you really think that so many people feel that they/their chidren, LOL, “have to go to the right private preschool”? Sure, you’ll find many people crazed about that, but most people wind up exactly as you have just described it. This is why I am so active in my public alma mater. Because I totally believe in great public education where it does exist. But that philosophy (of yours) is a far cry from the insinuations in your first post, that students who go to Elite U’s are a bunch of privileged people and that the education is somehow not worth it. I don’t understand why people have to start threads that provoke people with Fighting Words, and then when posters inevitably respond, the OP acts surprised and others act indignant that there’s any reaction at all. Expect provocative comments when you provoke. Otherwise, obviously your D is in a wonderful place, supported by a father who believes in her – which is a lot more than a lot of students in this country have, frankly – including those who apply to Elite U’s and those who don’t apply to Elite U’s!</p>
<p>unimpresseddad:
</p>
<p>There are certainly advantages to go to a private prep school @35K a year but it is still not equivalent to gaming the system. All the students that matriculate to HMSPY from DD private prep are very well rounded, academic oriented, non sports star students. The private prep only provide ample resources for these hard working children to make use of and excel.</p>
<p>^ ??? So either the ample resources help or they don’t…which is it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is a mighty loud broken toilet.</p>
<p>Re post: 74:</p>
<p>Yes, to be the child of a faculty (in the lingo “facbrat”) is one of the greatest hooks, greater than legacy status. This is not new or limited to top schools. When my H was in grad school, his department tried to recruit a prof at the tenure level and offered lots of incentives to get him to move. In the end, the prof decided to stay at the University of Rochester because his ten (yes, ten) children could be educated for free at UofR whereas admission into Harvard was not assured and Harvard only offered interest-free loans. I am sure that UW and every other school gives preferential treatment to its faculty’s children, too. It does not mean that every faculty child will be admitted, but it means that there is a significant advantage. There are other hooks and tips, too. All things being equal, it’s better to be from Montana than New York; it’s probably as good being first-generation than being a legacy. Sports recruits at Ivy League schools must meet a minimum academic standard which, by all accounts, is pretty high. URMs do have an advantage, but they are by no means an auto-admit (a URM classmate whom S deemed an excellent student was not admitted into H but got into some other great colleges).</p>
<p>Unimpresseddad’s criteria for admission into top private schools seem to be expanding all the time. You’ve added a family that cares deeply for education, and now being a facbrat. I’d assume that families that care about education are more likely to produce high-achieving kids, as I think that family support is as important to academic achievement than the kind of school a student attends. The university profs I know do not send their kids to $20k or $40k per year prep schools. Nor do their kids, as far as I know, play water polo or other exotic and expensive sports. But those profs must surely value education. And many of them choose to send their kids to LACs where they have no legacy, facbrat status, or any other kind of hooks.</p>
<p>“Fac brat” seems still to be more conventional than “facbrat”.</p>
<p>10 or 12 faculty children out of 1000 admitted would make it only about 1%. If the rest 99% is selected blindly, the system is 99% meritocracy. How many products do we buy that have 99% safety? None. True some kids have advantages, borading school, tutors, family weath, connections, whether they deserve it or not. As long as they remain a small minority, there’s enough room to compete and win.</p>
<p>Being the child of a senator or congressman is also a significant advantage…Read “The Price of Admission.” Very, very few are blindly admitted…Even on this board I’ve heard “talk” of the unhooked students competing for "10-12’ % of the spots at an Ivy. It’s just true and I don’t see how it could be any other way. I mean, how on earth else are they going to decide who to admit when they have 20,000 fully qualified applicants for 2000 spots?</p>
<p>sorghum:LOL! I’ve seen it spelled both ways. </p>
<p>Iglooo. Harvard makes offers of admission to 2,000+ per year; I would be surprised if there were more than 10-12 children of faculty and staff applying each and every year, especially now that the faculty as a whole is getting long in the tooth! :)</p>
<p>Poetgrl:I think you’re right, but the number of such applicants is probably infinitesimally small as would be the number of “development admits.”</p>
<p>I think the point that Malcolm Gladwell makes–and Professor Barry Schwartz of Swarthmore, too–that once you get to a certain level, it’s kind of a crapshoot about who deserves it or not, is a good one. If there are 2,000 places for 25,000 applicants, probably 5,000 of which or more are incredibly qualified, then it is no shame not to have been accepted. They just didn’t have room for all the fantastic students they could choose, and it is no failure whatsoever not to have been admitted. In fact, I think students should take pride in making the effort to get in and going for the longshot. It’s a good reflection on their willingness to go for something ambitious, even if they might not make it. If they keep that attitude up, some other door WILL open to them in the future.</p>
<p>Endicott-- I actually think that is exactly the right way to look at it, personally. I recall reading an article which stated that the places you are rejected from are as indicative of your future success as the place where you attend, if not more so. I can’t recall the article or the name of the author, unfortunately. But I do believe there is actual empirical evidence to support what you assert.</p>
<p>^I agree with this, although from the point of view of colleges, the system is probably much less random as they try to build classes. But just because highly qualified students were not admitted into highly selective colleges with limited numbers of slots does not mean that the ones who were admitted got there because they attended expensive prep schools and played expensive sports (see the first post in this thread).</p>
<p>Interestingly, I was told by a colleague that her grandson was admitted to Harvard this year. This boy attended the local public high school, which I have described as highly diverse. His older brother, however, attended an expensive prep school (non-boarding, $30k per year) with an excellent reputation for academics. The brother applied to Harvard but did not get in and is currently attending a top 50 college.</p>
<p>I am still baffled by the whole selection process even four years after my first son was admitted to MIT and my second two were admitted to Cornell. My daughters acceptance to her private university was also surprising to us. We did not package our kids (we could not afford the private coaches) but we did provide an academic household. They were free to explore what they wanted but there was certainly a financial limit to these endeavors. They did not work with the disadvantaged in another country (they would have enjoyed doing that) or go to expensive camps/programs. In fact in the early days they used our backyard as their playing field and labortory. When they became excited about something we helped them explore it. We would have loved to have sent our kids on wonderful trips but instead they found interesting things to do within our own county. They volunteered because they wanted to, not because they needed to. In fact, back then we did’nt even know that there was such a thing as ECs for college. We are middle class folks that really had no idea that a kid needed anything other than intellegence and scores to get into these schools. Our kids did not gain admission because they gamed a system or had parents who knew what to do. Our kids just got in. To this day we still wonder what they did that was so special because we read about so many amazing kids that certainly meet the same standards. I still remind our kids that they have been fortunate but they know that already. Not one of our children ever thought they deserved their place in the school they attended over any other applicant and I think it is that attitude that an admissions person can pick up on. </p>
<p>I do not understand the hostility or the entitlement that I often read here on CC. When things don’t go the way we want we often bang our feet and throw a tantrum. Everyone should just concern themselves with what goes on with their own kids and stop focusing on how and why others do what they do.</p>
<p>endicott- I think your Post # 94 should be required reading. It’s true that there are many qualified candidates out there and there is no shame in not being the one who “got in” to a particular school.</p>
<p>So often when people have complaints about how rigged, or unfair, or ridiculous the college admissions process is, I wonder how aware they are of the sheer number of applicants undeniably qualified applicants competing for a limited number of spaces. The OP says he is, so I dont quite understand his difficulty with the system. There are nearly 30,000 high schools in the US, which means nearly 30,000 valedictorians (more when we consider that many schools have multiple vals). Kids in the top 1st, or 3rd, or 5th, or 10th percentiles at many of those schools are usually not slouches, either. The OPs d scored 800 on the CR portion of the SAT, which is an admirable achievement, but by no means a unique one. An 800 math score is even less unusual. 6 APs, 10 APs there are kids with more, and all 5s, too. And although some parents are loath to admit it, their communitys very fine, high-achieving high school is almost certainly not the very finest, highest-achieving one in all the land, with the most rigorous grading and the most meaningful ECs. The OP tells us that his daughter had ridiculous other activities and suggests that the tip factor in admission to elite schools is involvement in an expensive niche sport, such as the ones provided in private schools (crew, hockey, saber). How to explain all the unhooked applicants who were accepted without them, then? </p>
<p>It seems arrogant when posters rail against all those under-qualified admits, implying (to me, anyway) that if only admissions were a real meritocracy, of course their child would have been admitted instead. There are still a LOT of middle class unhooked high school seniors with impeccable stats out there. CC is a great tool for opening parental eyes when we read about the typical over-achieving CC applicant, we can or should figure out that our kid isnt necessarily the biggest fish in the applicant pool.</p>
<p>Life is pretty much rigged too, isnt it? And the best any of us can do about that is our best. Unimpresseddad, I dont understand how you could have gone through this process once before and still not have heard about safeties or reach schools until 3 weeks ago. Hoping your ds application list wouldnt have been any different if youd been aware of those concepts. Since UW is such an excellent school, and your d is such a talented student, shell have a wonderful education there. Best of luck to her.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, Only 10-20% of admits are unhooked? You can’t mean that 80-90% are either urm’s or have faculty, alumni, donor, power, and other connections? I can’t believe any institution would survive that kind of in-breeding. If that’s the case, I wouldn’t want my kid to be there even if she gets in.</p>