<p>One of the best things I heard this past week-</p>
<p>—was an Admissions Officer at an elite ivy </p>
<p>–reminded the group sitting in front of her that the ivy league is a sports league.
She made the point of saying it 2-3 times right off the bat…and then went on to say that being denied was not a measure of worth–that there were many many terrific applicants–far more than they could ever offer a slot to—and that the kids should remember to not let admission or denial to deinfe them.</p>
<p>I wish every Admissions Officer started their presentaiton that way.</p>
<p>Forgive me if I make grammatical mistake in my post (English is not my first Lang).
Like you mentioned, I was one of those Indian kids who waited for results. Not everyone in India go ballistic over their exam results. I for one was very calm when I waited for results. Thank god my Indian born parents did not put pressure on me!!</p>
<p>I take particular offense in the sentence that “I thank heaven that I live in the western world” I resent the implication that all Indian kids have stress about their exam results.
Several Indian parents, put pressure on the kids to perform well. It happens in India. It definitely happens in US too. This has nothing to do with meritocracy or country of origin. It is just the mindset of parents and kids who want to excel in everything. </p>
<p>You are not going to get into a good school like IIT s IIMs (similar to MIT, cal tech, or Wharton) because you are an excellent cricket player or your parents went to that school. You have to do exceedingly well in entrance examinations proving your excellence in math& science .In the end Indian science Institutes churns out the best scientists, mathematicians the country can offer. I think meritocracy is relevant and better in the case of specialized math / science institutions like IIT. </p>
<p>I agree that Indian system is not perfect, neither do the American system.
There are many parents in this country who go overboard with kids’ education. Many American parents also put undue stress on their kids just like Indian parents. </p>
<p>When you compare the western world education to Indian system, please look into British & French system & how they select students to universities. You will be surprised.</p>
<p>mom1967,
Perhaps you misunderstood me. (It would appear.) I did not say that the U.S. system is objectively better than other systems. I said that I prefer it, and I stand by that. The Indian system seems to work fine for India. I didn’t trash that. I’m saying that those U.S. citizens who imagine that a system such as exist in various Asian countries could be transplanted here, and work well within our cultural expectations, are wrong. </p>
<p>I never said that everyone in India is obsessed with scores. And I’m well aware of different western systems as well, such as in western Europe and Canada. It is a fact, however, that scores qualify a student in India much more than a score qualifies a student in the U.S., at least for many of the Elite U’s which are objects of desire. Please do not tell me that’s not true. Half of my clientele are Indian, and recent transplants. I know what I’m talking about. It is a very different system there, not one based on certain expectations of a representative democracy like that of the U.S., with an underpinning of wide inclusion and opportunity.</p>
<p>There’s no need to personalize this. Again, for the umpteenth, **I have never said on or off CC that “the American system is perfect.”<a href=“Where%20do%20people%20get%20such%20ideas?”>/b</a> Nor did I say that the Indian system is bad or wrong. I said that parents ought to think about the implications of a very different system before they assume that “merit” as in “score” is any less restrictive, less “crazy,” or “more fair.”</p>
<p>(1) The OP has $ and a wife on the the school board. Have he and his wife done a darn thing to improve the offerings of the public high school in their community? Does it routinely tell kids about Intel and Siemens, offer kids the chance to take the AMC and the AIME, send kids to the state-wide math contests, inform them of the AMTS, encourage kids to develop portfolios and submit them to the Scholastic writing contests, tell kids about the Concord Review and encourage submissions to it, tell artists about National Portfolio days, actors about the Shakespeare contest, the VFW speaking contests, etc., etc. etc.? </p>
<p>If not, then I suggest that the OP go look in the mirror and blame HIMSELF–not colleges–for the fact that the kids in his community don’t have access to the ECs he thinks the Ivies focus on. And for someone who is on the SCHOOL BOARD to claim that she was unaware of the role that ECs play in college admissions–as well as the wonderful experiences they are in and of themselves for young people–says to me that she has failed to meet her responsibilities as a school board member. </p>
<p>(2) Have you ever set foot in an urban public magnet? I’ll admit my own knowledge is limited to NYC, but I assure you that the idea that urban public magnets have sports like the prep schools is HILARIOUS. (Our kids DROOL when they see the facilities rural public schools in upstate NY have. Things like a baseball diamond at school–instead of having to commute to Central Park and compete with all the other leagues that use the baseball fields there for time slots.) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you really seriously think that most urban public magnets offer these? Well, yes, my offspring’s school did have a swim team–they used the pool of one of the CUNY schools and started practice at 6 am. Hockey? Rowing? Lacrosse? What urban public magnet offers these? </p>
<p>And what about the 80-85% of Ivy students --varying by college–who are NOT on varsity sports teams? </p>
<p>Yes, some public magnets do have special classes for Intel research if that’s your idea of an EC. Some have model UN, mock trial, debate and Fed Challenge, but there’s no reason a rural school can’t have these too. (And at some of these schools, participants have to pay to participate or, more commonly, there is a “suggested donation”. If not enough families donate, the activity disappears.) </p>
<p>Sure, the system is a little “rigged.” It is, however, FAR LESS rigged than it was a generation ago. Anybody can check out a book at the library and figure out a lot of the “rules.” A lot of information is also available on the internet. Heck, the Korean immigrant families here --many of whom speak almost no English–have done it very, very successfully. </p>
<p>I do feel sorry for kids who are first generation from rural public schools with lousy guidance counselors who try to negotiate their way through the maze. However, an astonishing number of them manage to do it. </p>
<p>But feel sorry for the daughter of a wealthy dentist whose father alleges that she didn’t have a chance because she didn’t have the “right” ECs? Did she apply to any of the hundreds of special summer science programs for high school students? (Some of them are free. A lot of the kids who get into the special summer program at MIT later go on to attend MIT.) Did she do an Intel project? (Remember the kid from West Virginia who came in the top 40 years ago–who lived in a home without running water?) Did she seek out any EC opportunities that were NOT offered at her high school? (Colleges give bonus points to kids who do this. )</p>
<p>So, I’m not willing to attend the pity party for the OP. This guy and his family got handed a better hand than one heck of a lot of the kids who DO get into top colleges.</p>
<p>Is the system “rigged”? Sure. But I don’t think the top schools are obligated to admit people based on individual standards of fairness. If you want a fair admissions system, apply somewhere with guaranteed admissions based on hard numbers. Otherwise, you really have no right to complain given that you chose to apply at a given institution.</p>
<p>unimpresseddad…I can understand why the whole process has you wondering why your child received a rejection letter. I just spoke to a friend whos son was rejected from every top tier school he applied to. He is an accomplished student who will do well where ever he attends (state school). I spoke to both of them, and was sad to hear that they are both looking at other students who gained admission, and they seem to have something to say about every student who did get in to their #1 school. </p>
<p>Your daughter had the stats but as you can see so do thousands of others. There are also greater numbers of kids applying from foreign countries to these upper tier schools. Almost every kid applying to the top tier schools have the stats to be admitted but there just aren’t enough spots. Your daughter has worked hard and the cream always rises to the top. Her time will come as long as she can keep her personal goals in mind. I hope you will not become bitter as so many people do. When you think about it in terms of real life and the many decades that your daughter has ahead of her, this is only one step in the great adventure of life that is ahead of her. I have a daughter that is now finishing up a year at a county college because she was unable to be away at her college last year. It was such a difficult decision to bring her home but I thank God everyday that I just thought about her needs, and not what our other children had accomplished. My daughter has been diagnosed as having depression among other things. Had we kept her at the college she was attending I am not sure if she would be the person she is right now. Every kid has a path and as you yourself said, you were not the product of an ivy or top tier school. Your daughter has you as a wonderful example of the cream rising to the top. My son at MIT has done very well but I could assure you that it is not the right fit for everyone. He would have been much happier at Cornell where his brothers attend. Will he have advantages because he is an MIT graduate…probably, but only for his first job, after that it is all about performance. All of my kids gained admission to their schools on their merit. They were not athletes, hooked, wealthy or poor and their parents went to state colleges. What appears to you to be a random selection of students IMHO is really just a normal reaction to a disappointment after seeing the years of hard work that your daughter had the fortitude to accomplish. My kids also worked hard but they were prepared to go to their safety schools had they not been admitted to their schools. </p>
<p>I also might add that for those who say it is a crap shoot…you need to keep in mind that you really do not know what other kids have accomplished. There was not a single person in my town that knew that 3 of my 4 kids entered their colleges having earned over 70 college credits from CC long before they even graduated HS. Each of my kids were recognized for their work in the community and they each had awards issued by the President for this work. As I said before no one in our community ever knew this. Not one of my kids is what I would consider to be brilliant, but they did have something special. I am not bragging but I am trying to shed some light on the fact that you just don’t know why some get in and others don’t. I can tell you that looking back I never thought my kids would have made it into any of these schools and in fact it was their idea to apply. I am very proud of all of my kids even my daughter who is now attending CC. She has realized the path is different for everyone and she has found her path and most importantly, her smile again. </p>
<p>I hope you will rethink your position if not for yourself but for your daughter. It will serve no benefit if she believes you are disappointed or that she has been unfairly treated. Instead continue to empower her with the belief that she will succeed at any school she will attend.</p>
This statement is so quintessentially CC. The OP did not “get handed a better hand.” He pulled it. Go back and read his initial post. No money in his family; he attended a community college, transferred to a state university, and built his dental practice from nothing. And now he’s paying taxes and full tuition to support financial aid programs his own students don’t qualify for because he’s been successful. A little perspective here? He’s not “lucky” to have what he has, and he hasn’t gained some “unfair advantage” from the twisted hand of Fate. He worked for it, as most of us work for whatever we have. If his kids gain from the fruits of his labor… well duh, isn’t that why we all work so hard as parents, to try to give our kids a better start?</p>
<p>OK, back to the topic at hand… I’m off to make some popcorn. :)</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>Well put. If my daughter had gotten into MIT off the bat I would have assumed that she was in some way superior to the other applicants and would have not looked further. I would have been wrong. She would have been “good enough” as were the other 30k kids and got lucky that someone liked something-who knows what-about her app. I know that now and that’s cool-I just think I would have been a bit deluded in the first instance and after looking harder have come to see the reality a little more clearly. It’s a nice story to tell, but thinking about it-how hard can they look at 30k apps a year-really?
If you think that they have the ability to do this and select the right 2k students to have an ideal student environment(it’s about students-not the school’s needs-right?) by balancing interests then why can’t they manage their portfolio? ;p</p>
<p>They didn’t manage their portfolio. They hired professionals to manage their portfolio, and their portfolio got just as hurt as anyone else’s. Most portfolio have rebounded since the crash. But this has nothing to do with what we are discussion here. Or are you just mad at those schools in general?</p>
<p>re post #27: okay, I’ll amend my post. The OP’s DAUGHTER–the one who applied to H and MIT–got dealt a much better hand in life than a lot of kids who did get in.</p>
<p>Geekmom, bravo for a great post, this one won’t even come near to matching it.</p>
<p>However, having read this board on and off for a few years, I find this thread very amusing and fairly typical.</p>
<p>New poster comes on and questions the value and admissions policy of elite schools and the forum stalwarts accuse him as having a “sour grapes” attitude and being a bad parent for not researching college admissions and prepping his kid sufficiently to get accepted by top privates. Only here is it a sin to only be a valedictorian. </p>
<p>I’ll respond to my fellow dentist:</p>
<p>Unimpresseddad, admission to the elite schools is probably rigged for about 30-50% or more of the accepted students; those include legacies, athletes, “fac brats”, benefactors’ kids, high achieving URMs and upper crust children of parents who have been prepping their kids for admission since pre-school. For the rest of the great students who want to get into top privates, it’s a matter of knowing how to work the system. As you have learned in this thread, there is an art and science in how to “package” your kid to appeal to what the admissions department is looking for. That’s pretty much what this entire discussion group is devoted to, and why you’ve gotten the responses you did. It’s kind of like going to the LVI forum and questioning why instrumentation is needed to perfect occlusion, when you’ve been using bilateral manipulation to equilibrate to CR and gotten great results for years (inside dental reference).</p>
<p>Whether or not the elite privates are worth $250K/student has been debated endlessly here, so I won’t get into that too much. The only thing I will say is that it’s a personal decision whether or not to spend it, the same way you would spend on any other luxury…and private college is a luxury. I have little respect for those who judge others on how they spend their money. I’ve seen both extremes on this forum: those who feel you’re not a good parent if you don’t destitute yourself to send your kids to a “brand name” or “perfect fit” school and others who think anyone paying full tuition for a private are suckers. After a while, the personalities and responses here are pretty predictable. IMO, they are merely second guessing and justifying their own choices. In the end, the cream will rise to the top and there is no end of opportunities for a top or honors student at any public college.</p>
<p>So you pays your money and you takes your chances. We all want our kids to be happy and successful and there are many paths that will take them there. People here are just a little more “silly”, “crazy” or obsessive about college admissions, some remaining long after their kids have already been through the process. </p>
Three weeks ago is long after the OP’s D sent in her applications. A bit late to become informed about the college admission process. For someone on a school board, it is astonishing.
The OP’s D decided to apply to a good state school and two uber-reaches, one which has an admission rate of 6.9% and the other 9.7%. And gets rejected at the 6.9% school and waitlisted at the 9.7% one.
I can quite understand the strategy of applying to a good state school that one loves and applying to a couple of the reachiest schools. It makes sense to me. But let’s do some math. Harvard received 30,000 applications and made offers of admission to 2,000 for an entering class of about 1,600. Whether the admitted students are absolutely stellar or only marginally qualified academically, chances are that a val with high SATs but not someone who clearly stood out among the 30,000 applicants would still be among the 28,000 who were not offered admission. The odds at MIT are somewhat better: MIT admitted about 1,600 out of over 16,000 applicants. Which still means that 14,400 either did not get in or got put on the Wait List (as did the OP’s D).
Do these stats justify the OP’s conclusion that “the game is rigged. It’s rigged because we have no lacrosse, sabre, swim, hockey,rowing etc, etc teams. Private k-12 schools costing 25-40k/year do”?</p>
<p>Interestingly, the one story from that book that stays in my mind is the one about the American Indian who was ill-prepared for college but whose cause was championed by a Hispanic member of the admission committee who saw something of his younger self in the applicant. What the story suggested was that the system is indeed rigged, but in favor of low-income, first generation students: the ones who don’t have lacrosse, rowing, water polo, etc… at their public schools where the per pupil expenditure over four years probably does not match the $25-40k the OP considers such an important reason for some students to be admitted into top schools.</p>
<p>That’s funny, the one that stuck in my head is where the upper middle class kid from Harvard Westlake sent a postcard every day to the admissions office and finally wore them out enough to accept him.</p>
<p>So it’s not rigged for those parents who start with elite pre-schools, summer programs, sports lessons, carefully planned to be impressive community service projects and hire high priced college consultants to package and edit their child’s applications?</p>
<p>What is the ratio of prep school to inner city school students at HYP?</p>
<p>I didn’t take the OP’s thread starter as anything other than a reflection of how things have changed in a generation and a question that perhaps we all put too much emphasis on the branding of universities.</p>
<p>Just to set the record straight, since we’re trying to stay as “fact based” as possible…His daughter also applied to and was accepted by McGill with a nice scholarship. Just because we are trying not to get into personal attacks or exaggerations. ;)</p>
<p>So, the OP is Canadian, and at McGill all qualifications are objective. Very strong contrast to the US system…scores, grades…make it or don’t. I believe they have moved to this system at Oxford as well, though I could be mistaken.</p>
<p>Agree with drdom and audiophile – that’s how I read the post too. He’s happy; his kids are happy; he thinks the process is out of control, and he’s certainly not alone here in that regard; he thinks the process favors some and not others, and he’s certainly not alone here in that regard either.</p>
<p>Don’t see what the big deal is, really, if everybody’s happy. But I still have plenty of popcorn ready for the next several pages. ;)</p>
<p>I continue to learn something new everyday on CC. I and spouse have been faculty members at numerous colleges in two countries (from Ivy to State) for almost 20 years. Vast majority of our friends and of course colleagues throughout the US are faculty members. Almost all have children. I can count in the many hundreds as I also head our professional faculty association. And I’ve never, ever heard the term “fac brat” in my life. Who knew? </p>
<p>Every faculty member I know has giant advantages for their kids in various ways- from free tuition at their college, to a host of great opportunities for their kids (obviously you can imagine). But I’ve never once heard of someone whose kid got into their school because their parents worked there. I’ve seen spouses get advantages in hiring, but not admissions for kids. Not disputing it, just never heard of it until this thread. Then again maybe most kids don’t even apply to their parents school (ours certain would not).</p>