What does "show not tell" mean?

Parents Forum
181

"An acquaintance of mine bemoaned the fact that her son (double legacy to one of the HYP’s; AND generous and well-to-do but not endowing a lab anytime soon- so your average upper middle class kid, not uber wealthy) was rejected from this double legacy school. "

Not all wealthy people are smart or industrious. Up to now, unless the family amassed Rockefeller type wealth, the second, third or fourth generation of lazy dummies burned through the wealth the prior generation generated. It was part of how America prospered and it was part of what gave poor but smart and hardworking people a chance to ascend; they ascended as the wealthy dummies descended. There’s nothing wrong with wealthy people not being smart or industrious enough to capitalize on their advantages and being forced to compete with the unwashed masses.

182

I am sure that many examples of what not to do could be adduced, but that very few applicants are actually doing those things. As for whether the recommender who wrote that Little Johnny slept through her history classes was well meaning, I am inclined to doubt that a bit. Perhaps the recommender was disgruntled about the sleeping. Perhaps the recommender knew that Little Johnny was a double legacy and may have experienced a bit of class-envy.

The teacher did not know that writing that Little Johnny slept through the class was the kiss of death. Really?

183

I truly hate examples like this. It is cruel and unfair for a teacher to agree to write a recommendation and then sabotage that student. It almost seems like the teachers in cases like this are using their power for some kind of petty revenge.

Back to the essay and “show not tell,” There are plenty of “winning” essays on line. It would be interesting for those in the know to link to those essays that they thought worked. What does show, not tell really look like. No, I’m not looking for a magic formula to copy. I just think it would bring the conversation away from generalities.

By the way, I personally hated the costco essay AND it was 4 words too long.

184

Whether the teacher knew it or not is irrelevant. The reality is that a kid who sleeps through HS AND does well can get a fine college education at many places, but if it’s called out specifically in a recommendation it is a kiss of death at about 20 colleges. But that’s it. It leaves several hundred who wouldn’t care at all, and would love to have a full pay high stats kid (male!) show up in September.

Not all rich kids are industrious- for sure. And not all rich kids are smart- for sure.

But I always chuckle a bit at the idea that HYP or SCD are the holy grail for the upper class. Once I got into corporate America I quickly learned that the truly rich want their progeny at entirely different set of schools. Colleges which have differential pricing on dorms (Yale is notorious for its “sophomore slums”, and other than commuting from your parents home in New Haven, there is no workaround; but many colleges allow you to buy your way out of institutional living); colleges with the “right” sororities and frats; colleges where most everyone has cars; colleges where your kid can be a solid B student in Finance or International Business (these are not majors at Harvard) and go on to a fabulous career being the third or second or fourth generation of whatnot in the family business.

What really rich person wants their kid working as hard as you need to work to keep up at Chicago or Cornell? What really rich person wants their kid required to write a senior thesis at Princeton?

185

“What really rich person wants their kid working as hard as you need to work to keep up at Chicago”

I guess it’s because I’m only a little rich and not really rich, but I love the idea of my kid working hard at Chicago and think that slummy dorms are not a big deal. :stuck_out_tongue: But I’m also not into flashy/showy stuff and would have been very disappointed (would not have told son though) if he’d wanted to go to certain colleges.

People - of all SES - are weird.

186

A lot of wealthy admits are showing via enrolling that… it’s not the college showing it’s a criterion.

You mention marketing brochures and matriculation stats. I just hope kids look further.

Do you not see H describing in that WWLF? Have you looked for what Fitzsimmons says in other places? And other resources?

But beyond this, the sorts of kids who can show what a tippy top college wants aren’t doing it at the last minute, scrambling in their apps. They’ve been doing it all along. It’s more than stats and titles. Reducing this to anger or annoyance misses that the sorts of kids they want…don’t…need…a…template from the college.

Meanwhile, CC insists it’s about doing what you want, not what the college wants (counterintuitive, anyone?) Not expanding, that the colleges (that want depth and breadth) will decide you’re padding. Say what? It tells kids they’re fine with some unilateral or incomplete or less relevant list of ECs, just to do a great job on the essay. CC says, found a club! Win national awards! Or any awards (did you mean 9th grade attendance?) They say things like, “Show your passion!” without clarifying that’s not any old thing. It goes on.

Does someone need to tell a kid not to tell an interviewer his top choices are Harvard and Northwestern, when this isn’t for those colleges? (No kidding, this may not be common, but I’ve come upon it enough times.) Or that Columbia isn’t bucolic, Dart isn’t in an urban setting.

Don’t get me wrong, I do love this age group.

187

The lawsuit has plenty of analyses and numbers. For example, page 3 of the Powerpoint at http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Doc-421-112-May-1-2013-Memorandum.pdf compares the admit rate by income level. Without a boost for low SES, the admit rate for applicants with $0-40k income was predicted to be 6%. After the low SES boost, the actually admit rate for $0-40k increased to 11%, which is slightly lower than the 13% admit rare for $200k+ incomes. Page 2 compares the admit rate by SAT score for applicants with income below the US median of ~$60k to applicants with incomes above the US median. For all SAT score ranges, the lower income applicants, had a higher admit rate than the $60k+ group.

However, while there is a low SES boost in admission chances, it seems to be dwarfed by other hooks, for which high SES kids are over-represented. For example, page 4 shows that that admit rate for low SES kids with 1-2 academic rating was ~24%. 24% is higher than the 16% admit rate that occurs for the full class with this academic rating, but nothing like the 55% admit rate for legacies. Consistent with this, the Harvard OIR simple model estimated the following regression coefficients.

Recruited Athlete: +6.33
Legacy: +2.40
Below $60k Income: +0.98

The more complex lawsuit models found a similar relationship. For example, the plantiff’s model (full sample, full controls) found the following coefficients. In short, while there does appear to be a boost for low income, it’s a weaker boost than occurs for various hooks associated with higher income such as legacy, Dean/Director’s list, Z-list, and applying early.

Dean/Director’s Special Interest List: 3.246 ((0.417)
Legacy: +2.329 ((0.164)
Early Decision: +1.531 (0.096)
Disadvantaged (includes <$80k income): +1.527 ((0.139)
First Generation: -0.001

While the hooks aren’t helping improve the SES imbalance, that is not the only reason why the imbalance exists. One reason why Harvard gives a low SES boost, yet still has few admits with low SES is their applicant pools is mostly high SES kids, particularly the most qualified applicants. Compared to the overall population, affluent kids are more likely to apply to private colleges that are full of affluent kids, just like they are more likely to apply to private high schools that are full of affluent kids. Less affluent kids are more likely to apply to local publics that have a larger portion of less affluent kids, just as they are more likely to attend the local, public high schools The study at http://www.nber.org/papers/w18586 concluded:

188

Since most of the top selectives have a high yield rate, the admissions aren’t materially different than the students that matriculate. Unless you’re implying that the only students who are admitted and choose not to attend are the low SES ones, then the admitted pool will look substantially similar to the student pool.

I agree that the type of kids who can show on their app what the top college wants aren’t doing it all at the last minute and that’s my point. The reason so many wealthy kids are attending elite schools is partly because those schools give a huge legacy advantage and also create systems that benefit nonlegacy wealthy people who understand how this works and can either guide their kids or pay others to guide their kids along the way. Then the advantages multiply as those kids have the opportunities and ability to pursue some of the activities that will be impressive for colleges.

Again, let’s get back to show not tell. Top colleges are clearly showing through their admissions what they want - and it’s wealthy, connected and athletes. That’s who they primarily admit. As you mentioned, Harvard receives around 40k apps a year and has one of the top name recognition factors of all the colleges; even kids in rural Appalachia have heard of Harvard, so it’s the most likely of almost any college to attract a broad range of applicants. If Harvard wanted students who were not connected, not wealthy and didn’t care if they were athletic it attracts enough apps and has a large enough endowment that it could make that happen. Harvard is showing us through its actions what it values and seeks - wealth, athletics, connections. Applicants would be silly to ignore what Harvard is showing them.

189

I lived in a part of Appalachia AND volunteered to interview for Brown and I can tell you that the single most desirable college in that part of the country was Notre Dame (although most kids in the area went to the state flagship if they were getting a four year degree, or a local CC for an AA). Penn State usually a close second- the smart kids who wanted to go “out of state” were usually gunning for Penn State.

Harvard might have been 10th (it surpassed a few of the Big Ten for prestige but not all, depending on how the schools did in football the previous year).

If my last reunion at Brown is typical, the consensus now that our kids are in or done with college was that legacy is NOT a huge advantage. It is a modest advantage for a “modest” legacy family (mom is a social worker, dad teaches HS history). It is no advantage for an upper middle class family in a zip code from suburban NYC, Chicago, LA, or Boston (Brown can admit a first gen kid from Boston Latin, doesn’t need the legacy kid from Dover or Sudbury).

It is a huge advantage if the family has something else going on-- US Senator, Oscar winner, Prime Minister of a foreign country, grandchild of a former president/Winston Churchill.

Legacy when JUST legacy (plain vanilla high stats kid from an over-represented area) seemed to get you nowhere. And since my classmates kids ended up at Penn, JHU, Dartmouth, Northwestern, it wasn’t that they didn’t have the “numbers” to get into Brown. They just didn’t get in period- despite good stats and allegedly “huge” legacy boost.

190

The notable family connection isn’t certain. A lot of those are pre-vetted through development or there’s some other contact. So what might seem a shoo in may have been prequalified.

191

Hmmmm, you say “prequalified,” I say “shoo-in,” seems like to-may-to, to-mah-to to me.

What I was really asking about was not the figures at the low end for % of applicants and % of admits, but the figures all across the applicant range, including the high end, say the top 1% and the top 0.1%. Are those data available? I doubt it.

192

Most wealthy, elite educated kids who apply to Ivies get rejected. Only a very small fraction get admitted.

So if at a given college 75% of the wealthy, elite kids who apply turn in apps that fail to move the dial in terms of providing the holistic info that the college wants to see… that would still leave a pool of 25% that would still be above the number the college has room for.

It is true that the colleges do want a core base of full cost payers – generally around 50% more or less – probably closer to 65% if you want to add in the numbers who will get very minimal financial aid overall. The reason for that is that COA is now running roughly $75K a year, which is well above median household income in this country. So who the heck can afford to pay that? But it is a combination of ED, restricted early admission programs, heavy emphasis on SAT scores, legacy preference, relationships cultivated with feeder schools, and a whole variety of other admission factors-- that bring in the desired base of full payers.

Actually, that thinking stems from a sense of entitlement that I think is probably more characteristic of the wealthy group.

One thing that kids who grow up on the lower economic spectrum learn early on is that that the answer to what they want is “no” more often than not. They tend not to build up too many false expectations, and they definitely are not getting false expectations reinforced at home. That doesn’t mean that they don’t feel disappointed when they get rejected; but they probably don’t feel surprised either.

Of course, the lower expectations of the lower economic group is also a reason why many don’t apply in the first place. Especially if they come to a site like this and venture onto the chances forum.

193

How would it be available if the college is need-blind in admissions?

They might be able to develop a rough proxy from zip code information, and they definitely can provide figures as to numbers of applicants from public vs. private high schools, but there is still a fairly broad range of incomes within various zip codes and in the broad category of public high schools. (And of course even some private high school students are there on scholarship).

Same for number of applicants who apply for financial aid, given that an application for aid doesn’t mean that the student needs much aid. I suppose that data could be compiled from the financial aid department based on aggregate FAFSA data received before admission decisions were in.

194

“How would it be available if the college is need-blind in admissions?”

Reasonable to wonder. If they are giving a boost to the lowest SES applicants - and the figures mentioned in Data10’s post indicate that they are - they obviously have to know who those kids are. If they were truly need blind they would have no idea who to give a boost to, how to read an app understanding how the applicant’s circumstances influenced and limited their options (as they claim to do). So admissions clearly does have information about who is low income.

195

Well, you’d have to know how they define low SES. I see a lot of data that is tied to Pell Grant eligibility, which could easily be drawn from FAFSA data. But that leaves out a huge number of students who come from working-class families or median-level earners. I mean. if a kid’s parents earn $60K a year – that kid isn’t poor, but that kid’s parents aren’t going to be able to afford private schools or private college tuition either. But that’s a pretty big demographic – and within the income level that Harvard claims it will fully fund. See https://www.statista.com/statistics/203183/percentage-distribution-of-household-income-in-the-us/

196

“How would it be available if the college is need-blind in admissions?”

It’s possible that there are other identifying factors in the applications? Questbridge? (Not applicable to Harvard but to other Ivies). Assumptions about first generation students or URM? ECs? The essays themselves? There are probably lots of clues in the application.

197

There are many clues in the application as to SES status, but the question was about reporting aggregate applicant data-- so you would need a quantitative measure, not the read-between-the-lines stuff that comes from essay topics or even from parental employment or educational level.

198

The data could have been gathered after the decisions were already made?

BTW, I’m just throwing it out there to play devil’s advocate. I don’t know that I believe schools are truly need blind. Maybe in the initial read but I would doubt further in the process.

199

I assume that once decisions are made, the financial aid department would cease work on the files of students who had not been admitted. There would be no reason to retain data submitted by rejected students, and significant privacy concerns tied to retention of such data in any form that could be tied to the individuals who had submitted the data.

200

They don’t necessarily even know who’s applying for aid. What appears on admit review docs is what the college downloads.

But parents jobs do appear.

It’s not zip code. Few areas of the country are exclusively one income class. Not all first gens are low SES. In fact, not all doctors or CEOs or legacies are wealthy, either. People also lose jobs or may be ill.

So someone tell us how they know. Lots of elite boarding schools offer good aid.