"Again, looking at the results does not explain the attributes these colleges want to see you show. The fact some kids go off to IB does NOT mean the colleges are looking for kids who want wealthy careers. Bet you didn’t know that, in an app, over-emphasis on career goals can be an issue for one of these eholistic colleges that focuses on the four years.
How do you even assume folks in an intense post-grad career can’t have been relatively normal college kids?
What profs said that?"
A lot of profs say it, though of course most are anonymous, Deresiewicz the Yale Prof of English who wrote Excellent Sheep has been the most vocal:
“The particular mix at places like Yale represents a form of geostrategic calculus. Kids from Western Europe are out, those from BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) are in, the better to line up the major gifts a generation hence. As for the smattering of artists and do-gooders, they’re there to balance the moral books, not because of any strong commitment to beauty or justice”
“The college itself turned out to have a lot of moral hypocrisy, congratulating itself on its diversity while in reality going about the business of preparing elite kids to enter elite professions and make a great deal of money, thus increasing the pool of prosperous alumni donors.”
“Getting into an elite college is harder than ever. But once you’re in, the way things work today, all you need to do, to a significant extent, is just show up.”
“I also think many on this thread don’t even have kids getting ready to apply”
I have one son who just went through the process and one who is just entering HS. The older son was very independent and my involvement was almost strictly limited to enrolling him in a good HS, taking him to a few college visits and ensuring he was fed. The younger son is a different dude and on his own path, but I suspect I will be more involved with his college selection and application process.
Frankly, the more I understand of how the sausage is made, the more horrified I am. It is difficult for me to reconcile how I can in good conscience help my child to compete in a process that is already so heavily stacked in his favor.
I’m fine with the idea of my sons competing in the admissions game, but the more I understand about how unfair the game is I hate the idea that they are competing with advantages other equally great kids don’t have. It feels icky.
Milee- then take your energies and focus on getting kids from sub-par HS’s into your local branch of the state U instead of paying for a for-profit, predatory college which will give the kid a nearly worthless “certificate” in something after putting the kids into debt.
I’m not sure what is icky about helping your kid get a college education. There are more than enough seats to go around… and the folks who lose are really the kids who assume that a college degree in “paralegal studies” (you do not need a degree in paralegal studies to become a paralegal) or a degree in “medical records management” (ditto) is going to earn them enough to pay off their loans, allow them to eat, and have bus fare to get to work every morning.
Deresiewicz is roundly derided by many. I wish, when people lean on him, they’d also look for how he’s received by qualified others. Same with Hernandez. Take that extra step.
Milee, sorry, but I think you bring sme preconceived notions to this and, again, based on what some see that’s really not explanative. Eg, how many rich kids end up in a class. Or declaring, “They cannot be adjusting their expectations and reading of apps for low income students in a meaningful way because they simply don’t have the data to do that.” Do you know enough about how they review or you think the details of the enrolling class tell that?
Not jumping on you, but the common notions on CC. And some stereotyping.
I say the fact is, even top perfomers have trouble presenting what some college wants to see. The solution isn’t to just look at, say, the number of wealthy freshmen. In fact, many of the lower SES kids are leaving those wealthy in the dust. No, not because their scores are 750+ or they have a national championship, but based on the work they have done, the choices made, and the thinking that shows. They “lean in,” not “lean back.”
When top colleges talk of reviewing in context, they do not mean he’s poor, he didn’t do anything, he didn’t take classes related to his major, got low grades, can’t write well…but he’s poor.
Nobody suggested kids at any SES can prove they’re qualified with low grades or classes unrelated to the major or that being poor would substitute for performance.
The question asked in the OP was about how to show not tell. It’s important to consider that kids at different SES have vastly different opportunities to show and the ways they show will differ.
The numbers demonstrate that top selectives are not enrolling low SES kids in remotely the same proportion as high SES kids. We can either assume the current system works well and place the onus on the low SES kids to show themselves in a better light or we can examine how and why the current system isn’t capturing those low SES superstars.
I think it’s a bit of both. We could help the low SES superstars to better show themselves on their apps through better GC or external mentorships and counseling. We should also examine how the admission process can improve so we can give feedback as appropriate to the colleges. And beyond that, it doesn’t hurt for all of us to examine what role we play in the process - if we feel there are inequalities, do we exploit them, attempt to remedy them or shrug and say it’s all working fine?
A dirt poor kid can still show the quality of her thinking, the doggedness with which she pursues goals and interests, the quality of her choices and the relevance. This is not about how she can’t study French in France or be on an expensive travelling sports team (neither of which boost a richer kid.) Poorer kids DO work on a school newspaper, student govt, voluteer in their communities, get involved in advocacy, volunteer, have some impact. They are not presenting null applications.
There are not the volume of apps from kids at the lower SES. Why should an activated, bright, influential kid from some area WANT to go to Harvard over another college? (Let’s not get into the H mystique about superiority and networking. For many kids, the right flagship is doing the same thing for them and keeping them in the environment in which they are active. Many will grow as a larger fish than as a small one.)
The core issue for low SES kids is NOT how to present themselves favorably to Harvard. The core issue is how to emerge from HS having taken trig, read Jane Austen, knowing why cops on TV always say “anything you say can and will be used against you”. The appalling state of education is failing HS’s is what is failing kids from lower SES communities- NOT the allegedly discriminatory and misleading admissions practices of the Ivy League.
I am ready to bet dinner and a movie that if a kid with anything REMOTELY resembling a plausible application to one of the “hard to get into colleges” comes out of a public HS in Camden, Trenton, or Patterson New Jersey, the Adcom’s will be thrilled to chuck the upper middle class child of privilege from Short Hills.
They aren’t attending these colleges in meaningful numbers because they aren’t applying in meaningful numbers because they aren’t qualified to attend (in meaningful numbers. There is a superstar or two every year which makes for wonderful press- kid in a homeless shelter and all that). Work on that.
The issues around “is Harvard smart enough to understand that the kid from Bridgeport CT didn’t take Calculus because his HS doesn’t offer calculus” is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. And yes, Harvard knows that. You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes.
I bet they get it right 90% of the time. I know that Harvard reps come to our school. They meet with the guidance counselors. A few years ago they (and a few other schools) made a big push to get more disadvantaged kids to apply and they went to many schools they had not visited regularly. I’m sure the message gets out that it would be a good idea of the GC to signal who is needy. (Free and reduced lunch recipients is one marker.) Regional officers know their regions.
I bet in Camden there are bright kids reading Jane Austin, in class.
The fact we have failing “high schools” doesn’t mean the bright kids are totally failed, that there aren’t opps and some fine teachers and mentors. It’s two separate issues.
When we see a kid totally unprepared, there is no wisdom in throwing him or her into the class for some better % of low income, to be suffocated, struggle, completely off the rails. None. I said they have fine academic support, but first the colleges need to see both evidence of potential and some record, as well as the personal that comes through.
People tend to think of the most competitive" colleges in terms of admissions chances. The colleges are well aware the competition that can crush a kid is in the actual classes.
"When we see a kid totally unprepared, there is no wisdom in throwing him or her into the class for some better % of low income, to be suffocated, struggle, completely off the rails. "
I think that’s true but when I say it about the football players with a 4 rating in academics who are admitted all sorts of people come out of the woodwork to explain how this is fine and reasonable.
Yes, friend, but I’m one with the misgivings, in the minority. And we spent a lot of time arguing recruiting. If they take the 4, it’s plain wrong, to me. It doesn’t tell anything about the non-recruiting process.
CC gets a lot of kids who ask if programming apps is a tip- and hey, I make money. Or if having a ton of you tube followers makes one stand out. Well, no, lots of kids do that. How are they supposed to know that? In her own hs, maybe no one else does. Can you expect a bright kid applying to a tippy top to know more?
I wonder how receptive various college admissions offices are to various input. It’s understandably a complex process with many stakeholders and agendas, so of course it wouldn’t be a simple process to make changes. But… when people inside the system speak up and point out issues, does that have any impact?
If an AO returns from a tour of unfamiliar HS and mentions that she doesn’t think the current process attracts low SES superstars due to X, Y and Z, does that have a chance to get tossed into the hopper for future policy? If people who work in the admissions office mention their concerns that athletes who don’t have a chance of swimming in the academic pool are being admitted, does anyone listen?
As with everything else, no way to know and probably no consensus as the processes are too varied.
“We should also examine how the admission process can improve so we can give feedback as appropriate to the colleges. And beyond that, it doesn’t hurt for all of us to examine what role we play in the process - if we feel there are inequalities, do we exploit them, attempt to remedy them or shrug and say it’s all working fine?”
From the selective college’s perspective, admissions is working great, applications are up, yield is up, there are enough full-pay students so they can offer FA to the others without needing to use the endowment, and by and large are in budget. The only way colleges will listen is if apps or yield go down, or they don’t get the income make up they want.
“From the selective college’s perspective, admissions is working great, applications are up, yield is up, there are enough full-pay students so they can offer FA to the others without needing to use the endowment, and by and large are in budget. The only way colleges will listen is if apps or yield go down, or they don’t get the income make up they want.”
Then it falls on those people living inside and benefiting from The Bubble to speak up and attempt to make changes from within.
Don’t mistake this as SJW BS - I’m perfectly happy for my kid to claw his way to the top and kick the ass of any other kid playing the admissions game, but let’s at least make sure it’s a fair fight. This is not a fair fight.
Ruth Simmons (former president of Brown) kicked off a complex initiative to attract first gen/disadvantaged bright students even as applications were rising and yield was increasing. It was a multi pronged effort- admissions, financial aid, academic support once the kids enrolled, career counseling and improved access to paid fellowships and paid internships for kids who couldn’t afford NOT to work during the summer, better communications about Marshall and Fulbright and other programs these kids wouldn’t have heard about, etc.
Admissions is just the most obvious piece. Getting kids to campus is a waste of time if you can’t get them out in four years and launched-- just like their affluent peers.
But that is exactly the sort of application that would alert the admissions staff to the fact that they were viewing an app from a low-opportunity applicant. They certainly do place value on a history of paid employment and understand what it signals about an applicant.
The top private colleges are, for the most part, enrolling precisely the number of low SES that they want to have. They still want to build their class from a large core of full payers, and when COA is $75K a year, that’s going to skew upward. And I don’t see how you ever get around that. They are private colleges. They have budgets drawn around the idea that they are going to take in $X every year. I realize we can all argue that philosophically the richest colleges should tap into their endowments, that Harvard is rich enough that it could cease charging tuition entirely – but that’s not going to happen.
I think that initiatives to draw in more low SES applicants aren’t going to change the balance of enrolling students – but that it gives the colleges a broader base of low SES applicants to choose from. So more low SES applicants to Harvard, in the end, would probably just mean that the process of getting in as a low SES applicant would become more competitive. Because I honestly don’t believe that Harvard wants to change the current overall dynamic of its school. I do believe that Chicago is sincere in wanting to boost low SES enrollment – hence the decision to go test-optional - but Chicago has been provided with specific funding to attain a goal that it has fallen short of.
And I do think that that there are other, valid, reasons why many low SES applicants don’t feel eager to leave their local communities or home states to attend college. They may feel bound by much greater levels of family obligation & responsibility, and know that they would not be able to finance multiple trips home throughout the year. Access to higher quality public education may be a lot more meaningful and helpful on a broad scale. Yes, it’s wonderful when some poor kid gets the opportunity to attend Harvard… but if I was a billionaire with money to burn, I think I might be more inclined to want to fund a larger number of students to attend in-state publics – and to fund services for the benefit of those students.
“But that is exactly the sort of application that would alert the admissions staff to the fact that they were viewing an app from a low-opportunity applicant. They certainly do place value on a history of paid employment and understand what it signals about an applicant.”
What exactly does paid work signal? If they use a paid job to identify low SES students, then the process is even worse than I thought. As a family, we value paid work for the lessons it teaches. Our son has had a paid job working 10-20 weeks during the school year and roughly full time during summers since he was 15. The idea that this might indicate to AOs that he was a low SES applicant is slightly nauseating.
I can’t be the only person who sees how flawed this system is.
Milee, you are surely not suggesting that an adcom is too dumb to recognize that a kid whose mailing address is a housing project on the South side of Chicago, no dad, mom drives a school bus, attends a magnet HS, and works at DQ after school might have had a meaningfully different upbringing from a kid in Winnetka who works at the local DQ after school, attends the local public HS, mom is a surgeon and dad works in “finance” ?
None of these things operate in isolation. But working at DQ might- in fact- be the only common denominator of these two students despite living in (or near) the same city.
“I can’t be the only person who sees how flawed this system is.” Again, you’re basing that on what a few posters say and some other things. Don’t be “nauseated” so easily.
What do you actually know about admissions? Not speculating, guessing, or letting outrage get in the way?