WHIP: Wealth Has Its Privileges

Parents Forum
41

<p>As the daughter of a professor at Stanford, and a daughter who was frequently awake and sneaking around late, I would bet a huge sum of money that no professor ever graded as per $$$ of student. Professors, as marite points out, are kind of ornery and hard to corral. Plus most of them are anti-wealth except the tech guys.</p>

42

<p>About Ms. Bass's academics: I'm with Marite. It would be hard to imagine that professors treated her differently because of the money. Speaking from a bit (just a bit! my family is not like hers!) of experience, I can say that there is a strong desire to 1. keep a low profile and 2. to prove that you are academically capable. I am certain that I would have gotten in anyway, but there is still a stigma - wondering if people think that you only got in because of your family. </p>

<p>I really hope this doesn't turn into one of the usual CC discussions about affirmative action, but we can probably all agree that, valid or not, many minority students feel as if others might not think that they earned their admission. Ms. Bass probably had somewhat similar feelings - I know that I did (even though my SATs were 300 points higher and I didn't go to HYPSM!). </p>

<p>She got honours - and, just speaking from experience, a desire to not let your family down and to show that you can hold your own are pretty powerful motivators.</p>

43

<p>NSM - I quite agree with you. What a shame that public schools (at least the ones I'm familiar with) are not, for various reasons, providing educations like Groton's. There's no way to 'level the playing field' if some kids are educated on campuses with genuine playing fields while others are taking bio lab in a supply closet. And that's just the tip of that iceberg. The biggest difference between the two extremes seems to be in verbal and written expression - what's expected in classroom discussion, speaking and interacting with adults, richness of the vocabulary used by teachers (and students), lengthier written assignments that are commented upon in depth by teachers and the like. Those are skills that translate to adult success in the workplace and that are hard for children in strained circumstances to learn. </p>

<p>Just my opinion. What to do about it? I don't know.</p>

44

<p>An interesting discussion. I certainly agree with the idea that college professors are way less impressed by the various hooks than admissions departments are.</p>

<p>Not a level playing field, indeed. Never was. I think it's safe to say, for the most selective schools, that when you factor in the various, perfectly justifiable hooks, and add in the advantages of applying early, the odds for a straight rd academic admit are about half the published number: if the college admits 14%, your chances are 7%!</p>

45

<p>Lefthand, I agree - how can one compare a teenager who has grown up going to the best private schools, having scholastic discussions with their college grad parents and widening their cultural knowledge through travel with a student who goes to a run down school with bare resources, who has parents who havent graduated from highschool let alone college, and has never even left his/her hometown? Obviously adcoms take this into account, but it all trickles down into other aspects of the process such as properly presenting oneself in an interview, communicating clearly in an essay, and even knowing the ins and outs of the process such as applying early pros and cons. It becomes a entrenched part of who one is. </p>

<p>(hope you guys dont mind a kid butting in :))</p>

46

<br>


<br>

<p>Actually, when I heard that Ms. Bass graduated with honors, I thought of that adcom refrain that they could fill a whole other class with people they rejected and not lose much in the way of quality.</p>

<p>The article re Ms. Bass mentioned that she is a fabulous writer--I imagine that Groton honed what natural skill she had and I will bet that her essays sang.</p>

47

<p>ellemenope,</p>

<p>How exactly do you know Henry Pak was an "Asian kid with no personality or ECs"??? Or am I supposed not to take what you wrote too literally?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Their research for an article titled "Mapping the Hypercube" was subsequently published in a math journal for high-school teachers and students. In addition, both students were on the Groton cross-country team.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They seem to be pretty good ECs to me. </p>

<p>By the way, just because Ms. Bass did well at Stanford doesn't mean her legacy wasn't the hook that got her in. Stanford rejects many with great essays and with test scores far above hers.</p>

48

<p>Don't take me literally and perhaps I was a little harsh on Henry Park. Mr. Park described himself in the article as someone who made few close friends among the faculty and students. His main interests were martial arts and Korean music, interests which no one at Groton shared. Sounds like he didn't spend much time with people while at high school, poor guy.</p>

<p>The math article was a good EC and I hope that he was able to make much of that in his application. He would have been well-served to try to pursue more in the academic EC area--Math Olympiad, Science Olympiad, perhaps. </p>

<p>Merely being on a sports team doesn't get you any EC hook points without being talented or being in a leadership position.</p>

<p>His GCs described him as someone who wouldn't stand out from a crowd, gave him low chances of getting into HYP and discouraged his application to those schools. He admits that he didn't get to know any of the faculty, the people who would need to write recommendations for him. An unhooked kid without the support of the GCs and a faculty mentor has a hard row to hoe to get into HYP.</p>

49

<br>


<br>

<p>I am sure that Ms. Bass's legacy connections were the hook that got her into Stanford. My point was that just because any applicant was rejected from Stanford doesn't mean that, if given a chance, he or she couldn't have done quite well there. Ms. Bass is just one data point that supports that.</p>

50

<p>What is actually the saddest thing about Mr. Park is that he went on to Johns Hopkins and probably is an MD now--but he (and his parents) think that he "failed."</p>

51

<p>
[quote]
I just think it's interesting that people who complain about URMs getting admitted with below average scores aren't howling about rich white students who also are getting admitted.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think there is a perceived difference between WHIP admissions and URM admissions, although the results might be the same. Colleges benefit financially from admitting a marginally qualified student if their wealthy family makes contributions. It's possibly more understandable, because money talks in the real world. In fact, we all make decisions every day based on the effect on our wallets.</p>

<p>Once admitted, I would like to think that grades were distributed fairly. (Am I naive?) I believe Ariesathena is correct that those who benefited from WHIP admissions would be eager to prove themselves worthy.</p>

52

<p>Let's be very honest here. A Harvard College has about 1700 first year slots to fill every year. After admitting children of the rich, children of the famous, students from high profile private/public high schools, recruited athletes, URM's, and foreign students, there are not many slots left for other exceptional students. I suspect that the 9% acceptance rate suddenly is reduced to less than 6%. Long shot chances indeed.</p>