<p>I haven’t read the whole thread, but I think if you look at economic advantage or disadvantage you’re missing the boat. I paid for no test prep, no private schools, or college counselor. I did pay for one summer “enrichment” with Duke tip which I still regret as it wasn’t worth it and I can really use the money. </p>
<p>Despite our lack of monetary outlay for such “advantages” the kids got into and are thriving at great schools. But, they did have an advantage as we created an environment which invited intellectual engagement. You don’t need to be part of the college prep rat race. </p>
<p>LorenIpsum- There is way more to EC’s than national math and science competitions. I’m not sure why you think those are necessary.</p>
<p>Agreed. At my kid’s school, what separated the admits to the very most selective schools from everyone else was extracurriculars. There were kids with higher grades and test scores who did not do as well as those who had the strongest extracurriculars and somewhat lower academic accomplishments. And I’m not talking about recruited athletes here.</p>
<p>Older son sorta took the $300 test prep our high school offers through Kaplan. Youngest didn’t bother. We paid application fees for 8 colleges for the first and 7 for the second. For oldest there was one round trip flight - $300 for the two of us. (And it’s never been so cheap again!) There was also one round trip flight out to CA. No hotels, but we did rent cars. So that cost a bit. One night in a hotel for me $100. For youngest, one round trip flight (I think it was about $400 for two. My hotel room was $300 or so for two nights I think. The rest of the time we drove up and down the east coast and spent the night with relatives. I bought a few prep books, but mostly I used books from the library. No private counselors or private schools.</p>
<p>If I told you how few ECs my kids did most posters on CC would think they didn’t do nearly enough. But the few they did they did at a high level and/or were able to write engagingly about them. Older son earned several thousand dollars from his EC, younger son several hundred.</p>
<p>How can we know that the improved scores bchan is talking about wouldn’t have occurred anyway, without the high-dollar prep? No real way to know.</p>
<p>I think a big issue (and this is in part based off of my personal feelings during junior and senior years) is that many students and families don’t feel like they’re “doing enough” because of the hype over grades, scores, and ECs (especially the latter). This is often exasperated when you hear about other families who are paying big bucks for test prep classes or about students who have made significant accomplishments in every EC imaginable. Plenty of people will feel like they’re not “doing enough” and are doomed for failure, even if they are doing plenty. Based on the summary on the article it seems that it does mention this anxiety.</p>
<p>Although there have also been times where I didn’t feel any anxiety for not doing something upon hearing that my peers were doing it. Such was the case with PSAT prep classes.</p>
<p>Well, if there’s an arms race, we opted out. Our philosophy was to buy a home in an area with a solid public school system, and then encourage our kids to do their best. No prep classes, no tutoring, no summer classes, no college enrichment programs, no private schools, no consultants, no packaging, none of that. And as for ECs, find some things you like and pursue them. But get a job, and enjoy being a kid.</p>
<p>I know the arms race is all around us; lots of people are doing this crazy stuff in our district. If we thought that was best for our kids, we’d do the same. But you can’t purchase an authentic scholar; and why would anybody want to?</p>
<p>This is just urban legend. And false. There’s no empirical evidence for it, but it makes people in NJ, NY, and CT feel better to believe it, whether their kid gets into an Ivy (in which case it provides a convenient justification for all the money they spent on test prep and such) or doesn’t (in which case it provides a convenient excuse).</p>
<p>Consider some hard numbers. Most Ivies don’t give us a detailed breakdown on where their students come from. Princeton does. In the Class of 2014, exactly 1 Idaho resident matriculated at Princeton. New Jersey sent 178, New York 105, and Connecticut 50. </p>
<p>Of course, Princeton had far more applicants from NJ, NY, and CT, right? But how many more? Well, we don’t know exactly. But we do know that Princeton requires SAT Subject Tests from every applicant. Consequently, we also know that every completed application includes SAT score reports; thus the number of SAT score reports sent to Princeton from any given state represents an upper bound on the number of completed applications Princeton received from that state. Conveniently, the College Board also tells us, for each state, how many students in the 2010 applicant pool sent SAT score reports to the 50 most popular colleges for that state. </p>
<p>A total of 52 Idahoans sent SAT score reports to Princeton in 2010; but only 1 out of those 52, or 1.9%, actually matriculated at Princeton. </p>
<p>A total of 3,245 New Jerseyans sent SAT score reports to Princeton in 2010; of those, 178, or 5.5%, matriculated at Princeton—nearly triple the Idaho rate.</p>
<p>We don’t have comparable data for New York because Princeton doesn’t rank among the 50 most popular colleges to which New Yorkers sent SAT scores in 2010. Cornell, Columbia, Brown, and Penn (in that order) are the only Ivies to make that cut. But the 50th most popular college, Penn, drew score reports from 3,358 New Yorkers; consequently, the number for Princeton must be smaller than that. The 105 New Yorkers who actually matriculated at Princeton therefore represent at least 3.1% of the NY SAT score-senders (<3,358)—not as high a rate as for New Jersey, possibly, but at a minimum 63% higher than for Idaho.</p>
<p>Similar story for Connecticut. Princeton wasn’t among the 50 most popular schools for Connecticut residents, while Yale, Brown, Cornell, Columbia, Harvard, and Dartmouth were. (Ivy preferences are surprisingly local/regional in character, even in the northeast). But the 50th most popular college drew SAT scores from only 750 Connecticut residents, so the number who sent SAT scores to Princeton had to be less than 750. The 50 Connecticut residents who matriculated at Princeton therefore represented at least 6.7% of the Connecticut SAT score-senders, or well over 3 times the rate for Idaho residents.</p>
<p>The numbers are similar for neighboring states: Wyoming, 1 matriculant out of 5 SAT score-senders; Utah 1 of 90 ; Nevada 3 of 114; Montana 4 of 37; North Dakota 0 of 15; South Dakota 1 of 22. Seven state region: 11 matriculants out of 335 SAT score-senders, or 3.3%.</p>
<p>Statistically, then, there’s absolutely no evidence that a higher percentage of Idaho applicants than New Jersey, New York, or Connecticut applicants matriculate at Princeton; indeed, the evidence suggests the opposite is true. New Jersey, New York and Connecticut residents might still content themselves with the thought that their applicants are, on average, better qualified than applicants from Idaho. But we don’t actually have any evidence of that, either, and logic suggests the opposite might equally well be true. After all, the small handful of Idahoans who ever apply to Princeton are likely to be among the highest-information, highest-achieving students in the state, who search out top schools outside their region and go out of their way to take SAT subject tests, a rather extraordinary thing to do in Idaho. The New Jersey applicants surely include many similar high-achieving types, but very likely also include some less stellar students who nonetheless dream of going to Princeton because it’s nearby and a familiar name with a reputation for excellence, and even if they realize their chances are slim may decide to apply anyway in the hope lightning strikes. In any event, it’s doubtful that superior qualifications completely explain the statistical disparity in favor of northeasterners. And at a minimum, the numbers surely do not support the widespread and widely repeated myth that Idahoans enjoy a systematic advantage in Ivy admissions.</p>
<p>I notice the WSJ is printing more and more articles calculated to generate controversy.
Perhaps the reason is that they lost $80 * million* the last fiscal year.
( While the NYT made money}</p>
<p>I remember reading a Princeton Review test prep book after I had taken the SAT.</p>
<p>Most of the test taking techniques were things that I had figured out on my own, like doing the easy problems first, plugging the answers into math problems that would be too time consuming to solve directly, etc…</p>
<p>It would seem that the greatest potential for improvement from taking an SAT test prep class would be for those who are not “test smart”. On the other hand, if what they teach is the same as the material found in the book, the book would be a lot less expensive – the SAT test taking tips are not particularly difficult, so a decent student should be able to learn them easily from reading the book without needing the assistance of a teacher.</p>
<p>Gosh, here it is again…read CC and you think how can it be, all of these students do little or no prep, and only on their own-got their 770-800 scores just by flipping through a used prep book bought on amazon for $5.00! However, your experience in your own High school is so different- So, I will state the truth, son prepped himself for SAT and then took the test. Son than had formalized prep and his score went up 205 points- best money ever spent, and he reported that he was much more efficient in all timed testing from that point on. Home run on the ACT after that. This is California BTW.</p>
<p>Olympiclady, not all students neede test prep to reach the goal that they needed. D did SAT with no prep, did okay, then took ACT with one week prep and did good enough to get into her #1(top) school. Whether a kid needs prep or not is an individual thing. I’m glad that the prep course for your son was usefull, but that is not necessary for all. I would have never paid for test prep in high school, but now for the MCAT, $2000 is a small price to pay to give her the best chances at the test,primarily for her to learn the test stratagies.</p>
<p>Olympiclady, sorry if you don’t believe me, but both my kid’s score went up 200+ points without formal prep. Neither had an organized study time or took any practice tests. For some reason, just taking it again helped. D’s score was 30 points shy of perfect. I doubt an SAT prep could improve it.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s a public school thing, but it seems to me that most of the students who re-take the SAT to get the 750 to 800 scores are attempting to qualify for merit-based scholarships or honors programs that have minimum score cut-offs, rather than to get into the “top” schools. </p>
<p>It would really seem to pay for a bright student lacking in a bit of test-taking strategy to pay some big bucks for even a modest gain in scores if this is their goal.</p>
<p>I thought this article was amusing as I also have boy/girl twins who have just gone through the process. H started reading the article and thought, “What, did my wife free-lance for the WSJ?” Ha ha.</p>
<p>Her “conclusion” that the process gives an unfair advantage to those kids whose parents can pay for those extras – well, no freaking duh, life gives an unfair advantage to those kids whose parents can send them to safe suburban schools versus dilapidated urban or rural ones, whose parents can arrange transport to extracurriculars versus requiring the kid to come home and sit for younger siblings or work to help pay off the rent. This seems like a stunningly obvious conclusion on her part.</p>
<p>I’d also say this seems to be an East Coast, upper middle class phenomenon. I don’t see a lot of people in my specific neck of the woods do all of this. The state flagship is a fine school, in the top 40 – no reason not to go there – and they don’t see a lot of incremental advantage of spending both test-prep money and college money to go higher on the college food chain, when they (correctly) ascertain that you can do just fine in life from our state flagship. And frankly, they’re right. H and I still felt it was important to give our kids a private, selective-school education for a multitude of reasons, not the least being how much we enjoyed and appreciated ours, but not because of any fear that they couldn’t have done fine in life with the state flagship or that it would doom them to flipping burgers.</p>
<p>To all those parents whose kids took the SAT and did fine with little or no prep – great. I’m glad it worked for you. Really. But your kid and your family are NOT every kid and every family. </p>
<p>We paid for some test prep, and have no regrets. The public school our daughter attended, not in the heavily competitive northeast corridor, never emphasized standardized tests. The way the district taught math in particular was totally antithetical to how the SAT math test is designed. I don’t think she’d taken a multiple choice math test in her life before the PSAT.</p>
<p>A combination of self-study and paid prep resulted in huge increases in her scores. This was a long time ago, so my memory is hazy, but I think between her first PSAT and her last SAT, her total score rose about 550 points. (I think the tutor taught her more math in 3 months than she’d learned in 6 years of middle school and high school.) </p>
<p>My husband and I love taking standardized tests, and do well on them with no prep. We at first couldn’t understand how our daughter was so different from us. But she was, and is. Some kids have minds that just don’t track with the minds of test designers. </p>
<p>And yes, we fully appreciate that our daughter benefited from our ability to pay for test prep. And the colleges know that – which is why they often “lower” their standards for kids from lower socio-economic families. That’s why a kid from the south Bronx can get into an Ivy with SATs in the 500s.</p>
<p>“But we don’t actually have any evidence of that, either, and logic suggests the opposite might equally well be true. After all, the small handful of Idahoans who ever apply to Princeton are likely to be among the highest-information, highest-achieving students in the state, who search out top schools outside their region and go out of their way to take SAT subject tests, a rather extraordinary thing to do in Idaho. The New Jersey applicants surely include many similar high-achieving types, but very likely also include some less stellar students who nonetheless dream of going to Princeton because it’s nearby and a familiar name with a reputation for excellence, and even if they realize their chances are slim may decide to apply anyway in the hope lightning strikes.”</p>
<p>one could easily come with an opposite story - in the absence of data its hard to say.</p>
<p>What we DO know is that the top schools claim to value diversity of all kinds, including presumably geographic. We know, I think, that they do NOT want all their kids from a handful of states, and a fortiori not from a handful of zip codes in those states. Now it may be that given their national applicant pools, thats not a binding constraint - they dont HAVE to favor the kids from Idaho in order to get the geographic diversity they seek. I dont think its possible to tell that from the data though.</p>
<p>"H and I still felt it was important to give our kids a private, selective-school education for a multitude of reasons, not the least being how much we enjoyed and appreciated ours, but not because of any fear that they couldn’t have done fine in life with the state flagship or that it would doom them to flipping burgers. "</p>
<p>I keep hearing on CC that those who think its important for their kid to go to a private school, or a small school (which of course could include a public LAC in the states that have them) are somehow all victims of “the prestige myth” and believe that U Illinois and Penn State grads go on to McDonalds, and that this myth is especially found among the upper middle class in the North east.</p>
<p>I live in greater DC, in Fairfax county, which must be one of the epicenters of such thinking if it DOES exist. </p>
<p>I dont know anyone here who thinks that though. ANY uppermiddle class parent of a student close to college age around here knows about UVA and VTech and W&M - anyone can see PSU license plates on nice cars - most people know folks who went to PSU or UMD- College Park. You ride the metro on a weekend, you see lots of young, professional looking 20somethings with U Michigan or UNC sweatshirts. Or even Purdue or OSU or Georgia. MAYBE some of the first generation college parents, some of the immigrants, are less aware. But I think even most of them have heard that you dont end up flipping burgers from state flagships. </p>
<p>It would be nice if people realized that many folks have put a lot of thought into what is best for their child. That NOT every child will succeed the same way at every institution - academically, socially, etc. Some students DO find large state institutions intimidating, do find the size, atmosphere, etc a problem. SOME students can find their niche in that environment, not all.</p>
<p>And if you think thats all a cover for snobbery, well here in Virginia we have a nice control. We have William and Mary. Its not as highly ranked as UVA. It does NOT have the breadth of academic programs, or of activities, that UVA does. Yet AFAICT there are SOME students who COULD get into UVA, who CHOOSE W&M instead, because a smaller campus is what they want and need. We have seen State systems create smaller institutions and public LACS - from SUNY geneseo, to TCNJ, to Christopher Newport U, to St Marys.</p>
<p>NOw for some reasons, a given public LAC does not work for a particular student - our DD was interested in fields that W&M does not offer, and there were a few other reasons W&M might not have been optimal anyway.</p>
<p>“Her “conclusion” that the process gives an unfair advantage to those kids whose parents can pay for those extras – well, no freaking duh, life gives an unfair advantage to those kids whose parents can send them to safe suburban schools versus dilapidated urban or rural ones, whose parents can arrange transport to extracurriculars versus requiring the kid to come home and sit for younger siblings or work to help pay off the rent. This seems like a stunningly obvious conclusion on her part.”</p>
<p>I personally believe that the way we fund education in this country, via local property taxes with resulting differentials among jurisdictions is a scandal. (it has the added disadvantage of sometimes distorting local land use decisions)</p>
<p>I do not see how we can possibly equalize across different family situations (which is one reason I believe that focusing purerly on equality of opportunity rather than equality of result though it sounds good, is a mistake) </p>
<p>I am not sure why those facts mean one should not note the impact of the kind of things being discussed in this thread.</p>
Her writing didn’t sound like you though.</p>