well, forgive me for making this stereotypical assumptions…but keep in mind that this is nothing more than just a hypothetical situation
Let’s say that there are two kids, A and B, who are applying to top schools with the same decent grades/SATs.
Kid A is from a pretty wealthy family( or high middle class) and had lots of opportunities to do many activities outside school. However Kid B had to work part-time jobs (not internship) to help support his/her family’s financial situation, and therefore not participating any kind of outside school activities.
Here;s the question
Which kid would you say has better chance of being admitted?
<h2>or in your opinion, who deserves more chances?</h2>
well the reason that i’m posting this is because i’m bored
so deperately bored that i find nothing to do, but i can use this topic for my english project. Thanks in advance!!
<p>Kid A will have the advantage at the vast majority of schools that are not need blind. Kid B should have it at the others unless A is wealthy enough to be a development candidate. But it really isn;t so black and white. The real advantage is if kid B is truly underpriveleged, from a very low income home and goes to an underperforming school. If kid A and B go to the same school it would be very hard to differentiate and kid A's advantages could very much go undetected.</p>
<p>In California's UC schools, Kid B would be the preferred candidate by far.
Extra points are given to kids who demonstrate hardships and educational disadvantages.</p>
<p>Which kid is more deserving? I think both are deserving, and if both are equally motivated, both will succeed.</p>