A parent's cautionary tale – SWF- Northeast need not apply?

Parents Forum
401

<p>From an article in Yale’s alumni magazine:</p>

<p>Nationwide, the well-off are more likely to enjoy the amenities and expectations that encourage academic achievement. In 2010–11, 35 percent of American students at four-year state and private colleges received Pell Grants, the main type of federal aid for low- and moderate-income students. But at Yale College, the percentage of Pell Grant undergraduates over the past decade has hovered between 10 percent and 16 percent. Only 831 students enrolled in Yale College last year came from families below that $65,000 threshold. That figure, 15 percent of the student body, is virtually unchanged from Tynan’s and my class over a decade before it. (the author is a prep school kid, Tynan a rural poor kid both Yale '06)</p>

<p>In the class of 2017, an additional 16 percent of the student body comes from families making between $66,000 and $120,000. The remaining 69 percent of the class comes from families that earn more than $120,000 per year. These proportions have only fluctuated by a percentage or two over the last several years, meaning that across the entire undergraduate student body last year, over two thirds came from America’s top economic quintile.</p>

<hr>

<p>So clearly well-off kids are not being shut out by poor kids. They are being shut out by some other very well-off kids that make up 69% of Yale’s class, as well as the moderately well off making more than $65K per year. </p>

402

<p>

</p>

<p>But that is not the point. These kids are PEERS of one another and not the best judges of each other’s subjective abilities. It is not about having a master’s degree. The point I was trying to make is that kids (and a lot of parents) THINK they know when someone “less qualified” got into a college but they really don’t see the whole picture.</p>

403

<p>My son was invited to diversity events at a number of top schools, including Yale. He also attended a diversity scholarship weekend at a top LAC. At the events he attended, most of the students were black, with a few Hispanics as well. The only diversity in evidence was racial. This was in 2006, so things may have changed. Similarly, he attended a couple of company diversity recruitment events his senior year, and the same was true.</p>

404

<p>I’m trying to figure out the nicest way to say this, but I think the blame game around diversity seems to be more about the person not getting in denying their responsibility for their own trajectory and success. Maybe that is too harsh, I don’t know. </p>

<p>People who are driven to be a success will do so even if they have to take their 2nd choice school (which is still in the top 20 but maybe not an ivy). </p>

<p>Sure it SUCKS to have your kid not accepted to the school you think they belong in when others with lower numbers are, but it’s a terrific life lesson. Maybe it’s a great opportunity to learn from some adversity. It’s not like missing out on Harvard or Yale will damn someone to a life of ditch digging. :)</p>

405

<p>

</p>

<p>Great post, fondmemories.</p>

406

<p>Perhaps in some cases there’s that element to it, but that’s being simplistic. Plenty of really, really stellar, extremely hard-working and responsible-for-their-trajectory Asian kids are stressing out over how high the standard is for them. Sure, they can decide they don’t care about getting in those schools and that would help, but… </p>

407

<p>The key is to analyze the lives of those around them. Look at their own parents, for example… did they get into Harvard/Yale? If not… somehow they managed to raise a child who was close enough to be disappointed. Somehow they likely put away enough money for these schools too, so they didn’t do too bad for themselves. </p>

408

<p>Yes, that’s true. But it’s about having a level playing field. Some of those Asian students’ parents might also be every bit as poor as some other non-Asian kid. Why do you assume they were able to put away money? Would you have assumed that about an African-American applicant’s parents? See how tricky this gets?</p>

409

<p>It is a reality that skin color, ethnicity will get some kids accepted when they otherwise would certainly not have been accepted to a highly selective school. I truly do not believe that there is that much dissension about those students, regardless of color or anything, who get evaluated in the context of their opportunities, challenges and hardships. Homeless kid who gets a 2000 SAT who manages to get honor grades despite being moved from school to school and with parents that are a mess. He deserves to go to Harvard with that kind of back story. I don’t care what his color happens to be, and most folks will give that one a pass even though they may grouse very privately about it. </p>

<p>Where the problem arises, when there is a student of color whose parents are upper crust, they are well educated and the kids have gotten the advantages that affirmative action does confer just because of color. Frankly, many schools just as soon give these kids the boost, since they most certainly are capable of doing the work at any school. IT’s only because of the pure competitiveness of admissions at the schools that the vast majority of kids are declined. Not enough room for all those qualified. So if there is something a school wants in particular out of that group of kids, into a stack they go for all of those kids with that quality. If you’re in a stack that’ so high that it hits the ceiling, the chances your app will be pulled from that stack are small. If you’re in the short stack, then your chances are much better. It’s a sad situation that the stack for diversity when it comes to people of color and certain ethnic groups is particularly short. Yet those in that stack are considered important to have in a school community as much discussions is had about issues pertaining to those groups and not to have them represented leaves a huge gap. In time, as more such students apply those stacks will disappear and we won’t see the discrepancy in stats among them. That is the theory, anyways. and I think it will work. In the meantime if you are a SWF from the NE without a single characteristic that is going to get you special consideration–that is you are n a stack where the applicants are all pretty much interchangeable with you without making a whole lot of difference whether you are picked or another, it’s going to mean a much smaller chance of acceptance than if you had AA in your heritage which would place you in a whole other stack, and that’s with all other factors equal.</p>

<p>I support what the schools are doing to diversify their student body, but I want it V-E-R-Y clear, that, yes, because of this there are many, yes MANY students who do accepted to HPY and other selective school who got in by their skins. Their backgrounds were every bit as silver spooned as their peers and their CVs may well not have been stellar. I know such kids. Some are kids that are my kids’ friends and peers,and their parents are my friends. I have a number of close friends who are highly well educated, highly paid, live in high income communities send their kids to rigorous private schools,…and well, their kids ain’t up there at the those school with grades, ECs, prowess in anything, SATs not of the level where if my kid got that score, and some of mine have gotten that score and HPY were out of the question for them, and not for those kids of color. Not to say EVERY SINGLE AA kid, LATINO, all of such student got such a pass, but absolutely yes, a number of them did and not because of any extraordinary accomplishment or challenge. Color for color’s sake, and I’ve been so told by counselors who know the applicants well as well as knowing the families. To deny that this situation exists is ridiculous. It does, and it does for many reasons good for the school.</p>

410

<p>@Mamalion - I need to dissect your post because you use the word diversity, and I have no idea how to interpret. I am not kidding when I say I have not a clue what the word really means. For the sake of responding, I am going to assume you mean differences, such gender difference and geographical / domicile difference. </p>

<p>My purpose of using only using gender and state is those seem to be the very least contentious of the issues surrounding this thing called diversity, and it ensures boys and girls get to meet. </p>

<p>It is logical, I would think, that a coed school wants to make sure there are both girls and boys around, and private schools might want to ensure a wide base, so that everyone is not from the exact same state so there are enough who can pay the costs to attend. All girl schools also want to remain that way, I assume. For me, the use of gender and state stops and ends there: the human boy-girl issue and fiscal requirements.</p>

<p>The dust-ups on CC are rather straight-forward and defined. Well, at least to me.</p>

<p>Students view the current push for this ill-defined diversity thing, as punishing one group against the other based on subjective standards, which seem to change on a dime. I do not think students would have an issue if they had assurance or at least the feeling that the standards used were consistent and equal. </p>

<p>But in an effort to create some sort of equality of something (this seems to be the basic claim of people doing diversity practices say the goal is), inconsistent, unequal standards are being used and many students see the term holistic, as a ruse to employ unequal standards. </p>

<p>I understand that context matters and each student is different, but students are rightfully seeing different effort achieving equivalent results, which obviously annoys many. This is completely opposite the workplace and in real life where unequal effort almost invaribably leads to unequal results, as should be the case; those who work harder and produce more should be paid more. </p>

<p>In short, students are confused and upset with what they see as slights and disregard for their work for no reasons they have control over. But, students have caught on though and are now playing the subjective game game too. Thus the I am self-identfying as [make up identity that is in vogue] is now all the rage and the hey what overcoming hardship can I define in my life game, no matter how trivial. When someone is asking on CC if the death of his favorite goldfish counts as a hardship, there is problem. That is not a reason to get into college; that is life, plain and simple. </p>

<p>Well, that is what happens when subjective standards are used, you get a subjective responses to counteract, no matter how trivial, fake or patently false.</p>

411

<p>Since this thread started with mention of Bowdoin, anyone ever look up how broadly inclusive their diversity description is? Or you just “know?”</p>

<p>^ All we can say is that that homeless kid deserves strong consideration. If he doesn’t have what it takes to make it through Harvard (and academic assistance is fine,) then he doesn’t automatically “deserve” more than that. A chunk of that includes personal attributes beyond this stats fixation. They look for that in how the kid presents- why do you think they assume?</p>

<p>Too many look at this as so flat: he’s either barely survived or has Andover or super top SES connections. A whole lot falls in between. i don’t know why folks can’t just- even for a short while- break through this flat view. </p>

<p>MANY students who do accepted to HPY and other selective school who got in by their skins Curious to know how you know that.</p>

412

<p>captofthehouse seems to be relying not only on personal knowledge of the kids, but also on the assessment of college counselors who know the students and their backgrounds: “Color for color’s sake, and I’ve been so told by counselors who know the applicants well as well as knowing the families.”</p>

413

<p>But I am a little closer to the game. I’ve actually seen the difference between how kids present themselves and how one would think they would come across if, say, you knew their stats first.</p>

<p>Because so many on CC are using stats as their first reference point, they don’t realize what the rest of the values are. </p>

414

<p>^ Fine, but this only matters if it’s true that on average, URM’s with lower stats come across better in their applications than non-URM’s with higher stats. Otherwise, we’re talking about a normal variation in self-presentation apart from race.</p>

415

<p>

</p>

<p>This is not even true, unless you mean “successful” students as in above average. For top 20 caliber students, if anything it is the reverse.</p>

416

<p>GFG, agree about normal variation. But also want to point out that when we speak of, say, Ivies, that level of kid, many URMs who need it, are taking advantage of college bound type programs. They are advised to go for rigor, to get out into the communities and have some impact, whether on their own or via various organizations. </p>

417

<p>

</p>

<p>The kids usually know if there is one person who is light years ahead of everybody else. And if that kid doesn’t get in and another one does, I would not say it’s a case of not knowing the “whole picture”, at least in terms of assessing academic talent.</p>

418

<p>A number of points:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>I do think there is an entitlement mentality among some top students. The reason we see so many kids with stratospheric scores and stellar resumes being rejected is because there are so many of them. Given that, maybe it is time to consider that having those things just isn’t all that overwhelmingly special. Yes, you need to be bright to get great SAT scores, and very bright to excel in a competitive academic environment. But it doesn’t make you some rare and precious creature, and may not, in practical terms, make you a whit more valuable to the school than someone with somewhat lower stats, hooked or not. In an undergrad psychology department, for instance, maybe you have a few students who really suggest the potential to do high-level work in the field. As a school, if that is something you can see in the application, you really want those students, who are NOT a dime a dozen. Aside from those students, though, do you really think the difference between a 700 and an 800 in math is going to make a meaningful difference in a)what kind of a psychologist you are likely to be and b) how much you’ll be able to contribute to the classroom during your time at school? Once a school has accepted the much smaller group of demonstrably brilliant students, when figuring out the rest of your class, why not choose the lower-scoring but still excellent student with a better essay or more interesting life story?</p></li>
<li><p>I think it is just silly to pretend that we can never make reasonably reliable inferences about why certain kids may be admitted over certain others, especially when schools frankly acknowledge that things like affirmative action, legacy preference, and athletic recruitment exist. There are certainly people who use that as an excuse or overestimate the effect of the hook in particular cases, but Occam’s razor still applies when it isn’t polite to invoke it. If a student from your school has, to your knowledge, substantially weaker stats than non-hooked students and no known evidence of particularly outstanding talent in one area or another, while it is possible that there is something you’ve missed that would explain the acceptance, it is fair to draw the inference that the hook made a difference. I can understand being frustrated by that.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>3, That being said, given what I’ve said in point 1, it would just be silly for schools NOT to use factors other than stats to distinguish between lots of bright kids. If I have one really bright but not superhuman black student applying for every ten really bright but not superhuman white students, why shouldn’t I choose the black student (or the accordion player, or the kid from rural West Virginia) over someone else that looks a lot more similar to the rest of my applicant pool? This may be unfortunate for the overrepresented demographic, but that’s life.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>On the other hand, some of the results I’ve been seeing around the boards this year leads me to suspect that this kind of holistic consideration has gotten a little out of hand. For one thing, while there are enough highly qualified SWFs from the NE to fill any number of excellent schools, underrepresented demographics, are, by definition, underrepresented in the applicant pool. It is one thing when a middle-class African American student with very high scores gets into Harvard over a middle-class white student with slightly higher scores (or over any number of middle-class white students with the same scores). I get a lot less comfortable when students with near perfect stats are getting denied from schools in which the raw numbers alone suggest that a lot of the “hooked” students must have substantially lower qualifications. Plenty of the dime-a-dozen, high stat middle class NE SWFs shut out of the Ivies and Swat/Williams/Amherst will wind up at Wesleyan - so many that some of them won’t get into Wesleyan, either. I’m not sure how many high stat middle class African-American students are left over for Wes when they’ve been scooped up by the Ivies. At what point are there really two completely different sets of standards?</p></li>
<li><p>I’m not sure why we accept that it is totally fine for high-stat, unhooked applicants to “settle” for a slightly less desirable school but never apply the same logic to lower stat hooked applicants. Again, I’m not talking about the AA student with a 2250. But it seems somewhat perverse to tell an unhooked val with a 2400 that they should be happy at Emory (although it is true) but assume that someone from an less privileged(but often not downright impoverished) background with a 2000 should be a serious candidate for top ten schools. Not every person who does better than their circumstances would have indicated is a brilliant diamond in the rough either - often, they’re just bright hard-working kids, as are the suburban applicants who score a few hundred points better. Why shouldn’t THAT be the student who winds up in Emory, rather than Brown or Duke? Entitlement cuts both ways. </p></li>
<li><p>Affirmative Action is not remotely the most bothersome hook, IMO, although it is the one that gets the most attention. With admission rates being what they are, I find legacy preferences, even minor ones, much harder to justify. </p></li>
</ol>

419

<p>One common issue which gets a lot of applicants on the application essay isn’t necessarily that they are coming across as arrogant or otherwise convey a negative impression. </p>

<p>Rather, it’s how sometimes the essay leaves no impactful impression as it is so generic and bland due to factors ranging from dashing off application essays due to overscheduling/exhaustion to having their true personalities/selves/interests overedited by parents, friends, and even HS teachers who fear that true aspect of themselves is “too controversial*”. </p>

<ul>
<li>Not to say there aren’t topics which are too controversial unless written by an unusually gifted and graceful writer. A skill even many professional journalists/politicians have a hard time pulling off.<br></li>
</ul>

420

<p>It seems, though, that the diversity hook is the one that most complain about. Yes, there are the undeserving kids that happen to have the right last name or some low percentage of native american blood that get in on these preferences. And there are those that scam the system. There is also the kid from North Dakota that has lower PSAT scores than the kid from Mass, but is a NMF and gets in to a top college, with somewhat lower stats. There is the kid that has not only smarts, but athletic ability that not only gets into HYPS, but get special treatment once there. Not sure there is an real objective difference in ability between a 2400 and 2250 on the SAT in any case. </p>

<p>Life is not fair. But most of the kids of the parents on this forum were dealt a very nice hand in life, even if that also means it is harder to stand out in the college application pool. </p>