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

<p>Don’t assume taking a kid with lower scores is lowering standards. As some of us keep saying, the standards are so much broader than that. That why kids with high stats are not a shoo in for highly selective holistic schools. The way the talk here keeps returning to stats as a measure of worthiness-- it’s too flat. If you can’t see past that, you’re stuck. All you’ll be able to do is return to kids you know, something you heard or think.</p>

<p>Arwarw quoted this on another thread: *William R. Fitzsimmons, the dean at Harvard College said
“Students’ intellectual imagination…and their ability to exercise good judgment — these are critical factors in the admissions process, and they are revealed not by test scores but by students’ activities outside the classroom, the testimony of teachers and guidance counselors, and by alumni/ae and staff interview reports.” * . Add: how they express themselves in any written answers- starting with what they choose to say (again, that’s judgment; you could say, an even better window than stats.)</p>

<p>Watch how you assume that URM wasn’t as engaged or as thoughtful as Mr Better Stats. Or that, unlike your kid and his friends, “their” grades were inflated, their 4.0 means less. Watch how you assume under-performing hs don’t offer APs, don’t have great teachers who teach at the right level and can write great LoRs- or that “those kids” don’t take advantage of a variety of opportunities, don’t extend themselves and have impact. Many of them - even forgetting the challenges- leave comfy kids in the dust. Many already know that “striving” to achieve something in life is more than moving that 2200 SAT score to a 2350. And it shows.</p>

<p>Another vote for Crew. They need so many rowers that the team takes/needs walk-ons. Even if you are not recruited it could give you a small bump in admissions.</p>

<p>@calmom, @elliesmom, you guys rock, I agree totally with your sentiments, that far too any people are seeing admissions as the be all and end all, it is sad, it gives an idea of how people are thinking these days (In a sense, the US has moved towards what is the reality in Asia, that where you go to school means pretty much everything towards your future; don’t get into the ‘elite’ schools in China, Korea or Japan, your prospects will be limited). </p>

<p>The issue is there is no scientific way to measure applicants, SAT scores, grades, AP’s, EC’s, are heavily influenced by a kids background, despite what the well off try to argue, academic achievement of kids is directly tied to their parents socio-economic status, and the education level of the parents. I remember in the last election Mitt Romney talking about his background, and saying “I worked hard, I struggled”…which I won’t take away from him, he did achieve, and you don’t do that with work. On the other hand, what he was failing to acknowledge is that he had a lot shorter path of struggle than the kid whose parents were farmers in Iowa, to use the a baseball analogy, someone gets a base hit, and the person on base is trying to score. Someone like Romney is on third base, and scores a lot more easily then a kid on second base (farm kid) or 1st base (inner city kid, poor kid from appalachia, etc). What admissions people try to do is take that into account. The kid with the 2400 SAT ,4.0 GPA, 8 AP classes whose parents are both doctors and grew up in Scarsdale probably had a ton of help to get there, educated parents, resources, excellent schools, SAT prep programs costing thousands of dollars, tutoring ., etc whereas the farm kid had very little of that, didn’t have the prep programs, didn’t have the continuous reinforcement of what he learned in school, being around other kids at that level, etc, so his 2000 SAT /3.8GPA, 2 AP’s might represent a hell of a lot more work and achievement then the kid with the 2400, who is bred to get into an Ivy. Arguing “well, if my kid has a 2400/4.0/8 aps, ecs, etc, I don’t care if the kid from the inner city has the same stats and gets the edge” misses the point, that maybe your kid got the 2400 a lot easier then the inner city black kid with a single parent, that your kid might have had the best of everything, had encouragement, etc, whereas the AA kid from the inner city may have faced, not encouragement, but obstacles and got around them.To use another example from recent history, it was like when Paul Ryan said that he worked at a Mickey D’s as a teenager, as proof about the value of work. He couldn’t understand that he worked at the Mickey D’s for pocket money, that he wasn’t living on that, and that the fact that he achieved in his life wasn’t exactly hurt by being from a well off family, going to elite prep schools and such, he assumed, as many do, that unequal starts end up with similar results, and that isn’t true.</p>

<p>Put it this way, if you were hiring for a company, and you had two candidates, the person who showed a background of jobs where he took on more responsibility, who seemed a go getter, a hustler, who seemed to find opportunity, versus a candidate who went to the best schools, who looking at the resume you saw a standard career track that you know was bolstered by access to the right people, the right schools, and the resume was sent to you by someone’s uncle, who would you hire? The kid who seemed to be following the greased track, or the kid who fought his way up? That is what colleges do, they look at background, they look at race and socioeconomics, and say "how does what they have achieved reflect on them? Did they follow a formula of AP’s, EC’s, test prep and such to get this, or did they have to fight the odds). A kid with a 2000 SAT and 3.8 from an inner city school might have had to run up a mountain, while the kid who went to elite high schools and such might have ascended a small hill. The problem is that SAT’s, AP’s, EC’s are all things that have elements that allow some people huge advantages in doing.</p>

<p>The other thing to keep in mind is that the same preferences that work against someone works for them, too. The kid who is the football player might get into a elite school with grades and such that he wouldn’t had he tried going without it. A boy these days has an edge over girls, based on recent studies girls are going to college in larger numbers and are starting to do better on stats like GPA, SAT’s and so forth, so to keep the student body as near 50-50 as possible, boys are being preferred over girls. Once upon a time, colleges were the province of rich white men, now some of those rich white men don’t get in but a kid from solid middle class roots can get in. Diversity isn’t just about race, it is having a campus that reflects more than one viewpoint, more than one class, more than one race. Many of those on here crying ‘color blind admissions’ would be screaming when their kid with the great stats didn’t get into Harvard, and Harvard admissions was 80% Asian. Arguments about diversity and preferences often come down to it being “my kid deserves to get in, theirs doesn’t” and how it is ‘unfair’.
The problem is that is assuming that the ‘other’ person doesn’t ‘belong there’, and assumes that they aren’t fit to be there, either. Sure, there are failures, but guess what, a lot of kids from all backgrounds get into elite schools on preferences of one sort or another and fail.</p>

<p>Life often isn’t fair, and even when you can make the argument it is real unfairness, not perceived, that is part of the overall picture of things. Yes, it hurts, it stinks, it is angering, but it happens all the time. Friend of mine at work is a financial industry pro, bright guy, went to an elite LAC, had a 4.0 in financial engineering and related fields, and when graduation time came, who were the financial firms hiring by the bucketload? The jocks who played on the football team, who majored in partying and ‘business administration’…fair? no, not at all, but I don’t see anyone on hear arguing that this is unfair, too…it is. More importantly, maybe the school looks at your kid who seemingly has everything perfect, the great SAT’s, the 4.0 GPA, the ECs and so forth, and then at the kid from a difficult background or one who had a passion for music, who wasn’ so perfect, and said that the unfairness of rejecting your kid was outweighed by the fairness of giving a kid who faced unfairness at every turn because of where they were born, who their family was and so forth, a shot at a better life, that sometimes it comes down to not fairness, but rather which choice they makes represents being more fair.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>TheGFG,</p>

<p>The problem is this is really hard to predict even with academic stats. </p>

<p>Many of my HS friends and I ended up beating expectations and excelling academically…some of us even at elite colleges like Columbia after transferring despite not quite having the stats. </p>

<p>My father was very concerned about my “going above my level” in light of my HS performance. He personally knew a well-known literary author in Chinese popular literature whose son was offered a place at Columbia due to the parent’s renown without much apparent consideration of his demonstrated academic achievement. Son ended up not being able to cope with the academic demands and committed suicide within the first year sometime in the '70s. </p>

<p>I also have some college friends who were HS academic superstars including some from well-respected NE private schools who ended up on academic suspensions and having to explain that to potential employers & grad schools. I was one of the folks they asked to proofread addendum essays explaining this issue for grad school or advice on how to respond if it comes up during job interviews. </p>

<p>@musicprnt‌ l love your post - well said. </p>

<p>“The problem is this is really hard to predict even with academic stats.”</p>

<p>And: “I a really tired of this persistent belief that the SAT somehow is a test of ability or potential. It isn’t.”</p>

<p>In my own graduation class years ago, the valedictorian with the top scores and grades went to Harvard and flamed out. Some kid in the middle of the pack got into Princeton and went on to get his Ph.D. in chemistry and win a prize for an invention (sorry, I can’t recall what it was). I have two nieces, sisters, who reversed themselves in college after HS. One was a so-so HS student but graduated summa cum laude at her LAC. The other was a top student but chose an average college and did just ok. Both, though, are highly successful, bought houses without help form mom and dad and have good lives. </p>

<p>As the mother of a biracial girl who is very likely to have the stats to apply to an Ivy or two (if she continues on her current trajectory, she will), I have to ask, why would she want to? Why would she want to subject herself to students with parents like some on here who will believe that she is “less than” they are, that her SAT’s are probably lower, that she’s simply not as smart. Because you KNOW that will happen. Since she is not from Lake Woebegone, what are her options? </p>

<p>But what if she doesn’t want to do crew??? Or any sport. Just because she’s tall…</p>

<p>I keep seeing SAT prep mentioned. Since this is an artificial boost and since only they only have classes for the SATI, does everyone expect that kids who did test prep would do much better on the SATI than the SATIIs?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Hanna, probably 90% of the applicants to Harvard could graduate from there with a GPA above 3.0/4.0. Harvard has itself said that 90% of Harvard applicants are “qualified.” This doesn’t mean that you can’t say one candidate is more qualified than another.</p>

<p>I also think it’s flat to just assume all the higher SES kids are getting all sorts of additional privileges and the supposed benefits of their parents’ savvy. It’s the same generalization as saying a low SES kid can’t do activities or is limited to a few in the hs. Just saying. Remember, there’s a whole app to fill out.</p>

<p>@apprenticeprof

</p>

<p>I know you’re using Wesleyan as a trope, but, not many of the African-Americans who attend there are middle-class - not in the traditional use of the word - when you consider that about 18% of the university’s students qualify for Pell Grants and only about 6% are African-American.</p>

<p>“Life often isn’t fair, and even when you can make the argument it is real unfairness, not perceived, that is part of the overall picture of things. Yes, it hurts, it stinks, it is angering, but it happens all the time.”</p>

<p>Unfairness isn’t even the right concept there. There are tons more qualified students than they have beds for. There’s no “fair” process because there aren’t “rightful deserving owners” of these spots. It’s like saying it’s unfair that George Clooney didn’t decide to date me because I would be perfect for him. Well, yeah, maybe I would, but there are a lot of other contenders for those spots and it’s not “unfair” that I didn’t get selected.</p>

<p>Haven’t read the 35 pages of posts in this thread, but am I the only one who can’t believe a white female is blaming her demographic on not getting in to MIT? </p>

<p>According to the MIT common data set for 2012-2013, the admit rates were 6.6% for men and 14.6% for women. We don’t know the relative qualifications of those two groups, but it seems a bit ridiculous for the OP to say that her daughter was disadvantaged by being female. </p>

<p>Harvard admitted 55% men this year, <a href=“Harvard Makes Admissions Offers to 5.9 Percent of Applicants to the Class of 2018 | News | The Harvard Crimson”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/3/27/regular-admissions-class-2018/&lt;/a&gt; “Fifty-five percent of those admitted are male… the gender breakdown is more tilted towards males than in previous years…the Office of Admissions received more applications from males than females…growing interest in concentrations at the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences that are more frequently studied by men than women, such as engineering, physical science, mathematics, and computer science, have generated more applications to Harvard from males.” I would be very surprised if they did this without careful consideration of the techy females in their applicant pool.</p>

<p>I am not gong to read the entire thread, but bet I know where this thread went this being CC and all. How many people said “why do URMs get a spot, my kids stats were better, why them and not me boohooo”</p>

<p>Well I am at the end of my CC days since my Youngest Daughter ( for now last) has gotten accepted to her first choice top 40 school. I can truthfully say I have learned nothing from many commenters on the forums except that there are lots of great, really smart kids out there and America will continue to be great because of them I am extremely proud and cannot stop telling people who say Oh wow, that’s great, when I tell them of my kids’ successes ( to school and beyond!!!</p>

<p>I have also learned that there are kids who think the world owes them because of what they did, not who they are Hopefully the college learning experience will enlighten them. As my son, who was near top of his class at a competitive school said while attending W&M, "dad, the kids here are REALLY REALLY smart. I did not hear him say that much in high school. He loves being surrounded by smart people, for some people that is not a draw of the top schools, its all about name. Full disclosure, he turned down acceptance to Columbia and CMU to attend W&M he said he felt he would thrive there, and he has!</p>

<p>He felt compelled to ask if it was a mistake to forego and acceptance to an Ivy, if I woudl be annoyed, and I told him college is what YOU make of it, </p>

<p>My humble opinion, backed by years of hiring just graduated students at fortune 100 companies. Fabulous kids will do fabulously well regardless of where they go to school, they will catch the attention of "the “right” person at a great place to work. Their continued stellar achievements in ( like I am sure the OPs daughter will be involved) activities, research and schoolwork, will continue to set them apart. </p>

<p>I reviewed a CV at one time from a Princeton student and said meh, but my boss wanted to bring him in as an Ivy alum, I was wowed by an alternate candidates CV from tiny St Olaf in Minn. She stared and ran a charity in college, did a summer stint at the World Bank, was awarded a scholarship to conduct independent research in her Senior year.</p>

<p>They both came in, the Princeton alum was smug, asked about how WE were going to help HIS career, why should he work for us instead of going to Wall Street.She came in and asked how could she help make a difference, had researched the company well, new our issues and offered ideas. Knocked my socks off. Well we huddled ( our word for dong a candidate review) not one person even mentioned that guy’s name but we gushed about her.</p>

<p>Within a year EVERYONE at the company knew who she was, what she was capable of and often tried to “steal” her for positions or high profile projects within the company. In 2 years in the company and she was put into the leadership fast-track, rotating between offices all over the world, after 5 years she took 2 years off and the company PAID for her to attend Harvard Business School ( with a stipend) she came back and was promoted to VP a year later, because she continued to knock our socks off. </p>

<p>She is now Sr VP and was happy to report to her, she is 10 years my Junior…</p>

<p>I can relate similar stores throughout my career, my finance director who went to the university of Memphis ( to stay in the area to attend to an ailing father) now CFO of a fortune 500 company. etc, etc.</p>

<p>My last comment, don;t worry parents, your fabulous kids, if they are truly fabulous on their own part and not for you or to just get into an Ivy, will do remarkable things and you will be proud of them (one day) even if they did not get into that 'name" school. ( or at least you should be ashamed of yourself if you are not proud)</p>

<p>You’re cracking my up @pizzagirl but I think it may go more like this: “I could be Hugh Jackman’s wife. I’ve seen her in real life and she’s not that hot. In fact on a scale of 1 to hot she’s only a 5. I am at least an 8.5 and 9 if I blow out my hair. I don’t get what he sees in her.”</p>

<p>Of course Mr. Jackman is devoted to his wife and family and obviously sees a whole range of amazing qualities in her that aren’t right out there for the casual observer who just sees a ‘snapshot’ version or even may have spotted her in person. One could follow that up with the idea that if you think Mr. Jackman has such bad taste in women why would you want to be next in line?</p>

<ul>
<li>you will now be returned to your regularly scheduled programming </li>
</ul>

<p>

</p>

<p>And yet, plenty of older adults of all genders and orientations who should know better do think in such terms. It’s one reason why I tend to excuse myself when conversations start on variants of “Why didn’t he/she give me a chance?? It’s not fair!!”</p>

<p>@Jssaab1‌ your post should end this thread. Thread over!!!</p>

<p>

SAT II scores add more to the prediction of success in college than SAT I M+V scores. Some of the regression coefficients for cummulative 4th year GPA among UC students from the Geiser studies that were STEM majors are below. The general pattern was HS GPA was by far the most influential of the available stats, followed by SAT writing and/or SAT II scores. Several other studies have found the same pattern (AP/IB scores, which were not included in the Geiser study, often rank above most of these criteria, as does high school course rigor).</p>

<p>Math and Physical Science Majors
HS GPA - 0.35
SAT II Math - 0.12
SAT II Writing - 0.11 (sampled when writing was SAT II)
SAT II 3rd Test - 0.09
Parents Education - 0.03
Parents Income - 0.02
SAT I Math - 0.02
SAT I Verbal - (-0.01)</p>

<p>Bio Science Majors
HS GPA - 0.34
SAT II Writing - 0.11 (sampled when writing was SAT II)
SAT II Math - 0.10
SAT II 3rd Test - 0.09
SAT I Math - 0.07
SAT I Verbal - 0.05
Parents Education - 0.03
Parents Income - 0.00</p>

<p>Ya know, Jssaab, many of us aren’t here to jump on the underdog or the disappointed kid. We’re here for the sense some others periodically insert. Good post. Agree, everything to be said has been said. Now folks need to think about it all.</p>

<p>Except this last thing, can’t resist: Data, again, college success measured in gpa is so far short of the full story. It’s that same leaden turn back to quantitative. This is a big world and not all successful people follow any of the few paths that require quantitative success in college gpa. As humans, we are affected by more than bankers and big law.</p>

<p>One thing I notice here is there is an invisible man problem going on with many comments re affirmative action, preferences of one sort or another, and whether differing standards exist.</p>

<p>It is interesting to read how many parents on this thread say the following: </p>

<p>(all paraphrased - please excuse if I am off a bit in the verbiage)</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The diversity is good for the college (use whatever definition of diversity you want - not sure it matters actually)</p></li>
<li><p>This may be an issue out here on CC and the public-at-large, but not necessarily an issue for the colleges</p></li>
<li><p>I have no problem with the methodology, even if it harms my kids’ chances</p></li>
<li><p>Until the numbers increase, I will shamelessly accept affirmative action</p></li>
<li><p>There is no evidence the standards are lowered by having lower and higher standards for different groups (an oxymoron in itself, but we will let it stand for sake of argument)</p></li>
<li><p>I have no problem with the programs</p></li>
</ol>

<p>OK, that is enough, as I can pull out about 10 more statements easy, but point is made. I emphasize that the super majority of statements, if not all, were said by parents, NOT students.</p>

<p>In economics, there is the proverbial question of "At what cost?"when instituting a system to fix something in production or elsewhere. And the best intellectual fixes in the world often have a cost that no one acknowledges because it is not visibly apparent. </p>

<p>Such as in raising the minimum wage, there must be job loss. Even if there is job gain with increased population growth, the gain is less that it would have been sans the wage increase. But, no one sees the person two years later who does not have an entry level job because of it. That person is never acknowledged, never seen, yet ultimately was hurt directly.</p>

<p>In this case, the invisible man is very visible, but consciously is being made invisible, so the net effect is the same, invisible. I get this collective sense to ignore, and I do ask the question of “At what cost?” is this invisible man being ignored.</p>

<p>Who am I talking about? The students.</p>

<p>I am a little taken aback how the damage to students is being ignored or dismissed, as a viable cost to something, which requires diversity of something to solve. I have yet to figure out what that something is as no one has really defined it clearly, and it is just labeled as this thing called diversity is good.</p>

<p>Whatever this diversity thing is, I am keen to the damage to the actual recipients re students, not their parents. The parents who seem to not mind the programs (see points 1 - 6 above) and even go out of their way to justify them.</p>

<p>Here is what I see as the damage:</p>

<p>A. Group is pitted against group, and students are forced to segregate themselves based on a group from page 1 of their college applications. Is it not illogical for anyone to expect an integrated, peaceful campus after the students are told to segregate BEFORE they get there? Should not the effort be to made to help them seem together and equal before they get there? </p>

<p>Is it worth the damage of reintroducing segregation into the minds of students, when the entire premise is to teach the reverse? </p>

<p>More specifically:</p>

<p>B. Asians posts are replete with sad faces next to their ethnicity because of being overrepresented applicants in the very high test score group. </p>

<p>Is that damage to their spirit worth this?</p>

<p>C. Students with interesting ethnicities put smiley faces on their posts, and scream I am a URM at the top of their lungs. This is the flip-side of the asian problem; this group feels advantaged and superior in the college admissions process. Is that false superiority worth it, when, in reality, it is not real, just fabricated? And they get hurt too because other groups despise them for this fabricated advantage BEFORE they even get to college. </p>

<p>Is that damage of being despised worth it? </p>

<p>D. White students are reduced to saying I do not have a chance because I am white, irrespective of test scores and abilities, essays etc. And, like asians, they put sad faces on their posts, albeit for a different reason. </p>

<p>Is that damage to their spirit worth it?</p>

<p>E. Black students are arguing about whom is actually african-american and that africans from Africa do not count. Talk about about a mess in an effort to gain some advantage in the college admissions process re affirmative action. Next, it sounds like genetics tests are going be demanded. </p>

<p>Is this internal group damage to people with darker skin worth it? </p>

<p>F. Then there is the overall issue that blacks and hispanics are seen to get an unfair advantage in the admin process and automatically are looked down as not as smart. Since no one walks around with their applications on their sleeves, even the top minorities scorers must deal with not being believed as as smart. </p>

<p>Is the damage of the continuous doubt in abilities of blacks and hispanics, that will follow them for life, worth it?</p>

<p>G. And, given the current social issues at many colleges, e.g. Dartmouth, Harvard to name two, the state of relations among student groups on colleges does not seem to be better in the least. Dartmouth, I believe, is the tip of the iceberg. But the students are just following what they have been taught - hey, we believe got an advantage getting in here, so we want an advantage to on how and what we think the college should teach. The result is other students see these people as pushy, ungrateful and some downright rude to disrupt everyone’s education. I see little cohesion and very little let’s all get together going on. </p>

<p>Is the damage to the overall college community worth it?</p>

<p>For me, whatever is being advocating in the college admissions process under the term diversity is not worth the fundamental and visible damage being wrought to students’ spirits, their feeling of self-worth and the resulting stigma placed on the groups, which are seen to get an advantage, and to the college fabric, as a whole. </p>

<p>If this is what is called societal advancement, then please, by all means, keep it. </p>

<p>The results I see are rather ugly for society because if we think students are just going to leave these negatives feelings and effects behind after leaving college, we are sorely mistaken. The damaging effects will filter thru the workplace and neighborhoods for the next generation, and not in a a good way.</p>

<p>What surprises me the most is many parents (see points 1 - 6 above) seem to dismiss and ignore this damage (see Points A - G above), in light of some ill-defined or undefined good, which supposedly is happening because of these college admin policies. </p>

<p>I understand good intentions. But, students do not live in the world of good intentions; they live on ground with the real world results, and they are the ones paying the dear price, not the parents and the administrators instituting these policies. (In reality, the parents do pay a price indirectly by having kids who are not as sure of themselves and as comfortable in their being, as parents would have hoped.)</p>

<p>Results do matter, not in some arbitrary numbers achieved or press releases, but in the larger societal fabric picture. And if the results are more societal fractures, distrust in others’ intelligence and skills, and sadness about whom you are, then parents really need to ask themselves, is it really worth the cost? (Whatever the it is)</p>

<p>I surely do not think it is worth the cost.</p>