<p>I agree. I’ll admit that while I appreciate the need for a university’s administration to craft a community of scholars, using demographics to do so could be a “slippery slope.” And it’s a slope I’m not entirely comfortable with. I know I would not feel the same neutrality about the goals of the institution if a newly-prestigious (and gratefully imaginary) “Nathan Bedford Forrest University” used demographics to build a class that matched their philosophical dogma. </p>
<p>Debate is good. It makes us think. I like to debate. (I bet you couldn’t tell that from my posting! )</p>
<p>Gee, I enjoyed the post and the manner of presentation by @fireandrain that was included in quotation marks above. Anyway, glad to see you will not be devoting more words or time to the issue of the wonderful schools beyond HYP. I think we get your point by now.</p>
<p>If a kid didn’t feel “entitled” to be accepted to HYP, why would he be “angry” if rejected? Disappointed, sure, but “anger” suggests to me that he believes he was wronged in some way, that he “should” have been accepted. If one believes one “should have” been accepted and is “angry” that he was rejected, that does suggest to me a degree of entitlement.</p>
<p>@Nrdsb4, you’re not referring to the OP, are you? I went back to reread that post and there’s no anger in it as far as I can see.</p>
<p>The other piece to this is that you listen to the schools do their presentations on what it takes to be admitted and they provide a road map that kids like the OP’s daughter have followed. Of course they think they “should” be admitted! Not literally that they should be admitted but that they are strong candidates and based on what’s been outlined, deserve to be admitted as much as any other equally qualified candidate. It’s not an entitlement in the sense of I should be admitted simply because of my upper middle class white background and nothing more. </p>
<p>^^^^No, I was referring to a post which was talking about how it’s natural for kids to feel angry about their rejections but goes on to say that doesn’t in any way reflect entitlement.</p>
<p>“There is a moral disconnect here I do not get: is not using preferences of race and ethnicity to gain entrance to schools the exact same practice used in the Jim Crow South to keep blacks out of schools? Blacks were not of the right race and ethnicity. We, as a country, deemed that morally wrong. So, why was it wrong to use ethnicity and skin color to group people and keep them out of schools, but now it OK to use the same criteria in the college admissions process to get preferred people in (whoever is the preferred flavor of the day)? The answer is it is not OK because it is the exact same practice.”</p>
<p>Except white girls AREN’T being kept out of schools. In fact, they are being admitted in large numbers (especially since most of the schools in question went coed in our lifetimes). Not having enough space to admit all the qualified white girls who want to attend is not the moral equivalent of refusing to admit blacks or Jews on principle as undesirable.</p>
<ul>
<li>disclaimer: I am a non-Jewish white girl and the parent of a non-Jewish “high stats” white girl who is happily attending a school not on the top 20 list </li>
</ul>
<p>I have to agree with whoever said that if a student is going to “damaged” by a HYP rejection, it should be serious consideration that the particular student not apply to schools which reject thousands upon thousands upon thousands of wonderful students. As a parent, I would not support applying to schools with such low acceptance rates if I suspected my child could be “damaged” as a person or a human by a rejection letter. I use the word “damaged” as completely separate from “disappointed.” </p>
<p>My kid was absolutely delighted to be accepted to uc berkeley… Had good scores and good gpa. It was a beautiful thing to see her respond with grace and genuine humility. She knows people who didn’t get in with higher scores than her, which also helps her not act with a sense of entitlement. </p>
<p>She didn’t get in to her ivy choices… And she is mostly Ok with it. :)</p>
<p>Most of her friends display a similar lack of entitlement. </p>
<p>I don’t know what to say that hasn’t been said already about those of you complaining about your kids not getting in to their first choice ivies. Life is full of disappointment, and it’s good practice. </p>
<p>Exactly. Instead, his thread title insinuates that others–a bunch of faceless and less-qualified minorities and/or kids from flyover country–are responsible for his daughter’s rejection. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But EVEN IF these schools did away with holistic application reviews, or didn’t care about diversity, or didn’t want a wide range of students from all over the country and the world with a wide range of gifts–there would STILL not be enough spots for qualified kids from the overrepresented demographic. It’s a simple matter of supply and demand that any smart high school student or parent should be able to comprehend.</p>
Agreed. And in that respect college is no different from the real world. All of us have neighbors, friends, coworkers, partners, etc. who we consider smart, stimulating companions and connections in our lives. I doubt most of us have given a second’s thought to what these people did in high school or where they went to college.</p>
<p>I disagree. I think what the kids should take from the “road map” is that “I COULD be accepted,” not “of course they think they ‘should’ be accepted.” A parent doing his job here should be making that clear. I would also steer clear of words such as “deserve.” JMO.</p>
<p>All you folks claiming that college admissions is nothing like advancement opportunities in the professional world must work for some pretty special companies. Or are self-employed.</p>
<p>My first job out of business school the folks starting on my day sat in a big waiting area to get our assignments. We all had pretty much the same resume- top tier b-school, some work experience after undergrad and before grad school, some had been athletes in college and others had run volunteer organizations, but it was pretty apparent that at least for this particular training program, we were all starting with the same basics. Not quite from all 50 states, but decent geographic diversity.</p>
<p>Out of my “class”, one woman got assigned to a particular manager who even at the age of about 32 had the reputation of being one of the best people-developers at his level. Just a phenomenal manager, leader, coach, teacher. So this woman was the first to get promoted from my class. No surprise. She was the first to get picked for an overseas rotation. No surprise. And the rest of her trajectory- even after leaving the company, has been consistent with this. Was this “fair”? She got randomly assigned to a fantastic boss right out of the waiting room, who pushed and groomed and coached and mentored her to a fair-the-well. Others in the room- the same resume, the same smarts, the same work ethic- got assigned to managers who were technically brilliant but not great developing people. Others- got assigned to managers who were dealing with “stuff”- going through a divorce, other personal issues, etc.</p>
<p>So advancement can be pretty random as well. Get assigned to a boss who takes on your advancement as his or her own personal cause, and even if you’re only average in ability for the group you’re in, your advancement is pretty much a guarantee. Get assigned to someone equally strong but who is coping with an extended illness of a child or a spouse, and you won’t get the same management attention. Get assigned to someone who is not a good teacher- good luck to you.</p>
<p>I love how you all believe that in the work world it’s all about “merit” and that luck and serendipity had nothing to do with it. I had a colleague who got promoted because he was a Civil War re-enacter and the division president met him one weekend at Gettysburg and decided he wanted someone from the company to “hang” with as they traveled around to battle sites. I guess he was the juggling unicyclist of my generation.</p>
<p>@Sally305, fair point. I can’t really speculate on that though. When I went to school in the Iron Age and the preferences (especially the athletic preferences for women) did not exist in the way they did today, we all pretty much knew who would be an elite school admit and there was an element of predictability that doesn’t exist now.</p>
<p>I don’t think parents are stupid. I do not like the way colleges seem to enjoy using smoke and mirrors to coax kids to apply and let more and more kids think they have a shot at entry and then reject them all, thus boosting their selectivity. If we were able to look more clearly into the applicant pool, I think we’d see more people looking at that data and truly understanding the overwhelming odds stacked against their kids. </p>
<p>^ My husband’s convinced he was hired for his first job in management consulting because he spoke Swedish. He had a good interview, but he knew they were interviewing many, many people for only a couple of jobs and most of his competition consisted of highly competent Ivy League grads. On the way out of the office he passed someone struggling to make himself understood with someone speaking Swedish on the other end of the phone line. DH asked if he’d like help, and stepped in to translate. He was offered the job shortly afterwards. In the 5 years he worked for the company that was the one and only time he spoke Swedish. How’s that for random? And yet the fact that he had an unusual ability and offered to use it may have made all the difference.</p>
<p>@Nrdbs4, you’re missing my point. In no way am I suggesting that the kid WILL be admitted. The point is that the schools tell the kids this is what we want. The kids have what the schools say they want. They’ve taken rigorous courses. They’ve scored well on standardized testing. They’ve challenged themselves by becoming engaged in their school community and beyond. They look at past data and see that kids with their stats and ECs have been admitted, even in the past 2-3 years. They are highly qualified applicants. Use any word you want but they think they have a good shot and all evidence supports that. In my mind “deserve” only means highly qualified to be admitted. I am not surprised that these kids are disappointed and even shocked when they don’t get in. That’s why this post was a good one. Parents and kids really need to understand how unpredictable–or maybe predictable!–this process is. </p>
<p>I might ignite a firestorm, but my D just left for “University of Pennsylvania Quaker Days Multicultural Scholars Program.” The invitees are - “US citizens and permanent residents who identify as African American, Latino, Native American, Native Hawaiian, Alaska Native, traditionally underrepresented Asian and Pacific Islander races, and members of the LGBTQA community.” She gets to arrive a full day ahead of the “regular” admits for Quaker Days, which starts tomorrow.</p>
<p>Do all of these accepted students need an extra day to acclimate themselves to the campus? I’m honestly torn about this, and my D has attended similar programs at Tufts, Oberlin (before being accepted) and Tulane (after admittance.) Tulane paid all of her expenses including a travel reimbursement; “regular” admits only came to a one day “Destination Tulane” event without any financial incentives.</p>
<p>(Responding to a bit further above.) And the Pepsi Challenge tells you that you will prefer that to Coke. And each car manufacturer tells you why their model is superior. And they quote you some low monthly cost that turns out to only apply to the manual shift and top credit ratings. Or “9 out of 10 dentists prefer Crest.” (I always ask myself, “Over what? Mud?”) So it rolls. Are we supposed to believe it all? </p>
<p>So adcoms encourage. So? Brown is always a good example because they tell you, right on their web site, how many vals or perfect scores did NOT gain an admit. More and more top schools tell you what they look for- Yale has for a long time, I quoted Stanford, someone else noted H. Are kids reading? or is the problem they can’t absorb it?</p>
<p>The kid has to fill out a complete app. They don’t go up to the ticket booth with their money and say, “My turn, I’ll take something near the front.” Not matter how hard they worked for that money in their fist. Nor do they camp out in line, to be ensured there will be tickets left when they get to the booth. They have to be vetted or “qualified” by the gatekeepers. Where is the surprise in this?</p>
<p>As for URMs, why don’t people believe they are qualified? The best and brightest are taking AP, taking DE, they get involved in hs leadership and devote hours in their communities, consistent efforts over time that begin to have impact on others. They can write essays that show they “get it” for college. And on and on. Knock your socks off. And this includes inner cities, rural nowhere and poor southern border areas. Where do folks get the notion they are so outpaced by, say, some NE SWF? </p>
<p>@picktails, I’m sure the colleges know they are competing with others for yield on the highly qualified URM’s they admitted. They may feel that a special event helps those students to more easily meet others in their demographic at the college. And allows them extra time and opportunity to learn about about programs which may be of special interest to them but perhaps off the beaten path for the majority of admits. My daughter isn’t in one of those groups but has been invited to special “Women in engineering” events. Same idea, I imagine.</p>
<p>Right Lookingforward, that’s a great analogy: choosing a soft drink and applying to college. There’s no difference at all between adspeak and the content in an information session. Actually, I think my kid is starting to believe that. </p>
<p>The kids are reading. The parents are reading. The guidance is vague at best and I believe that kids are doing their best to control what is within their control. (Please don’t twist my words to suggest that this means they are building resumes with the eye to college from the start. It only means that they are doing their best to study, achieve, and grow, and some excel along the way.) The point is that most of the process is outside their control and the way the preferences play out are pretty much kept quiet. Sure, it’s right to conclude that the odds are tough. It’s even better when, every so often, the particular odds for your kid are laid out and you get a clear, unvarnished picture of those odds. In the end, it’s the lack of predictability in the process that fuels the unhappiness. Even those who “win” walk into the schools with serious cases of imposter syndrome. </p>
<p>I don’t disagree that URM candidates are highly qualified kids. I don’t think it’s the walk in the park for them that other posters are suggesting. Even if their odds are slightly better, it doesn’t mean any of these kids are shoo-ins either. </p>
)</p>