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

Parents Forum
741

<p>The only person in my HS who was not shocked by my admission to college was my English teacher.</p>

<p>Even if teachers think they can “peg” a student from the gossip in the teacher’s lounge, and even if the guidance counselor assumes that they’ve got a holistic picture, guess what- they don’t. There were plenty of the big time/big personality/big ego students at my HS who ended up at elite schools. I didn’t do HS EC’s (I hated HS and saw no reason to prolong my agony by staying after school) but I did other things in the community that were not on the HS radar, I had a job with responsibility, and I think I wrote well. I wasn’t a big shot in HS; my classmates probably assumed I was hanging on by my teeth academically. One idiotic teacher read out the SAT 2 scores (they were called achievement tests back then) and the class was stunned when she got to me. The teacher’s eyes bugged out. She then accosted me after class to ask if I’d cheated-- and then apologized the next day after she asked the guidance counselor to see my transcript and my class rank. She said she couldn’t imagine that someone like me could have been doing so well academically. (What the hell does that even mean?)</p>

<p>So I am leery of any HS kid or his/her parents who claim they “know” who deserves to get in where. I went to K-12 with the same set of kids- and the idea that a “social zero” like me who wasn’t an athlete and wasn’t popular and wasn’t in the clubs that the Ivy League kids participated in and became President of could end up anywhere but U Mass was shocking to a bunch of folks.</p>

<p>And I graduated Magna Cum Laude from college so I’m guessing they didn’t make a mistake.</p>

<p>You don’t know what that quiet kid who doesn’t have much going for him does after school, do you? You know he’s not a debate champion and you know he’s not president of student council, and you know he’s not a track star. But what do you really know about the hours of 4 pm to 8 am when he’s not in HS?</p>

742

<p>@periwinkle. Yes, there were other admissions considerations in the past, but nothing like the dilution we have today. Your typical CC poster with the 3.9+ GPA, the 2300+ SAT score and a healthy roster of run of the mill EC’s had a much better chance of acceptance to the top tier in the 1960’s, 70’s or 80’s than he/she does today. And I don’t not believe the general rise in app #'s solely accounts for that discrepancy.</p>

743

<p>@Harvestmoon1

</p>

<p>I guess history is not your subject, right?</p>

<p>Admissions to American elite institutions has never been based on intellectual capacity. The only goal posts that are being moved is a shift away toward more democratic and egalitarian priorities. Harvard, Yale and Princeton are no longer schools for rich white men. See <a href=“JFK's Harvard Application: Would He Have Gotten In Today? | HuffPost College”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;

<p>Back in the day when I was applying to college, the title of this thread “SWF” need not apply was absolutely true: most of the Ivies did not accept women. </p>

<p>Dorothy Height had been admitted to Barnard in 1929, but when she arrived to enroll she was turned away because she was black. </p>

<p>I’m very happy that priorities have changed. I would have not fared very well in the world my parents grew up in. </p>

744

<p>The SAT has changed radically since the 1960s. </p>

<p>In the 1960s, the family’s ability to pay was a very, very large factor in college admissions. Many families chose not to allow their children to apply to the Ivy League (which we’re talking about on this thread), because they were not able to pay for it. </p>

<p>College admissions was much more regional than today. In the 1960s, students were less likely to apply to colleges all over the world. Today, my oldest child had classmates who applied to colleges on several continents–and they were willing to enroll in colleges far, far from home.</p>

<p>I’m old enough now to speak of “the old days.” But back then, very few students were trying to create perfect resumes. The SAT was much closer to an intelligence test, and the whole test-prep industry hadn’t been born. I’m certain no one in my high school class used a private college counselor. Decades later, I’m sure several students, if not more, in my old high school consulted private college counselors.</p>

<p>The “typical CC poster” didn’t exist back then. Many students who expect to go to college today headed to trade programs training secretaries, back in “the old days.”</p>

745

<p>Our AA kids hace Irish surnames. Wonder how THAT happened!</p>

746

<p>

Not if they were Jewish in the days when my dad was applying to college. The SAT’s were embraced because college admissions officers mistakenly believed that Jews and other immigrant groups wouldn’t do well on them. Stanley Kaplan had wanted to be a doctor, but was rejected from 5 different medical schools because they didn’t want any more Jews. So instead he taught students how to beat the test: <a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/24/AR2009082402105.html”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/24/AR2009082402105.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

747

<p>Mine too Shrinkrap! And a Hebrew first name! Let that confuse those who judge based on superficial characteristics.
Just as an aside - my D texted to say the kid who got into all 8 ivies is with her at the Penn Multicultural Quaker Days event…</p>

748

<p>I’m sure there’s the odd case where a kid has been so humble, unassuming, and quiet that his fascinating life story and professional level accomplishments have flown completely under the radar. It beggars belief that this is true in most cases. For the most part, you can more or less identify the great students, musicians, athletes, etc. You may have a limited sense of just how good a given student is - the layperson might not know enough to distinguish “all-state orchestra member” from “professional-level musician,” but they’ll probably know enough to say “isn’t he very talented at music?” </p>

<p>Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of HS students and parents struggling to “explain” results that don’t require explanation at all. You don’t need to search for an explanation for why number 6 in the class got in over number 1, because at that level of achievement it’s more or less a wash, stats wise, and for all you know the difference was that the adcom, has a pet puppy named Lucy and number 6 mentioned her very own pet puppy Lucy in her essay. Some posters have been describing differences rather more substantial than that. In those cases, as I’ve said before, I don’t think the most reasonable conclusion to come to is that the student in question probably moonlights at Carnegie Hall under the stage name Duke Silver. </p>

<p>Again, colleges are upfront about the fact that legacy, race, and athletics play a role. What you choose to do with that awareness is up to you, but saying “How DARE you imply that legacy status, race, and/or athletics had anything to do with it?” seems less than honest or rational.</p>

<p>People can hold two competing ideas in their mind at the same time. A person can recognize “that really bright African-American kid is a great student who fully deserved to have his achievements recognized by school Y” and still also say “I’m thrilled to be going to school X, but it is a little frustrating to consider that I would have had a lot better chance of getting into Y, my top choice, had I been a URM, or had my parents gone to Y, or had I been from a celebrity/super wealthy family.” Or, in some cases, “You know, based on everything I know about this person, unless there’s something huge I’m missing, I really think Princeton messed up on this one.” And that might be true as well, because this is a human-driven admissions process, not Calvinist divine election.</p>

749

<p>Sweet! All the same kids seem to turn up at multicultural stuff with my D. Her first name by the way is Middle Eastern. I spent twelve months coming up with it; it was in a book of “African” names. Spent 10 minutes on sons and it turned out to be Irish as well. Really surprising on an interview. </p>

<p>My D was always at the top of her class, but many were surprised by her SAT’s. Especially the only other kid from her class to get into Cal. My son was often accused of cheating, when he was one of the few of his friends who said no. One of his nest friends bet he would 't beat 1700 on the SAT’s. Different World here. </p>

750

<p>Do we have statistics on the number of legacies, athletes, developmental admits, and URMs who are “less qualified” (i.e. who, without the legacy, athletic, development, or URM “hook” would not have been admitted otherwise) who are admitted to these 8 schools? Obviously, some of these kids would qualify regardless of these hooks, so how big a number of these “unfair” admits are we actually talking here? </p>

751

<p>

</p>

<p>We’re not saying that.</p>

<p>We are saying that legacy status, race, and/or athletics are all potentially legitimate considerations for private college admissions, for a variety of reasons - and that students need to get over it. </p>

<p>An admission hook or tip factor is not the same as a guarantee. The fact that the star athlete at the high school is a URM who is being courted by Ivy recruiters does not mean that the white middle class kid with better grades isn’t being considered. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s a loser’s attitude.</p>

<p>I grew up at a time when there was overt discrimination against women and minorities in college admissions; and my parents grew up at a time when there was overt discrimination against our religious identification. We never thought that the discrimination was right – but we didn’t think in terms of, “if only” (“If only I was a man. If only I wasn’t Jewish”) Instead I was raised with the idea that because I was female I would have to do better than the men in my class in order to prove myself – that the key to getting ahead in was to be the best of the best. I had a much admired great-aunt who was the only woman in her class at a prestigious law school, ended up graduating number 1 in her class in the early 1950’s – and couldn’t hired by any law firm – she was finally hired to work as a legal secretary. So that was my model.</p>

<p>I am glad those barriers were falling by the time I enrolled in law school – and that my daughter no longer has to face the barriers that I did. I am glad that I probably don’t have to worry about my mixed-race grandson encountering similar barriers. </p>

<p>But my kids have overcome barriers of their own. (For example: if only their parents could have afforded to send them to private school! If only their parents had saved up enough money to pay the full cost of college!) My daughter might argue that the SAT test is an unfair barrier-- some people just don’t test well, she happens to be one of them, if only she had been a National Merit Finalist like her brother she would have had more options… But she didn’t: she set her sights higher, ignored all the people that told her that the odds were against her, and moved forward. As a parent, I have often been frustrated or worried because I perceived my daughter as aspiring to unrealistic goals… and then pleasantly surprised at the times when my daughter actually reached those goals. But rejection is part of the process. </p>

752

<p>I’ve got a question…will perceptions of unfairness and/or futility associated with admissions at the very tippy-top schools affect the application pool for those most-elite universities? Will the SWF “stack” be shorter next year? Will top candidates eschew the Ivies for Vandy and its ilk (I love that word)? </p>

<p>Will it have an effect on posters’ choices when it comes to future applications?</p>

<p>It has in our case. I’m pretty sure that D would have applied to at least a couple of these loftiest of reaches if she were applying five years ago. Now, she has one—maybe—on her list. And she’s even reconsidering that one because she feels like she would be “throwing away” the application fee on a long-shot. </p>

753

<p>@calmom, my understanding of the "history"is that holistic admissions came into play in the 1920’s in an attempt to avoid the appearance of strict racial and religious quotas. So while I would agree that certain groups were at a disadvantage, holistic admissions have now been expanded to include everything under the sun. So now we simply have other groups that are at a disadvantage. Many on this Board claim today it is the high stat student with no “hooks” that match the current version of the holistic process that are at a disadvantage. I am not making a value judgment on that as private universities will do what they do, but today’s process clearly dilutes the importance of demonstrated academic ability even further. </p>

<p>Oh and I forgot to add Caltech as a school that appear to place high value on demonstrated academic ability.</p>

754

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s not just a Youtube channel–it’s a Youtube channel that makes enough money that the guy can buy pretty much everything he wants–and he frequently does, if you look at his collection of really expensive video game memorabilia on social media. And regardless, meeting him was quite literally a dying boy’s last wish. Do you <em>really</em> have kids in your local high school who can say that about themselves?</p>

<p>Even if he doesn’t go to HYP, etc. (and I don’t think he will), he’s still going to be a much more viable applicant than his stats would suggest–he may very well beat out a 3.8/2250 student who has a self-produced video with friends as a credit, which I’m sure would leave many CC parents aghast. ;)</p>

755

<p>@EllieMom, not in my S’ case. But it made him work really hard, and gave him the opportunity to love and appreciate our flagship because it very likely will be where he will attend for UG. I do admit, though, that the truly exceptional applicant, regardless of race, is competitive at any of these single-digit acceptance rate colleges. </p>

756

<p>To collegealum314: I may be reading this wrong (and likely am since you opened by saying “you humbly disagree” with that extract from my post causing the most commentary), but I think you are agreeing with me. Your examples involve persons with outstanding metrics who then have good odds of the NSF fellowship or a BCG or McKinsey offer, whereas they would be “lucky”, as you put it, to get into one of the top 5 or 6 schools. That was my exact point: that only at this particular juncture are metrics so wildly discounted. Where do we disagree?</p>

<p>To 3Girls3Cats, I did not mean to drive you “batty” (especially since you were otherwise kind in your remarks about my post!) I stated expressly that I thought the notion of lifting games was an open question at some schools, but your point is well taken and I stand corrected there. Where you and I agree more is on your “smoke and mirrors” point in one of your later posts. </p>

<p>Which takes me to a consistent division in this thread: half the people shake their heads sadly and wonder, with thinly disguised sarcasm, how kids (and the parents who produced them) can’t figure out what single digit admissions really means. (The poster who asked “did you really OWN that number?” is a good example). The other half looks at the scattergrams and wonders how the first group doesn’t understand what a blended rate means. And yes, I do understand that even the scattergrams show lots of bad x’s in the upper reaches, but they aren’t at 5 or 9%. If I’m looking at a stock, I don’t have a guarantee it will perform – for that I’ll buy a different investment product – but I am not crazy in thinking that past performance should be some guide. The surprise in the OP and other posters is due to the fact that, as some have commented today, the market has changed. Thus, as wrong as their inability to appreciate blended rate may be, the first group is now correct. Throw Naviance away because there is no longer any meaningful differential between the blended rate and the Naviance results. It’s all chance now, no matter your D or S’s performance (especially if unhooked). EllieMom’s prediction of less applications is likely true. </p>

<p>And finally, to CalMom – no, I’m not “kidding”, nor does the fact that someone might disagree with one’s view necessarily mean that they are joking. I stand by my proposition that “There is, thank the good Lord, NOTHING in these kids’ lives that is going to be as wildly up in the air as the present college admissions sweepstakes.” Some posters have made this a straw man argument and attacked this as a representation that the world after college is perfect and exclusively merit-based. I didn’t say that, don’t believe it, and would be “kidding” if I did. My point in full was that I think that the present process devalues merit MORE than most things to come. Connections, good fortune, market timing (the poster who mentioned publishing’s changes was spot on), and other non-merit points matter – but not, I would again submit, the way college apps are right now. If I thought that what I did for a living was that random in outcome, I’d seriously go nuts. Effort and excellence and dedication matter – not to eliminate risk (that would be the straw man) but to control for and minimize it. OP’s point was that this seems not to matter as much in college apps, and his point remains extremely well taken. Not kidding.</p>

757

<p>You’re a loser if you dwell on the “unfairness” of the process, if indeed you see it as unfairness at all. You’re not a loser for having the temerity to verbalize or even think it in appropriate contexts (hint: a discussion with a URM admitted to a top school is not the appropriate context) and I find it frankly offensive and unnecessarily dismissive of you to be so hard on disappointed teens and their parents. </p>

<p>Tell me, is an African American with an ethnic name a “loser” if he wonders if that may have made it more difficult for him to find a job? And no, I don’t think these are equivalent situations, but as long as a person keeps his or her regret, wondering, annoyance, etc in proper perspective, I see no reason to engage in blanket invalidation of people’s natural emotions. </p>

<p>Maybe the inability to purge your consciousness of even the most fleetingly ungenerous thought is a cardinal sin that should disqualify you from any number of schools, or maybe it reflects the ability to point out that, on occasion, even a generally wise and well-meaning emperor just might have forgotten his clothes. </p>

758

<p>Generally it’s been my practice to avoid posting those sorts of ungenerous thoughts on the internet, and fortunately my kids understand the concept. </p>

759

<p>

Then I am glad you have a crystal ball and that your kids will enjoy such a smooth ride in the future. </p>

<p>But I’m looking at the process in the rearview mirror… and definitely things the college app process is trivial in comparison to what has happened in the years since. At least there’s structure and predictability with the college process: a specific set of places to apply to; a set of similar rules that apply to all of the apps; a set time to submit the app, and a set time to receive results; and clear frame of references as to the ensuing time period one is committing to. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s called “optimism bias” – a lot of people share that perspective for the same reasons. It’s hard to cope with the true randomness of many life events. </p>

<p>I have friends who have lost their kids in their 20’s and 30’s to serious diseases like cancer, to shooting deaths or auto accidents. My mother died unexpectedly after a stroke when she was in her 40’s, I was in my early 20’s. Stuff happens. Life-changing, random, unexpected, unpredictable stuff happens. This elite-college admission process falls under “first world problem” category. Very, very trivial in my eyes. Esp. when you have an OP whose kid was an early admit to U. of Chicago. </p>

<p>But my daughter did attend an elite east coast college. She understands first hand that many of her classmates had well-to-do parents and trust funds that enable to them to plan their lives with a greater sense of certainty. So I get the perspective of people who truly believe that getting rejection letters from Ivy League schools is a BFD. I just don’t share that perspective. </p>

760

<p>Move me brightly- I’ll take a job at your company, thanks. You’ve never worked for an idiot? You’ve never had to give a report to a team of folks more senior than you whose questions demonstrated an inability to draw logical conclusions from a set of data? You never had a boss who got all of his or her current events/news from People magazine and the free USA Today at the hotel?</p>

<p>I have, and I’ve worked for some terrific companies. But even terrific companies don’t always promote on “merit”, and even at terrific companies being smart and hard working and dedicated and willing to move to Akron Ohio from La Jolla if that’s what the company needs… there are other “institutional priorities” which means that the smartest and hardest working people don’t always get the promotion. Just like in college admissions.</p>

<p>There are some real dolts who have gotten where they are on charm and shmooze. And their assistants and the analysts who work for them can tell you that faced with a choice of knuckling down and figuring out a business problem, or sweet talking someone else into doing the work while they “create relationships”, these folks are always creating relationships.</p>

<p>This is life, kids. Sometimes it is purely merit. Sometimes it’s everything BUT merit. Sometimes it’s how you look- and not just that when they’re casting Annie they need a redhead and you’re not a redhead. Sometimes the boss is a tri-athlete and wants to be surrounded by guys who remind him of his fraternity days and the fact that you’re female and prefer to spend your leisure time at the opera instead of at an Ironman means your days are numbered no matter how good you are at your job. “cultural fit” they’ll call it.</p>

<p>I cannot imagine encouraging my kid to do more than 24 or 48 hours worth of mourning/sadness over being shut out. But dissecting the numbers to the degree that parents are doing on this board suggests that these kids will not be moving on anytime soon.</p>

<p>You’re a secretary at Lehman Brothers. You’ve worked there for 10 years, busted your butt to make your bosses look good. You’ve invested your retirement funds in Lehman stock. You met your spouse in the cafeteria, and s/he also invested his/her retirement fund in company stock.</p>

<p>One day you both go into work and discover that Lehman Brothers is gone. You are both unemployed and your 401k has evaporated. You could have taken a job at Credit Suisse, but Lehman was a little closer to home and the shorter commute was appealing.</p>

<p>This is fair? No, it’s not fair. But you guys are claiming that the biggest unfairness a kid will ever face in life is not getting into MIT and having to go to U Chicago because “someone” with a bigger tip than you took your seat… do you even hear yourselves? Are you really teaching your kids that after college admissions, everything else is a meritocracy and it’s only because some “holistically advantaged” applicant took your spot that you are being screwed over? How the heck are your kids going to deal with reality if THIS is the biggest issue in life?</p>