<p>I can think of many examples of kids who did the paid-for-by-rich-parents junkets, <em>and</em> who were successful in their college acceptances. But there is a double correllation here- do they get a leg up because they went on the 4 week/ 6 week/ 8 week whatever…Or because they’re rich? Seriously. </p>
<p>Wealth is an asset, no doubt about it. For many colleges, the ability to pay full freight, and more, throughout college and after is a huge plus. Is it really the overseas community service that helped one student get in over another higher qualified student from the same high school? That’s an easy thing for the GC to tell all the parents (or the parents to tell themselves) when the accepted student is below the non-accepted student average in terms of GPA and test scores. But in reality, there is probably a dual correllation going on, which skews the perception of how important out-of-country junkets really are.</p>
<p>I’m seeing this through the eyes of a (middle class) parent whose kids went to a private high school on “scholarship”. It was obvious that in a lot of ways, money spoke in the college admissions process. Coincidentally, many privileged children also tended to do summer programs- overseas service, $5000+ educational programs at universities, etc. What came first, the chicken or the egg?</p>