I consider the “why us” essay to mean that the college cares about demonstrated interest, regardless of what the Common Data Set says.
There are many different levels of doing this (in rough order of really bad to pretty good):
Instant reject: You write a generic "Why Us" essay that you use for every college, but forgot to replace "Duke" to "UPenn" in your UPenn application.
Done badly: Includes statement about you are applying that it's prestigious or that it's in city, which you love.
Generic: You spend five minutes looking at the college materials and echo that back to them.
Better: You read the marketing materials carefully and describe how their values fits with yours. For UChicago you could say how the Core will be good for you, perhaps because it takes you out of your comfort zone. You also describe how you would participate in university specific activities.
Campus visit: A campus visit provides excellent opportunities for anecdotes to weave into your essay. It could be describing a particular discussion you had with your tour guide, or a class you attended.
Professor visit: If you have done any research, try to setup a professor visit where you can discuss what you have done with them. My kids found professors were very willing to meet with them, and the discussions made for rich additions to the "Why Us" essay.
Obviously, #5 and #6 favor higher SES applicants that can visit.
Sadly we have become a society of complainers. We are aware and educated to the fact that where you go to college doesn’t effect your future.
We are blessed to have so many options and opportunities in this country. Yet we complain about the lack of opportunities for all in this country.
But all we’re doing on this thread is complaining about the fairness of all these amazing opportunities.
Hi! I’m a senior and I applied to about 13 colleges, my initial list was over 20 but I cut down to just 13. The writing process was agonizing, sure, but it really makes you look into who you are and the experiences you’ve had, and tests your writing abilities. I personally liked/appreciated the “Why Us” essays because it made me look into the college’s resources and what they could specifically offer to MY education, as well as their enrichment programs and research, more so than the colleges that didn’t require me to do those essays. For some colleges I dropped them because I really couldn’t say “why them” other than their ranking. It makes you critically think about and analyze why do you truly want to go to this college. Also, I didn’t get the chance to visit any of my colleges except 2 since they’re too far away, but I was still able to write compelling essays based on the materials I found online, watching various YouTube videos(from students and the college itself), and if I truly wanted to I could’ve contacted professors through email or something to discuss their research if I wanted to have that kind of interaction with them. They aren’t really all that hard, and they don’t have to be generic, if a student really looks into what brought them into the school and does a little bit of extra research to see what sets apart a certain school from the others they apply to.
Need-blind is not real. I am sorry but before they start looking at kids who require fa help, they make sure to admit enough wealthy kids who can pay. They need to meet the needs of the budget first.
What we need to do to make sure everyone gets equal opportunity is to provide healthcare, parental leave, parenting skills, importance of family unit, alcohol/drug/tobacco use prevention, minimum wage, financial literacy, good K-12 education in all public schools, taking aptitude tests, teaching trade skills, employment events at community centers, free community college etc.
It makes little difference to send 500 under qualified applicants to Ivies for free and think we did our part to neutralize 500 rich applicants getting in using wealth advantage, there should be ways to help every kid, every family. This extreme tug of war is taking opportunities away from middle class kids. Making a mockery of higher education is not going to serve anyone. It’s so pathetic that SAT boost to legacy, donor, athlete, URM, low income etc is considered a solution to improve status of education.
This myth of money is the only thing that makes you a good student is overinflated, if it was true rich won’t be desperately trying athletics, donations, Legacy, bribes and fraud to get in.
What makes real difference is parents instilling value of education by words and actions. What matters is making kids of this nation focus on hard work, learn value of good education and provide opportunities and all schools and colleges, not just prep or boarding schools and ivy colleges. If public schools and colleges improved, everyone from every financial class would have better opportunities.
Merit is not a myth nor it’s evil. Give kids skills not short cuts for privilege and under-privilege. It’s a disservice to everyone, specially hard working kids who are not in any visible group.
While I agree with much of the rest of your post, this is incorrect. You are committing a classing logical fallacy. You are claiming that the logical conclusion of the statement “most kid being accepted to ‘elite’ colleges are wealthy”, is “most wealthy kids are being accepted to ‘elite’ colleges”.
So by demonstrating that the second statements is false, you cannot prove that the first is also false. This is the same as saying “since all black birds are not ravens, ergo your claim that all ravens are black and are birds is false”.
Wealth is a requirement for better SAT scores, better GPAs, and more impressive SATs, but it is not the only requirement.
An “average” kid, raised in a poor family, without good nutrition, decent healthcare, safe places to study, while missing breakfasts, having to work after school, and having a poor school, and their SAT score will likely be below 800. Provide them with decent meals, space in school to study, some extra time after school, and their SAT will likely be around 1000. Provide them with their own room, private tutors and SAT prep, etc, and their SAT score will likely be around 1200 or higher. Take an above average kid, and the scores will be more like 1000, 1200 and 1400or a bit higher.
Money won’t allow a below average student to get a 1500, but family income will help a smart kids get a 1500 instead of a 1200. Since most “elite” colleges won’t look at a student with an SAT score of 1200, it is fair to say that money is a critical requirement for many wealthy kids with SAT scores of 1500.
So, to even be considered for an “elite” college, most poor kids would have to be smart enough that, if they were wealthy, they would likely have a 1600, or close to that, on their SATs.
While it’s challenging for most wealthy kids to gain admission to “elite” colleges, it is nigh well impossible for poor kids.
My kid, who is unquestionably extremely bright, would likely never have gained admissions to anything approaching an “elite” college, had we not been middle class/upper middle class. She went through some pretty difficult times in middle and high school, and, had she had two parents who had to work long hours, and were exhausted every evening, we likely would not have been able to identify and deal with the issues. Had we not have the money, time, and the confidence provided by the privilege of being upper middle class and educated, we likely would not have been able to advocate for her, and make sure that she got the right treatment, while, at the same time,. the negative impacts on her life were minimized. At almost any high school in a lower SES/lower education level area, she would have not been able to regain academic momentum after some of the issues with which she dealt, nor would we have had the tools and the resources to help her do so.
Finally, the more money a family has, the more it compensates for other things which their kid lacks. A $2.5 million donation would have gotten any of those kids from the admissions scandal into whatever college they wanted.
All that being said, I do agree that trying to solve these issues when the kids get to college is like closing the proverbial barn door after it has been vacated by its proverbial inhabitant. If we would provide low income families with good schools, meals for kids, tutoring when needed, and safe places for play and study, that would do more for providing these kids with the chance to attend competitive colleges than adding “adversity scores” to SAT tests.
Poor kids should be able to develop and demonstrate their abilities, whether they be in academics, the arts, physical activities, or any other.
If you mean the forum definition of “middle class” (top 5% income, no financial aid at any college), then their kids certainly are the beneficiaries of parent-purchased opportunities to earn merit that are typically not available to most others (e.g. living in the places with the best public schools or being able to attend private school, financial support for extracurriculars, test prep, and getting disability accommodation, etc.).
And this is the crux of the problem - applicants thinking they have to apply to so many colleges. It is not “just 13”, 13 is a lot. Let’s stop selling top students a bill of goods that they are a failure if they don’t get into a T20 and set appropriate expectations. Take a shot at an Ivy or such, apply to 3 or 4 true matches and a true safety and be done with it. Much less stress, aggravation, and disappointment.
However, students hunting for competitive merit scholarships may need larger application lists, since there is much less information available that can be used to assess whether admission to college X with $Y competitive merit scholarship is a reach or match (hence should be assumed to be reach in most cases).
I would say this is not a problem, and in many cases those few extra applications may avert a big disappointment.
Congratulations if you or your kid get into the dream college, affordable, with just 6 apps submitted. Seems about half of kids submit 6 or fewer.
But to many kids who may be unsure of their ideal college environment, or needing merit, or on the cusp of acceptance at several dream schools, then 10-13 apps might be appropriate. And with the Common App and many schools not requiring supplemental essays, the extra apps are not extremely burdensome. Moreover, some kid sending in a lot of apps is really not hurting you or your kid’s chances at their target schools.
So relax and let each family apply as they see fit for their situation.
The studies I’ve seen on paid test prep classes is that on average they add about 30 points to the SAT, not 300. There’s a lot of conjecture here. Going to better schools and not sharing a room with siblings may improve SAT scores, but where are the studies to prove it? There are assumptions about time availability. Most businesses, including menial fast food jobs, don’t want to hire anyone under 16 to work during the school year. Even if they wanted to work, those under 16 may find it difficult to find an employer willing to hire them during the school year.
Here is one article of many that demonstrate that the more siblings a child has, the lower their academic achievement, AND, that the effects of income and number of siblings interact.
So we now have income, and number of siblings. I am pretty sure that we can agree that the more siblings one has, the less chance there is that one has a room to oneself, and that this becomes increasingly true as family income drops.
As for the quality of schools and the SAT score of the kids, well, if they weren’t correlated, people wouldn’t be talking about the mean SAT scores of a school as an indicator of it’s quality.
So, yes, there are studies to prove going to better schools and not sharing a room with siblings likely do improve SAT scores.
This study is interesting because of the racial effects observed. The coefficients for income differ significantly for black and white students at lower incomes. As you move up the income scale, the income coefficients converge for the two racial groups.
Perhaps parental money helps work around effects of racial discrimination (including greater neglect of K-12 schools with poor black students versus those with poor white students – e.g. https://edbuild.org/content/23-billion ).