The Gatekeepers is old and is also not representative of elite universities. Moreover, at my S’s university, the kids being asked by the AdBoard to take a year off tend to be the spoilt rich ones who don’t think rules apply to them. Most of the URMs on FA that I met were hard working and were counting their pennies. The wealthy entitled ones were another story. And it isn’t limited to the Ivies. I know some Jesuits who taught at Georgetown and they said that some of the NoVA kids were major disasters.
Both my kids did this but only because parents agreed to pay in full if they got in. However, many who have gotten in to reaches also ended up at UT because of their high EFC and the parents were not willing to pay so much more when they felt UT (engineering, plan II, bhp) was great. Some great students end up at A&M because UT does not give any national merit money and A&M gives a full tuition ride + additional departmental scholarships.
I was not suggesting that lower SES students (of whatever race) are not hard working. In fact, I applaud colleges’ efforts to bring them in, as it can provide life changing opportunities for graduating students.
But when kids that are unqualified are admitted (and this applies regardless of race, SES, legacy status, etc.), the students fare worse than if they attended a less selective institution where they could have thrived. A high-SES college dropout still has options, but a low-SES dropout has few.
Agreed. “The Gatekeepers” is compelling only because it is about a holistic college admissions approach. There wouldn’t be much point in reading about a system where there are no second reads, where all the final decisions are made by the head dean and made almost always by the numbers.
@TheGFG: Seriously, you took umbrage where there was no deliberate slant of language intended to slight.
Firstly, know that the OP did NOT use the term “break free from the crowd.” I did.
And I do not call those who would seek admission to the Ivies and the top-20 schools anything as nasty as that you would insinuate my statement to suggest.
The crowd does have a direction it pushes; it swells at times. The threads at CC will show you that.
Not every poster, not every family, is in that swell, or seeks to be.
It would be an act of sheer hypocrisy on my part to use your nasty brush to paint every family whose child seeks attendance at Ivies or top-20 schools as seeking to place their children at institutions of great prestige where no commensurate effort is taken to make sure there is fit.
@TheGFG: I just read your post at #80 and I see that you walked into this thread carrying that baggage. Now I understand your comment to my post.
Still, let it go.
Sorry, @TheGFG, it’s been a long day, but I’m not even sure what this (#91) is in response to. I attended an Ivy myself; I’m hardly someone who would make the arguments you’re rebutting here! 
Lucie, what I was countering was your statement that “the takeaway for many is that an Ivy is somehow better than other colleges, which is just not true.” So now we are so PC that we cannot accept that certain schools are simply better than others? Do you seriously think that your average directional state university is as good as one of the Ivies or other elites? Secondly, I was rebutting this comment of yours: “People here on CC, including me for many years now, try hard to educate people on the quality of many schools, including the CTCL colleges, and steer the high school freshman who “dreams of Harvard” toward a healthier high school existence.” To me, this seemed to imply that those dreaming of elite school admission are following an unhealthy path in high school.
Waitingtoexhale, I read your post #107 to suggest that applying to and attending a school like Susquehanna, as your D did, means she was more independent-minded than students who focused more on top schools. You said she broke from the crowd and knew herself–presumably in contrast to others who are more followers of the crowd–the crowd who clamor after the Ivies and other elite schools and/or who have an unrealistic perception of their abilities / chances of admission.
What did you mean to say then, if not that?
What’s your real point, GFG? Most of us can agree there are many good schools, without trying to personalize it. You implied people made some comments you found unpleasant about two of yours being at top schools. Isn’t that on *them, * their insecurities, and something you can ignore?
My state’s directional state colleges are not as good as Harvard or Yale. They are not even as good as our flagship U (which is not Michigan or Virginia), and since there are a bunch of them, some of them are even better than or worse than their peer group (Eastern better than Southern, and so on…)
I would never argue anything but. Their admissions criteria are weaker. The number of students who show up prepared to do college level work is smaller than at an elite university. The number of advanced level courses is significantly smaller, and some departments are just 'service departments" i.e. a couple of courses to fulfill a distribution requirement, not an actual academic offering.
I don’t think it’s “unhealthy” for an academically ambitious kid to "dream of " something more intellectually rigorous than one of our directionals. And I actually don’t think it’s “unhealthy” for said kid to identify a couple of colleges which have the “flavor” he/she is looking for. A kid who has had to dial it back academically because the HS stresses athletics over classroom or has never been in a class discussion with other kids who have actually read the book being discussed may need the dreams to make it through HS intact!
I think fixating on Harvard is a mistake, just as fixating on West Point or Julliard or dancing with the Bolshoi is a mistake. The odds are against even a talented kid in any of these arenas.
So the problem is not that it’s unhealthy to dream about Harvard, Lucie. But the kid should be dreaming about Harvard AND Tufts AND Brandeis AND Chicago AND Middlebury AND Pomona and a whole bunch of other places where you can be smart and hardworking and be one of the cool kids (or not) and participate in a class discussion without being tagged the teachers pet.
CTCL- I think it’s marketing. Some of these colleges are terrific, if unknown environments for an academically talented kid. Some of them may be on the brink of going under and I think it’s a shame to steer a kid towards an underfunded/bond rating slipping/we’ll do anything for a full freight kid college if there are better options for that kid. Even if it means your friends think you are a prestige-%^&*.
I believe this is some of what GFG is communicating (not the CTCL piece, that’s just me). Not that she needs me to be her mouthpiece!!!
The “dreaming of Harvard” quote was mine. And it was unclear, sorry. I was referring to some of the posts on Ivy League forums, in fact many posts, that start out with “I have been dreaming of Harvard since I was 5.” Some of these posters are quite young. Many of them do not seem to know much about college choices, and have heard of Harvard. The impression is of a lack of sophistication leading to unnecessary stress.
There are posters on those forums who stay up all night and think that is the way to get into an Ivy, and that is the best way to live in high school. There are posters who want to know what EC’s they should be doing so they can get in etc. And of course some will admit to wanting prestige.
People here on CC often try to help them stop fixating on a sort of mythical Ivy that they heard of when they were very young, educate them on other choices, and urge them to live a healthy life in high school.
I don’t think the word “dream” should be applied to any college choice honestly. That is putting way too much emphasis on the choice of college. Colleges actually don’t change lives, the students who attend change their own while there 
@TheGFG : As I had not meant to start us down this path, I have PM’d you.
Lookingforward, my posts are in response to current comments on this thread, such as those quoted in my last post. They do, however, mirror remarks made to me over the years.
I think the strong desire to assert equality among colleges is an offshoot of the “everybody gets a trophy” philosophy. As a society we seem to be increasingly uncomfortable with the idea that anything is objectively better across the board than something else. We want to believe it’s all just a matter of personal preference, or that there simply must be some as-yet-undiscovered superior trait in the allegedly inferior thing that will equalize the comparison. Our society rebels even more strongly against the idea that one person may actually be smarter and more talented than another. The very idea greatly offends people. Perhaps this sensitivity stems from our democratic ideals as a nation. However, in my opinion the problem is that people conflate “better in some way” with “better in general” or “better as a person.” A more academically accomplished person is not necessarily a better person in general, but he may indeed be more intelligent. Regrettably, a lot of people cannot acknowledge the latter without incorrectly believing it implies the former.
Hence, some parents go to the extreme of trying to establish that the education at Ordinary State University is just as good as that of an elite college, or that going to Ordinary SU is in some other way far, far preferable to attending HYPSM etc. Where it gets really obnoxious is that these parents feel the need to personalize it by implying that their (beloved but average) kid who attends Ordinary SU (or in the case of this thread, a CLCL school) is healthier, less pretentious, more financially savvy, more independent-minded, more practical, less entitled, ______________ than peers who are going off to HYPSM.
This just isn’t necessary and runs counter to the principle that one should build someone up without tearing someone else down.
It’s still on them, those naysayers. You can choose to ignore their ignorance. I do understand you deal with a lot in your district.
I’d never say a bottom feeder college tops a more discerning school. But neither do I automatically kowtow to Harvard. I’ve seen too much real life. And there are so many schools in between.
Its really too simple to assume H kids are “smarter.” That’s going to push many people’s buttons.
I think we have to recognize how we feed into the frenzy, with talk of smarter. Or destined for greater accomplishments. Or fairy dust. The burden is still on the individual kid to fulfill his promise, during and after college. Smile and nod.
Ah, but there are indeed people who are smarter than others, whether you want to admit it or not. However, no one said they all attend Harvard or that all Harvard kids are smarter than non-H kids; that’s a straw man that you don’t need to counter.
But it’s also odd that people criticized the poster who had the guts to tell her kids that they are smart, but not Ivy-league smart. I would have thought that would be exactly the type of realism that would be encouraged, since it’s the opposite of a desperate lemming rush to apply to all the Ivies regardless of personal fit. Yet people couldn’t stomach that concept either. I guess it comes too close to what they feel is the dangerous and offensive idea that we aren’t all inherently the same. People today want to believe that everyone is equal. They are deeply invested in the belief that no one is better in any way than anyone else. Thus, if we differ in accomplishment, the difference stems only from opportunity and luck and maybe genetics–never work ethic, drive, discipline, or moral fortitude. That’s why the idea that Ivy admissions is a lottery is so popular. It’s more palatable to many than acknowledging that among kids with equal opportunity and similar level of privilege, some students are still more intelligent, more disciplined, and harder-working and therefore can better earn a spot at an elite school.
Please don’t think that the above means I want or need people to praise and worship the elite school admits. I certainly don’t. But I also think they need to stop putting them down as happens so often here and in real life.
@TheGFG I was that poster that said " We’re smart, but not Ivy League smart " , and I have also noticed that I did take some criticism for my statement. I tend to be a realist, some may say a pessimist . We will never know if my son is “Ivy League smart” because of personal reasons he chose not to apply to any of the Elite universities. He may very well have been admitted, he may not have been . He is very happy with his decision. He, nor I, believe he is any “better” or “thoughtful” or " responsible" than anyone else. He made a personal decision regarding a school. No one, no matter what side they fall on, should feel like they have to justify why or why they did or didn’t make a certain choice. Why the judgement ? That’s where my frustration lies. The need for people to judge one another on decisions that have no affect or reflection on them.
I’m not the one posing a straw man. Of course there are smart people wherever. And nothing wrong with choosing or not choosing to go after a TT. But nor am I so sensitive to what the neighbors think and say, whether that’s a defensive crack or winning their praise.
So now the accusation is we’re too sensitive or too invested in what others think if we want the Ivy and Ivy-applicant criticism to stop. We want it to stop because it’s wrong, false and unfair. Not because we can’t hack it emotionally.
Nope.
Why, with all the praise heaped on TTs, are we focusing on how wrong occasional criticism is? I didn’t take from others’ posts what some did. It’s easy to say many smart kids choose many college options. This thread has taken a defensive tone and we can change that.
You did say- and perhaps I misinterpreted: I think mature adults should try a little harder to graciously accept that some kids will be smarter/more accomplished/luckier in admissions
I don’t feel the need to rank some kids “smarter.” Not even if one wants to make a casual distinction between smart and Ivy league smart.