I hear you, @observer12. This is, of course, an emphasis which is being placed on the policies in place, with, perhaps some straight up new language, and attention being drawn not merely to ethical violations, but to those actions which hinge on - or are - against the law.
Yes, those coaches receiving this soft talk are those remaining, those still in good standing, those whose names and reputations, as well as that of the institution, stand to be thought of as sullied at the outset because of the actions of those in the news.
“@waitingtoexhale undeserving meaning…those whose academic history does not support admission on it’s own merit, but whose familial connection or degree of celebrity in conjunction with passable academic ability might secure some measure of publicity, future income for the institution.”
Okay, understood. Somehow I thought you intimated that in your enumerated list of specific groups we understand to have set-aside consideration.
Perhaps my eye caught - and rifled at - the adjective “undeserving” being placed before the most maligned group of all in the list, the “underprivileged,” where it would have easily been placed before “wealthy”. Please excuse me if I jumped too quickly.
To offer my own explanation, I do wish that sometimes, just sometimes, people could consider and allow in conversation for the term “qualified” to be placed before “underprivileged,” or [a word you did not use in your list],before “URM”.
@waitingtoexhale understood! There was not specific order in my adjectives. I list priviledge seperate from wealthy, simply becuase there are those who benefit from some degree of priviledge who are not wealthy.
“Maybe I am just a jaded, cynical, skeptical human, but I have always just assumed that 5-10% of any given college’s admissions slots are “reserved” for the wealthy, undeserving, privileged, hooked, legacy, desirable, beautiful, famous (use one or multiple descriptors)”
I guess I’m even more jaded cynical and skeptical, because I have always assumed that at the elites, closer to 50% fall into this category…
@itcannotbetrue I know it is only one counselor but your post (#3780) mentioned specifically the counselor to Lori and Mossimo’s daughters.
As far as academic/guidance counselors vs college counselors, at some schools they are one and the same. Some schools (probably not those that the wealthy attend) only have guidance counselors and don’t have college counselors.
My daughter went to a private Catholic HS. Very inexpensive compared to the private schools of the rich and famous. Even at her school we had separate college counselors. They met with students starting freshmen year. By junior year, there were regular meetings with student, and meetings with parents. There was a 25 page “questionnaire” that students had to complete for their counselor.
Could students have lied on the questionnaire? Sure, it’s possible but these counselors really knew the kids and their strengths. I find it hard to believe that the counselors at these elite private high schools were totally in the dark.
Big shifts in SAT/ACT scores should have been a flag for the counselors too, especially since they also are aware of grades and school performance.
@observer12 I don’t think an employee of Harvard IS allowed to accept that kind of gift. (Every few years, I need to review and sign compliance and other docs, just as many corporate employees do.) One ugly in all this is that the families went behind the U’s backs, found that little mouse hole. And the (apparent) fact that they did doesn’t say the U is ok with it. H, in particular, has had some public messes where kids wildly falsified apps (not remembering the names, now, but there were long threads.) And they kicked those kids out.
The comment that the GCs must have been complicit is also speculation. I don’t think this is a case where adcoms were in touch with GCs, to confirm recruit details. I have not heard that GCs in some way confirmed these falsified sports resumes. The issue is that college sports coaches can have their own pull (we did discuss this, from several angles, upthread.)
Another problem is this assumption that it’s “5-10%” of the class where the “wealthy…privileged, hooked, legacy, desirable, beautiful, famous” have some distinguisable edge. Specifically, throwing in the word “undeserving.” You don’t know that. But on CC, just saying it somehow gives it unmerited credence. It gets a false life of its own. Again, we went through this with earlier comments/posts. And again, the discretionary list at the school I know so well, a tippy top, is under 1%. And, the process does include vetting those kids on academics and the other holistic factors. It’s the athletic recruit loophole that allows fake coxswains in, based on the coach’s wants. Big difference- and you should be annoyed at atletic pull, on its own, without trying to build a speculative superstructure.
Do Lori and her husband have bad attorneys? They must know there are phone recordings of others charged? My DH and I just disagreed about this, he thinks minimal jail. Federal prosecutors have the public focused on this case.
I have two kids who applied to college without their (IMO, useless) guidance counselor helping or even knowing what schools they were applying to. The process was if you were applying to a private or OOS school, you ordered a transcript and the office prepared it and you picked it up. It was sealed in a school envelope, but you had to address it and put the postage on it. The school had no idea if you applied to podunk U or USC. Nor did they care. For the state public schools, the schools did send the transcripts electronically in batches.
One daughter was a recruited athlete. She applied, was accepted, and signed her NLI without anyone from the school even knowing. Her hs coach had resigned and had never been a teacher at the school, just a coach hired for the sport. She had no obligation to tell the hs school anything about recruiting. The only involvement anyone at the hs school had with the recruiting was that the NCAA needed an official transcript showing graduation, and the very part time athletic department secretary sent in all those transcripts in June, after recruiting was long over. It wasn’t a small school (420 graduates) and was well represented with athletic recruits, about 35. This is how they were all done.
If daughter had cheated on her applications, tests, or recruiting, the high school would not have known.
The athletes and coaches do get NCAA compliance training at the start of every year. They are told what they can accept from the school, what they can do with the swag, what they can accept from other parents or boosters.
Re: counselors. My kids go to a small, public but highly ranked school. There is one college counselor. Each senior must fill out a sheet about themselves that lists their ECs, other things about them, so that the counselor can write a recommendation if/when she is asked. Parents are asked to complete a “brag sheet” for the same reason. Of course, if you were trying to hide something, you would just fudge this form. I don’t know if a counselor recommendation is required with all college apps, but I suppose it wouldn’t be hard for a counselor just not to know about/write about the fake sport, and whoever ends up reading that recommendation not necessarily taking the time to make sure the ECs/sports match up with what is said in that letter.
Also, I don’t think our college counselor actually looks over or reviews anyone’s application (unless, of course a student specifically asks for that). I don’t know if, through Common App for example, if you are requested to write a recommendation letter, you get access to the kids’ app. So our counselor would never know if someone was lying on their app or putting sports or activities they didn’t do.
This is to say I do think it’s much more possible that the HS counselors in this case were truly in the dark, IMO much more possible than a student being in the dark. I’m still not buying how any student could be in a special test-accommodation section of their ACT/SAT and not question why.
These types of private schools devote a lot of resources to college counseling. The outcomes are very much seen as a reflection of the school, and the schools do try to steer students to particular schools to avoid too many competing applications at any one place. The essays are reviewed, and scores analyzed; there are frequent counseling sessions.
“I have two kids who applied to college without their (IMO, useless) guidance counselor helping or even knowing what schools they were applying to.”
Same here. In fact one of the guidance counselors, hearing that we had had good success in getting our daughters into high-end colleges, approached us for advice on her own kid’s college application process a few years later. You’re asking us? I thought GCs were supposed tell this stuff to parents and students - not the other way around.
However, our girls went to a large public HS of middling academic reputation. So our experience may not apply to what happens at elite prep schools.
I think we need understand these are expensive private hs. Yes, there’s a measure of devotion to student outcomes and often an active hand in that. But not all kids get the same level of attention, not all are academic or personal shining lights. Plus, many of those parents do hire the expensive professionals. We don’t know what support OJ got from her hs. But she doesn’t strike me (so little info) as the sort they’d massage into HYPS. Maybe not even USC.
And yes, adcoms do know the sort of support the elite private hs give. It’s not necessarily a tip on its own. Eg, they tend to write long, carefully worded LoRs. But scratch the surface and you can see who’s truly got the full endorsement.
These types of private schools devote a lot of resources to college counseling. The outcomes are very much seen as a reflection of the school, and the schools do try to steer students to particular schools to avoid too many competing applications at any one place. The essays are reviewed, and scores analyzed; there are frequent counseling sessions.
@roycroftmom --Agreed. Which is why I bring it up the high school college offices in the first place. These schools’ college offices were either 1) complicit, 2) incompetent, or 3) afraid to rock the boat with big donor families.