<p>I’m pretty sure you could get a Harvard student survey class to do that survey for you for a bit less than $1,000,000.00. You could always offer to donate your winnings which, to my mind, are pretty much a sure-thing, providing “weenie” can cover the bet.</p>
<p>Funny, funny TA
and pd
But y’all knew weenie meant “recruiting” in the sense of sending an admission’s rep or targeting the school like top schools do the elite prep and day schools country-wide. Not some kid getting a piece of throw-away mail from a mass-marketing campaign or Land o’ Goshen! A phone call from someone at Haaahvad! or Yay-ul! I’m betting once the terms are defined as weenie meant them, weenie has a winner. I know I do. ;)</p>
<p>Can’t be a travel budget thing . They seem to make it to all the private schools of note in Texas. Yes. I realize that quality of student, top to bottom, is higher at the private schools in question. But we all know that’s not the only reason the top schools are recruiting there. I do have an anecdote to share about “recruiting visits” to high schools by adcoms from top schools, but I’ll wait until I see how y’all respond to this post. LOL. ;)</p>
<p>“Do you think that Harvard et. al. are out recruiting poor kids?”</p>
<p>Yes, they are. My daughter has two peers who specifically do that for Harvard during their breaks, right in the areas where they came from. In fact, Harvard pays their plane fares home in exchange for them visiting the schools to talk to students and encourage them to consider applying to Harvard.</p>
<p>The admissions officers cannot visit every school; this is another outreach method they employ which, to my knowledge, has been very successful.</p>
<p>As for the results of the elimination of SCEA, that remains to be seen.</p>
<ol>
<li> Harvard is absolutely out there recruiting poor students. The unfortunate fact is that many “top achievers in poor schools” are still very marginal candidates for Harvard. There was a situation here in my daughter’s cohort where there was a kid in a low-SES neighborhood (nonmagnet) high school that everyone agreed was the best student that school had seen in 20 years, and the greatest kid ever. (My daughter, who knew him, agreed.) His SATs were well under 1100. He was admitted to an Ivy, but with a requirement for lots of remedial work. Note that this student had been identified years before 12th grade, and had a whole bunch of supplemental programs behind him.</li>
</ol>
<p>I should make clear that, at least in this city, there are a number of economically disadvantaged kids in the public school system who are excellent candidates for selective colleges. Generally, they find their way into the magnet high schools, and generally they wind up in selective colleges if that’s what they want.</p>
<p>As lots of the studies have shown, places like Harvard don’t do a terrible job of recruiting highly talented extremely poor kids. Where they fall down is with kids in the middle economic quadrants.</p>
<ol>
<li> The EA decision date is also 5/1. All of the substantive criticisms apply to ED, not EA. The Harvard rationale for terminating its EA program was, frankly, gibberish.</li>
</ol>
<p>“How would one verify whether or not any student in those schools has received recruiting outreach from Harvard?”</p>
<p>In the interest of privacy (my own), I’m not going to say how I know that for my city, but be sure I do.</p>
<p>I don’t think it is rational for ad reps to visit schools where there may be one or two students out of 2,000 at most who might be recruitable. It is, however, quite rational for ad reps and especially students to do recruiting over the phone targeting students who have been identified though PSAT or some other means.</p>
<p>On JHS point #2. If it is proven that SCEA gave an advantage, then H’s rationale was not gibberish. Three reasons: first, low income students tend to be less likely to apply early. Second, giving students a bit extra time before they submit their application allows them to improve their record. Third, it gives adcoms more time to recruit–which is what they are presumably doing right now, instead of reviewing SCEA applications.</p>
<p>I think that, in general, people might be a tad too critical --or cynical-- about the willingness and desire of the most selective schools to “recruit” well beyond their typical comfort zone. </p>
<p>In this thread, we have various comments about the article written by Stanford’s provost. Shouldn’t we pay some attention to the words of Dean Shaw (Dean of Admissions at Stanford) : </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Frankly, I am not certain how much more a school such as Stanford might do. With the low acceptance rates comes the danger of criticisms from non-admitted families, especially from the dwindling “non-priority” former majority. We all know that the fear of criticisms, not to mention the threat of lawsuits. have forced schools to abandon their diversity recruiting program, or move them in the underground and far from publicity and advertising.</p>
<p>In the end, it is impossible to please everyone … especially not the middle class and the great number of very bright but unhooked kids it produces. </p>
<p>I believe schools do the best they can. And even then, people such as Dean Shaw are trying to improve the transparency, integrity, and scope of the process.</p>
<p>Many of the “most selective” colleges and universities aggresively recruit economically disadvantaged high school students. Contact methods vary but often include free fly-in weekends for qualifying responders. Many high school guidance counselors also identify students for the colleges and universities. ED is for the mature student who has identified a match school. Targeted economically disadvantaged students receive generous financial aid packages which sometimes amount to a full ride plus transportation money. It is not likely that a truly economically disadvantaged student will be able to visit many other schools whether accepted ED, EA or RD. The remaining argument should, therefore, focus on middle income students needing financial aid. There are many resources readily available on the internet, in the libraries, and in the guidance counselor’s office as well as in bookstores to aid students in selecting colleges based on a number of factors including which schools meet full financial need and how that need is typically met.</p>
<p>ProudDad, I just don’t understand your intense negativity and disdain for the article by the provost at Stanford “how stupid…”). He was talking specifically about non-binding early admission programs – because that it is what Stanford has and what Harvard used to have. And that’s the type of program that he is advocating all colleges should adopt – not the binding ED program. And it sounds like you agree with him on that!</p>
<p>Even with EA, one and done is a luxury that not all families can afford.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is another myth. EA admission certainly provides relief that you know you are a strong applicant, but until the financial aid offers are finalized in the Spring you have no real relief from the process by an early nod. You can certainly pare your list, but students with need are wise to proceed with applications to other colleges that purport to offer generous financial aid and/or merit opportunities, as well as highly ranked state financial safeties if applicable. </p>
<p>I can tell you that while we celebrated our S’s first EA admission and talked to the FA office to get a pre-read to learn whether we could swing it, we couldn’t really relax until their final FA read in the spring. We encouraged S to keep his applications and his options open and see the process through. A lot happens between an early Dec. 15th admit and the May 1st decision. In January, S received an early RA admission to Stanford school with a financial aid read. Then there was an in-state early spring acceptance to Cal Berkeley’s EECS department and Regent’s scholarship. And trust me, our S had that fully backed up by his USNA nomination. Then other early acceptances and financial aid awards in March and April. All this before we had a financial aid award from his EA school. FA awards can vary greatly even among similarly endowed institutions. It pays to compare. I still think many families fail to appreciate how challenging the process is for families of need—of all types, from low to mid to higher income. </p>
<p>Further, I know it is hard to believe, but there are still many families that are unaware of the EA policies. Our good friend’s daughter, Valedictorian, high SAT, & needing FA, applied to H, Y, and Stanford, as well as other match and safety schools. All applications were done and sent by late October. I asked her which one was her early choice, and she said she didn’t understand about applying early so never checked an early box. This was early December right before the early rounds announced results. I had told them about CC and they had read admissions books, but they still failed to understand the early admissions process. I can still see her and her parent’s faces when it dawned on them that they may have a missed an early opportunity. The good news is that she is now a freshman at Harvard. She is a gem and they are lucky to have her. </p>
<p>It’s a challenging process, and that’s no myth.</p>
<p>(I typed this up before I left this morning and didn’t have time to post, but catching up to the thread, and want to add that I also agree with midmo’s point about the growth from early Senior year to later.)</p>
<p>^^. Agree with post above #30. A student received finaid offers from some top, all supposedly need-blind, schools that differed by $10k per year. The one which offered the least was the school he applied EA (non-binding).</p>
<p>
So let’s see if if I have this right. Targeted lowest income students are flown in to meet one on one with everybody on the campus. Top private school kids have an adcom come a’courting once or twice a year on their campus, and the higher achieving kid who hits neither of these extremes gets the internet and guidebooks from B+N? Sounds about fair. It is truly a wonder that any squeeze in at all.</p>
<p>(BTW, I never read weenie’s post #18 , or the subsequent ‘betting’ posts as applying ONLY to the most economically disadvantaged students in her city’s schools but instead to the entire population of the schools. I could be wrong. )</p>
<p>Our children attend a 3 year, inner city public high school. 39% of our student body is on “free or reduced lunch.” Read “at or below the poverty line.” 47% of our students take one or more AP classes. We were visited by Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell, Yale, Vasser, George Washington, and others, all in the last three weeks. Many of our students will apply and some will be accepted. One of my D’s friend’s applied early to Stanford. He is brilliant, charming, and has moved three times since last spring due to a tough parenting situation. He can’t wait to get away, but the only way he will get the education his mind deserves is if some school connects with him, and helps him pay the bill. Thank goodness these reps came in and inspired the kids to apply.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cur, you see … my post “In the end, it is impossible to please everyone … especially not the middle class and the great number of very bright but unhooked kids it produces.” was a preemptive strike. :)</p>
<p>Xig, I knew you were there. I saw you. 
And you knew I was here. </p>
<p>I’m still waiting for an apropos spot to assert my anecdotal evidence, my one data point that controls all other data points. LOL. Like Barney P. , I have only one bullet.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon certainly butchered my post to, I guess, make some sort of point. Please note that the fly ins are for “qualifying responders” and that middle class kids have counselors and more econmic ability to visit schools on their own. I don’t understand curmudgeon’s anger and I agree with xiggi. Also in response to curmudgeon: I think it is very clear that post #18 by Weenie only applies to low income students. How else could it be interpreted?</p>
<p>
How about the words she used when she wrote it? That’s what I went on.
See, the first sentence is talking about the article itself. The second sentence talks about her city’s schools.
Unless you make the assumption that everyone in the public school system in her city is economically disadvantaged, well…I guess I’m right. (It’s at least possible that weenie may have meant that, but she didn’t say that, now did she?) </p>
<p>What anger? I don’t think you know me very well. ;)</p>
<p>I had no intention of butchering your posts. Just trying to shorten it. If you like it better in full, I will oblige. My point remains the same.</p>
<p>
So let’s see if if I have this right. Targeted lowest income students are flown in to meet one on one with everybody on the campus. Top private school kids have an adcom come a’courting once or twice a year on their campus, and the higher achieving kid who hits neither of these extremes gets the internet and guidebooks from B+N? Sounds about fair. It is truly a wonder that any squeeze in at all.</p>
<p>There. That better? LOL.</p>
<p>Marite, the large FA differential was our experience as well. Most interesting to me, the straight RA acceptances that did not give some kind of early-write or early clear admit were the most generous by a long shot. I don’t really know what to make of it. There has been a lot of discussion of preferential packaging on CC, so you might think that some of the early admission schools that went all out to recruit our S, with profs calling and whatnot, might have been the strongest FA awards. That simply was not the case. We were just hoping for more commonality based on the fact that most were top tier, need blind, 568 Group institutions where there is supposed to be a common methodology. Again, I don’t know what to make of it except to say that it is all so surprisingly unpredictable. </p>
<p>Curmudgeon, we have you and CC. Thank you. My S and the friend who is at Harvard are not URMs or among the targeted income groups that get flown for special recruitment. We are the typical mid income groups (I suppose mid-high by some state’s standards) that feel poor with the prospect of large tuition bills. We feel lucky to have squeezed through. I’m sure we would not have been near as lucky if it weren’t for the admissions knowledge learned on CC. So, many thanks to you, marite, xiggi and the many others.</p>
<p>Yes, that is better. I do, however, think that you miss the point of weenie’s post as well as mine. I certainly was not trying to upset you. And, I’m sorry, but I really do not understand the point of your post other than to express some sort of misdirected anger. Is your point that you feel that low income students who are “qualifying responders” should not be offered any financial assistance to visit selective schools?</p>