"Ivy Entitlement" Finally Understood

@PurpleTitan That “social conditioning” is all about thinking you are a “unique” individual, because that’s what you need to portray for the US holistic admissions process.

So part of the “let down” in going to Berkeley with a dozen classmates is that you are no longer “unique” compared to going across the country/being the only one at a small school etc.

In contrast, the limited number of options in the UK means that most students won’t be unique, even at Oxbridge in many cases, so I don’t think that social conditioning around university choices happens so much. The sort of UK kids/families for whom uniqueness matters are the ones who look at applying to US schools.

I see the problem as not being with the system, but that many many parents and students aren’t EDUCATED about the system, or if they are, it’s often too late. We’ve all seen the posts from a parent who stumbled on to this website and then posts with questions about the process and who is shocked at the cost of college these days, etc. So many parents and kids don’t have this information, and don’t have GCs who have the time/expertise to teach them this. In the words of Donald Rumsfeld, they don’t know what they don’t know. At the same time, these kids have been told throughout their lives that they will “go far” and Ivy League schools are a slam dunk for them. That is the problem.

Benefit is far greater for making every little kids a princess or a prince, and making them all winners. More kids need boost rather than a cold shower on their self-esteem.

If they end up a bit delusional during 10-11th grade on what schools they will end up applying in 12th grade, so be it. But I think there are more reasons than a participation trophy. Such as not transparent holistic admission and colleges actively encouraging kids they have no intention to take.

@Twoin18 I would argue at least as many go to the US since they can full pay or get on the rowing team at an elite school rather than where their academics alone will take them in the UK. Limited number of options, please explain??

P.S. I used to order some best student of my one student homeschool trophies. My kid disliked them :frowning:

@Twoin18: Hmm.

Bard College Berlin (or the Dutch University Colleges).

Small (actually, tiny) schools, and they are sure to be unique. :wink:

Still in the US, NCF is also tiny, costs not that more than in-state, and punches beyond its weight.

BTW, you must be talking about top-tier HS’s/sixth form colleges.

The typical sixth form college in England would send 1-2 to Oxbridge in a good year and barely more than that to all those other UK unis I listed.

Same with the typical HS in CA, where only a handful (if any) would get in at Cal.

Participation trophies are ruining a generation of kids. It’s really sad. Don’t know when this started but I know we never had them. Remember how great it felt when you actually won a championship (in anything) and how much you looked up to the kids that were better than you? Growing up in the '70s I vividly remember practicing hours upon hours to improve my skills so I could make the hoop or soccer or baseball team. Made some, got cut from others. Never thought “it wasn’t fair”. Just thought, “those guys are better than me, time to step it up”
Learning how to win is important. Learning how to lose is important. putting in the work to improve yourself, whatever that may be, is what it’s all about. That’s missing with many kids today. They don’t want to put in the work, just expect outcomes. Doesn’t work like that. Hope they learn this important skill before they join the workforce. Start at the bottom, work your way up. Nobody deserves anything (accept a fair shot).

@elguapo1 Just that there aren’t many universities to choose from in the UK, and so I never put much thought into my UCAS form, and it didn’t require you to fall in love with (let alone demonstrate interest in) a particular university. Sure there are kids exploiting the differences between the two systems on both sides: arbitrage is good when not many people understand which elements are over/undervalued in the other system.

@PurpleTitan Yes, and any UK schools are a “unique” choice for a US student, which can weigh heavily in a kid’s mind (certainly an issue for my S18). I’d still argue 1-2 a year is a lot more than Ivy admission rates from a decent but not “top 100” US high school (as a point of reference my kids school has zero Ivy admissions almost every year, but 10-15 admitted to Berkeley). You also have a better idea what the academic standard is in the UK as you noted previously.

Kids know the difference between a trophy for participation and a trophy for winning. I wouldn’t assume that affects the way they think about their chances at elite colleges @snarlatron .

Despite what I said in post #2 this does bring to mind the conversation a coach had with one of my kids when she was recruiting her. When my daughter told her she was the team captain the coach asked how many captains the team had and was surprised there was only one. Apparently there are teams where every senior is named a captain regardless of their contribution to the team.

Note that relative sizing of universities to population also explains why some state universities are much more selective and competitive than others. For example:

  • California has around 392,000 high school graduates per year, and about 12,000 new frosh enroll in UCB + UCLA. I.e. new frosh at UCB + UCLA number about 3% of the state high school graduates.
  • Arizona has around 62,000 high school graduates per year, and about 20,000 new frosh enroll in UA + ASU. I.e. new frosh at UA + ASU number about 32% of the state high school graduates.

(Yes, there are out-of-state students at these universities, but accounting for them will not change the comparison.)

Why does this need to be anti-US? Big country, different strokes for different folks.

This says it, from @mom2and : “The issue of kids and parents thinking that their child deserves a place in a super elite college and if they get rejected the system must be rigged is not because kids are recognized for participation. It is because they don’t understand the level of competition out there and how, even though their kid may be special at the local level, so are thousands of others.”

Some dinky trophy doesn’t explain misplaced expectations and being under-informed, missing that it’s holistic, not rack and stack. So to say, if you want to run with the big boys, you’d better know the race. Otherwise, you may be the one throwing darts blindfolded.

Both of my kids appreciated trophies as records of their accomplishment, but they didn’t assume that trophies marked them as shoo-ins to elite colleges. What the trophies and competitive awards (in debate, art) did mean was that they were good at something, distinguished at something at age 16. And it gave them confidence to pursue other goals.

Now we are cleaning our house and moving to smaller quarters. What to do with the trophies? A couple of huge ones (3 feet tall). Our son wants his debate trophies (he’s well out of college and into his career). So we’ve shipped them, and even carried some with us 1000 miles in the car. I think the trophies remind him of good times! And of how much work he put into the debate in h.s. But there was no direct link to his getting into excellent colleges. Grades and test scores were far more important.

Our daughter won a couple of local/city awards as an artist. They gave her a sense of achievement. But she knew that the only way to get into the art colleges that she applied to was to have an excellent portfolio (talent) and decent academic credentials. The “trophies” themselves didn’t matter to her college admission; they mattered to her self-confidence; and the skills that she showed in her portfolio were ones that the colleges would be looking for.

Or any other group that the person is not a member of but perceives to have an unfair or unearned advantage (e.g. other race/ethnicity, legacy), whether or not that is actually the case at the given university. Seems that in many of the “chance” and admission discussions, such characteristics are perceived by many posters as being among the most important aspects of an applicant with respect to college admissions.

D’s LAX team had 4-5. It was a requirement that the captains commit to being at practice throughout spring break, which my D couldn’t promise, due to college visits.

Her vball teams always had 3 captains, one of the 3 had to be on the court at all times.

I think this varies a lot by sport, school, etc.

@suzy100 I think you hit the nail on the head! The student who will probably be our Val is in a state because she has been denied by both her EA/ED schools. Her list was chockfull of what we all know here on CC as reaches for everyone and state safety schools. She had nothing in-between. The denials have been a wake-up call for her and she will probably end up at a state school because she did not get good guidance on the mix of schools to apply to. She is very bitter about it. My D remarked why in the world did she not apply to some 50-100 ranked uni’s or good (not top)LAC’s? Her mom had told me early on in the process that she expected D would get a full-ride to a top university. We are not close so I didn’t feel it appropriate to tell her that wasn’t likely and that she should research. I did tell her I used CC and it was a great help to me. Ignorance is not bliss in the college process!

Seems like she is only bitter because she did not choose safety schools that she likes.

However, those students (or parents) whose notion of “fit” is bound to prestige/selectivity/exclusivity so that they will only be happy at reach schools are more likely to be disappointed, since no non-reach school can possibly be satisfying under that notion of “fit”.

@Twoin18: The ironic thing, of course, is that Edinburgh and UCL (and KCL) are also giant bureaucratic publics* with reputations for research being stressed more than undergrad instruction (at least the last one at Edinburgh).

Then again, Harvard-Westlake sends far more kids to UMich than to either Cal or UCLA.

  • That brings to mind a conversation on CC where a(n American) parent who's D had gone to a private boarding school insisted that McGill, Toronto, Edinburgh, and St. A's were privates, not publics.

BTW, I can’t think of any other country where the application process requires you to fall in love with a school.
The Chinese/French process is brutal, but you go where your tests scores say you should end up.
In the UK, kids list up to 5 (and their choices tend to be driven by prosaic concerns). Canada is similar. Many if not most of the students at the top 3 Canadian unis (Toronto, McGill, and UBC; all gigantic, public, and urban) are locals who commute.

I find that for this generation applying to colleges is somewhat confusing. All through the pathway to colleges the message society has been sending is study hard, take the most difficult course load you can handle, study for the SAT, make sure to have your ECs etc. This used to be the pathway to top schools. Enter the common app, holistic admissions and suddenly the rules have changed. During one admissions presentation at a highly selective school my D came away with shame for pursuing the path of strong SATs and highly rigorous course load. I disagree with the every one gets a trophy generation…kids aren’t stupid. Most if not all view the Ivy league and other top schools as a lottery ticket because no one really knows what criteria is really gives them an edge. It is easy enough to throw an application in so why not?

My kid’s high school sucked any entitlement he might have had right out of him. As to trophies, you guys have me questioning my “World’s Best Mom” trophy… :frowning: