<p>“And getting back to NU - for the sake of my son and his new classmates, I hope such an entitled kid chose the other non-Ivy top 20, because I would prefer my son be surrounded with kids who are eager and enthused about the great opportunities in front of them…”</p>
<p>…such as the lady and gentleman with the power-tool happiness device. They don’t have them at Princeton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Reason goes out the window when you’re dealing with an 18-year-old who’s been given the message all his life that he’ll be a failure if he doesn’t get into the college that mommy and daddy conceived him to attend.</p>
<p>Bay I appreciate that perspective and it is a very good point. However, if you look at it from the students point of view as opposed to the overall odds, you might be able to see how a student or her parents might have a different “expectation”. Student looks at her school’s scattergram and sees her stats are above the range of prior admissions to these colleges from her school. She sees multiple admissions over a number of years and her stats are better. If the scattergram shows many admissions over a number of years instead of just a few, it kinda shows that admissions is not really a “lottery”. Couple that with the fact that the student may have known for many years the actual admits to these colleges and can compare her strengths and weakness to these actual admits, I think you can see where someone can conclude that they might have a pretty good shot. It’s not entitlement, it is expectation based on data and personal experience.</p>
<p>justdafacts,
I’ll admit that what you’ve described is out of the realm of my real life experience. As I posted before, there have literally been no HYPSDCPB admits (and we have probably 5-10 per year) from our hs that who were not either legacies, athletes, URM or a 2400, so I cannot comment on whether what you described even happens much (i.e. that there are enough unhooked/special admits in any one high school to really set a precedent for admission).</p>
<p>Even She-who-may-not-be-named on this thread stated that <em>all</em> of the admits in her S’s class were either URM, first gen or donor-status kids.</p>
<p>Texaspg claims that it happens all the time, that some #2 pure-merit applicant gets passed over in favor of lower pure merit applicants. I am skeptical of this, and of your scenario (that there are enough <em>identical</em> applicants from one school to project an outcome), but I suppose I can be convinced that it does really happen sometimes, if enough people make the same claim.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it still is. Don’t you get it? There are 30,000 high schools in this country. (I"m going to exclude homeschoolers for the sake of discussion; I don’t know how many that adds into the mix.) Don’t people who go to schools that send multiple kids every year to Ivies know that those schools are, from a statistical standpoint, “exceptional”? That there really are only a relative handful of schools in the country that are like that – and not too many once you get outside elite boarding schools, elite privates, specialty magnet schools and the typical upper-middle-class New Triers and Scarsdales? In light of that, how can anyone possibly conclude that because Upper Middle Class Public High sent X kids with Y stats to Ivies last year, that X kids with Y stats this year are “entitled” to go? There’s just an arrogance about the whole thing that is off-putting. Really, gang? It never occurred to you that HYPSM might be getting a little tired of the same old high schools and might want to expand a bit?</p>
<p>Bottom line is - this kind of student didn’t look the 15%, 12%, 10% and below acceptance rates in the mouth. She thought they didn’t apply to her. That most of the other applicants to HYPSM must have just been the C and B students and that of course she’d make it into the charmed 10%. And parents either created that or reinforced that. Is that any way to raise a kid? </p>
<p>This has NOTHING to do with acknowledging the very real disappointment. But there is disappointment born of hopes dashed, and disappointment born of entitlement. Everyone on this board is sympathetic towards the former.</p>
<p>In an exhibition of near-insanity (my own–it’s ok, I recognize it), I would like to respond to Pizzagirl, post #1260.</p>
<p>Also, I add the qualifier that I am not talking about the Ivies, for the most part, but rather about colleges with somewhat specialized missions.</p>
<p>The Ivies balance so many considerations in admitting classes that I think it’s fair to say that no one should expect to get in there–even though the experiences of students in earlier classes at the same HS may point to a reasonable probability of admission, which is higher than 5%.</p>
<p>When it comes to specialized institutions, though, I don’t buy Pizzagirl’s “special snowflake” argument. Suppose the HS student in question is a cellist, and suppose that a professional cellist who has a reasonable level of experience with young musicians in international competitions is assessing the level of promise shown by the student–at 16 or 17, not in the crib! If the professional cellist thinks the student “ought” to be admitted to Julliard, I would be inclined to give some credence to that judgment.</p>
<p>Now take mathematics. There are just not that many students in the country who are prepared to enroll in Math 55 at Harvard as freshmen, or in the corresponding course at MIT, Caltech, Princeton, and a few other schools, despite the improvements in math instruction at the high end. Perhaps there are 300 per year, coming from regions with a high concentration of interested students (i.e. regions with Math Circles) + those who are unusually talented auto-didacts (or near-auto-didacts). If Harvard caps the number of mathematicians in its entering class at 15 or 30, and thereby excludes someone who is ready for Math 55 in order to balance out the interests of the entering class, I don’t have any problem with that. </p>
<p>On the other hand, MIT is going to have a very heavy concentration of math/science/engineering types to begin with. That’s its nature–it’s an Institute of Technology. In this pool, I don’t think one is making a “special snowflake” argument, if a professional mathematician/scientist/engineer with some experience of very talented young students in that field thinks that the HS student “ought” to be admitted to MIT. </p>
<p>I’d guess that the exceptionally talented cellist would virtually always be admitted to Julliard, but that the exceptionally talented STEM student might or might not be admitted to MIT, as things now stand. </p>
<p>Let me add: I would not have been ready for Math 55. Over a long period, it is quite possible to catch up, if one has the basic capability and desire needed, and puts in a lot of effort. Four years (as an undergrad) might not be long enough, though.</p>
<p>So suppose a person is at the level of preparedness for Math 55, and is rejected by HYPSM. The next “logical” option would be Caltech, probably. But it has a particular atmosphere and ethos, and it really doesn’t suit every talented student. </p>
<p>Let me jump over universities such as Northwestern, Chicago, Duke, maybe Berkeley, and similar places for a moment. I am a strong advocate for large, public research universities, and the opportunities there for strong students. At a reasonably good state flagship (i.e., not Berkeley), a student who is ready for Harvard’s Math 55 would probably have preparation for an often non-existent course that lies somewhere between the undergraduate majors’ analysis course and the beginning graduate course in analysis. </p>
<p>I knew a student of this type (no relation) just a few years ago, who tried out the grad course. However, this meant that the undergrad, who was dealing with all of the adjustments of freshman year, and quite possibly learning how to do laundry for the first time, was in the same class with grad students. And often, an undergrad is taking 15 credits, while the grad students are taking 6 credits. This does not make for a good experience sometimes/often–I don’t really know which–the sample size is too small.</p>
<p>The top LAC’s might or might not be suitable for the person, depending on the specific one. At some, the student would exhaust all reasonable course choices other than independent study within 2 years.</p>
<p>So, now to return to Northwestern, Chicago, Duke, and schools in that category. I think that the student could find the right level of challenge there, with the right course choices–but they would probably be a little less challenging than Math 55, really. And the fact that these other universities could work out extremely well for the student would not negate my belief that MIT “ought” to have admitted the student.</p>
<p>Sorry for the length of the post. :)</p>
<p>I think there are no “oughts” here in college admissions, other than I suppose all students should be treated respectfully and fairly. To me, MIT “ought” to have admitted Joe Math Genius is sort of a pointless statement unless you’re an adcom at MIT. Ought can express duty or obligation (“you ought to pay your tuition bill on time”) or it can indicate a desire (“you ought to try a piece of this delicious cake”). But unless you’re MIT doing the oughting, it seems rather pointless. It doesn’t matter whether I think MIT ought to have admitted my kid, or your kid, or the neighbor’s kid, or my kid over your kid, or my kid over the neighbor’s kid. It only matters what MIT thinks in that regard.</p>
<p>
Pleez. My use of “you” is also rhetorical. I was responding to your (somewhat condescending, in my opinion) statement about how parents shouldn’t subtly suggest to their children that it’s right to be disappointed about not getting into Harvard–my response is intended to point out that the opposite of that would be subtly conveying to your kids that you don’t think they have what it takes to get into reach schools. I don’t think you, or anyone else here, would do that. But I don’t think we do what you suggested, either.</p>
<p>Maybe some here would like this book or alternatively have one they think is better they might like to recommend.</p>
<p>[Amazon.com:</a> Adversity Quotient: Turning Obstacles into Opportunities (9780471344131): Paul G. Stoltz: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Adversity-Quotient-Turning-Obstacles-Opportunities/dp/0471344133]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Adversity-Quotient-Turning-Obstacles-Opportunities/dp/0471344133)</p>
<p>It’s been years since I read it, but I remember I thought it was useful mulling over some of the points back when. Can’t say for sure what I’d think of it now. ;-)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is always trotted out as though every student should be interested in IB, consulting, and / or going to Asian countries. For a student not interested in any of these things, should these things matter?</p>
<p>Bay I don’t really know how to respond but I recognize that you have good reason to be skeptical. And even if enough people make the same claims, you probably still have good reason to remain skeptical! I do appreciate you keeping an open mind. PG, I don’t understand the jump to “entitlement”. I understand that you believe that people should not rely on prior admission data and personal experience in setting their expectations. In my view, those students or parents who do so rely on such information are at worst guilty of misplaced reliance. They think they have a better shot at admissions, not that they are entitled to something. The reality is that some students have a better shot than others. It is not an absolute lottery. We can disagree on whether the data and personal experience is strong enough to “justify” heighten expectation. At the select schools that you mentioned in your post, I think you believe that it is. But at other schools it isn’t. So at the schools that it is the parents and students are not entitled and but at the schools that it is not they are entitled.</p>
<p>I guess there is a bit of an obsession with these post-college directions as they are considered to be/are the most lucrative. And that, of course, is a subject for a whole OTHER thread (smile)…</p>
<p>QM- be careful with Julliard analogy. The overall acceptance rate there is extremely low, as well- 10% or less. And the acceptance rate at top Musical Theatre programs (NU has theatre then audition while a Freshman or Soph to get into MT, Carnegie Mellon, and the like) have lower acceptance rates than the Ivies. So these schools ARE Ivies for performers, same issues about expectations and disappointment. But acceptance is based primarily on audition.</p>
<p>The world is full of talented and accomplished kids these days. No question.</p>
<p>This word “entitled” is PC-speak for some very icky stuff.</p>
<p>Invidious comparisons are human nature , and most of the feeling that something unfair has happened due to such. Either people we know, or dots in Naviance. Certainly we cannot know what the applications of others were like in exactitude, but we still see patterns and draw conclusions, to make sense of the world.</p>
<p>PG post 1271: I agree it should not matter if you are not interested in those things. But I would point out, things change, especially during your college years. So does it matter if you go to a top 20 or top 100 college?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s just too bad if you find general, non-accusatory comments “condescending” because supposedly you’re so beyond that - that I should be able to read the minds of everyone here. My post was not directed at you personally, nor should you have personalized it because I was responding to some of the general & philosophical points on this thread. If you find any point so supposedly obvious that it doesn’t apply to you, you could have moved on, instead of making a demeaning comment that was completely uncalled for. Many more posters than myself have made similar generalized comments that were actually far more pointed (implying that posters were doing thus and so), as well as far more “basic” suggestions about parenting. </p>
<p>Separately, Performersmom made some rather general observations applicable to all parents. Yet, I doubt that she thinks that you or I or other thread contributors are guilty of the very basic warnings & pleadings she posted (comments which I did respond to, without offense). She, like I, was contributing to the debate on the issues. Too bad if you want to silence me. You’re not the CC censor. Hundreds of threads on CC have repeated some very basic parenting advice, regarding college admissions. I don’t tell the sincere people who wish to contribute that they’re being “condescending” to me because after all “no one here” would do that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The discussion before I posted was not about you or “anyone else here.” I never “suggested” that specific parents here actually do that; it was an observation about what has certainly been reported elsewhere and what is certainly a possibility.</p>
<p>Sure, I think there are differences. I just don’t think the differences are at the slice-the-bologna-thin level as portrayed on CC, where, I mean, good grief, people try to tier the very top colleges in this country into even thinner tiers. </p>
<p>I’m glad you agree that kids not interested in IB, MC or Asia shouldn’t give a darn about any advantages that certain schools have in IB, MC or Asia.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That can’t be. There would never be any reason for a student to prefer NU or Carnegie-Mellon over HYPSM. The only reason they go places like that is because they can’t get any better. You all know the musical theater majors at NU and Carnegie-Mellon all really wanted to go to MIT for musical theater instead. Just ask Texaspg!</p>
<p>PG I do respect your opinion, but to be honest your “tone” gets to me some time. This is a legitimate question. In your opinion, are the differences between the top 20 and the next 50 at the “slice the bologna thin “ level. I gave the example of SMU, Northwestern, UGA and Tulane. Thoughts?</p>
<p>If you’re asking me to say that Northwestern, Tulane, UGA and SMU are all academically comparable schools that offer comparable educations and opportunities and so it’s all 6 of one, half a dozen of the other – no, I would not say that to be the case. That’s a pretty far reaching range of schools to put under one umbrella, with a quantifiably broad difference in strength of student body as measured objectively.</p>