Ouch: "The College Admissions Scam" (Boston Globe)

[Jane in NC]

From today's op-ed page: click here.

 

A couple of quotes:

 

So here is another, more realistic comfort to those anxious seniors who will soon be flagellating themselves as unworthy: The admissions system of the so-called “best’’ schools is rigged against you. If you are a middle-class youth or minority from poor circumstances, you have little chance of getting in to one of those schools. Indeed, the system exists not to provide social mobility but to prevent it and to perpetuate the prevailing social order.

 

 

But while these are overt ways to provide advantages for the wealthy, there are far more insidious and subtle methods of skewing the admissions process. Take early admissions. Early admissions account for 35 percent of the incoming class at Duke this year, 20 percent at Brown, 50 percent at Yale and 40 percent at Stanford. Under most programs, early admittees are obligated to attend that school should they be granted admission. But early admissions favor the wealthy - in part because they are able to forgo weighing options for financial aid.

 

Perhaps this article pertains more to Ivies? Perhaps the author is too cynical? Should "legacies" be given more consideration in the admissions process? Many of us have anecdotal information which conflicts with the author's sentiments, but do you think that in general he is right?

 

Tis a cold day here and a good discussion seems in order. I've made a second pot of coffee and await your comments.

 

Jane

[Murphy101]

Well I think the notion of being "need blind" is pure blarney. They don't stay open without students who can pay. They absolutely aware of what percentage of students they can afford (either in fact or according to their financial goals) to admit each year. They would be fiscally irresponsible not to take that into consideration. I would hesitate to claim they are purposely social enginnerring tho. The ugly truth is that opportunity and money have always gone together. Those who have more money have and probably always will have more opportunities. That doesn't mean another of lesser funds can't succeed. It means they always have to work twice as hard at it.

[JennW in SoCal]

Of course he is cynical, but I think in general he is right.

 

I do hear of exceptions to his arguments, read the articles about the kids who, against all odds, get into Harvard. But as the offspring of a Harvard grad, I grew up knowing about the preferential admission of children of alumni, AND I grew up being told that we wouldn't fit that preferred category as my dad was admitted on the GI bill after WWII. Somehow that didn't "count". He was a Phi Bet Kappa physicist there, got his BS and PhD there, but as he didn't contribute to the alumni association, nor was he from one of the "Boston Brahmin" families, it was understood that we weren't going to get any special considerations if we applied.

 

I think I also learned from my dad the limited value of an Ivy League education. It doesn't make you a happier person, it doesn't make your life any easier. And while it may open doors especially to the seats of power, it isn't the holy grail of education, nor is it the pinnacle of pure education where learning is for the sake of learning.

 

Here in California, there is less focus on the Ivies, as everyone gets caught in the rat race for admission to one of the UCs, or Cal Tech and CalPoly or to Stanford or USC. The UC system in particular has a stranglehold over most California highschoolers. The courses you take, the text books you use, and the AP tests are all that matters. They do NOT accept transcripts and diplomas from independent homeschoolers, so many of us enroll our kids in a public charter school, but each year our independence is eroded as courses and text books have to strictly follow UC standards. Neither of my kids has bothered with the UC track -- we'd rather do our own thing, use my standards for excellence rather than the institutional standards that are so main stream here. One is going to attend a professional school and the other is looking at finding a small liberal arts college out of state.

 

I can't imagine the hurdles faced by kids in poor neighborhoods and school districts. AP courses aren't offered, and don't AP tests cost something like $50 each? Our schools here don't subsidize the taking of those tests. The Community College system, which is the best route into the UCs, has been crippled by budget cuts, with students unable to get into required courses, and only being allowed to apply for transfer once per year. These students work while attending the CCs, face rising tuition, only to have more barriers thrown in the way of getting a degree. It is a very serious issue for the state.

 

Good grief. I'm sounding cynical this morning too! The best antidote to this cynicism, though, is reading the college acceptance thread on this board. I look up each school that is mentioned, and those schools give me hope that there are excellent options out there where status isn't as important as education.

[Jane in NC]

 

I think I also learned from my dad the limited value of an Ivy League education. It doesn't make you a happier person, it doesn't make your life any easier. And while it may open doors especially to the seats of power, it isn't the holy grail of education, nor is it the pinnacle of pure education where learning is for the sake of learning.

 

 

For my son, the Ivies have never been an undergrad goal. There was some family pressure to attend one, but my son had valid reasons to remove the school from his list. He is very clear on his career goals so his list of colleges is tuned to specific considerations.

 

That said, since we spend part of our summer in the Northeast, we have many friends or acquaintances who seem tuned in to the Ivies for status or because of the family legacy.

 

Here in California, there is less focus on the Ivies, as everyone gets caught in the rat race for admission to one of the UCs, or Cal Tech and CalPoly or to Stanford or USC. The UC system in particular has a stranglehold over most California highschoolers. The courses you take, the text books you use, and the AP tests are all that matters. They do NOT accept transcripts and diplomas from independent homeschoolers, so many of us enroll our kids in a public charter school, but each year our independence is eroded as courses and text books have to strictly follow UC standards. Neither of my kids has bothered with the UC track -- we'd rather do our own thing, use my standards for excellence rather than the institutional standards that are so main stream here. One is going to attend a professional school and the other is looking at finding a small liberal arts college out of state.

 

Very few of my son's NC friends apply to out of state colleges. I'm not sure why only schools within the UNC system are on their radar. Economics, of course, may play into this, but students do not seem to receive much inspiration to look outside of the system.

 

 

I can't imagine the hurdles faced by kids in poor neighborhoods and school districts. AP courses aren't offered, and don't AP tests cost something like $50 each? Our schools here don't subsidize the taking of those tests. The Community College system, which is the best route into the UCs, has been crippled by budget cuts, with students unable to get into required courses, and only being allowed to apply for transfer once per year. These students work while attending the CCs, face rising tuition, only to have more barriers thrown in the way of getting a degree. It is a very serious issue for the state.

 

 

 

How about $86 per exam? Our CC system is also stretched to its limits. Students in the relatively new "early college" high school are finding places in CC courses, but homeschoolers not only have fewer from which to choose, but no longer have free tuition except in science, math and tech courses. Granted, free tuition was a tremendous gift while it lasted.

 

Repeatedly I have read college admissions officers say things along the lines of "It is all about whether the student took advantage of his opportunities." Maybe we should focus on precisely that. For many "typical" high school kids, opportunities are AP courses and sports teams (varsity or outside travel teams). In fact, it would seem to me that those kids must be a dime a dozen in the sea of college applications. Homeschool students could certainly have completely different opportunities--not necessarily "purchased" opportunities. (We've all read about those community service trips to Costa Rica where the kids volunteer for a few hours one day and play the rest of the week.) My son has emphasized his unusual volunteer experiences on his college apps as well as the experiential learning that has defined his education. Of course he is still waiting for acceptance letters so I cannot report whether this strategy has been a success.

 

One of the things that has come about as a result of the economic downturn is a general discussion of value. Is a $200K+ education worth it? Maybe the greater question that all parents and students should ask is "What do I want from a college education?" "Why Rah Rah U and not Bullwinkle College?"

 

Jane

[TravelingChris]

Yes, the system is skewed. Pluses are being a male, being one of several minorities, being a sought after athlete, being a legacy, or being full pay. Minuses are being Asian, female, bright but not spectacular kid, needing financial aid, being from the Northeast.

There is no need to play the game. My older two haven't or won't. What you do need to do is not apply solely to top tier schools. I think in these tough financial times, particularly if you need financial aid, is apply to many and see what you reel in. My kids are only going to apply to schools they actually want to go to and that doesn't include any Ivies at all.

[creekland]

but I think in general he is right.

 

 

 

I think in general he is right too - and I've always taught my kids that life isn't fair, so deal with it. The sooner we come to that understanding the sooner we can end the, "woe is me" feeling.

 

I've never wanted my kids to attend Ivy schools (or equivalent) as many grads I've met from there (albeit not all) seem to have a chip on their shoulder and look down on others... I've always taught mine that different people have different talents (academic and otherwise), but we are all equal in the eyes of our Creator.

 

That said, I want them to have a good education in the field of their choice. With sufficient high school level education (and proof thereof), we've found there are many, many options that meet my requirements and many that offer decent merit $$ toward it as well.

[JFSinIL]

While DS has gotten in to 7 schools so far (five to still hear from..including the prestigious Vanderbilt, the (most selective of the lot) I do wonder if part of his acceptance elsewhere has been due to writing "lawyer" as occupation of his dad on all the forms. If these colleges think "lawyer" = "has money to pay" they are in for a surprise ;) (not that kind of lawyer).

[Heather in WI]

From today's op-ed page:

 

The admissions system of the so-called “best’’ schools is rigged against you. If you are a middle-class youth or minority from poor circumstances, you have little chance of getting in to one of those schools. Indeed, the system exists not to provide social mobility but to prevent it and to perpetuate the prevailing social order.

 

 

Wow. I found the exact opposite opinion in The Gatekeepers: Inside the Admissions Process of a Premier College. It was written by Jacques Steinberg, a New York Times education writer.

 

The book demonstrated that diversity applicants were highly sought after by admissions counselors in highly selective colleges. In many cases, applicants categorized as diverse were wooed and accepted with lower grades & SAT scores over their white, upper middle class cohorts.

 

From the article:

A New York Times article in 2004 revealed that Harvard’s incoming freshman class was 9 percent black, but between one-half and two-thirds of those black students were actually West Indian or African immigrants or the children of immigrants, and many others were biracial

 

I would be interested in knowing the % of applicants that were black and the acceptance rate of the minority applicants. It's easy to say, "We only have 9% of X minority", but if that minority only accounted for 2% of the applicant pool, it would demonstrate that in fact there is a higher acceptance rate, not lower, of minority applicants. Right?

Edited January 13, 2010 by Heather in WI

[Jane in NC]

For clarification: Heather in WI attributes a quote to me whereas I was quoting the article from The Globe. The opinion expressed is not necessarily my own nor that of our sponsors, etc., etc.

[Heather in WI]

For clarification: Heather in WI attributes a quote to me whereas I was quoting the article from The Globe. The opinion expressed is not necessarily my own nor that of our sponsors, etc., etc.

 

Oh, I certainly didn't mean to imply that you said that! I just hit the quote button. I'll see if I can fix my post.