The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: FIRE Artist on March 13, 2019, 10:07:13 AM
-
I am sitting up here in Canada, quite puzzled by this college entrance scam that is all over the news.
We don’t have to write any special exams to get into university up here, you get in based on your collection of marks over your high school years. When I was applying 30+ years ago, there was no essay requirement either. What is up with needing these things in the US?
The closest things we had to an SAT was provincial standardized testing periodically throughout schooling, which was just blended into the rest of your mark and was more about helping students and parents understand their strengths and weaknesses in relation to peers and for the province to study variations amongst schools. Universities didn’t get to se those results.
-
A couple of links for background if you are interested:
Understanding College Selectivity | CollegeData (https://www.collegedata.com/en/explore-colleges/the-facts-on-fit/features-that-set-colleges-apart/understanding-college-selectivity/)
2019 Hardest Colleges to Get Into - Niche (https://www.niche.com/colleges/search/hardest-to-get-in/)
-
Very useful, thank you. I tried to find similar stats for Canadian universities, but they tended to be listed for specific elite programs at specific schools only. So I would assume that it is hard to get into he medical program, or engineering at one of our top listed schools, but less so for a BA program.
This whole scandal is reminding me of a piece from Malcolm Gladwell about it being better to be a big fish in a small pond than accepting a position in a top school if you are not top of your class. Why these parents would pay to cheat their kids into a school where they will be intellectually challenged in comparison to their peers is beyond me. Surely there is no status in being the child of a celebrity who flunked out of a fancy school.
-
Very useful, thank you. I tried to find similar stats for Canadian universities, but they tended to be listed for specific elite programs at specific schools only. So I would assume that it is hard to get into he medical program, or engineering at one of our top listed schools, but less so for a BA program.
This whole scandal is reminding me of a piece from Malcolm Gladwell about it being better to be a big fish in a small pond than accepting a position in a top school if you are not top of your class. Why these parents would pay to cheat their kids into a school where they will be intellectually challenged in comparison to their peers is beyond me. Surely there is no status in being the child of a celebrity who flunked out of a fancy school.
They didn't give their kid a chance to get into school, they went straight for the big guns. In many cases, it sounds like a matter of wanting the kid in a very specific school, with varying degrees of academic prestige, but all good for making connections. I wonder if in some cases it was the kid's dream school?
-
Very useful, thank you. I tried to find similar stats for Canadian universities, but they tended to be listed for specific elite programs at specific schools only. So I would assume that it is hard to get into he medical program, or engineering at one of our top listed schools, but less so for a BA program.
This whole scandal is reminding me of a piece from Malcolm Gladwell about it being better to be a big fish in a small pond than accepting a position in a top school if you are not top of your class. Why these parents would pay to cheat their kids into a school where they will be intellectually challenged in comparison to their peers is beyond me. Surely there is no status in being the child of a celebrity who flunked out of a fancy school.
They didn't give their kid a chance to get into school, they went straight for the big guns. In many cases, it sounds like a matter of wanting the kid in a very specific school, with varying degrees of academic prestige, but all good for making connections. I wonder if in some cases it was the kid's dream school?
Elite schools turn down plenty of kids who can handle it academically. To put it another way, there are a lot more valedictorians each year (~35k in the US) than there are spots at elite schools.
None of this is new. A classmate's dad made a sizable donation to one of those "hardest to get into" schools above, which led to my classmate getting a late acceptance letter (well after letters were sent) and an athletic scholarship.
-
Very useful, thank you. I tried to find similar stats for Canadian universities, but they tended to be listed for specific elite programs at specific schools only. So I would assume that it is hard to get into he medical program, or engineering at one of our top listed schools, but less so for a BA program.
This whole scandal is reminding me of a piece from Malcolm Gladwell about it being better to be a big fish in a small pond than accepting a position in a top school if you are not top of your class. Why these parents would pay to cheat their kids into a school where they will be intellectually challenged in comparison to their peers is beyond me. Surely there is no status in being the child of a celebrity who flunked out of a fancy school.
They didn't give their kid a chance to get into school, they went straight for the big guns. In many cases, it sounds like a matter of wanting the kid in a very specific school, with varying degrees of academic prestige, but all good for making connections. I wonder if in some cases it was the kid's dream school?
Elite schools turn down plenty of kids who can handle it academically. To put it another way, there are a lot more valedictorians each year (~35k in the US) than there are spots at elite schools.
None of this is new. A classmate's dad made a sizable donation to one of those "hardest to get into" schools above, which led to my classmate getting a late acceptance letter (well after letters were sent) and an athletic scholarship.
These folks paid a third party to partly bribe the school, but mostly to commit fraud on the applications.
-
This story is still unraveling. I think the next few days will see more details about the participants and their goals being revealed. It's fascinating to me to see the lengths some people will go through to give their kids an (unfair) advantage, but if they can afford $400,000 in *bribes* just to gain admission, those kids are already super privileged.
-
Very useful, thank you. I tried to find similar stats for Canadian universities, but they tended to be listed for specific elite programs at specific schools only. So I would assume that it is hard to get into he medical program, or engineering at one of our top listed schools, but less so for a BA program.
This whole scandal is reminding me of a piece from Malcolm Gladwell about it being better to be a big fish in a small pond than accepting a position in a top school if you are not top of your class. Why these parents would pay to cheat their kids into a school where they will be intellectually challenged in comparison to their peers is beyond me. Surely there is no status in being the child of a celebrity who flunked out of a fancy school.
They didn't give their kid a chance to get into school, they went straight for the big guns. In many cases, it sounds like a matter of wanting the kid in a very specific school, with varying degrees of academic prestige, but all good for making connections. I wonder if in some cases it was the kid's dream school?
Elite schools turn down plenty of kids who can handle it academically. To put it another way, there are a lot more valedictorians each year (~35k in the US) than there are spots at elite schools.
None of this is new. A classmate's dad made a sizable donation to one of those "hardest to get into" schools above, which led to my classmate getting a late acceptance letter (well after letters were sent) and an athletic scholarship.
I was going to say this. Probably the elite schools (and that includes good state schools, like a bunch of the UC's), have 5x or even 10x the number of qualified applicants compared to space. So...a lot of perfectly qualified kids aren't going to get into their desired school, for whatever reason. (One reason I'm not stressing about my kid wanting to go to Cal Tech. Because: good luck with that, buddy. You are just another upper middle class white boy in a sea of them. I mean, if you get in, good on you!)
The average SAT scores (thanks to the link above) at my alma mater are 1450-1540, or some such craziness. (#30-something on the list of how hard it is to get into the school).
-
This whole scandal is reminding me of a piece from Malcolm Gladwell about it being better to be a big fish in a small pond than accepting a position in a top school if you are not top of your class. Why these parents would pay to cheat their kids into a school where they will be intellectually challenged in comparison to their peers is beyond me. Surely there is no status in being the child of a celebrity who flunked out of a fancy school.
So in the US, there is a lot of cache attached to where you get your degree from (in certain circles). It doesn't matter if you are a C student at a top school, the degree alone is enough to open doors for you. That is why people are willing to pay to get their kids in vs send them to a school where they deserve to go.
Additionally, there is a strong belief that getting into those schools is the hardest part. Once you get in, you would have to fail egregiously to be flunked out.
-
StarBright, I'm not convinced that this fraud was about getting degrees to open doors. I really think it was about the ego of telling their friends that their kid went to elite xyz school. It is a really crazy story.
-
Some good reading on this topic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/college-bribe-scandal-about-class-inequality/584797/
And a much longer article from the same writer about the broader topic of widening inequality that springboards off that article well imo: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/the-birth-of-a-new-american-aristocracy/559130/
-
Apparently the kids of these celebrities didn't know of the fraud. So I wonder how they are reacting now? Wouldn't you think that your parent(s) had so little confidence in your abilities that they had to buy your way into university? What does that do to your self-concept?
-
Apparently the kids of these celebrities didn't know of the fraud. So I wonder how they are reacting now? Wouldn't you think that your parent(s) had so little confidence in your abilities that they had to buy your way into university? What does that do to your self-concept?
Depends on the kid. If they're of the Kardashian/Hilton/Kushner mindset, they won't care because it will not affect their lives.
If they are functional young adults with self-respect, I do feel sorry for them if they truly had no idea because yes, it would be horrible to learn that your parents had so little confidence in you.
-
Apparently the kids of these celebrities didn't know of the fraud. So I wonder how they are reacting now? Wouldn't you think that your parent(s) had so little confidence in your abilities that they had to buy your way into university? What does that do to your self-concept?
I am not so sure that is true, especially for the Full House kids, they posed for some of their fake sports photos.
-
Very useful, thank you. I tried to find similar stats for Canadian universities, but they tended to be listed for specific elite programs at specific schools only. So I would assume that it is hard to get into he medical program, or engineering at one of our top listed schools, but less so for a BA program.
This whole scandal is reminding me of a piece from Malcolm Gladwell about it being better to be a big fish in a small pond than accepting a position in a top school if you are not top of your class. Why these parents would pay to cheat their kids into a school where they will be intellectually challenged in comparison to their peers is beyond me. Surely there is no status in being the child of a celebrity who flunked out of a fancy school.
Saw a pretty great run down on this from a freelance writer.
Basically, even outside explicit fraud like this, there is a Process that the ultra-rich apply to set their kids up for a prestigious and lucrative life. This Process allegedly involves a combination of coaches/tutors, mentors, ghost-writers, schmoozing the Right People, etc. It doesn't stop at college and doesn't require personal academic excellence, it requires access to Experts, which they can well afford.
And while they can't quite game the SAT without overt fraud, scores do fall along socioeconomic lines. Shockingly, a kid that ca afford classes, tutors, and multiple attempts will likely do better than an average Joe...
ETA: The author admitted to having been part of the "ghostwriting" side of things when they were desperate for work. They have since moved on. This is still, of course, hearsay, but I think believable.
-
Apparently the kids of these celebrities didn't know of the fraud. So I wonder how they are reacting now? Wouldn't you think that your parent(s) had so little confidence in your abilities that they had to buy your way into university? What does that do to your self-concept?
Depends on the kid. If they're of the Kardashian/Hilton/Kushner mindset, they won't care because it will not affect their lives.
If they are functional young adults with self-respect, I do feel sorry for them if they truly had no idea because yes, it would be horrible to learn that your parents had so little confidence in you.
It must be hard to be one of the parents too (not that I'm justifying their actions) - imagine having all the money in the world and you still birth a spud child who doesn't live up to your inflated expectations. Ha ha ha!
I still think university entrance exams should be based on pure aptitude. Give every kid the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices and then make them sit a degree-appropriate aptitude test and take the best performers. Control for socio-economic status. Easy. The whole extra-curriculars/interview thing just privileges the rich, and has no purpose.
-
Pathetic that a group of rich elites with all the money and resources to help their kid actually earn their way in have to put up another six or seven figures to buy their way in. There is no excuse, really. And then people wag their fingers at the lower classes for every little thing. Or try tearing down fixes to the system that at least try to overcome the inherent unfairness of it all like AA...
-
StarBright, I'm not convinced that this fraud was about getting degrees to open doors. I really think it was about the ego of telling their friends that their kid went to elite xyz school. It is a really crazy story.
I would agree with the above for the kids of the actors and other famous folk, but apparently a lot of the parents were silicon valley/bay area types and I suspect with those parents (rich, products of elite schools themselves (and/or people trying to climb that social ladder) but not famous) it was more about making sure the correct doors were opened for their kids.
-
It sounds like most of these kids didn't even know what their parents had done. Imagine being a struggling sophomore at your dream university, and then finding out from CNN that your parents think you're a dumbass. You don't really belong there. You didn't earn it. What do your friends think?
This has always been a problem with affirmative action programs at elite schools. It creates self doubt in the recipients, and resentment in everyone else.
-
Apparently the kids of these celebrities didn't know of the fraud. So I wonder how they are reacting now? Wouldn't you think that your parent(s) had so little confidence in your abilities that they had to buy your way into university? What does that do to your self-concept?
Depends on the kid. If they're of the Kardashian/Hilton/Kushner mindset, they won't care because it will not affect their lives.
If they are functional young adults with self-respect, I do feel sorry for them if they truly had no idea because yes, it would be horrible to learn that your parents had so little confidence in you.
It must be hard to be one of the parents too (not that I'm justifying their actions) - imagine having all the money in the world and you still birth a spud child who doesn't live up to your inflated expectations. Ha ha ha!
I still think university entrance exams should be based on pure aptitude. Give every kid the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices and then make them sit a degree-appropriate aptitude test and take the best performers. Control for socio-economic status. Easy. The whole extra-curriculars/interview thing just privileges the rich, and has no purpose.
The thing is, colleges don't want the most book-smart (/test-smart) students. They want world changers. They are all competing to produce the next Gates/Musk/Jobs/Zuckerberg. Or, failing that, a Nobel prize winner or celebrity will do. That gives them reputation they can sell to others.
Taking tests well doesn't correlate to seeing a problem, taking initiative, asking the right questions, sourcing the right information, coming up with and evaluating solutions, getting buy-in from others to execute the best one(s).
This is decidedly non trivial, but teenagers can show parts of it, particularly initiative and perseverance, through dedication to a hobby, team, volunteering gig, or part time job. My parents are fairly certain I got my scholarship and my sister got into every school she applied to on the basis of our backcountry backpacking experiences (plus test scores writing skills, etc). This was 8-12 years ago, elite admissions were plenty crazy already.
The other thing about testing-only admissions is you create a culture of cram schools and, unfortunately, cheating. Education stops being about actually learning useful skills and using them, just about catering to whatever authority sets the next test. That...doesnt do much to move society forward.
-
Apparently the kids of these celebrities didn't know of the fraud. So I wonder how they are reacting now? Wouldn't you think that your parent(s) had so little confidence in your abilities that they had to buy your way into university? What does that do to your self-concept?
Depends on the kid. If they're of the Kardashian/Hilton/Kushner mindset, they won't care because it will not affect their lives.
If they are functional young adults with self-respect, I do feel sorry for them if they truly had no idea because yes, it would be horrible to learn that your parents had so little confidence in you.
It must be hard to be one of the parents too (not that I'm justifying their actions) - imagine having all the money in the world and you still birth a spud child who doesn't live up to your inflated expectations. Ha ha ha!
I still think university entrance exams should be based on pure aptitude. Give every kid the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices and then make them sit a degree-appropriate aptitude test and take the best performers. Control for socio-economic status. Easy. The whole extra-curriculars/interview thing just privileges the rich, and has no purpose.
The thing is, colleges don't want the most book-smart (/test-smart) students. They want world changers. They are all competing to produce the next Gates/Musk/Jobs/Zuckerberg. Or, failing that, a Nobel prize winner or celebrity will do. That gives them reputation they can sell to others.
Taking tests well doesn't correlate to seeing a problem, taking initiative, asking the right questions, sourcing the right information, coming up with and evaluating solutions, getting buy-in from others to execute the best one(s).
This is decidedly non trivial, but teenagers can show parts of it, particularly initiative and perseverance, through dedication to a hobby, team, volunteering gig, or part time job. My parents are fairly certain I got my scholarship and my sister got into every school she applied to on the basis of our backcountry backpacking experiences (plus test scores writing skills, etc). This was 8-12 years ago, elite admissions were plenty crazy already.
The other thing about testing-only admissions is you create a culture of cram schools and, unfortunately, cheating. Education stops being about actually learning useful skills and using them, just about catering to whatever authority sets the next test. That...doesnt do much to move society forward.
Exactly. And they have lots of other metrics they try to hit as well. Like geographic diversity, for example.
-
The other thing about testing-only admissions is you create a culture of cram schools and, unfortunately, cheating. Education stops being about actually learning useful skills and using them, just about catering to whatever authority sets the next test. That...doesnt do much to move society forward.
Is there any university in the US that has a testing-only admissions basis?
-
Where is the libertarian outrage in this thread?
This is a story of the triumph of the market over those horrible rules and regulations that people are always creating for no reason, and then the quashing of that free market . . . simply to provide more advantage to some poors. Fucking government overreach. :P
-
The other thing about testing-only admissions is you create a culture of cram schools and, unfortunately, cheating. Education stops being about actually learning useful skills and using them, just about catering to whatever authority sets the next test. That...doesnt do much to move society forward.
Is there any university in the US that has a testing-only admissions basis?
I don't know, but I doubt it.
Source: my career was in higher education.
-
The other thing about testing-only admissions is you create a culture of cram schools and, unfortunately, cheating. Education stops being about actually learning useful skills and using them, just about catering to whatever authority sets the next test. That...doesnt do much to move society forward.
Is there any university in the US that has a testing-only admissions basis?
No, but if I recall correctly, China, Korea, and Japan all do. Although I have heard US schools admit that test scores are a major factor in their decision. It may have been at an admissions visit or panel when I was applying, I don't recall the school.
Btw, I'm not anti-testing. I do think it allows a basis for comparison of pure academic aptitude across schools, and can set a useful baseline. But if it's the only thing or the main thing, people will fixate on it to the detriment of other important aspects of life, childhood, upbringing, and education.
-
The stories are pointing out that the “fixer” developed this as a non-profit, which means people then deducted their “donations” from their taxes. They’ll hit you once for the fraud and then a second time through the IRS.
-
Is there any university in the US that has a testing-only admissions basis?
I'm a caltech grad. When I applied, they were doing double-blind application reviews. No athletic scholarships, no quotas. Highest test score requirements of any school in the country. Then after the admission process was completed, individuals were offered differing amounts of financial aid based on need, and possibly based on other factors, but everyone who was admitted was guaranteed a spot regardless of ability to pay. (I was one of the poor kids.)
The down side of this system was that a diversity-blind admission process creates a very non-diverse student body. Males and Asians have higher test scores, on average, than women or other ethnic minorities, so the student body was like 70% male, and about 40% Asian.
I have not kept up with their current admissions or application procedures, so I don't know if they are still tests-only or if they have caved to the pressure to increase diversity (and thus improve the lives of students) by admitting more women or minorities. Nobody (from either gender) wants to go to a college with only 30% girls, because that creates it's own set of problems even if it does guarantee that those girls are super smart.
Caltech was spending huge amounts of money trying to fix their diversity problem by addressing the supply side, rather than easing admissions standards, and I thought that was a great approach. They ran summer programs for academically talented female and minority high school kids, one of which I worked for every summer I was there, that were designed to identify and cultivate those individuals to help better prepare them to drink from the firehose. If you want to increase diversity in a school, isn't it better to lift up the minority candidates to make them equally qualified than to turn away better-qualified majority candidates? Otherwise, doesn't every black woman at your school wonder if she's really there because she's good enough? Wouldn't elite colleges suffer from deliberately admitting subpar students? Affirmative action programs are a wholly appropriate solution in many contexts, but I'm not sure that lowering your standards at the world's elite universities is really good for anyone.
-
Is there any university in the US that has a testing-only admissions basis?
I'm a caltech grad. When I applied, they were doing double-blind application reviews. No athletic scholarships, no quotas. Highest test score requirements of any school in the country. Then after the admission process was completed, individuals were offered differing amounts of financial aid based on need, and possibly based on other factors, but everyone who was admitted was guaranteed a spot regardless of ability to pay. (I was one of the poor kids.)
The down side of this system was that a diversity-blind admission process creates a very non-diverse student body. Males and Asians have higher test scores, on average, than women or other ethnic minorities, so the student body was like 70% male, and about 40% Asian.
I have not kept up with their current admissions or application procedures, so I don't know if they are still tests-only or if they have caved to the pressure to increase diversity (and thus improve the lives of students) by admitting more women or minorities. Nobody (from either gender) wants to go to a college with only 30% girls, because that creates it's own set of problems even if it does guarantee that those girls are super smart.
Caltech was spending huge amounts of money trying to fix their diversity problem by addressing the supply side, rather than easing admissions standards, and I thought that was a great approach. They ran summer programs for academically talented female and minority high school kids, one of which I worked for every summer I was there, that were designed to identify and cultivate those individuals to help better prepare them to drink from the firehose. If you want to increase diversity in a school, isn't it better to lift up the minority candidates to make them equally qualified than to turn away better-qualified majority candidates? Otherwise, doesn't every black woman at your school wonder if she's really there because she's good enough? Wouldn't elite colleges suffer from deliberately admitting subpar students? Affirmative action programs are a wholly appropriate solution in many contexts, but I'm not sure that lowering your standards at the world's elite universities is really good for anyone.
My question was just on the idea of test only admissions. Not even getting into the idea of affirmative action.
Just looking at their website, CalTech requires the same teacher recommendations, academic transcripts, and essays most other schools do. So tests are only a PART of their requirements.
For elite schools, it really couldn't be test only. A huge portion of people even applying to the best school have perfect scores on tests. Other factors have to apply.
-
It looks to me that there's actually a trend away from standardized tests in the college admissions process. A number of IHEs are moving toward having test-optional admissions.
-
I suspect this sort of thing has been going on for a lot longer than folks realize. Not really shocking. Also, it's a pretty small group, so yes, other candidates were "robbed", bit not a statistically significant number of them. Sure, you could argue that even one is too many, but this kind of favoritism is probably as old as humankind.
-
I suspect this sort of thing has been going on for a lot longer than folks realize. Not really shocking. Also, it's a pretty small group, so yes, other candidates were "robbed", bit not a statistically significant number of them. Sure, you could argue that even one is too many, but this kind of favoritism is probably as old as humankind.
Yep. The universities are just angry that there's a middleman instead of the bribes donations going to them directly.
-
Just looking at their website, CalTech requires the same teacher recommendations, academic transcripts, and essays most other schools do. So tests are only a PART of their requirements.
I suspect it would be significantly detrimental to both the schools and to the students if you made admission predicated on SAT scores only. Not only is it a huge stressful single test to determine your path in life, it would create a student body that was only good at taking tests. That's not a healthy place.
I guess I misunderstood your desire for "testing only admissions" to mean that the applicants were screened solely on their abilities, without "legacy" admissions or "institutional advancement" or racial/gender quotas or any other criteria besides "are you smart enough to be here". In my mind mind, reporting your GPA and reviewing teacher recommendations and essays is part of the "are you smart enough" evaluation, and is notably distinct from "do you belong to the right in-group" criteria that some colleges prefer. I find it frustrating that bright young minds are denied educational opportunities just because they were born to the wrong racial group or gender. I think kids should be admitted based on their accomplishments and abilities, not their identity.
The current college admissions scandal is all about families bypassing the "are you smart enough" criteria by using their wealth and privilege. They can buy their kid into elite schools, even if their kid is dumb as rocks and has no right to breathe the air in a place of higher learning. And those families are now getting busted for doing the exact thing that is already legal (when called institutional advancement) at a slightly lower cost, and frankly I'm kind of confused as to why everyone is upset. Rich people have been buying their kids into ivy league schools since approximately the year 1700, bypassing all of the "are you smart enough" selection criteria that apply to normal folks, and suddenly in 2019 we're going to be upset about it?
I'm not even sure we can legitimately bust them for the tax evasion. They donated money to a charity as a tax write-off, in exchange for the fixer getting their kid into the school. But it's already legal to donate money directly to the university as a tax write-off, in exchange for the admissions office getting their kid into the school. The only difference here is that this William Singer character was keeping some of the money for himself, instead of giving it all to the university endowment.
-
Is there any university in the US that has a testing-only admissions basis?
The down side of this system was that a diversity-blind admission process creates a very non-diverse student body. Males and Asians have higher test scores, on average, than women or other ethnic minorities, so the student body was like 70% male, and about 40% Asian.
Not to throw this thread off topic, but I do have to point out that the demographic of student body was not driven by test score but more likely driven by the demographic of the applicants in the first place. I highly doubt that the women tested worse than men, rather women applied in far lower numbers. I bet even that a higher percentage of the women overall who did apply back then were accepted simply because you had to be an outlier type of woman to venture into STEM in the first place so were likely already exceptional test performers.
I am basing the above on my own life experience in STEM. You are only a few years younger than me, when I was studying Physics and Engineering I was often the only woman in my classes. It was a sign of the times and how women were conditioned to think about their careers and what they could and couldn't aspire to be.
The majority of people need role models, affirmative action, for all of its challenges, makes those role models.
-
I think it is interesting that these SAT tests seem to be so heavily weighted, even more than your year on year academic performance in high school.
Why would any university want to take someone who crams for one test but slacks off the rest of their school time? I am thinking of the example where the person's SAT score went from around 1000 to 1400. Unless these parents were bribing the high school, wouldn't that flag a problem? Do these schools think that the students are suddenly going to become great students?
-
I do have to point out that the demographic of student body was not driven by test score but more likely driven by the demographic of the applicants in the first place. I highly doubt that the women tested worse than men, rather women applied in far lower numbers.
Sure, but these two things are not unrelated. At least back then, women did in fact have lower average SAT scores than men (for reasons that are probably beyond the scope of this thread). People with 1200 SAT scores don't generally bother to apply to schools like that, but I think you're right that at the very highest end, a school like should not have any problem finding ~125 qualified female students per year to represent 50% of their incoming freshman class, if they are allowed to take gender into account when making offers of admission. Should they?
With gender-blind admissions, assuming all else is equal, then yes your admitted class will look just like your applicant pool. The question then is what factors contribute to women representing such a small fraction of applicants. The fact that women are currently a small fraction of attendees certainly doesn't help.
To tie this back into the thread topic, I think the same factors are at play at the ivy league schools being revealed in the current bribery scandal. If you know that a school is full of kids from super rich families who aren't necessarily very bright, then that probably discourages kids from normal-income families from even applying. Why bother to throw your hat in the ring when you know the game is rigged? Now we're back to the same problem, where a skewed applicant pool leads to a skewed student body, even if the admissions process is 100% fair. Perception creates reality, in these cases.
-
Just looking at their website, CalTech requires the same teacher recommendations, academic transcripts, and essays most other schools do. So tests are only a PART of their requirements.
I suspect it would be significantly detrimental to both the schools and to the students if you made admission predicated on SAT scores only. Not only is it a huge stressful single test to determine your path in life, it would create a student body that was only good at taking tests. That's not a healthy place.
I guess I misunderstood your desire for "testing only admissions" to mean that the applicants were screened solely on their abilities, without "legacy" admissions or "institutional advancement" or racial/gender quotas or any other criteria besides "are you smart enough to be here". In my mind mind, reporting your GPA and reviewing teacher recommendations and essays is part of the "are you smart enough" evaluation, and is notably distinct from "do you belong to the right in-group" criteria that some colleges prefer. I find it frustrating that bright young minds are denied educational opportunities just because they were born to the wrong racial group or gender. I think kids should be admitted based on their accomplishments and abilities, not their identity.
The current college admissions scandal is all about families bypassing the "are you smart enough" criteria by using their wealth and privilege. They can buy their kid into elite schools, even if their kid is dumb as rocks and has no right to breathe the air in a place of higher learning. And those families are now getting busted for doing the exact thing that is already legal (when called institutional advancement) at a slightly lower cost, and frankly I'm kind of confused as to why everyone is upset. Rich people have been buying their kids into ivy league schools since approximately the year 1700, bypassing all of the "are you smart enough" selection criteria that apply to normal folks, and suddenly in 2019 we're going to be upset about it?
I'm not even sure we can legitimately bust them for the tax evasion. They donated money to a charity as a tax write-off, in exchange for the fixer getting their kid into the school. But it's already legal to donate money directly to the university as a tax write-off, in exchange for the admissions office getting their kid into the school. The only difference here is that this William Singer character was keeping some of the money for himself, instead of giving it all to the university endowment.
The legal bribery is bad enough. From articles I've read though, the operation involved a lot more than throwing money around. Academic forgery all over the place, faking sports placement, fake essays, coordination between various officials, etc. The SAT scores thing was an eye opener alone, figured bribing a proctor would be a lot harder-guess not! Hopefully this sheds a light both on the illegal and legal backdoors.
-
I'm an oldie (50 years old). And when I was growing up the rich/priviledged helped their kids by: paying for extra curricular activities and lessons, paying for tutoring, but in general and specifically for tests and retaking the test as needed, bugging teachers if any grades were low to re-consider and re-grade the test, class, etc.
So, I feel like that is enough help. So yeah I was shocked when I read they were actually helping their kids cheat on the SAT, as well at the other stuff. What it means for these kids going to ANY colleges, I'm not sure.
-
The paying for lessons and test prep used to be good enough until everyone caught on. Now most of the parents I know have their kids in multiple extracurricular activities. It’s moved into the middle class. It’s no longer a distinguishing, get your kid into Harvard, type deal. Heck you can barely get your kid into StateU at this point. So if everyone is doing it, how does your adorable but not top 1% Foofoo stand out?
Some of my coworkers with kids were joking that they’d have to do it the old fashioned way, donate enough to build a library in their name.
-
The paying for lessons and test prep used to be good enough until everyone caught on. Now most of the parents I know have their kids in multiple extracurricular activities. It’s moved into the middle class. It’s no longer a distinguishing, get your kid into Harvard, type deal. Heck you can barely get your kid into StateU at this point. So if everyone is doing it, how does your adorable but not top 1% Foofoo stand out?
Some of my coworkers with kids were joking that they’d have to do it the old fashioned way, donate enough to build a library in their name.
Accurate.
God, I'm really thankful that I grew up at a time where it was still possible for a reasonably intelligent kid to get into a good school just by getting good grades and doing well on the ACT/SAT, without special prep. I didn't so much as crack a test prep book, and I only took the test one time.
-
The paying for lessons and test prep used to be good enough until everyone caught on. Now most of the parents I know have their kids in multiple extracurricular activities. It’s moved into the middle class. It’s no longer a distinguishing, get your kid into Harvard, type deal. Heck you can barely get your kid into StateU at this point. So if everyone is doing it, how does your adorable but not top 1% Foofoo stand out?
Some of my coworkers with kids were joking that they’d have to do it the old fashioned way, donate enough to build a library in their name.
I remember hanging out with an upperclassman my freshman year (friend of a friend) and joked about how it's funny the new dorm was the same as his last name, and his face turned red. At a later point our mutual friend explained to me that his family is rich and they indeed funded the dorm.
-
I do have to point out that the demographic of student body was not driven by test score but more likely driven by the demographic of the applicants in the first place. I highly doubt that the women tested worse than men, rather women applied in far lower numbers.
Sure, but these two things are not unrelated. At least back then, women did in fact have lower average SAT scores than men (for reasons that are probably beyond the scope of this thread). People with 1200 SAT scores don't generally bother to apply to schools like that, but I think you're right that at the very highest end, a school like should not have any problem finding ~125 qualified female students per year to represent 50% of their incoming freshman class, if they are allowed to take gender into account when making offers of admission. Should they?
I am stepping onto my soapbox here.
In my opinion...yes, at least to a reasonable degree. The older and uglier I get, the less concerned I am about fairness for individuals, which is what a purely blind test is supposed to provide (at least for white males who designed the system in the first place). What I want to see is an advanced education system which is preparing humanity for the next age of innovation, to solve the next age of problems. And I mean innovation to benefit society as a whole, not rich white men. White men are really great at enriching themselves and people who look like them, but for the rest of us...not so much. All voices are not the same, we have enough white male voices in STEM, it is time to bring in other voices, even if (for the time being) they score 50 pts less on some standardized test.
Getting off my soapbox now.
What I am sure we can all agree on though, is that what the world does not need is the mediocre children of lying, cheating rich people (who are likely all white in this case) taking up the spots of any hard working honest kid out there, no matter what they look like.
-
I do have to point out that the demographic of student body was not driven by test score but more likely driven by the demographic of the applicants in the first place. I highly doubt that the women tested worse than men, rather women applied in far lower numbers.
Sure, but these two things are not unrelated. At least back then, women did in fact have lower average SAT scores than men (for reasons that are probably beyond the scope of this thread). People with 1200 SAT scores don't generally bother to apply to schools like that, but I think you're right that at the very highest end, a school like should not have any problem finding ~125 qualified female students per year to represent 50% of their incoming freshman class, if they are allowed to take gender into account when making offers of admission. Should they?
I am stepping onto my soapbox here.
In my opinion...yes, at least to a reasonable degree. The older and uglier I get, the less concerned I am about fairness for individuals, which is what a purely blind test is supposed to provide (at least for white males who designed the system in the first place). What I want to see is an advanced education system which is preparing humanity for the next age of innovation, to solve the next age of problems. And I mean innovation to benefit society as a whole, not rich white men. White men are really great at enriching themselves and people who look like them, but for the rest of us...not so much. All voices are not the same, we have enough white male voices in STEM, it is time to bring in other voices, even if (for the time being) they score 50 pts less on some standardized test.
Getting off my soapbox now.
What I am sure we can all agree on though, is that what the world does not need is the mediocre children of lying, cheating rich people (who are likely all white in this case) taking up the spots of any hard working honest kid out there, no matter what they look like.
+1.
When the system that produces the individual's education is not "fair," then the selection process that doesn't take that into account is not "fair," either.
-
The paying for lessons and test prep used to be good enough until everyone caught on. Now most of the parents I know have their kids in multiple extracurricular activities. It’s moved into the middle class. It’s no longer a distinguishing, get your kid into Harvard, type deal. Heck you can barely get your kid into StateU at this point. So if everyone is doing it, how does your adorable but not top 1% Foofoo stand out?
Some of my coworkers with kids were joking that they’d have to do it the old fashioned way, donate enough to build a library in their name.
If the demand for higher education is so grossly exceeding the supply in the US, why are you not increasing capacity?
-
The paying for lessons and test prep used to be good enough until everyone caught on. Now most of the parents I know have their kids in multiple extracurricular activities. It’s moved into the middle class. It’s no longer a distinguishing, get your kid into Harvard, type deal. Heck you can barely get your kid into StateU at this point. So if everyone is doing it, how does your adorable but not top 1% Foofoo stand out?
Some of my coworkers with kids were joking that they’d have to do it the old fashioned way, donate enough to build a library in their name.
If the demand for higher education is so grossly exceeding the supply in the US, why are you not increasing capacity?
Haha. Money.
-
If the demand for higher education is so grossly exceeding the supply in the US, why are you not increasing capacity?
Because most of that demand is from people who can't afford to pay for it, maybe? We have high demand for lots of luxury goods that aren't being mass produced, because the cost to provide them is high enough that it's not profitable to sell more of them at a lower price.
Capitalism is the answer to many of life's questions, even the ones for which we would prefer other answers.
-
The paying for lessons and test prep used to be good enough until everyone caught on. Now most of the parents I know have their kids in multiple extracurricular activities. It’s moved into the middle class. It’s no longer a distinguishing, get your kid into Harvard, type deal. Heck you can barely get your kid into StateU at this point. So if everyone is doing it, how does your adorable but not top 1% Foofoo stand out?
Some of my coworkers with kids were joking that they’d have to do it the old fashioned way, donate enough to build a library in their name.
If the demand for higher education is so grossly exceeding the supply in the US, why are you not increasing capacity?
Capacity is increasing. New schools open all the time, many, unfortunately, are "for profit".
Existing school are also changing their learning models- brick and mortar schools expanding online programs, for instance.
But it is very difficult to increase capacity to an old institution with a long standing reputation. You can't open tomorrow and have a hundred year history. And existing schools both don't want to dilute their brand by no longer being exclusive, nor do they want to widen their reach so much they cannot offer quality education and operate as research institutions. Many universities take their position on research, and not just being a place for students to get a degree and get out very seriously. University isn't high school; the sole purpose isn't just educating undergrads.
-
There is extremely high demand for a small number of very select schools that for some parents in their mind is the all or nothing equivalent to the golden ticket. There are also some that just HAVE to have their child go to their alma mater....
OTOH there are plenty of 2nd tier schools that may have declining applications, quality of students applying.
In my example, my oldest daughter at this time has her heart set on going to go to our flagship state school. It IS both a good school, and inexpensive for in-state students. Good for me, right? Unfortunately admissions is extremely competitive because of that combination (24% admittance rate). Right now she has a weighted average of 4.1, she looked up that the average student admitted has a 4.6 average (have to have both have straight As AND most classes AP/honors in order to get that kind of grade level). She is hoping since almost all her classes from now on are going to be honors that will bring up her grade average. I work FT so cannot be a soccer mom/helicopter Mom. I joke she needs to get her first book out before she graduates to distinguish herself.
eta. I am smart. I applied and got into the 3 colleges I applied to, 2 of them with scholarships. I was in the what, top quarter? of my class? I am being honest in feeling my daughter is more brilliant as well as more talented than I was at that age. So if she ends up having a problem getting in anywhere, then I will be worried. I have heard from other parents they plan on having their child apply to 7-9 colleges (in the various categories of reach schools, solid choices, and fall backs). I think it's getting kind of crazy.
-
I'll just leave this article here that made the rounds a few months ago...
https://www.conradbastable.com/essays/the-uncharity-of-college-the-big-business-nobody-understands
Honestly I don't think this week's news provides a lot of new context around college admissions. So far, there isn't much indication that this is a widespread problem, merely a couple dozens kids and their parents. Even if the problem is, say, 10 times as large, it's still a drop in the bucket of total competitive admissions at tier 1 schools.
Note: I'm not saying this is no big deal: criminal activity is a big deal, bribery is illegal af, and there needs to be some severe repercussions for all of this. Just that this doesn't tell you much about the state of higher education overall.
Sol pointed at affirmative action sowing doubt in the minds of kids who think, whether that's true or not, that they were only admitted because of their belonging to this or that group. Legacy admissions are the same thing, plenty of students struggle with that, but nobody feels sorry for them. Not knowing whether you belong somewhere can really fuck with your head, regardless of background.
-
The paying for lessons and test prep used to be good enough until everyone caught on. Now most of the parents I know have their kids in multiple extracurricular activities. It’s moved into the middle class. It’s no longer a distinguishing, get your kid into Harvard, type deal. Heck you can barely get your kid into StateU at this point. So if everyone is doing it, how does your adorable but not top 1% Foofoo stand out?
Some of my coworkers with kids were joking that they’d have to do it the old fashioned way, donate enough to build a library in their name.
If the demand for higher education is so grossly exceeding the supply in the US, why are you not increasing capacity?
Capacity is increasing. New schools open all the time, many, unfortunately, are "for profit".
Existing school are also changing their learning models- brick and mortar schools expanding online programs, for instance.
But it is very difficult to increase capacity to an old institution with a long standing reputation. You can't open tomorrow and have a hundred year history. And existing schools both don't want to dilute their brand by no longer being exclusive, nor do they want to widen their reach so much they cannot offer quality education and operate as research institutions. Many universities take their position on research, and not just being a place for students to get a degree and get out very seriously. University isn't high school; the sole purpose isn't just educating undergrads.
Supply of respected university spots is the issue.
It's a pedigree for the students, a proxy for intelligence and drive. Graduating from an exclusive Ivy indicates that you met some sort of rigorous academic credentials to get there - which this scandal proves to not always be true. The competition is to get into a university that will confer that pedigree onto your child. Having Harvard on your job application is a very different indicator than having American University of London (which is one that apparently handed an MBA to a dog) (https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pete-dog-earns-mba-american-university-london-article-1.1497158). Employers don't have time to read your essay and peruse your community service experiences, they assume that selective college did the work for them. They even have entire strategies targeting specific universities based on the reputations of the students that tend to matriculate there.
-
Apparently the kids of these celebrities didn't know of the fraud. So I wonder how they are reacting now? Wouldn't you think that your parent(s) had so little confidence in your abilities that they had to buy your way into university? What does that do to your self-concept?
I guess it depends on the school and how strong of a student I viewed myself as.
I would be fucking pissed if my parents thought so little of me they had to buy my way into Wake Forest. On the other hand, hundreds and hundreds of excellent students get turned down by Yale and Stanford every year.
-
The paying for lessons and test prep used to be good enough until everyone caught on. Now most of the parents I know have their kids in multiple extracurricular activities. It’s moved into the middle class. It’s no longer a distinguishing, get your kid into Harvard, type deal. Heck you can barely get your kid into StateU at this point. So if everyone is doing it, how does your adorable but not top 1% Foofoo stand out?
Some of my coworkers with kids were joking that they’d have to do it the old fashioned way, donate enough to build a library in their name.
If the demand for higher education is so grossly exceeding the supply in the US, why are you not increasing capacity?
Capacity is increasing. New schools open all the time, many, unfortunately, are "for profit".
Existing school are also changing their learning models- brick and mortar schools expanding online programs, for instance.
But it is very difficult to increase capacity to an old institution with a long standing reputation. You can't open tomorrow and have a hundred year history. And existing schools both don't want to dilute their brand by no longer being exclusive, nor do they want to widen their reach so much they cannot offer quality education and operate as research institutions. Many universities take their position on research, and not just being a place for students to get a degree and get out very seriously. University isn't high school; the sole purpose isn't just educating undergrads.
Supply of respected university spots is the issue.
It's a pedigree for the students, a proxy for intelligence and drive. Graduating from an exclusive Ivy indicates that you met some sort of rigorous academic credentials to get there - which this scandal proves to not always be true. The competition is to get into a university that will confer that pedigree onto your child. Having Harvard on your job application is a very different indicator than having American University of London (which is one that apparently handed an MBA to a dog) (https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pete-dog-earns-mba-american-university-london-article-1.1497158). Employers don't have time to read your essay and peruse your community service experiences, they assume that selective college did the work for them. They even have entire strategies targeting specific universities based on the reputations of the students that tend to matriculate there.
It's not just the harvards of the world doing this. Our largest state school was open enrollment a few years before I graduated high school, they now take less than 50%of applicants. Seems like they have made a decision to limit supply to some extent. Its fairly inexpensive in-state, but they have become much more selective.
-
I think this is just the tip of the iceberg and it goes on at most institutions in one way or another. I Have two kids that are athletes in Major Universities right now presently and I have seen my share of things where its not hard to identify some shady things going on. Not sure how this will all pan out but it would be nice for once to see these people be used as examples vs the likelihood they will get a slap on the hand. But being famous or rich people I just see this really unraveling and one story coming out after another. I also feel bad for the kids that don't know what there parents have done. At the end of all this those that didnt know have to live with there parents egos for the rest of their lives. And while its easy to say there just rich kids or whatever...they didnt chose to be in that life and now i am sure we will hear back stories on how some of these kids lives are trashed from this.
-
News reports about some of the kids who were cheated into big schools have convinced me that these kids are very unlikely to be unwitting beneficiaries.
-
Even if they were unaware, they benefitted from the cheating. On one hand I sympathize because they were duped too. But do you allow the students who benefitted from their parents’ bribery stay in school which essentially proves that the system can be scammed? The pleas and jail times then become just another cost to make sure the cheating parents’ kids get the education they felt entitled to bribe them into. What is that telling everyone else who tried to go in the front door but failed?
Most of the articles are saying it’ll be on a case by case basis which sounds like the students will get to stay unless they it’s obvious they were in on it. And those who have the degrees already will keep them.
In the case of physical goods, the answer is different. If you don’t know that the bike you bought was stolen, typically you’re not going to be charged with posssession of stolen property but the police are still going to confiscate it and return it to the rightful owner. You don’t get to keep it.
-
The pleas and jail times then become just another cost to make sure the cheating parents’ kids get the education they felt entitled to bribe them into.
Well, let's be honest here; none of these people are actually going to jail. They are rich.
Like so many rich people problems, this one can be fixed with more money. At worst, they'll pay fines and restitution approximately equal to what it would have cost to buy their kid in the legal way. Like so many white collar crimes, the punishment for getting caught won't be any worse than just playing it straight from the beginning would have been. That's why there is so much incentive to game the system. There is only potential for upside.
Frankly I'm not sure why more rich people don't cheat on their taxes, when the penalty for doing so is to just pay the taxes you owe plus a little extra. As long as you don't get caught even some of the time, then it's profitable to hire the dirtiest accountant you can find. Maybe they do, and we just don't hear about it?
-
plan on having their child apply to 7-9 colleges
That seems low to me. I applied to 12 schools and was far from the most prolific at my HS. That was over 10 years ago.
-
I have heard from other parents they plan on having their child apply to 7-9 colleges (in the various categories of reach schools, solid choices, and fall backs). I think it's getting kind of crazy.
That’s the standard here in the international schools. Most students apply to 10+ colleges, split between the three categories mentioned. Also, most start taking the SATs in Grade 10, and keep taking them until they get the score they want. There are also intensive SAT prep programs that lots of kids attend on the weekends. Schools have multiple built-in activities to ensure that each child is a unique and well-rounded world citizen. Pretty much everyone here does this.
Oh, and we also have school brokers who help families select colleges to apply to, and write the personal statements for the kids, but not everyone uses them.
-
plan on having their child apply to 7-9 colleges
That seems low to me. I applied to 12 schools and was far from the most prolific at my HS. That was over 10 years ago.
Wow. I applied in 1995, and my parents were only willing to pay for 2 applications and only for in-state schools. I wasn't allowed to work, so I definitely didn't have hundreds of dollars for applications! Maybe more schools would have offered me scholarships (both schools where I applied did), but I had no way to find out.
The two schools I applied to now have fees of $65 and $75. Assuming an average of $70 each, 12 applications would be $840! That's a major hurdle for kids from lower-income situations.
-
plan on having their child apply to 7-9 colleges
That seems low to me. I applied to 12 schools and was far from the most prolific at my HS. That was over 10 years ago.
Wow. I applied in 1995, and my parents were only willing to pay for 2 applications and only for in-state schools. I wasn't allowed to work, so I definitely didn't have hundreds of dollars for applications! Maybe more schools would have offered me scholarships (both schools where I applied did), but I had no way to find out.
The two schools I applied to now have fees of $65 and $75. Assuming an average of $70 each, 12 applications would be $840! That's a major hurdle for kids from lower-income situations.
I applied in the mid-eighties. To three schools. If I remember correctly, the application fee was about $25 per.
Yep. More and more, the idea of a "meritocracy" is ridiculous when tons of kids can't even afford to apply.
-
plan on having their child apply to 7-9 colleges
That seems low to me. I applied to 12 schools and was far from the most prolific at my HS. That was over 10 years ago.
Wow. I applied in 1995, and my parents were only willing to pay for 2 applications and only for in-state schools. I wasn't allowed to work, so I definitely didn't have hundreds of dollars for applications! Maybe more schools would have offered me scholarships (both schools where I applied did), but I had no way to find out.
The two schools I applied to now have fees of $65 and $75. Assuming an average of $70 each, 12 applications would be $840! That's a major hurdle for kids from lower-income situations.
I applied in the mid-eighties. To three schools. If I remember correctly, the application fee was about $25 per.
Yep. More and more, the idea of a "meritocracy" is ridiculous when tons of kids can't even afford to apply.
I don't remember how much the applications were in 1995, but my graduate application to one of the same state universities was $50 in 2005. It is now $75 for state residents and $90 for everyone else. That is a rather insane rate of inflation. Considering that the undergrad application process is now largely online and via a common application site, the inflation seems even more insane.
-
The pleas and jail times then become just another cost to make sure the cheating parents’ kids get the education they felt entitled to bribe them into.
Well, let's be honest here; none of these people are actually going to jail. They are rich.
Like so many rich people problems, this one can be fixed with more money. At worst, they'll pay fines and restitution approximately equal to what it would have cost to buy their kid in the legal way. Like so many white collar crimes, the punishment for getting caught won't be any worse than just playing it straight from the beginning would have been. That's why there is so much incentive to game the system. There is only potential for upside.
Frankly I'm not sure why more rich people don't cheat on their taxes, when the penalty for doing so is to just pay the taxes you owe plus a little extra. As long as you don't get caught even some of the time, then it's profitable to hire the dirtiest accountant you can find. Maybe they do, and we just don't hear about it?
It they knowingly faked a large charitable deduction, they might be charged criminally. If you substantially understate your taxes, there are significant penalties the IRS can/will impose. At a minimum, they will probably get hit with this if they took a large charitable deduction as has been reported
-
The pleas and jail times then become just another cost to make sure the cheating parents’ kids get the education they felt entitled to bribe them into.
Well, let's be honest here; none of these people are actually going to jail. They are rich.
Like so many rich people problems, this one can be fixed with more money. At worst, they'll pay fines and restitution approximately equal to what it would have cost to buy their kid in the legal way. Like so many white collar crimes, the punishment for getting caught won't be any worse than just playing it straight from the beginning would have been. That's why there is so much incentive to game the system. There is only potential for upside.
Frankly I'm not sure why more rich people don't cheat on their taxes, when the penalty for doing so is to just pay the taxes you owe plus a little extra. As long as you don't get caught even some of the time, then it's profitable to hire the dirtiest accountant you can find. Maybe they do, and we just don't hear about it?
Sol, you're starting to sound cynical.
-
Wow. I applied in 1995, and my parents were only willing to pay for 2 applications and only for in-state schools. I wasn't allowed to work, so I definitely didn't have hundreds of dollars for applications! Maybe more schools would have offered me scholarships (both schools where I applied did), but I had no way to find out.
The two schools I applied to now have fees of $65 and $75. Assuming an average of $70 each, 12 applications would be $840! That's a major hurdle for kids from lower-income situations.
Isn't this just another example of how money buys access? Of how privilege begets privilege?
We already know that there are celebrity families that will eagerly "donate" a million dollars in bribes "institutional advancements" to get their kid into their chosen school, and we've recently learned there are families that will "donate" a million dollars in bribes to get their kid into their chosen school. We already know that there are many more families that will spend tens of thousands of dollars in private tutors and SAT prep courses to help improve their kid's chances, and forking over another thou or two to pay application fees at 20 schools is chump change by comparison to the hourly rate they're paying their college consultant to fill out all of those applications for them.
Meanwhile, the poors can't afford million dollar donations or bribes, or fancy tutors and prep courses, or twenty application fees, so they takes their chances with a handful of schools and hope for the best. On average, fewer kids from poor families will get into top universities. Yay capitalism!
I also applied to colleges in the mid 90s. I was poor, and I applied to four schools. I got into three of them, and was not surprised when I didn't get into Harvard (despite exceeding the GPA and SAT standards) because I had to do an interview with a local alum, and 18-year-old me told him he seemed kind of stuck up about being a Harvard man. I considered that one a bullet dodged.
But now I am a successful (and early-retired) parent to teenagers who will be applying to college in the near future, and I will absolutely pay for AP classes, SAT prep courses, and application fees to as many schools as they want to apply to. With average starting salaries between tier 1 and tier 2 schools differing by as much as $10k in their very first year of post-graduate employment, I consider it a worthwhile investment. Nothing is guaranteed, of course, but it seems like money well spent to me. The big difference between me and Lori Loughlin is that I'm happy to let my kid fail. My job as a parent is only to provide opportunities. One of my kids does not care about her grades at all, and is already asking about career choices that don't require any homework, or too many math and science classes. Another kids is freaking out about US News and World Reports rankings of colleges and is constantly comparing himself to average scores for the student bodies at various schools, but so far isn't interested in actually studying for the SAT to get his scores up to the point he knows they need to be. I will pay for whatever prep they want, but I'm not going to start calling schools and offering bribes to get them in somewhere.
Personally, I'm kind of hoping they both realized what a good deal the University of Washington is for in-state students. They both seem to think that you need to leave your home state to find a good school, and are fixated on other state universities that cost twice as much and are ranked less well than UW. But at this age they still have lots of stupid reasons to choose a school, like where a potential boyfriend/girlfriend wants to go, or how good the basketball team is.
Sol, you're starting to sound cynical.
If you haven't noticed before this, I need to take it up a notch.
-
I can't say anything about the actual topic of this thread, but about the cost of applying for college, let me drop this here...
https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/get-in/applying-101/college-application-fee-waivers
And this
https://collegereadiness.collegeboard.org/sat/practice/khan-academy
Truly the best practice for the SAT is free. The only thing the paid programs are going to do is give unmotivated kids a captive time where they have to (at least pretend) to be studying.
And if you have a kid in the class of 2020, this is worth checking out too.
https://opportunity.collegeboard.org/
(Please don't quote this post. I might end up deleting it.)
-
I applied to one school. I think my HS paid the fee and mailed in the application along with a transcript for me. I got in. No bribes.
I will make sure that my child goes to a good HS. That is the biggest advantage that she will be given. Her parents are willing to pay the outrageous housing prices that come with a good school district. I will also teach her that elite private schools are a waste of money that don't produce results that are any better than elite public schools. No bribes.
-
Wow. I applied in 1995, and my parents were only willing to pay for 2 applications and only for in-state schools. I wasn't allowed to work, so I definitely didn't have hundreds of dollars for applications! Maybe more schools would have offered me scholarships (both schools where I applied did), but I had no way to find out.
The two schools I applied to now have fees of $65 and $75. Assuming an average of $70 each, 12 applications would be $840! That's a major hurdle for kids from lower-income situations.
Isn't this just another example of how money buys access? Of how privilege begets privilege?
Um, yes. I thought that was obvious.
-
Is there any university in the US that has a testing-only admissions basis?
The down side of this system was that a diversity-blind admission process creates a very non-diverse student body. Males and Asians have higher test scores, on average, than women or other ethnic minorities, so the student body was like 70% male, and about 40% Asian.
Not to throw this thread off topic, but I do have to point out that the demographic of student body was not driven by test score but more likely driven by the demographic of the applicants in the first place. I highly doubt that the women tested worse than men, rather women applied in far lower numbers. I bet even that a higher percentage of the women overall who did apply back then were accepted simply because you had to be an outlier type of woman to venture into STEM in the first place so were likely already exceptional test performers.
I am basing the above on my own life experience in STEM. You are only a few years younger than me, when I was studying Physics and Engineering I was often the only woman in my classes. It was a sign of the times and how women were conditioned to think about their careers and what they could and couldn't aspire to be.
The majority of people need role models, affirmative action, for all of its challenges, makes those role models.
I was going to say something similar. I mean times have changed a bit in the last 3 decades. I like numbers, so I googled.
When I was in eng school (not Cal Tech, but a top 10 nonetheless), our school was 69% male, 31% female. The engineering programs were worse overall with respect to that (about half the school was eng/science). I mean, it certainly worked out for me, being female and all.
I think the biggest thing is # of applicants. Back then, 54% of applicants were admitted, and 32% of those admitted were enrolled. I'm sure being female *could* have helped me get in (pretty sure it didn't, but being poor maybe did? In the end, graduation rates were 70% and I got a 3.7. So I held my own for sure.)
In 2017, only 22% of applicants were admitted. There's a LOT more demand for "spots", and many more qualified applicants. The average GPAs and SATs are far higher now than they were then (1220->1490), and 50% more people were admitted.
-
plan on having their child apply to 7-9 colleges
That seems low to me. I applied to 12 schools and was far from the most prolific at my HS. That was over 10 years ago.
Wow. I applied in 1995, and my parents were only willing to pay for 2 applications and only for in-state schools. I wasn't allowed to work, so I definitely didn't have hundreds of dollars for applications! Maybe more schools would have offered me scholarships (both schools where I applied did), but I had no way to find out.
The two schools I applied to now have fees of $65 and $75. Assuming an average of $70 each, 12 applications would be $840! That's a major hurdle for kids from lower-income situations.
late 80's for me
two schools
my first pick and my safety state school
They were $25-35 a pop.
Actually the state school was $35, but my high school sent off my application without it, so I got a letter from the school. And they only charged me $25.
My friend's daughter is a junior or senior at Cal Tech. Pretty sure they applied to 20+
-
It's probably worth noting that lower acceptance rates are a natural side effect of kids applying to more schools. It's not like today's kids have a harder time getting into college, they just apply to more schools and get into fewer of them.
-
It's probably worth noting that lower acceptance rates are a natural side effect of kids applying to more schools. It's not like today's kids have a harder time getting into college, they just apply to more schools and get into fewer of them.
Its easier now, you can pay some cash and skip admissions ;)
-
It's probably worth noting that lower acceptance rates are a natural side effect of kids applying to more schools. It's not like today's kids have a harder time getting into college, they just apply to more schools and get into fewer of them.
Agreed.
Also there has been a substantial uptick (at least until 2017) in international students enrolling in US colleges and universities.
http://graphics.wsj.com/international-students/
-
It's probably worth noting that lower acceptance rates are a natural side effect of kids applying to more schools. It's not like today's kids have a harder time getting into college, they just apply to more schools and get into fewer of them.
Agreed.
Also there has been a substantial uptick (at least until 2017) in international students enrolling in US colleges and universities.
http://graphics.wsj.com/international-students/
Yes.
Because they pay full price. They’re more lucrative than American students.
-
It's probably worth noting that lower acceptance rates are a natural side effect of kids applying to more schools. It's not like today's kids have a harder time getting into college, they just apply to more schools and get into fewer of them.
Agreed.
Also there has been a substantial uptick (at least until 2017) in international students enrolling in US colleges and universities.
http://graphics.wsj.com/international-students/
.
Universities are hurting for funds with current visa policies.
I know a number of programs where admitted students changed their mind due to the current political administration. That's not even to account for those that couldn't get visas.
-
It's probably worth noting that lower acceptance rates are a natural side effect of kids applying to more schools. It's not like today's kids have a harder time getting into college, they just apply to more schools and get into fewer of them.
Some of it, but also more competition in general.
What does it mean when the average SAT score goes from 1220 to 1490? Some of it means that kids are preparing more, sure (I took the test once, I knew the score was good enough). Plus the test has changed a bit since then, which can account for a little bit of that. But 270 points? No.
Yes, students are applying to more schools, but those 1220 SAT students that were accepted back in the late 1980s are NOT being accepted now to the same schools. So, 20,000 students apply, only 4400 get in - those 4400 that get in are far more qualified than they were 30 years ago, as far as SATs go.
Likewise, the average SAT score for incoming freshmen at UCSB is 1385. That's ... super high, if you are looking at it from a 1980s scale. It means that the average student at UCSB is a much more qualified student than they used to be. So for top schools (not only MIT, Cal Tech, but also many state schools), the average student body quality is getting higher and higher.
I don't know how else to explain it ('cuz it's Friday and I'm tired, and I want to go home). But it IS harder for today's kids to get into college than it was 30 years ago...if you are comparing apples to apples - kids to kids, and schools to schools.
So, my kids are pretty smart and hardworking, etc. If my older kid did what we did (went college track in high school, all the honors classes), does well on the SAT first time around (over 1400 but under 1480), has a normal amount of extracurriculars (aka, one, whatever it may be), gets straight A's or close to it, and graduates at the top of his class (say, top 1-2%, aka top 5-10 in a graduating class of 500)...
There's a good chance he wouldn't get into either of our alma maters, if they were blind to legacy. (I don't think my school cares about legacy, they just want my money. People go there when they don't get into MIT, Stanford, or Cal Tech).
Because there are tens of thousands of kids JUST LIKE HIM applying to the same schools. There weren't as many 30 years ago.
-
Keep in mind, 1980s scores aren't directly comparable. The ACT was rescaled in the early 90s and the SAT in the late 1990s.
(Not the SAT changing to be no longer out of 1600, that's a different thing than scaling, which is the psychometric process of setting the mean score. Also it's out of 1600 again)
Here's some excerpts from a book I had to read at my last job.
https://books.google.com/books?id=iMzeBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA367&lpg=PA367&dq=when+was+sat+rescaled&source=bl&ots=0Rv45dD7XA&sig=ACfU3U3hl3m_hCt2lkbkhFTzrjpj5IXNwQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEl7iavYXhAhXWqYMKHV60BOcQ6AEwD3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=when%20was%20sat%20rescaled&f=false
-
Sol, you're starting to sound cynical.
If you haven't noticed before this, I need to take it up a notch.
♡♡♡♡♡