BellaOnline Forums Education Gifted Education underqualified legacies and kids with connections

Collegeconfidential is a forum for students, parents, and educators. Look at the Johns Hopkins subforum: AdmissionsDaniel is very much engaged in discussion with students and parents and he's made a valiant effort to demystify the admissions and decisionmaking process. The students and parents who post are highly educated, often gifted people with outstanding accomplishments. Most would be an asset to any school. Nor is there a "sour grapes" feeling. There are those who are bewildered, to be sure and those who are driven, there's a high level of anxiety but I wouldn't characterize the place as a haven for the disgruntled.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make with regard to "taking a stand supportive of education". Reality isn't perfect? So? That justifies adding to the imperfection? I'm all for acknowledging the unfairness of the process but I'm hardly about to defend it.

Agreed about students and parents placing an overemphasis on the Ivy League name. On the other hand, don't minimize the weight those names carry. My husband attended an Ivy League school and the name has had an enormous impact on his career. How many times have you heard someone ask someone else where they went to school, and then respond, depending on the school name, "Oh, you must be smart" (or something along those lines)? It's a shorthand that HAS AN IMPACT. Friends in the financial sector tell me that they people they hire and the salaries they confer on new hires are directly attributable to their alma maters. People aren't seeking these schools out of sheer vanity but because where one attends college affects one's life. Of course it's not an irrevocable effect nor is it something that can't be overcome but to deny its existence is silly. I'd love to see that effect eroded because at least at this point, I do not believe that "the best and the brightest" necessarily end up at the "name" schools.

When you've alluded to the non-GPA/test score factors considered by admissions officers, you've alluded to considerations of merit over which a kid has some control. You've talked about breadth and leadership and engagement in the community. What I'm trying to hammer home is that the adcoms are looking at factors that are beyond the control of the individual applicant and that have absolutely NOTHING to do with merit. Last year, a particular sought after college did not accept a single girl from our high school. They took three boys: one child of powerful donors, one athlete, and one legacy. That's it. The girls were at least as qualified and some more so: all were at the top of the class and each had some special extra qualifications that made them "stand out from the crowd." One of these girls was told directly by the guidance counselor that she was the "perfect" candidate for the school. So, should these families have anticipated the rejections because they did not "fit?" Should they have jumped into the arms race and tried to find ways to stand out even more dramatically than they already did? Should they have been expected to have published their first or second books or participated in a professional dance troupe or spent a year in Iraq? This arms race to perfection is exactly what I find most offensive about what's changed in college admissions. Your analysis of the situation would have made sense a decade ago. But applications to colleges--not just elite schools!--jumped on average 40% in '06 and another 8-10% in '07. There have never been so many people vying for such limited slots and there's very little predictability as to who will get in and who won't.

On one point we heartily agree. I wish that parents and kids were able to look at the process differently because it is only with a fairly fundamental, drastic change in attitude that high school and college life will improve. The colleges, I feel have created the admissions mess with all its anxiety and arms race to perfection but they are not about to change a thing. Kids need to find permission to take academic risks and to learn for the sheer joy of learning. We are creating a generation of risk-averse, burned out, overly competitive kids.

Unfortunately, it is because of the current competitive nature of admissions that one has to be aware of "fit" (which can encompass so many non-academic characteristics its impossible to list them all). Quite frankly, had the student in your example asked the college for profiling information and preferences prior to applying, she would have known exactly what they were looking for; and yes, could have anticipated whether or not she "fit." She would have then had some idea of the rejection potential involved. Whether she was a "perfect" candidate is immaterial in the grand scheme of things. She wasn't chosen because she didn't fit the college's needs at the time - this college is one that could have been on her list of potentials but she shouldn't have pinned her hopes on it.

As for name-brand degrees, I'm afraid I can't agree with you at all. The Wall Street Journal posted a wonderful article on the topic: Any College Will Do. Its the degree that counts for most employers, not the name of the institution granting the degree.

Sorry, I'm still not getting what you mean by "fit." My point was that this kid "fit" the school perfectly. She looked like an ideal candidate and I'm told that this was confirmed by the guidance counselor, college interviewer, and alums. Why on earth would she or her parents have questioned her fit for this school?

The girl had other choices of course, as did all the girls who were rejected or wait listed by this particular school. I apologize for beating this to death but I think it's critical to underscore my point: competitive college admissions have become dramatically more unpredictable, random, and unfair (from the student's perspective). The system is not a meritocracy. One can think fit from today to tomorrow, pick college choices carefully and thoughtfully, and still find that the acceptance list is very short indeed.

Yes, we disagree about whether name brand matters. There are a host of wonderful brands out there and of course the name on one's undergraduate diploma isn't dispositive. In my experience,however, it does have an impact, and in certain professions that impact can be enormous.

Lorel,

I am late coming to this forum (came a few months ago and then life took over) but wanted to say thank you for bringing the topic up. I am going to use a gift certificate to buy The Game of Life, which you mentioned earlier. William Bowen is a really great man (have not read too much of his writings but have met him personally as his daughter was a college friend of mine)who would undoubtedly have interest in the passionate gifted teens of whom you speak. He is a labor economist who has written about the Odyssey (or was it the Iliad...my brain cells are stagnating after 20 years)and is a true Renaissance man himself.

I have read so much about the college admissions process and used to be very involved in alumni admissions.I am a bit jaded about how far off track the process seems to have wandered. I believe that there are many good fits for kids...but that the "realities" that make a fit for the college are usually motivated less by FIT than by economics.Yes, the schools have bills to pay, but they also should take a good look in the mirror.

"... most observers say that finding a university that is a good fit for the individual student is more important than cost and prestige. Factors to consider, they say, include whether the research specialties of individual professors align with the student's academic interests. "Pay for a school like Harvard because it's the right place for your child but not because you suspect it will give greater returns," says Mark Sklarow, executive director of the Independent Educational Consultants Association."

From Robert Tomsho's "Saying No Thanks to the Ivy League" (WSJ College Journal).

The admissions process isn't mysterious, magical, illusive, illusionary, or capricious. But neither is it clear as day. Economic issues, actually, can definitely (and should) be a part of the "fit" equation.

I'll address determining "fit" in an article (or two or three) next week on the colleges site; but for now, perhaps here's a simplistic explanation you can relate to.

Consider you're shopping for a pair of shoes. You have a specific color, style and brand in mind because you need a perfect match for a power outfit you just purchased. You find your ACME brand name shoes--in your size, in your color, in your style--and are absolutely thrilled. You know the shoes are a perfect match for you. The sales clerk looks at the outfit you're trying to complement and tells you the shoes are an absolute perfect match. The shoes are in fashion, they're high end, everyone's going to complement you on those shoes and tell you how absolutely wonderful they look. It completes your power outfit, gives you a sense of confidence, and you believe you're going to get a lot of attention/mileage out of those shoes. You buy the shoes and take them home. The next day you're prepping for your big day. You put on your outfit, get everything ready to head out the door, then sit down to put on the shoes. The shoes are size 8, you always wear a size 8. You slide your feet in and the toe box is a little tight. You get up to walk and the shoes are rubbing against your little toes. There's some discomfort at the heel. Your feet "fit in" to the shoes, but the shoes really aren't a good "fit" for you. You're not going to have a good experience while wearing these shoes; but there's nothing you can do now. Was the purchase really worth it? Were there things you could have done prior to commiting to those shoes to prevent your discomfort? You really could have prepared yourself for the disappointment ahead of time; or, you could have made another choice.

Alternatively, let's take it from an employment perspective. You and Harriet Smith are vying for a single position. You're both equally and highly qualified in terms of academics and past employment history. You've both gone through the interview process. While you were interviewing, the committee told you that you were a perfect match for the position (meaning you met the qualifications, have demonstrated tremendous potential, and they liked you). Now they have to make a decision as to which ONE of you they will hire. What differentiates you from Harriet? Hmm... The committee now looks at factors other than your surface qualifications. The company states very clearly in its mission that it is a family-owned company, committed to the community, and is tremendously supportive of social justice. Now, they can't ask you whether or not you're married or have children, but you certainly could have volunteered that information. Harriet did and she has a family. Extra point for Harriet. The company's committment to the community means that they have a preference for hiring people from within the local area. Harriet lives in the area; but you're in the next county. Harriet now has two extra points. A bonus for Harriet is that the company won't have to consider paying her more to support a move or continued commuting. Bingo. Harriet now has three points more than you do. Finally, though both you and Harriet mentioned you've done volunteer service in your communities, Harriet's hours have been spent working with a community agency supportive of the homeless. Your hours were spent as a docent in your local history museum. Guess who gets the extra point for a committment to social justice? Harriet. All things considered, which individual receives the job offer? You're both tremendously qualified and would definitely "fit in" in terms of the job; but, Harriet is the better "fit" for the company. The path is actually pretty clear. Could you have prepared yourself for this decision? Could you have made an educated pre-determination as to whether you would actually receive a job offer? Yes. You simply would have had to ask some questions and done some basic research ahead of time in order to come to a better understanding of the realities of this position.

How do you know what questions to ask? I'll address that next week. It takes some planning and you do have to do some research. Are there any guarantees? No. Will you improve your chances? That's my experience in the over 12 years I've spent working with teens and adults on both workplace and educational issues, yes. "Fit" is important.

Maybe there's some common ground here. I believe we can all agree that today's admissions games are far removed from what we may have experienced a generation ago. I believe it is a much more difficult and stressful process than it used to be.


I believe college applications have wandered far from being about which kid will be academically successful at a particular institution. The truth is, many kids have the ability to succeed at "brand name" institutions. So the race for a place has gone down to trivial details, things that never would have mattered a generation ago. The buzzword these days is "passion" - but kids are feeling pressured to demonstrate passion in as many areas as they can.

To borrow your example, Lynn, it's not enough to have 100 service hours under one's belt. Everything is under the microscope. Does a National Merit scholar who reads to the blind outweigh a Valedictorian who sews blankets for cancer stricken children? Does a young woman dare to take only three years of dance, or will it appear that she is not dedicated enough if she takes a break due to a heavy workload junior year? What about the poor student who has to work and cannot afford to do extracurriculars? There are SO many more variables kids have to consider these days. They are stressing out about sending thank you notes to every point of contact at their favorite schools, and feeling envious of peers who can write a moving essay about a parent's battle with leukemia.

It makes me sad to think that kids today need a "hook" or an angle to play up to better their chances. It used to be enough just to be a good student with a few extracurriculars; now the pressure is on to package yourself as a perfect human being.

I'm sorry that you're unable to hear what others are saying. OF COURSE one should try to choose one's school based on how the personality of the school matches up with one's own personality and strengths. Would anyone really argue otherwise? I have never said that one should apply to Harvard if one would fit better at a small LAC. Nor do I think for a minute that Harvard commands more prestige than, say, Williams. I do think, however, that both these schools command more respect than Unknown U. And it's FINE to choose Unknown U. as long as it's done with full understanding that there are both positive and negative consequences to that decision.

I'm also sorry that you're unable to accept and respect the feedback of others who provide valuable information. Two people with gifted children have told you that the college admissions frenzy that has ramped up over the last few years has created an atmosphere where extremely able kids will lose spots at schools where they FIT, places where they would thrive and where the school would benefit from their presence. We're not the minority whether you want to accept it or not.

And I'm sorry that you feel the need to resort to veiled insults when someone expresses an opinion other than yours. I don't find your "simplistic explanations" on point or at all compelling and as tempting as it is to argue the obvious distinctions between institutions of higher learning and shoes or even jobs, I don't think it's helpful to this forum to waste the space doing so. (Nor do I think it's necessary. I think the differences are painfully clear.) We're obviously not going to convince each other as to the rightness of our respective positions. Both arguments are out there for those who may be reading and they can go from here to do their own research and draw their own conclusions. If anyone would like to email me with questions, feel free to email me at shoshi88@hotmail.com. I apologize to the forum if I've spent too much time on this and I promise, I won't respond to this particular thread again.

No insults were proferred - either expressly or implied. The examples provided were simply means to illustrate the differences between fitting in and fit. Unfortunately, there's a distinct difference between a student's ability to simply fit in and their fit or compatability with the institution. Parents have the right to express dissatisfaction with the results of the admissions process, when of course those results do not go the way they'd hoped and expected.

The only point I made and continue to make is that parents and students need to be very realistic about their opportunities going into the process; and should not expect admissions to be automatic for any child--regardless of the child's perceived ability to excel above all others.