A tale of two worlds

[Anonymous]

Here are two parents.

Parent A sent their child to the most rigorous and best regarded private school.

Parent B sent their child to the local public with 5/10 rating.

Both kids take the most rigorous classes. Both get As. But Parent A’s kid has to work very hard, even has to get tutoring in some areas. Parent B’s kid gets As effortlessly, he spends very little time studying.

Parent A’s kid does math team and a varsity sport, competitions and tournaments. They volunteer on regular basis.

Parent B’s kid does school band and spends his free time on video games. In the summer they work a little at a fast food restaurant to make money for video games.

Both kids have the same amount of APs.

Both kids have the same ACT score of 34. But kid A had to slave to prep for it while the kid B just walked in and got it without any prep.

Kid A will doubtfully be on very top of his class because the peers are overachievers and the competition is tough.

Kid B will most likely be on top of his class because it’s a low performing school and his grades are exceptional.

The questions are:
1) Who will get admitted to a selective college, and
2) Why was parent A so stupid to invest so much money and time to get into the right school, find the right tutors, coaches, ACT prep, etc.

[Anonymous]

no agenda here

[Anonymous]

Kid A gets in.

B is boring and low achieving. Doesn’t have a record of impact.

[Anonymous]

Nobody selective wants a mediocre couch potato gamer band geek.

[Anonymous]

Both will get in.

Kid B will have a hard time keeping up with Kid A.

Kid A's parent will get Kid A better summer internships.

Kid B will go home for the summer and flip burgers again.

Kid A may have better luck finding a prestige job after graduation.

Kid B will have some trouble getting foot in door but will eventually figure life out.

Kid A will repeat the high-cost, high-intensity parenting they were exposed to. At some point Kid A and or their kid may need mental health meds.

Kid B will have a lower life earning trajectory but will be happier for being kept off a tread mill. Kid B will employ a similar parenting style to parents. As a result, their kid may need to drop down 1 level of college selectivity due to increased application pressure on tippy top schools.

There will be no DCUM by then.

The End!

[Anonymous]

Wait. So one of the kids is working very hard, consistently challenging himself, bonding with athletic teammates while staying in shape, using his math skills to solve problems with friends, and doing good works in the community.

The other one is not working hard, is in band but it seems not especially passionate about music or anything else, plays video games and has a summer job whose sole purpose is to play more video games.

Do I have this right?

I don’t know which one will get into college, but I know which one Aristotle would say is living the good life.

[Anonymous]

They both will get into selective colleges but kid A will have a good shot at a T20 school while kid B will have a very low chance. How do they even know that kid B can handle the work at a top college if they never had to work hard for their grades; maybe they don't have the work ethic to succeed at a rigorous college. Kid B doesn't have impressive ECs and most likely will not write good essays to impress the admissions committee. Kid A will have the resources to put together oustanding essays and application. Kid B will have to be a striver like taking dual enrollment courses at the local college to prove that he can handle rigorous courses and do more interesting ECs to equal kid A's chance of getting into a T20 school.

[Anonymous]

"Both kids have the same ACT score of 34. But kid A had to slave to prep for it while the kid B just walked in and got it without any prep."

It's incorrect to assume that Kid B is not as "smart" as Kid A just because they didn't attend a private school. Both students take rigorous classes, and Kid B easily scores a 34 on his ACT, while Kid A, despite the struggle, also achieved that 34. Many of you incorrectly assume that because the high school has a "low" rating, there aren't any good teachers or rigorous classes at the school. The only real difference seems to be their activities and Kid B is working.

I don't know what will happen with each of these hypothetical kids, but I don't think Kid B is as bad off as some of you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are two parents.

Parent A sent their child to the most rigorous and best regarded private school.

Parent B sent their child to the local public with 5/10 rating.

Both kids take the most rigorous classes. Both get As. But Parent A’s kid has to work very hard, even has to get tutoring in some areas. Parent B’s kid gets As effortlessly, he spends very little time studying.

Parent A’s kid does math team and a varsity sport, competitions and tournaments. They volunteer on regular basis.

Parent B’s kid does school band and spends his free time on video games. In the summer they work a little at a fast food restaurant to make money for video games.

Both kids have the same amount of APs.

Both kids have the same ACT score of 34. But kid A had to slave to prep for it while the kid B just walked in and got it without any prep.

Kid A will doubtfully be on very top of his class because the peers are overachievers and the competition is tough.

Kid B will most likely be on top of his class because it’s a low performing school and his grades are exceptional.

The questions are:
1) Who will get admitted to a selective college, and
2) Why was parent A so stupid to invest so much money and time to get into the right school, find the right tutors, coaches, ACT prep, etc.

Kid C will drink the milkshake of both kid A and kid B.

[Anonymous]

Kid A will be a frequent flyer at the counseling center in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are two parents.

Parent A sent their child to the most rigorous and best regarded private school.

Parent B sent their child to the local public with 5/10 rating.

Both kids take the most rigorous classes. Both get As. But Parent A’s kid has to work very hard, even has to get tutoring in some areas. Parent B’s kid gets As effortlessly, he spends very little time studying.

Parent A’s kid does math team and a varsity sport, competitions and tournaments. They volunteer on regular basis.

Parent B’s kid does school band and spends his free time on video games. In the summer they work a little at a fast food restaurant to make money for video games.

Both kids have the same amount of APs.

Both kids have the same ACT score of 34. But kid A had to slave to prep for it while the kid B just walked in and got it without any prep.

Kid A will doubtfully be on very top of his class because the peers are overachievers and the competition is tough.

Kid B will most likely be on top of his class because it’s a low performing school and his grades are exceptional.

The questions are:
1) Who will get admitted to a selective college, and
2) Why was parent A so stupid to invest so much money and time to get into the right school, find the right tutors, coaches, ACT prep, etc.

Both will have a great chance at getting into UMD /flagship; kid B probably has better AP scores than kid A so might get into some better schools such as T25, but the neither kid gets into a T10/ivy.
That goes to kid C : Parent did the research and paid for a top private school that sends many unhooked kids each year, knowing kid would test into said school easily and rise to the top; kid C got a 35 on the first try, and aced all the prep school classes with no tutors. Teachers love kid C because they care about classes & dont have parents when grade grub and beg for redos like kid A, so C gets the awards and best letters.

[Anonymous]

1. Unless one has a hook, it will be a crap shoot on who gets into the better college. But if the schools band needs someone with the instrument kid B plays they have a subtle hook.

2. Parent A has prepared their kid to pass the employers prescreening test so in the end they will get and keep the better job.

Parent A is not stupid. As noted they are investing in their kid’s future for the long haul, not just having the kid peak at 18.

[Anonymous]

Where is it said that Kid A’s motivation is extrinsic rather than intrinsic, or that his parents are grade-grubbing?

At any rate, I’ll be hanging around with kids D and E — the awkward, impulsive theater kid and the weird kid in black chain-smoking at the edge of campus. I met both of them in detention.

[Anonymous]

They both sound like a total bore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here are two parents.

Parent A sent their child to the most rigorous and best regarded private school.

Parent B sent their child to the local public with 5/10 rating.

Both kids take the most rigorous classes. Both get As. But Parent A’s kid has to work very hard, even has to get tutoring in some areas. Parent B’s kid gets As effortlessly, he spends very little time studying.

Parent A’s kid does math team and a varsity sport, competitions and tournaments. They volunteer on regular basis.

Parent B’s kid does school band and spends his free time on video games. In the summer they work a little at a fast food restaurant to make money for video games.

Both kids have the same amount of APs.

Both kids have the same ACT score of 34. But kid A had to slave to prep for it while the kid B just walked in and got it without any prep.

Kid A will doubtfully be on very top of his class because the peers are overachievers and the competition is tough.

Kid B will most likely be on top of his class because it’s a low performing school and his grades are exceptional.

The questions are:
1) Who will get admitted to a selective college, and
2) Why was parent A so stupid to invest so much money and time to get into the right school, find the right tutors, coaches, ACT prep, etc.

Kid C will drink the milkshake of both kid A and kid B.