Non profits started by high school students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trouble with the argument that these kids who set up do-gooder nonprofits--bogus though they perhaps may be--are the go-getters, is that the parents or expensive hired advisors are actually the drivers and facilitators of these enterprises. The whole teenage nonprofit craze started after the head of admissions at Harvard put out a letter saying they were going to start weighing character heavily in admissions decisions, and the rest of the highly selective places largely follow their lead.

What I don't get though is why they set up a new non profit. There are plenty of pre existing charities where the student can go and volunteer eg food donation programs, coding for girls, collecting used eye glasses, tutoring. I'd love for admissions officers to turn around and ask the student why they didn't join the volunteer team at AFAC or Martha's Table, and why they thought they as a 17 year old could do better than established charities

The other thing that gets me is the kids that get patents, usually in the same industry as mom or dad. Once they get to college, the drive for more patents seems to quickly disappear.

If they show up to help Martha’s Table they will be one of hundreds of volunteers. Since they are 16, nobody will put them in charge of anything. They will be part of a system. They will have to be humble and start at the bottom and learn how things work.

If they start their own org they get to be CEO and SHOW LEADERSHIP AND INITIATIVE, they are in charge and may even have volunteers to boss around.

If the school values the BIG TITLE over the actual impact, then it works.

If the school cares about actual impact then it doesn’t.

Yeah, but we know that the CEO role is nonsense. They're only doing this because their parents or college advisor told them to.

[Anonymous]

I think people have to be careful about drawing a straight like between starting a non-profit and getting into a top colleges.

These kids probably have the academics, the letters of rec, etc. As someone said before, it's like going on a mission trip. It's now a think that UMC people do. I seriously doubt an AO gets excited about non-profits to the extent that they're accepting kids who don't have the full package just because of one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the kids who “publish” (I.e. their parents pay a prof to “work” with their kid and put their name on a paper).

Pretty sure no professors would go for this as a paid arrangement. Come on!

Junior assistant professors and lecturers do.

The big name New York private college counselors facilitate this for your kid….yes it happens. Quite easy tbh.

Remember who is reading the application. It’s usually mid to late 20s woman (super-liberal/woke) who majored in a soft major likely at that same institution. She’s not going to do deep research on whether or not this professor at a random - sometimes no name or lower ranked uni is reputable or not.

Ask me how I know.

The readers you describe are the first and/or second points of sorting/sifting in the process (sometimes the initial "read' is automated/algorithm). Do you think the senior AOs and Dean(s) who make the final decisions at elite, highly selective schools, usually through committees, don't know what is going on? Seriously asking your opinion.

Have you actually sat through any college info sessions? No one in admissions is a rocket scientist.

You do realize that many of the AOs you describe are alumni or went to a peer school and didn’t get accepted TO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trouble with the argument that these kids who set up do-gooder nonprofits--bogus though they perhaps may be--are the go-getters, is that the parents or expensive hired advisors are actually the drivers and facilitators of these enterprises. The whole teenage nonprofit craze started after the head of admissions at Harvard put out a letter saying they were going to start weighing character heavily in admissions decisions, and the rest of the highly selective places largely follow their lead.

What I don't get though is why they set up a new non profit. There are plenty of pre existing charities where the student can go and volunteer eg food donation programs, coding for girls, collecting used eye glasses, tutoring. I'd love for admissions officers to turn around and ask the student why they didn't join the volunteer team at AFAC or Martha's Table, and why they thought they as a 17 year old could do better than established charities

The other thing that gets me is the kids that get patents, usually in the same industry as mom or dad. Once they get to college, the drive for more patents seems to quickly disappear.

If they show up to help Martha’s Table they will be one of hundreds of volunteers. Since they are 16, nobody will put them in charge of anything. They will be part of a system. They will have to be humble and start at the bottom and learn how things work.

If they start their own org they get to be CEO and SHOW LEADERSHIP AND INITIATIVE, they are in charge and may even have volunteers to boss around.

If the school values the BIG TITLE over the actual impact, then it works.

If the school cares about actual impact then it doesn’t.

Of course, this is the problem, though. They spent some/all of their volunteer hours unnecessarily duplicating administrative efforts instead of actually contributing that time to the work of the cause which already has an adult CEO or two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trouble with the argument that these kids who set up do-gooder nonprofits--bogus though they perhaps may be--are the go-getters, is that the parents or expensive hired advisors are actually the drivers and facilitators of these enterprises. The whole teenage nonprofit craze started after the head of admissions at Harvard put out a letter saying they were going to start weighing character heavily in admissions decisions, and the rest of the highly selective places largely follow their lead.

What I don't get though is why they set up a new non profit. There are plenty of pre existing charities where the student can go and volunteer eg food donation programs, coding for girls, collecting used eye glasses, tutoring. I'd love for admissions officers to turn around and ask the student why they didn't join the volunteer team at AFAC or Martha's Table, and why they thought they as a 17 year old could do better than established charities

The other thing that gets me is the kids that get patents, usually in the same industry as mom or dad. Once they get to college, the drive for more patents seems to quickly disappear.

If they show up to help Martha’s Table they will be one of hundreds of volunteers. Since they are 16, nobody will put them in charge of anything. They will be part of a system. They will have to be humble and start at the bottom and learn how things work.

If they start their own org they get to be CEO and SHOW LEADERSHIP AND INITIATIVE, they are in charge and may even have volunteers to boss around.

If the school values the BIG TITLE over the actual impact, then it works.

If the school cares about actual impact then it doesn’t.

But, they can show leadership at an established org. Mine volunteered at Shepherds Table, and when the chef heard she had chef/knife skills, set her to work as a line cook, quartering chickens. That went in the activities description. A friend volunteered time with a food pantry and let them know she had photography skills. Ended up being their pr person.

And, I think there is value in consistent service whether or not it sounds glam. I can't imagine any AO would fall for the notion of a teen ceo. But, I could see a kid claiming that getting accepted if they also had stellar stats and awards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the kids who “publish” (I.e. their parents pay a prof to “work” with their kid and put their name on a paper).

Pretty sure no professors would go for this as a paid arrangement. Come on!

Junior assistant professors and lecturers do.

The big name New York private college counselors facilitate this for your kid….yes it happens. Quite easy tbh.

Remember who is reading the application. It’s usually mid to late 20s woman (super-liberal/woke) who majored in a soft major likely at that same institution. She’s not going to do deep research on whether or not this professor at a random - sometimes no name or lower ranked uni is reputable or not.

Ask me how I know.

The readers you describe are the first and/or second points of sorting/sifting in the process (sometimes the initial "read' is automated/algorithm). Do you think the senior AOs and Dean(s) who make the final decisions at elite, highly selective schools, usually through committees, don't know what is going on? Seriously asking your opinion.

Have you actually sat through any college info sessions? No one in admissions is a rocket scientist.

You do realize that many of the AOs you describe are alumni or went to a peer school and didn’t get accepted TO.

At my college, it wasn’t the top of the class that went on to work in admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the kids who “publish” (I.e. their parents pay a prof to “work” with their kid and put their name on a paper).

Pretty sure no professors would go for this as a paid arrangement. Come on!

Junior assistant professors and lecturers do.

The big name New York private college counselors facilitate this for your kid….yes it happens. Quite easy tbh.

Remember who is reading the application. It’s usually mid to late 20s woman (super-liberal/woke) who majored in a soft major likely at that same institution. She’s not going to do deep research on whether or not this professor at a random - sometimes no name or lower ranked uni is reputable or not.

Ask me how I know.

The readers you describe are the first and/or second points of sorting/sifting in the process (sometimes the initial "read' is automated/algorithm). Do you think the senior AOs and Dean(s) who make the final decisions at elite, highly selective schools, usually through committees, don't know what is going on? Seriously asking your opinion.

Have you actually sat through any college info sessions? No one in admissions is a rocket scientist.

You do realize that many of the AOs you describe are alumni or went to a peer school and didn’t get accepted TO.

At my college, it wasn’t the top of the class that went on to work in admissions.

Tell us which college and how you know the stats of the graduates that went to work in admissions, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people have to be careful about drawing a straight like between starting a non-profit and getting into a top colleges.

These kids probably have the academics, the letters of rec, etc. As someone said before, it's like going on a mission trip. It's now a think that UMC people do. I seriously doubt an AO gets excited about non-profits to the extent that they're accepting kids who don't have the full package just because of one.

No no no. You don't get it. These days many kids competing for Ivies and similar already have all the academic accolades they can possibly have. That's just buying you a ticket to the lottery. One of the plus factors, if you're not a recruited athlete, is to found a non-profit. This is to distinguish you from the rest of your magnet school classmates, who also have a perfect SAT scores, 5s on a dozen AP exams, and have also, like you, done multivariable calculus with differential equations in 10th grade and interned at the NIH and done at least a nice poster of original research at a major scientific conference, if not actually co-authored a paper.

When all the stats at the same, the non-profit is the one "squishy" thing (squishy, as in it's difficult to know exactly how hard you worked for it) that can make you stand out.

I speak from experience, regarding students at the Blair magnet in MCPS. I'm sure TJ students are in the same boat. Maybe private school students at Sidwell, St Albans and NCS have that special internship in a congressional office their parent pulled strings for, in addition to the non-profit, and don't have as much STEM background. To each his own flavor of squishy, but it's always in addition to excellent stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i've seen it work as recently as last cycle

Where? GMU? You don't need to start a not-for-profit to get accepted into 90% of American universities, you just need a pulse and a social security number to be able to sign the student loan promissory note.

Harvard is not falling for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people have to be careful about drawing a straight like between starting a non-profit and getting into a top colleges.

These kids probably have the academics, the letters of rec, etc. As someone said before, it's like going on a mission trip. It's now a think that UMC people do. I seriously doubt an AO gets excited about non-profits to the extent that they're accepting kids who don't have the full package just because of one.

No no no. You don't get it. These days many kids competing for Ivies and similar already have all the academic accolades they can possibly have. That's just buying you a ticket to the lottery. One of the plus factors, if you're not a recruited athlete, is to found a non-profit. This is to distinguish you from the rest of your magnet school classmates, who also have a perfect SAT scores, 5s on a dozen AP exams, and have also, like you, done multivariable calculus with differential equations in 10th grade and interned at the NIH and done at least a nice poster of original research at a major scientific conference, if not actually co-authored a paper.

When all the stats at the same, the non-profit is the one "squishy" thing (squishy, as in it's difficult to know exactly how hard you worked for it) that can make you stand out.

I speak from experience, regarding students at the Blair magnet in MCPS. I'm sure TJ students are in the same boat. Maybe private school students at Sidwell, St Albans and NCS have that special internship in a congressional office their parent pulled strings for, in addition to the non-profit, and don't have as much STEM background. To each his own flavor of squishy, but it's always in addition to excellent stats.

DP. Also a Blair magnet mom and agree with PP. Not that many mag kids have all these thongs gunning for the same schools. My mag kid was accepted at several top schools in RD no less w/o starting a non profit (or NIH internship). She had a compelling narrative and serious arts accolades. I think they are looking at the whole student. Sure, volunteering is a part of that, but they must be savvy to the whole startup phenomenon. I mentioned the start up tutoring group earlier-- I don't think those kids got into top schools. Mine did, and did not do that.

Also, people are jockeying in so many ways, it's nutty. If this is more important than anything, they will find a way. A kid a year younger than mine was a wonderful violinist, but not the top, so she switched to viola in order to be the top (less competition). At Harvard now, which was confirmation to mine for not applying there!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i've seen it work as recently as last cycle

Where? GMU? You don't need to start a not-for-profit to get accepted into 90% of American universities, you just need a pulse and a social security number to be able to sign the student loan promissory note.

Harvard is not falling for this.

Harvard totally is. They need some way to distinguish all the kids with 4.0 and great race and 12 APs and 1550+ SAT. That stuff alone doesn’t get you into Harvard but add in a non profit and it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i've seen it work as recently as last cycle

Where? GMU? You don't need to start a not-for-profit to get accepted into 90% of American universities, you just need a pulse and a social security number to be able to sign the student loan promissory note.

Harvard is not falling for this.

Harvard totally is. They need some way to distinguish all the kids with 4.0 and great race and 12 APs and 1550+ SAT. That stuff alone doesn’t get you into Harvard but add in a non profit and it does.

Yup. Our local newspaper published profiles of students who were going to top colleges this year and (in addition to having other excellent credentials) several had started 3+ nonprofits. It may be a gimmick but it still appears to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trouble with the argument that these kids who set up do-gooder nonprofits--bogus though they perhaps may be--are the go-getters, is that the parents or expensive hired advisors are actually the drivers and facilitators of these enterprises. The whole teenage nonprofit craze started after the head of admissions at Harvard put out a letter saying they were going to start weighing character heavily in admissions decisions, and the rest of the highly selective places largely follow their lead.

What I don't get though is why they set up a new non profit. There are plenty of pre existing charities where the student can go and volunteer eg food donation programs, coding for girls, collecting used eye glasses, tutoring. I'd love for admissions officers to turn around and ask the student why they didn't join the volunteer team at AFAC or Martha's Table, and why they thought they as a 17 year old could do better than established charities

The other thing that gets me is the kids that get patents, usually in the same industry as mom or dad. Once they get to college, the drive for more patents seems to quickly disappear.

If they show up to help Martha’s Table they will be one of hundreds of volunteers. Since they are 16, nobody will put them in charge of anything. They will be part of a system. They will have to be humble and start at the bottom and learn how things work.

If they start their own org they get to be CEO and SHOW LEADERSHIP AND INITIATIVE, they are in charge and may even have volunteers to boss around.

If the school values the BIG TITLE over the actual impact, then it works.

If the school cares about actual impact then it doesn’t.

Yeah, but we know that the CEO role is nonsense. They're only doing this because their parents or college advisor told them to.

And they’re often helping only a single person. And their parents do it all.

[Anonymous]

I know I girl who set up a non profit helping deaf kids in an EC. She helped no one. Not a single person. Worked for admissions though. Suckers. Meanwhile other kids busting their behinds doing real things are viewed as “not taking initiate or having leadership skills.” Well, colleges, what you’re getting are a bunch of liars and manipulators. Congratulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i've seen it work as recently as last cycle

Where? GMU? You don't need to start a not-for-profit to get accepted into 90% of American universities, you just need a pulse and a social security number to be able to sign the student loan promissory note.

Harvard is not falling for this.

Harvard totally is. They need some way to distinguish all the kids with 4.0 and great race and 12 APs and 1550+ SAT. That stuff alone doesn’t get you into Harvard but add in a non profit and it does.

Yup. Our local newspaper published profiles of students who were going to top colleges this year and (in addition to having other excellent credentials) several had started 3+ nonprofits. It may be a gimmick but it still appears to work.

A gimmick of privilege, no less. It’s always lawyers kids doing this.