Sorry but this American college admissions "rat race" is stupid ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two ways you can go about it

1. Prioritize T20 admission from a young age. Tailor everything towards that goal. Push ahead even if student is not interested in the thing they were doing, because it would look good to colleges. You would have a tough 5-6 years.

2. Prioritize academics and doing well in high school, regardless of how it looks to colleges. Do things you like and drop things you do not like. Take classes you like, but do emphasize rigor in all subjects, not because colleges like to see that, but because they are building blocks and a strong foundation is essential.

T20 admission is a low probability anyway. Even if you choose option #1, you might not end up at T20. That seemed to be a bad tradeoff to me.

If you choose option #2, even if your overall chances of getting into T20 are lower than if you choose #1, you win either way because (a) you did what you loved and if ended up not going to T20, you have that happy HS years (b) if you did end up at T20, you just got a bonus. Heads I win, tails I don't lose.

That is how we made the decision. Turns out when you do things that you do love, it is easier for others to see it as well. It showed up in how my son got voted to the top position in the team and most likely how the teachers wrote the recommendation letters. Ended at HYP.

There is actually a third option, which is to not even allow your kid to apply to Ivy-plus schools (or other similarly-priced schools), even if they have the stats and the money for them. That is what we did, and we’re happy with the results so far.

If Ivy was just about stats, 90% of the anxiety would evaporate.

Oh you got a 1520 SAT, here are the 4 schools that you can apply to and one is guaranteed to take you. Oh you got a 1210 on the SAT, here are the 4 schools with your major that you can apply to and one of them is guaranteed to accept you.

But why have anxiety? If your kid has the stats, they are smart enough to realize that an acceptance rate of 5% means 95% are rejected. That means many many many highly qualified people will get rejected. Also, your kid should be smart enough to realize that someone with a 1500 versus a 1580 are not that different overall. Both are really smart, and why yes, many schools will want that 1500 kid over the 1580 kid for a variety of reasons---all "merit" related.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sucks except if you win. Then it’s great. There is nothing globally that is like the education, connections and level of services of all kinds available at the tippy-top of American higher education.

No, it sucks period. The reason that it sucks is the supply/demand imbalance and the simple fact that there are some whom believe that there are only a small number of schools which "matter" and everything else is a failure. That entire mental model is ridiculous with anything deeper than a surface evaluation because you will quickly realize that this is a demand/ego driven belief rather than any actual difference in quality.

There is a difference in quality. Stanford is better than Arizona State. This is true even though you can succeed in spite of attending Arizona State and even though you may not succeed in spite of attending Stanford.

That is true, Stanford is measurably better than Arizona State. But, Stanford isn't measurably better than Santa Clara especially for undergraduate education.

My suspicion is that Santa Clara is just as good as Stanford for tech majors but wouldn't be as good for other majors.

The quality of the professors and of the other students is certainly going to be higher at any elite school than the majority of state schools.

The real point is that schools are better grouped into buckets, you cannot really stack rank them in any manner that is definitive. And, the top bucket is much larger than many people believe.

In terms of educational quality it may be true that the top bucket is really 100 colleges rather than 20. But in terms of bang for the buck, I certainly made distinctions between top 10 and 50-100. I was prepared to pay full price for top 10, but full price for private or out of state public ranked 11-100, forget it.

And difference between T10 and T11 ?

It’s harder to reach consensus on who falls outside the top 10, while most people generally agree on who’s in the top 10. That's the difference (for bragging)

There isn't strong agreement on who is within the T10. HYPSM and then it is off to the races. And all of the next 10-15 schools are every bit as good as HYPSM. And the next 20 are also virtually indistinguishable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree OP.
To others posters- you all say you opted out of the rat race but your DC is still attending HYP. You are essentially saying that there was nothing special about your DC that they did and despite that they got in. Cool story.

Actually, what we are saying is that our kids (and families) did not treat MS/HS as a "race" - there was no competing against peers or trying to one up them or trying to do something to stand out for college apps. The kids just did what they wanted, as much as they wanted. They took whatever classes they wanted and studied as much as they wanted. No tutors or SAT prep or maneuvering. They just lived their lives as they wished. Believe it or not, there are kids like this who ENJOY learning and classes and ENJOY being busy doing things they want to do. There are kids like this who breeze through HS with 10+ APs and straight As without barely studying. Who have time to pursue hobbies and interests and sports. Who take the SAT once without any paid prep and don't take it again because the score is 1550+. Who have so much time because they don't need to study that they play sports and an instrument and are good at both, despite the parents never once telling them they have to practice.
Yes, these kids end up at ivies unhooked because that is where they belong, if they want it. Just because a kid end up at an ivy doesn't mean they were competing in the rat race.

You can run in the rat race and still not end up succeeding. And you can opt out of the rat race and still be rich and happy and live a meaningful balanced life.

The rat race is not about what school you end up in or your salary. The rat race is feeling like you have to keep doing more than you want to do to keep up with peers - whether that's school, classes, ECs, job, house, vacations, cars, clothes, jewelry. You can be rich and not be part of that race. You can be poor and still running like a rat in the race.

The rat race is your outlook, your goals, your comparing yourself to others. In other words, the rat race is your "why."

Agreed! However, it's not a part of the "rat race" to have your kid do some test prep. My "smart kid" has anxiety and asked for test prep. So we started with a 1-1 tutor, did a baseline test. They got a 1320. Did 4 hours of test prep with the tutor targeted at areas that need improvement, and learning the test taking tips. My kid did 1-2 hours of practice themselves. The next test they took they scored a 1500. Did a few more practice tests, all hovering around 1500 (+/-20). Took one real test and got a 1500 and was done. Sure they could have prepped on their own and gotten to the 1500, but wanted to take advantage of a knowledgeable tutor who would help them see their silly mistakes and give test tips. So for 4-6 hours of tutoring and another 3-4 practice tests (done at 8/9am, to simulate real test taking situations---key for a non-morning kid), they arrived at their final score. and really all it took was the 4 hours of tutoring. While not required, my kid more easily got into the right school for them with a 1500 versus a 1320.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:100 years ago, 50 years ago, ivies are expensive, even MC may not be able to afford it. And ivies mostly get their students from boarding schools and private schools. So yeah at that time it’s reserved to rich privileged families.

If we go back to those times, restrict the seats from the commons, there would never be a rat race. I mean, it only becomes a rat race when the commons think they are attainable to them.

Transparency matters. They should be honest about the students and families they want instead of misleading people into thinking everyone has a fair shot. It’s obvious that isn’t true, so why lie?

How stupid do you have to be to not understand that if only 5% of kids are accepted that means 95% will be REJECTED. And of those 95%, at least 80%+ are "highly qualified" and those T25 schools would be excited to offer them ACCEPTANCE, but can't because of space. So yes, you have a fair shot, it's just a 5% chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two ways you can go about it

1. Prioritize T20 admission from a young age. Tailor everything towards that goal. Push ahead even if student is not interested in the thing they were doing, because it would look good to colleges. You would have a tough 5-6 years.

2. Prioritize academics and doing well in high school, regardless of how it looks to colleges. Do things you like and drop things you do not like. Take classes you like, but do emphasize rigor in all subjects, not because colleges like to see that, but because they are building blocks and a strong foundation is essential.

T20 admission is a low probability anyway. Even if you choose option #1, you might not end up at T20. That seemed to be a bad tradeoff to me.

If you choose option #2, even if your overall chances of getting into T20 are lower than if you choose #1, you win either way because (a) you did what you loved and if ended up not going to T20, you have that happy HS years (b) if you did end up at T20, you just got a bonus. Heads I win, tails I don't lose.

That is how we made the decision. Turns out when you do things that you do love, it is easier for others to see it as well. It showed up in how my son got voted to the top position in the team and most likely how the teachers wrote the recommendation letters. Ended at HYP.

There is actually a third option, which is to not even allow your kid to apply to Ivy-plus schools (or other similarly-priced schools), even if they have the stats and the money for them. That is what we did, and we’re happy with the results so far.

If Ivy was just about stats, 90% of the anxiety would evaporate.

Oh you got a 1520 SAT, here are the 4 schools that you can apply to and one is guaranteed to take you. Oh you got a 1210 on the SAT, here are the 4 schools with your major that you can apply to and one of them is guaranteed to accept you.

These schools are private institutions. They get to admit students based on their goals and priorities, not yours. The vast majority of schools in the US operate in the manner that you describe. You are free to apply to any of them.

Did the PP say anything else? The Ivies and their ilk use sophisticated marketing and opaque admissions to drive an escalating spiral of anxiety among the best and the brightest of American teens. Whether we are playing the game or whether we have opted out, we are all free to observe and remark upon this phenomenon and the deleterious effects it has on American society.

It doesn't have a deleterious effect on society at all. The only deleterious impact is to the egos of some upset families.

Adolescent mental health is a disaster, and the higher-performing the high school, the worse the mental health.

That is a parental, cultural and societal issue. It is not an issue for these schools or their admissions practices.

I disagree. There is little I can do as a chill parent of smart kids when I send them to Palo Alto high school or TJ other than not sending them aka not playing. I can’t change the game at these places.

If you are in the bay area there are many privates which are much better environments than Paly and Gunn and do better in admissions. You don't have to play the nonsense game that happens at those schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two ways you can go about it

1. Prioritize T20 admission from a young age. Tailor everything towards that goal. Push ahead even if student is not interested in the thing they were doing, because it would look good to colleges. You would have a tough 5-6 years.

2. Prioritize academics and doing well in high school, regardless of how it looks to colleges. Do things you like and drop things you do not like. Take classes you like, but do emphasize rigor in all subjects, not because colleges like to see that, but because they are building blocks and a strong foundation is essential.

T20 admission is a low probability anyway. Even if you choose option #1, you might not end up at T20. That seemed to be a bad tradeoff to me.

If you choose option #2, even if your overall chances of getting into T20 are lower than if you choose #1, you win either way because (a) you did what you loved and if ended up not going to T20, you have that happy HS years (b) if you did end up at T20, you just got a bonus. Heads I win, tails I don't lose.

That is how we made the decision. Turns out when you do things that you do love, it is easier for others to see it as well. It showed up in how my son got voted to the top position in the team and most likely how the teachers wrote the recommendation letters. Ended at HYP.

There is actually a third option, which is to not even allow your kid to apply to Ivy-plus schools (or other similarly-priced schools), even if they have the stats and the money for them. That is what we did, and we’re happy with the results so far.

If Ivy was just about stats, 90% of the anxiety would evaporate.

Oh you got a 1520 SAT, here are the 4 schools that you can apply to and one is guaranteed to take you. Oh you got a 1210 on the SAT, here are the 4 schools with your major that you can apply to and one of them is guaranteed to accept you.

It would be nice to get a guarantee for sure. My DC with a 35 ACT (not superscored) was deferred from UGA OOS, so not sure schools value the tests that much. Above 75% GPA and 12 APs, etc.

But your kid's 35ACT is not any better than the kid with a 32 or 33. Both have meet the needed threshold. Also what was the intended major? That matters a lot as well. So look at acceptance rates overall and for the major. Because plenty of qualified kids will get rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sucks except if you win. Then it’s great. There is nothing globally that is like the education, connections and level of services of all kinds available at the tippy-top of American higher education.

No, it sucks period. The reason that it sucks is the supply/demand imbalance and the simple fact that there are some whom believe that there are only a small number of schools which "matter" and everything else is a failure. That entire mental model is ridiculous with anything deeper than a surface evaluation because you will quickly realize that this is a demand/ego driven belief rather than any actual difference in quality.

There is a difference in quality. Stanford is better than Arizona State. This is true even though you can succeed in spite of attending Arizona State and even though you may not succeed in spite of attending Stanford.

That is true, Stanford is measurably better than Arizona State. But, Stanford isn't measurably better than Santa Clara especially for undergraduate education.

My suspicion is that Santa Clara is just as good as Stanford for tech majors but wouldn't be as good for other majors.

The quality of the professors and of the other students is certainly going to be higher at any elite school than the majority of state schools.

The real point is that schools are better grouped into buckets, you cannot really stack rank them in any manner that is definitive. And, the top bucket is much larger than many people believe.

In terms of educational quality it may be true that the top bucket is really 100 colleges rather than 20. But in terms of bang for the buck, I certainly made distinctions between top 10 and 50-100. I was prepared to pay full price for top 10, but full price for private or out of state public ranked 11-100, forget it.

And that is your choice. But I personally think it's a ridiculous choice. If you have the $$$, most in the T100 are still worth it if it's the right fit for your kid.
But you are stating you wouldn't pay $90K for a school ranked 15 or 25? That's BS and I feel for your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sucks except if you win. Then it’s great. There is nothing globally that is like the education, connections and level of services of all kinds available at the tippy-top of American higher education.

No, it sucks period. The reason that it sucks is the supply/demand imbalance and the simple fact that there are some whom believe that there are only a small number of schools which "matter" and everything else is a failure. That entire mental model is ridiculous with anything deeper than a surface evaluation because you will quickly realize that this is a demand/ego driven belief rather than any actual difference in quality.

There is a difference in quality. Stanford is better than Arizona State. This is true even though you can succeed in spite of attending Arizona State and even though you may not succeed in spite of attending Stanford.

That is true, Stanford is measurably better than Arizona State. But, Stanford isn't measurably better than Santa Clara especially for undergraduate education.

My suspicion is that Santa Clara is just as good as Stanford for tech majors but wouldn't be as good for other majors.

The quality of the professors and of the other students is certainly going to be higher at any elite school than the majority of state schools.

The real point is that schools are better grouped into buckets, you cannot really stack rank them in any manner that is definitive. And, the top bucket is much larger than many people believe.

In terms of educational quality it may be true that the top bucket is really 100 colleges rather than 20. But in terms of bang for the buck, I certainly made distinctions between top 10 and 50-100. I was prepared to pay full price for top 10, but full price for private or out of state public ranked 11-100, forget it.

I agree that there is a difference between the top 10 and say 50-100. But there really isn't a significant difference between the top 10 and the top 40.

+1

My kid is at a school ranked ~40 (was lower 30s before USNWR changed the ranking methodology recently and eliminated things like class size--why I don't get). of their 15+ friends, ALL of them were WL/Sophmore start at a minimum of 1 T25 school. Most it was 2-3 T25 schools that had WL/Sophmore started them. The school is filled with really smart kids who didn't "win the lottery" but could have at many T25 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two ways you can go about it

1. Prioritize T20 admission from a young age. Tailor everything towards that goal. Push ahead even if student is not interested in the thing they were doing, because it would look good to colleges. You would have a tough 5-6 years.

2. Prioritize academics and doing well in high school, regardless of how it looks to colleges. Do things you like and drop things you do not like. Take classes you like, but do emphasize rigor in all subjects, not because colleges like to see that, but because they are building blocks and a strong foundation is essential.

T20 admission is a low probability anyway. Even if you choose option #1, you might not end up at T20. That seemed to be a bad tradeoff to me.

If you choose option #2, even if your overall chances of getting into T20 are lower than if you choose #1, you win either way because (a) you did what you loved and if ended up not going to T20, you have that happy HS years (b) if you did end up at T20, you just got a bonus. Heads I win, tails I don't lose.

That is how we made the decision. Turns out when you do things that you do love, it is easier for others to see it as well. It showed up in how my son got voted to the top position in the team and most likely how the teachers wrote the recommendation letters. Ended at HYP.

There is actually a third option, which is to not even allow your kid to apply to Ivy-plus schools (or other similarly-priced schools), even if they have the stats and the money for them. That is what we did, and we’re happy with the results so far.

If Ivy was just about stats, 90% of the anxiety would evaporate.

Oh you got a 1520 SAT, here are the 4 schools that you can apply to and one is guaranteed to take you. Oh you got a 1210 on the SAT, here are the 4 schools with your major that you can apply to and one of them is guaranteed to accept you.

These schools are private institutions. They get to admit students based on their goals and priorities, not yours. The vast majority of schools in the US operate in the manner that you describe. You are free to apply to any of them.

Did the PP say anything else? The Ivies and their ilk use sophisticated marketing and opaque admissions to drive an escalating spiral of anxiety among the best and the brightest of American teens. Whether we are playing the game or whether we have opted out, we are all free to observe and remark upon this phenomenon and the deleterious effects it has on American society.

It doesn't have a deleterious effect on society at all. The only deleterious impact is to the egos of some upset families.

Adolescent mental health is a disaster, and the higher-performing the high school, the worse the mental health.

That is a parental, cultural and societal issue. It is not an issue for these schools or their admissions practices.

That would be correct if elite colleges had, and aspired to have, absolutely zero cultural or societal impact whatsoever.

If your kid is qualified for an elite school, they should also be capable of understanding that most will be rejected. Not that difficult of a concept to grasp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:100 years ago, 50 years ago, ivies are expensive, even MC may not be able to afford it. And ivies mostly get their students from boarding schools and private schools. So yeah at that time it’s reserved to rich privileged families.

If we go back to those times, restrict the seats from the commons, there would never be a rat race. I mean, it only becomes a rat race when the commons think they are attainable to them.

Not artfully put, but true. One of the top schools for churning out Nobel winners is City College of NY. It’s where children of poor immigrants in NY went, mostly Jewish. These were smart kids who were driven to improve their family’s lot in life, and many did just that.

Between this thread and the Harvard kids one, it’s made me realize that it’s too bad that the prestige of places like CCNY have fallen. They are perfect for super smart, driven kids who need or should stay close to home and are not interested in the typical college experience but want to just hunker down and get a degree. That’s not to say they are not still good options, just that everyone is falling all over themselves to get into a top 10/20/25 school when those places might not serve the ancillary needs (cost, distance from home, overall culture) that a commuter school does.

Stuy and Bronx Sci kids all going off to Hunter and Stony Brook in droves. Macaulay and Sophie Davis highly HIGHLY respected here in nyc. It maybe doesn't have a national name, but neither did City College at the time. But OP has no interest in sending her kid to Hunter.

Hunter had a great name when I went to SUNY long ago. It was also a school that only locals attended.

But that’s sort of my point. Many kids probably should stay close to home for all sorts of reasons. There shouldn’t be such a stigma against going to a commuter school. Not all students should live away and try to fit into a campus life that is not their cup of tea.

So stop allowing your family and kids to be guided in life by what others think! That is a YOU problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:100 years ago, 50 years ago, ivies are expensive, even MC may not be able to afford it. And ivies mostly get their students from boarding schools and private schools. So yeah at that time it’s reserved to rich privileged families.

If we go back to those times, restrict the seats from the commons, there would never be a rat race. I mean, it only becomes a rat race when the commons think they are attainable to them.

Transparency matters. They should be honest about the students and families they want instead of misleading people into thinking everyone has a fair shot. It’s obvious that isn’t true, so why lie?

It is fair, it just might not meet your definition of 'fairness'. They are very transparent in that they do not care solely about academics but rather ensuring that the vast majority cross a very high bar. They lower that bar a bit for people who fit institutional priorities but keep it high enough to be comfortable that everyone admitted will succeed. They want people from across the US and across the globe and they also want to ensure that socioeconomic conditions are not a barrier to admissions.

Using that criteria the number of applications that they receive from a group of mostly similar candidates far exceeds the spots at their schools which results in a situation where most people never know why they were admitted or denied. This also means that there is randomness and a bit of luck involved. It is frustrating but it isn't unfair.

I would not call the holistic review "very transparent". Does companies hire employees by holistic review? Does any company hire a quant trader by checking his violin skills?
1. Despite the prestige, these elite institutions do not guarantee better financial or career success after graduation.
2. If international students are included in the target student pool, these institutions should not receive tax sponsorship or tax-exempt status, since American students are not given higher priority.

A company hires employees based on their skills, and that includes how they work with others and how they communicate, etc. But if you can discuss during an interview things that show you are more than a robot (ie play the violin or teach music to kids at the local Y) you might land the job over someone who cannot make eye contact and cannot communicate but is wickedly smart. Because yes the holistic person matters in the real world as well.

There is a good chance your boss (and their boss) did not attend an elite school, yet they are managing you and getting paid more than others who did attend an elite school.

[Anonymous]

Don’t fall for it.

Do your own thing. Most kids do not go to an ivy league school and end up fine.

Most kids don’t even go T50 and they are fine.

It will be ok. I agree, this is nuts!

Your kid will get into college. And you don’t always have to pay an arm and a leg.

Prestige is overrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:100 years ago, 50 years ago, ivies are expensive, even MC may not be able to afford it. And ivies mostly get their students from boarding schools and private schools. So yeah at that time it’s reserved to rich privileged families.

If we go back to those times, restrict the seats from the commons, there would never be a rat race. I mean, it only becomes a rat race when the commons think they are attainable to them.

Not artfully put, but true. One of the top schools for churning out Nobel winners is City College of NY. It’s where children of poor immigrants in NY went, mostly Jewish. These were smart kids who were driven to improve their family’s lot in life, and many did just that.

Between this thread and the Harvard kids one, it’s made me realize that it’s too bad that the prestige of places like CCNY have fallen. They are perfect for super smart, driven kids who need or should stay close to home and are not interested in the typical college experience but want to just hunker down and get a degree. That’s not to say they are not still good options, just that everyone is falling all over themselves to get into a top 10/20/25 school when those places might not serve the ancillary needs (cost, distance from home, overall culture) that a commuter school does.

Stuy and Bronx Sci kids all going off to Hunter and Stony Brook in droves. Macaulay and Sophie Davis highly HIGHLY respected here in nyc. It maybe doesn't have a national name, but neither did City College at the time. But OP has no interest in sending her kid to Hunter.

Hunter had a great name when I went to SUNY long ago. It was also a school that only locals attended.

But that’s sort of my point. Many kids probably should stay close to home for all sorts of reasons. There shouldn’t be such a stigma against going to a commuter school. Not all students should live away and try to fit into a campus life that is not their cup of tea.

So stop allowing your family and kids to be guided in life by what others think! That is a YOU problem.

Yes, why do individual parents even allow their teenaged children to experience peer pressure? Raise your children in total social isolation, that will solve the problem!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is it teaching our kids? About "merit", hard work, financial inequality, value? Parents I know are gnashing their teeth over the blatant games played by colleges who seemingly hold all the power. But can't we vote with our feet? Select colleges outside the US system that are more fair (Canada, UK, Ireland, Scotland, etc.) or pick honors colleges in less competitive US colleges that will provide our kids with scholarships and better opportunities. Our public state schools (at least mine) has good intentions but feels broken as well.

What is it all for?

The parents telling me you need to "prune your child since middle school for a cohesive college narrative" and hire consultants to make you marketable, make me feel so sad and hopeless.

The goal is that once they are in the Ivy League, grades do not matter. Studying doesn't matter. Just party and network. Marry someone rich and call it a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is it teaching our kids? About "merit", hard work, financial inequality, value? Parents I know are gnashing their teeth over the blatant games played by colleges who seemingly hold all the power. But can't we vote with our feet? Select colleges outside the US system that are more fair (Canada, UK, Ireland, Scotland, etc.) or pick honors colleges in less competitive US colleges that will provide our kids with scholarships and better opportunities. Our public state schools (at least mine) has good intentions but feels broken as well.

What is it all for?

The parents telling me you need to "prune your child since middle school for a cohesive college narrative" and hire consultants to make you marketable, make me feel so sad and hopeless.

So don't participate. Ignore this site.