Non profits started by high school students

[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.

You have NO IDEA why these kids were admitted over others. You are just guessing. I am guessing you are guessing incorrectly.

[Anonymous]

How can minors even sign contracts?

[Anonymous]

There are plenty of legit charities out there if applicants want to do volunteer work.

[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.

You're saying the same thing as the PP. The student with the non-profit has the same qualifications, they just have one more way to turn heads. Schools don't notice sit-on-your-butt.

[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.

I'm searching your post for relevant experience working in admissions and I don't see it. You have anecdotal observations.

Surely, you're smart enough to know that you can't really know what's going on in admissions committee rooms with just some observations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You have NO IDEA why these kids were admitted over others. You are just guessing. I am guessing you are guessing incorrectly.

+1 People act like these kids are just piles of goo and the only think they have going for them is a non-profit.

These kids have the resources to be firing on all cylinders in every area that admissions uses to evaluate an applicant.

[Anonymous]

People will always game whatever process you set up.

If you value the test, people will cram and superscore and get fake accommodations.

If you value leadership, some people will invent titles and activities and puff up their activities beyond recognition.

If you value grades, some people will grade grub and cheat.

If the ratio of applicants to seats is 60:1, it’s impossible to fact check everything. What looks best wins. The readers have an impossible job.

But you don’t want to send your kids to the 3:1 or 2:1 school where they actually read the application very closely and try to get to know the kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not the PP you were conversing with, but having sat through multiple AO presentations during our college tour two years ago, it was clear some of them were NOT from the top drawer: I particularly remember a Middlebury AO. She was very limited, unfortunately. She was clearly a diversity hire (Middlebury is very white). Which was a shame, because the campus is beautiful, the buildings are gorgeous, etc. But since our tour guide was similarly empty-headed (she was white), we crossed that off our list. All those two could talk about was how January is snow month and all you have is an elective, and how candidates could enroll for the spring semester and they wouldn't be at all considered lower tier. They showed us slides of artwork made by students, and gushed about their study abroad language tours (which is their forte, but nowadays most of the top schools have similar opportunities). Just... not what I pay 70K for!

The AOs and tour guides at Williams, Dartmouth and Georgetown were all experienced, intelligent and interesting people. Apart from the Dartmouth wilderness orientation, which was barely touched on, it was all research opportunities (internships for Georgetown), how challenging but intellectually fulfilling the classes were, what the workload was like, etc. The AOs gave tips on what they expected on essays. Completely different world. One in which you go to college, to (GASP!), actually learn. That is what I pay 70K for.

There really can be a huge difference, so... be careful when you apply.

[Anonymous]

My kid started one around something he was truly passionate about it and it did very well. They have elected a new committee to run it next year and he plans to help guide it as much as he can from afar. He also got in ED to his top choice of school (not an ivy).

[Anonymous]

10:12 again. And it's not just the very selective schools that can project a more intellectual vibe. George Washington had no AO presentation during our scheduled tour, it was all done by students (they were very good presenters, though!), but come admitted students' day for the Elliott School of International Affairs, there were professor lectures we attended that were right up my kid's alley and that sold him on the school. Previously it had been his safety choice.

I guess the moral of my story is to visit all colleges on your kid's list and do the admitted students' day

[Anonymous]

I should add one his teacher reference letters spoke highly of it as well because he was familiar with it and us parents didn’t help at all. I was shocked when I went to one of the events, the turnout and success of it all. My kid did it on his own with his peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, personal experience of seeing who worked in admissions after graduation at the T10 college I attended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, personal experience of seeing who worked in admissions after graduation at the T10 college I attended.

To expand, it generally was recruited athletes with soft majors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid started one around something he was truly passionate about it and it did very well. They have elected a new committee to run it next year and he plans to help guide it as much as he can from afar. He also got in ED to his top choice of school (not an ivy).

What was he passionate about? What did he do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, personal experience of seeing who worked in admissions after graduation at the T10 college I attended.

To expand, it generally was recruited athletes with soft majors.

That’s not an answer to the questions and you know it.

Again: tell us which college and how you know the stats of the graduates that went to work in admissions. Otherwise I call BS.