DC of semi famous parents. Admission is pretty much guaranteed, right?

[Anonymous]

I keep hearing of good but not incredible/top students getting into top schools. The only stand out quality they seem to have (from what I know) is being the children of well known/wealthy people. So not Obama or Jeff Bezos level, but a tier or two down. So why did the Varsity Blues parents have to cheat their way in?

[Anonymous]

The varsity blues kids were mediocre students with bad test scores (well, their own scores were bad…the person who took the test for them were excellent) and no ECs.

Some of their parents could have donated a building, though the actors involved didn’t have that kind of money.

It was cheaper to pay that guy some $$$s to bribe the Georgetown tennis coach than to
Donate a building to Georgetown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The varsity blues kids were mediocre students with bad test scores (well, their own scores were bad…the person who took the test for them were excellent) and no ECs.

Some of their parents could have donated a building, though the actors involved didn’t have that kind of money.

It was cheaper to pay that guy some $$$s to bribe the Georgetown tennis coach than to
Donate a building to Georgetown.

Aha I see. But I assume that the parents I know are not necessarily donating a building. I also am fairly certain the dc arent terrible students, but rather closer to average to slightly above average.

[Anonymous]

How do you know they're not cheating, OP?

[Anonymous]

I think a lot of the varsity blues parents were suckers. The mistake was making the money a donation on their taxes. I looked at the 990 of someone’s foundation who had two kids who attended Dartmouth. He gave 250k the year the first one applied and 1 million the year the second one applied (not as strong of a student). This was 10-15 years ago. Yes, the price probably has gone up since then, but most schools don’t have Dartmouth level endowments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The varsity blues kids were mediocre students with bad test scores (well, their own scores were bad…the person who took the test for them were excellent) and no ECs.

Some of their parents could have donated a building, though the actors involved didn’t have that kind of money.

It was cheaper to pay that guy some $$$s to bribe the Georgetown tennis coach than to
Donate a building to Georgetown.

That can’t be true. I hear all the time on here that wealthy parents just buy tutoring for their kids and that guarantees a 1500+.

[Anonymous]

Senator, yes.

Congressperson? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing of good but not incredible/top students getting into top schools. The only stand out quality they seem to have (from what I know) is being the children of well known/wealthy people. So not Obama or Jeff Bezos level, but a tier or two down. So why did the Varsity Blues parents have to cheat their way in?

I swear half the posts on this board are now initiated by a low-wage intern paid to stir sh up. Amiright OP??!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing of good but not incredible/top students getting into top schools. The only stand out quality they seem to have (from what I know) is being the children of well known/wealthy people. So not Obama or Jeff Bezos level, but a tier or two down. So why did the Varsity Blues parents have to cheat their way in?

I swear half the posts on this board are now initiated by a low-wage intern paid to stir sh up. Amiright OP??!

Oh lookie here, we have a cheater parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing of good but not incredible/top students getting into top schools. The only stand out quality they seem to have (from what I know) is being the children of well known/wealthy people. So not Obama or Jeff Bezos level, but a tier or two down. So why did the Varsity Blues parents have to cheat their way in?

I swear half the posts on this board are now initiated by a low-wage intern paid to stir sh up. Amiright OP??!

Op. Huh? Not even sure what this means…?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Senator, yes.

Congressperson? No.

How about dc of CEO/Chairman of fairly well known public co? Let’s say Starbucks (but not). Or dc of editor in chief of the NYT (so not super wealthy, but connected in certain circles)?.. and again, this is just an ex.

Are these people paying/donating? Or are their dc just getting a celebrity boost?

[Anonymous]

This is pedantic, but the NYT doesn’t have an editor in chief. The top job is “executive editor.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is pedantic, but the NYT doesn’t have an editor in chief. The top job is “executive editor.”

It’s literally the same thing. I used EIC bc that’s typically what people think of as the ‘top’ editor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Senator, yes.

Congressperson? No.

How about dc of CEO/Chairman of fairly well known public co? Let’s say Starbucks (but not). Or dc of editor in chief of the NYT (so not super wealthy, but connected in certain circles)?.. and again, this is just an ex.

Are these people paying/donating? Or are their dc just getting a celebrity boost?

I don't know what kind of answer you're expecting.

Some schools will care a lot. Others won't care at all. And most will be somewhere in between.

Which one it is, none of us will have any way of knowing. It's all fruitless speculation.

Are you the one posting below about the difference between EIC and EE? And you’re complaining that I’m posting a question about potential admission boosters? Wow what a myopic a hole you are!!

[Anonymous]

^ Oh and before you call out my typo

I meant ‘above’.