Non profits started by high school students

[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.

Usually, yes. Which is why colleges are full of it when it comes to recognizing privilege. But I also know two kids with higher scores who got rejected when a lower stat kid got in because she “appeared” to be less advantaged. They made assumptions about the kids based on zip code and didn’t notice that my kid worked while the kid they took had free internships in a far away city which required financial support from her parents.

All these non profits and internships require parents with connections and/or money. But colleges don’t admit that and pat themselves on the back for uplifting less advantaged kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A kid with great stats, great grades, a bunch of ECs, a job, and volunteer work isn’t “sitting on their butt”, they’re just maxing out what they CAN control HONESTLY and don’t have parents padding their resume. I’d take that any day over a kid whose parent calls in a favor to get their kid an “impressive”internship.

Competitive schools are full of liars and cheats for this reason. Then the students become liars and cheats with powerful degrees and damage society over their self centered greed and need to feel special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look, DCUM is a parenting board. You can troll this board forever, looking for direct evidence of what people are saying, but you will rarely find it. You can be obtuse and stubborn all you want, and direct your children however you want. Some people know how to gather secondary sources of information (what students around them did and where they got in, also possibly what certain AOs shared, in publications or meetings), but you apparently want more than that. It's a futile exercise. You're going to get supremely frustrated.

So you can continue being rude to people on this thread, or you can calm down and start strategizing with the knowledge you have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

TBH, you seem to be a troll or a crazy person who doesn’t have a realistic sense of who works in admissions offices, how little time is spent reviewing applications, or anything else of substance. So don’t really care what you think or say, and most posters here seem to feel the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look, DCUM is a parenting board. You can troll this board forever, looking for direct evidence of what people are saying, but you will rarely find it. You can be obtuse and stubborn all you want, and direct your children however you want. Some people know how to gather secondary sources of information (what students around them did and where they got in, also possibly what certain AOs shared, in publications or meetings), but you apparently want more than that. It's a futile exercise. You're going to get supremely frustrated.

So you can continue being rude to people on this thread, or you can calm down and start strategizing with the knowledge you have.

Yeah dig stupid me, asking for evidence from people making claims. What an idiot I am. I should just sit back and let people make their outrageous claims and not worry if that badly influences some families' decisions.

I'll stay out of the way and let you tell everyone why some kid you barely know was accepted by Harvard, a place you have no experience with. Something about cupcakes, I think. Sounds legit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

TBH, you seem to be a troll or a crazy person who doesn’t have a realistic sense of who works in admissions offices, how little time is spent reviewing applications, or anything else of substance. So don’t really care what you think or say, and most posters here seem to feel the same.

Ad hominem because you can’t answer because your post is BS. Just as I suspected.