| Typo: meant "lashing out" in their own pain. not "laughing out" |
Right. Which means that checking all the boxes for Harvard are necessary, but not sufficient, for admission. |
+1. Those of you blaming the system are cleaely either too stupid to understand the basics of supply and demand or riding on a strong wave of gross entitlement. So it's not surprising that admission committees picked up on those undesirable attributes in your kids and said, "NEXT!" If anyone is to "blame," it's you - the parents. |
Have you ever thought, ...it is not fair to the kids who didn't get in? |
Great post- well said, OP. |
|
Thanks, OP.
I have a child who got into her dream school EA that other "higher ranked" kids at her school got deferred from...and they are openly talking about getting "yield protected" in front of her. She is a well-qualified, high stats kid with some interesting ECs that these kids don't know about. She also reached out to professors in her area of interest and spoke to a couple of majors in the department. Did that make the difference? Did they do those things too? I have no idea. But I do know that those kids have no idea that she did those things. They just know that she is "ranked" a few slots down from them and that they feel entitled to her spot. It makes her feel terrible but, in reality, it reflects badly on them. |
| A lot of people want college admissions to be like the housing market--where you can get just buy your way in. |
| Thanks |
| Many of the posts in this thread are proving my point and blaming the kids who didn’t get in (and their parents!). Disgusting. |
Blaming a system they they perceive as favoring kids who are different to their own creates an “others” mentality. |
Amen, OP! |
I'm not sure "it's not fair" is the right framework. When you enter a lottery and don't get picked, it sucks but it's fair. When you work really hard and apply for a job that you are 100 percent qualified for and would be great at, it sucks, but it's not unfair. College admissions is, unfortunately, like that at least at many schools. |
Exactly. They cannot believe there are arenas in which they cannot pay their way to the front of the line. They have actually become so entitled that that feels unfair. It is comical... or pathetic. |
Why was unfair? The odds at most of these schools are 10:1. So the kid played long odds at multiple schools and lost. Everyone knows the odds going in. From what we hear here, many, many “high stats” kids did not get into their long odds choices, so it’s nothing personal to your kid. They had a 90% chance of this outcome. Why are you shocked? I get it that they worked hard. Many kids did (even kids with lower stats) and that work ethic will help them in the work world. They will succeed elsewhere unless they become bitter, so be careful what you are modeling. It’s normal to be disappointed, but ruminating is not normal or helpful. |
DP. Nope. I think many, many kids who didn’t get in were very deserving and would do very well at these schools. I also think no kid is “entitled” to an Ivy, a T20, Swarthmore, their dream job, etc., etc., no matter what their scores, GPA, ECs, etc. If a school is single digit admissions, it’s a lottery. Your kid is free to buy a ticket. But almost no kid is guaranteed a win. And the closest thing to a guarantee goes to wealthy legacies and athletes, not URMs. It’s the height of huburus to look at an 8% admit rate and believe that your kid was robbed, vs there being too many great kids and too few slots. I have long nought athletic preference is unfair, especially in small D3 schools where athletes are a large part of the student body. But, that’s the way it is. I have long thought that op colleges should publish the number of kids who meet or exceed average recalculated GPa plus 50% and 75% SAT/ACT. I think you’d see that for every kid who gets in to a highly competitive school, there were several kids with the same academic qualifications who don’t. |