Are ECs a proxy of wealth in admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if T20s/Ivies and all the rest admit wealthier kids or that wealthier kids tend to have better EC opportunities than regular kids. I just want T20s/Ivies/etal to stop pretending that they show no preference (we are "holistic" in our admissions) - what a joke

they have to keep doing it so they can find ramanujans

[Anonymous]

It's not that they serve as a proxy or some sort of secret signal of wealth. It's that colleges want students who are well rounded, and wealth allows you to pursue more ECs, or pursue the more extensively. So the wealthy student has an advantage. There was a time when ECs were by and large something you did through schools (sports, music, etc.) so theoretically everyone was operating on the same playing field. Not so much the case anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges already know who is wealthy. If you don't fill out a fafsa or CSS for the college, they pretty much know you don't need aid. And if you do fill it out, then they know the family income, assets, etc.

I think colleges are looking for potential donors once you get in. Full pay is not the same as potential development cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. How much you spend on it doesn't matter. You can spend a million on your kid's football training, or have his come up through an inner city football program. You can spend a fortune on film equipment and camps or you can send your kid to the free film course in the city. And so on. In the end, your kid either has talent for a scholarship or not; and if not, then they are both in the same boat with the same activities on the page.

Obviously, free programs are completely identical to expensive programs, which is why all kids go to free programs and expensive programs don't exist. (I do think that super expensive programs are generally not worth it, even when you have money, but clearly there are advantages, especially compared to city run or free stuff.)

[Anonymous]

Of course they are. EC opportunities are much more wealth-dependent than SAT scores. That said, you won’t be able to turn anyone into a gifted athlete or musician, but you have to have the funds to enter the playing field. My DC has been taking private music lessons from a highly qualified teacher for 10 years and expenses adds up. Not to mention the the cost of the instrument, repairs, entry fees, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is the impression I am getting as I learn about this process.

Yes, and a much better one than SAT/GPA.

[Anonymous]

Sailing
Rowing
Equestrian
Lacrosse
Ski Racing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not that they serve as a proxy or some sort of secret signal of wealth. It's that colleges want students who are well rounded, and wealth allows you to pursue more ECs, or pursue the more extensively. So the wealthy student has an advantage. There was a time when ECs were by and large something you did through schools (sports, music, etc.) so theoretically everyone was operating on the same playing field. Not so much the case anymore.

How come colleges say they only expect students to take the most difficult courses offered by their school, but don't apply the same to extracurriculars?

[Anonymous]

The type of wealth that matters to elite school admissions officers is obvious without ECs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. How much you spend on it doesn't matter. You can spend a million on your kid's football training, or have his come up through an inner city football program. You can spend a fortune on film equipment and camps or you can send your kid to the free film course in the city. And so on. In the end, your kid either has talent for a scholarship or not; and if not, then they are both in the same boat with the same activities on the page.

No one is talking about earning scholarships or getting in on merit. We’re talking about signaling that you’re full pay. And a potential donor. And a kid with a certain upper class background who might fit in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sailing
Rowing
Equestrian
Lacrosse
Ski Racing

Not sure, my kids did sailing, rowing, lacrosse, golf but most expensive was volleyball.

[Anonymous]

What type of wealth? Full pay or donor? We chased merit as full pay and better privates didn’t give us any, only public’s. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sailing
Rowing
Equestrian
Lacrosse
Ski Racing

Not sure, my kids did sailing, rowing, lacrosse, golf but most expensive was volleyball.

Because you have to fly to beach locales?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not that they serve as a proxy or some sort of secret signal of wealth. It's that colleges want students who are well rounded, and wealth allows you to pursue more ECs, or pursue the more extensively. So the wealthy student has an advantage. There was a time when ECs were by and large something you did through schools (sports, music, etc.) so theoretically everyone was operating on the same playing field. Not so much the case anymore.

How come colleges say they only expect students to take the most difficult courses offered by their school, but don't apply the same to extracurriculars?

This is a great question. How would a kid look who led tons of ECs but all in school? Like Class Pres, Ed in Chief school paper, head of 3 other clubs, various in-school awards - is that even impressive anymore? Or considered limited impact?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if T20s/Ivies and all the rest admit wealthier kids or that wealthier kids tend to have better EC opportunities than regular kids. I just want T20s/Ivies/etal to stop pretending that they show no preference (we are "holistic" in our admissions) - what a joke

OP here. Exactly! Just stop the pretending already.