Guesstimated % of unhooked kids- ivies- without parental pushing

[Anonymous]

I feel like we have now moved on from people obsessing about "hooks" to people obsessing about "pushing" or about "curating".

It seems as though any advantage an OP (this one or someone else's kid) have is somehow due to "regular" parenting, and yet if someone else's kid gets in, anything their parents did is "pushing".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percent of students do you think get into Ivy leagues who are both:

- completely unhooked and by that I mean, including Rural, first GEN, low income, minority, athletes, feeder schools, come from states that produce few applicants, etc.

AND

- have zero pushing from parents (to join/start/continue activities, college admissions counselors, essay help, etc) OR anything that results in a curated college app.

The ivies have always been hard to get into if you are unhooked. If you are going to count geographic diversity and low income as hooks, I'd bet there are very few completely unhooked kids getting into ivies ever.

The ivies are even harder to get into if you've got geographic diversity, or low income. The difference is that those kids have more barriers to overcome before they get to the point where they would be in a position to apply, where as UMC white kids have all those barriers cleared out of the way so they are way overrepresented in the applicant pool, and then whine like crazy when they are only somewhate overrepresented in the pool of admitted students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD sort of qualifies. We encouraged her to take her studies seriously but never discussed college or her "resume" until after her sophomore year. At that point, she had near perfect grades, artistic talent, and several ECs. As she started her junior year, we started looking into colleges and realized that (a) admissions are way more competitive and (b) college is way more expensive than the 90's. We never hired a consultant or even paid for SAT classes. But I learned about current admissions through books, forums, and podcasts and did my best to advise DD on potential colleges and application strategies. That said, I don't think she did anything in terms of classes or ECs that she wouldn't have done anyway. But I think I was able to help her craft her various doings and accomplishments into a kind of application theme/persona. I can't affirmative say that my help made any difference, but she did very well in the application process.

So, in my mind we didn't push DD to do anything new, but we definitely tried to help her capitalize on what she did organically in her applications. Do with that what you will.

Your first sentence is in 100% opposition to everything else you wrote. You curated her profile.

This place is impossible. I tried to be transparent, which is why I wrote that DD "sort of qualifies." I offered advice on her app, but she did the rest of it organically. Thus, the "sort of." As I wrote in my last line, "Do with that [what I wrote] what you will." In other words, maybe my anecdote is helpful; maybe it's not. But I tried.

[Anonymous]

For a smart/talented/over-represented/non-remote area/middle class student with no hook, I think their best chance to do it organically is to go to a feeder school. They have a realistic chance for ivy by excelling academically with normal vanilla-type ECs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For a smart/talented/over-represented/non-remote area/middle class student with no hook, I think their best chance to do it organically is to go to a feeder school. They have a realistic chance for ivy by excelling academically with normal vanilla-type ECs.

This definitely used to be the case (and their feeder school was a hook). For the last 10ish years parents are being told by "feeder schools" that they can't help your kids get in.

[Anonymous]

Can someone link to the crazy list so I can feel even worse about my average kid's
Prospects?

[Anonymous]

Here's the thing - most/all? of the "unhooked" kids have parents that went to college. So they have some knowledge of the process and are likely to at least help their kids through the application process by talking about potential schools, testing and essays.

Those that do not have parental "pushing" likely qualify as "hooked" somehow.

[Anonymous]

OP Here:
The reason I asked the question is because in that EC post, several people said to "just stop" or "don't curate" a profile and yet it seems to be universally accepted that without a hook OR curation/molding, top schools become out of reach.

It can't be that your (unhooked) kid can't want a top school AND you let it happen organically.

So, that is why I asked the question.

And of course location matters. I heard a top 20 school say that they have students from 49 states so if we know anyone from x state, have them apply. I think it is uncontroverted that a meh app from that state will be more favorably viewed (a hook) in order to allow the school to say it has students from every state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone link to the crazy list so I can feel even worse about my average kid's
Prospects?

+1!

[Anonymous]

This is fascinating. I was that completely unhooked and unhelped kid in a regular suburb where everyone went to state schools, but that was in 1997. I have my 8th grade journal and it has a list of everything I needed to do that summer and in 9th and 10th grade called “What I Need To Get Into A Good School”, down to which activity I would do which semester and how I could get into certain science classes early without jeopardizing my electives schedule and an SAT studying schedule. I don’t know where I got these ideas but I did read a lot of New Yorkers and the New York Times at the school library so I think I subconsciously absorbed the concept of elite schools and how to get into them.

My parents had gone to state schools but were ordinary, barely UMC and sometimes MC due to job loss and instability. They had no idea how things worked but did give me their checkbook so I would write out application fee checks. My mom also let me go to her office so I could access an old typewriter they had there to use for applications.

I think there is so much transparency to the application process now and so much conversation around applications that it would be really tough now to find a MC or UMC kid who didn’t have parents more involved than mine. The stakes are too high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP Here:
The reason I asked the question is because in that EC post, several people said to "just stop" or "don't curate" a profile and yet it seems to be universally accepted that without a hook OR curation/molding, top schools become out of reach.

It can't be that your (unhooked) kid can't want a top school AND you let it happen organically.

So, that is why I asked the question.

And of course location matters. I heard a top 20 school say that they have students from 49 states so if we know anyone from x state, have them apply. I think it is uncontroverted that a meh app from that state will be more favorably viewed (a hook) in order to allow the school to say it has students from every state.

If getting into that Top 20 from South Dakota or wherever the 50th state is, is so hard that not a single student has managed it in 4 years, then wouldn't a kid who overcomes that barrier be a darn impressive kid, even if their achievement is compared to the kid whose parents did all these things:

bought a house in a W district
"encouraged academics" (I can't figure out how that differs from pushing)
paid for extracurriculars
helped with their application (but somehow this wasn't curating)
applied full pay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a smart/talented/over-represented/non-remote area/middle class student with no hook, I think their best chance to do it organically is to go to a feeder school. They have a realistic chance for ivy by excelling academically with normal vanilla-type ECs.

This definitely used to be the case (and their feeder school was a hook). For the last 10ish years parents are being told by "feeder schools" that they can't help your kids get in.

It's all relative. Feeders are still the best chance for organic kids, at least in our school, comparing to 'burb schools. No arms race.

I predict it will be more so in the next four years.

[Anonymous]

Often the most driven kids are asking for outside help themselves in order to maximize their chances. Parents might not be pushing it.

[Anonymous]

Not sure, but I think this is the kid that ivies want. They want Barrack Obama at 16-years-old, not a lot of SAT tutoring or curating, with an organically developed passion for community activism. Only they would've wanted him with a 4.0. Not sure what his actual GPA was at the time but pretty sure it wasn't a 4.0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is fascinating. I was that completely unhooked and unhelped kid in a regular suburb where everyone went to state schools, but that was in 1997. I have my 8th grade journal and it has a list of everything I needed to do that summer and in 9th and 10th grade called “What I Need To Get Into A Good School”, down to which activity I would do which semester and how I could get into certain science classes early without jeopardizing my electives schedule and an SAT studying schedule. I don’t know where I got these ideas but I did read a lot of New Yorkers and the New York Times at the school library so I think I subconsciously absorbed the concept of elite schools and how to get into them.

My parents had gone to state schools but were ordinary, barely UMC and sometimes MC due to job loss and instability. They had no idea how things worked but did give me their checkbook so I would write out application fee checks. My mom also let me go to her office so I could access an old typewriter they had there to use for applications.

I think there is so much transparency to the application process now and so much conversation around applications that it would be really tough now to find a MC or UMC kid who didn’t have parents more involved than mine. The stakes are too high.

The gold old time…

Penn had an acceptance rate of 40% around then.