Ivy League Aspirations Unleashed (NYT Q&A with Harvard's DofA)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know there are people who make these choices. And I commend and respect your choice and decision. This does not imply that those who decide to attend Harvard Law School are less commendable or respectable.

who (sarcastically I assume) noted that Harvard Grad and her DH would presumably not trade in their four Ivy degrees for State U. ones. My point is, actually, yes, there are people who do make that tradeoff (for whatever reason).

I was not commenting on those who make a different choice.

[Anonymous]

I personally think parents who get overly attached to sending a child to one school or a school in a set of schools are setting themselves up for disappointment and borderline bitterness. I barely survived getting my child into Seventh Grade in a DC area independent! At least with colleges and universities that are several dozen (as opposed to less than a dozen) that are exceptional and will be great fits.

[Anonymous]

Agree with your analysis here. The goal posts have changed since the eighties. In my day, it was predictable that I would walk into any college with my high school record and one try on the PSAT and SAT. Today, neither organic gal nor I, would be guaranteed Ivy admission on that basis. Furthermore, todays' students are more accomplished "on paper" than students of the eighties (e.g., number of AP courses, median and mean SAT/ACT scores, years of Calculus prior to entry to college). The increase in diversity and more open access to an Ivy education over the last 30 to 40 years has further driven up the competitiveness of Ivy admission and the supply/demand balance. Today's students are appropriately responding to the demands placed on them by schools, parents, communities and indeed, themselves.

[Anonymous]

I completely relate to organic girl. I got into and attended an Ivy in the early 90s through basically the same experience. I took the SATs once with little preparation, got good grades, and was involved in lots of activities that I enjoyed. That's it. My parents were supportive and present in my life, but they did not have much to do with my choices and only wrote the checks for my college applications. It really wasn't some master plan.

I have no idea if that's even possible today.

[Anonymous]

In a word -- no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I completely relate to organic girl. I got into and attended an Ivy in the early 90s through basically the same experience. I took the SATs once with little preparation, got good grades, and was involved in lots of activities that I enjoyed. That's it. My parents were supportive and present in my life, but they did not have much to do with my choices and only wrote the checks for my college applications. It really wasn't some master plan.

I have no idea if that's even possible today.

Same story here (and during the end of the baby boom when the number of apps was even higher than today). Yes, kids still get in because they worked hard and did well at things they love. And yes, both then and now, other kids who worked hard and did well at things they loved didn't get in. There's a surplus of qualified applicants. The fact that a cottage industry has grown up around college admissions (test prep, consultants) doesn't mean it's any harder to get in for a strong non-legacy student. (Legacies still have it better than non-legacies, but legacies today have it much worse than legacies of the 1970s and earlier). It was always hard. It was always a bit fluky. And it always involved subjective judgments being made by admissions officers who have to make decisions based limited information about large numbers of students under real time pressure.

What's different now is that somehow people think that there is or should be a formula (a myth promoted by the new industries?) and if you do everything right or that you're "supposed to," then you should be entitled to admission to the college of your choice and if you don't get in, that's because the bar got moved. But there was never one bar -- i.e. these schools never took everyone who met a particular academic standard.

Personally, I think organic is still the way to go for a couple of reasons. First, it's a less instrumental approach to education so the satisfaction/value/pleasure you get from your schooling remains regardless of where you end up at college. If you have done what you loved and done it well, most of the rewards are intrinsic. Secondly, it's hard for admissions officers to tell the generically-packaged high-performing kids apart. The organic kids are more likely to stand out. And standing out matters when a small group is being chosen from a large pool.

[Anonymous]

You hit the nail on the head, 17:25. You have summed up the rationale and reasoning for all of this. I see way too many people trying to seek out the perfect formula that guarantees them a spot. There is no such thing.

Too many kids who are reaching for that one school instead of the overall experience. Remember the saying that it is about the journey and not the destination?

I think someone who truly enjoys their enlightment and loves to learn shows this to prospective schools. It's called authentic self and really resonates with those who see it.

[Anonymous]

I think the organic approach sounds the most healthy for both kid and parents ... and I am not being tongue in cheek about that! Nonetheless, after experiencing the difference between public and private schooling, I am inclined to think that a good private for college is also a nice idea. I just don't happen to have my heart set on one particular school as there are MANY excellent schools available for all kinds of kids.

[Anonymous]

I agree that the organic approach is the most healthy. However, just one point -- I always thought that when people said "Harvard" it was just shorthand for any competitive school, probably Ivy League but also Williams, Amherst, Picky U, et cetera. At least that's how I use it. Sort of like how we talk here about the Big 3.

[Anonymous]

When it comes to image/reputation, first comes Harvard -the rest follow.

[Anonymous]

Thus speaketh a Harvard grad.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Organic Girl" here to clarify my thoughts. I am actually a child of the 80's and I really did simply focus on doing my best in HS and getting into a good college. I did not go through the machinations that many now do.

I took the SATs once and did not study for them in advance. I was an excellent student who had a number of real interests but didn't go out of my way to come up with a strategy. Maybe I was naive but the thought was that with good credentials, I would get into good places. (Ignorance is bliss.) Not carefully orchestrated at all.

Same here, but I think the college admissions world has changed. I assumed that I would get into Harvard, and I did. Today, with my record, I very well might not. I feel for students and parents going through the process these days.

Parents and kids genuinely choose sports and activities just for college. How many kids would do crew [rowing a boat] if not for college? Too funny especially when non-athletic kids do squash and crew. Looking for niche sports.

[Anonymous]

Recently read a book, the New Global Student, about strategies to get in to college without the aspiration race. Talked about the importance of overseas travel, particularly a junior year in high school abroad, and gave several examples of students that came home, took, GED, community college courses, then got into college as transfer students without ever taking SATs. Happy, fulfilled lives. (according to the vingettes in the book)

Then there is the book, No Sucker Left Behind, that talks about college costs and the debilitating college debt that so many students are taking on.

Finally, I skimmed through What High Schools Don't Tell You about how to start taking the SAT as a 7th grader, (sit for the SAT 2x and get a prep course designed for young kids).

The interesting theme between the first and third is to follow your kid's passions. That summer study/work/travel/internship is really important. The difference is the first was looking toward total development as a person, the third was looking to entrance to a highly competitive school as an outcome.

Combined these offered me a lot of insight into how to think about future options for my now elementary school children. I am a graduate of a highly competitive school and am now going to try and relax, think more about the people my kids are, try years in advance to include Montgomery Community College on my list of acceptable schools. . . .

Deep breath.

[Anonymous]

I cannot agree with 5:52 blanket statement about picking sports for college. It may seem strange to you but there are many parents and kids who do these "niche" sports for practical reasons and likes. Especially here in DC where summers are hot and humid, rowing (cooler on the water) and squash (indoors with AC) are logical sports to substitute for lacrosse and other outdoor sports that are done under the sun in heavy equipment.

There are many "niche" sports that have huge popularity in certain parts of the country. Even a good number of public high schools here have rowing teams. You may simply not have grown up with them.

[Anonymous]

Many prestigious colleges and universities need academically capable folk on their crews, squash, swimming and water polo teams. Do not kid yourself, it is strategic to consider these sports to round out one's childhood experiences. These sports traditionally have not been as competitive for young children as many gifted athletes are soon siphoned off by the glamour and glare of football, baseball and basketball. If you start young and stay with it there is probably a much better chance of playing at the collegiate level than with the latter sports. Of course, the well roundedness also is attractive for admission to these typically New England colleges and universities.