controversial opinions about college

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

Absolute rubbish. Only about 7% of high school athletes play in college (2% play division I), and that number includes kids who are not UMC or white. Many UMC white kids are not even athletes. Very far from being “plenty of opportunity” especially as a hook to an elite school.

Colleges are pretty much built for UMC whites.

No excuses.

Not anymore. They are designed for 1% wealth whites and URMs of any social class.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is your most controversial opinion about college and the college admissions process?

Great donut hole students in states with good public universities should only take more than about five AP classes, or any other classes beyond what the state flagship requires, if they think they’ll enjoy those classes, need those classes to get into state flagships honors programs, use those classes to meet state flagship distribution course requirements or benefit from those classes, not for the sake of private college admissions.

Some non-US universities use AP scores in the basic admissions process. It makes sense for great students to take whatever AP classes they need to take to keep non-U.S. options open.

But the reality is that, for most top-tier students, the only colleges that are a better deal than a good state flagship or flagship equivalent are about 30 private universities (maybe the University of Rochester on up) and, arguably, 30 or so liberal arts colleges, and admissions to most of those schools is a lottery. And, really, for sane, organized, cost-conscious students who can survive big weedout classes, there are only about 20 schools, at most, that have a big enough edge over UVa. or UMCP to be worth paying $40,000 per year more for them. And those schools all have lottery-like admissions. It makes no sense at all for students to have a bad time in high school for the sake of those lottery schools.

There might be hundreds of other universities and colleges that are actually worth their tuition, but most of them aren’t that selective or just aren’t worth the price differential between them and UMCP, or even between them and UMBC or George Mason, for great, focused kids.

Whitman College or Colorado College might be wonderful schools that earn their keep, but they just aren’t $40,000, or $60,000, per year better for the kinds of kids who’d get in-state tuition, honors college classes and merit aid at UMCP and have a hard time paying an extra $40,000 per year.

So, certainly, a lot of those kids are five years of more ahead of grade level. They might need AP-level classes simply to feel as if the schools aren’t insulting their intelligence.

But, if they’d find taking a lot of AP classes unpleasant, there might not be any reason for them to take any AP classes beyond, at most, the classes on the state flagship’s recommended class list.

I like this. Very strategic approach to the game. Too bad most kids and parents are short sighted and myopic putting undue stress on themselves.

[Anonymous]

Aim as High as Possible with ED1, because otherwise the kid may forever wonder what if.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

You must have toddlers if you think these sports don’t cost a bloody fortune. To support my kid’s high school tennis “career” (not scholarship or D1 level) was $20,000 a year. This is pocket change in the tennis training world. To be recruitable in these sports, parents are spending major cash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

You must have toddlers if you think these sports don’t cost a bloody fortune. To support my kid’s high school tennis “career” (not scholarship or D1 level) was $20,000 a year. This is pocket change in the tennis training world. To be recruitable in these sports, parents are spending major cash.

Wow PP, I spent maybe $2k per year on my kids tennis “career” lol. What the heck are you paying for if they are not D1 or scholarships?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

Absolute rubbish. Only about 7% of high school athletes play in college (2% play division I), and that number includes kids who are not UMC or white. Many UMC white kids are not even athletes. Very far from being “plenty of opportunity” especially as a hook to an elite school.

Top SLACs (Division 3) have 33% or more recruited athletes; these athletes are far more white — and wealthy — than these schools’ general student population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

Absolute rubbish. Only about 7% of high school athletes play in college (2% play division I), and that number includes kids who are not UMC or white. Many UMC white kids are not even athletes. Very far from being “plenty of opportunity” especially as a hook to an elite school.

Top SLACs (Division 3) have 33% or more recruited athletes; these athletes are far more white — and wealthy — than these schools’ general student population.

Indeed. They are subsidizing that general population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

You must have toddlers if you think these sports don’t cost a bloody fortune. To support my kid’s high school tennis “career” (not scholarship or D1 level) was $20,000 a year. This is pocket change in the tennis training world. To be recruitable in these sports, parents are spending major cash.

Wow PP, I spent maybe $2k per year on my kids tennis “career” lol. What the heck are you paying for if they are not D1 or scholarships?

Racquets, shoes, year-round lessons, summer training camps, USTA matches and all the travel that comes with it. You couldn’t even make the high school team if you weren’t putting this much into it. High school sports are no longer hobbies you pick up once a season through the school. That was the 80s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are attending school with people whose parents or grandparents were president (Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, Obama, Biden) or billionaire CEOs of companies or entertainment megastars. These are the connections that help make the school elite.

If you are middle class Joe Schmo from suburbia then these scions of wealth and the political elite are not going to be your best buddy. They associate with each other not with nobodies. Sorry.

+1, is it really worth it to take on $70k/year in debt for mummy and daddy to say that their kid sat next to a Kennedy in BIO 101?

If you knew the kind of things Kennedys get up to, you would not want your kid to associate with him

[Anonymous]

Someone on this site is really pushing Colby. The school is very very small and is located in Maine. It’s not Ivy League and it’s expensive for what you get. DCUM constantly has posts about Colby. My opinion is that someone on here is really pushing this tiny school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone on this site is really pushing Colby. The school is very very small and is located in Maine. It’s not Ivy League and it’s expensive for what you get. DCUM constantly has posts about Colby. My opinion is that someone on here is really pushing this tiny school.

Wasn't aware Colby was even mentioned - until YOU posted this.

Thanks.

I'll check Colby out 🙂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is your most controversial opinion about college and the college admissions process?

Great donut hole students in states with good public universities should only take more than about five AP classes, or any other classes beyond what the state flagship requires, if they think they’ll enjoy those classes, need those classes to get into state flagships honors programs, use those classes to meet state flagship distribution course requirements or benefit from those classes, not for the sake of private college admissions.

Some non-US universities use AP scores in the basic admissions process. It makes sense for great students to take whatever AP classes they need to take to keep non-U.S. options open.

But the reality is that, for most top-tier students, the only colleges that are a better deal than a good state flagship or flagship equivalent are about 30 private universities (maybe the University of Rochester on up) and, arguably, 30 or so liberal arts colleges, and admissions to most of those schools is a lottery. And, really, for sane, organized, cost-conscious students who can survive big weedout classes, there are only about 20 schools, at most, that have a big enough edge over UVa. or UMCP to be worth paying $40,000 per year more for them. And those schools all have lottery-like admissions. It makes no sense at all for students to have a bad time in high school for the sake of those lottery schools.

There might be hundreds of other universities and colleges that are actually worth their tuition, but most of them aren’t that selective or just aren’t worth the price differential between them and UMCP, or even between them and UMBC or George Mason, for great, focused kids.

Whitman College or Colorado College might be wonderful schools that earn their keep, but they just aren’t $40,000, or $60,000, per year better for the kinds of kids who’d get in-state tuition, honors college classes and merit aid at UMCP and have a hard time paying an extra $40,000 per year.

So, certainly, a lot of those kids are five years of more ahead of grade level. They might need AP-level classes simply to feel as if the schools aren’t insulting their intelligence.

But, if they’d find taking a lot of AP classes unpleasant, there might not be any reason for them to take any AP classes beyond, at most, the classes on the state flagship’s recommended class list.

You are ignoring two things. 1) admissions to the state flagships (or certain majors within) can be almost as much of a lottery as the top private schools. 2) merit aid changes the equation for many high achieving students because the private schools then get in the ballpark of what an in-state would cost. Plus, some students prefer a smaller school, and not all public schools systems have a public LAC option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

You must have toddlers if you think these sports don’t cost a bloody fortune. To support my kid’s high school tennis “career” (not scholarship or D1 level) was $20,000 a year. This is pocket change in the tennis training world. To be recruitable in these sports, parents are spending major cash.

Wow PP, I spent maybe $2k per year on my kids tennis “career” lol. What the heck are you paying for if they are not D1 or scholarships?

Racquets, shoes, year-round lessons, summer training camps, USTA matches and all the travel that comes with it. You couldn’t even make the high school team if you weren’t putting this much into it. High school sports are no longer hobbies you pick up once a season through the school. That was the 80s.

Ha well my DS graduated in 2021 so not the 80s and he played #1 on his tennis team junior and senior year. Racquets cost $250 each strung and didn’t get replaced every year, sneaks did get replaced every year. Did year round tennis but not during season spent the summer at the local country club where he worked playing tennis, no camps, traveled only to driving distance USTA tournaments. My point is why spend five figure per year for a sport they’re not going to play in college? It’s just an EC at that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

Absolute rubbish. Only about 7% of high school athletes play in college (2% play division I), and that number includes kids who are not UMC or white. Many UMC white kids are not even athletes. Very far from being “plenty of opportunity” especially as a hook to an elite school.

Top SLACs (Division 3) have 33% or more recruited athletes; these athletes are far more white — and wealthy — than these schools’ general student population.

You are missing the point. The PP distinguished between UMC white kids and “rich kids” (private and boarding school kids). Then another PP said the former group (not-rich UMC white kids) still have “plenty of opportunities” as athletes. I disagreed, because there’s not a lot of athletes and many of them are not UMC (they are rich) or white. You are actually supporting my point - these white wealthy SLAC athletes are very often rich private school kids NOT regular suburban UMC kids. Thus the point stands that sports are not a major opportunity for regular non-rich UMC white kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AP is a scam.

Kids at my DC's school are abandoning AP for dual enrollment. Credits in hand are a good thing to have vs a test score that a college may or may not accept. The trade off is that the GPA bump isn't as high.