controversial opinions about college

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't most colleges accept 4s and 5s except for Ivy League schools?

No. My DD goes to a SLAC that accepts them only for placement.

Which school?

I think this is the case at most SLACs now.

Engineering programs don’t accept Calculus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the name of equity, some elite schools will soon switch to "essay optional".

Ha.

The essays are rigged too.

Parents either write the essays outright or pay someone to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

$20,000 per year? My kid is an equestrian and I spend over $100k a year and my kid is not recruitable (even if she was, there is no $$ for equestrian and college equestrian is very much a step backward from A circuit showing).

Yes, horses cost more. I’m not complaining that it didn’t make him recruitable, I’m saying that’s pocket change compared to what it takes to be recruited. I grew up showing hunters - it’s not a recruitable college sport. But if you’re spending $100,000 a year on a sport, you’re not the “UMC dead zone” this conversation was about.

so yes this whole tennis and now riding discussion may seem off base but I do think it leads to my "controversial opinion about college". I already posted on the tennis post because again i said, why would you pay 20K per year for something that will not "pay off" in a college scholarship or D1 offer? I also happen to have another DC who rides, and at the highest level. I was never willing to mortgage myself for riding for my DD because I knew she didn't want to ride in college... could she have been recruited, absolutely and had interest from more than one school when she was thinking about it. Ultimately,decided not to go that route, and my philosophy was always, at the end of her 18 years of eligibility, I do not want to be broke and divorced. She did just enough to stay competitive and rode with a well known trainer, but she did not show every weekend, did not go to FL for winters, did not have multiple horses. It was fun and she did probably accomplished just as much as the PP's DD who spent $100K on horses, but I spent probably less than half what they did. We all got to the same place at the end of the day. I know a family that bought their average riding kid a very nice horse, well over $100K, all so she could do the eq and get recruited to a D1 program. She did eventually go to a D1 program but she never shows, she's a benchwarmer and I'm sure she didn't get money from them. I mean I would have just taken that $100K+ and put it in her 529 and she could have gone anywhere. She was a bright kid and would have gotten into this school without riding (and basically did since as I said she does not show).

My point is, throwing money at a sport in hopes of a scholarship is stupid and short sighted. Many times, the kid decides they do not want to play in college because they do not want to be limited by the options afforded to them by their sports resume. Allow them to pursue it as your means allows, but don't delude yourself that it's going to pay off in some way.

It was never about paying for scholarship hopes. It was about responding to someone who said white athletes didn’t fit in the wealthy pile for admissions. My point is that yes, they do. Because $20,000 was for EC level participation. College athlete level requires much, much, much more money. Track and football might be exceptions, but for the most part all these white athletes come from wealthy families. UMC white kids are competing against truly wealthy white kids for admission. Wealthy has the advantage every time. That was the point. I get that forums make conversation difficult to follow but this sub thread has gone way off track.

This whole "UMC whites dead zone" ( using a PP) claim is silly.

No one is feeling sorry for any UMC whites in college admissions. They are the lifeblood of U.S. colleges, strictly based on the numbers alone.

Just because “nobody feels sorry for UMC whites” doesn’t mean they aren’t in the dead zone, nitwit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the name of equity, some elite schools will soon switch to "essay optional".

Ha.

The essays are rigged too.

Parents either write the essays outright or pay someone to do it.

I believe that for applicants to T20 schools, the amount of money spent on essay prep is comparable to the money spent on test prep.

[Anonymous]

It makes sense for the parents to divorce and for the custodial parent to go on public assistance a couple years before college.

[Anonymous]

Colleges should have to reveal stats of recruited athletes, legacy admits, and deans list admits, There’s a reason Harvard disn’t wanr people seeing that information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

$20,000 per year? My kid is an equestrian and I spend over $100k a year and my kid is not recruitable (even if she was, there is no $$ for equestrian and college equestrian is very much a step backward from A circuit showing).

Yes, horses cost more. I’m not complaining that it didn’t make him recruitable, I’m saying that’s pocket change compared to what it takes to be recruited. I grew up showing hunters - it’s not a recruitable college sport. But if you’re spending $100,000 a year on a sport, you’re not the “UMC dead zone” this conversation was about.

so yes this whole tennis and now riding discussion may seem off base but I do think it leads to my "controversial opinion about college". I already posted on the tennis post because again i said, why would you pay 20K per year for something that will not "pay off" in a college scholarship or D1 offer? I also happen to have another DC who rides, and at the highest level. I was never willing to mortgage myself for riding for my DD because I knew she didn't want to ride in college... could she have been recruited, absolutely and had interest from more than one school when she was thinking about it. Ultimately,decided not to go that route, and my philosophy was always, at the end of her 18 years of eligibility, I do not want to be broke and divorced. She did just enough to stay competitive and rode with a well known trainer, but she did not show every weekend, did not go to FL for winters, did not have multiple horses. It was fun and she did probably accomplished just as much as the PP's DD who spent $100K on horses, but I spent probably less than half what they did. We all got to the same place at the end of the day. I know a family that bought their average riding kid a very nice horse, well over $100K, all so she could do the eq and get recruited to a D1 program. She did eventually go to a D1 program but she never shows, she's a benchwarmer and I'm sure she didn't get money from them. I mean I would have just taken that $100K+ and put it in her 529 and she could have gone anywhere. She was a bright kid and would have gotten into this school without riding (and basically did since as I said she does not show).

My point is, throwing money at a sport in hopes of a scholarship is stupid and short sighted. Many times, the kid decides they do not want to play in college because they do not want to be limited by the options afforded to them by their sports resume. Allow them to pursue it as your means allows, but don't delude yourself that it's going to pay off in some way.

It was never about paying for scholarship hopes. It was about responding to someone who said white athletes didn’t fit in the wealthy pile for admissions. My point is that yes, they do. Because $20,000 was for EC level participation. College athlete level requires much, much, much more money. Track and football might be exceptions, but for the most part all these white athletes come from wealthy families. UMC white kids are competing against truly wealthy white kids for admission. Wealthy has the advantage every time. That was the point. I get that forums make conversation difficult to follow but this sub thread has gone way off track.

This whole "UMC whites dead zone" ( using a PP) claim is silly.

No one is feeling sorry for any UMC whites in college admissions. They are the lifeblood of U.S. colleges, strictly based on the numbers alone.

Just because “nobody feels sorry for UMC whites” doesn’t mean they aren’t in the dead zone, nitwit.

Well, they aren't.

[Anonymous]

The real advantage of attending top 50 schools is access to rich kids with connections. That’s it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

$20,000 per year? My kid is an equestrian and I spend over $100k a year and my kid is not recruitable (even if she was, there is no $$ for equestrian and college equestrian is very much a step backward from A circuit showing).

Yes, horses cost more. I’m not complaining that it didn’t make him recruitable, I’m saying that’s pocket change compared to what it takes to be recruited. I grew up showing hunters - it’s not a recruitable college sport. But if you’re spending $100,000 a year on a sport, you’re not the “UMC dead zone” this conversation was about.

so yes this whole tennis and now riding discussion may seem off base but I do think it leads to my "controversial opinion about college". I already posted on the tennis post because again i said, why would you pay 20K per year for something that will not "pay off" in a college scholarship or D1 offer? I also happen to have another DC who rides, and at the highest level. I was never willing to mortgage myself for riding for my DD because I knew she didn't want to ride in college... could she have been recruited, absolutely and had interest from more than one school when she was thinking about it. Ultimately,decided not to go that route, and my philosophy was always, at the end of her 18 years of eligibility, I do not want to be broke and divorced. She did just enough to stay competitive and rode with a well known trainer, but she did not show every weekend, did not go to FL for winters, did not have multiple horses. It was fun and she did probably accomplished just as much as the PP's DD who spent $100K on horses, but I spent probably less than half what they did. We all got to the same place at the end of the day. I know a family that bought their average riding kid a very nice horse, well over $100K, all so she could do the eq and get recruited to a D1 program. She did eventually go to a D1 program but she never shows, she's a benchwarmer and I'm sure she didn't get money from them. I mean I would have just taken that $100K+ and put it in her 529 and she could have gone anywhere. She was a bright kid and would have gotten into this school without riding (and basically did since as I said she does not show).

My point is, throwing money at a sport in hopes of a scholarship is stupid and short sighted. Many times, the kid decides they do not want to play in college because they do not want to be limited by the options afforded to them by their sports resume. Allow them to pursue it as your means allows, but don't delude yourself that it's going to pay off in some way.

It was never about paying for scholarship hopes. It was about responding to someone who said white athletes didn’t fit in the wealthy pile for admissions. My point is that yes, they do. Because $20,000 was for EC level participation. College athlete level requires much, much, much more money. Track and football might be exceptions, but for the most part all these white athletes come from wealthy families. UMC white kids are competing against truly wealthy white kids for admission. Wealthy has the advantage every time. That was the point. I get that forums make conversation difficult to follow but this sub thread has gone way off track.

This whole "UMC whites dead zone" ( using a PP) claim is silly.

No one is feeling sorry for any UMC whites in college admissions. They are the lifeblood of U.S. colleges, strictly based on the numbers alone.

Just because “nobody feels sorry for UMC whites” doesn’t mean they aren’t in the dead zone, nitwit.

+1 That guy really is obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Most “perfect”/stellar applicants have cheated in academics, athletics, or both. And often with the help of their parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

$20,000 per year? My kid is an equestrian and I spend over $100k a year and my kid is not recruitable (even if she was, there is no $$ for equestrian and college equestrian is very much a step backward from A circuit showing).

Yes, horses cost more. I’m not complaining that it didn’t make him recruitable, I’m saying that’s pocket change compared to what it takes to be recruited. I grew up showing hunters - it’s not a recruitable college sport. But if you’re spending $100,000 a year on a sport, you’re not the “UMC dead zone” this conversation was about.

so yes this whole tennis and now riding discussion may seem off base but I do think it leads to my "controversial opinion about college". I already posted on the tennis post because again i said, why would you pay 20K per year for something that will not "pay off" in a college scholarship or D1 offer? I also happen to have another DC who rides, and at the highest level. I was never willing to mortgage myself for riding for my DD because I knew she didn't want to ride in college... could she have been recruited, absolutely and had interest from more than one school when she was thinking about it. Ultimately,decided not to go that route, and my philosophy was always, at the end of her 18 years of eligibility, I do not want to be broke and divorced. She did just enough to stay competitive and rode with a well known trainer, but she did not show every weekend, did not go to FL for winters, did not have multiple horses. It was fun and she did probably accomplished just as much as the PP's DD who spent $100K on horses, but I spent probably less than half what they did. We all got to the same place at the end of the day. I know a family that bought their average riding kid a very nice horse, well over $100K, all so she could do the eq and get recruited to a D1 program. She did eventually go to a D1 program but she never shows, she's a benchwarmer and I'm sure she didn't get money from them. I mean I would have just taken that $100K+ and put it in her 529 and she could have gone anywhere. She was a bright kid and would have gotten into this school without riding (and basically did since as I said she does not show).

My point is, throwing money at a sport in hopes of a scholarship is stupid and short sighted. Many times, the kid decides they do not want to play in college because they do not want to be limited by the options afforded to them by their sports resume. Allow them to pursue it as your means allows, but don't delude yourself that it's going to pay off in some way.

It was never about paying for scholarship hopes. It was about responding to someone who said white athletes didn’t fit in the wealthy pile for admissions. My point is that yes, they do. Because $20,000 was for EC level participation. College athlete level requires much, much, much more money. Track and football might be exceptions, but for the most part all these white athletes come from wealthy families. UMC white kids are competing against truly wealthy white kids for admission. Wealthy has the advantage every time. That was the point. I get that forums make conversation difficult to follow but this sub thread has gone way off track.

This whole "UMC whites dead zone" ( using a PP) claim is silly.

No one is feeling sorry for any UMC whites in college admissions. They are the lifeblood of U.S. colleges, strictly based on the numbers alone.

Just because “nobody feels sorry for UMC whites” doesn’t mean they aren’t in the dead zone, nitwit.

+1 That guy really is obtuse.

-1

You guys must be UMC whites in la la land.

Bless your heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most “perfect”/stellar applicants have cheated in academics, athletics, or both. And often with the help of their parents.

I don't think cheating is any more rampant in this cohort than most others. Maybe not the low achievers who DGAF.

[Anonymous]

Is it much better for MC whites? MC asians?

I don't see what the U has to do with it. In fact, without the U, you are much less advantaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Colleges should have to reveal stats of recruited athletes, legacy admits, and deans list admits, There’s a reason Harvard disn’t wanr people seeing that information.

Legacy at most schools would not move the needle. Recruited athletes, it depends on the school. Ivy not really at all. They will have lower recruits but the average will be pretty close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most “perfect”/stellar applicants have cheated in academics, athletics, or both. And often with the help of their parents.

I don't think cheating is any more rampant in this cohort than most others. Maybe not the low achievers who DGAF.

Cheated? How?