controversial opinions about college

[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.

You're saying this with a straight face?

[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.

Opposite. Excessively competitive and entitled people who cannot tolerate the idea of failing or not getting what they want are the ones most likely to cheat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh, you might get the geography hook!

[Anonymous]

I think kids who applied and were accepted without test scores should have to disclose them after admission AND schools should have to publish the stats for the kids who were accepted without test scores.

[Anonymous]

Schools should disclose average Test Scores and GPAs of students by race/ethnicity, and disclose the average Test Scores and GPAs of students that they declined by race/ethnicity.

[Anonymous]

Schools should disclose average Test Scores and GPAs of students by race/ethnicity, and disclose the average Test Scores and GPAs of students that they declined by race/ethnicity.

Is there a reason you only focus on race? Why not include HHI, athletic recruits and legacy students? While we're this silly business, why not gender, sexual identity, geographic location, hobbies/talents, majors etc - you know all the things schools consider when selecting their class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Schools should disclose average Test Scores and GPAs of students by race/ethnicity, and disclose the average Test Scores and GPAs of students that they declined by race/ethnicity.

Is there a reason you only focus on race? Why not include HHI, athletic recruits and legacy students? While we're this silly business, why not gender, sexual identity, geographic location, hobbies/talents, majors etc - you know all the things schools consider when selecting their class.

Yes! Good points! I want transparency. I WANT PIVOT TABLES.

[Anonymous]

95% of jobs don't require a college education.

Marketing? Sales? Accounts Payable/Receivable? HR? Those types of positions, nah, college doesn't teach you anything you can't learn on the job in a week or so.

Medicine, the law, finance (like a cpa, accountants), teachers... yeah, those should require a degree.

We got to this college loan debt place in the world because society pushed everyone to go to college and then when they graduated, jobs changed so that every position required a degree. Made people feel important! Ooo ahhh.

The facilities operations manager at my work is a college degree required position. Stupid. He makes sure the building is in working order and schedules all maintenance. You don't need a degree for that job and the fact that one is required is a ducking joke.

Same with sales. You're either a salesman or not. You learn by doing it. My college's business degree required us to take Business Golf. If you didn't have your own clubs, which were STRONGLY encouraged (and sold through the university), you could rent them for $40/class (so $80/week). I'm in a csuite and I've yet to do any business dealings on a ducking golf course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think kids who applied and were accepted without test scores should have to disclose them after admission AND schools should have to publish the stats for the kids who were accepted without test scores.

Why? The school did not consider them so who cares? We get it, your kid scored well so you feel that someone else is cheating if they did not score as well. Sadly, that is not how holistic admissions are done. The school doesn’t feel scores are essential. Your private view is irrelevant to the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are not a bad parent for making your child take out loans to pay for their college even if you could afford to finance it yourself.

It’s also okay you paid off your own debt instead of financing a 529.

My opinion is that you are a bad parent in this situation. Why saddle your child to prove some point? You're either a hard worker or you're not. Financing college doesn't mean anything re: how hard your kid will work. There are many examples in my own life that prove that.

This all depends on your income
Sure, if your annual income is high and your net worth is over a milliin.
For the rest average working family with more than one kid, no

[Anonymous]

I would like to see actual data on how many actually complete their degrees on 4 years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see actual data on how many actually complete their degrees on 4 years

Isn’t this provider?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Schools should disclose average Test Scores and GPAs of students by race/ethnicity, and disclose the average Test Scores and GPAs of students that they declined by race/ethnicity.

Is there a reason you only focus on race? Why not include HHI, athletic recruits and legacy students? While we're this silly business, why not gender, sexual identity, geographic location, hobbies/talents, majors etc - you know all the things schools consider when selecting their class.

True

Private vs public
Kids with parents that went to college vs not
Kids with tutors vs those without
Kids that superscore vs those that don’t
Hours of test prep vs none

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to see actual data on how many actually complete their degrees on 4 years

Isn’t this provider?

No most colleges post 6 year graduation rates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

On tests, assignments, papers, by bringing alcohol to parties to lobby for votes for leadership roles, in sports… I mean there are tons of opportunities. Especially during Covid. Plenty of parents did their kids tests and papers. Lots of high pressure families seized the opportunity to get a leg up on competitive admissions. Now their kids are at Harvard, Yale, Duke, UVA, Michigan and the like where they’ll continue to cheat to get ahead then cheat in their careers and take advantage of others. Cycle of American life.