Are ECs a proxy of wealth in admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sailing
Rowing
Equestrian
Lacrosse
Ski Racing

Not sure, my kids did sailing, rowing, lacrosse, golf but most expensive was volleyball.

My kid does sailing, except equestrian I can't imagine anything is close. It's insane. We can't keep up with the top kids/families. Just as an example last week was the US Team Trials for the boat DS sails, 250 kids, you had to qualify to go. 3-4 days of training and then 4 days of racing. Easily $10k for the week, but most spent many more than that. If you make one of the international event teams you have 24 hours to pay the fee for the event - between $7k - $12k depending on where you qualify - or else it goes to the next person. The top sailing schools know exactly what route each kid took to get there and can roughly estimate how much that cost. The kids work really hard, but you have to be able to fund it, which means you can also fund top schools (for the most part). My example is for kids no older than 15, it only goes up from there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sailing
Rowing
Equestrian
Lacrosse
Ski Racing

Not sure, my kids did sailing, rowing, lacrosse, golf but most expensive was volleyball.

Golf

[Anonymous]

Is there some advantage to sailing or Equestrian over cheaper, more mundane sports like cross country or swimming

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there some advantage to sailing or Equestrian over cheaper, more mundane sports like cross country or swimming

Yes. There is a much smaller pool of applicants who do these sports and the schools need to fill up those teams, so you have a huge leg up in admissions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there some advantage to sailing or Equestrian over cheaper, more mundane sports like cross country or swimming

Yes. There is a much smaller pool of applicants who do these sports and the schools need to fill up those teams, so you have a huge leg up in admissions.

I think this answers the OP's question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. How much you spend on it doesn't matter. You can spend a million on your kid's football training, or have his come up through an inner city football program. You can spend a fortune on film equipment and camps or you can send your kid to the free film course in the city. And so on.

lol which one has better results?

Most College football stars are not the Mannings of this world. Most grew up poor and someone helped identify their talent and they worked hard to make the sport their ticket out of family poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if T20s/Ivies and all the rest admit wealthier kids or that wealthier kids tend to have better EC opportunities than regular kids. I just want T20s/Ivies/etal to stop pretending that they show no preference (we are "holistic" in our admissions) - what a joke

They also admit "poor kids" or rural kids with lesser opportunities. They want smart kids who will excel and be leaders at college. They do a great job of identifying those who didnt' grow up with all the opportunities an UMC+ lifestyle affords you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not that they serve as a proxy or some sort of secret signal of wealth. It's that colleges want students who are well rounded, and wealth allows you to pursue more ECs, or pursue the more extensively. So the wealthy student has an advantage. There was a time when ECs were by and large something you did through schools (sports, music, etc.) so theoretically everyone was operating on the same playing field. Not so much the case anymore.

Also, your average MC/LMC/poor kid is not applying to T25 schools. They are applying to state Universities, private schools within a 2-3 hour drive that give merit if the CC or parent is even aware that they give merit---other wise they are applying to local state schools and hoping they can afford it.

They are not applying to T40 schools, because it's not even on their radar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if T20s/Ivies and all the rest admit wealthier kids or that wealthier kids tend to have better EC opportunities than regular kids. I just want T20s/Ivies/etal to stop pretending that they show no preference (we are "holistic" in our admissions) - what a joke

They also admit "poor kids" or rural kids with lesser opportunities. They want smart kids who will excel and be leaders at college. They do a great job of identifying those who didnt' grow up with all the opportunities an UMC+ lifestyle affords you.

I grew up poor, I was on free lunch at one point. But my parents scratched their way in to the middle class by high school. So no golden ticket for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if T20s/Ivies and all the rest admit wealthier kids or that wealthier kids tend to have better EC opportunities than regular kids. I just want T20s/Ivies/etal to stop pretending that they show no preference (we are "holistic" in our admissions) - what a joke

They also admit "poor kids" or rural kids with lesser opportunities. They want smart kids who will excel and be leaders at college. They do a great job of identifying those who didnt' grow up with all the opportunities an UMC+ lifestyle affords you.

I grew up poor, I was on free lunch at one point. But my parents scratched their way in to the middle class by high school. So no golden ticket for me.

the suburban middle class I should add

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there some advantage to sailing or Equestrian over cheaper, more mundane sports like cross country or swimming

Yes. There is a much smaller pool of applicants who do these sports and the schools need to fill up those teams, so you have a huge leg up in admissions.

I think this answers the OP's question

https://stanforddaily.com/2022/01/12/from-the-community-the-bias-of-legacy-and-athlete-admissions/
But not everyone agrees that a “back door” comes solely in the form of financial gifts from a family to a college, and many have pointed to other factors that can increase a student’s likelihood of admission and dubbed them “back doors,” too. One increasingly popular move seems to be the most consistent back door across the board: athlete admissions. At Harvard, recruited athletes with high academic scores on Harvard’s scale of rating applicants are admitted at a staggering rate of 83%, while non-athletes with the same academic rank are only accepted at a rate of 16% — not to mention the school’s 5% acceptance rate for the general public. Athletics even trump legacy in terms of admissions preference, with athletes receiving a 48% bump. And playing a sport at a collegiate level in high school can cost upward of $12,000 in equipment, traveling, and tournament fees. Wealthy students even have an advantage in recruitment practices, because, according to a recent study in the Harvard Educational Review, “due to their community and social networks, [they] are better at navigating this process.” A Washington Post study from 2019 found that 12% of Stanford’s undergraduate population is enrolled in a varsity sport. While not all of Stanford’s athletes are one-percenters, the money and time to play competitive sports in college gave many of them a significant admissions boost.

[Anonymous]

Working at a paid job after school to help support your family (while still doing well academically) is a definite hook for college admissions if it is worked into the essay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there some advantage to sailing or Equestrian over cheaper, more mundane sports like cross country or swimming

Yes. There is a much smaller pool of applicants who do these sports and the schools need to fill up those teams, so you have a huge leg up in admissions.

It’s true. Even if not a recruited athlete, but a club team. The kids who do these sports have outstanding college results, even if not at the tippy top of the class.