The Newest College Admissions Ploy: Paying to Make Your Teen a “Peer-Reviewed” Author

[Anonymous]

The article says an Egyptian student was admitted to Princeton precisely because of the paper she "wrote" through a high-school research company. So who knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Case Western just early-admitted 23 students who were clients of one of the pay-for-play research companies. Stanford accepted 11. Most are from China. Agreed that some AOs definitely do not see through this . . .

They choose not to see through this. Colleges need wealthy full pay students to prop everyone else up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article says an Egyptian student was admitted to Princeton precisely because of the paper she "wrote" through a high-school research company. So who knows.

Please explain how they know this. It defies logic.

Princeton has thousand of flawless applications. They wouldn’t accept someone who wasn’t already amazing simply because of an article.

They don’t wrote personalized acceptances, either. How would anyone know they were only accepted because of one thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is only going to get worse in a post test-optional world.

And I say that because I am the problem. I am wealthy and I will do whatever it takes to advantage my children. Peer review publication, dubious nonprofit, private sports coaching… whatever angle I can find, I will pour money into exploiting. Cut off one snake head and I’ll find another.

You are the reason college admissions should be true lotteries

[Anonymous]

I was an AO. We can see through this. We look for names (like Concord Review) or evidence of serious investment in research shown in more than just a publication line. Even a kid who’s a co-author in Nature won’t get a lot of credit unless they’re talking about their lab hours in their essay and they have a rec from a PI. A pub listing with no mention of research work in a rec is a dead giveaway they didn’t dedicate a lot of time to research, and most likely their parent connected them with an academic friend who was willing to spare a byline. We can connect the dots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was an AO. We can see through this. We look for names (like Concord Review) or evidence of serious investment in research shown in more than just a publication line. Even a kid who’s a co-author in Nature won’t get a lot of credit unless they’re talking about their lab hours in their essay and they have a rec from a PI. A pub listing with no mention of research work in a rec is a dead giveaway they didn’t dedicate a lot of time to research, and most likely their parent connected them with an academic friend who was willing to spare a byline. We can connect the dots.

Concord Review also has a summer camp that you can attend for $3000 in which you can write a paper and submit for publication in the Concord Review. My son's friend attended the camp and his essay was published. Everything is for sale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an AO. We can see through this. We look for names (like Concord Review) or evidence of serious investment in research shown in more than just a publication line. Even a kid who’s a co-author in Nature won’t get a lot of credit unless they’re talking about their lab hours in their essay and they have a rec from a PI. A pub listing with no mention of research work in a rec is a dead giveaway they didn’t dedicate a lot of time to research, and most likely their parent connected them with an academic friend who was willing to spare a byline. We can connect the dots.

Concord Review also has a summer camp that you can attend for $3000 in which you can write a paper and submit for publication in the Concord Review. My son's friend attended the camp and his essay was published. Everything is for sale.

That’s new, and interesting. I (the former AO from above) am not in the business anymore, so I didn’t know about this development. I assure you current AOs know though.

And again, we’re looking for more than just the publication line. It’s about patterns that run throughout the app. someone who racked up accomplishments with price tags will get spotted. It’s one of the reasons we ask for information about parents’ professions, school tuition, etc. Believe me, we know a pay-to-play applicant when we see one. Some get admitted, some don’t—it’s about more than the items on the resume.

[Anonymous]

Agree wholeheartedly, OP. With everything you said. They need to reduce the applications so they can actually vet these resumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an AO. We can see through this. We look for names (like Concord Review) or evidence of serious investment in research shown in more than just a publication line. Even a kid who’s a co-author in Nature won’t get a lot of credit unless they’re talking about their lab hours in their essay and they have a rec from a PI. A pub listing with no mention of research work in a rec is a dead giveaway they didn’t dedicate a lot of time to research, and most likely their parent connected them with an academic friend who was willing to spare a byline. We can connect the dots.

Concord Review also has a summer camp that you can attend for $3000 in which you can write a paper and submit for publication in the Concord Review. My son's friend attended the camp and his essay was published. Everything is for sale.

That’s new, and interesting. I (the former AO from above) am not in the business anymore, so I didn’t know about this development. I assure you current AOs know though.

And again, we’re looking for more than just the publication line. It’s about patterns that run throughout the app. someone who racked up accomplishments with price tags will get spotted. It’s one of the reasons we ask for information about parents’ professions, school tuition, etc. Believe me, we know a pay-to-play applicant when we see one. Some get admitted, some don’t—it’s about more than the items on the resume.

Interesting because this has not been our experience at all. All the kids with parent-driven resumes, wealth, and connections were admitted to highly selective schools. One year a kid admitted that he lied in his application that got him into a popular and tough admit with kids in DMV . His dad laughed when he found out. Nice kids these schools are getting. These schools are filled with entitled cheaters micromanaged by their parents and hard working disadvantaged kids. Anyone in between gets ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many parents use their professional and social contacts to give kids unfair advantages. One of my physician friend got her DD shadowing and research opportunities at her hospital and her techi father made her an app. They entered app in a competition where you can vote online. They asked all of their family, friends and employees to vote so she can win.

Maddening. I’ve seen this with non profits and fundraising. “Larla raised a record-breaking $xxxxxx for ABC”. And the truth is that it was primarily one check from her parents and some extra from their rich social circle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case Western just early-admitted 23 students who were clients of one of the pay-for-play research companies. Stanford accepted 11. Most are from China. Agreed that some AOs definitely do not see through this . . .

They choose not to see through this. Colleges need wealthy full pay students to prop everyone else up.

These are wealthy colleges with billions in endowments and tens of thousands willing to pay full cost. That's not it.

[Anonymous]

I had a friend whose daughter "started" a nonprofit just like the one her mom started ten years earlier in another part of the country. Kid is now at Princeton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case Western just early-admitted 23 students who were clients of one of the pay-for-play research companies. Stanford accepted 11. Most are from China. Agreed that some AOs definitely do not see through this . . .

They choose not to see through this. Colleges need wealthy full pay students to prop everyone else up.

These are wealthy colleges with billions in endowments and tens of thousands willing to pay full cost. That's not it.

Agree. They are not the bastions of equity they think they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case Western just early-admitted 23 students who were clients of one of the pay-for-play research companies. Stanford accepted 11. Most are from China. Agreed that some AOs definitely do not see through this . . .

They choose not to see through this. Colleges need wealthy full pay students to prop everyone else up.

Uh, no, Stanford is not going to be impressed by someone who can merely pay full freight when they need a $500k donation to be considered a development case. Those admits either would have gotten in anyways, or successfully tricked the adcoms into making them appear better than they were, thus taking a seat from a more qualified applicant.

It's a brave new test-optional world...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case Western just early-admitted 23 students who were clients of one of the pay-for-play research companies. Stanford accepted 11. Most are from China. Agreed that some AOs definitely do not see through this . . .

They choose not to see through this. Colleges need wealthy full pay students to prop everyone else up.

These are wealthy colleges with billions in endowments and tens of thousands willing to pay full cost. That's not it.

They still try to balance the number of "can't pay" students with "full pay" students. As the PP said, the full-pay prop up the poor kids.