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

[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.

[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 . . .

Same company had 19 to MIT and 39 to Harvard. What is going on?

[Anonymous]

I can't believe anyone who has been through the college process in the last 5 years believes the "AOs can see right through this."

Two reasons:

1. Our communal lived experience. Kid after kid with mom and dad generated internships, fancy ECs, and published papers have gotten in to top schools when the kids we were all rooting for (not nec. are own) and really deserved it did not. Because no, that after school job at their mom and dad's restaurant didn't really impress these AOs while Chad's soon-to-be-dropped "passion project" did.

2. The published fact that more and more readers and now AOs are underpaid, sometimes seasonal workers with less than 3 year experience. Not only can't they "see through this", they also aren't as familiar as your school counselors tell you about how hard your high school is, what that award means, or any of the rest of it.

The system is broken and the market has stepped in to take advantage.

[Anonymous]

My kids participated in science fairs in middle and high school. I would google the parents of the winners, and very often the winning projects were aligned with a parent's field of expertise. I saw the same thing with kids in 11th and 12th grade with winning projects, academic papers and patents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe anyone who has been through the college process in the last 5 years believes the "AOs can see right through this."

Two reasons:

1. Our communal lived experience. Kid after kid with mom and dad generated internships, fancy ECs, and published papers have gotten in to top schools when the kids we were all rooting for (not nec. are own) and really deserved it did not. Because no, that after school job at their mom and dad's restaurant didn't really impress these AOs while Chad's soon-to-be-dropped "passion project" did.

2. The published fact that more and more readers and now AOs are underpaid, sometimes seasonal workers with less than 3 year experience. Not only can't they "see through this", they also aren't as familiar as your school counselors tell you about how hard your high school is, what that award means, or any of the rest of it.

The system is broken and the market has stepped in to take advantage.

Yes, this is what we see in the Boston area. And they aren’t ashamed of it either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe anyone who has been through the college process in the last 5 years believes the "AOs can see right through this."

Two reasons:

1. Our communal lived experience. Kid after kid with mom and dad generated internships, fancy ECs, and published papers have gotten in to top schools when the kids we were all rooting for (not nec. are own) and really deserved it did not. Because no, that after school job at their mom and dad's restaurant didn't really impress these AOs while Chad's soon-to-be-dropped "passion project" did.

2. The published fact that more and more readers and now AOs are underpaid, sometimes seasonal workers with less than 3 year experience. Not only can't they "see through this", they also aren't as familiar as your school counselors tell you about how hard your high school is, what that award means, or any of the rest of it.

The system is broken and the market has stepped in to take advantage.

Yes, this is what we see in the Boston area. And they aren’t ashamed of it either.

It's interesting to see how often these patent-generating, article-publishing super high school kids slack off once beyond the clutches of their parents in college. Despite going to world leading universities, many of them don't seem to generate another patent or publish another article past high school.