Got a Smart Kid Applying for College Anytime Soon? Read this NYT Article (if you haven't yet)

[Anonymous]

I think sports are like a triangle. Most all kids play sports when they are young. As they get older they drop sports or try different ones. By the time they are in high school the top athletes are at the top of the triangle. You know if your kid rises above all the others in sports or if they are just playing for fun. The super athletes just stand out so you know if it is worth sticking with a sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This trend makes those families who focused on athleticism as a way to stand out, look increasingly savvy.

Not really. I'm the parent of 2 college varsity athletes (at an Ivy) and unless your kid is good enough to be recruited and wants to continue playing in college, HS athletics won't really make you stand out. And, even then, your child has to be a really strong candidate w/re to grades, scores, recommendations and essays. Many, many families whom we met as our kids played sports together over the years vastly overestimated how much of a boost their kids would get from sports.

I was referring to families like yours, in which the children are truly good athletes. I often wondered if that was time well spent, and now I see that is obviously is.

However, many families think (when kids are younger, other kids haven't grown) that their kids are Division I level potential athletes and that does not come to pass. However, if families are realistic about assessing ability and the child is at least league all-star level in a good private school league, and if Division III and not just Ivy is included in the possibilities, athletics can definitely be a good route. Even that is being impacted by international applicants -- look at Harvard's heavyweight crew roster, for example (loaded with junior national team members from other countries).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mean to say that the odds for legacy admits are better than for the general pool -- but certainly not relatively easy.

The hard thing about going up against legacy is also that many legacy kids are very smart.

Yes, this is something that graduates of fancy colleges like to believe.

But the fact is that legacy admission is affirmative action for the children of graduates of fancy colleges.

I am a teacher, and can tell you that every year at our school one or more of the smartest and highest achieving kids get into their "legacy" school. Legacy status may have been the tie-breaker, but a kid with all As and A pluses and National Merit Semifinalist status and good recs would have a good chance anyway at any one school and would almost certainly get in to at least one of a small group of selective schools (re: the prior poster's point about not being guaranteed a slot at any one school but being able to get into one of a group of highly selective schools). Sometimes they apply to a whole range of schools so one can actually see this phenomenon, but often they've already gotten into the legacy school early admission so their "desirability" to other schools, although one can assume it, can't be "proven" by other offers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This trend makes those families who focused on athleticism as a way to stand out, look increasingly savvy.

Not really. I'm the parent of 2 college varsity athletes (at an Ivy) and unless your kid is good enough to be recruited and wants to continue playing in college, HS athletics won't really make you stand out. And, even then, your child has to be a really strong candidate w/re to grades, scores, recommendations and essays. Many, many families whom we met as our kids played sports together over the years vastly overestimated how much of a boost their kids would get from sports.

I was referring to families like yours, in which the children are truly good athletes. I often wondered if that was time well spent, and now I see that is obviously is.

We didn't focus on athleticism as "a way to stand out" -- i.e., a strategy for college admissions. Our kids love playing their sport and have gotten a lot out of it -- tenacity, resilience, patience, focus, opportunities to lead and just plain fun. We followed their enthusiasm; if we'd tried to package them, it wouldn't have worked.

I did not mean that they played sports to get into college. Of course not, who would pick up and play a sport simply to get into college. I meant only that good athletes do stand out, and that gives them a definite admissions advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn't anything new here except more applications, lower admit rates, more schools in the single digit zone. Not a great article. No analysis of legacy trends or foreign student applications and admits.

It's news to plenty of people. For example, someone in their 40s might have read that Yale has a 6% acceptance rate but not have realized that the rate was 20%+ when they applied in the 1980s. The historical overview, even in summary fashion, is helpful to put this issue in perspective.

Right. There are plenty of Ivy grads who might not make the cut today, but are wholly unaware of how the odds have changed over a generation.

But that really doesnt matter because legacy admission means their offsprings can still get in relatively easy.

Let's say legacy status doubles your chances of getting in. 12% is better than 6%, but that's still tougher than it was a generation ago and hardly easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both my husband and I are very successful (Ivy degrees, etc.). He made partner in Big Law. Our kids are confident and gifted. They are not afraid of competition and they will be winners.

And this relates how?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This trend makes those families who focused on athleticism as a way to stand out, look increasingly savvy.

Not really. I'm the parent of 2 college varsity athletes (at an Ivy) and unless your kid is good enough to be recruited and wants to continue playing in college, HS athletics won't really make you stand out. And, even then, your child has to be a really strong candidate w/re to grades, scores, recommendations and essays. Many, many families whom we met as our kids played sports together over the years vastly overestimated how much of a boost their kids would get from sports.

I was referring to families like yours, in which the children are truly good athletes. I often wondered if that was time well spent, and now I see that is obviously is.

We didn't focus on athleticism as "a way to stand out" -- i.e., a strategy for college admissions. Our kids love playing their sport and have gotten a lot out of it -- tenacity, resilience, patience, focus, opportunities to lead and just plain fun. We followed their enthusiasm; if we'd tried to package them, it wouldn't have worked.

I did not mean that they played sports to get into college. Of course not, who would pick up and play a sport simply to get into college. I meant only that good athletes do stand out, and that gives them a definite admissions advantage.

I am not sure about that. The kids at our school who got in the top schools were more likely to be the star debaters, musicians and robotics clubbers. If you aren't a recruited athlete I am not sure being a plain old athlete makes a difference. My DC is one of those, recruited for d3 but not d1, and I don't think it was seen as much of an asset/differentiator for D1 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mean to say that the odds for legacy admits are better than for the general pool -- but certainly not relatively easy.

The hard thing about going up against legacy is also that many legacy kids are very smart.

Yes, this is something that graduates of fancy colleges like to believe.

But the fact is that legacy admission is affirmative action for the children of graduates of fancy colleges.

And athletic recruiting may be affirmative action for pituitary cases. What's your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The common app makes it easier for students to apply to many reach colleges. Colleges love that b/c it raises their stats. For every qualified student applying to an Ivy, there are 10 who are just going through the motions --even if it is a lot of work and money.

I agree that there are some who figure "Hey, I might win the lottery so let's lob one in." However, I suspect that most applicants could do the work and honestly believe they have a shot because of their scores, stories and grades (inflated as some may be).

[Anonymous]

A couple things I found out about legacy applications. First, having two parents who graduated from the same college doesn't give a student a double advantage or even a meaningful advantage over other legacy applicants. The student is a legacy applicant or not, Second, at most schools, it is the undergraduate alumni tie that matters. Having graduated from the law school or the business school doesn't really help your kid to get into the university's college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mean to say that the odds for legacy admits are better than for the general pool -- but certainly not relatively easy.

The hard thing about going up against legacy is also that many legacy kids are very smart.

Yes, this is something that graduates of fancy colleges like to believe.

But the fact is that legacy admission is affirmative action for the children of graduates of fancy colleges.

And athletic recruiting may be affirmative action for pituitary cases. What's your point?

Yes, athletic recruiting is also affirmative action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mean to say that the odds for legacy admits are better than for the general pool -- but certainly not relatively easy.

The hard thing about going up against legacy is also that many legacy kids are very smart.

Yes, this is something that graduates of fancy colleges like to believe.

But the fact is that legacy admission is affirmative action for the children of graduates of fancy colleges.

And athletic recruiting may be affirmative action for pituitary cases. What's your point?

But not as smart as non legacy kids. I am a little familiar with legacy acceptances. My kids go to Ivies and many of their friends are legacy. All you need to look at is where they got in non legacy to see the boost they got. Accepted at Harvard, rejected at Brown. Accreted at Dartmouth, rejected everywhere else and best acceptance was at University of Oregon honors college.

[Anonymous]

*accepted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, athletic recruiting is also affirmative action.

Yes, and so is admitting the star musician or actor and the science geek and the published 17 year old. The point is that the elite schools are picking a class that will be full of high potential kids in every department and realm of the school. They pick some athletes, some STEM grinds, a lot of creative types for the humanities, and some sociopaths to serve the needs of Wall Street. They want a diversity of academic interests, specialized abilities, and leaders not just diversity in ethnicity, geography and SES. Their goal is to match up with the future leaders in every sector of the economy and society. A generally smart kid with no particular outstanding interest or passion, especially one with lots of privilege, doesn't usually become a star in their experience. So get over the fact that other children have different skills than your own, since that doesn't make yours any better or worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, athletic recruiting is also affirmative action.

Yes, and so is admitting the star musician or actor and the science geek and the published 17 year old. The point is that the elite schools are picking a class that will be full of high potential kids in every department and realm of the school. They pick some athletes, some STEM grinds, a lot of creative types for the humanities, and some sociopaths to serve the needs of Wall Street. They want a diversity of academic interests, specialized abilities, and leaders not just diversity in ethnicity, geography and SES. Their goal is to match up with the future leaders in every sector of the economy and society. A generally smart kid with no particular outstanding interest or passion, especially one with lots of privilege, doesn't usually become a star in their experience. So get over the fact that other children have different skills than your own, since that doesn't make yours any better or worse.

No, actually, I agree with you. (And my kids are almost certainly not going to apply to fancy colleges anyway.) The fancy schools are full of students who were admitted under affirmative action.

But I never read anybody complaining that so-and-so got in undeservedly because they are a legacy, or a varsity athlete, or from a cattle rancher from Caldwell, Montana. Whereas I often read complaints that so-and-so got in undeservedly because they're black. That was my point about affirmative action.