s/o this brutal admissions year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, do we really want our kids to absorb the message that the purpose of life is to work as hard as possible and get into the best college possible? That is joyless and not the life I want my kids to have. They can have a good life without conducting original scientific research at 16 or being the "best" or "top."

This.
The problem is not kids doing the work.
The problem is setting expectation so that they think their life is over if they don't get into the "top" school (however you define it).
The problem is overprepping for SATs and making your kids take them again if they got a really good score but not a "great" score.
The problem is pushing kids into activities they don't want to do "for college applications" and leaving them no time to pursue their own hobbies or interests
The problem is telling them that a B is not good enough, even if it is the best they can do in a particular class.
The problem is pushing our kids to become the person we think they should be (grades, college, career, etc) instead of letting them make their own choices and own them.

It has been more than 10 years since "Race to Nowhere" came out, but things have not changed much if we are still having the same conversations.

This. 100% this!

It’s because more people are competing for fewer economic opportunities.

We live in an economic system that is increasingly winner takes all. And I say this as someone who is pretty close to the top (can easily pay full freight for 3 kids) but still far from being able to opt out of the rat race completely (can’t buy our kids’ way into Harvard or give them 5M + trust funds).

I say this without rancor: If you can afford full freight for 3 kids, you ARE a winner. Because our society has become so immobile, your kids are highly likely to be fine whether they run the rat race or not. They don't need to go to Harvard to succeed in life. You are one of the people guarding their spoils. You are one of the winners trying to take it all.

I am confused by the bolded assessment of PP. What would you do differently if you were in her shoes?

I would say that someone in this position is not, as she described "far from unable to opt out of the rat race." Her kids don't need to run the rat race and thinking that they do-- behaving and encouraging then to behave as if they do-- contributes to the toxicity of the general environment. Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, do we really want our kids to absorb the message that the purpose of life is to work as hard as possible and get into the best college possible? That is joyless and not the life I want my kids to have. They can have a good life without conducting original scientific research at 16 or being the "best" or "top."

Younger Gen X here. Judging by the millennials I know personally and the deluge of articles I’ve read about the student loan “crisis,” that’s definitely been the message their generation seemed to absorb. Whether their parents/teachers meant them to or not.

And now a lot of them are disappointed by how their careers have turned out (not as well paying or fulfilling as they thought they’d be).

Younger Gen X here too, and I agree with the PP you're quoting. I have a middle schooler, but looking at this board has honestly convinced me not to drive my kid to work as hard as possible to get into the best college possible. I want her to work hard, but within moderation, and I want her to enjoy life. I want her to know that most people don't find personal fulfillment from their careers. If she does, great! But most people have to seek fulfillment elsewhere.

I was talking with some coworkers the other day, and apparently some of us went to state colleges, some went to HYP, some went to Emory-level colleges and oh hey, we all ended up in the same place. It really doesn't matter as much as we make it.

I work in STEM field at a Fed agency. I went to a state university because my parents said they would pay in full for that and I'd have no loans. If I went OOS, I'd have to take out loans. I was able to do a teaching stipend and get a graduate degree fully paid by the State University.

I work with lots of Ivy grads/PhDs. We are all GS-14s. Many have voiced the struggle to get housing loans since both they and their spouses have so much college loan debt. They started off way behind post-grad school.

I think in some fields you definitely need the 'school backing'. If you are in a major where it's hard to find work---English, History, etc...then the University will matter. If you are in a STEM field, State Universities are fine and some like Tech's Engineering program are better than a lot of privates.

It's not true for most history and English majors either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, do we really want our kids to absorb the message that the purpose of life is to work as hard as possible and get into the best college possible? That is joyless and not the life I want my kids to have. They can have a good life without conducting original scientific research at 16 or being the "best" or "top."

This.
The problem is not kids doing the work.
The problem is setting expectation so that they think their life is over if they don't get into the "top" school (however you define it).
The problem is overprepping for SATs and making your kids take them again if they got a really good score but not a "great" score.
The problem is pushing kids into activities they don't want to do "for college applications" and leaving them no time to pursue their own hobbies or interests
The problem is telling them that a B is not good enough, even if it is the best they can do in a particular class.
The problem is pushing our kids to become the person we think they should be (grades, college, career, etc) instead of letting them make their own choices and own them.

It has been more than 10 years since "Race to Nowhere" came out, but things have not changed much if we are still having the same conversations.

This. 100% this!

It’s because more people are competing for fewer economic opportunities.

We live in an economic system that is increasingly winner takes all. And I say this as someone who is pretty close to the top (can easily pay full freight for 3 kids) but still far from being able to opt out of the rat race completely (can’t buy our kids’ way into Harvard or give them 5M + trust funds).

I say this without rancor: If you can afford full freight for 3 kids, you ARE a winner. Because our society has become so immobile, your kids are highly likely to be fine whether they run the rat race or not. They don't need to go to Harvard to succeed in life. You are one of the people guarding their spoils. You are one of the winners trying to take it all.

I am confused by the bolded assessment of PP. What would you do differently if you were in her shoes?

I would say that someone in this position is not, as she described "far from unable to opt out of the rat race." Her kids don't need to run the rat race and thinking that they do-- behaving and encouraging then to behave as if they do-- contributes to the toxicity of the general environment. Seriously.

Nah I agree. The PP who first mentioned the rat race - she's like most UMC DCUM people. They can't afford to stop running the race (working). They can't give their kids trust funds. They might leave them millions of dollars but not until they die.

Very very different proposition from a family who will be giving their kids at least several million dollars in their twenties.

If she's not giving them a trust fund, then her kids will need to work. They have to opt into the rat race, get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, do we really want our kids to absorb the message that the purpose of life is to work as hard as possible and get into the best college possible? That is joyless and not the life I want my kids to have. They can have a good life without conducting original scientific research at 16 or being the "best" or "top."

This.
The problem is not kids doing the work.
The problem is setting expectation so that they think their life is over if they don't get into the "top" school (however you define it).
The problem is overprepping for SATs and making your kids take them again if they got a really good score but not a "great" score.
The problem is pushing kids into activities they don't want to do "for college applications" and leaving them no time to pursue their own hobbies or interests
The problem is telling them that a B is not good enough, even if it is the best they can do in a particular class.
The problem is pushing our kids to become the person we think they should be (grades, college, career, etc) instead of letting them make their own choices and own them.

It has been more than 10 years since "Race to Nowhere" came out, but things have not changed much if we are still having the same conversations.

This. 100% this!

It’s because more people are competing for fewer economic opportunities.

We live in an economic system that is increasingly winner takes all. And I say this as someone who is pretty close to the top (can easily pay full freight for 3 kids) but still far from being able to opt out of the rat race completely (can’t buy our kids’ way into Harvard or give them 5M + trust funds).

I say this without rancor: If you can afford full freight for 3 kids, you ARE a winner. Because our society has become so immobile, your kids are highly likely to be fine whether they run the rat race or not. They don't need to go to Harvard to succeed in life. You are one of the people guarding their spoils. You are one of the winners trying to take it all.

I am confused by the bolded assessment of PP. What would you do differently if you were in her shoes?

I would say that someone in this position is not, as she described "far from unable to opt out of the rat race." Her kids don't need to run the rat race and thinking that they do-- behaving and encouraging then to behave as if they do-- contributes to the toxicity of the general environment. Seriously.

LOL I see that you didn't actually answer the question posed to you. You wouldn't do anything differently because you are probably in the same boat or wish you were.

Who is not going to pay for their kid to go to college just because other parents can't? A nutcase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think most students with the stats that you just outlined can still and in fact do get into great colleges and that all the drama you're seeing on this board is overblown.

Not overblown. Signed parent of a kid w 1450/3.9 unweighted and waitlists from three T40-T70 schools. What's overblown is the idea that one works hard in school for a "reward" of getting into a T20, rather than a love of learning and the intrinsic desire to excel. Son was rewarded with a tremendous merit package from a T100 liberal arts school and an honors college acceptance w10k merit at an R1 public university. He now has the luxury of deciding over the next few weeks what type of experience he wants. Anybody who still thinks the safeties of yesteryear are safeties today is in for a rude, rude awakening. Best advice is to shoot for the stars, but be informed about today's admissions landscape and spend a good deal of your time identifying and visiting schools with a 60+% overall acceptance rate. Things have been trending in this direction ever since the common app and the influx of qualified overseas applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most students with the stats that you just outlined can still and in fact do get into great colleges and that all the drama you're seeing on this board is overblown.

Not overblown. Signed parent of a kid w 1450/3.9 unweighted and waitlists from three T40-T70 schools. What's overblown is the idea that one works hard in school for a "reward" of getting into a T20, rather than a love of learning and the intrinsic desire to excel. Son was rewarded with a tremendous merit package from a T100 liberal arts school and an honors college acceptance w10k merit at an R1 public university. He now has the luxury of deciding over the next few weeks what type of experience he wants. Anybody who still thinks the safeties of yesteryear are safeties today is in for a rude, rude awakening. Best advice is to shoot for the stars, but be informed about today's admissions landscape and spend a good deal of your time identifying and visiting schools with a 60+% overall acceptance rate. Things have been trending in this direction ever since the common app and the influx of qualified overseas applicants.

Thank you for your post.

Did your kid have many extracurriculars?

[Anonymous]

Here's a twist for you. My kid with a 3.5W and no test scores got into Syracuse but no money. We are not a wealthy family and I refuse to take out loans in the 6-figures. She got into other respected but lower ranked colleges with merit aid between $20K-$24K that would not require FA or loans. Guess what option we will choose? So, the bottom line is your child can be admitted to a "dream school" but if it will put tremendous financial strain on your family or kid by taking out large loans, it is not worth it. And, as a successful professional, who oversees high salary hires and approves terminations, you don't need a degree from a top school to be hired or not be fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh, do we really want our kids to absorb the message that the purpose of life is to work as hard as possible and get into the best college possible? That is joyless and not the life I want my kids to have. They can have a good life without conducting original scientific research at 16 or being the "best" or "top."

This.
The problem is not kids doing the work.
The problem is setting expectation so that they think their life is over if they don't get into the "top" school (however you define it).
The problem is overprepping for SATs and making your kids take them again if they got a really good score but not a "great" score.
The problem is pushing kids into activities they don't want to do "for college applications" and leaving them no time to pursue their own hobbies or interests
The problem is telling them that a B is not good enough, even if it is the best they can do in a particular class.
The problem is pushing our kids to become the person we think they should be (grades, college, career, etc) instead of letting them make their own choices and own them.

It has been more than 10 years since "Race to Nowhere" came out, but things have not changed much if we are still having the same conversations.

This. 100% this!

It’s because more people are competing for fewer economic opportunities.

We live in an economic system that is increasingly winner takes all. And I say this as someone who is pretty close to the top (can easily pay full freight for 3 kids) but still far from being able to opt out of the rat race completely (can’t buy our kids’ way into Harvard or give them 5M + trust funds).

I say this without rancor: If you can afford full freight for 3 kids, you ARE a winner. Because our society has become so immobile, your kids are highly likely to be fine whether they run the rat race or not. They don't need to go to Harvard to succeed in life. You are one of the people guarding their spoils. You are one of the winners trying to take it all.

I am confused by the bolded assessment of PP. What would you do differently if you were in her shoes?

I would say that someone in this position is not, as she described "far from unable to opt out of the rat race." Her kids don't need to run the rat race and thinking that they do-- behaving and encouraging then to behave as if they do-- contributes to the toxicity of the general environment. Seriously.

Nah I agree. The PP who first mentioned the rat race - she's like most UMC DCUM people. They can't afford to stop running the race (working). They can't give their kids trust funds. They might leave them millions of dollars but not until they die.

Very very different proposition from a family who will be giving their kids at least several million dollars in their twenties.

If she's not giving them a trust fund, then her kids will need to work. They have to opt into the rat race, get it?

DP, and huh? Why? Why can’t they go to the colleges they can get into and want to attend, and choose a career of their liking? Are the only worthwhile jobs in the rat race? Is the only worthwhile place to live somewhere on one of the coasts? It’s that or living in a box somewhere?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most students with the stats that you just outlined can still and in fact do get into great colleges and that all the drama you're seeing on this board is overblown.

Not overblown. Signed parent of a kid w 1450/3.9 unweighted and waitlists from three T40-T70 schools. What's overblown is the idea that one works hard in school for a "reward" of getting into a T20, rather than a love of learning and the intrinsic desire to excel. Son was rewarded with a tremendous merit package from a T100 liberal arts school and an honors college acceptance w10k merit at an R1 public university. He now has the luxury of deciding over the next few weeks what type of experience he wants. Anybody who still thinks the safeties of yesteryear are safeties today is in for a rude, rude awakening. Best advice is to shoot for the stars, but be informed about today's admissions landscape and spend a good deal of your time identifying and visiting schools with a 60+% overall acceptance rate. Things have been trending in this direction ever since the common app and the influx of qualified overseas applicants.

Thank you for your post.

Did your kid have many extracurriculars?

He did the things he enjoyed. Marching band for three years (no season last fall), wind ensemble junior and senior, a remote internship, and JSA, which he really didn't get very involved with until junior year when it was too late to try for a regional-level position. He didn't seek or have any leadership positions in any of the activities, but he was really dedicated to music and JSA (11th and 12th). Also a day-camp counselor for three summers. The activities were wonderful growth and social experiences, even if they didn't "pop" in the admissions file. He also wrote a heartfelt essay about being able to confidently present and argue a bill in front of 100+ kids at the JSA conference in DC after years of ridicule and speech therapy due to apraxia.

[Anonymous]

I have a kid at Columbia. Incredibly driven and hardworking + intense kid, was born that way. My other kids are more laid back. He got in on his own merit + luck. No legacy, sports or first gen\minority status. I sometimes wonder if Ivys are worth it. Workload at Columbia is so overwhelming. He is doing fine and likes it but also seems incredibly stressed out. I wish he could have more fun. Life is short. There is a psychological cost to attending top schools that people seem to overlook. HS was incredibly stressful for him too because he had such self-imposed high standards for himself. I keep reminding him that we don’t care about his grades, just that he is happy and healthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid was admitted to:

UCLA
Washington & Lee
UVA
William and Mary
Miami University
American University
Christopher Newport University

Rejected from:

UC Berkeley
NYU (today)

She is extremely bitter because I won’t co-sign six figures of parent plus loans to attend UCLA. You cannot convince me it’s $120,000 better than UVA or W&M. In fact, W&M is more highly rated for undergraduate teaching (#4 in country, tied with Princeton and behind Brown, Elon and Georgia Tech, of all places).

She hears from Duke tomorrow and Brown next week. I am anticipating rejections from both.

I have tried to explain to her that her success rate is incredible and a lot of kids with better stats aren’t even getting into some places she has. But it doesn’t matter. She is fixated on selectivity percentages rather than finding a school that will be the right fit. Says she will be “miserable” going to school in Virginia. I said misery is making payments on six figures of college debt for 20-25 years.

Serenity now. Or at least better drugs...

This is on you. If you weren't willing to co-sign that's fine -- I agree with you -- but you should have made that clear to her before she even applied.

GTFO. You never know if you're going to get a better aid package.

Why are you always "calling people out" because they wouldn't do exactly what you would? You don't seem like the sharpest tool in the box, anyhow. There are lots of reasons to make lots of different decisions. And yes, sometimes the outcomes are not perfect, but that is life. The point is not to never face any kind of difficulty. Sometimes, it's good to reach for things, see where they land, and make the best decision. It can be a growing and learning experience. It doesn't have to be... oh you handled this all wrong, you're the worst parent, I'm the best. It does not make you look like the best. It makes you look like a fool.

I'm not the first or only person to advise a parent to sit down with a child before he or she applies to college and make clear what I'm willing or able to contribute to the cost.

My kid didn’t apply to places they thought we could not afford based on those calculators. Subsequently found kids with lower stats were offered significant money at some (mostly private) colleges and there would have been a good chance for my kid. In one OOS (not a UC) we were surprised the admission came with unexpected money. Given that, it’s not wrong to apply as long as you’ve had the conversations. I’m sorry my kid didn’t take more chances and cast a wider net. They have to live with the results. Stop telling OP their parenting sucks. Sometimes kids just dig their heels in and no amount of parent wisdom is going to make them see the broader picture till they’re smacked in the head with their reality. Hold the line OP, even though your kid is probably a misery to live with right now.

[Anonymous]

Every year at this time we get the "admissions were brutal this year" post. Hmmmm...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every year at this time we get the "admissions were brutal this year" post. Hmmmm...

Well, this certainly was not a typical year. Covid made this a very unique experience. Whether it was more brutal or not, I don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid at Columbia. Incredibly driven and hardworking + intense kid, was born that way. My other kids are more laid back. He got in on his own merit + luck. No legacy, sports or first gen\minority status. I sometimes wonder if Ivys are worth it. Workload at Columbia is so overwhelming. He is doing fine and likes it but also seems incredibly stressed out. I wish he could have more fun. Life is short. There is a psychological cost to attending top schools that people seem to overlook. HS was incredibly stressful for him too because he had such self-imposed high standards for himself. I keep reminding him that we don’t care about his grades, just that he is happy and healthy.

Thanks for this. My DS has a "likely letter" to go to Columbia for an athletic recruitment. (with final decision on April 6). He wants so much to live in NYC but I suspect the academic stress will be so high that he won't get to enjoy the city anyway. My consolation is that if the stress does get too high that it should be relatively easy to transfer out of Columbia to another school.

[Anonymous]

The uncertainty is worse this year because of the heavy use of waitlists. We're going to have to wait through the summer for this all to play out. Even then many DCs will end up at safety schools.

It will be even worse next year. Maybe the waitlists and chaos will be lessened if the colleges somehow manage to adjust their yield calculations, but I doubt it. The same factors that gave rise to the chaos and uncertainty will be joined by another factor: the inconsistent application of lockdowns and virtual learning meant that some schools and some parts of the US had more opportunities for classes, sports and ECAs which the kids in this area didn't. That is yet another disadvantage that the class of 2022 will have to deal with.