Non profits started by high school students

[Anonymous]

Yes. Most of them are garbage. Many help no one or maybe just a couple people. I can’t believe schools fall for this scam. And in most cases, at least one parent is a lawyer who sets it all up for the kid. It’s BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the kids who “publish” (I.e. their parents pay a prof to “work” with their kid and put their name on a paper).

Pretty sure no professors would go for this as a paid arrangement. Come on!

Junior assistant professors and lecturers do.

The big name New York private college counselors facilitate this for your kid….yes it happens. Quite easy tbh.

Remember who is reading the application. It’s usually mid to late 20s woman (super-liberal/woke) who majored in a soft major likely at that same institution. She’s not going to do deep research on whether or not this professor at a random - sometimes no name or lower ranked uni is reputable or not.

Ask me how I know.

The readers you describe are the first and/or second points of sorting/sifting in the process (sometimes the initial "read' is automated/algorithm). Do you think the senior AOs and Dean(s) who make the final decisions at elite, highly selective schools, usually through committees, don't know what is going on? Seriously asking your opinion.

DP here. They do, but the problem is that by that time the non-hustling kid may have been weeded out already. Unless the more experienced senior person reads every single application, your kid has to fit the first AO's criteria, just so he or she can show up for the second reading.

Some universities, like Georgetown, have a specific criteria for "service". If candidates don't score well in that category, they've lost before they can play. In that scenario, even a fake service (ie initiated by parents, massaged and exaggerated) is better than just getting the required number of SSL hours. I have a college freshman and 8th grader who did not/are not doing their own non-profits, so I don't have a personal bias here. I'm just drawing conclusions from what I've observed.

How have you "observed" that? Do you have insight into the process revealing what you have described?

I've observed, from my limited vantage point, that students, including mine, who had service experience that were difficult to measure and not "packaged", even though it was real and sincere, were rejected from certain schools where service is important, like Georgetown (academic stats being the same). I know kids going to Ivies who put much more strategic effort into their service goals: their non-profits or community service efforts are genuine and way beyond what my kid did, so I'm not complaining. They are also very slick, but maybe that's normal, because they come from very competent and thoughtful people. I also know a kid who got into Yale without any particular effort into service - but he did win a number of science olympiads and was otherwise a very well-rounded student.

Service is very appealing to a good number of selective schools, and in my opinion, it must be impossible for an admission officer to tell whether the effort was driven by the kid or by other people.

Having said all this, I don't find it upsetting. There are sneaky people everywhere at every stage of life. The barrier mostly comes down to the effort involved in creating this on behalf of a student. There aren't a lot of parents willing to do that, in the grand scheme of things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AOs like the marketing talent of promoting a nonprofit, and the leadership of conning other kids to work for you instead of themselves. It signals the values of future donors.

We're talking about colleges here, the kinda of bloated ineffectual nonprofits.

Chuckling as the mom of one of DD's friends tried to get our DD to set up the website for her DD's activity (teens working with early elementary kids over Zoom in COVID). We loved the activity and both our DDs participated from time to time, but our DD didn't like that the mom was making clear that this wasn't something DD could "claim" for college as if DD was even thinking that.

If your DD also did the activity, how in the world could the other mom block your DD from incorporating that into her applications? Bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the kids who “publish” (I.e. their parents pay a prof to “work” with their kid and put their name on a paper).

Pretty sure no professors would go for this as a paid arrangement. Come on!

Junior assistant professors and lecturers do.

The big name New York private college counselors facilitate this for your kid….yes it happens. Quite easy tbh.

Remember who is reading the application. It’s usually mid to late 20s woman (super-liberal/woke) who majored in a soft major likely at that same institution. She’s not going to do deep research on whether or not this professor at a random - sometimes no name or lower ranked uni is reputable or not.

Ask me how I know.

The readers you describe are the first and/or second points of sorting/sifting in the process (sometimes the initial "read' is automated/algorithm). Do you think the senior AOs and Dean(s) who make the final decisions at elite, highly selective schools, usually through committees, don't know what is going on? Seriously asking your opinion.

DP here. They do, but the problem is that by that time the non-hustling kid may have been weeded out already. Unless the more experienced senior person reads every single application, your kid has to fit the first AO's criteria, just so he or she can show up for the second reading.

Some universities, like Georgetown, have a specific criteria for "service". If candidates don't score well in that category, they've lost before they can play. In that scenario, even a fake service (ie initiated by parents, massaged and exaggerated) is better than just getting the required number of SSL hours. I have a college freshman and 8th grader who did not/are not doing their own non-profits, so I don't have a personal bias here. I'm just drawing conclusions from what I've observed.

How have you "observed" that? Do you have insight into the process revealing what you have described?

I've observed, from my limited vantage point, that students, including mine, who had service experience that were difficult to measure and not "packaged", even though it was real and sincere, were rejected from certain schools where service is important, like Georgetown (academic stats being the same). I know kids going to Ivies who put much more strategic effort into their service goals: their non-profits or community service efforts are genuine and way beyond what my kid did, so I'm not complaining. They are also very slick, but maybe that's normal, because they come from very competent and thoughtful people. I also know a kid who got into Yale without any particular effort into service - but he did win a number of science olympiads and was otherwise a very well-rounded student.

Service is very appealing to a good number of selective schools, and in my opinion, it must be impossible for an admission officer to tell whether the effort was driven by the kid or by other people.

Having said all this, I don't find it upsetting. There are sneaky people everywhere at every stage of life. The barrier mostly comes down to the effort involved in creating this on behalf of a student. There aren't a lot of parents willing to do that, in the grand scheme of things.

You say that the stats are the same but you don’t know that for certain. You also don’t know about the recommendations or other things in the application. You really can’t know if it was the service aspect that pushed the student over the admissions fence. That’s my point, don’t assume it was some silly, fake effort that you could tell but admissions officers couldn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the kids who “publish” (I.e. their parents pay a prof to “work” with their kid and put their name on a paper).

Pretty sure no professors would go for this as a paid arrangement. Come on!

Junior assistant professors and lecturers do.

The big name New York private college counselors facilitate this for your kid….yes it happens. Quite easy tbh.

Remember who is reading the application. It’s usually mid to late 20s woman (super-liberal/woke) who majored in a soft major likely at that same institution. She’s not going to do deep research on whether or not this professor at a random - sometimes no name or lower ranked uni is reputable or not.

Ask me how I know.

The readers you describe are the first and/or second points of sorting/sifting in the process (sometimes the initial "read' is automated/algorithm). Do you think the senior AOs and Dean(s) who make the final decisions at elite, highly selective schools, usually through committees, don't know what is going on? Seriously asking your opinion.

Have you actually sat through any college info sessions? No one in admissions is a rocket scientist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the kids who “publish” (I.e. their parents pay a prof to “work” with their kid and put their name on a paper).

Pretty sure no professors would go for this as a paid arrangement. Come on!

Junior assistant professors and lecturers do.

The big name New York private college counselors facilitate this for your kid….yes it happens. Quite easy tbh.

Remember who is reading the application. It’s usually mid to late 20s woman (super-liberal/woke) who majored in a soft major likely at that same institution. She’s not going to do deep research on whether or not this professor at a random - sometimes no name or lower ranked uni is reputable or not.

Ask me how I know.

The readers you describe are the first and/or second points of sorting/sifting in the process (sometimes the initial "read' is automated/algorithm). Do you think the senior AOs and Dean(s) who make the final decisions at elite, highly selective schools, usually through committees, don't know what is going on? Seriously asking your opinion.

Have you actually sat through any college info sessions? No one in admissions is a rocket scientist.

I have attended at least 10 and never heard from the Dean or senior AOs. The question remains. Is there a distinction between the initial readers and the senior AOs/Deans that make the final decisions? I know most of the senior AOs have more than 15 years of experience based on the admissions podcasts that I listen to. Some are lifers like the Dean’s at Dartmouth and Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the kids who “publish” (I.e. their parents pay a prof to “work” with their kid and put their name on a paper).

Pretty sure no professors would go for this as a paid arrangement. Come on!

Junior assistant professors and lecturers do.

The big name New York private college counselors facilitate this for your kid….yes it happens. Quite easy tbh.

Remember who is reading the application. It’s usually mid to late 20s woman (super-liberal/woke) who majored in a soft major likely at that same institution. She’s not going to do deep research on whether or not this professor at a random - sometimes no name or lower ranked uni is reputable or not.

Ask me how I know.

The readers you describe are the first and/or second points of sorting/sifting in the process (sometimes the initial "read' is automated/algorithm). Do you think the senior AOs and Dean(s) who make the final decisions at elite, highly selective schools, usually through committees, don't know what is going on? Seriously asking your opinion.

Have you actually sat through any college info sessions? No one in admissions is a rocket scientist.

I have attended at least 10 and never heard from the Dean or senior AOs. The question remains. Is there a distinction between the initial readers and the senior AOs/Deans that make the final decisions? I know most of the senior AOs have more than 15 years of experience based on the admissions podcasts that I listen to. Some are lifers like the Dean’s at Dartmouth and Harvard.

Admissions decisions are made by committee after presentations from the admissions officers. The deans are reviewing very few applications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the kids who “publish” (I.e. their parents pay a prof to “work” with their kid and put their name on a paper).

Pretty sure no professors would go for this as a paid arrangement. Come on!

Junior assistant professors and lecturers do.

The big name New York private college counselors facilitate this for your kid….yes it happens. Quite easy tbh.

Remember who is reading the application. It’s usually mid to late 20s woman (super-liberal/woke) who majored in a soft major likely at that same institution. She’s not going to do deep research on whether or not this professor at a random - sometimes no name or lower ranked uni is reputable or not.

Ask me how I know.

The readers you describe are the first and/or second points of sorting/sifting in the process (sometimes the initial "read' is automated/algorithm). Do you think the senior AOs and Dean(s) who make the final decisions at elite, highly selective schools, usually through committees, don't know what is going on? Seriously asking your opinion.

Have you actually sat through any college info sessions? No one in admissions is a rocket scientist.

I have attended at least 10 and never heard from the Dean or senior AOs. The question remains. Is there a distinction between the initial readers and the senior AOs/Deans that make the final decisions? I know most of the senior AOs have more than 15 years of experience based on the admissions podcasts that I listen to. Some are lifers like the Dean’s at Dartmouth and Harvard.

Admissions decisions are made by committee after presentations from the admissions officers. The deans are reviewing very few applications.

That makes sense. So is there a difference between readers and AOs? Are people with less than 5 years experience making committee decisions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:people, the average tenure of an AO post-covid is 18 months. they idea that these 24 year olds who ended up someone working for the college they graduated from because that's where they did their works study during undergrad have "seen it all" is laughable.

read Inside Higher Ed

I've read applications. Hundreds my first year alone. It doesn't take long to see it all. And through many hours of training, we got lots of direction from the higher-ups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every year countless nonprofits are founded by high schoolers, only never to be heard of after they graduate, am I missing the point here or are these just resume fillers?

They are Bull Shyat!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the kids who “publish” (I.e. their parents pay a prof to “work” with their kid and put their name on a paper).

Pretty sure no professors would go for this as a paid arrangement. Come on!

Junior assistant professors and lecturers do.

The big name New York private college counselors facilitate this for your kid….yes it happens. Quite easy tbh.

Remember who is reading the application. It’s usually mid to late 20s woman (super-liberal/woke) who majored in a soft major likely at that same institution. She’s not going to do deep research on whether or not this professor at a random - sometimes no name or lower ranked uni is reputable or not.

Ask me how I know.

The readers you describe are the first and/or second points of sorting/sifting in the process (sometimes the initial "read' is automated/algorithm). Do you think the senior AOs and Dean(s) who make the final decisions at elite, highly selective schools, usually through committees, don't know what is going on? Seriously asking your opinion.

Have you actually sat through any college info sessions? No one in admissions is a rocket scientist.

As opposed to you, who through this thoughtful, detailed, well-researched and factually supported post have firmly established yourself as an intellect for the ages, one upon whose words we eagerly await the next gem of wisdom to benefit all human existence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me of the kids who “publish” (I.e. their parents pay a prof to “work” with their kid and put their name on a paper).

Pretty sure no professors would go for this as a paid arrangement. Come on!

Junior assistant professors and lecturers do.

The big name New York private college counselors facilitate this for your kid….yes it happens. Quite easy tbh.

Remember who is reading the application. It’s usually mid to late 20s woman (super-liberal/woke) who majored in a soft major likely at that same institution. She’s not going to do deep research on whether or not this professor at a random - sometimes no name or lower ranked uni is reputable or not.

Ask me how I know.

The readers you describe are the first and/or second points of sorting/sifting in the process (sometimes the initial "read' is automated/algorithm). Do you think the senior AOs and Dean(s) who make the final decisions at elite, highly selective schools, usually through committees, don't know what is going on? Seriously asking your opinion.

Have you actually sat through any college info sessions? No one in admissions is a rocket scientist.

“But I’m so much smarter than the AO” I say as my child gets rejected with 4.0/1600 and my 18 straight years of curating their life goes down the toilet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AOs like the marketing talent of promoting a nonprofit, and the leadership of conning other kids to work for you instead of themselves. It signals the values of future donors.

We're talking about colleges here, the kinda of bloated ineffectual nonprofits.

Chuckling as the mom of one of DD's friends tried to get our DD to set up the website for her DD's activity (teens working with early elementary kids over Zoom in COVID). We loved the activity and both our DDs participated from time to time, but our DD didn't like that the mom was making clear that this wasn't something DD could "claim" for college as if DD was even thinking that.

If your DD also did the activity, how in the world could the other mom block your DD from incorporating that into her applications? Bizarre.

True, there was no way for her to block DD from incorporating in DD's college app if she so chose. Yet it is a small independent and talk travels. DD mature enough to realize, "this could just be too much trouble," so politely declined to handle the coding.

FWIW, DD had her own project, working one on one with female elementary students on coding. No non-profit, no glossy brochure - just her, the kid, and Zoom. She continued it until school resumed fully in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The trouble with the argument that these kids who set up do-gooder nonprofits--bogus though they perhaps may be--are the go-getters, is that the parents or expensive hired advisors are actually the drivers and facilitators of these enterprises. The whole teenage nonprofit craze started after the head of admissions at Harvard put out a letter saying they were going to start weighing character heavily in admissions decisions, and the rest of the highly selective places largely follow their lead.

What I don't get though is why they set up a new non profit. There are plenty of pre existing charities where the student can go and volunteer eg food donation programs, coding for girls, collecting used eye glasses, tutoring. I'd love for admissions officers to turn around and ask the student why they didn't join the volunteer team at AFAC or Martha's Table, and why they thought they as a 17 year old could do better than established charities

The other thing that gets me is the kids that get patents, usually in the same industry as mom or dad. Once they get to college, the drive for more patents seems to quickly disappear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The trouble with the argument that these kids who set up do-gooder nonprofits--bogus though they perhaps may be--are the go-getters, is that the parents or expensive hired advisors are actually the drivers and facilitators of these enterprises. The whole teenage nonprofit craze started after the head of admissions at Harvard put out a letter saying they were going to start weighing character heavily in admissions decisions, and the rest of the highly selective places largely follow their lead.

What I don't get though is why they set up a new non profit. There are plenty of pre existing charities where the student can go and volunteer eg food donation programs, coding for girls, collecting used eye glasses, tutoring. I'd love for admissions officers to turn around and ask the student why they didn't join the volunteer team at AFAC or Martha's Table, and why they thought they as a 17 year old could do better than established charities

The other thing that gets me is the kids that get patents, usually in the same industry as mom or dad. Once they get to college, the drive for more patents seems to quickly disappear.

If they show up to help Martha’s Table they will be one of hundreds of volunteers. Since they are 16, nobody will put them in charge of anything. They will be part of a system. They will have to be humble and start at the bottom and learn how things work.

If they start their own org they get to be CEO and SHOW LEADERSHIP AND INITIATIVE, they are in charge and may even have volunteers to boss around.

If the school values the BIG TITLE over the actual impact, then it works.

If the school cares about actual impact then it doesn’t.