Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be like comparing someone's GPA from Harvard to someone's GPA from U Conn for purposes of law school admission and then saying the U Conn applicant is more deserving because he got a 3.8 vs the Harvard applicant at 3.6. And then dismissing the objections of the Harvard applicant as "privileged" whining without any other information. The overall point is that a GPA from a hard high school is different from a GPA at an easy high school and that should be recognized based on a concept of fairness. And we are talking here about regular kids, not the son of a Saudi prince vs an orphan who had 3 jobs.

Wealthy high schools actually have the most grade inflation.

Top ranked schools known for their rigor tend to have higher requirements for top grades. Everyone knows this.

https://www.the74million.org/study-grade-inflation-more-prevalent-at-wealthy-schools-where-parents-have-greater-ability-to-game-the-system/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be like comparing someone's GPA from Harvard to someone's GPA from U Conn for purposes of law school admission and then saying the U Conn applicant is more deserving because he got a 3.8 vs the Harvard applicant at 3.6. And then dismissing the objections of the Harvard applicant as "privileged" whining without any other information. The overall point is that a GPA from a hard high school is different from a GPA at an easy high school and that should be recognized based on a concept of fairness. And we are talking here about regular kids, not the son of a Saudi prince vs an orphan who had 3 jobs.

Wealthy high schools actually have the most grade inflation.

Top ranked schools known for their rigor tend to have higher requirements for top grades. Everyone knows this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be like comparing someone's GPA from Harvard to someone's GPA from U Conn for purposes of law school admission and then saying the U Conn applicant is more deserving because he got a 3.8 vs the Harvard applicant at 3.6. And then dismissing the objections of the Harvard applicant as "privileged" whining without any other information. The overall point is that a GPA from a hard high school is different from a GPA at an easy high school and that should be recognized based on a concept of fairness. And we are talking here about regular kids, not the son of a Saudi prince vs an orphan who had 3 jobs.

I don’t think you can generalize an entire high school as being “easy” or “hard.“

I mean, you can.

Anonymous wrote:It would be like comparing someone's GPA from Harvard to someone's GPA from U Conn for purposes of law school admission and then saying the U Conn applicant is more deserving because he got a 3.8 vs the Harvard applicant at 3.6. And then dismissing the objections of the Harvard applicant as "privileged" whining without any other information. The overall point is that a GPA from a hard high school is different from a GPA at an easy high school and that should be recognized based on a concept of fairness. And we are talking here about regular kids, not the son of a Saudi prince vs an orphan who had 3 jobs.

I don’t think you can generalize an entire high school as being “easy” or “hard.“

Anonymous wrote:It would be like comparing someone's GPA from Harvard to someone's GPA from U Conn for purposes of law school admission and then saying the U Conn applicant is more deserving because he got a 3.8 vs the Harvard applicant at 3.6. And then dismissing the objections of the Harvard applicant as "privileged" whining without any other information. The overall point is that a GPA from a hard high school is different from a GPA at an easy high school and that should be recognized based on a concept of fairness. And we are talking here about regular kids, not the son of a Saudi prince vs an orphan who had 3 jobs.

Wealthy high schools actually have the most grade inflation.

It would be like comparing someone's GPA from Harvard to someone's GPA from U Conn for purposes of law school admission and then saying the U Conn applicant is more deserving because he got a 3.8 vs the Harvard applicant at 3.6. And then dismissing the objections of the Harvard applicant as "privileged" whining without any other information. The overall point is that a GPA from a hard high school is different from a GPA at an easy high school and that should be recognized based on a concept of fairness. And we are talking here about regular kids, not the son of a Saudi prince vs an orphan who had 3 jobs.

Point taken. I went to a prestigious boarding school in New England. To this day the college acceptance list is basically the same at pretty much any high school.

I am that person. The point was not compare a genuine hardship scenario to an affluence situation... it was more contrasting let's say a top 3 public high school in a state to a top 20. Maybe at the top 3 high school, the average family income is somewhat higher. But the idea that the kid at the mediocre high school should have an advantage over the kid at the tough high school seems wrong, just because grading is easier there. But I think that is what is going on now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:affluent high school.

Background: I went to a high school that has a 3/10 on GreatSchools in the rust belt. The average SAT was in the 900s. The school had no dedicated “college counselors”; no lacrosse, field hockey, volleyball or golf teams; no Calc BC, AP Physics C, AP foreign languages or AP Art; and no academic clubs like Science Olympiad or internships. No one could afford club sports to be recruitable for athletics, not that there were many club teams nearby anyway. We had to use clear backpacks everyday and wear uniforms. The guidance counselors knew absolutely nothing about applying to top colleges. Once every three years or so, the valedictorian would go to a school like the Ivy located in our state.

It’s beyond insulting that someone would think that students at such a school have an “advantage” in applying to elite schools. Students from high schools like these are few and far between at top colleges. The kids who do get in from such schools are busting their butts organizing their whole lives themselves.

So spare me.

Pennsylvania?

Has to be. Where else in the rust belt is there an ivy?

Parts of Connecticut & New York (state) are considered rust belt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:affluent high school.

Background: I went to a high school that has a 3/10 on GreatSchools in the rust belt. The average SAT was in the 900s. The school had no dedicated “college counselors”; no lacrosse, field hockey, volleyball or golf teams; no Calc BC, AP Physics C, AP foreign languages or AP Art; and no academic clubs like Science Olympiad or internships. No one could afford club sports to be recruitable for athletics, not that there were many club teams nearby anyway. We had to use clear backpacks everyday and wear uniforms. The guidance counselors knew absolutely nothing about applying to top colleges. Once every three years or so, the valedictorian would go to a school like the Ivy located in our state.

It’s beyond insulting that someone would think that students at such a school have an “advantage” in applying to elite schools. Students from high schools like these are few and far between at top colleges. The kids who do get in from such schools are busting their butts organizing their whole lives themselves.

So spare me.

Pennsylvania?

Has to be. Where else in the rust belt is there an ivy?

I sort of agree with you and sort of don’t. What year did you graduate? Depending on how old you are, things may have changed drastically since you were applying to colleges. I was Class of ‘92 and attended a high school similar to yours. Rust belt, no one was affluent, a very small percentage of the adult population had a 4 year degree, our school offered exactly one AP course (Calculus), guidance counselors had no clue how to get people into good colleges.

I don’t know a single kid who did any sort of SAT prep. I don’t know how far we would have had to drive to get to prep classes since online classes weren’t a thing yet. I was a National Merit Scholar because back then, you could actually do it without any prep. The NMS from our town a year or two before me went to Harvard. I’ve long wondered if back then, coming from a school like ours made you a sort of diversity pick.

Everything is different now, though. My podunk high school offers a range of AP classes, plus a program offered through a satellite campus of our flagship state school that allows high school students to take college classes. Even in small, economically challenged towns, people are prepping for the SAT and even PSAT. Some colleges are test optional. Everything is just way more competitive now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:affluent high school.

Background: I went to a high school that has a 3/10 on GreatSchools in the rust belt. The average SAT was in the 900s. The school had no dedicated “college counselors”; no lacrosse, field hockey, volleyball or golf teams; no Calc BC, AP Physics C, AP foreign languages or AP Art; and no academic clubs like Science Olympiad or internships. No one could afford club sports to be recruitable for athletics, not that there were many club teams nearby anyway. We had to use clear backpacks everyday and wear uniforms. The guidance counselors knew absolutely nothing about applying to top colleges. Once every three years or so, the valedictorian would go to a school like the Ivy located in our state.

It’s beyond insulting that someone would think that students at such a school have an “advantage” in applying to elite schools. Students from high schools like these are few and far between at top colleges. The kids who do get in from such schools are busting their butts organizing their whole lives themselves.

So spare me.

Pennsylvania?

I’m not OP, but the description wasn’t far from my high school in suburban MD.

Couldn't agree more.

Anonymous wrote:affluent high school.

Background: I went to a high school that has a 3/10 on GreatSchools in the rust belt. The average SAT was in the 900s. The school had no dedicated “college counselors”; no lacrosse, field hockey, volleyball or golf teams; no Calc BC, AP Physics C, AP foreign languages or AP Art; and no academic clubs like Science Olympiad or internships. No one could afford club sports to be recruitable for athletics, not that there were many club teams nearby anyway. We had to use clear backpacks everyday and wear uniforms. The guidance counselors knew absolutely nothing about applying to top colleges. Once every three years or so, the valedictorian would go to a school like the Ivy located in our state.

It’s beyond insulting that someone would think that students at such a school have an “advantage” in applying to elite schools. Students from high schools like these are few and far between at top colleges. The kids who do get in from such schools are busting their butts organizing their whole lives themselves.

So spare me.

Pennsylvania?

affluent high school.

Background: I went to a high school that has a 3/10 on GreatSchools in the rust belt. The average SAT was in the 900s. The school had no dedicated “college counselors”; no lacrosse, field hockey, volleyball or golf teams; no Calc BC, AP Physics C, AP foreign languages or AP Art; and no academic clubs like Science Olympiad or internships. No one could afford club sports to be recruitable for athletics, not that there were many club teams nearby anyway. We had to use clear backpacks everyday and wear uniforms. The guidance counselors knew absolutely nothing about applying to top colleges. Once every three years or so, the valedictorian would go to a school like the Ivy located in our state.

It’s beyond insulting that someone would think that students at such a school have an “advantage” in applying to elite schools. Students from high schools like these are few and far between at top colleges. The kids who do get in from such schools are busting their butts organizing their whole lives themselves.

So spare me.