Anonymous wrote:The problem is showing privilege. Which is always funny to me when they don’t mind charging us $90k a year but heaven forbid we paid for a cool experience that may have been meaningful.

Love this take, so true.

The issue with listing pay to play on applications is that it reveals privilege.

There's no problem with partaking in them. Your kid may find it educational and enriching and an opportunity to grow. No one will begrudge them for participating. It's just not impressive from an admissions standpoint. Some AOs will turn their nose up if applicants treat them as if they are accomplishments when they are mostly something mom and dad bought for them. But no one minds if the kid participates in them.

I don’t really understand the problem with pay to play. Any program that doesn’t cost money but is desirable alway have a stipulation of having preferences for underprivileged, URM, and/or first gen kids.

Anonymous wrote:The program the OP describes sounds fine and does have the pay to play stink that so many other programs do. Just make sure that if interviewed, she can describe it in a meaningful way that emphasizes that it was a great chance to enhance her skill and not flitting around Europe getting drunk and hooking up, which is what so many of these programs are.

"Teen tour" is a four letter word in college admissions.

Agree. I know kids who did similar programs and while I don't know that it was an enormous boost to their applications, it didn't hurt.

The program the OP describes sounds fine and does have the pay to play stink that so many other programs do. Just make sure that if interviewed, she can describe it in a meaningful way that emphasizes that it was a great chance to enhance her skill and not flitting around Europe getting drunk and hooking up, which is what so many of these programs are.

"Teen tour" is a four letter word in college admissions.

It is ironic that schools seem to discourage pay-to-play programs in their admissions processes yet so many of the same schools operate ridiculously expensive pay-to-play programs for HS students to attend in the summer.

Your daughter should do it if you can afford it because she will enjoy this, if she really wants to go and wants the experience. That’s the only reason to do it. We pay a lot more than this yearly for a sport DD has no desire to play in college. Clubs sports are also pay to play. We do it because we can and she enjoys it. Nothing more.

The problem is showing privilege. Which is always funny to me when they don’t mind charging us $90k a year but heaven forbid we paid for a cool experience that may have been meaningful.

Anonymous wrote:She should do it because she wants to. DC toured Europe with his choir which was a great experience and his voice improved, but he didn't have space to mention the touring Europe part on the common app when describing choir. Your daughter will improve her talent regardless and you can be strategic in how you describe the experience.

Lie?

She should do it because she wants to. DC toured Europe with his choir which was a great experience and his voice improved, but he didn't have space to mention the touring Europe part on the common app when describing choir. Your daughter will improve her talent regardless and you can be strategic in how you describe the experience.

It's a camp. It will be looked at as a camp activity. I'm not dissing it by saying that at all. Going to a camp is a fine activity and a camp isn't really considered a pay for play activity.

Pay-to-play isn't "bad" per se, it just means something isn't competitive. Anyone who can pay for it can attend/participate. So it reflects some interest and dedication of resources, but it does not reflect achievement or merit. That's all.

That said, she should do it because she enjoys it.

My son was invited to a pay to play thing for band, but it was $10k. I don't think it will read as particularly impressive.

I understand that it's not impressive to do an open-admissions program that takes everyone who can pay the bill. But does that mean that if the parents pay for the activity and it's not super competitive, it's automatically "pay-to-play" and that's bad?

The context is that DD, a rising junior, is signed up for this particular sleepaway camp which goes to a not-so-expensive area in Europe to do a niche style of [music/theater/dance] (I'm making this vague on purpose) and tours around doing performances and staying at the homes of other people who do this activity themselves too. She's done the US-based version of it and wants to level up and experience traveling Europe without her parents. I see a lot of benefit to it both in the quality of the activity and as a valuable life experience overall. But it's so niche that they don't really have a ton of applicants. The tuition is $3K plus the flights, which strikes me as reasonable given how many weeks it is-- of course it costs money to feed a bunch of teens and drive them around even if you aren't paying for housing, and all programs have to pay their staff. Would this be stigmatizing as "pay-to-play", or is that more of a term used in sciences and sports and doesn't work the same way in the arts?