Anonymous wrote:I don't care if T20s/Ivies and all the rest admit wealthier kids or that wealthier kids tend to have better EC opportunities than regular kids. I just want T20s/Ivies/etal to stop pretending that they show no preference (we are "holistic" in our admissions) - what a joke
Anonymous wrote:How come colleges say they only expect students to take the most difficult courses offered by their school, but don't apply the same to extracurriculars?Anonymous wrote:It's not that they serve as a proxy or some sort of secret signal of wealth. It's that colleges want students who are well rounded, and wealth allows you to pursue more ECs, or pursue the more extensively. So the wealthy student has an advantage. There was a time when ECs were by and large something you did through schools (sports, music, etc.) so theoretically everyone was operating on the same playing field. Not so much the case anymore.
Because you have to fly to beach locales?Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sailing
Rowing
Equestrian
Lacrosse
Ski Racing
Not sure, my kids did sailing, rowing, lacrosse, golf but most expensive was volleyball.
Anonymous wrote:Sailing
Rowing
Equestrian
Lacrosse
Ski Racing
Anonymous wrote:No. How much you spend on it doesn't matter. You can spend a million on your kid's football training, or have his come up through an inner city football program. You can spend a fortune on film equipment and camps or you can send your kid to the free film course in the city. And so on. In the end, your kid either has talent for a scholarship or not; and if not, then they are both in the same boat with the same activities on the page.
How come colleges say they only expect students to take the most difficult courses offered by their school, but don't apply the same to extracurriculars?Anonymous wrote:It's not that they serve as a proxy or some sort of secret signal of wealth. It's that colleges want students who are well rounded, and wealth allows you to pursue more ECs, or pursue the more extensively. So the wealthy student has an advantage. There was a time when ECs were by and large something you did through schools (sports, music, etc.) so theoretically everyone was operating on the same playing field. Not so much the case anymore.
Yes, and a much better one than SAT/GPA.Anonymous wrote:That is the impression I am getting as I learn about this process.
Anonymous wrote:No. How much you spend on it doesn't matter. You can spend a million on your kid's football training, or have his come up through an inner city football program. You can spend a fortune on film equipment and camps or you can send your kid to the free film course in the city. And so on. In the end, your kid either has talent for a scholarship or not; and if not, then they are both in the same boat with the same activities on the page.
Anonymous wrote:Colleges already know who is wealthy. If you don't fill out a fafsa or CSS for the college, they pretty much know you don't need aid. And if you do fill it out, then they know the family income, assets, etc.
they have to keep doing it so they can find ramanujansAnonymous wrote:I don't care if T20s/Ivies and all the rest admit wealthier kids or that wealthier kids tend to have better EC opportunities than regular kids. I just want T20s/Ivies/etal to stop pretending that they show no preference (we are "holistic" in our admissions) - what a joke