Sounds like a wonderful opportunity that shows she is skilled and not afraid to explore and try new experiences away from home. It's not true pay-to-play because she will be performing, not just sitting in a classroom or something. Only students will the requisite skills can join this program, so it's not open access the way some pay-to-play programs are.

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.

Is there financial aid available at the activity for kids that don't have the resources to pay to play? If that is not available then obviously the activity is only going to be full of resourced students instead of need blind like some colleges and universities.

It's a matter of degrees (no pun intended) and outcome, meaning how much did you pay and what did your kid learn/accomplish as a result? Example: getting published in the Concord Review is huge, yet there are many inferior "journals" that charge high submission fees and essentially guarantee publication, so getting published in the former is a big plus whereas the latter is not. Another example: getting selected for an Olympic development program run by US Soccer, Rowing, etc. is huge and the camp will cost money but that demonstrates real athletic promise whereas Joe Schmoe's sports camp does not necessarily do that.

I think OP’s summer program is fine and it shows interest in the activity. But the staying in people’s houses gives me pause. What if there are pervy folks with hidden cameras and peepholes.

I studied abroad one summer and shared a rental with some students. Other students did home stays, and one dad was known for watching the American girls shower through a peephole. He never got in trouble for it; the school would just give him male home stay students (which the mom didn’t like because she had a girl herself).

Isn’t every extra curricular activity technically pay to play? I play for my kids to be on a soccer team, I pay for them to be on a swim team. I pay for SAT prep, I pay for music lessons. I pay for summer camp.

Where’s the line that is drawn that indicates it’s something “yucky”?

That is not pay to play.

Anonymous wrote: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.

They already know parent income via FAFSA, parent occupation, and high school kid attends. With any combination of that info they know how “privileged” an applicant is, even with seeing zero activities

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.

This!!!! Oh and then kids of gazillionaires - the epitome of privilege - are easily granted acceptances to these universities … but God forbid an upper middle class kid does a $3000 pay-to-play summer program … because … PRIVILEGE!! Go figure !

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Being strategic doesn't mean lying. The PPs all referred to describing it as a meaningful activity vs presenting it as an achievement.

I suppose you're asking because you hope the pay to play program would boost your DC's admission odds. If you don't care, you would not need to ask. It's your money and your DC would have fun for the fun sake.

As a PP mentioned, it would suggest interest and privilege as in financial capacity, but not achievement. Of course, the interest in the activity may help the AO better understand DC as a person if done right. If it's presented as an achievement, however, it may not be credible.

It is all in the phrasing and packaging (sorry - I feel nauseous using these terms but that's how the game is played).

I have always enjoyed kabuki theater (making this up) and have participated in it throughout my youth. I like it for reasons X, Y and Z. I was chosen (make sure to say chosen and that it isn't just available to anyone who can pay) to participate in a capstone tour in Europe where we performed for paying audiences. Participating with the top kabuki-ers while also getting to experience other cultures was incredible, particularly because kabuki served as a great bridge to the residents of these countries so we had very meaningful interactions.

Blah, blah, blah. Not the best but you get the point.

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.

OP here, I so agree!

She's definitely going to do it, and I think it's great, I'm just wondering how to describe it to avoid any pitfalls. It's not "selective" in the sense that they're turning away tons of applicants, but it's at a high enough level of ability that people (who aren't their loving parents) pay to see their shows. She will come across as a theater kid and a (hopefully endearing) weirdo whether she does this camp or not, so I'm not concerned about that. I just feel like if she's doing so much of this camp, it will be 4 weeks every summer for 4 years, it seems like leaving it off the application would seem like she didn't do much at all with her summers.

I don't want DD to come across as privileged in her upbringing, of course, though I wonder if that's possible when we're likely to be near-full pay. Her high school is a perfectly fine public and she has a retail job which will be listed. The funny part is that this camp is not that expensive if you go to the US-based version. It's less per week than some of her non-sleepaway activities.

It means it is not competitive but subject to ability to pay.
It is not something to brag about but can be a good personal experience, like, say, an expensive rental in Newport. I.e., no, you don't own there, aren't part of the community and are a "come-here" but it's a nice way to spend some of your time.

MT pay yeti play programs are A-Ok! I guess some adjacent ones are too.

I thought nowadays colleges were looking for full pay signaling and pay to play was ok. It also shows intellectual curiosity to dive deeper into an interest. I think it could show depth if done correctly to challenge oneself outside of school. Times are achanging