Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

Absolute rubbish. Only about 7% of high school athletes play in college (2% play division I), and that number includes kids who are not UMC or white. Many UMC white kids are not even athletes. Very far from being “plenty of opportunity” especially as a hook to an elite school.

Top SLACs (Division 3) have 33% or more recruited athletes; these athletes are far more white — and wealthy — than these schools’ general student population.

You are missing the point. The PP distinguished between UMC white kids and “rich kids” (private and boarding school kids). Then another PP said the former group (not-rich UMC white kids) still have “plenty of opportunities” as athletes. I disagreed, because there’s not a lot of athletes and many of them are not UMC (they are rich) or white. You are actually supporting my point - these white wealthy SLAC athletes are very often rich private school kids NOT regular suburban UMC kids. Thus the point stands that sports are not a major opportunity for regular non-rich UMC white kids.

Not quite.

You act as if these selective D3 SLACs are all filled with private school students. For most selective colleges, the majority of admits come from public schools: the suburban schools populated by UMC whites. If you're rich, the student does not need a hook like sports: just pay the full freight tuition. Most of the athletic slots for a multitude of sports are filled by UMC whites that use the athletic recruiting as a hook to get admitted.

The athletic slots are not being filled by Asians, and contrary to opinion, not by many URMs either. UMC whites are the primary beneficiaries. And upwards of a third of an incoming freshman class being recruited athletes is a lot.

Aside from the athletic angle, who do you think is filling up the majority of these state schools, flagship or otherwise? UMC whites.

Swarthmore women’s tennis: from Calabasas, Princeton, Greenwich, U Chicago Lab school

Wellesley women's tennis: Beverly Hills, Seoul, Seoul, Pacific Palisades, Episcopal School of Dallas (Chang,Chu, Lee, Lee, Mu, Shen, and Tran on the roster)

Lots of these schools have teams made up of primarily foreign students too.

Money, money, money.

Cherry picking are you (women's tennis - only - for 2 schools)?

66% of Swarthmore's incoming class is from public / charter schools.

65% of Wellesley's incoming class is from public/ charter schools.

Historically, the percentage hasn't changed much.

UMC whites.

Now do your state school.

Do keep up. Recruited athletes, not gen pop

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My hot take - kids think they want one type of school - small/big/rural/city/LAC/STEM -- and parents/counselors twist themselves into knots trying to find the perfect fit when in fact, kids could be happy and successful at any school. The messaging should be- here is what is available in our $/convenience and your admissions possibility - let's figure out how to make you successful there. Too much emphasis on kid's preferences.

I agree the discussion/research should definitely start with this but there really is a lot of variety within that. I'm not going to indulge my kid's desire to go to California or pay $80k to go to a private school that doesn't give merit aid. But within the same budget/distance parameters, one kid only wanted to look a big state Us while the other only wants rural-ish LAC type schools. And I could see that both were drawn to schools that I also thought would fit their personalities. Both had plenty of options. I wasn't going to push my big state U kid to apply to LACs. He's happy at VT. And, I'm not making my LAC kid apply to VT. She has LACs that give merit on the list but also UMW because I insist on an instate admissions/financial safety.

I am the PP and I agree that Virginia has way more options within the public system - I think VA is pretty unique in that. Many states don't have too many public options - just a few schools. I just am trying to suggest that a kid who might not have public LAC options could still thrive at a VT type school. I have met so many adults now who didn't have the choices (and the angst that can come with too many choices) who just got told here are the two or even only option and they found their success there. It has made me rethink my experience and when my kids were applying - my mantra was you can find a way to succeed and be happy at any school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

Absolute rubbish. Only about 7% of high school athletes play in college (2% play division I), and that number includes kids who are not UMC or white. Many UMC white kids are not even athletes. Very far from being “plenty of opportunity” especially as a hook to an elite school.

Top SLACs (Division 3) have 33% or more recruited athletes; these athletes are far more white — and wealthy — than these schools’ general student population.

You are missing the point. The PP distinguished between UMC white kids and “rich kids” (private and boarding school kids). Then another PP said the former group (not-rich UMC white kids) still have “plenty of opportunities” as athletes. I disagreed, because there’s not a lot of athletes and many of them are not UMC (they are rich) or white. You are actually supporting my point - these white wealthy SLAC athletes are very often rich private school kids NOT regular suburban UMC kids. Thus the point stands that sports are not a major opportunity for regular non-rich UMC white kids.

Not quite.

You act as if these selective D3 SLACs are all filled with private school students. For most selective colleges, the majority of admits come from public schools: the suburban schools populated by UMC whites. If you're rich, the student does not need a hook like sports: just pay the full freight tuition. Most of the athletic slots for a multitude of sports are filled by UMC whites that use the athletic recruiting as a hook to get admitted.

The athletic slots are not being filled by Asians, and contrary to opinion, not by many URMs either. UMC whites are the primary beneficiaries. And upwards of a third of an incoming freshman class being recruited athletes is a lot.

Aside from the athletic angle, who do you think is filling up the majority of these state schools, flagship or otherwise? UMC whites.

Swarthmore women’s tennis: from Calabasas, Princeton, Greenwich, U Chicago Lab school

Wellesley women's tennis: Beverly Hills, Seoul, Seoul, Pacific Palisades, Episcopal School of Dallas (Chang,Chu, Lee, Lee, Mu, Shen, and Tran on the roster)

Lots of these schools have teams made up of primarily foreign students too.

Money, money, money.

Cherry picking are you (women's tennis - only - for 2 schools)?

66% of Swarthmore's incoming class is from public / charter schools.

65% of Wellesley's incoming class is from public/ charter schools.

Historically, the percentage hasn't changed much.

UMC whites.

Now do your state school.

How any of those 65% are white UMC. You’ve veered off topic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

Absolute rubbish. Only about 7% of high school athletes play in college (2% play division I), and that number includes kids who are not UMC or white. Many UMC white kids are not even athletes. Very far from being “plenty of opportunity” especially as a hook to an elite school.

Top SLACs (Division 3) have 33% or more recruited athletes; these athletes are far more white — and wealthy — than these schools’ general student population.

You are missing the point. The PP distinguished between UMC white kids and “rich kids” (private and boarding school kids). Then another PP said the former group (not-rich UMC white kids) still have “plenty of opportunities” as athletes. I disagreed, because there’s not a lot of athletes and many of them are not UMC (they are rich) or white. You are actually supporting my point - these white wealthy SLAC athletes are very often rich private school kids NOT regular suburban UMC kids. Thus the point stands that sports are not a major opportunity for regular non-rich UMC white kids.

Not quite.

You act as if these selective D3 SLACs are all filled with private school students. For most selective colleges, the majority of admits come from public schools: the suburban schools populated by UMC whites. If you're rich, the student does not need a hook like sports: just pay the full freight tuition. Most of the athletic slots for a multitude of sports are filled by UMC whites that use the athletic recruiting as a hook to get admitted.

The athletic slots are not being filled by Asians, and contrary to opinion, not by many URMs either. UMC whites are the primary beneficiaries. And upwards of a third of an incoming freshman class being recruited athletes is a lot.

Aside from the athletic angle, who do you think is filling up the majority of these state schools, flagship or otherwise? UMC whites.

Swarthmore women’s tennis: from Calabasas, Princeton, Greenwich, U Chicago Lab school

Wellesley women's tennis: Beverly Hills, Seoul, Seoul, Pacific Palisades, Episcopal School of Dallas (Chang,Chu, Lee, Lee, Mu, Shen, and Tran on the roster)

Lots of these schools have teams made up of primarily foreign students too.

Money, money, money.

Cherry picking are you (women's tennis - only - for 2 schools)?

66% of Swarthmore's incoming class is from public / charter schools.

65% of Wellesley's incoming class is from public/ charter schools.

Historically, the percentage hasn't changed much.

UMC whites.

Now do your state school.

Someone specifically said SLACS were full of white UMC athletes. I gave you SLACS.

My state school: most coming straight out of full time tennis academies ($$$) and from Italy and Spain.

Anonymous wrote:My hot take - kids think they want one type of school - small/big/rural/city/LAC/STEM -- and parents/counselors twist themselves into knots trying to find the perfect fit when in fact, kids could be happy and successful at any school. The messaging should be- here is what is available in our $/convenience and your admissions possibility - let's figure out how to make you successful there. Too much emphasis on kid's preferences.

I agree the discussion/research should definitely start with this but there really is a lot of variety within that. I'm not going to indulge my kid's desire to go to California or pay $80k to go to a private school that doesn't give merit aid. But within the same budget/distance parameters, one kid only wanted to look a big state Us while the other only wants rural-ish LAC type schools. And I could see that both were drawn to schools that I also thought would fit their personalities. Both had plenty of options. I wasn't going to push my big state U kid to apply to LACs. He's happy at VT. And, I'm not making my LAC kid apply to VT. She has LACs that give merit on the list but also UMW because I insist on an instate admissions/financial safety.

The messaging should be- here is what is available in our $/convenience and your admissions possibility - let's figure out how to make you successful there.

This 100%.

My hot take - kids think they want one type of school - small/big/rural/city/LAC/STEM -- and parents/counselors twist themselves into knots trying to find the perfect fit when in fact, kids could be happy and successful at any school. The messaging should be- here is what is available in our $/convenience and your admissions possibility - let's figure out how to make you successful there. Too much emphasis on kid's preferences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dual enrollment is a scam. Not all schools accept the classes depending on the major.

Those who don’t test well on STUPID STANDARIZED tests still do amazingly well in life.

What is your definition of not testing well? Anyone with basic reading and writing skills can get an above average score.

Are you joking or from lake wobegon?

It's easy to compete against kids that go to underprivileged schools and kids that take certain tests as a graduation requirement. There are very few good excuses for a bad score on the SAT/ACT if you went to a half decent school and have a personal computer.

I was referring to your use of the word average and your statement that there’s no excuse for not getting an above average score. Do you know how averages work? In Lake Wobegon all the kids are above average.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

Absolute rubbish. Only about 7% of high school athletes play in college (2% play division I), and that number includes kids who are not UMC or white. Many UMC white kids are not even athletes. Very far from being “plenty of opportunity” especially as a hook to an elite school.

Top SLACs (Division 3) have 33% or more recruited athletes; these athletes are far more white — and wealthy — than these schools’ general student population.

You are missing the point. The PP distinguished between UMC white kids and “rich kids” (private and boarding school kids). Then another PP said the former group (not-rich UMC white kids) still have “plenty of opportunities” as athletes. I disagreed, because there’s not a lot of athletes and many of them are not UMC (they are rich) or white. You are actually supporting my point - these white wealthy SLAC athletes are very often rich private school kids NOT regular suburban UMC kids. Thus the point stands that sports are not a major opportunity for regular non-rich UMC white kids.

Not quite.

You act as if these selective D3 SLACs are all filled with private school students. For most selective colleges, the majority of admits come from public schools: the suburban schools populated by UMC whites. If you're rich, the student does not need a hook like sports: just pay the full freight tuition. Most of the athletic slots for a multitude of sports are filled by UMC whites that use the athletic recruiting as a hook to get admitted.

The athletic slots are not being filled by Asians, and contrary to opinion, not by many URMs either. UMC whites are the primary beneficiaries. And upwards of a third of an incoming freshman class being recruited athletes is a lot.

Aside from the athletic angle, who do you think is filling up the majority of these state schools, flagship or otherwise? UMC whites.

Swarthmore women’s tennis: from Calabasas, Princeton, Greenwich, U Chicago Lab school

Wellesley women's tennis: Beverly Hills, Seoul, Seoul, Pacific Palisades, Episcopal School of Dallas (Chang,Chu, Lee, Lee, Mu, Shen, and Tran on the roster)

Lots of these schools have teams made up of primarily foreign students too.

Money, money, money.

Cherry picking are you (women's tennis - only - for 2 schools)?

66% of Swarthmore's incoming class is from public / charter schools.

65% of Wellesley's incoming class is from public/ charter schools.

Historically, the percentage hasn't changed much.

UMC whites.

Now do your state school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

Absolute rubbish. Only about 7% of high school athletes play in college (2% play division I), and that number includes kids who are not UMC or white. Many UMC white kids are not even athletes. Very far from being “plenty of opportunity” especially as a hook to an elite school.

Top SLACs (Division 3) have 33% or more recruited athletes; these athletes are far more white — and wealthy — than these schools’ general student population.

You are missing the point. The PP distinguished between UMC white kids and “rich kids” (private and boarding school kids). Then another PP said the former group (not-rich UMC white kids) still have “plenty of opportunities” as athletes. I disagreed, because there’s not a lot of athletes and many of them are not UMC (they are rich) or white. You are actually supporting my point - these white wealthy SLAC athletes are very often rich private school kids NOT regular suburban UMC kids. Thus the point stands that sports are not a major opportunity for regular non-rich UMC white kids.

Not quite.

You act as if these selective D3 SLACs are all filled with private school students. For most selective colleges, the majority of admits come from public schools: the suburban schools populated by UMC whites. If you're rich, the student does not need a hook like sports: just pay the full freight tuition. Most of the athletic slots for a multitude of sports are filled by UMC whites that use the athletic recruiting as a hook to get admitted.

The athletic slots are not being filled by Asians, and contrary to opinion, not by many URMs either. UMC whites are the primary beneficiaries. And upwards of a third of an incoming freshman class being recruited athletes is a lot.

Aside from the athletic angle, who do you think is filling up the majority of these state schools, flagship or otherwise? UMC whites.

Swarthmore women’s tennis: from Calabasas, Princeton, Greenwich, U Chicago Lab school

Wellesley women's tennis: Beverly Hills, Seoul, Seoul, Pacific Palisades, Episcopal School of Dallas (Chang,Chu, Lee, Lee, Mu, Shen, and Tran on the roster)

Lots of these schools have teams made up of primarily foreign students too.

Money, money, money.

The game is rigged. I mean the game has always been rigged but now people are becoming more aware of it? MC and UMC parents are scared shitless of losing ground in American society so they project all their fears onto the kids by trying to get them into the perfect college. Tutoring, countless hours of travel sports, worrying about getting into AAP, etc, etc. Not sure how the MC is supposed to compete. They aren't poor enough to attract colleges but don't have the $$$ to keep up with the antics of the UMC.
My generation could study hard, pick up a few ECs for fun (yes fun!), try a sport or two and get into at the very least the top state flagship. I feel for kids who now have to be damn near perfect to get into certain schools. IMO, it's not worth it. If the kid is self motivated/driven and passionate about XYZ, sure. I will push my kids to excel and pursue their interests not build a portfolio starting in ES. IDGAF if DC wants to stick to rec sport vs. travel so she can pursue other interests bc I have no delusions that she is going to be playing in college. Your kid loves a sport and wants to pursue it? Cool! But the amount of parents talking about college prospects when the kid is 10 is just bananas. I guess my controversial opinion is that the rat race is not worth it. I look at this forum for tips on what to do as much as what NOT to do.
Kids themselves are starting to question the get into top 20 schools at all costs narrative because they realize hard work does not translate into getting into top choices.
FYI-an article on the intense style of parenting: https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/01/intensive-helicopter-parenting-inequality/580528/
How you need $$$ now to participate in sports: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/income-inequality-explains-decline-youth-sports/574975/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dual enrollment is a scam. Not all schools accept the classes depending on the major.

Those who don’t test well on STUPID STANDARIZED tests still do amazingly well in life.

What is your definition of not testing well? Anyone with basic reading and writing skills can get an above average score.

Are you joking or from lake wobegon?

It's easy to compete against kids that go to underprivileged schools and kids that take certain tests as a graduation requirement. There are very few good excuses for a bad score on the SAT/ACT if you went to a half decent school and have a personal computer.

Anonymous wrote:Dual enrollment is a scam. Not all schools accept the classes depending on the major.

Those who don’t test well on STUPID STANDARIZED tests still do amazingly well in life.

I agree with Dual enrollment being a scam. I don't really know anyone that has benefited from this scam. My 2 kids did multiple dual enrollment classes - none of them transferred or received credit at college.

Anonymous wrote:Admissions should be race blind.

100000%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upper middle class white kids are in a dead zone for admissions unless they’re a recruitable athlete. They’re in the same pile as rich kids, private and boarding school kids but have a fraction of the resources. Especially if you live in a high COL area.

And moving in high school should be considered the disadvantage that it is.

Correct.

But with squash, field hockey, volleyball, lacrosse, baseball, golf, tennis, wrestling, water polo, fencing, cross country, etc, etc, etc, there's plenty of opportunities for UMC white kids to get a hook.

Absolute rubbish. Only about 7% of high school athletes play in college (2% play division I), and that number includes kids who are not UMC or white. Many UMC white kids are not even athletes. Very far from being “plenty of opportunity” especially as a hook to an elite school.

Top SLACs (Division 3) have 33% or more recruited athletes; these athletes are far more white — and wealthy — than these schools’ general student population.

You are missing the point. The PP distinguished between UMC white kids and “rich kids” (private and boarding school kids). Then another PP said the former group (not-rich UMC white kids) still have “plenty of opportunities” as athletes. I disagreed, because there’s not a lot of athletes and many of them are not UMC (they are rich) or white. You are actually supporting my point - these white wealthy SLAC athletes are very often rich private school kids NOT regular suburban UMC kids. Thus the point stands that sports are not a major opportunity for regular non-rich UMC white kids.

Not quite.

You act as if these selective D3 SLACs are all filled with private school students. For most selective colleges, the majority of admits come from public schools: the suburban schools populated by UMC whites. If you're rich, the student does not need a hook like sports: just pay the full freight tuition. Most of the athletic slots for a multitude of sports are filled by UMC whites that use the athletic recruiting as a hook to get admitted.

The athletic slots are not being filled by Asians, and contrary to opinion, not by many URMs either. UMC whites are the primary beneficiaries. And upwards of a third of an incoming freshman class being recruited athletes is a lot.

Aside from the athletic angle, who do you think is filling up the majority of these state schools, flagship or otherwise? UMC whites.