I think people are getting up in arms over something a very, very small number of student engage in. This isn’t normal. It might “work” if the rest of the application is strong, but there’s no way some underachieving kid is getting into a top school because their name is on an article.

Another started a non-profit in kid's name though kid only did 20% of the work.

Many parents use their professional and social contacts to give kids unfair advantages. One of my physician friend got her DD shadowing and research opportunities at her hospital and her techi father made her an app. They entered app in a competition where you can vote online. They asked all of their family, friends and employees to vote so she can win.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Usually, the projects are closely directed by graduate students or professors who are paid to be mentors.
...
The services pair high schoolers with academic mentors for 10-15 weeks to produce research papers. Online services typically shape the topic, direction and duration of the project, and urge students to complete and publish a paper regardless of how fruitful the exploration has been. “Publication specialists” then help steer the papers into a dizzying array of online journals and preprint platforms.

This is a GOOD thing. Researching and writing a paper under the direction of a professor or grad student, and getting it published, is exactly what kids will do (or should do) in college. Very valuable experience for a high school kid to prepare for college in this way. The only thing that could be wrong with this is if the kid did not actually write the paper.

Much of the article is crying that it's unfair because only wealthy parents can afford to buy this for their kids. Meh. The fees they describe are not that out of reach for a middle-class family. And wealthy families have so many other advantages that this is comparatively minor. Being able to say they are "full pay" costs a heck of a lot more than this. Also, the money goes to profs and grad students who are definitely underpaid, and that's good.

How do we know who the money goes to?

The article says the profs and grad students are paid. Of course, the service itself will get some of the money, but they should get paid for providing the service of connecting students with mentors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case Western just early-admitted 23 students who were clients of one of the pay-for-play research companies. Stanford accepted 11. Most are from China. Agreed that some AOs definitely do not see through this . . .

Isn't it safe to say that the person who would go after this kind of work is also someone who is going after the big program, grades, and ECs that also look good on an application? it doesn't make sense to assume the person was a mediocre student who was accepted JUST because they published an article.

Hard to tell...cheating of all kinds is so rampant in China that you have no idea who will actually show up at the college. The same students could have paid someone else to take the SAT/ACT, paid someone else to write their college essays and listed all manor of ECs that are impossible to verify.

This is why kids are always looking sideways at the kid from China that can barely speak or understand any English.

Holy crap, THIS. My college kid was in a $$ zoom program a couple of years ago where kids from all over workshopped each others' college essays, one by one. The paragraph(s) being critiqued were posted on the screen in real time. There was more than one attendee who posted the most exquisite prose for critique -- in English -- and then could not speak a full sentence in English to respond to feedback.

I guess that chatGPT will level this aspect of the playing field going forward. But the episode felt really gross. It also explains why so many of my kid's dormmates can't actually speak English

Anonymous wrote:

Usually, the projects are closely directed by graduate students or professors who are paid to be mentors.
...
The services pair high schoolers with academic mentors for 10-15 weeks to produce research papers. Online services typically shape the topic, direction and duration of the project, and urge students to complete and publish a paper regardless of how fruitful the exploration has been. “Publication specialists” then help steer the papers into a dizzying array of online journals and preprint platforms.

This is a GOOD thing. Researching and writing a paper under the direction of a professor or grad student, and getting it published, is exactly what kids will do (or should do) in college. Very valuable experience for a high school kid to prepare for college in this way. The only thing that could be wrong with this is if the kid did not actually write the paper.

Much of the article is crying that it's unfair because only wealthy parents can afford to buy this for their kids. Meh. The fees they describe are not that out of reach for a middle-class family. And wealthy families have so many other advantages that this is comparatively minor. Being able to say they are "full pay" costs a heck of a lot more than this. Also, the money goes to profs and grad students who are definitely underpaid, and that's good.

How do we know who the money goes to?

Usually, the projects are closely directed by graduate students or professors who are paid to be mentors.
...
The services pair high schoolers with academic mentors for 10-15 weeks to produce research papers. Online services typically shape the topic, direction and duration of the project, and urge students to complete and publish a paper regardless of how fruitful the exploration has been. “Publication specialists” then help steer the papers into a dizzying array of online journals and preprint platforms.

This is a GOOD thing. Researching and writing a paper under the direction of a professor or grad student, and getting it published, is exactly what kids will do (or should do) in college. Very valuable experience for a high school kid to prepare for college in this way. The only thing that could be wrong with this is if the kid did not actually write the paper.

Much of the article is crying that it's unfair because only wealthy parents can afford to buy this for their kids. Meh. The fees they describe are not that out of reach for a middle-class family. And wealthy families have so many other advantages that this is comparatively minor. Being able to say they are "full pay" costs a heck of a lot more than this. Also, the money goes to profs and grad students who are definitely underpaid, and that's good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’re seeing this at our school - a few kids have parents who work at hospitals with med schools affiliated. They do research and get co-author. Know Harvard, Penn, and Dartmouth admits who did this.

I know a Yale admit who did this. I was surprised the AO didn't see through the scam.

I do too, but he is rich, so I think that helped.

Anonymous wrote:We’re seeing this at our school - a few kids have parents who work at hospitals with med schools affiliated. They do research and get co-author. Know Harvard, Penn, and Dartmouth admits who did this.

I know a Yale admit who did this. I was surprised the AO didn't see through the scam.

I still blame it on striver parents trying to turn a pig's ear into a silk purse.

If you just believed and taught your kid that who they are is amazing. As is. And found a school that would embrace them as such, there would be no market for this stuff.

Instead you have the likes of many DCUM posters, who will lie and (practically) bribe their way to a school with a slightly higher USNWR ranking. Desperate for status. Teaching their kids the WORST values.

(Now watch them say the SYSTEM is so broken and unfair to little Larlo, that they have to resort to this crap)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“Nowadays, having a publication is kind of a given” for college applicants, she said. “If you don’t have one, you’re going to have to make it up in some other aspect of your application.”

This is complete garbage.

People, just because something is in writing doesn't make it true. Don't fall for this stuff. Safe to say that most kids getting accepted to college aren't published. Don't believe the hype.

This makes me think of all of the DCUM posters who claim that their high school kids are doing hardcore paid CS work. I’ve been an engineering manager for 25 years, and I’ve never met anyone who would consider paying a high school kid to do any IT work whatsoever.

Not sure why you have to bring a completely unrelated topic into the conversation. Considering that some of the largest companies in existence today (Microsoft, Facebook) were created by kids who were just one year into college (and no...Harvard didn't teach them all these amazing skills in their one year)...that would seem to refute that there are not talented HS kids working in Tech.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case Western just early-admitted 23 students who were clients of one of the pay-for-play research companies. Stanford accepted 11. Most are from China. Agreed that some AOs definitely do not see through this . . .

Isn't it safe to say that the person who would go after this kind of work is also someone who is going after the big program, grades, and ECs that also look good on an application? it doesn't make sense to assume the person was a mediocre student who was accepted JUST because they published an article.

Hard to tell...cheating of all kinds is so rampant in China that you have no idea who will actually show up at the college. The same students could have paid someone else to take the SAT/ACT, paid someone else to write their college essays and listed all manor of ECs that are impossible to verify.

This is why kids are always looking sideways at the kid from China that can barely speak or understand any English.

Some colleges (e.g. Amherst) even ask about research experience on the common app.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

“Nowadays, having a publication is kind of a given” for college applicants, she said. “If you don’t have one, you’re going to have to make it up in some other aspect of your application.”

This is complete garbage.

People, just because something is in writing doesn't make it true. Don't fall for this stuff. Safe to say that most kids getting accepted to college aren't published. Don't believe the hype.

+1000

Admission officers can see thru what is real and what is contrived BS purchased by wealthy families. They know that most "businesses" started by teens are just their parents setting them up with finances to back it. Does not take much to see who is a real entrepreneur vs who had mom/dad help them set it up just for college admissions. Sure a few slip thru but by and large, AO can see thru this BS

I don't think admission officers can. At most colleges, admission officers are their own recent graduates who can't find better jobs so they stay with college to fluff their own resume. They are neither experienced nor trained to have insight and depth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case Western just early-admitted 23 students who were clients of one of the pay-for-play research companies. Stanford accepted 11. Most are from China. Agreed that some AOs definitely do not see through this . . .

They choose not to see through this. The nonprofit, business, and peer-reviewed byline tell universities that you have $$$ (themselves or their government sponsor) without having to consult with the Financial Aid office. So you can maintain need-blind admissions while being "impressed" with this "achievement".

This.
And also signals that you’re into status and are willing to pay to play.

E.g you will possibly pay $$$ for “naming opportunities” such as endowed chairs etc.