Clearly we need a new checkbox on the Common App: Did you work with a college counselor other than the one at your school on this application?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that college admissions ask if you're a first generation student. Do they also ask about things like whether you get tutoring or college counseling? If not, seems like they should.

Why? It is clear to the AOs when they read the package. And there is nothing wrong with tutoring and colelge cousneling.

+100
And there is an enormous gulf between UMC kids who get tutoring or pay for hourly college counseling v. Wealthy families who pay tens of thousands to unscrupulous college counselors who can secure Ivy admissions.

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting to me how openly cynical the founder of Crimson is. I suppose it’s capitalism at work, but turning a kid into a luxury good to be purchased does feel icky to me, personally. And a bit sad.

This was my takeaway, too. Seven graduate degrees, basically for marketing purposes if we're honest? And look, we even found some Maori applicants, so we can look wordly and altruistic!

So gross. Yet unsurprisingly, the finance bros are eating it up.

Anonymous wrote:I have a very smart and accomplished kid and all these articles do is prejudice me and my kid against these supposedly "elite" schools. We can afford tuition at top private colleges and could afford to hire consultants like this. We genuinely do not want to. Our DC has always been self-driven, hardworking, and intellectually curious without pushing. Our goal has always been to support and ensure opportunities were there, but not to force anything. We have no appetite for playing this game.


I think other kids like this will also start opting out of this rat race for their own mental well being.

+1

Anonymous wrote:Just posted a few minutes ago in the comments of the article. Probably not legit, but who knows. This article is getting some traction in WSJ comments!

Stephen M
21 minutes ago

Application Mentor here at Crimson. I assure you to the depths of my soul that Crimson is engaged in outright, wholesale application fraud. There are no official editorial guidelines whatsoever, so tutors end up writing parts or most of student essays on their behalf. It is the opposite of pedagogically informed feedback a professional English teacher would provide.

Many Crimson students are absolutely abysmal writers. There is literally no way to get them to construct even halfway decent responses than by providing the language ourselves. Crimson administration turns are completely blind eye to this practice and even tacitly encourages it.

This is a criminal-level consultancy every admissions officer in the US should be aware of.

No way of knowing if this is true, but there is the potential for a perverse incentive structure. That and the cynicism of the owner suggests this is very likely. The consultancy’s (and presumably a consultant’s) success is based on student placement into selective schools. One part of the equation is to screen for students already primed for a measure of success. The other is to put thumbs on the scale where a student may not be strong. If a consultant has a student with a poor essay, they can try to coach them up to produce a better output which may be time consuming and imperfect or write it for them (more or less).

The goal is admission to an ivy, not the best fit/school for the student with authentic representation.

I have a very smart and accomplished kid and all these articles do is prejudice me and my kid against these supposedly "elite" schools. We can afford tuition at top private colleges and could afford to hire consultants like this. We genuinely do not want to. Our DC has always been self-driven, hardworking, and intellectually curious without pushing. Our goal has always been to support and ensure opportunities were there, but not to force anything. We have no appetite for playing this game.

If my kid was dead set in a T10 I'd probably do it just because I know she'd make the most of that education and I wouldn't want to be the thing that stood in her way. But her response to stuff like this is to focus more on state flagships and to focus on lower ranked schools that are especially well respected or have very well respected faculty or research opportunities in her likely major. She doesn't want to have to put in a show to get into college. And her grades and test scores are high enough that she really shouldn't have to -- she's already done the work. She's not going to found a fake non-profit or waste time she could spend on something that really matters to her but won't look good on a college app (like go camping with her friends for the first time alone) to write a mediocre fiction novel just to impress and admissions officer.

I think other kids like this will also start opting out of this rat race for their own mental well being.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So its all lies just to get into an Ivy? What a sham.. what kind of environment will this create on the campus.. all fake people doing fake activities to get a piece of paper that says they went to Harvard..

Where is the lie or the sham? Kids really get those grades and scores and really do the ECs. All are real not fake. What are you talking about?

Its all lies because the kids are not doing xyz because they are passionate about something or have a specific interest in something. They are consciously curating their resume based on what activity will get them into an Ivy. If you don’t see a difference between a kid who has actually pursued his own interest vs brainstorming an activity that will get them into college than you are not very bright.

+1.

10 years ago if I heard a high school student dent was writing a novel I would have thought, "that's so cool-- they must be really passionate about fiction writing. Even if the book is only okay, what a great experience that will help them understand narrative structure, character development, style and tone on a richer level."

But reading the description of this kid writing a novel while working on an academic paper, actually going to school, plus doing 10 or more ECs-- it sounds soulless. I think it's unhealthy to be productive at that level as a teenager and I'd question how many of these interests will last and whether this kid is careening I to a massive break down and burnout. Yes it is impressive and I'm sure that kid is super smart and capable, but is that actually the kind of life we should be celebrating? Relentless production of accomplishments for the sole purpose of being able to list them on an application or resume? Why?

Just posted a few minutes ago in the comments of the article. Probably not legit, but who knows. This article is getting some traction in WSJ comments!

Stephen M
21 minutes ago

Application Mentor here at Crimson. I assure you to the depths of my soul that Crimson is engaged in outright, wholesale application fraud. There are no official editorial guidelines whatsoever, so tutors end up writing parts or most of student essays on their behalf. It is the opposite of pedagogically informed feedback a professional English teacher would provide.

Many Crimson students are absolutely abysmal writers. There is literally no way to get them to construct even halfway decent responses than by providing the language ourselves. Crimson administration turns are completely blind eye to this practice and even tacitly encourages it.

This is a criminal-level consultancy every admissions officer in the US should be aware of.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's actually staggering that 23% of Harvard students used a private consulting firm. Once you take out FGLI, athletes, URMs, rural students, and other people who have hooks, then it's likely that a near-majority of unhooked applicants used one of these services.

Look at the profiles of applicants on Reddit or College Confidential. Kids have 2-4 internships at fortune 500 companies while in high school. They're managing non-profits with budgets of 200K. They've been published multiple times. It's ABSURD what they're doing and no 14-17 year old (at the time of the activities) is capable of creating those resumes on their own. No 14-17 year old would even know that half that stuff EXISTS, let alone how to make it happen.

It's completely the work of adults (paid consultants or parents or both) but admissions officers are eating it up. They fall for it every time.

I wonder if articles like this that shines into the dark alleys of admissions will push schools to again shift the profile they seek. When you have a company now worth over half a billion whose sole existence is to try to game slots from a handful of schools because the schools have become a bit predictable, makes wonder if they will change the algorithm.

Like Google changing the rules of SEO

The AOs have a vested interest in even more of this same. They leave their admissions office jobs and go straight into consulting. $$$$$

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why no one will hire students from these colleges ever again. They are all fake people who have done nothing real on their own. They will be terrible team players on projects.

This.
The AO’s who fall for this BS are signing the death warrant for these schools which will inevitably lose their luster as they churn out graduates of no substance.

That is why what works is objective measurements - GPA, Course rigor, SAT scores, AP scores. It measures content knowledge. And it does not matter if the student learned it in-utereo or got tutored. In the end, they have to know the content of academic subjects that will be the foundation of their success in college.

Direct from the stats for the kids using this advisor:

Data from the Crimson applications accepted at Ivy Leagues have refined Beaton’s understanding of what it takes to get in.

The average score on advanced-placement exams was 4.8 out of 5. The accepted students took an average of 8.4 AP classes—and those admitted to Harvard, Yale and Princeton took an average of 10.1 AP classes.

The average SAT score for an Ivy acceptance was 1568, and grades were as close to perfect as possible. A’s and A minuses are acceptable, but “B’s are bombs,” Beaton said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why no one will hire students from these colleges ever again. They are all fake people who have done nothing real on their own. They will be terrible team players on projects.

This.
The AO’s who fall for this BS are signing the death warrant for these schools which will inevitably lose their luster as they churn out graduates of no substance.

That is why what works is objective measurements - GPA, Course rigor, SAT scores, AP scores. It measures content knowledge. And it does not matter if the student learned it in-utereo or got tutored. In the end, they have to know the content of academic subjects that will be the foundation of their success in college.

This is how the rest of the world is doing it. College is not a country club - except in the USA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So its all lies just to get into an Ivy? What a sham.. what kind of environment will this create on the campus.. all fake people doing fake activities to get a piece of paper that says they went to Harvard..

This is why these 'elite' schools are offering remedial classes now and back to SAT required. Professors are not impressed.

Very true. Mine did not do any of this crap, no nonprofit or tutors or paid counselor. Played cello, did district orchestra, ran one club, had a small kid-focused community program they worked for, wrote great essays and got top grades in hard courses and had some faculty awards from their school. They did not TO even though they only had one shot at the SAT(and nailed it). Fall of 2021 they started at their T10 (under lots of strange covid rules against parties, so there was plenty of time to focus on studies) and by the end of that semester professors were already muttering not so quietly about test optional. The most vocal one did not realize DC was a freshman, it was an upper-level class they placed into, but that prof taught the bigger freshman courses in the subject. He ranted about the freshmen all the time. Professors noticed TO right away. It should have ended 2 years ago. Complete BS that it took so long for the tide to turn back.

Anonymous wrote:The AOs are not “falling for it.” They helped create it and they know what is going on. It’s so much BS. They say they want to hear the student’s authentic voice but they don’t. They admit these heavily “curated” students. They reward and encourage this behavior.

The problem is this strongly favors rich kids. So the AOs are full of it wrt actual diversity on campus.

Exactly. AOs are a crucial part of this, not innocent bystanders. If you look at Crimson website you see that many of their counselors are former AOs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's actually staggering that 23% of Harvard students used a private consulting firm. Once you take out FGLI, athletes, URMs, rural students, and other people who have hooks, then it's likely that a near-majority of unhooked applicants used one of these services.

Look at the profiles of applicants on Reddit or College Confidential. Kids have 2-4 internships at fortune 500 companies while in high school. They're managing non-profits with budgets of 200K. They've been published multiple times. It's ABSURD what they're doing and no 14-17 year old (at the time of the activities) is capable of creating those resumes on their own. No 14-17 year old would even know that half that stuff EXISTS, let alone how to make it happen.

It's completely the work of adults (paid consultants or parents or both) but admissions officers are eating it up. They fall for it every time.

I wonder if articles like this that shines into the dark alleys of admissions will push schools to again shift the profile they seek. When you have a company now worth over half a billion whose sole existence is to try to game slots from a handful of schools because the schools have become a bit predictable, makes wonder if they will change the algorithm.

Like Google changing the rules of SEO

The WSJ commenters are not impressed and these are folks who pay for a subscription - pretty expensive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why no one will hire students from these colleges ever again. They are all fake people who have done nothing real on their own. They will be terrible team players on projects.

This.
The AO’s who fall for this BS are signing the death warrant for these schools which will inevitably lose their luster as they churn out graduates of no substance.

That is why what works is objective measurements - GPA, Course rigor, SAT scores, AP scores. It measures content knowledge. And it does not matter if the student learned it in-utereo or got tutored. In the end, they have to know the content of academic subjects that will be the foundation of their success in college.