Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However, I don't think the solution is just to send kids who never had to write a research paper to an Ivy.

Why not? With the grade inflation at the Ivies these days, it doesn't really matter. Once you get in, you're entitled to a gentleman's B+.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm the 5:16 p.m. poster. OP, thanks for your later message clarifying your intent and your perspective.

Here's what bothers me the most. Why is it that colleges value extracurriculars over work experience? Hasn't anyone made a correlation between the "work ethic" problems of recent college grads and the fact that kids no longer grow up with paper routes, jobs at the local diner, or other typical summer jobs? I'm NOT impressed with the kids from Bethesda who go on exotic "summer study" trips. All that tells me is that Mumsy and Daddy could afford the fees.

When hiring for my small business, I took the kid who started his own business. I'd much rather find a kid who has put in a real work day and understands the value of a dollar. Working minimum wage jobs taught me to value my college education. Yes, of course there is a fine line, and some degree of extracurricular participation is valuable, but it seems that today's kids no longer deign to do mundane work. Try to find a high school babysitter! They're all too busy with extracurriculars. My kids protest because we make them help us with yard work. Everyone else in our neighborhood has a yard service. But what does this teach our kids? So many of my friends - with yard services - lament the fact that THEY cut the grass when they were kids, yet their kids aren't asked to do the same.

Sorry for going a bit off tangent here, but my point is that colleges should also value the kids who work after school and can write meaningful essays about the value of that work. A work ethic is what made this country strong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

3) Notwithstanding the above, if you look at the research by Avery and Hoxby, what's apparent is not that poor kids aren't well-qualified for admission to highly selective colleges and universities, but that they don't even apply. This is a significant and disturbing problem that universities, including my Ivy alma mater, are just beginning to grapple with.

This is what I've seen in my experience.

I went to a high school in a blue collar town. None of us applied to Ivy League schools. It didn't even occur to us that we were qualified for the Ivy League. I was a National Merit Scholar with a boatload of sports and clubs, all honors classes, a job, and very good ACT/SAT scores. There were two dozen other kids just as qualified at my high school . No one advising us had the slightest idea how to apply to an Ivy League school or why we should consider it.

Yes, I agree. I grew up in a poor rural town and, despite getting a 1600 on the SAT, acing my AP exams (physics, chem, and calculus), and having a STEM major as a woman, no one -- my parents, my school counselors, my teachers -- even brought up the subject of applying to an elite college. It was just too out of the realm of their reality. I ended up getting a full scholarship to a great state school, but an elite school would have probably opened doors that are now forever closed to me. Not bitter -- but I will be a huge advocate for my DD when it comes time for college. I suspect part of the reason people in DC can be so rabid about this is that they have similar backgrounds to me and want better for their children.

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone think that the poor in America (300 million of them) are entitled to an Ivy education? The middle class can not afford 60K + yearly (240K+) There are plenty of colleges around. Why the Ivys have to take the poor? BTW, they do accept scholarship students. Why the outrage?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AN A- average in a school in a low-SES area often doesn't mean the same as an A- somewhere in Westchester. The best predictor of college success is rigor of high school courseload.

Also, the most selective colleges look for serious extracurriculars, with leadership and initiative. Poor kids are disadvantaged in some subtle ways here. Colleges usually don't hold it against kids who have to work. However, if kids are stuck in cul-de-sacs because they don't have a car of their own, and their parent have to work, they can't go to all of the rehearsals, practices and meetings that a serious extracurricular commitment requires.

They also aren't necessarily raised to take initiative; they are raised to toe the line. Thus, they don't start clubs at school, or do independent research projects. I've been an Ivy interviewer for a while. The upper middle class kids chatter confidently with me about their lives. Some of the middle middle class kids have trouble looking me in the eye.

Please. This is insulting. Reminds me of when I arrived at my top 30 college on a scholarship and my roommate (daughter of a Republican Senator) mentioned that "Private colleges are for people who can afford them, for everyone else there are state schools."

Your comments are disturbing.

Anonymous wrote:

(1) YOUR KID GOT IN TO AN IVY!!! I'M SOOO IMPRESSED! (This was the point of your post, I assume.)

(2) If you seriously think top performing kids from low performing areas "can't write a research paper," you need to get your head out of your hind region. "Writing a research paper" is not the same as invention cold-fusion, even if your perfect little snowflake insists it is and that you should send more money immediately because your LO has it SOOOOO hard. Also, it's not West Point.

(3) I see the worst writing from Ivy-leage grads. Absolutely dreadful. It doesn't mean I don't also see excellent writing from other Ivy-league grads--I do. But if they're using some writing litmus test in the Ivies, then they need to change the formula.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In response to those who have suggested that "poor" students (not sure how they're defining this term) aren't going to make it at highly- selective colleges, I'll trust that your concern is coming from the right place, but I don't think the answer is to keep the barriers to entry up. My son just completed his freshman year at a highly-ranked university with a demanding curriculum and stringent grading. He graduated from a local independent school and was very well-prepared, having written 5 or 6 research papers during high school. In contrast. he observed that some of his friends who had gone to inner-city schools or regional high schools in rural areas faced a real challenge in making the transition to college. A couple of these students had never written a research paper and had done very few essays beyond the formulaic AP requirements. What those kids did, though, was to get help when they needed it. The most selective schools have high graduation rates for a reason -- they offer support services, particularly with respect to writing, for students who enter with less preparation. Keep in mind, too, that those kids generally aren't frail flowers prone to wilting; rather, they survive and flourish. For one example, take a look at Justice Sotomayor's autobiography, My Beloved World, and her account of her experience at Princeton after coming out of an urban parochial school background. I'd say she didn't do too badly in the long run.

The one world theory...