Anonymous wrote:I really wish admissions got a better eye for packaged apps. My daughter recently began her freshman year at an Ivy. When she got her roommate's name and googled her, it was like, "Wow, this kid is so intimidatingly accomplished." But living with her and talking to her, she is just a total Franken-kid created by wealthy overseas parents and expensive college counselors. Just very, very immature and unsure of herself with no distinct intellectual interests or drive. Goes out clubbing till 3 and skips classes. Planning to major in Econ and do investing clubs, whereas her "passion project" and other resume items suggest a go-getter who planned to save the world and was passionate about social justice. It's so sad to think of earnest kids who would have taken advantage of every opportunity at this school, but got rejected because they didn't have the parents or money to package them in the way this girl managed.

Bravo to the kid for playing the school's game and winning at it. It is the school that created the stupid game of being unique or impactful or whatever and the student played by the rules. Don't believe me? Look at the stupid "why us" essays. It is a game because kids or parents who listen to podcasts or info sessions or read books or websites learn that they are looking for something very specific and unique so a kid now writes something very specific and unique even if that has nothing to do with why the kid wants to go there.

Anonymous wrote:
There are so many accepted to top schools like this. Like at Harvard - I’m sure they didn’t apply with the future goals of investment banking or consulting, which are really the opposite of “save the world” and actually impact society negatively.

They save the poor by sponsoring tuitions

Anonymous wrote:I really wish admissions got a better eye for packaged apps. My daughter recently began her freshman year at an Ivy. When she got her roommate's name and googled her, it was like, "Wow, this kid is so intimidatingly accomplished." But living with her and talking to her, she is just a total Franken-kid created by wealthy overseas parents and expensive college counselors. Just very, very immature and unsure of herself with no distinct intellectual interests or drive. Goes out clubbing till 3 and skips classes. Planning to major in Econ and do investing clubs, whereas her "passion project" and other resume items suggest a go-getter who planned to save the world and was passionate about social justice. It's so sad to think of earnest kids who would have taken advantage of every opportunity at this school, but got rejected because they didn't have the parents or money to package them in the way this girl managed.

Not surprise. Merit and drive are innate qualities—not something wealth can buy, at least not yet without genetic modification. They get a brand to brag about and marry her to another brand! And that's about it.

Anonymous wrote:I really wish admissions got a better eye for packaged apps. My daughter recently began her freshman year at an Ivy. When she got her roommate's name and googled her, it was like, "Wow, this kid is so intimidatingly accomplished." But living with her and talking to her, she is just a total Franken-kid created by wealthy overseas parents and expensive college counselors. Just very, very immature and unsure of herself with no distinct intellectual interests or drive. Goes out clubbing till 3 and skips classes. Planning to major in Econ and do investing clubs, whereas her "passion project" and other resume items suggest a go-getter who planned to save the world and was passionate about social justice. It's so sad to think of earnest kids who would have taken advantage of every opportunity at this school, but got rejected because they didn't have the parents or money to package them in the way this girl managed.

There are so many accepted to top schools like this. Like at Harvard - I’m sure they didn’t apply with the future goals of investment banking or consulting, which are really the opposite of “save the world” and actually impact society negatively.

Writing for your local paper is probably underrated as an EC.

Anonymous wrote:I've interviewed for a top 10 for several years. I've had students denied with:
* Nonprofits (many)
* "Startups"
* Regeneron
* "Research" opportunities
* Normal-excellent ECs (quiz bowl, student gov, etc.)
* Pre med-type ECs (shadowing a doctor or the like)

I've had only two students get in:
* One went to a nationally competitive free summer program
* One had a genuinely competitive internship, i.e. obviously not at his dad's friend's lab

My conclusion based on this small sample size is that the adcom at my alma mater likes people who have already been admitted to programs that resemble the school itself in these respects: highly competitive, with long applications read by a committee, many people denied, but also plentiful financial aid. So, if you are looking for things to do, look for that. Or just have the kid scoop ice cream. It couldn't hurt, and it would be more fun than grinding the fake nonprofit or "research opportunity."

These programs and internships are heavily favoring URM and FGLI kids nowadays. Which aligns well with institutional priorities of elite colleges.
Full pay kids ought to look for different opportunities, sometimes creating their own unique thing while avoiding outdated ones such as non-profit. Instead of shadowing, do an EMT. Instead of quiz bowl, work in a grass-root community internship.

We were also full pay, but thanks for the feedback lol.

Anonymous wrote:I really wish admissions got a better eye for packaged apps. My daughter recently began her freshman year at an Ivy. When she got her roommate's name and googled her, it was like, "Wow, this kid is so intimidatingly accomplished." But living with her and talking to her, she is just a total Franken-kid created by wealthy overseas parents and expensive college counselors. Just very, very immature and unsure of herself with no distinct intellectual interests or drive. Goes out clubbing till 3 and skips classes. Planning to major in Econ and do investing clubs, whereas her "passion project" and other resume items suggest a go-getter who planned to save the world and was passionate about social justice. It's so sad to think of earnest kids who would have taken advantage of every opportunity at this school, but got rejected because they didn't have the parents or money to package them in the way this girl managed.

oh, get a life. Googling your kids' friends?
Colleges have been filled by managed kids forever.
not changing. esp now with funding issues. this kid is full pay and paying your kids way and more.

I really wish admissions got a better eye for packaged apps. My daughter recently began her freshman year at an Ivy. When she got her roommate's name and googled her, it was like, "Wow, this kid is so intimidatingly accomplished." But living with her and talking to her, she is just a total Franken-kid created by wealthy overseas parents and expensive college counselors. Just very, very immature and unsure of herself with no distinct intellectual interests or drive. Goes out clubbing till 3 and skips classes. Planning to major in Econ and do investing clubs, whereas her "passion project" and other resume items suggest a go-getter who planned to save the world and was passionate about social justice. It's so sad to think of earnest kids who would have taken advantage of every opportunity at this school, but got rejected because they didn't have the parents or money to package them in the way this girl managed.

Anonymous wrote:I've interviewed for a top 10 for several years. I've had students denied with:
* Nonprofits (many)
* "Startups"
* Regeneron
* "Research" opportunities
* Normal-excellent ECs (quiz bowl, student gov, etc.)
* Pre med-type ECs (shadowing a doctor or the like)

I've had only two students get in:
* One went to a nationally competitive free summer program
* One had a genuinely competitive internship, i.e. obviously not at his dad's friend's lab

My conclusion based on this small sample size is that the adcom at my alma mater likes people who have already been admitted to programs that resemble the school itself in these respects: highly competitive, with long applications read by a committee, many people denied, but also plentiful financial aid. So, if you are looking for things to do, look for that. Or just have the kid scoop ice cream. It couldn't hurt, and it would be more fun than grinding the fake nonprofit or "research opportunity."

Agree, they are looking for external vetting/application/prestige.
Works every time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get these complaints about rich parents that pay for opportunities for their children. Every parent shares what they can with their child.

A professional golfer is going to teach their kid how to play golf. A scientist is going to teach their kid how to do science research. A very financially successful parent can basically pay for their child to learn whatever it is The child wants to learn.

You don't have to have money to learn something, but it certainly makes it easier. I'm not wealthy but if I was I certainly would have no issue with providing educational opportunities that interested my children.

DH is a physician. Our son worked with one of his colleagues this summer to do research. Our HS son still had to apply and interview. Would he have gotten the position if DH did not know the lab head? Maybe not, but my kid is still a straight A student interested in science and medicine. We did not pay to play. We did have to pay for his housing.

Where did DS get in? If still in process, this isn't useful data.

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get these complaints about rich parents that pay for opportunities for their children. Every parent shares what they can with their child.

A professional golfer is going to teach their kid how to play golf. A scientist is going to teach their kid how to do science research. A very financially successful parent can basically pay for their child to learn whatever it is The child wants to learn.

You don't have to have money to learn something, but it certainly makes it easier. I'm not wealthy but if I was I certainly would have no issue with providing educational opportunities that interested my children.

DH is a physician. Our son worked with one of his colleagues this summer to do research. Our HS son still had to apply and interview. Would he have gotten the position if DH did not know the lab head? Maybe not, but my kid is still a straight A student interested in science and medicine. We did not pay to play. We did have to pay for his housing.

The pro golfer parent analogy isn't perfect. A pro golfer will train their kid to play golf, and the kid will excel in tournaments, etc. It's not the training that gets them in, it's the genuinely notable results of that training.

The simply rich parent may pay for "experiences," but if those "experiences" don't produce anything of genuine note, the kid may as well be delivering papers or scooping ice cream.

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get these complaints about rich parents that pay for opportunities for their children. Every parent shares what they can with their child.

A professional golfer is going to teach their kid how to play golf. A scientist is going to teach their kid how to do science research. A very financially successful parent can basically pay for their child to learn whatever it is The child wants to learn.

You don't have to have money to learn something, but it certainly makes it easier. I'm not wealthy but if I was I certainly would have no issue with providing educational opportunities that interested my children.

Let me restate for you:

A professional golfer is going to teach their kid how to play golf. A scientist is going to teach their kid how to do science research. A wealthy parent is going to teach their child how to use wealth to get what they want.

Just as some schools/programs will value the golf skill or the science research background that has been, to some degree, inherited, some schools will value having kids who have wealth and know how to use it to their advantage. Some schools/programs will not value these inherited gifts (though most will probably value that science researcher's kid's research ability no matter the discipline).

The funny thing to me is that wealthy parents believe that kids who have wealth and know how to use it to their personal advantage are somehow universally appreciated at schools. Why? If the school is cash strapped or has a culture where that quality will be a cultural fit, sure. If not, who cares? It's not really a benefit to the school or for the composition of most classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With so many pay-to-play activities out there, can admissions officers at elite colleges tell the difference? Or do they not care because it shows the student is resourceful?

How does it show the kid is resourceful?

It shows their family is resource-full