Anonymous wrote:Honestly, what's the difference between stretching the truth on ECs and submitting a test score which represents hours of undisclosed one on one tutoring, multiple retakes and extra time in a quiet room?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the passion project movement is rooted in this "trust and never verified" system.

you can laugh but the kids who found a "passion" in spring of junior year to cook with grandma (look for our podcast!) while connecting your love for baking with your interest in chemistry were super super successful with top colleges

the fact that you cooked with grandma 4x, did 4 podcasts that were 7 minutes each, than you dropped it all and actually plan on transferring into CS asap all go unmentioned. our high school counselors let people tell their own stories, even when they side eye it all

This is actually what private college counselors help kids do.

There’s a whole cottage industry that charges $50,000 to create these narratives. Very very easy to do and you don’t need to pay to do this well.

Where's the evidence that it actually works though? It's really hard to tell since you'll never know how any particular kid would have done without it.

It works at our private school. For schools like Vanderbilt or Barnard or Middlebury.
Don’t think it’s working for a top 10 school.

It absolutely does work for some. Many of the Coke scholarship winners have grossly exaggerated the impact of their “nonprofits”, most of which are no longer in operation before the end of their senior year.

Isn't it safe to say they weren't accepted/awarded based on a nonprofit? You have to bring a lot more to the table to get into the top schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the passion project movement is rooted in this "trust and never verified" system.

you can laugh but the kids who found a "passion" in spring of junior year to cook with grandma (look for our podcast!) while connecting your love for baking with your interest in chemistry were super super successful with top colleges

the fact that you cooked with grandma 4x, did 4 podcasts that were 7 minutes each, than you dropped it all and actually plan on transferring into CS asap all go unmentioned. our high school counselors let people tell their own stories, even when they side eye it all

This is actually what private college counselors help kids do.

There’s a whole cottage industry that charges $50,000 to create these narratives. Very very easy to do and you don’t need to pay to do this well.

Where's the evidence that it actually works though? It's really hard to tell since you'll never know how any particular kid would have done without it.

It works at our private school. For schools like Vanderbilt or Barnard or Middlebury.
Don’t think it’s working for a top 10 school.

It absolutely does work for some. Many of the Coke scholarship winners have grossly exaggerated the impact of their “nonprofits”, most of which are no longer in operation before the end of their senior year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the passion project movement is rooted in this "trust and never verified" system.

you can laugh but the kids who found a "passion" in spring of junior year to cook with grandma (look for our podcast!) while connecting your love for baking with your interest in chemistry were super super successful with top colleges

the fact that you cooked with grandma 4x, did 4 podcasts that were 7 minutes each, than you dropped it all and actually plan on transferring into CS asap all go unmentioned. our high school counselors let people tell their own stories, even when they side eye it all

This is actually what private college counselors help kids do.

There’s a whole cottage industry that charges $50,000 to create these narratives. Very very easy to do and you don’t need to pay to do this well.

Where's the evidence that it actually works though? It's really hard to tell since you'll never know how any particular kid would have done without it.

It works at our private school. For schools like Vanderbilt or Barnard or Middlebury.
Don’t think it’s working for a top 10 school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:transcripts and recommendations are all largely the same for kids applying to Dartmouth (etc).

did you read Who Gets In and Why? It's the fact that the student was the elephant whisperer that got her in. The fact that that was a one day even during an expensive one-week touristy thing was unmentioned and not picked up on by the adcomm

and yes, that is what moved the needle.

Well the applicant could be lying about being an elephant whisperer. There is zero way to verify any of these stories people write about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, what's the difference between stretching the truth on ECs and submitting a test score which represents hours of undisclosed one on one tutoring, multiple retakes and extra time in a quiet room?

In one example you put the work into it (testing prep), and in the other example you pretend you did something you didn’t.

Writing down ECs you never did or greatly exaggerating is akin to having someone else take the test for you. You know, cheating.

Studying for hours to take a test(s) that everyone can take multiple times is the same as putting in the work in a time intensive ECs that build upon each other and then writing down the highest level attained(without exaggerating).

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, what's the difference between stretching the truth on ECs and submitting a test score which represents hours of undisclosed one on one tutoring, multiple retakes and extra time in a quiet room?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I know, OP! It's infuriating, because as long as admissions are "holistic", there will be cheating and fraud.

It's much harder to cheat on a standardized test than it is to casually invent a bunch of extra-curriculars.

University admissions need to be entirely academic and standardized.

This is a cop out trying to justify eliminating holistic because there are cheaters. There are also people who are incredibly enriched that are benefitted in testing. Kids also cheat at school. I see no one calling to ban grades. Student accomplishments are important indicators of what they may bring to campus. The real message here should be don't try to cheat your way in.

Everyone wants to ban grades. My school is the only school without super inflated grades.

How about we emphasize integrity rather than normalize cheating.

And AOs need to realize that the kids with the most integrity are often the quiet kids. Not the ones making the most noise and the so-called class leaders.

How can you substantiate that? The co-presidents of my oldest DC's HS class were beyond reproach, truly so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I know, OP! It's infuriating, because as long as admissions are "holistic", there will be cheating and fraud.

It's much harder to cheat on a standardized test than it is to casually invent a bunch of extra-curriculars.

University admissions need to be entirely academic and standardized.

This is a cop out trying to justify eliminating holistic because there are cheaters. There are also people who are incredibly enriched that are benefitted in testing. Kids also cheat at school. I see no one calling to ban grades. Student accomplishments are important indicators of what they may bring to campus. The real message here should be don't try to cheat your way in.

Everyone wants to ban grades. My school is the only school without super inflated grades.

How about we emphasize integrity rather than normalize cheating.

And AOs need to realize that the kids with the most integrity are often the quiet kids. Not the ones making the most noise and the so-called class leaders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, what's the difference between stretching the truth on ECs and submitting a test score which represents hours of undisclosed one on one tutoring, multiple retakes and extra time in a quiet room?

In one example you put the work into it (testing prep), and in the other example you pretend you did something you didn’t.

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, what's the difference between stretching the truth on ECs and submitting a test score which represents hours of undisclosed one on one tutoring, multiple retakes and extra time in a quiet room?