My kid got into a top 5 UK college to study Psychology and she had done psych courses with Johns Hopkins, Columbia, UBC and Colby (in person).

It gave her a greater perspective on the subject than just taking AP psych and it definitely helped her get a place on the course.

The game is designed for you to participate starting from your child's fetal stage and continue across multiple generations, including your grandchildren and great-grandchildren. It is called RAT RACE

It's a game. Students do have genuine interests, but they are still kids. They need to grow, socialize, have free time to be bored, let their brains and bodies develop, be healthy with healthy food and exercise and sleep. What is expected of them is insane and not humanly possible to do it all. Parents help if/when they can because that is what parents do. That is literally our job. That is "family values" as I understand it. It is not wrong for parents of means to use those means to support their kids. Parents likely got to where they are by working hard and being supported themselved either financially and/or otherwise by their own parents. I don't understand the scorn of parents who support their kids. Kids are not independent beings at age 14. The colleges/system created this stupid game so the kids and families are playing it... or not playing it. It's a free country (for now) and you can choose to play or not. It's not the parents fault and kids should not be shamed for having supportive families.
As for graduating undergrads not getting jobs, it's not due to parental coddling - it's due to the destructive policies and changes from AI.

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.

I am not knocking your kid. It is great that they want to spend the summer doing research rather than relaxing, but, what you are describing is absolutely pay to play.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel the same — when I interview for my alma mater, a lot of these high-achieving students basically scream, 'I come from wealth and privilege.'

But, what if they do come from wealth and privilege? Why do they need to be something they aren’t to impress you. Why can’t they live their own authentic life. Can’t a kid who is high achieving just be recognized for their achievements. A 1600 on the SAT is still a 1600 even if you summer in Maine.

The kid who summers in Maine might do that in college too and then be stuck without a job whereas their peers who spend summers DOING stuff seem motivated enough to get internships and good jobs after college — become famous or donors or whatever. That’s why kids need to be doing something productive over summer — not sure when this trend started, but clearly this is the situation now. I don’t like it either.

FWIW my 1600 kid was admitted to MIT without research or pay to play or math beyond Calc BC. What mattered was the impact they had in our community — the project showed motivation, willingness to take a risk, leadership and compassion for others. No money spent at all. It’s possible! And get this — DC was not even aiming for MIT or other selective college. Just decided to throw in some apps due to the 1600 and 4.0. They had a good story which was authentic and that’s what mattered in the end.

This. Mine volunteered and gave back in their community in a niche way. Authenticity is important.

Pretty much all activities in this country are pay-to-play. To the PP who asked, OF COURSE club sports are. They invented the term!

The way things are going, it is no surprise that more schools are going back to the SATs. I predict that scores are going to become more and more important. These are pay-to-play too, of course, but at least they show some academic inclination and ambition.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’d be surprised how many do. They even have high school internships in IB/PE… my kid is there, against all odds, so I know.

Anonymous wrote:
Yep. We are doing this for my kid. It is 100% crafted to sound sincere and unique, but mostly BS. It is so ridiculous. Just playing the game.

The real question is: what does college and education even mean anymore? Has it become just another fancy name, like a Louis Vuitton bag? Are companies still buying prestige instead of potential? I'm honestly shocked that there are now consultants just for landing internships and job placements. It's endless insanity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep. We are doing this for my kid. It is 100% crafted to sound sincere and unique, but mostly BS. It is so ridiculous. Just playing the game.

Same same.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep. We are doing this for my kid. It is 100% crafted to sound sincere and unique, but mostly BS. It is so ridiculous. Just playing the game.

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.