Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts.
1) extra time is not an advantage if it is proportional and legit to a dress a learning disability. It is supposed to be compensation for a deficit. But, I agree the system needs reform. Kids usually get a round block od extra time without proof that it is proportional to the need - in other words, if a deficit warrants an extra 10 minutes that kid likely will get 30 min or 60 min more- or no extra time at all.
2) but OP's point that privates stack their schools with students with hooks is well taken. It is one way they try to ensure that their college placements exceed averages. Of course, the best advantage is just an inredibly self-motivated student with insane talent and supportive parents with an interest and means of suportting the child in any way possible.

The other problem is that many parents have seized unfair timing advantages for their non-disabled kids by paying a "specialist" to label their kid with some specious disorder. It throws the whole practice into disrepute - too many aggressive parents gaming the system.

My high-IQ kid has a language-based learning disability that interferes mightily with her ability to demonstrate what she knows. I would give just about anything to make it go away, but it never will. Some extra time on a test allows her to come closer to her potential and helps her not dissolve into a puddle of anxiety and self-loathing. But that in no way affects your kid.

I am interested in understanding how you know what she knows if she can't express it. The puddle of anxiety and self loathing- where are they coming from? If your child has high IQ and has language problems, then I am assuming that he/she is good at spatial reasoning. But why is that a disability?
My DC had a 99% vebal score and 50% spatial score. So math felt hard for her. But was it? It was hard only compared to something else she was good at. Should she have gotten extra time on her math tests? She just worked hard and got As anyway, despite being only of average ability.

This post is example #389,212 of why this whole website is total crap

What the pluck, OP! You just posted this question because you want to feel superior about your super de duper child because he or she got in without hooks? Wow. If you are real, you need to move on. Its time to stop getting your validation from your child.

Anonymous wrote:I did some quick fact checking on the composition of recent entering classes at Harvard and Yale. To generalize my findings: URM students in the aggregate make up about 25% of any class (Latinos + African Americans + Pacific Islanders + Native Americans), recruited athletes are about 10-15%, and legacies between 7 and 12%. There is some overlap between these groups, of course, especially between AA and athletes. So, as a unique set, these categories make up about 40% +/- of any class, leaving 60% for at-large candidates who matriculate. The yield rate for these schools from accepted recruited athletes and legacies is higher than for the at-large accepted population. So, it would be reasonable to gross up the 60% matriculating number for at-larges to something closer to 2/3 of the total acceptances.

This notion that only hooked candidates get in is a local fiction. Generalizing across the entire pool of applicants, it is clear that there is an opportunity for unhooked kids. Trying to draw conclusions from one class of graduates from one tiny private school tells you absolutely nothing. Nothing. Place the blame squarely where it belongs, on a ridiculously competitive and idiosyncratic admissions process.

There is some overlap, but a higher percentage of recruited athletes are white than in the non-athlete pool, due to recruitment for sports like crew and fencing.

I agree with the second paragraph of 10:51 above.

As for the first, these statistics may be leaving out one other important element -- the growth of international students. Some may overlap with URM but I am not sure that is how they are counted at all schools. 25 years ago, the undergraduate international student population at ivy league schools were low single digits. Today they are double digits often between 10-20%. That is a big difference in the number of available slots (and, to anticipate a question, often the international students are among the academically strongest and otherwise most talented in the classes -- huge foreign competition)

I did some quick fact checking on the composition of recent entering classes at Harvard and Yale. To generalize my findings: URM students in the aggregate make up about 25% of any class (Latinos + African Americans + Pacific Islanders + Native Americans), recruited athletes are about 10-15%, and legacies between 7 and 12%. There is some overlap between these groups, of course, especially between AA and athletes. So, as a unique set, these categories make up about 40% +/- of any class, leaving 60% for at-large candidates who matriculate. The yield rate for these schools from accepted recruited athletes and legacies is higher than for the at-large accepted population. So, it would be reasonable to gross up the 60% matriculating number for at-larges to something closer to 2/3 of the total acceptances.

This notion that only hooked candidates get in is a local fiction. Generalizing across the entire pool of applicants, it is clear that there is an opportunity for unhooked kids. Trying to draw conclusions from one class of graduates from one tiny private school tells you absolutely nothing. Nothing. Place the blame squarely where it belongs, on a ridiculously competitive and idiosyncratic admissions process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my child's senior class of 81 students only 24 were plain vanilla , meaning they were not an ivy legacy, minority, recruit able athlete, or had extra time on their tests. Most of the people in the class had some advantage over just their resume. I was wondering about the numbers in other private school senior classes.

Right, because white kids who get to attend private school aren't advantaged in any way.

Trust me, the advantages that your child gets from being white, specifically the million second chances, translate to much bigger pluses in the admissions world than the "tip" my kid gets for being black, and the advantages a child gets from having a brain that learns in the way that schools teach, is far more significant than the "tip" you get from extra time.

Your kid is starting 6 inches from the finish line, and concentrating only on the kid 5 inches from the line, rather than those 99 and a 1/2 feet behind him.

Ivy league and other elite schools go out of their way to recruit 'disadvantaged' students. The top dozen or so schools have multi billion dollar endowments that allow need-blind admissions policies. The kids left out in the cold are the talented-enough-to-apply but not superstar middle and upper middle class non-disadvantaged kids. Of course, a small number of elites will be offered admission (think Obama children) regardless of how talented they are, but those numbers are minimal relative to the total number of applicants.

To say that just because a kid is white confers an advantage is plan wrong. Anyone who has spent time around administrators or professors at these places knows how hard they work specifically to avoid conferring any advantage to 'white' kids as you put it.

It gets extremely old reading posts on every thread that dismiss people as TROLLs. Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean that person is lying or posing. Just move on and find a thread that you find more "credible" and leave those who are looking to have a rational discussion. If we are "fooled" by a fake OP, thread or post, so what? We clicked on it because we found the topic interesting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP it reads from your post that your child has not "yet" been admitted to the "top Ivy" you desired for him or her, and that you are attributing "tips" as the reason that some of her/his classmates were admitted early, while he or she was deferred.

First, your child will likely be admitted to one or more of the good schools they applied to, in the regular round. Second, please realize that there are so many good colleges and universities where your child will thrive and succeed, aside from the "top Ivies". And third, please do not discuss your "tip" theory around your great student, because you do not want to pass on your own personal insecurities or resentment to him or her.

OP here. My child was admitted to Princeton early and Harvard regular. She was born with brains and worked hard and had a tip which she did not use, and in my opinion was lucky. I am not sour grapes but I realize how easy it is to hear a tone or attitude which isn't in the post- because why would anybody post about this if not for sour grapes? I am posting because this is the situation at ONE school- the only one I know about, and I was wondering how it is at other schools. Its not hard to figure these numbers out if you have a relatively small class and know most of the people because you have been there for many years. I didn't google anyone!! If your kid started in 9th grade it would be hard to know this information as there aren't as many opportunities for parent interaction in the upper school years. I truly don't mean to offend anyone or suggest that ivy admission is the only positive outcome of private school attendance. I don't need a volunteer job, but thanks to the well-wishers who tried to fix me up with one.

Well, most likely you are a phony, posting just to troll.

To start with, nobody uses the word "tip" but you. And hey! I'm a Yale grad, so I call BS on you on your etymology. Naples, WaWas, Store 24, Linsley-Chit, Science Hill, Yale Whale, Elmo's, Rudy's, Demery's, Mory's Cups -- those are all words and phrases from the Yale of the 1980s -- not "tip."

To go on, you say your daughter was admitted to Princeton early, Harvard regular. Regular admissions hasn't happened yet (yes, yes, you'll post that your daughter has graduated).

To continue, nobody does know where everyone in the class's parents went to college (thank god). And people don't know everyone who has extra time (thank god), even if you employ your child as a spy.

Emulate Peer Gynt and go where trolls go, and give it a rest already.

Anonymous wrote:OP it reads from your post that your child has not "yet" been admitted to the "top Ivy" you desired for him or her, and that you are attributing "tips" as the reason that some of her/his classmates were admitted early, while he or she was deferred.

First, your child will likely be admitted to one or more of the good schools they applied to, in the regular round. Second, please realize that there are so many good colleges and universities where your child will thrive and succeed, aside from the "top Ivies". And third, please do not discuss your "tip" theory around your great student, because you do not want to pass on your own personal insecurities or resentment to him or her.

OP here. My child was admitted to Princeton early and Harvard regular. She was born with brains and worked hard and had a tip which she did not use, and in my opinion was lucky. I am not sour grapes but I realize how easy it is to hear a tone or attitude which isn't in the post- because why would anybody post about this if not for sour grapes? I am posting because this is the situation at ONE school- the only one I know about, and I was wondering how it is at other schools. Its not hard to figure these numbers out if you have a relatively small class and know most of the people because you have been there for many years. I didn't google anyone!! If your kid started in 9th grade it would be hard to know this information as there aren't as many opportunities for parent interaction in the upper school years. I truly don't mean to offend anyone or suggest that ivy admission is the only positive outcome of private school attendance. I don't need a volunteer job, but thanks to the well-wishers who tried to fix me up with one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The term is "hook," not "tip." Also, many of you don't seem to understand what's considered a hook and what isn't.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-michele-hernandez/10-secrets-for-top-colleg_b_1921183.html

This article was written in 2012- lgbtq is currently a hook, along with any kind of trans situation.

Being LGBTQ is not considered an under-represented minority. While many elite colleges are very gay-friendly (which is a good thing), that's different from getting a structural advantage in admissions (as is the case with recruited athletes/legacies/under-represented racial/ethnic minorities). Of course, a student's life story can be compelling, so an individual student who is LGBTQ could have a compelling story of overcoming hardship or finding the student's voice. But the status itself is not a "hook." So no need to add gay-bashing to the other intolerance shown by the green-eyed monsters who've emerged on this thread.

+!

Anonymous wrote:Some schools have added it as a category- and that isn't gay bashing. Johns hopkins medical school has added it- and other schools have as well. there is nothing green eyed about a fact!!

The schools I have read about explicitly state that while they are giving students an opportunity to identify as LGBT, it does NOT give them an advantage in the admissions process. If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP it reads from your post that your child has not "yet" been admitted to the "top Ivy" you desired for him or her, and that you are attributing "tips" as the reason that some of her/his classmates were admitted early, while he or she was deferred.

First, your child will likely be admitted to one or more of the good schools they applied to, in the regular round. Second, please realize that there are so many good colleges and universities where your child will thrive and succeed, aside from the "top Ivies". And third, please do not discuss your "tip" theory around your great student, because you do not want to pass on your own personal insecurities or resentment to him or her.

+100

Agreed.

You sound pitiful OP. There was a child at my DD's school who wrote and complained to some Ivies when other kids got in and hers didn't. And, like you, she poured over the Internet to find stats about each student and made presumptions about them.

GET A LIFE!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A few thoughts.
1) extra time is not an advantage if it is proportional and legit to a dress a learning disability. It is supposed to be compensation for a deficit. But, I agree the system needs reform. Kids usually get a round block od extra time without proof that it is proportional to the need - in other words, if a deficit warrants an extra 10 minutes that kid likely will get 30 min or 60 min more- or no extra time at all.
2) but OP's point that privates stack their schools with students with hooks is well taken. It is one way they try to ensure that their college placements exceed averages. Of course, the best advantage is just an inredibly self-motivated student with insane talent and supportive parents with an interest and means of suportting the child in any way possible.

The other problem is that many parents have seized unfair timing advantages for their non-disabled kids by paying a "specialist" to label their kid with some specious disorder. It throws the whole practice into disrepute - too many aggressive parents gaming the system.

My high-IQ kid has a language-based learning disability that interferes mightily with her ability to demonstrate what she knows. I would give just about anything to make it go away, but it never will. Some extra time on a test allows her to come closer to her potential and helps her not dissolve into a puddle of anxiety and self-loathing. But that in no way affects your kid.

Please use your close reading skills. I went back and highlighted the key phrase for you to make it easier. If anyone's kids are genuinely disabled, I don't begrudge them appropriate assistance. I was talking about a particular kind of parent playing a particular kind of dishonest game to buy their child an advantage they neither need nor deserve. So again: NON-DISABLED. I know parents who have gone far out of their way, and spent significant sums, to get a sketchy diagnosis so their kid could get extra time and so on, and wow, did that every pay off in improved scores and admission to more prestigious schools than they ever could have gotten playing it straight. As other PPs have pointed out - who WOULDN'T benefit!? Anyway, OP - sorry to hijack the thread.