Anonymous wrote:What was most disappointing is watching kids similarly situated to your kids getting into t10 and yours not....can't help to wonder what went wrong and feel that your kid didn't get what they deserved. We all know how kids compare

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was most disappointing is watching kids similarly situated to your kids getting into t10 and yours not....can't help to wonder what went wrong and feel that your kid didn't get what they deserved. We all know how kids compare

The "smart kids" at our school are going to UMCP, Vanderbilt, Michigan, Chicago, MIT, Yale. The smartest of the bunch is going to UMCP because the school excels in something that the other schools don't. They are all in high spirits. One kid we all expected to go to a t10 is going to UMBC. He says he lost steam in 11th grade and hopes to transfer after getting away from chaos at home. I think I'm more impressed with his grit than I am with any of the others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What was most disappointing is watching kids similarly situated to your kids getting into t10 and yours not....can't help to wonder what went wrong and feel that your kid didn't get what they deserved. We all know how kids compare

Why do you feel your kid “deserved” it?

Anonymous wrote:What was most disappointing is watching kids similarly situated to your kids getting into t10 and yours not....can't help to wonder what went wrong and feel that your kid didn't get what they deserved. We all know how kids compare

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I smell a 🧌

Do you think her profile is too "basic"? She says she regrets not picking more creative ECs, although I think her ECs were perfectly suited for her major + demonstrated her passion.

Yeah, I agree there is nothing that stands out in her ECs.

ECs:
not impressive: - A few regional awards (STEM)
Actually good: - 200+ volunteer hours @ local hospital
everyone has one: - Founder of non-profit
this year AOs don't like research for some reason: - Research w/ prof at T30
everyone has one: - Competitive summer program for BME
everyone has this: - Lots of community service

This year I heard Stanford retracted an acceptance because the applicant lied about volunteer hours.
Are those 200 volunteer hours @ local hospital registered with the school?

Yes, she made sure that everything was registered. I'm assuming the more "basic" ECs were the factor harming her application?

No, it's just a bizarre system that makes kids do these things. In other countries kids don't have to do these admissions acrobatics.

No, other countries instead track kids around age 11/12 (or earlier). You are tracked at this age, based on a one day test. Do well, you can be on tract for pre-med/stem/engineering. Do okay, and you can focus on humanities and social sciences (non stem), do worse, and you won't be tracked for much college at all. And without $$$$$$ it is damn near impossible to get off those tracks.
So yeah, I 1000% prefer what we have, where a kid can grow academically after 5th/6th grade and still decide to be an engineer or a doctor after age 12.

Nah. You can pretty much tell where a kid should be by the end of 6th grade. Pretending that kids can “grow” after that is a waste of everyone’s time and of public resources.

I used to teach 6th grade and know what happened wrt college/education outcomes/general success in life for many of my former students and I strongly disagree with that.

Anonymous wrote:What was most disappointing is watching kids similarly situated to your kids getting into t10 and yours not....can't help to wonder what went wrong and feel that your kid didn't get what they deserved. We all know how kids compare

Anonymous wrote:What was most disappointing is watching kids similarly situated to your kids getting into t10 and yours not....can't help to wonder what went wrong and feel that your kid didn't get what they deserved. We all know how kids compare

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harsh comments on this thread. Didn’t read them all

To the OP, I think college acceptances are a big farce. We pretend like if this child just had diff ECs or something else her outcomes would have been different. I know two kids admitted to Ivies this cycle that are very average (no leadership, hard working but not brilliant). Why were they admitted? Because they come from rural communities and are economically disadvantaged according to the college’s formula. That gave them the boost to get admitted. Kids from the DC region are on a whole other playing field. It really opened my eyes that admissions is a joke and we are pretending that our kids have some control over the process.

Strongly agree. There is nothing wrong with OP’s profile. What’s wrong is a corrupt admissions process that favors rich people through ED, athletes and often legacies and more. No one should be so invested in affirming the current admissions process that they blame this child, especially with racist Asian stereotypes. OP’s kid will do great at any of the colleges she was accepted to. W&M and Pitt seem to have many happy students! OP, I suggest you have this thread locked and stop subjecting yoursef and your kid to these insults.

For the final time: Anyone can do ED. You just have to run the NPC and be prepared to pay what the school says you "can pay". If you can't pay what they say, well then you should not ED. Or if you "could pay but want the opportunity to see what merit offers a kid gets" well then ED is not for you. But you could choose to ED and pay
So yeah, kids whose parents have planned and saved for college can ED, and it's not just rich kids. [i] There are plenty of MC/UMC parents who chose to save and make education a priority[b]. If you didn't don't complain now

Yeah, they’re called “rich kids.” Anyone who has the ability to pay all their bills AND save money for retirement AND save money for college is rich.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I smell a 🧌

Do you think her profile is too "basic"? She says she regrets not picking more creative ECs, although I think her ECs were perfectly suited for her major + demonstrated her passion.

Yeah, I agree there is nothing that stands out in her ECs.

ECs:
not impressive: - A few regional awards (STEM)
Actually good: - 200+ volunteer hours @ local hospital
everyone has one: - Founder of non-profit
this year AOs don't like research for some reason: - Research w/ prof at T30
everyone has one: - Competitive summer program for BME
everyone has this: - Lots of community service

This year I heard Stanford retracted an acceptance because the applicant lied about volunteer hours.
Are those 200 volunteer hours @ local hospital registered with the school?

Yes, she made sure that everything was registered. I'm assuming the more "basic" ECs were the factor harming her application?

No, it's just a bizarre system that makes kids do these things. In other countries kids don't have to do these admissions acrobatics.

No, other countries instead track kids around age 11/12 (or earlier). You are tracked at this age, based on a one day test. Do well, you can be on tract for pre-med/stem/engineering. Do okay, and you can focus on humanities and social sciences (non stem), do worse, and you won't be tracked for much college at all. And without $$$$$$ it is damn near impossible to get off those tracks.
So yeah, I 1000% prefer what we have, where a kid can grow academically after 5th/6th grade and still decide to be an engineer or a doctor after age 12.

Nah. You can pretty much tell where a kid should be by the end of 6th grade. Pretending that kids can “grow” after that is a waste of everyone’s time and of public resources.

This is so un-American!
I am an immigrant from Asia. What attracts us so much about America is precisely that, as long as you work hard, you always have another opportunity.
Tiger parents often pushed kids hard in their childhood, then the kids lost motivation once they left home.

America doesn’t do everything right. The education system is a perfect example of this! It is a huge waste of time, money, and effort to try and get every kid to go to college. Many kids should be put on a vocational track in high school, as many countries do.

Could not agree more. Open enrollment in Honors and AP classes at our public HS has been an unmitigated disaster for the kids who actually deserve to be there. Tons of kids are literally flunking. It should not even be possible to flunk an AP class. It means someone screwed up somewhere.

Yes, I agree open enrollment into AP courses should not be allowed. Kids should be required to at minimum get a B or better in the honors/honor equivalent course the prior year or an B+ or better in a regular course. But many do allow open enrollment because it means less work for the overworked staff and teachers, it means they don't have to deal with nasty pushy parents who want "my kid belongs in AP X or Honors X, I don't care that they got a C in regular X this year" This way with open enrollment, any failures are totally on the parents/student.

DP. I completely disagree. How does someone else's kid potentially doing badly in an AP affect you or your kid? EVERY student should have the opportunity to excel, and most do. And if they do badly or fail, then it is indeed on them/their parents - no one else is affected.

Except the rest of the students in an AP class where the teacher is spending way too much time trying to help those failing kids. What a waste of everyone’s time, including the kids who could be learning a lot more in a class appropriate for their level.

That doesn't happen in high school. In AP classes, all kids are expected to keep up. If they don't, the teacher will counsel them to drop down a level. What you're describing is an elementary school situation.

From an actual APUSH teacher in an open enrollment high school classroom, not elementary:

Any attempt to have reading or proper homework assignments done is typically met with massive failures. Because of this, I can't get through material as fast as I would like, and we only get up to barely talking about the Cold War when it's already exam time.

Do you really think that kids who can’t keep up aren’t going to affect teacher workload and the pace of the class, especially if there are several of these kids in the class? Pressure on the teacher from admin and parents can be brutal.

it sounds like most or all of the class is not prepared or willing to put in the effort. If it is just a handful of kids, you give them the grades they deserve and hope they get the message

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I smell a 🧌

Do you think her profile is too "basic"? She says she regrets not picking more creative ECs, although I think her ECs were perfectly suited for her major + demonstrated her passion.

Yeah, I agree there is nothing that stands out in her ECs.

ECs:
not impressive: - A few regional awards (STEM)
Actually good: - 200+ volunteer hours @ local hospital
everyone has one: - Founder of non-profit
this year AOs don't like research for some reason: - Research w/ prof at T30
everyone has one: - Competitive summer program for BME
everyone has this: - Lots of community service

This year I heard Stanford retracted an acceptance because the applicant lied about volunteer hours.
Are those 200 volunteer hours @ local hospital registered with the school?

Yes, she made sure that everything was registered. I'm assuming the more "basic" ECs were the factor harming her application?

No, it's just a bizarre system that makes kids do these things. In other countries kids don't have to do these admissions acrobatics.

No, other countries instead track kids around age 11/12 (or earlier). You are tracked at this age, based on a one day test. Do well, you can be on tract for pre-med/stem/engineering. Do okay, and you can focus on humanities and social sciences (non stem), do worse, and you won't be tracked for much college at all. And without $$$$$$ it is damn near impossible to get off those tracks.
So yeah, I 1000% prefer what we have, where a kid can grow academically after 5th/6th grade and still decide to be an engineer or a doctor after age 12.

Nah. You can pretty much tell where a kid should be by the end of 6th grade. Pretending that kids can “grow” after that is a waste of everyone’s time and of public resources.

This is so un-American!
I am an immigrant from Asia. What attracts us so much about America is precisely that, as long as you work hard, you always have another opportunity.
Tiger parents often pushed kids hard in their childhood, then the kids lost motivation once they left home.

America doesn’t do everything right. The education system is a perfect example of this! It is a huge waste of time, money, and effort to try and get every kid to go to college. Many kids should be put on a vocational track in high school, as many countries do.

If the kids wants a vocational path, then yes. We need to step back and allow them to take that path, starting 8/9th grade. But no we shouldn't force kids onto that path based on their test scores on one or two days.
But yes, if a kid wants to be a plumber, then don't require 2-3 years of Spanish and Pre-Calc. Let them take thru Alg2 and let them take Vocational courses for half the day and by junior senior year let them start training for specifics (if they want).
But do not force kids down that path. If you offer it, most who are "not college material" will select it.

Yes we should force them down that path. It’s a waste of time and resources to try and prepare kids for college who don’t have the chops to be there. And yes you can know who they are on the basis of testing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I smell a 🧌

Do you think her profile is too "basic"? She says she regrets not picking more creative ECs, although I think her ECs were perfectly suited for her major + demonstrated her passion.

Yeah, I agree there is nothing that stands out in her ECs.

ECs:
not impressive: - A few regional awards (STEM)
Actually good: - 200+ volunteer hours @ local hospital
everyone has one: - Founder of non-profit
this year AOs don't like research for some reason: - Research w/ prof at T30
everyone has one: - Competitive summer program for BME
everyone has this: - Lots of community service

This year I heard Stanford retracted an acceptance because the applicant lied about volunteer hours.
Are those 200 volunteer hours @ local hospital registered with the school?

Yes, she made sure that everything was registered. I'm assuming the more "basic" ECs were the factor harming her application?

No, it's just a bizarre system that makes kids do these things. In other countries kids don't have to do these admissions acrobatics.

No, other countries instead track kids around age 11/12 (or earlier). You are tracked at this age, based on a one day test. Do well, you can be on tract for pre-med/stem/engineering. Do okay, and you can focus on humanities and social sciences (non stem), do worse, and you won't be tracked for much college at all. And without $$$$$$ it is damn near impossible to get off those tracks.
So yeah, I 1000% prefer what we have, where a kid can grow academically after 5th/6th grade and still decide to be an engineer or a doctor after age 12.

Nah. You can pretty much tell where a kid should be by the end of 6th grade. Pretending that kids can “grow” after that is a waste of everyone’s time and of public resources.

This is so un-American!
I am an immigrant from Asia. What attracts us so much about America is precisely that, as long as you work hard, you always have another opportunity.
Tiger parents often pushed kids hard in their childhood, then the kids lost motivation once they left home.

America doesn’t do everything right. The education system is a perfect example of this! It is a huge waste of time, money, and effort to try and get every kid to go to college. Many kids should be put on a vocational track in high school, as many countries do.

Could not agree more. Open enrollment in Honors and AP classes at our public HS has been an unmitigated disaster for the kids who actually deserve to be there. Tons of kids are literally flunking. It should not even be possible to flunk an AP class. It means someone screwed up somewhere.

Yes, I agree open enrollment into AP courses should not be allowed. Kids should be required to at minimum get a B or better in the honors/honor equivalent course the prior year or an B+ or better in a regular course. But many do allow open enrollment because it means less work for the overworked staff and teachers, it means they don't have to deal with nasty pushy parents who want "my kid belongs in AP X or Honors X, I don't care that they got a C in regular X this year" This way with open enrollment, any failures are totally on the parents/student.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I smell a 🧌

Do you think her profile is too "basic"? She says she regrets not picking more creative ECs, although I think her ECs were perfectly suited for her major + demonstrated her passion.

Yeah, I agree there is nothing that stands out in her ECs.

ECs:
not impressive: - A few regional awards (STEM)
Actually good: - 200+ volunteer hours @ local hospital
everyone has one: - Founder of non-profit
this year AOs don't like research for some reason: - Research w/ prof at T30
everyone has one: - Competitive summer program for BME
everyone has this: - Lots of community service

This year I heard Stanford retracted an acceptance because the applicant lied about volunteer hours.
Are those 200 volunteer hours @ local hospital registered with the school?

Yes, she made sure that everything was registered. I'm assuming the more "basic" ECs were the factor harming her application?

No, it's just a bizarre system that makes kids do these things. In other countries kids don't have to do these admissions acrobatics.

No, other countries instead track kids around age 11/12 (or earlier). You are tracked at this age, based on a one day test. Do well, you can be on tract for pre-med/stem/engineering. Do okay, and you can focus on humanities and social sciences (non stem), do worse, and you won't be tracked for much college at all. And without $$$$$$ it is damn near impossible to get off those tracks.
So yeah, I 1000% prefer what we have, where a kid can grow academically after 5th/6th grade and still decide to be an engineer or a doctor after age 12.

Nah. You can pretty much tell where a kid should be by the end of 6th grade. Pretending that kids can “grow” after that is a waste of everyone’s time and of public resources.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harsh comments on this thread. Didn’t read them all

To the OP, I think college acceptances are a big farce. We pretend like if this child just had diff ECs or something else her outcomes would have been different. I know two kids admitted to Ivies this cycle that are very average (no leadership, hard working but not brilliant). Why were they admitted? Because they come from rural communities and are economically disadvantaged according to the college’s formula. That gave them the boost to get admitted. Kids from the DC region are on a whole other playing field. It really opened my eyes that admissions is a joke and we are pretending that our kids have some control over the process.

Strongly agree. There is nothing wrong with OP’s profile. What’s wrong is a corrupt admissions process that favors rich people through ED, athletes and often legacies and more. No one should be so invested in affirming the current admissions process that they blame this child, especially with racist Asian stereotypes. OP’s kid will do great at any of the colleges she was accepted to. W&M and Pitt seem to have many happy students! OP, I suggest you have this thread locked and stop subjecting yoursef and your kid to these insults.

For the final time: Anyone can do ED. You just have to run the NPC and be prepared to pay what the school says you "can pay". If you can't pay what they say, well then you should not ED. Or if you "could pay but want the opportunity to see what merit offers a kid gets" well then ED is not for you. But you could choose to ED and pay
So yeah, kids whose parents have planned and saved for college can ED, and it's not just rich kids. [i] There are plenty of MC/UMC parents who chose to save and make education a priority[b]. If you didn't don't complain now

Anonymous wrote:Harvard about to take it in the a**

Big time