Anonymous wrote:Pay to play are worthless for help in getting into a school! You are just giving that school money. Colleges would rather see your child have a job or something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC participated in one of the”pay to play” at an Ivy (still had to fill out app, write essays, get LOR’s, transcripts so it wasn’t “pay and you’re in”) and then participated in another that was specific to their interest, highly competitive and required all of the above plus resume and more.

The latter expressly told the participants that it would help them if they applied ED but I realize that’s a rarity with these programs. Regardless, they were selected which looks great and it earned them college credit.

U Chicago.

Nope (I knew people would assume that but it wasn’t)

Which school was it then?

Tisch - which no one here cares about which is why I didn’t mention. It doesn’t lead to FAANG or Wall Street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are college counselors dissuading kids from participating in so-called "pay to play" programs on the basis that they signal wealth and privilege?

Private school, club sports or other expensive ECs - not to mention the parents' professions and zip code - also signal wealth and privilege but no college counselor is discouraging those types of things. Also, isn't "full pay" suppose to be an advantage in college admissions so, for example, it would be good for my public school kid to participate in an expensive program to signal that we are "full pay"?

People say that "pay to play" won't give your kid an advantage in getting into colleges, but from what I've seen from the current seniors, a good number of them did do a pre-college program at a college and also got into that college. I can think of specific kids who did pre-college programs at Brown, Duke, UChicago, Northwestern, U. Michigan, Georgetown, and were accepted to those schools senior year. They probably did leverage that "pay to play" summer experience in essays and activities lists to show "demonstrated interest."

I think this is a case of "wishful thinking" on our part. They don't help anything except the bottom line of the offering school.

A summer program can help the application tell a credible story. If the applicant says they want to major in X, and they did a summer pre-college program in X, then that program is helpful to the application. They also help your kid get a better understanding of whether or not they really do want to major in X.

Yes yes that gives you plausible deniability that you are just wealthy and lighting money on fire.

You can take classes at a CC, or online (OCW, coursera) classes, yadda yadda. come on people, be serious.

You sound bitter and jealous.

just because I can afford to, doesn't mean I will go around lighting money on fire.

The fact that you describe $3,500 summer class tuition as “lighting money on fire” means you can’t REALLY afford it. We regularly spend over 100k on charity each year. A check for a few thousand dollars is nothing.

While donating to your kids private school is technically a nonprofit and deductible, i wouldn't consider it a charity. YMMV

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC participated in one of the”pay to play” at an Ivy (still had to fill out app, write essays, get LOR’s, transcripts so it wasn’t “pay and you’re in”) and then participated in another that was specific to their interest, highly competitive and required all of the above plus resume and more.

The latter expressly told the participants that it would help them if they applied ED but I realize that’s a rarity with these programs. Regardless, they were selected which looks great and it earned them college credit.

U Chicago.

Nope (I knew people would assume that but it wasn’t)

Which school was it then?

Anonymous wrote:Pay to play are worthless for help in getting into a school! You are just giving that school money. Colleges would rather see your child have a job or something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Summer programs aren’t just for college apps—they can help you learn/perfect skills.

I attended debate summer camp, and the work I did there probably helped me make it to the final round at state. And that was impressive…not the fact that I’d gone to camp.

I think this is different. It’s almost impossible to compete at a national level in debate without doing summer debate camps. Definitely a means to an end.

Anonymous wrote:Summer programs aren’t just for college apps—they can help you learn/perfect skills.

I attended debate summer camp, and the work I did there probably helped me make it to the final round at state. And that was impressive…not the fact that I’d gone to camp.

Anonymous wrote:Pay to play are worthless for help in getting into a school! You are just giving that school money. Colleges would rather see your child have a job or something.

Anonymous wrote:I think part of it is that the really high end college counselors help develop bespoke summer activities for kids. That is art of how the justify charging so much money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have done alumni interviews for a top school for many years. Unclear how much my opinion matters. I generally prefer a kid who works at a camp or scooping ice cream to one doing one of these programs. But I do not view the programs negatively. It is all how it fits into the overall narrative.

I see no harm in doing it at a different school than mine - I likely wouldn't ask, but a simple answer of "I spent the summer at that school but realized I like your school better because of XYZ" or "I chose them for this specific reason" easily explains it - just be prepared to explain.

These programs are much better than teen tours, which are the ultimate sign of privilege. Particularly domestic ones. International ones are very hit or miss.

I can see this. My child goes to a full summer sleepaway camp and I’ve noticed many of the counselors are in or set to go to top colleges, and have been either a camper or camp counselor every yr through middle and high school. They wouldn’t have been able to do these pre-college programs. I do think it speaks to some resilience and mental fortitude if you can spend 7 weeks without electricity, A/C, or a phone at summer camp wrangling kids and tweens.

Full summer sleepaway camps are something few families afford, and the equivalent of signaling to an admissions officer that you're wealthy. Even if you're a counselor, you're only being hired because you went there as a child. Sounds like a lovely summer, but unaffordable to most American families.

Yes and no. My child goes to a fancy camp. Younger, pre-college age junior counselors tend to almost all be former campers, so yes, that is signaling wealth. But it also signals willingness to work - I would take a rich kid who spent 7 weeks as a counselor at one of these camps over a rich kid who worked at mom's hedge fund, on an "academic trip" or a "service trip" abroad (which tend to be boondoggles), or whatever else. Because however ritzy the camp is, counselors still have really tough jobs, and in some ways even harder as parents have very high expectations. And the owners take this responsibility very seriously so only hire their best former campers - having paid to go to the camp for many years does not guarantee a job - this is a very tough conversation for many camp owners that we loved taking your money for seven years but now do not want your kid responsible for younger children.

Older counselors who are 19 or 20 actually often come from less name-brand schools. Often kids looking to see a different part of the country, future teachers, etc. My child's camp has pipelines into a few very random, off-the-radar schools. Plus they draw a lot of international counselors to fill things out.

I agree. Being a camp counselor shows a good level of maturity, work ethic and social skills that would be viewed as a positive thing from me as an employer. But your contrast of working as a counselor at a fancy camp vs. "working at mom's hedge fund" or "doing a service trip abroad" are all things that are characteristics of kids in the top 5% of American incomes.

Good points. But in my original post I was also focused on jobs like working at a day camp, bagging groceries, waitressing, scooping ice cream, etc. which demonstrate zero privilege. They just demonstrate work ethic, responsibility, people skills, etc. Sorry we got side tracked by sleepaway camps.