NYT: "Peak College Admissions Insanity"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elite schools are basically a harry potter sorting hat for IB, Big Law etc.. and what they really are doing is creating a net work among the already rich/elite kids. Middle class smart kids may get in but very few have the contacts and skills to net work themselves up that high. The richer you are the less relevant your major needs to be

I don’t agree with this. As a low income student, etc. who went to one of these schools, there have not been any barriers as far as ascending, etc. Frankly, once you’re in a company—and I’m talking about companies with established governing structures like public companies, companies that are close to IPOing, long-standing private companies, etc. your school/prior contacts are not going to tip the needle on mobility. It’s about showing impact, thinking outside of the box, being well-liked among your peers/leadership, and being able to make the case that you’re ready for the next job level.

No company is 100% a meritocracy, but a lot of companies try to get as close to this as possible. Also, in the hiring processes, especially for standard/non-exec employees (really anything below VPs) there are controls in place to stem nepotism. For example, hiring processes with an emphasis on performance rather than who you know. A VP can refer someone for a role but if the hiring manager does not think they are a fit/they don’t perform well in the interview (s), or there just happens to be a better candidate, even if by a millimeter, they’re not getting hired. Also, I generally don’t observe VPs recommending candidates, especially at lower levels (i.e., roles/levels that do not report to VPs). They may recommend a peer, another potential VP, or someone within C-Suite. The pool for this levels of jobs (i.e., executive leadership) is quite low. Most people will never make it to this level irrespective of school, wealth, etc.

+1 as a middle class kid who went to a top Ivy for undergrad then a top law school. I do agree that the rich elite kids did tend to stick together during college, and I was not and will never be part of whatever network they have. But I had no trouble breaking into Biglaw, which from my observation is based on merit - interviews, grades to get an offer. And quality of work to stay employed.

+2. At the end of the day, no one wants to hire someone that is going to not be able to do the work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone catch the dig on Northeastern - I was floored that Northeastern's per pupil spending was "less per student on instruction than the Boston public schools." Now, granted, Boston spends more per student than any other district, but still - you would think a private university that charges $80K/year to educate 20K bright, motivated kids could do better than a school district that is trying to educate 54,000 kids with various levels of readiness and other issues.

I loved that part. I'm not exactly a Northeastern stan, to put it mildly, so this made me laugh at loud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For Rania the news was not so good: A full ride at Wesleyan.

Poor Rania.

Higher education is so broken in this country. The utterly ridiculous cost, shameless unethical admissions processes, the dumb idea that if a university has space for a good portion of its applicants that there is something wrong with it (Do we want our universities to educate the populace or not?), employers focusing on just a few top schools, etc.

Who is rania?

Rania from the article in the first post.

DP. It's not even an article. It's an opinion piece from a very slanted perspective. The writer seems ignorant of ED rules and financial aid, but seeing he is from the Ed dept under the Trump administration, I think it is duplicity rather than ignorance.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it isn’t. I know legacies at Cornell, Brown, Chicago and Yale after not getting into Princeton.

Princeton is in the worst possible place with legacy. The numbers are something like

1/4 legacies get in

1/40 non-legacies get in

The alumni community thinks legacy is worthless, because most of their kids get denied. Meanwhile everyone else can see that if you aren’t a legacy you’re in a much worse position.

+1000 Yes your legacy kid may not have gotten in because when admission rates fall to 3 pct it is hard for anyone to get in. But legacy kids still have a much much better shot than the kid who isn’t genetically blessed with an elite school alum parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it isn’t. I know legacies at Cornell, Brown, Chicago and Yale after not getting into Princeton.

Princeton is in the worst possible place with legacy. The numbers are something like

1/4 legacies get in

1/40 non-legacies get in

The alumni community thinks legacy is worthless, because most of their kids get denied. Meanwhile everyone else can see that if you aren’t a legacy you’re in a much worse position.

+1000 Yes your legacy kid may not have gotten in because when admission rates fall to 3 pct it is hard for anyone to get in. But legacy kids still have a much much better shot than the kid who isn’t genetically blessed with an elite school alum parents.

You are assuming that legacies and non-legacies, on average, have the exact same qualifications otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone catch the dig on Northeastern - I was floored that Northeastern's per pupil spending was "less per student on instruction than the Boston public schools." Now, granted, Boston spends more per student than any other district, but still - you would think a private university that charges $80K/year to educate 20K bright, motivated kids could do better than a school district that is trying to educate 54,000 kids with various levels of readiness and other issues.

I don't think they know what they are talking about as usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elite schools are basically a harry potter sorting hat for IB, Big Law etc.. and what they really are doing is creating a net work among the already rich/elite kids. Middle class smart kids may get in but very few have the contacts and skills to net work themselves up that high. The richer you are the less relevant your major needs to be

I don’t agree with this. As a low income student, etc. who went to one of these schools, there have not been any barriers as far as ascending, etc. Frankly, once you’re in a company—and I’m talking about companies with established governing structures like public companies, companies that are close to IPOing, long-standing private companies, etc. your school/prior contacts are not going to tip the needle on mobility. It’s about showing impact, thinking outside of the box, being well-liked among your peers/leadership, and being able to make the case that you’re ready for the next job level.

No company is 100% a meritocracy, but a lot of companies try to get as close to this as possible. Also, in the hiring processes, especially for standard/non-exec employees (really anything below VPs) there are controls in place to stem nepotism. For example, hiring processes with an emphasis on performance rather than who you know. A VP can refer someone for a role but if the hiring manager does not think they are a fit/they don’t perform well in the interview (s), or there just happens to be a better candidate, even if by a millimeter, they’re not getting hired. Also, I generally don’t observe VPs recommending candidates, especially at lower levels (i.e., roles/levels that do not report to VPs). They may recommend a peer, another potential VP, or someone within C-Suite. The pool for this levels of jobs (i.e., executive leadership) is quite low. Most people will never make it to this level irrespective of school, wealth, etc.

+1 as a middle class kid who went to a top Ivy for undergrad then a top law school. I do agree that the rich elite kids did tend to stick together during college, and I was not and will never be part of whatever network they have. But I had no trouble breaking into Biglaw, which from my observation is based on merit - interviews, grades to get an offer. And quality of work to stay employed.

Yes it is difficult to hang with the rich kids at elite colleges. I attended one 30+ years ago. 60% of students received no Financial aid (so think full pay at a school that is now 90K+). Hard to truly be friends with kids who go on ski trips for winter break and spring break, to Mexico or to Europe with their friends when I was just focused on "I have $10 for my weekend spending---do I go out to dinner or do I go to a movie with friends. Because I don't have enough for both". I certainly wasn't going to concerts or other events that cost $$. And for breaks, well first I had to work work work of I wouldn't' be able to afford the next semester. but certainly didn't have money for trips like that either.

[Anonymous]

The girl in the article is wealthy, a legacy with perfect test scores, great grades, and private school education PS -12th. Plus the parent has donated to Dartmouth for more than 20 years. I think she’ll be fine.

The point in the article is that perfect children get rejected, but I’d be a little embarrassed being the example of the perfect child here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it isn’t. I know legacies at Cornell, Brown, Chicago and Yale after not getting into Princeton.

Princeton is in the worst possible place with legacy. The numbers are something like

1/4 legacies get in

1/40 non-legacies get in

The alumni community thinks legacy is worthless, because most of their kids get denied. Meanwhile everyone else can see that if you aren’t a legacy you’re in a much worse position.

+1000 Yes your legacy kid may not have gotten in because when admission rates fall to 3 pct it is hard for anyone to get in. But legacy kids still have a much much better shot than the kid who isn’t genetically blessed with an elite school alum parents.

You are assuming that legacies and non-legacies, on average, have the exact same qualifications otherwise.

Nowhere in the prior posts does it say that legacies and non legacies are exactly the same. But if your argument is that because your legacy kid or some other legacy kid got rejected that legacies are no longer a big hook, that’s not an evidence based argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elite schools are basically a harry potter sorting hat for IB, Big Law etc.. and what they really are doing is creating a net work among the already rich/elite kids. Middle class smart kids may get in but very few have the contacts and skills to net work themselves up that high. The richer you are the less relevant your major needs to be

I don’t agree with this. As a low income student, etc. who went to one of these schools, there have not been any barriers as far as ascending, etc. Frankly, once you’re in a company—and I’m talking about companies with established governing structures like public companies, companies that are close to IPOing, long-standing private companies, etc. your school/prior contacts are not going to tip the needle on mobility. It’s about showing impact, thinking outside of the box, being well-liked among your peers/leadership, and being able to make the case that you’re ready for the next job level.

No company is 100% a meritocracy, but a lot of companies try to get as close to this as possible. Also, in the hiring processes, especially for standard/non-exec employees (really anything below VPs) there are controls in place to stem nepotism. For example, hiring processes with an emphasis on performance rather than who you know. A VP can refer someone for a role but if the hiring manager does not think they are a fit/they don’t perform well in the interview (s), or there just happens to be a better candidate, even if by a millimeter, they’re not getting hired. Also, I generally don’t observe VPs recommending candidates, especially at lower levels (i.e., roles/levels that do not report to VPs). They may recommend a peer, another potential VP, or someone within C-Suite. The pool for this levels of jobs (i.e., executive leadership) is quite low. Most people will never make it to this level irrespective of school, wealth, etc.

+1 as a middle class kid who went to a top Ivy for undergrad then a top law school. I do agree that the rich elite kids did tend to stick together during college, and I was not and will never be part of whatever network they have. But I had no trouble breaking into Biglaw, which from my observation is based on merit - interviews, grades to get an offer. And quality of work to stay employed.

Yes it is difficult to hang with the rich kids at elite colleges. I attended one 30+ years ago. 60% of students received no Financial aid (so think full pay at a school that is now 90K+). Hard to truly be friends with kids who go on ski trips for winter break and spring break, to Mexico or to Europe with their friends when I was just focused on "I have $10 for my weekend spending---do I go out to dinner or do I go to a movie with friends. Because I don't have enough for both". I certainly wasn't going to concerts or other events that cost $$. And for breaks, well first I had to work work work of I wouldn't' be able to afford the next semester. but certainly didn't have money for trips like that either.

I can imagine it’d be difficult. Did you stay friendly with anyone after college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elite schools are basically a harry potter sorting hat for IB, Big Law etc.. and what they really are doing is creating a net work among the already rich/elite kids. Middle class smart kids may get in but very few have the contacts and skills to net work themselves up that high. The richer you are the less relevant your major needs to be

I don’t agree with this. As a low income student, etc. who went to one of these schools, there have not been any barriers as far as ascending, etc. Frankly, once you’re in a company—and I’m talking about companies with established governing structures like public companies, companies that are close to IPOing, long-standing private companies, etc. your school/prior contacts are not going to tip the needle on mobility. It’s about showing impact, thinking outside of the box, being well-liked among your peers/leadership, and being able to make the case that you’re ready for the next job level.

No company is 100% a meritocracy, but a lot of companies try to get as close to this as possible. Also, in the hiring processes, especially for standard/non-exec employees (really anything below VPs) there are controls in place to stem nepotism. For example, hiring processes with an emphasis on performance rather than who you know. A VP can refer someone for a role but if the hiring manager does not think they are a fit/they don’t perform well in the interview (s), or there just happens to be a better candidate, even if by a millimeter, they’re not getting hired. Also, I generally don’t observe VPs recommending candidates, especially at lower levels (i.e., roles/levels that do not report to VPs). They may recommend a peer, another potential VP, or someone within C-Suite. The pool for this levels of jobs (i.e., executive leadership) is quite low. Most people will never make it to this level irrespective of school, wealth, etc.

+1 as a middle class kid who went to a top Ivy for undergrad then a top law school. I do agree that the rich elite kids did tend to stick together during college, and I was not and will never be part of whatever network they have. But I had no trouble breaking into Biglaw, which from my observation is based on merit - interviews, grades to get an offer. And quality of work to stay employed.

+2. At the end of the day, no one wants to hire someone that is going to not be able to do the work.

I’m a biglaw partner at a famous top 3 law firm. My parents were immigrants; I’m first generation American. Most of the other partners are scrappy and trying to make as much money as possible.

The generational wealth and they really clued in UC networked lawyers, they left after putting a year or two into being a lawyer at a big white shoe law firm, and then started their own hedge fund or private equity firm with family/inherited $$. They are now our clients. But for one minute, none of us think we are one of them.

Most of the scrappy partners do extremely well ($5mm/yr), and some make nearly $10 million a year, but, no that we are not part of that old-school moneyed circle. But we’re trying to get there.

It’s all a giant social hierarchy.

The lawyers are the ones who are not born into money.

If you were born into family money, you never become a worker scribe at a white shoe law firm.

No, you are always the client.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elite schools are basically a harry potter sorting hat for IB, Big Law etc.. and what they really are doing is creating a net work among the already rich/elite kids. Middle class smart kids may get in but very few have the contacts and skills to net work themselves up that high. The richer you are the less relevant your major needs to be

I don’t agree with this. As a low income student, etc. who went to one of these schools, there have not been any barriers as far as ascending, etc. Frankly, once you’re in a company—and I’m talking about companies with established governing structures like public companies, companies that are close to IPOing, long-standing private companies, etc. your school/prior contacts are not going to tip the needle on mobility. It’s about showing impact, thinking outside of the box, being well-liked among your peers/leadership, and being able to make the case that you’re ready for the next job level.

No company is 100% a meritocracy, but a lot of companies try to get as close to this as possible. Also, in the hiring processes, especially for standard/non-exec employees (really anything below VPs) there are controls in place to stem nepotism. For example, hiring processes with an emphasis on performance rather than who you know. A VP can refer someone for a role but if the hiring manager does not think they are a fit/they don’t perform well in the interview (s), or there just happens to be a better candidate, even if by a millimeter, they’re not getting hired. Also, I generally don’t observe VPs recommending candidates, especially at lower levels (i.e., roles/levels that do not report to VPs). They may recommend a peer, another potential VP, or someone within C-Suite. The pool for this levels of jobs (i.e., executive leadership) is quite low. Most people will never make it to this level irrespective of school, wealth, etc.

+1 as a middle class kid who went to a top Ivy for undergrad then a top law school. I do agree that the rich elite kids did tend to stick together during college, and I was not and will never be part of whatever network they have. But I had no trouble breaking into Biglaw, which from my observation is based on merit - interviews, grades to get an offer. And quality of work to stay employed.

+2. At the end of the day, no one wants to hire someone that is going to not be able to do the work.

I’m a biglaw partner at a famous top 3 law firm. My parents were immigrants; I’m first generation American. Most of the other partners are scrappy and trying to make as much money as possible.

The generational wealth and they really clued in UC networked lawyers, they left after putting a year or two into being a lawyer at a big white shoe law firm, and then started their own hedge fund or private equity firm with family/inherited $$. They are now our clients. But for one minute, none of us think we are one of them.

Most of the scrappy partners do extremely well ($5mm/yr), and some make nearly $10 million a year, but, no that we are not part of that old-school moneyed circle. But we’re trying to get there.

It’s all a giant social hierarchy.

The lawyers are the ones who are not born into money.

If you were born into family money, you never become a worker scribe at a white shoe law firm.

No, you are always the client.

And no, I don’t want any of my kids to be a partner at a big law firm. I want them to do better. And not be stuck at the bottom of this totem pole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elite schools are basically a harry potter sorting hat for IB, Big Law etc.. and what they really are doing is creating a net work among the already rich/elite kids. Middle class smart kids may get in but very few have the contacts and skills to net work themselves up that high. The richer you are the less relevant your major needs to be

I don’t agree with this. As a low income student, etc. who went to one of these schools, there have not been any barriers as far as ascending, etc. Frankly, once you’re in a company—and I’m talking about companies with established governing structures like public companies, companies that are close to IPOing, long-standing private companies, etc. your school/prior contacts are not going to tip the needle on mobility. It’s about showing impact, thinking outside of the box, being well-liked among your peers/leadership, and being able to make the case that you’re ready for the next job level.

No company is 100% a meritocracy, but a lot of companies try to get as close to this as possible. Also, in the hiring processes, especially for standard/non-exec employees (really anything below VPs) there are controls in place to stem nepotism. For example, hiring processes with an emphasis on performance rather than who you know. A VP can refer someone for a role but if the hiring manager does not think they are a fit/they don’t perform well in the interview (s), or there just happens to be a better candidate, even if by a millimeter, they’re not getting hired. Also, I generally don’t observe VPs recommending candidates, especially at lower levels (i.e., roles/levels that do not report to VPs). They may recommend a peer, another potential VP, or someone within C-Suite. The pool for this levels of jobs (i.e., executive leadership) is quite low. Most people will never make it to this level irrespective of school, wealth, etc.

+1 as a middle class kid who went to a top Ivy for undergrad then a top law school. I do agree that the rich elite kids did tend to stick together during college, and I was not and will never be part of whatever network they have. But I had no trouble breaking into Biglaw, which from my observation is based on merit - interviews, grades to get an offer. And quality of work to stay employed.

Yes it is difficult to hang with the rich kids at elite colleges. I attended one 30+ years ago. 60% of students received no Financial aid (so think full pay at a school that is now 90K+). Hard to truly be friends with kids who go on ski trips for winter break and spring break, to Mexico or to Europe with their friends when I was just focused on "I have $10 for my weekend spending---do I go out to dinner or do I go to a movie with friends. Because I don't have enough for both". I certainly wasn't going to concerts or other events that cost $$. And for breaks, well first I had to work work work of I wouldn't' be able to afford the next semester. but certainly didn't have money for trips like that either.

I can imagine it’d be difficult. Did you stay friendly with anyone after college?

Yes, I have a great group of friends from college and still in touch with all of them. However, 95% of my friends from college were like me, onn FA, work-study and MC or lower families. I'm still in touch with all of them, and I have 2 friends who were "rich" that I'm in touch with. But I just found it was much easier to be good friends with people on similar levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^sorry, couldn’t for force a student to attend a college they couldn’t *afford*. Typo.

Before you ED, you run the numbers on their website. If the final offer exceeds what you saw, you can go back to them for adjustment. If not, you are obligated to attend unless of course your situation has changed drastically. BTW, your affordability is determined by them, not you.

+1. This. Y’all have to take loans like everyone else. All y’all who had multiple kids in succession are sol too, btw.

I understand we’ll have to take loans and I’m aware the school determines what they think we can pay and I only have one kid, thank you very much. I was only confused because the article suggested that by applying ED and being accepted you had to immediately withdraw other applications and were obligated to attend before knowing what the FA might include and regardless of whether it matched the calculator.

I appreciate all the other pp’s who reassured me that the article has it wrong and my understanding was correct.

I'm going to say the article is correct in spirit, but maybe not from a legal standpoint. I have read that legally colleges cannot hold you to your ED contract, but the spirit of the ED contract is that you won't ED unless you are confident you can afford it and will attend if offered admittance. Students are definitely supposed to pull their other outstanding applications once they are admittted ED. UMiami as one example said very clearly at their admissions presentation that ED is binding and that you should not apply ED unless you know the finances will work out for you and you will attend if offered a spot. Can they hold you to this? Probably not, but if it was super easy to back out of an ED contract, everyone would apply ED. The high school college counselor has to also sign the ED contract. They will absolutely ask you to rescind all outstanding applications if your child is accepted ED. The process was not created for people to be able to compare their financial options. It definitely discriminates against people needing financial aid.

Hint===that's not discrimination. It's a path to college. It's not a path that will work for everyone, but that doesn't make it discrimination. Anyone can choose to ED, it's based on your finances and whether or not you are willing to be full pay at a school.

Fine maybe the word discrimination is technically wrong, but ED favors those who can afford college without financial concerns, even more than the regular process already does. ED is tough for those requiring aid as they cannot compare financial offers from various schools prior to making a decision (some may, but theoretically students are supposed to pull all of their outstanding apps once they get an ED offer).

For those needing aid, I would suggest ED 2 as a better option as some of the state school decisions come out prior to ED2 decisions and if you are happy with your state school option, you can switch your ED2 app to RD prior to the ED2 decision (this reduces the advantage of ED2, but does give you the ability to compare options).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The elite schools are basically a harry potter sorting hat for IB, Big Law etc.. and what they really are doing is creating a net work among the already rich/elite kids. Middle class smart kids may get in but very few have the contacts and skills to net work themselves up that high. The richer you are the less relevant your major needs to be

I don’t agree with this. As a low income student, etc. who went to one of these schools, there have not been any barriers as far as ascending, etc. Frankly, once you’re in a company—and I’m talking about companies with established governing structures like public companies, companies that are close to IPOing, long-standing private companies, etc. your school/prior contacts are not going to tip the needle on mobility. It’s about showing impact, thinking outside of the box, being well-liked among your peers/leadership, and being able to make the case that you’re ready for the next job level.

No company is 100% a meritocracy, but a lot of companies try to get as close to this as possible. Also, in the hiring processes, especially for standard/non-exec employees (really anything below VPs) there are controls in place to stem nepotism. For example, hiring processes with an emphasis on performance rather than who you know. A VP can refer someone for a role but if the hiring manager does not think they are a fit/they don’t perform well in the interview (s), or there just happens to be a better candidate, even if by a millimeter, they’re not getting hired. Also, I generally don’t observe VPs recommending candidates, especially at lower levels (i.e., roles/levels that do not report to VPs). They may recommend a peer, another potential VP, or someone within C-Suite. The pool for this levels of jobs (i.e., executive leadership) is quite low. Most people will never make it to this level irrespective of school, wealth, etc.

+1 as a middle class kid who went to a top Ivy for undergrad then a top law school. I do agree that the rich elite kids did tend to stick together during college, and I was not and will never be part of whatever network they have. But I had no trouble breaking into Biglaw, which from my observation is based on merit - interviews, grades to get an offer. And quality of work to stay employed.

+2. At the end of the day, no one wants to hire someone that is going to not be able to do the work.

+1. Just like the 3.0/3.2 College gpa kid who struggles a bit with "pure academics" but is smart, motivated and works well with others, can often go far much faster than some of the smart kids who don't have a tippy top work ethic. Once someone gives that kid a chance, they are set and will go far.