5 ms·

For anecdotal/lived experience, to your point: The rich kids in my (public) school were the ones afforded not only tutors, but also just the insight into extra

by ar_lan 5y ago

For anecdotal/lived experience, to your point: The rich kids in my (public) school were the ones afforded not only tutors, but also just the insight into extra-curriculars. They were the ones who had parents who knew to sign them up for college courses at ~15-16 years old to ensure they could maximize their GPA (5.0 scale, so getting a 5.0 was literally impossible unless you did this). This created a competitive disadvantage for kids who just really didn't realize these resources existed (plus, having parents that would support it + take you to the local college to take additional courses). Not to mention that, but there were sports our school didn't participate in, but the richer kids had levels of access to that looked great on college applications - rowing and lacrosse specifically come to mind. So, essentially - rich kids have many easier ways to pad their college applications. It's not that they aren't working hard(er) - they are. But they have easily acccessible opportunities that middle-to-lower-class students (like myself) did not have access to. -- Coming to the SAT, I'm not surprised by that study. I wasn't afforded the same opportunities as these richer kids, but my SAT score was highly competitive with them. I was ranked 50th in my class with a 4.55 GPA (my 4.0s were gym each year, and I think one or two electives that weren't AP), but my SAT score was a 2300, which was relatively similar to most of the hyper-performant, wealthier kids. -- This is all super anecdotal. I was definitely upset by all of this at the time - but it didn't affect my life very negatively. I still was able to get into a great school, and have a great career now. But these disadvantages certainly persist against others, and re-adding standardized tests likely will help level the playing field in my mind.

whimsicalism 5y ago
This rings true with my Gen Z high school experience as of ~7 years ago.
WalterBright 5y ago
As far as extra-curricular activities go, like sports, etc., those aren't really the point. The point is for the candidate to demonstrate that they can accomplish significant things other than academics. This can be anything. For me, I didn't do sports, or any school extracurriculars. What I did do was run a small business (paper route), used the money to fund my hotrodding efforts, was an Eagle scout (back in the days when that was something), etc. Basically, you just gotta find something non-trivial to do that demonstrates motivation.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  There's also a lot of room to disagree as to whether playing sports counts as a meaningful accomplishment. Professional sports are pure entertainment, and succeeding even at that is extremely rare. The best argument for caring about it is that it's better than nothing, and it's something that ensures more average people have a chance to get to MIT too, even if they aren't all that intellectually minded.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Succeeding in sports means you have put out focused effort over a period of time to accomplish something that nobody made you do. This is worth something.
    - airstrike 5y ago
      > something that nobody made you do Uhh, that is definitely not a given
    - tmitech 5y ago
      I disagree completely. You could literally give zero effort, focused or not, and sit on the bench of a winning team. On top of that, your parents could have 100% made you do those things.
      - Spooky23 5y ago
        You could. You can just phone it in at work too, but most people don't. Sports are a place where kids figure out who they are. Not the only place, but an important one to many. My son is 11 and loves baseball, I've coached a few times as well and it's been a great shared experience. There are definitely kids in Little League / Cal Ripkin who are there because mom & dad said so. But... I've gotten to see my son and a few of his teammates build friendships and mentor relationships with the kids ahead of and behind him that are difficult to do in a school setting. It's a big deal. When a ten year old stops and is there to help teach an eight year old how to do something, etc those are valuable skills/processes/habits to build. They learn to lose and how to practice. Part of the "package" a student brings to an application is how they apply those experiences. You can send a laundry list of things, or use your essay/interview to tie it together.
Spooky23 5y ago
> Not to mention that, but there were sports our school didn't participate in, but the richer kids had levels of access to that looked great on college applications - rowing and lacrosse specifically come to mind. Exactly. I went to smallish rural school. We had soccer, basketball, baseball. Youth soccer in my area was a rigged game where only people who were enrolled in the coaches summer camp would make the varsity team. Basketball had 75 kids try out for 12 spots. Baseball is ruthlessly competitive, and while I was a really good little league player, I had no chance against kids who were in multiple travel leagues, etc. I probably played 50 baseball games from age 9-12. The best players played at least 500. My cousins went to a fancy private school. Everyone played on a varsity team; it was how they did gym. My older cousin did fencing, the middle one did basketball, the younger twins played squash. The squash guys sold themselves as a package and ended up getting a couple of ivy league places fighting for them. I think we have a similar outlook on this. For me, getting good SAT/ACT scores let me "punch higher", and got me into some really good schools that I would not have be admitted to. Ultimately, I went to a state school, but was able to parlay the competitive nature of things to get a better grant package.
- brimble 5y ago
  > Baseball is ruthlessly competitive, and while I was a really good little league player, I had no chance against kids who were in multiple travel leagues, etc. I probably played 50 baseball games from age 9-12. The best players played at least 500. Same thing drove me out of baseball after age 12 or so. I had more than a little natural talent and put in some time drilling with my parents, so I could keep up with the kids doing the traveling leagues and such until (a little before) then. After that it became clear that my parents and I were gonna have to devote hundreds more hours per year (plus not a small amount of money), realistically, for me to keep playing. The gap was just growing way too fast, otherwise. What was left were bad teams/leagues where few players were really trying, so that's no fun, and ones for which I couldn't make the cut. Someone who liked it but just wanted to put in a high-side-of-normal amount of time and effort for a youth sport, had no place.

by ar_lan 5y ago

whimsicalism 5y ago

This rings true with my Gen Z high school experience as of ~7 years ago.

WalterBright 5y ago

As far as extra-curricular activities go, like sports, etc., those aren't really the point. The point is for the candidate to demonstrate that they can accomplish significant things other than academics. This can be anything. For me, I didn't do sports, or any school extracurriculars. What I did do was run a small business (paper route), used the money to fund my hotrodding efforts, was an Eagle scout (back in the days when that was something), etc. Basically, you just gotta find something non-trivial to do that demonstrates motivation.

zozbot234 5y ago
There's also a lot of room to disagree as to whether playing sports counts as a meaningful accomplishment. Professional sports are pure entertainment, and succeeding even at that is extremely rare. The best argument for caring about it is that it's better than nothing, and it's something that ensures more average people have a chance to get to MIT too, even if they aren't all that intellectually minded.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Succeeding in sports means you have put out focused effort over a period of time to accomplish something that nobody made you do. This is worth something.
  - airstrike 5y ago
    > something that nobody made you do Uhh, that is definitely not a given
  - tmitech 5y ago
    I disagree completely. You could literally give zero effort, focused or not, and sit on the bench of a winning team. On top of that, your parents could have 100% made you do those things.
    - Spooky23 5y ago
      You could. You can just phone it in at work too, but most people don't. Sports are a place where kids figure out who they are. Not the only place, but an important one to many. My son is 11 and loves baseball, I've coached a few times as well and it's been a great shared experience. There are definitely kids in Little League / Cal Ripkin who are there because mom & dad said so. But... I've gotten to see my son and a few of his teammates build friendships and mentor relationships with the kids ahead of and behind him that are difficult to do in a school setting. It's a big deal. When a ten year old stops and is there to help teach an eight year old how to do something, etc those are valuable skills/processes/habits to build. They learn to lose and how to practice. Part of the "package" a student brings to an application is how they apply those experiences. You can send a laundry list of things, or use your essay/interview to tie it together.

Spooky23 5y ago

> Not to mention that, but there were sports our school didn't participate in, but the richer kids had levels of access to that looked great on college applications - rowing and lacrosse specifically come to mind. Exactly. I went to smallish rural school. We had soccer, basketball, baseball. Youth soccer in my area was a rigged game where only people who were enrolled in the coaches summer camp would make the varsity team. Basketball had 75 kids try out for 12 spots. Baseball is ruthlessly competitive, and while I was a really good little league player, I had no chance against kids who were in multiple travel leagues, etc. I probably played 50 baseball games from age 9-12. The best players played at least 500. My cousins went to a fancy private school. Everyone played on a varsity team; it was how they did gym. My older cousin did fencing, the middle one did basketball, the younger twins played squash. The squash guys sold themselves as a package and ended up getting a couple of ivy league places fighting for them. I think we have a similar outlook on this. For me, getting good SAT/ACT scores let me "punch higher", and got me into some really good schools that I would not have be admitted to. Ultimately, I went to a state school, but was able to parlay the competitive nature of things to get a better grant package.

brimble 5y ago
> Baseball is ruthlessly competitive, and while I was a really good little league player, I had no chance against kids who were in multiple travel leagues, etc. I probably played 50 baseball games from age 9-12. The best players played at least 500. Same thing drove me out of baseball after age 12 or so. I had more than a little natural talent and put in some time drilling with my parents, so I could keep up with the kids doing the traveling leagues and such until (a little before) then. After that it became clear that my parents and I were gonna have to devote hundreds more hours per year (plus not a small amount of money), realistically, for me to keep playing. The gap was just growing way too fast, otherwise. What was left were bad teams/leagues where few players were really trying, so that's no fun, and ones for which I couldn't make the cut. Someone who liked it but just wanted to put in a high-side-of-normal amount of time and effort for a youth sport, had no place.