Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Portfolio Creation

College admissions has become an arms race, and this bothers me. The parental-made-or-heavily-assisted portfolio being discussed here is just another example of a new weapon in the arsenal. I agree with people who've argued that talented low SES students may be at a big disadvantage because they and their parents don't know how to game the system.

Universities in most other developed nations rely heavily on test scores for admissions (A-levels, the Leaving Certificate, etc.). These tests aren't like the SAT; they involve long-answer questions (no multiple choice) and are require students to have knowledge and synthesize it. An exam typically has a number of questions, and students are told to answer "3 of 5" or "5 of 8" or whatever. So students have some choice.

A-levels, etc. are based on a standard curriculum that's often nationalized. This way, everyone is studying the same stuff. And these tests can't be gamed the way that our admissions process can be gamed. In the UK and Ireland, each program at each university has its own requirements. If you get the points, you get in. If you don't, you don't (you can take the exams again next year). Even Prince William had to get the requisite number of points on his A-levels to get into the program he studied.

I suppose that people in the US might chafe at nationalized (or even state-level) curricula or having so much ride on one set of exams. However, having been through systems here and in Europe, I think that theirs is much fairer than ours, which is exploited left, right, and center. Our system was probably pretty reasonable until about 20 or 25 years ago, when the current craziness started. Today, college admissions and tuition have spiraled out of control, and our kids have to have umpteen activities, perfect grades, a work history, a history of athletics, volunteerism, and whatever else just to make it through application triage. And every year, some parents find new ways to help their kids get an "edge," thereby raising the stakes for all and contributing to more insanity.

We need meaningful reform that can't be gamed. This would mean that portfolios, unpaid internships, fancy extracurricular activities, and so on wouldn't count anymore. Everyone would be measured against exactly the same standard.

I guess we could take this back as far as you want to go with it. Some have been given the opportunity to have extended learning based on the fact that their gene pool is different which is unearned, some have been blessed with families who have the means to send them to private schools with perhaps better resources or teachers, none of which is going to be accounted for on test only entrance requirements.

Certainly we can use this thread as a venting session, however,
if an absolutely equal playing field is what you're after, I'm afraid you're never going to realize that, it's not how the competitive marketplace works whether we like it or not.

I don't think that Val or I either one are arguing for the abolishment of real differences in potential (which I'd argue that genetics plays into).

I actually have some misgivings regarding the removal of the asterisk from the SAT scores, for just this reason, in fact. There are some things that a slow processing speed or profound verbal learning disability make one less suitable for, after all. Those differences make a difference in the end, and without coping skills to compensate and level the playing field for one's self, well-- I think that pretty much anyone can understand why an airline pilot or emergency room physician can't get "time and a half" to accomodate that difference.


Some differences matter and they should probably matter because they are directly related to potential ability and its development.

The problem is that we've moved so far from a real meritocratic system that we are NOT getting our highest potential kids into the programs and disciplines that need to weed everyone else out.

That's a problem for everyone, and it's a terrible waste of resources to boot. Kids who only LOOK that good because of what their parents have done shouldn't be sucking up seats and resources that high potential kids could use to escape poverty.

I don't think that there is a perfect system. But this has gone unchecked for too long and it seems to have spiraled way out of control, quite frankly.

I don't think we want to take the nurture portion out of the equation either. Certainly without proper nurturing potential most often doesn't develop as it could, again, wasting potential.

There comes a point for a business or college where they're only willing to spend so much to develop potential when what is necessary for success is nearly developed or already is present with a shorter term investment. Is that fair to all? Of course not, did anyone promise fair at that point in life? Of course not. At a certain point in time a level playing field stops being a factor for business and college consideration at every check point.

I know I'm touching a nerve here and I apologize for that, however, I'm just saying what we all already know.

Nurturing isn't necessarily a synonym for primping, 'helping' with every accomplishment, and grooming (for lack of a better term).

There is a big difference between a child who is highly capable on his/her own-- and one that only SEEMS that way because of focused, high-dollar, parental over-involvement.

Honestly those are the parent that give parents like US a bad name. I will apologize in advance if I am inadvertently touching a nerve here, but I think that I am likewise only stating what is fairly obvious. This phenomenon has gotten so out of hand that people see one of those kids now, and the first thought isn't "Wow, what an extraordinary child," it's "Wow, what a pair of enmeshed parents...that poor child."

It is the exact same thing driving kids into gifted programs and AP coursework (kids who really have no business being there), to the detriment of the kids that DO-- either the ones sitting next to those classmates, or the ones that couldn't get seats in the room because of them.

The same thing happens on college campuses. Far too many kids whose PARENTS have done all that they can to make their kids seem remarkable are not really ready or particularly motivated to even be in a collegiate environment, and a few shouldn't be there in the first place.

Anyone that needs mom and dad to primp them for a decade, and needs four shots at the SAT probably isn't as good as they look on paper. That's all.

Which kid deserves an Ivy slot more? The one that gets a top-notch SAT score on the only attempt-- and with no prep course? Or the one that has a heavily padded resume and that same top-notch SAT score (the result of weekly coaching for three years and four separate attempts at the SAT)?

I'd argue for the former, regardless of extracurriculars. That shows a lot more ability and better capacity to take rapid advantage of opportunity. I'm speaking as someone who's seen plenty of college kids succeed, and even more of them struggle. Parents view "getting them in" as the goal, and they ought to view getting them THROUGH as the goal.




_________________________________________________

While I appreciate the parental motivation for producing a "portfolio" of a child's accomplishments, I'm obviously deeply conflicted about the pragmatic aspects of actually doing so.

I for one don't have any intention of doing this for/with my rising junior. Her transcripts, volunteer work, and test scores will have to do the talking, IMO. That probably won't be enough to get her into an Ivy, unless I miss my guess on what her PSAT/SAT's look like, but we're okay with that.

I just don't think it's a good trend, overall. For kids that have exceptional talents outside of traditional academic ones, it makes sense, of course. But Julliard isn't Yale; there should not be a need to 'showcase' a student via a portfolio at the latter, since the academic abilities of the student should be readily observable via SAT/ACT scores and transcripts, maybe coupled with an essay.

I don't think the OP could possibly have anticipated the way this thread would go! To the extent that he was just tossing out a suggestion, I for one would like to say thank you (although I also find the social justice focus here fascinating).

The mass assumption seems to be that parental help on creation of a portfolio equates to the parents doing everything for the child. I don’t think anyone contributing to this thread has that in mind.

Those test scores in the portfolio, the hours of volunteerism, the leadership awards, the athletic and musical achievements, etc., the student, not the parents, accomplished those. Did the parents set up opportunities for those things to happen? Likely, did they make sure the student had transportation to such opportunities? Likely, however, the student achieved the accomplishments noted in the portfolio. I don't think parents need to apologize for helping their child to succeed nor should they feel bad that their child reaped the benefits of the combined efforts outlined in the portfolio while others had less opportunity or support. Do I hope all children can have resources and support to help them achieve their potential? Absolutely.

If a student in college isn't capable on their own of living up to expectations, it's going to show pretty quickly. Any merit scholarship I've ever known about have restrictions of a min. GPA, the bigger the scholarship, the higher the expectation.....and at that point they don't care what your background is.

I'm sure we're all aware that the vast majority of college and universities offers needs based scholarships that are unavailable to higher SES families in an attempt to assist in providing greater opportunity to those families in need.

No, but there's a world of difference between creating an environment conducive to learning good study and work habits and turning college admissions into a high-stakes competition that can be manipulated. And that's where we are right now. This problem doesn't just affect gifted low SES students. It also affects gifted mmiddle class students whose parents also don't have the means to hire an expensive college admissions mentor or the means to send their kids to Andros Island or DC for a glamorous but unpaid summer internship. It also affects wealthier kids who don't want to play that game (common among the HG+ crowd at any economic level).

Don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying that there's something wrong with music lessons or internships. No way. I just don't think they should count toward college admissions. I think it's wrong that people aren't judged on a level playing field, using the same standards for everyone. And I say this as someone who has the means to send her kids to glamorous but unpaid internships on Andros Island. Kids should be doing this stuff because it's interesting and they'll get something meaningful out of it, not because it's fodder for an essay on a college application. The stuff described in that article is just so...shallow and self-centered:


There's a formula for showcasing personal depth now?

Many parents think other parents are pushing their children, but few put themselves in that category. There is no clear dividing line.


The Williams sisters had a very focused, involved father -- but
they are the ones hitting the tennis balls. My eldest son is gifted at math, and we are investing time and money in EPGY, Math Olympiad, math books etc. But he is the one participating in the math contest and scoring well on the SAT at a young age.
If we pay to send him to math camps when he is older, drive him to math classes and competitions, and otherwise support him, and as a result he wins math competitions, how will your eagle eye detect if he is "highly capable" or just "seems that way" because of his parents? We are just supportive parents. The parents who spend two weeks with their children at Epsilon math camp are overdoing it .


The more gifted a child is, the more "enmeshed" the parents may need to be, because the public schools won't be educating them.


Railing against SAT preparation on moral grounds is pointless. If people think it's effective, they will do it. Studies have found that such preparation does not raise scores much on average

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/19/AR2009051903058.html
Study Finds Relatively Small Gains From Test Coaching
By Valerie Strauss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 20, 2009


Yale has a student orchestra that tours the world http://yso.research.yale.edu/history/index.php . Given two students with similar grades and test scores, why not admit the
superb musician? You said that a student who scores well on the SAT "cold" is more impressive than a student getting the same scores after much preparation. By the same logic, a student who can get good grades and test scores AND be a good musician AND be a good athlete AND win a science competition is more impressive than a student who only has good grades and test scores, because the former student was likely able to get the same academic results in less time and therefore had more time for extracurriculars.

I think you've pretty well summed up why it's not enough anymore to simply have high test scores for a lot of college admissions and certainly for the vast majority of merit scholarships.

Colleges and Universities aren't just trying to teach students to be able to score high on tests these days, they're trying to put out a finished product that not only has the book knowledge but the life experience to be well rounded and prepared to be an attractive recruit into a global marketplace. A well rounded high school experience of extra curricular activities and experiences that might involve music, sports, leadership, volunteerism, travel, religion, etc. is evidence to many colleges and universities that a candidate is more than just a student, they have a balance of mind, body, and spirit and already shown evidence of preparation for a well rounded and productive life after college.

I think most parents are after the same goal, to prepare their child to be a well rounded, happy, and productive member of society and often sacrifice much in order to help their children to get there. That intention is ALWAYS admirable. Are some over zealous to the point of doing too much? Likely yes. Is it your job to determine what that point is? Hardly. We likely each know our children better than anyone else. You raise you children as you see fit, let other parents raise their children as they see fit. If someone has over parented to the point of creating damage, it'll show up pretty quickly once they reach college and that scholarship will open up for someone more suitable.