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.
