Hacker News Reader

Comment by Shenglong | Hacker News Reader

I'm thinking this article is a little exaggerated. I applied to, and got into an Ivy, but had no sort of preparation at all. I was suspended over 20 times throughout my schooling, had 0 hours of community service, didn't find out that the SATs existed until my senior year, and my reference letters were from no-name teachers. Yes, some of the things described (working at a neuroscience lab) were true, but they were entirely my initiatives.

More importantly, even at school, I never saw anyone (limited scope, I'm sure) with this kind of description. All my friends seemed passionate about what they were interested in, and the majority were from middle-upper class families.

While I'm sure there are distinct cases of this sort of coddling, I would caution that this is likely more the exception than the rule.

View on HN

Many people at elite schools get phony doctor's notes for unlimited time on the tests. Colleges are notified when a student had unlimited time, but since the US News report college rankings don't take it negatively, neither do they (if they even legally could).

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=1787712&page=1

"At the elite Wayland High school outside Boston, the number of students receiving special accommodations is more than 12 percent, more than six times the estimated national average of high school students with learning disabilities.

Wayland guidance counselor Norma Greenberg said that it's not that difficult for wealthy, well-connected students to get the diagnoses they want."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...

"Most of these students' diagnoses are presumably genuine. But in places like Greenwich, Conn., and certain zip codes of New York City and Los Angeles, the percentage of untimed test-taking is said to be close to 50 percent"

I never really go the appeal of unlimited time on tests, unless you actually have a diagnosis that requires it. I saw it around me when I was in university but I am unconvinced that it actually helped any 'normal' student.

I mean, what are you going to do with unlimited time anyway? Sure, some tests are designed to be too long for the allotted time, but most aren't. If you need more time on a test that is designed for the normal amount of time, what is going on? Are you deriving formulas that you neglected to memorize? Possible I suppose, but how many students are clever enough to do that correctly on a test when needed but don't just know the material in the first place?

Extra test time as an unfair advantage makes even less sense to me in subjects other than mathematics and physics. What are you going to do, derive an answer to "Who were Dizzy Gillespie's primary influences?"?

If it wasn't mathematics or physics, I was always fucked if I didn't know the answer within half a minute or so of reading the question. Even with mathematics or physics, if I was spending much time at all deriving things, it was generally a sure sign that I had failed to prepare and was fucked regardless.

Here is my hypothesis: Much of the elevated diagnosis rates at upper-class schools reflects the fact that people with more money are more likely to acquire diagnosis for non-life threatening ailments their children have. The rest of the elevated diagnosis rates is probably just rich people throwing money at the wall and seeing what sticks. I doubt it gives them an advantage, but they have the money so it can't hurt to try.

With unlimited time, you have the opportunity to take little breaks here and there, even if it just means doodling for a few minutes, and this is a huge advantage if you leverage it well.

I run into this daily with my work life now as well...bang your head against a problem for an hour straight, go to the bathroom, come back, and the solution pops into your head like magic.

Edit: Also, the more time you have between answering a question and rechecking it, the more objectively you see things, and notice mistakes that you would miss if you were rushed.

You and lmkg both allude to stress, which is something I hadn't considered. Still, if reduced time-based stress is creating accounting for a significant difference, I am almost inclined to say that perhaps that is a legitimate thing to diagnose and accommodate. I think that is pretty close to the intended use of 'infinite test time'.

I never had much success with checking my answers before turning in a test, though I suppose other people very likely do.

I actually didn't mean to implicate stress, although it is of course also a factor for some people. But even in non-stressful situations, frequent breaks from cognitive load are simply a necessity for me. I think it's because my brain is more like a sprinter than a long distance runner, and the latter is probably better suited to typical tests. I can start getting real sloppy after even 15 minutes of intense mental focus, even if I know the material well. But of course sprinting has its benefits in other situations, so it all balances out.

My brother has had some accommodations, such as being allowed to type answers on a computer, or being able to take the SAT over multiple days, that I think should just be available to everybody. These exams are supposed to test knowledge, not handwriting/the ability to write for long periods of time without getting achy, or the ability to stay focused on a boring test for over 4 hours; nor do those seem all that onerous on schools. Test time falls more into "onerous", and being able to solve math problems or write quickly can be important, but if a student does significantly better in general without a time limit due to stress, it seems somewhat unfortunate to me that they need to go to a doctor to be accommodated, something which largely depends on their parents and has something of a stigma...

The biggest impact is probably test stress. So, a psychological edge more than a "real" one, but nonetheless one that results in significant performance gains for some students.

Irrespective of whether extra time actually confers significant advantage, the data is adequately explained by the hypothesis that rich parents believe it does.

Oh, I certainly understand that many rich parents think it does. I just don't think it is quite as pervasive as some claim, and I doubt that it provides enough of an advantage to really worry about.

There are probably bigger problems to tackle, like the wage gap in legitimate diagnosis rates.

Timing is pretty important on the SAT math section; if you spend too much time on one problem you might not get through all the others.

Some people smart and fast, while others are also smart, but, well...slow. Meaning that both would get the right answer to a tough question eventually, but the fast one would get it faster. Some would argue that this makes the fast one "smarter," including, one could guess, the designers of timed tests, such as the SAT.

It is a huge advantage for open book exams. An acquaintece of mine in the 90's got a learning disability diagnosis from a doc in the box (trivial, the drug companies gave you a script) and leveraged that to get unlimited time.

I'm more like you -- I don't have te patience to benefit.

I think you're right, but with two caveats. First, students with shockingly blue blood tend to keep company with other upper-crusters, frequently in exclusive fraternities or sororities that seek to carve out new depths of exclusivity in an already exclusive environment. This makes them less obviously evident than people expect. Second, I would caution that you, too, are more likely the exception to the rule. The unfortunate fact is that most kids who get into prestigious schools have had the benefit of extensive preparation while the students who lack this preparation have very poor chances. Sometimes you can outwit the test with a massive intellect or a knack for test-taking, but those sometimes are seldom. I salute your seldomness, although a bit sadly. :)

> First, students with shockingly blue blood tend to keep company with other upper-crusters, frequently in exclusive fraternities or sororities that seek to carve out new depths of exclusivity

From what I have seen: true. (Dartmouth alum here.) Much of the benefit of going to an Ivy League school is the chance to socialize with and develop interpersonal relationships with "other upper-custers." (Not something I did.)

Getting access to top-notch professors and research experiences are important too.

(networking with smart people is of perhaps maximal importance).

Having attended both a private high school as well as an Ivy League college (would rather not say which one) one of the things you gain is also exposure to people from families that are tremendously committed to education and were raised with certain values. Not that that doesn't exist in other schools but the difference in attitude is striking at those types of schools at least when I attended and from my observation.

Even the kids at the private high school that were on scholarship and came from poor families were not the same as the kids from poor families at the public high school (once again, as a group individual kids of course could vary).

Add: I came from a middle class family.

> Having attended both a private high school as well as an Ivy League college

Me too.

> exposure to people from families that are tremendously committed to education and were raised with certain values.

That's to be had. You can also meet lots of cynical elitists who see themselves as superior human beings and exempt from certain moral codes regarding the treatment of their perceived inferiors. Of course, this is true at just about any school.

Don't confuse her sample with your sample. Your sample are the students at an elite school. Her sample are the children of wealthy Manhattan parents trying to get into an elite school.

Of course it's the exception. It's a story of the 1% - who else has an extra $7K to spend on their kid's preparation for college?

It's as relevant to daily life as Honey Boo Boo or Jersey Shore.

More than 1% of the kids at Ivys are from the 1%, or at least that's what conventional wisdom is, and that may or may not make sense. The posted article is attempting to explain that it's through a fault in the system where those with money can use that money as a substitute for intellect or drive to distinguish their children.

I have no clue if it's right, but it's more valuable to daily life of those applying to Ivys than Honey Boo Boo or Jersey Shore would be.

If this was recent, and you are white/Asian and in a major state, you must be G*dlike smart. I salute you.

So is he less G*dlike smart if he's not white or Asian or is from a small state?

He may or may not be. I think auctiontheory was trying to make a comment on Ivy League's quota systems.

There are G*dlike smart people of every skin color, and in every state.

But if you're Asian applying from Saratoga, CA, or Jewish from NY, NY, getting in to an elite school is a WHOLE lot harder (based on equivalent grades and scores) than if you are an "underrepresented minority," or you're applying from Wyoming or Alaska or someplace like that.

BTW, your question draws a conclusion which does not logically follow from my previous post.

I didn't get the impression that the author was implying this was the norm; rather, that it was prevalent among rich (vs. middle-upper class) helicopter parents.

That's why you got in.

This is about the very wealthy types (members of the buller) whos kids are genuinely puzzled that you dont have a castle in Ireland or a summer home in the Hamptons.

It is absolutely not exaggerated.

In NYC there are: - Pre-school admissions counselors for 2 year olds. (This is one of many -> http://www.privateschooladvisors.com/)

- $500 dollar an hour services that can find tutors who got an A with the specific teacher and specific class that your child is struggling in.

- 20+% of the kids qualify at 97th percentile for public gifted and talented, yet only a third pass state exams. http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/schoolbook/2013/aug/07/fewer-one-t...

This contributes to very fragile rich kids who get shell shocked in college. Of course there are services for that too. (http://fulshearranchacademy.com/blog/college-for-emotionally...)

It also means kids very prepped for entrance exams but little else.

Fyi. The 20% pass rate was a result of implementing a test that measured progress against a curriculum that wasn't taught.

Yes, though it's a low 30s %. (The school in my neighborhood was low teens %) The 20% is kids passing the 97th percentile of past test takers. And this is very much an exam that is taught to. That's the real point - that there's a lot of test prep, and look what happens when you don't prep for it.

I don't know if I agree with that, after looking at the sample questions.

http://www.engageny.org/resource/new-york-state-common-core-...

These are different types of questions that require you to think more than the tests that I took in 5th to 8th grade. IMO, the biggest issue here is that its a hard test. Tests have been very easy for the last couple of decades.

When I was in high school in the 90s, our teachers in 10th grade gave us a 1969 nys regents exam for math 2 and earth science as a practice exercise. They were an order of magnitude more difficult that the actual exams given in 1994/1995.

The biggest problem here is that they are making everyone take the tests. Back in ye olden days, the college prep kids took the hard stuff only. You're not going to get a lot of good results in tests that require abstract thinking in poor districts -- the parents are idiots and let the kids stay out too late, don't enforce homework rules, etc.

I'd really like to hear about this story from a college admissions officer's point of view.

While I'm sure that they can tell the difference between an application from one of these tutors and a "genuine" one like yours, I'm not quite sure I understand why they put up with it in that case.

Remember the building named after the applicant's family? And there are contributions to the endowment. . .

This is a pitch of author's book. WSJ has a somewhat meatier excerpt than 'rich people pay for essays omg' http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732410820457902...

I didn't think that this was an article about what it takes to get into an Ivy as much as how some people doom their kids.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com