[Mick]

There are two problems that I see.  The first is that smart underspriveled (sic) students are undercut by the low expectations of their teachers, councilors, and administrators.  Sadly, the goal is simply to get them to college, not to get them to an elite school, so students are advised to apply to their local CSU, or maybe UC, not to elite institutions.  Some of it is simply ignorance; overworked councilors guide students to what they know, and many don't have a history of sending students to places like Stanford and the Ivies.  Some of it is a bit of prejudice; students are made to believe they wouldn't fit in at a place like Stanford, or that they would struggle academically and socially at a place like Stanford.  Where Stanford and others can (and are starting to) be helpful here is by visiting these schools and demystifying the process and letting students, teachers, and administrators know that kids from underspriveled backgrounds can and do succeed at a place like Stanford.  To this end, is there a better representative for us than Richard Sherman?  Not only is he a highly public example of a kid from Compton thriving at Stanford and beyond, but he now goes back to his school and talks to the students, letting them know that yes they can. 

Lastly, and I realize that this is a bit "ad hominem", but still, I can't help but notice that the author's job as tutoring manager for the Princeton Review completely undercuts his argument.  He's part of the problem he decries.  How about instead of working for the Princeton Review, he work to bring the same sort of tutoring, mentoring, and academic coaching to underspriveled kids who would otherwise be great candidates to go to an elite university like Stanford.

Great post, BC.  The theme of your first post has been nagging at me for about 20 years.  I knew a high school counselor in my social circle, and I recall talking with him about a student of special talent.  He was discussing his scholastic options and I suggested Stanford and he replied "Well, we don't think that's the right fit for him."  Fine, but I knew this young man's family very well, and his qualifications -- he ended up at Yale -- and over the years I've noticed a distinct tendency to both underprepare and undershoot with respect to the school's students...two of which were my sons.  The head of the college counseling department made clear to me the following semi-eyebrow raising points, either stated or strongly implied:

1)  The counselors and department felt that it was partly their job to route students to favored colleges, particularly small liberal arts colleges.  They didn't favor the UC system, and they weren't particularly helpful with respect to the most elite universities (let's say the top 20 ranked schools).

2)  The counselors had absolutely no problem with students matriculating at colleges for which they were likely overqualified, particularly since their great fear was to fall short of parental expectations, which admittedly occurred in 2008 or 2009 when about 80 students/families had to be told that there was a great "recentering" at the University of California system when admission rates dropped dramatically.

3)  The counselors were perfect for students who fell in the fat part of the bell curve, but virtually useless for the most scholastically inclined end.  Their advice was off the mark either slightly or substantially in most instances for students who were very highly academically prepared.

4)  The admissions department was behind the curve with respect to preparing academically-inclined students; e.g., at the end of sophomore year they suggested at an all-parent meeting that their children "consider" an AP class.  Well my friend, that ship has sailed if your academically inclined child wants to go to a great university.

The funny thing to me (to your last point) was that the school-employed counselors did a lot of work off the books and not too expertly.

[Mick]

There are two problems that I see.  The first is that smart underspriveled (sic) students are undercut by the low expectations of their teachers, councilors, and administrators.  Sadly, the goal is simply to get them to college, not to get them to an elite school, so students are advised to apply to their local CSU, or maybe UC, not to elite institutions.  Some of it is simply ignorance; overworked councilors guide students to what they know, and many don't have a history of sending students to places like Stanford and the Ivies.  Some of it is a bit of prejudice; students are made to believe they wouldn't fit in at a place like Stanford, or that they would struggle academically and socially at a place like Stanford.  Where Stanford and others can (and are starting to) be helpful here is by visiting these schools and demystifying the process and letting students, teachers, and administrators know that kids from underspriveled backgrounds can and do succeed at a place like Stanford.  To this end, is there a better representative for us than Richard Sherman?  Not only is he a highly public example of a kid from Compton thriving at Stanford and beyond, but he now goes back to his school and talks to the students, letting them know that yes they can. 

Lastly, and I realize that this is a bit "ad hominem", but still, I can't help but notice that the author's job as tutoring manager for the Princeton Review completely undercuts his argument.  He's part of the problem he decries.  How about instead of working for the Princeton Review, he work to bring the same sort of tutoring, mentoring, and academic coaching to underspriveled kids who would otherwise be great candidates to go to an elite university like Stanford.

Great post, BC.  The theme of your first post has been nagging at me for about 20 years.  I knew a high school counselor in my social circle, and I recall talking with him about a student of special talent.  He was discussing his scholastic options and I suggested Stanford and he replied "Well, we don't think that's the right fit for him."  Fine, but I knew this young man's family very well, and his qualifications -- he ended up at Yale -- and over the years I've noticed a distinct tendency to both underprepare and undershoot with respect to the school's students...two of which were my sons.  The head of the college counseling department made clear to me the following semi-eyebrow raising points, either stated or strongly implied:

1)  The counselors and department felt that it was partly their job to route students to favored colleges, particularly small liberal arts colleges.  They didn't favor the UC system, and they weren't particularly helpful with respect to the most elite universities (let's say the top 20 ranked schools).

2)  The counselors had absolutely no problem with students matriculating at colleges for which they were likely overqualified, particularly since their great fear was to fall short of parental expectations, which admittedly occurred in 2008 or 2009 when about 80 students/families had to be told that there was a great "recentering" at the University of California system when admission rates dropped dramatically.

3)  The counselors were perfect for students who fell in the fat part of the bell curve, but virtually useless for the most scholastically inclined end.  Their advice was off the mark either slightly or substantially in most instances for students who were very highly academically prepared.

4)  The admissions department was behind the curve with respect to preparing academically-inclined students; e.g., at the end of sophomore year they suggested at an all-parent meeting that their children "consider" an AP class.  Well my friend, that ship has sailed if your academically inclined child wants to go to a great university.

The funny thing to me (to your last point) was that the school-employed counselors did a lot of work off the books and not too expertly.