Millennial parents and the unforgiving nature of human fallibility

An interesting issue Portia brings up is the role of “millennial parents”, parents who breed their children into Ivy League material from birth so that by the time they apply to college they have transformed into well-rounded applicants. I think that this issue is particularly relevant to our generation, and reflects the competition that exists nowadays in order to get into the top colleges in the nation. Portia’s commentary brings into question the following; to what degree does parental influence in their child’s nurturing affect the applicant’s success in getting into college, and to what degree is parental influence too much?

There are definitely advantages to parents who push their children into enrolling in extracurricular activities and prestigious schools from a very young age. My parents had me participating in ballet classes and private piano lessons from the age of four. Although my parents had no intention at the time of grooming me into the perfect applicant for a top college in America (simply because they assumed I would remain in New Zealand where college admission is uncompetitive), that early advantage did pull me further ahead than others who did not have that opportunity. With college admissions getting tougher each year with increased number of applicants, parents realise that well-roundedness must be started from an early age. Yes, SAT prep classes may strengthen the applicant but that alone is not sufficient. For those who do not have the advantages of SAT prep and prestigious prep schools, are they at a disadvantage? Perhaps, but I believe that truly deserving applicants who are driven purely by personal motives will still shine through over well-groomed, parental controlled applicants as natural talent is stronger than nurtured talent. And Portia’s point that children whose parents influence their upbringing too much lack personal drive is a valid point. Perhaps it is wise that colleges monitor parental contact in assessing an applicant, as Portia mentions how two other Ivies have done so.

Portia’s insight into the application process is less daunting than we make it to be. It is comforting to know that admission officers such as herself do not immediately dismiss students with low SAT scores because they are aware that numerical figures are not directly correlated with ability to write. What is worrying however is the consequence of making a clumsy error in an essay, such as misspelling a book title as Portia mentions. Portia seems to make it clear that when there are such limited places, such errors are so costly to an applicant especially when the pool of applicant grows stronger each year. We are fallible human beings, but the admissions office gives little leeway to our innate clumsiness. It sounds harsh, and is in a way, but at the same time I am in agreement with the process. Yes, little errors show little care and dedication towards applying to a college as prestigious as Princeton, and when you are fighting with twenty thousand others for admission it only seems logical that an admissions officer such as Portia would ultimately choose to decline admission. In essence, the stakes are high, and mistakes are unforgiving.