Overpackaging an applicant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, think about it. You have two applicants. Applicant A has high grades and scores and was in band, debate team, choir, environmental club, glee club, art club, science club, toastmasters for teens, DECA, basketball, track, Spanish club, yearbook, cross country, volunteered for a local marathon, volunteers at an animal shelter once a month, likes anime and drawing. Applicant two also has high grades and decent test scores. This applicant is a double black belt in Taekwondo after taking it consistently for twelve years, assists in teaching taekwondo class to littles on Saturday mornings and mentors and inspires them as a Wednesday volunteer math tutor at the dojo during after school care, is in orchestra as first chair cello and plays in a fun quartet on the side, has taken Latin all four years of HS which was hard, is a member of a local "make it" organization that makes robots that compete in local and regional competitions, applicant's team of four placed second at a recent regional meet. That's applicant two's resume in total. Which applicant gives you a better idea of who they are as a person on first read? Who seems more attached to very specific interests over time that tell a simple story and offers a concrete through line as to what the person is all about? I think it's pretty clear.

What is a double black belt in Taekwondo? Do you mean black belt 2nd Dan? If so, that is not impressive at all after 12 years of practice. DC was black belt 4th Dan Taekwondo after 12 years of practice. Was nationally ranked in another NCAA varsity sport and recruited at a T-10 private. Decided to take a full ride in a T-20 private.

Both of you are missing the point of this thread and no one cares about taekwondo

What's the point?
Applicant A was a generic in-school overachiever. Had they played the ukulele, they might have had a shot?

No... the point is that A is not an overachiever at all. Participation in many clubs is meaningless. They are scattered and distracted and this is not a good look. The point is that B is much more likely to be picked than A (and neither are Ivy League material, to be clear).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, think about it. You have two applicants. Applicant A has high grades and scores and was in band, debate team, choir, environmental club, glee club, art club, science club, toastmasters for teens, DECA, basketball, track, Spanish club, yearbook, cross country, volunteered for a local marathon, volunteers at an animal shelter once a month, likes anime and drawing. Applicant two also has high grades and decent test scores. This applicant is a double black belt in Taekwondo after taking it consistently for twelve years, assists in teaching taekwondo class to littles on Saturday mornings and mentors and inspires them as a Wednesday volunteer math tutor at the dojo during after school care, is in orchestra as first chair cello and plays in a fun quartet on the side, has taken Latin all four years of HS which was hard, is a member of a local "make it" organization that makes robots that compete in local and regional competitions, applicant's team of four placed second at a recent regional meet. That's applicant two's resume in total. Which applicant gives you a better idea of who they are as a person on first read? Who seems more attached to very specific interests over time that tell a simple story and offers a concrete through line as to what the person is all about? I think it's pretty clear.

What is a double black belt in Taekwondo? Do you mean black belt 2nd Dan? If so, that is not impressive at all after 12 years of practice. DC was black belt 4th Dan Taekwondo after 12 years of practice. Was nationally ranked in another NCAA varsity sport and recruited at a T-10 private. Decided to take a full ride in a T-20 private.

Both of you are missing the point of this thread and no one cares about taekwondo

What's the point?
Applicant A was a generic in-school overachiever. Had they played the ukulele, they might have had a shot?

No... the point is that A is not an overachiever at all. Participation in many clubs is meaningless. They are scattered and distracted and this is not a good look. The point is that B is much more likely to be picked than A (and neither are Ivy League material, to be clear).

A isn't overpackaged though. Just scattered. Big big difference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, think about it. You have two applicants. Applicant A has high grades and scores and was in band, debate team, choir, environmental club, glee club, art club, science club, toastmasters for teens, DECA, basketball, track, Spanish club, yearbook, cross country, volunteered for a local marathon, volunteers at an animal shelter once a month, likes anime and drawing. Applicant two also has high grades and decent test scores. This applicant is a double black belt in Taekwondo after taking it consistently for twelve years, assists in teaching taekwondo class to littles on Saturday mornings and mentors and inspires them as a Wednesday volunteer math tutor at the dojo during after school care, is in orchestra as first chair cello and plays in a fun quartet on the side, has taken Latin all four years of HS which was hard, is a member of a local "make it" organization that makes robots that compete in local and regional competitions, applicant's team of four placed second at a recent regional meet. That's applicant two's resume in total. Which applicant gives you a better idea of who they are as a person on first read? Who seems more attached to very specific interests over time that tell a simple story and offers a concrete through line as to what the person is all about? I think it's pretty clear.

What is a double black belt in Taekwondo? Do you mean black belt 2nd Dan? If so, that is not impressive at all after 12 years of practice. DC was black belt 4th Dan Taekwondo after 12 years of practice. Was nationally ranked in another NCAA varsity sport and recruited at a T-10 private. Decided to take a full ride in a T-20 private.

Both of you are missing the point of this thread and no one cares about taekwondo

What's the point?
Applicant A was a generic in-school overachiever. Had they played the ukulele, they might have had a shot?

No... the point is that A is not an overachiever at all. Participation in many clubs is meaningless. They are scattered and distracted and this is not a good look. The point is that B is much more likely to be picked than A (and neither are Ivy League material, to be clear).

A isn't overpackaged though. Just scattered. Big big difference

No one said A or B was packaged. A is scattered, B has a strong and easily understood profile, and therefore will do well in admissions, and the poster did not include an example of overpackaging, which might include lots of name-dropping, and suspicious travel experiences, internships and publications.

[Anonymous]

The A+B examples are relevant to this entire discussion. That poster got sidetracked.

Is there a specific example of an over packaged applicant? Maybe those Polygence or Pioneer research pay to play programs.

Not sure what else screams packaging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The A+B examples are relevant to this entire discussion. That poster got sidetracked.

Is there a specific example of an over packaged applicant? Maybe those Polygence or Pioneer research pay to play programs.

Not sure what else screams packaging.

"Packaged" is like "woke". They're terms that were created to prejudge someone negatively. It's hard to define them, since they might mean something a little different to each person. But to me, packaged means that I can tell someone was guiding the applicant to try and inflate their worth and it's a little too obvious. The really valuable candidates might or might not be strategically advised by an adult, but it's fine regardless since they achieve really wonderful things. The "packaged" ones are the ersatz who try to look like highly valuable candidates but you can see through the cracks that they're not. As you said, maybe their resume has pay-to-play programs made to look like highly selective experiences. Maybe there's a recommendation by a Senator, who clearly doesn't know the kid very well. Overpackaged means their profile is full of stuff like that, and it gets offensive. Like, who do they take the admissions officer for?

[Anonymous]

My kid had a spike - most activities and awards were related to major. Had a couple of random but big ones as well. Not at all curated.

Then there was the kid who did a research summer camp at one college, a second one at another and a 3rd that last summer. Brilliant kid who moved up our local school after 9th. The profile was just so curated you could tell he had help. Like there was just no other interest. Everything was related to major. He knew every competition to participate in and even got our school to do a big one his team one. When I looked it up, it has anonymous supporters - previous winners were from privates. Money talks. All the same demographic so probably using the same consultant. In at an Ivy but this kid could have been at MIT or Harvard with a little genuine, self-starter evidence.

[Anonymous]

So overpackaging is like those small fragile items from Amazon that comes in a huge empty box filled with air cushions? And that is the opposite of using transparent make up for the 'natural look' that one of the ladies suggested?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The A+B examples are relevant to this entire discussion. That poster got sidetracked.

Is there a specific example of an over packaged applicant? Maybe those Polygence or Pioneer research pay to play programs.

Not sure what else screams packaging.

"Packaged" is like "woke". They're terms that were created to prejudge someone negatively. It's hard to define them, since they might mean something a little different to each person. But to me, packaged means that I can tell someone was guiding the applicant to try and inflate their worth and it's a little too obvious. The really valuable candidates might or might not be strategically advised by an adult, but it's fine regardless since they achieve really wonderful things. The "packaged" ones are the ersatz who try to look like highly valuable candidates but you can see through the cracks that they're not. As you said, maybe their resume has pay-to-play programs made to look like highly selective experiences. Maybe there's a recommendation by a Senator, who clearly doesn't know the kid very well. Overpackaged means their profile is full of stuff like that, and it gets offensive. Like, who do they take the admissions officer for?

an impressible dummy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, think about it. You have two applicants. Applicant A has high grades and scores and was in band, debate team, choir, environmental club, glee club, art club, science club, toastmasters for teens, DECA, basketball, track, Spanish club, yearbook, cross country, volunteered for a local marathon, volunteers at an animal shelter once a month, likes anime and drawing. Applicant two also has high grades and decent test scores. This applicant is a double black belt in Taekwondo after taking it consistently for twelve years, assists in teaching taekwondo class to littles on Saturday mornings and mentors and inspires them as a Wednesday volunteer math tutor at the dojo during after school care, is in orchestra as first chair cello and plays in a fun quartet on the side, has taken Latin all four years of HS which was hard, is a member of a local "make it" organization that makes robots that compete in local and regional competitions, applicant's team of four placed second at a recent regional meet. That's applicant two's resume in total. Which applicant gives you a better idea of who they are as a person on first read? Who seems more attached to very specific interests over time that tell a simple story and offers a concrete through line as to what the person is all about? I think it's pretty clear.

They are the same amount of overpackaged to me.

First one is somewhat like my DC1 but he had fewer activities. My DC2 is like applicant 2. Both kids are overstretched but competitive by today's standards. DC2 isn't as productive, conformist, or social as DC1 which is the reason why he doesn't have the breadth of activities. Both are cool, funny kids.

BTW, in real life, the productive, conformist, social people usually win out for pay and promotions. What any given college likes on any given day may depend on whether they need someone around to justify having a Latin professor.

BTW, my DC2 has decided to reject his packaging and start going in some different directions. Original goal was a top ten engineering school (flagship) and language was Chinese (we are not Asian).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone mentioned this in another thread.

What does an overpackaged application look like? Is it someone trying to tie everything together (to a major)?

Would love examples. I always thought you were supposed to try and tie everything together and create a thread, but maybe that looks over packaged?

You will get a lot of different opinions about this, but we have heard from some school admissions offices for schools we toured that they feel like they get the same 10-15 profiles over and over - the business school applicant with a curated set of extracurriculars that neatly tie everything together, the engineering applicant, the English applicant, etc. So there is a feeling among some admissions officers that these applicants don’t feel like real people anymore and they prefer profiles that aren’t as carefully packaged, but seem more “real.” What percentage of the AO”s have this view is anyone’s guess. But there is definite fatigue of everyone doing the same consultant influenced packaged profile.

Would this mean that an applicant similarly overpackaged, but for a niche and more obscure major, would still do well?

[Anonymous]

People, so many of you are getting this wrong.

Here’s an example:

Candidate A: 4.0 UW, 1520 SAT. High rigor in all subjects. Applying for economics. ECs are president of school finance club, VP Deca club, interned in something business related, one varsity sport, started a business, writes essay about things they learned from their business, published a random research thing on an economic issue, statements from school counselor and teachers are in line with this narrative. This is a well-packaged candidate. ECs support the major and there is a clear path for this candidate in their major. But this is arguably very boring profile

Candidate B. 4.0 uw. 1520 SAT. High rigor in all subjects. Applying for economics. President of school finance club, appeared in several productions in the school play, wrote for the literary journal, worked as a welder in summer, had random hobby x that has nothing to do with economics, writes something meaningful about random hobby. ECs vaguely support the major, not as packaged as Candidate A. Feels more like a real person with interests rather than a package to maximize admission to a specific major.

Question is whether candidate B does better than Candidate A.

There are a lot of variations of this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone mentioned this in another thread.

What does an overpackaged application look like? Is it someone trying to tie everything together (to a major)?

Would love examples. I always thought you were supposed to try and tie everything together and create a thread, but maybe that looks over packaged?

You will get a lot of different opinions about this, but we have heard from some school admissions offices for schools we toured that they feel like they get the same 10-15 profiles over and over - the business school applicant with a curated set of extracurriculars that neatly tie everything together, the engineering applicant, the English applicant, etc. So there is a feeling among some admissions officers that these applicants don’t feel like real people anymore and they prefer profiles that aren’t as carefully packaged, but seem more “real.” What percentage of the AO”s have this view is anyone’s guess. But there is definite fatigue of everyone doing the same consultant influenced packaged profile.

Would this mean that an applicant similarly overpackaged, but for a niche and more obscure major, would still do well?

If the activities/interests are uncommon, I think you do well.

I’ve been reading through LinkedIn and R/collegeresults and see some loose trends.

- Kids with the uncommon activities and interests do well with top schools. Much more so than premed/ polisci/ business with similarly outstanding-seeming narratives.
- The type of high school matters too this year. Private high schools seem to be doing quite well.
- Maybe it’s not about preplanning but being a bit contrarian; it’s just how authentic your story feels and that is what admissions officers are going off of. The more authentic it feels, the less packaged it seems to an AO, obviously. Authenticity to them = rare.

So, maybe they simply like the less common profiles (like we all covet less common items). And admissions can be based on something like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is an overpacked kid to the nth degree at our school. Nobel prize winners are involved. This is a feeder private where consultant curation and nepotism are not uncommon and even then this is an outlier, so everyone is waiting to see if this kid (a junior) will clean up with T10s next year. I’ll report back.

Kid like this (bio was his focus) at our school ED to MIT.

Similar outcomes for the overpackaged science kids who have research/top stats/science comps/etc. ucla, multiple Stanford, brown, cmu, Emory, etc.

BUT not so much for the overpackaged “leader” kids who all ended up at lower schools than I would have guessed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People, so many of you are getting this wrong.

Here’s an example:

Candidate A: 4.0 UW, 1520 SAT. High rigor in all subjects. Applying for economics. ECs are president of school finance club, VP Deca club, interned in something business related, one varsity sport, started a business, writes essay about things they learned from their business, published a random research thing on an economic issue, statements from school counselor and teachers are in line with this narrative. This is a well-packaged candidate. ECs support the major and there is a clear path for this candidate in their major. But this is arguably very boring profile

Candidate B. 4.0 uw. 1520 SAT. High rigor in all subjects. Applying for economics. President of school finance club, appeared in several productions in the school play, wrote for the literary journal, worked as a welder in summer, had random hobby x that has nothing to do with economics, writes something meaningful about random hobby. ECs vaguely support the major, not as packaged as Candidate A. Feels more like a real person with interests rather than a package to maximize admission to a specific major.

Question is whether candidate B does better than Candidate A.

There are a lot of variations of this

Welding adds blue collar street cred. Lol. Gets picked because AO's dad is a welder.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if we haven’t seen any recent podcast episodes from “The Game” because Sam is the king of overpackaging and maybe it didn’t work so well this year?

Thoughts?