interesting article about college admissions
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Interesting and depressing. On the whole, I'm inclined to agree with the writer: these days, the common wisdom among parent, schools and the media is that elite colleges prize the highly polished, does-it-all kid more than the great, smart, interesting, carve-out-your-own path kid. It often feels like a kid who hasn't learned Mandarin, played the violin at the Kennedy School, been captain of the tennis team, gotten a National Merit Scholarship AND founded a clinic for HIV+ children in Malawi doesn't stand a chance at Harvard or Princeton.
I wonder, though, how much this perception is a product of our own over-heated and over-anxious parental imaginations. Indeed, I wonder if the writer of that article didn't do her (normal, smart, kind, hard-working) daughter a disservice by steering her away from applying to elite schools. I don't know this for a fact, but I have a feeling that smart admissions officers DO value applicants who have had paid jobs... DO value applicants with real family and life responsibilities... and DO value applicants who show the strength of character not to follow the herd. I was somewhat encouraged last year by the success of a close friend's son in college admissions. This kid was (is) a good kid: thoughtful, kind, a little introverted, smart. He got terrific grades at a top DC private school, and he did a small number of extracurricular activities (mostly drama-related), but nothing over the top. Most days he just went to school then came home. He plays no sports. He spent one summer at a drama camp, but didn't do any fancy overseas things, didn't produce his own documentary at age 14, didn't do much of anything except be a decent kid who was thoughtful and smart, who tested well and got good grades. He got into Yale, Chicago, Brown, Williams and Stanford. Give me hope! |
Anonymous
| Nice article. I am yearning for that yesteryear lifestyle for my kids. I am tempted to encourage them to be the type of teen that I was, but honestly, I fear that they will be at such a disadvantage that it could be harmful. |
Anonymous
|
From the Harvard Admissions Office: a missive warning parents against thinking that it's all about a frenzied race to be the most over-achieving over-achiever:
"Time Out or Burn Out for the Next Generation" http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/time_off/index.html |
Anonymous
Thanks, PP. This pretty much describes both my DS (except that our religious private is not considered "top"). I am constantly nagging them to do more, do more, but they are quiet, low-energy kids who, when they are finished with their homework, want to be by themselves at home pursuing their own interests through books and the internet. I fear that the more I pressure them, the more they will withdraw, but I am also nervous about not forcing them out of their comfort zones to try other extracurricular activities, not only because of college admissions, but also (and primarily) to give them more opportunities to grow as people. |
Anonymous
|
I am not sure that despairing in a way that is tinged with envy that some sort of superhumanly over-programmed kids are the only ones getting into these really top schools. One can be more upset perhaps that achievement in certain areas (sports at a level that gets one recruited to d1 schools like Stanford or Ivies) and incredible wealth or connections (and I mean incredible, not the top 1% but top 0.001% or true celebrity families) clearly make a difference and gets kids in that academically likely would not have been competitive, but at the Ivys at least these are not a huge percentage (considering that many of the recruited athletes and billionaire's kids were fully qualified).
But our experiences in the past fours years with two DD's and close friends/relatives working in one admissions office for a top Ivy indicate that the schools see straight through kids spending summers on $15,000 "missions" to Africa or "working" in internships with famous people due to family connections. Beyond the groups listed above, it really seems like academics are the absolute top priority, very high test scores (but don't need to be perfect, no school cares about 2300 versus 2400 it seems), really great grades particularly junior and senior year that MUST be in the most challenging courses the school offers in at least most areas of study (ie don't need to take BC calc instead of AB if really not a math/engineering type), and must be a kid that teachers and peers really respect academically. It seemed in our DD's cases that kids from their classes who had great scores and grades but were kids that did not really seem to have an intellectual spark did not do as well as kids that teachers really loved having in their classes because they said and wrote creative and interesting things. In terms of extracurriculars, for sure kids HAD to be pretty involved in something, but not everything, and it did seem that some evidence of leadership and stick-to-it-ness was important (ie if had done a club or team or activity for 4 years but never became editor or president or team captain perhaps not so good). And it did seem that some kids in their school who did work lots of hours at jobs necessary for making money (at health clubs, at stores) and who were truly middle-class kids with single parents or parents without super high paying jobs also did quite well in admissions, and the fact that they worked over the summer didn't seem to hurt them really at all. But people really need to realize that with no ability to actually bring applicants to campus and have them spend 24-48 hours interacting with faculty and students (which actually they do for final admission decisions at Oxford and Cambridge for some colleges and some departments) that the admission decisions are really going to be almost random in the end. Probably 30% of applicants to these top schools are just as qualified as each other academically and have great character and talents or interests, so then comes down to how an admissions reader reacts to the essay or even what time of day the applicant's folder is presented to the committee. So one just has to be resigned to that. Both my DDs got into many great schools and were rejected or waitlisted at others, in some cases much "lower" ranked schools even, so one has to conclude there were some intangibles there. But there are loads of great schools now full of highly qualified and well-educated kids, so compared to our generation, there are many more I think good choices, and in both DD's classes from DC high schools, just about all their friends seem to be happy in college and finding they were well-prepared academically, so I would stress everyone to relax, it will probably work out fine in the end, but the financial costs is a huge issue and whether any of them will have jobs at the end is more of a worry than the admissions experience now and their experiences while they are there. |
Anonymous
|
RE spark. It's comparatively rare and it's obvious. That said, I do wonder how admissions officers detect it. Do they rely on HS teachers? Can they trust interviewers?
Don't know if the only kid I've interviewed whom I'd put in this category got into the school I interviewed her for. She did end up at Harvard though, so certainly someone noticed. Then again, her paper credentials were stellar as well. But I agree that the stakes don't feel that high to me, especially when we're talking about affluent kids from elite private schools and well-educated families. Plenty of places to get a great undergraduate education these days. They don't need to go to college at Harvard, Yale, or Princeton -- they're already set up for success. Not in my self-interest, but I'd rather see HYP take the kids for whom such an education would be life-transforming. And that's one of the things that's depressing about the article -- doesn't seem like that's Princeton's approach. The other things that's depressing (and that resonates with what I see around me) is the kind of self-sacrificial motherhood this model seems built around. |
Anonymous
| University admissions are well aware of these pseudo-community travels. My kids attend two of the top-ranked schools; neither one of them had expensive summer experiences abroad. They both had low-wage jobs in fields that they were interested in and volunteered for summer camps and Habitat for Humanity locally. Also, there are plenty of kids at the aforementioned schools who attended pretty crummy schools but are interesting and smart. |
Anonymous
| *pseudo-community service travel* |
Anonymous
|
But there's a difference between low wage jobs in fields you're interested in (or internships or volunteer work) and working in a shoe store to earn needed cash. The former aren't junkets, but they're still marks of privilege compared to the latter.
FWIW, while I don't think that the high ticket community service abroad programs make the kids who do them more laudable than kids who do less glamorous types of community service closer to home and in programs that just want their time rather than their parents' money, I do think that many of the foreign programs involve real service and can be eye-opening experiences for at least some of the kids who participate. |
Anonymous
| i only skimmed the article, but did i read that the author told her daughter -- who seemed to have a lot going for her -- to not bother to apply to "top" schools? fine if she wouldn't have wanted to go, but if she might have wanted to or might have enjoyed it, why squelch your kids dreams like that? why not teach your kid that there's something to reach for and even if you don't get it, there's value and worth in the effort? dream big. there's no failure in not winning every game, there's failure in not playing. |
Anonymous
|
I'm sure the facts were adjusted to make for a more compelling storyline, but agree with 23:24 that the woman was doing her daughter a disservice by discouraging her from applying to top schools such as her own alma mater, Princeton. First, in this day of the Common App, it's an extra $50 bucks per school -- why not take a flyer? Second, the legacy advantage in admissions (which would apply to Princeton) appears formidable -- I saw one article that suggested it increased base chances of admission by 40%.
So, reading between the lines and being a bit cynical, my guess is that either (a) because she's 16, the kid hasn't applied yet, and may very well apply to Princeton and other schools; or (b) she has low test scores (the article mentions only high grades). |
Anonymous
| Or maybe she's not eager to have her kid surrounded by kids who have been raised by parents with attitudes like yours. If she gets in, it must be because she was a legacy; if she doesn't, she's a loser whose Mom must have been lying. Charming. |
Anonymous
You might try to re-read my post again after you have had some morning coffee (that was quite a hostile response). Also re-read the article, if you really care. My ultimate point is that IF the girl is a good academic candidate (excellent grades AND scores -- and the article does not mention test scores at all); and IF the mom believes Princeton would be a good option for her; THEN the mother is being defeatist, especially given the documented advantage to legacies in college admissions. There's no "if she gets in" going on here -- the mother has asserted she will dissuade or has dissuaded her daughter from applying. Because your average Princeton grad knows very well the advantage of legacy status, this suggests to me that, as is not uncommon in "first person" articles designed to make a larger point (value for kids who show work ethic and aren't over-programmed), the author is massaging the facts (i.e., selecting emphasizing some but not others) to help her make that larger point. |
Anonymous
At our school, when helping make the college list for the applying students, the college counselors often suggest that the student include the parent's alma mater as an option, including as a "reach school," because of the legacy effect. There are also students who are legacies at a particular college for whom that college is not a "reach." But with admissions rates at Ivies between 6-8 percent, by definition such schools must reject many highly qualified applicants. Thus, it makes a lot of sense for even the most objectively qualified applicants to try to leverage legacy status. It's not a badge of dishonor. |