Predicting admission trends - is the “spiky” applicant here to stay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To use a non-politically correct phrase from when I was younger - at some point you might have too many Indian chiefs and not enough Indians - everyone can't be a superstar at everything. So if everyone is spiky because they are "the best" at something, the campus culture gets toxic. As it is, these kids are all among the best academically.

The idea is that everyone is spiky at different things, together forming a well-rounded class.
You got the wrong idea.

Yes. Apologies. Thank you for correcting - that's what I meant. Everyone doesn't have to be a superstar at something. They are all academic superstars by definition. Not having another "thing" that you are a superstar at shouldn't matter. I am a very, very strong believer in the holistic application - the many posters on DCUM who scream and yell for a "merit based" system that is solely based on grades and scores drive me nuts - I wouldn't want my kid to go to a school solely populated in this way.

But you can still bring a lot to a college campus without having a spike. There is a big difference between being a "joiner" and/or doing nothing at all compared to being a superstar with a spike. Schools should be able to detect this. Many people haven't figured these things out by the time they are 17. I am honestly very suspicious of half the kids who claim that they have. I think schools should call BS for 90% of the kids who "started a club" or "found meaning in life while spending a summer in a foreign country" or half the other manufactured "spikes."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To use a non-politically correct phrase from when I was younger - at some point you might have too many Indian chiefs and not enough Indians - everyone can't be a superstar at everything. So if everyone is spiky because they are "the best" at something, the campus culture gets toxic. As it is, these kids are all among the best academically.

The idea is that everyone is spiky at different things, together forming a well-rounded class.
You got the wrong idea.

Yes. Apologies. Thank you for correcting - that's what I meant. Everyone doesn't have to be a superstar at something. They are all academic superstars by definition. Not having another "thing" that you are a superstar at shouldn't matter. I am a very, very strong believer in the holistic application - the many posters on DCUM who scream and yell for a "merit based" system that is solely based on grades and scores drive me nuts - I wouldn't want my kid to go to a school solely populated in this way.

But you can still bring a lot to a college campus without having a spike. There is a big difference between being a "joiner" and/or doing nothing at all compared to being a superstar with a spike. Schools should be able to detect this. Many people haven't figured these things out by the time they are 17. I am honestly very suspicious of half the kids who claim that they have. I think schools should call BS for 90% of the kids who "started a club" or "found meaning in life while spending a summer in a foreign country" or half the other manufactured "spikes."

Avoid elite really top colleges if you don't want your kid surrounded by "spikey" students. Those types of institutions are full of really driven young folks that all seem to have some stand out talent. Form Olympic level athletes to very talented musicians to kids launching little rockets in the backyard...it is a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To use a non-politically correct phrase from when I was younger - at some point you might have too many Indian chiefs and not enough Indians - everyone can't be a superstar at everything. So if everyone is spiky because they are "the best" at something, the campus culture gets toxic. As it is, these kids are all among the best academically.

The idea is that everyone is spiky at different things, together forming a well-rounded class.
You got the wrong idea.

Yes. Apologies. Thank you for correcting - that's what I meant. Everyone doesn't have to be a superstar at something. They are all academic superstars by definition. Not having another "thing" that you are a superstar at shouldn't matter. I am a very, very strong believer in the holistic application - the many posters on DCUM who scream and yell for a "merit based" system that is solely based on grades and scores drive me nuts - I wouldn't want my kid to go to a school solely populated in this way.

But you can still bring a lot to a college campus without having a spike. There is a big difference between being a "joiner" and/or doing nothing at all compared to being a superstar with a spike. Schools should be able to detect this. Many people haven't figured these things out by the time they are 17. I am honestly very suspicious of half the kids who claim that they have. I think schools should call BS for 90% of the kids who "started a club" or "found meaning in life while spending a summer in a foreign country" or half the other manufactured "spikes."

Avoid elite really top colleges if you don't want your kid surrounded by "spikey" students. Those types of institutions are full of really driven young folks that all seem to have some stand out talent. Form Olympic level athletes to very talented musicians to kids launching little rockets in the backyard...it is a lot.

Let me guess - your kid has a spike?

There are lots of incredibly brilliant, highly motivated kids who are going to dominate life who don't have a spike. And will do really well at elite schools. Perhaps they need some kids who have a "spike" in "not having a spike?" Or maybe those spots are filled by legacies, FGLI, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To use a non-politically correct phrase from when I was younger - at some point you might have too many Indian chiefs and not enough Indians - everyone can't be a superstar at everything. So if everyone is spiky because they are "the best" at something, the campus culture gets toxic. As it is, these kids are all among the best academically.

The idea is that everyone is spiky at different things, together forming a well-rounded class.
You got the wrong idea.

Yes. Apologies. Thank you for correcting - that's what I meant. Everyone doesn't have to be a superstar at something. They are all academic superstars by definition. Not having another "thing" that you are a superstar at shouldn't matter. I am a very, very strong believer in the holistic application - the many posters on DCUM who scream and yell for a "merit based" system that is solely based on grades and scores drive me nuts - I wouldn't want my kid to go to a school solely populated in this way.

But you can still bring a lot to a college campus without having a spike. There is a big difference between being a "joiner" and/or doing nothing at all compared to being a superstar with a spike. Schools should be able to detect this. Many people haven't figured these things out by the time they are 17. I am honestly very suspicious of half the kids who claim that they have. I think schools should call BS for 90% of the kids who "started a club" or "found meaning in life while spending a summer in a foreign country" or half the other manufactured "spikes."

Avoid elite really top colleges if you don't want your kid surrounded by "spikey" students. Those types of institutions are full of really driven young folks that all seem to have some stand out talent. Form Olympic level athletes to very talented musicians to kids launching little rockets in the backyard...it is a lot.

Let me guess - your kid has a spike?

There are lots of incredibly brilliant, highly motivated kids who are going to dominate life who don't have a spike. And will do really well at elite schools. Perhaps they need some kids who have a "spike" in "not having a spike?" Or maybe those spots are filled by legacies, FGLI, etc.

Exactly - people whose kids have a spike think spiky kids should have priority. People whose kids don't have a spike hate this trend. People with one kid with a spike and one kid without a spike have a lot of stress or are bipolar. Others think it should all be a "meritocracy" and solely based on grades and test scores and none of this should matter.

Welcome to DCUM. And college admissions. It all stinks.

Personally, I say they have gone too far towards spikes.

[Anonymous]

Ok my two cents as a parent of kids who all have natural "spikes." I don't like the word spikes - maybe my kids are weird for having them, maybe it's not the norm? I would think most kids would find something interesting that they are pursuing, whether it's art, music, a sport, history, a social issue, etc.

They are all well rounded in that they;'re good students at both humanities and stem, active in sports, etc. But they also have unique interests that developed into a talent for DC1 (headed to HYPS). The others have interests in completely different areas and they spend their free time exploring those areas. For DC2, it's translating into research (on his own) and submitting papers to regional and then to state competitions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To use a non-politically correct phrase from when I was younger - at some point you might have too many Indian chiefs and not enough Indians - everyone can't be a superstar at everything. So if everyone is spiky because they are "the best" at something, the campus culture gets toxic. As it is, these kids are all among the best academically.

The idea is that everyone is spiky at different things, together forming a well-rounded class.
You got the wrong idea.

Yes. Apologies. Thank you for correcting - that's what I meant. Everyone doesn't have to be a superstar at something. They are all academic superstars by definition. Not having another "thing" that you are a superstar at shouldn't matter. I am a very, very strong believer in the holistic application - the many posters on DCUM who scream and yell for a "merit based" system that is solely based on grades and scores drive me nuts - I wouldn't want my kid to go to a school solely populated in this way.

But you can still bring a lot to a college campus without having a spike. There is a big difference between being a "joiner" and/or doing nothing at all compared to being a superstar with a spike. Schools should be able to detect this. Many people haven't figured these things out by the time they are 17. I am honestly very suspicious of half the kids who claim that they have. I think schools should call BS for 90% of the kids who "started a club" or "found meaning in life while spending a summer in a foreign country" or half the other manufactured "spikes."

Avoid elite really top colleges if you don't want your kid surrounded by "spikey" students. Those types of institutions are full of really driven young folks that all seem to have some stand out talent. Form Olympic level athletes to very talented musicians to kids launching little rockets in the backyard...it is a lot.

Let me guess - your kid has a spike?

There are lots of incredibly brilliant, highly motivated kids who are going to dominate life who don't have a spike. And will do really well at elite schools. Perhaps they need some kids who have a "spike" in "not having a spike?" Or maybe those spots are filled by legacies, FGLI, etc.

Huh? The poster was responding to a post that said " I wouldn't want my kid to go to a school full of spikey kids".

If you don't want your kid at a school of spikey students, then don't send them off to a school that is full of spikey students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To use a non-politically correct phrase from when I was younger - at some point you might have too many Indian chiefs and not enough Indians - everyone can't be a superstar at everything. So if everyone is spiky because they are "the best" at something, the campus culture gets toxic. As it is, these kids are all among the best academically.

The idea is that everyone is spiky at different things, together forming a well-rounded class.
You got the wrong idea.

Yes. Apologies. Thank you for correcting - that's what I meant. Everyone doesn't have to be a superstar at something. They are all academic superstars by definition. Not having another "thing" that you are a superstar at shouldn't matter. I am a very, very strong believer in the holistic application - the many posters on DCUM who scream and yell for a "merit based" system that is solely based on grades and scores drive me nuts - I wouldn't want my kid to go to a school solely populated in this way.

But you can still bring a lot to a college campus without having a spike. There is a big difference between being a "joiner" and/or doing nothing at all compared to being a superstar with a spike. Schools should be able to detect this. Many people haven't figured these things out by the time they are 17. I am honestly very suspicious of half the kids who claim that they have. I think schools should call BS for 90% of the kids who "started a club" or "found meaning in life while spending a summer in a foreign country" or half the other manufactured "spikes."

Avoid elite really top colleges if you don't want your kid surrounded by "spikey" students. Those types of institutions are full of really driven young folks that all seem to have some stand out talent. Form Olympic level athletes to very talented musicians to kids launching little rockets in the backyard...it is a lot.

Let me guess - your kid has a spike?

There are lots of incredibly brilliant, highly motivated kids who are going to dominate life who don't have a spike. And will do really well at elite schools. Perhaps they need some kids who have a "spike" in "not having a spike?" Or maybe those spots are filled by legacies, FGLI, etc.

I am sure there are great students with no spike. That does not mean, for example, that, MIT is a great fit for that kid. Maybe it is, maybe it is not. I think the posters point is that instead of being pissed off that the MIT admissions department is not listening to some anonymous DCUM poster for input in how to choose their students, put that energy into helping your kid find a good fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To use a non-politically correct phrase from when I was younger - at some point you might have too many Indian chiefs and not enough Indians - everyone can't be a superstar at everything. So if everyone is spiky because they are "the best" at something, the campus culture gets toxic. As it is, these kids are all among the best academically.

The idea is that everyone is spiky at different things, together forming a well-rounded class.
You got the wrong idea.

Yes. Apologies. Thank you for correcting - that's what I meant. Everyone doesn't have to be a superstar at something. They are all academic superstars by definition. Not having another "thing" that you are a superstar at shouldn't matter. I am a very, very strong believer in the holistic application - the many posters on DCUM who scream and yell for a "merit based" system that is solely based on grades and scores drive me nuts - I wouldn't want my kid to go to a school solely populated in this way.

But you can still bring a lot to a college campus without having a spike. There is a big difference between being a "joiner" and/or doing nothing at all compared to being a superstar with a spike. Schools should be able to detect this. Many people haven't figured these things out by the time they are 17. I am honestly very suspicious of half the kids who claim that they have. I think schools should call BS for 90% of the kids who "started a club" or "found meaning in life while spending a summer in a foreign country" or half the other manufactured "spikes."

Avoid elite really top colleges if you don't want your kid surrounded by "spikey" students. Those types of institutions are full of really driven young folks that all seem to have some stand out talent. Form Olympic level athletes to very talented musicians to kids launching little rockets in the backyard...it is a lot.

Let me guess - your kid has a spike?

There are lots of incredibly brilliant, highly motivated kids who are going to dominate life who don't have a spike. And will do really well at elite schools. Perhaps they need some kids who have a "spike" in "not having a spike?" Or maybe those spots are filled by legacies, FGLI, etc.

I am sure there are great students with no spike. That does not mean, for example, that, MIT is a great fit for that kid. Maybe it is, maybe it is not. I think the posters point is that instead of being pissed off that the MIT admissions department is not listening to some anonymous DCUM poster for input in how to choose their students, put that energy into helping your kid find a good fit.

You make a fair point though MIT is a bad example. I'm guessing they are less impressed by kids who saved the world or started the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Fan Club at their high school than most other schools - they are looking more for pure intellectual horsepower, which can primarily be demonstrated by grades and test scores. Sure, research or whatever might impress them, but is less critical.

[Anonymous]

I am pretty sure middle class is not sued to represent the actual middle class but UMC in this debate.

The question will always come back to when you have more qualified applicants than openings how will (and should) AOs differentiate.

If all you are doing is deciding between highly qualified well rounded kids that truly is a lottery. I think of a spike as a way to make your kid stand out for that institution. I did not understand the assignment for my first highly qualified student. I do for the second. Vastly different application outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Indulge me in your admission trend predictions for the next 5 years or so. Will we ever see the well-rounded kid make a comeback over the “spiky” kid? I know that people, including AOs, have come around to how manufactured these spiky narratives can be, and yet, it still seems to be the best way to gain admission. Why does this persist and will we ever see the end of it? Or has the common app put an end to giving an edge to the well rounded applicant forever?

I am hoping they will eliminate or at least reduce institutional priorities.
MC kids constitute the vast majority of the applicants, but only getting the smallest number of acceptances. If this does not change, spiky or well roundedness doesn't matter because it's still MC kids fighting for that very small number of seats.

Unintentionally funniest post of the day lol

Schools should stop having missions and priorities other than taking as many Montgomery County children as they possibly can. As we know students in Montgomery County are the most deserving and brilliant children in the State of Maryland (and the DMV). Any school, T20 or otherwise, that claims to value educational access should reinforce their commitment to the access that really matters. How many Montgomery County children they can enroll.

MC = middle class.
No one is talking about Montgomery County.

Holy shit. I was wondering how the heck montgomery county was catching strays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am pretty sure middle class is not sued to represent the actual middle class but UMC in this debate.

The question will always come back to when you have more qualified applicants than openings how will (and should) AOs differentiate.

If all you are doing is deciding between highly qualified well rounded kids that truly is a lottery. I think of a spike as a way to make your kid stand out for that institution. I did not understand the assignment for my first highly qualified student. I do for the second. Vastly different application outcomes.

+100000
Same here for our DC1 and DC2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To use a non-politically correct phrase from when I was younger - at some point you might have too many Indian chiefs and not enough Indians - everyone can't be a superstar at everything. So if everyone is spiky because they are "the best" at something, the campus culture gets toxic. As it is, these kids are all among the best academically.

The idea is that everyone is spiky at different things, together forming a well-rounded class.
You got the wrong idea.

Yes. Apologies. Thank you for correcting - that's what I meant. Everyone doesn't have to be a superstar at something. They are all academic superstars by definition. Not having another "thing" that you are a superstar at shouldn't matter. I am a very, very strong believer in the holistic application - the many posters on DCUM who scream and yell for a "merit based" system that is solely based on grades and scores drive me nuts - I wouldn't want my kid to go to a school solely populated in this way.

But you can still bring a lot to a college campus without having a spike. There is a big difference between being a "joiner" and/or doing nothing at all compared to being a superstar with a spike. Schools should be able to detect this. Many people haven't figured these things out by the time they are 17. I am honestly very suspicious of half the kids who claim that they have. I think schools should call BS for 90% of the kids who "started a club" or "found meaning in life while spending a summer in a foreign country" or half the other manufactured "spikes."

So you don't want to use objective metrics because the students would be boring but you don't want too much weight on spikes because they are often manufactured and fake?
If you can't stand out with academics then you have to stand out with spikes.

As for merit based systems...
Almost the entire rest of the world uses only objective metrics and still manage to have vibrant campuses but that can't work in the USA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To use a non-politically correct phrase from when I was younger - at some point you might have too many Indian chiefs and not enough Indians - everyone can't be a superstar at everything. So if everyone is spiky because they are "the best" at something, the campus culture gets toxic. As it is, these kids are all among the best academically.

The idea is that everyone is spiky at different things, together forming a well-rounded class.
You got the wrong idea.

Yes. Apologies. Thank you for correcting - that's what I meant. Everyone doesn't have to be a superstar at something. They are all academic superstars by definition. Not having another "thing" that you are a superstar at shouldn't matter. I am a very, very strong believer in the holistic application - the many posters on DCUM who scream and yell for a "merit based" system that is solely based on grades and scores drive me nuts - I wouldn't want my kid to go to a school solely populated in this way.

But you can still bring a lot to a college campus without having a spike. There is a big difference between being a "joiner" and/or doing nothing at all compared to being a superstar with a spike. Schools should be able to detect this. Many people haven't figured these things out by the time they are 17. I am honestly very suspicious of half the kids who claim that they have. I think schools should call BS for 90% of the kids who "started a club" or "found meaning in life while spending a summer in a foreign country" or half the other manufactured "spikes."

Avoid elite really top colleges if you don't want your kid surrounded by "spikey" students. Those types of institutions are full of really driven young folks that all seem to have some stand out talent. Form Olympic level athletes to very talented musicians to kids launching little rockets in the backyard...it is a lot.

Let me guess - your kid has a spike?

There are lots of incredibly brilliant, highly motivated kids who are going to dominate life who don't have a spike. And will do really well at elite schools. Perhaps they need some kids who have a "spike" in "not having a spike?" Or maybe those spots are filled by legacies, FGLI, etc.

Exactly - people whose kids have a spike think spiky kids should have priority. People whose kids don't have a spike hate this trend. People with one kid with a spike and one kid without a spike have a lot of stress or are bipolar. Others think it should all be a "meritocracy" and solely based on grades and test scores and none of this should matter.

Welcome to DCUM. And college admissions. It all stinks.

Personally, I say they have gone too far towards spikes.

As the mom of a spiky kid (not a “spiky” kid) - no, you are making this up. A kid who is actually spiky is a kid who is different in a lot of ways and it cannot generally be manufactured. So that means our kid gets rejected some places and accepted places where they “get” the kid. I don’t think my kid deserves any priority!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To use a non-politically correct phrase from when I was younger - at some point you might have too many Indian chiefs and not enough Indians - everyone can't be a superstar at everything. So if everyone is spiky because they are "the best" at something, the campus culture gets toxic. As it is, these kids are all among the best academically.

The idea is that everyone is spiky at different things, together forming a well-rounded class.
You got the wrong idea.

Yes. Apologies. Thank you for correcting - that's what I meant. Everyone doesn't have to be a superstar at something. They are all academic superstars by definition. Not having another "thing" that you are a superstar at shouldn't matter. I am a very, very strong believer in the holistic application - the many posters on DCUM who scream and yell for a "merit based" system that is solely based on grades and scores drive me nuts - I wouldn't want my kid to go to a school solely populated in this way.

But you can still bring a lot to a college campus without having a spike. There is a big difference between being a "joiner" and/or doing nothing at all compared to being a superstar with a spike. Schools should be able to detect this. Many people haven't figured these things out by the time they are 17. I am honestly very suspicious of half the kids who claim that they have. I think schools should call BS for 90% of the kids who "started a club" or "found meaning in life while spending a summer in a foreign country" or half the other manufactured "spikes."

Avoid elite really top colleges if you don't want your kid surrounded by "spikey" students. Those types of institutions are full of really driven young folks that all seem to have some stand out talent. Form Olympic level athletes to very talented musicians to kids launching little rockets in the backyard...it is a lot.

LOL at the "kids launching little rockets in the backyard." That was my kid. But DC was also a top student and a varsity athlete with gazillions of hours of community service. But I do think it was the rocketry habit that led to admission as an engineering major to T20 schools. My sense is that most of the highly selective schools are looking for well-rounded academically gifted students. But it's the spike - another word would be passion - that makes them notable and interesting. Well-rounded is the baseline. It's the demonstrated passion for something that appeals to universities looking to fill a diverse class with lots of interests and talents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To use a non-politically correct phrase from when I was younger - at some point you might have too many Indian chiefs and not enough Indians - everyone can't be a superstar at everything. So if everyone is spiky because they are "the best" at something, the campus culture gets toxic. As it is, these kids are all among the best academically.

The idea is that everyone is spiky at different things, together forming a well-rounded class.
You got the wrong idea.

Yes. Apologies. Thank you for correcting - that's what I meant. Everyone doesn't have to be a superstar at something. They are all academic superstars by definition. Not having another "thing" that you are a superstar at shouldn't matter. I am a very, very strong believer in the holistic application - the many posters on DCUM who scream and yell for a "merit based" system that is solely based on grades and scores drive me nuts - I wouldn't want my kid to go to a school solely populated in this way.

But you can still bring a lot to a college campus without having a spike. There is a big difference between being a "joiner" and/or doing nothing at all compared to being a superstar with a spike. Schools should be able to detect this. Many people haven't figured these things out by the time they are 17. I am honestly very suspicious of half the kids who claim that they have. I think schools should call BS for 90% of the kids who "started a club" or "found meaning in life while spending a summer in a foreign country" or half the other manufactured "spikes."

Avoid elite really top colleges if you don't want your kid surrounded by "spikey" students. Those types of institutions are full of really driven young folks that all seem to have some stand out talent. Form Olympic level athletes to very talented musicians to kids launching little rockets in the backyard...it is a lot.

Let me guess - your kid has a spike?

There are lots of incredibly brilliant, highly motivated kids who are going to dominate life who don't have a spike. And will do really well at elite schools. Perhaps they need some kids who have a "spike" in "not having a spike?" Or maybe those spots are filled by legacies, FGLI, etc.

I am sure there are great students with no spike. That does not mean, for example, that, MIT is a great fit for that kid. Maybe it is, maybe it is not. I think the posters point is that instead of being pissed off that the MIT admissions department is not listening to some anonymous DCUM poster for input in how to choose their students, put that energy into helping your kid find a good fit.

You make a fair point though MIT is a bad example. I'm guessing they are less impressed by kids who saved the world or started the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Fan Club at their high school than most other schools - they are looking more for pure intellectual horsepower, which can primarily be demonstrated by grades and test scores. Sure, research or whatever might impress them, but is less critical.

MIT is as good an example as any. Every university has their priorities for admission based on that institution. Time and energy is better spent finding the institution that is looking to best serve you particular student as opposed to trying to rage at an institution that is not prioritizing your particular kid for whatever reason.

Looked at so many places with all my kids. Even the ones that ended up at HYPSM were well suited to one or two places in that group but not others and did not apply to the poor fits.