What happens when elite schools shift away from test scores, grades, and AP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/opinion/rethinking-college-admissions.html?ref=opinion

If the best schools begin to actively discourage college resume padding, what happens to the grinds and tiger parenting offspring? Are they going to take their smarts and find purpose and meaning to channel their energy and hard work? Or are they going to stick to their conventional path and game their essays and interviews to fake passion and commitment to get in? Are they going to shift their attention to those really great state universities that are too big to do holistic admissions and abandon the Ivies? What will you do?

This is so condescending. You are such an elitist. You devalue somebody whose goal is to make a lot of money or have a prestigious job. Why not accept that some of us want things like that?

NP here. I don't think OP is devaluing a person -- but certainly you can't believe a goal of making a lot of money or having a prestigious job is supposed to be admired?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm concerned that the new emphasis on community service, etc. will once again privilege extroverts over introverts. There are lots of very bright people (ahem, myself included) who prefer to work quietly and alone and who really don't turn their smarts towards organizing tasks -- organizing others, getting people 'pumped' about some project. It's possible to be really intelligent without having the personality of an aerobics instructor -- and top schools should recognize that and seek out more of the quiet, brilliant types -- even if to the extroverts we seem dull.

I don't see this at all. There's a lot more to community service than "organizing" and "pumping." Such as, for instance, actually doing work?

I also don't see that there's any lack of opportunity for quiet, brilliant types.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/opinion/rethinking-college-admissions.html?ref=opinion

If the best schools begin to actively discourage college resume padding, what happens to the grinds and tiger parenting offspring? Are they going to take their smarts and find purpose and meaning to channel their energy and hard work? Or are they going to stick to their conventional path and game their essays and interviews to fake passion and commitment to get in? Are they going to shift their attention to those really great state universities that are too big to do holistic admissions and abandon the Ivies? What will you do?

This is so condescending. You are such an elitist. You devalue somebody whose goal is to make a lot of money or have a prestigious job. Why not accept that some of us want things like that?

NP here. I don't think OP is devaluing a person -- but certainly you can't believe a goal of making a lot of money or having a prestigious job is supposed to be admired?

+1

If you don't value having a high paying job, then pat yourself on the back for being born into a family that never struggled with a low paying job. If you poor, you won't be able to afford the extracurriculars but your kid can still work to graduate at the top of their class. But of course they will be "drones" :rolls:. If creativity is so important to colleges, then they should teach it to their students. I'm sure the high achieving kids will learn very quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/opinion/rethinking-college-admissions.html?ref=opinion

If the best schools begin to actively discourage college resume padding, what happens to the grinds and tiger parenting offspring? Are they going to take their smarts and find purpose and meaning to channel their energy and hard work? Or are they going to stick to their conventional path and game their essays and interviews to fake passion and commitment to get in? Are they going to shift their attention to those really great state universities that are too big to do holistic admissions and abandon the Ivies? What will you do?

OP, were you abused as a kid? Why the anger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The other truth is that there are just too many kids who are doing it all now. You could fill UVA with top students from NO Virginia now, and it is just getting worse here and everywhere. If you want truly exceptional kids who value learning, not only will sat scores and number of AP classes not get you there, they will leave you with a pool of applicants so huge there is no effective, non-arbitrary way to sort them into admits and nonadmits.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/opinion/rethinking-college-admissions.html?ref=opinion

If the best schools begin to actively discourage college resume padding, what happens to the grinds and tiger parenting offspring? Are they going to take their smarts and find purpose and meaning to channel their energy and hard work? Or are they going to stick to their conventional path and game their essays and interviews to fake passion and commitment to get in? Are they going to shift their attention to those really great state universities that are too big to do holistic admissions and abandon the Ivies? What will you do?

This is so condescending. You are such an elitist. You devalue somebody whose goal is to make a lot of money or have a prestigious job. Why not accept that some of us want things like that?

NP here. I don't think OP is devaluing a person -- but certainly you can't believe a goal of making a lot of money or having a prestigious job is supposed to be admired?

+1

If you don't value having a high paying job, then pat yourself on the back for being born into a family that never struggled with a low paying job. If you poor, you won't be able to afford the extracurriculars but your kid can still work to graduate at the top of their class. But of course they will be "drones" :rolls:. If creativity is so important to colleges, then they should teach it to their students. I'm sure the high achieving kids will learn very quickly.

I think drive is to be admired. And focus. Our society values money, so it is not odd at all that people with drive and focus aim towards money. It is elitist to set your values above those of the society around us. The vast majority of people want a nice house, a nice vacation, nice clothes. The people you are calling "drones" are really those who have the self discipline to get these things. They can do anything they choose to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/opinion/rethinking-college-admissions.html?ref=opinion

If the best schools begin to actively discourage college resume padding, what happens to the grinds and tiger parenting offspring? Are they going to take their smarts and find purpose and meaning to channel their energy and hard work? Or are they going to stick to their conventional path and game their essays and interviews to fake passion and commitment to get in? Are they going to shift their attention to those really great state universities that are too big to do holistic admissions and abandon the Ivies? What will you do?

This is so condescending. You are such an elitist. You devalue somebody whose goal is to make a lot of money or have a prestigious job. Why not accept that some of us want things like that?

NP here. I don't think OP is devaluing a person -- but certainly you can't believe a goal of making a lot of money or having a prestigious job is supposed to be admired?

+1

If you don't value having a high paying job, then pat yourself on the back for being born into a family that never struggled with a low paying job. If you poor, you won't be able to afford the extracurriculars but your kid can still work to graduate at the top of their class. But of course they will be "drones" :rolls:. If creativity is so important to colleges, then they should teach it to their students. I'm sure the high achieving kids will learn very quickly.

I think drive is to be admired. And focus. Our society values money, so it is not odd at all that people with drive and focus aim towards money. It is elitist to set your values above those of the society around us. The vast majority of people want a nice house, a nice vacation, nice clothes. The people you are calling "drones" are really those who have the self discipline to get these things. They can do anything they choose to do.

Of course drive and focus are to be admired but when the object of all that drive and focus is so superficial and self-centered then, no, that is not admirable. It's kind of douchey. And please don't tell me all those kids are so driven because they're poor -- many are very well off children of doctors and lawyers and Asian elites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/opinion/rethinking-college-admissions.html?ref=opinion

If the best schools begin to actively discourage college resume padding, what happens to the grinds and tiger parenting offspring? Are they going to take their smarts and find purpose and meaning to channel their energy and hard work? Or are they going to stick to their conventional path and game their essays and interviews to fake passion and commitment to get in? Are they going to shift their attention to those really great state universities that are too big to do holistic admissions and abandon the Ivies? What will you do?

This is so condescending. You are such an elitist. You devalue somebody whose goal is to make a lot of money or have a prestigious job. Why not accept that some of us want things like that?

NP here. I don't think OP is devaluing a person -- but certainly you can't believe a goal of making a lot of money or having a prestigious job is supposed to be admired?

+1

If you don't value having a high paying job, then pat yourself on the back for being born into a family that never struggled with a low paying job. If you poor, you won't be able to afford the extracurriculars but your kid can still work to graduate at the top of their class. But of course they will be "drones" :rolls:. If creativity is so important to colleges, then they should teach it to their students. I'm sure the high achieving kids will learn very quickly.

I think drive is to be admired. And focus. Our society values money, so it is not odd at all that people with drive and focus aim towards money. It is elitist to set your values above those of the society around us. The vast majority of people want a nice house, a nice vacation, nice clothes. The people you are calling "drones" are really those who have the self discipline to get these things. They can do anything they choose to do.

Of course drive and focus are to be admired but when the object of all that drive and focus is so superficial and self-centered then, no, that is not admirable. It's kind of douchey. And please don't tell me all those kids are so driven because they're poor -- many are very well off children of doctors and lawyers and Asian elites.

You are right, sister. Being a gangbanger or a drug addict or utter failure at school is so much more in the money

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/opinion/rethinking-college-admissions.html?ref=opinion

If the best schools begin to actively discourage college resume padding, what happens to the grinds and tiger parenting offspring? Are they going to take their smarts and find purpose and meaning to channel their energy and hard work? Or are they going to stick to their conventional path and game their essays and interviews to fake passion and commitment to get in? Are they going to shift their attention to those really great state universities that are too big to do holistic admissions and abandon the Ivies? What will you do?

This is so condescending. You are such an elitist. You devalue somebody whose goal is to make a lot of money or have a prestigious job. Why not accept that some of us want things like that?

NP here. I don't think OP is devaluing a person -- but certainly you can't believe a goal of making a lot of money or having a prestigious job is supposed to be admired?

+1

If you don't value having a high paying job, then pat yourself on the back for being born into a family that never struggled with a low paying job. If you poor, you won't be able to afford the extracurriculars but your kid can still work to graduate at the top of their class. But of course they will be "drones" :rolls:. If creativity is so important to colleges, then they should teach it to their students. I'm sure the high achieving kids will learn very quickly.

I think drive is to be admired. And focus. Our society values money, so it is not odd at all that people with drive and focus aim towards money. It is elitist to set your values above those of the society around us. The vast majority of people want a nice house, a nice vacation, nice clothes. The people you are calling "drones" are really those who have the self discipline to get these things. They can do anything they choose to do.

Of course drive and focus are to be admired but when the object of all that drive and focus is so superficial and self-centered then, no, that is not admirable. It's kind of douchey. And please don't tell me all those kids are so driven because they're poor -- many are very well off children of doctors and lawyers and Asian elites.

You are right, sister. Being a gangbanger or a drug addict or utter failure at school is so much more in the money

Yes, of course, that's exactly what I meant.

[Anonymous]

http://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/files/gse-mcc/files/20160120_mcc_ttt_execsummary_interactive.pdf?m=1453303460

Here's the link to the report signed by the admissions directors of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT among others. As you see, it is explicitly designed to help the strivers from (including Asian-Americans) by recognizing what young people do for their families and emphasizing quality over quantity in extra-curriculars. It's about recognizing talent comes in many forms - those who overcome limited economic circumstances, make the best of the educational opportunities afforded them, and have a commitment to others are remarkable.

For those of you who seem to see this only through a racial/ethnic lens, think of the child of recent immigrant restaurant workers who can't go on a paid overseas service project or lives in a school district that doesn't offer 10+ AP classes but works to help her parents pay the rent and is deeply involved in tutoring younger versions of herself. It's not reasonable to say she's any less qualified for the Ivies than my upper middle class child with literally every advantage in life simply because she scored 100 points lower on the SAT and didn't grow up reading the New Yorker every week.

[Anonymous]

And the teascher doesn't call on the bright students to answer because she wants to "give other kids a chance." Meaning my kid is left to doodle and daydream, but God forbid the teacher catch him because then she will embarass & rebuke him for not paying attention.

I have a kid who tests in the profoundly gifted range. I hope you don't convey to your child that he is the smartest guy in the room. You're going to raise a kid who is unable to cope with being an entry-level employee, who is unable to cope with working with a team, and who is unable to cope with environments where he is NOT the smartest guy in the room.

Nope, I do not convey to him that he is the smartest guy in the room. I just listen empathetically as he shares about his day, but not being called on day after day makes him feel as though his contributions aren't valued. The effect over time has been that he is disengaged from the learning environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/opinion/rethinking-college-admissions.html?ref=opinion

If the best schools begin to actively discourage college resume padding, what happens to the grinds and tiger parenting offspring? Are they going to take their smarts and find purpose and meaning to channel their energy and hard work? Or are they going to stick to their conventional path and game their essays and interviews to fake passion and commitment to get in? Are they going to shift their attention to those really great state universities that are too big to do holistic admissions and abandon the Ivies? What will you do?

This is so condescending. You are such an elitist. You devalue somebody whose goal is to make a lot of money or have a prestigious job. Why not accept that some of us want things like that?

NP here. I don't think OP is devaluing a person -- but certainly you can't believe a goal of making a lot of money or having a prestigious job is supposed to be admired?

+1

If you don't value having a high paying job, then pat yourself on the back for being born into a family that never struggled with a low paying job. If you poor, you won't be able to afford the extracurriculars but your kid can still work to graduate at the top of their class. But of course they will be "drones" :rolls:. If creativity is so important to colleges, then they should teach it to their students. I'm sure the high achieving kids will learn very quickly.

I think drive is to be admired. And focus. Our society values money, so it is not odd at all that people with drive and focus aim towards money. It is elitist to set your values above those of the society around us. The vast majority of people want a nice house, a nice vacation, nice clothes. The people you are calling "drones" are really those who have the self discipline to get these things. They can do anything they choose to do.

Of course drive and focus are to be admired but when the object of all that drive and focus is so superficial and self-centered then, no, that is not admirable. It's kind of douchey. And please don't tell me all those kids are so driven because they're poor -- many are very well off children of doctors and lawyers and Asian elites.

+100 So true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And the teascher doesn't call on the bright students to answer because she wants to "give other kids a chance." Meaning my kid is left to doodle and daydream, but God forbid the teacher catch him because then she will embarass & rebuke him for not paying attention.

I have a kid who tests in the profoundly gifted range. I hope you don't convey to your child that he is the smartest guy in the room. You're going to raise a kid who is unable to cope with being an entry-level employee, who is unable to cope with working with a team, and who is unable to cope with environments where he is NOT the smartest guy in the room.

Nope, I do not convey to him that he is the smartest guy in the room. I just listen empathetically as he shares about his day, but not being called on day after day makes him feel as though his contributions aren't valued. The effect over time has been that he is disengaged from the learning environment.

Why haven't you focused on finding your child a more suitable academic environment instead of pontificating to other parents here?

[Anonymous]

What happens is, nothing happens, because no top-30 school is actually shifting the target-field. They're not. These are ideas that get bandied about; but, for now, if you want in to a really top-flight school, the numbers matter a very great deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm concerned that the new emphasis on community service, etc. will once again privilege extroverts over introverts. There are lots of very bright people (ahem, myself included) who prefer to work quietly and alone and who really don't turn their smarts towards organizing tasks -- organizing others, getting people 'pumped' about some project. It's possible to be really intelligent without having the personality of an aerobics instructor -- and top schools should recognize that and seek out more of the quiet, brilliant types -- even if to the extroverts we seem dull.

+1000
My kids are exactly as you describe (as am I). They detest things like pep rallies, car wash fundraisers, "spirit week," etc. Anything that requires them to prance around and scream with feigned excitement. On the other hand, they are excellent students who love nothing more than curling up with good books or having deep discussions about subjects that interest them. However, there's no way to convey that kind of personality to colleges. Apparently, all they want to see are the leaders, the class officers, the kids who spearhead some enormous, all-night charity dance-a-thon. My kids love to learn, but they just don't fit the kind of mold that puts them on display at all times. Too bad, because they would be incredible assets to any college.