Overpackaging an applicant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm curious about how AO's view high school kids with LinkedIn profiles. Does it contribute to the feeling that a kid is overpackaged?

I just saw a kid post on LinkedIn that he will be attending an elite school, noting the other schools he was accepted to (a very impressive list). I find the "I'm attending this college" posts by HS kids on LinkedIn to be quite obnoxious, only to be topped by this one which advertises the other schools he got into. I wish the school he is attending would retroactively reject him for having no tact or common sense. Ironically, he is attending a school that has a bad reputation for this to begin with.

I have mixed feelings about HS kids having LinkedIn pages. If they keep it simple, I guess it is fine, though I'm not a huge fan. If they start clearly "overpackaging" themselves with inflated titles and accomplishments, it starts becoming troubling.

When I first stumbled upon HS kids LinkedIn pages, my first thought was that they were overpackaged. I mean, some of them list every single AP course they've taken and their SAT scores, and they have very professionally written descriptions of their activities with many stats (like I was 2 out 10,000 chosen for this scholarship, etc). I thought there was a local college counselor advising these kids to create these accounts!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The students I know who did well in admissions were packaged. More importantly they had A’s even if it meant less rigor. They were ruthless in their essays. Subtly does not come through. They repeated words, themes, ideas. They made sure admissions saw what they wanted them to see.

100%. We 'packaged' our kid. Didn't need an outside consultant to do so. EC and coursework were tigtly focused and legit. Rigor was strategic. Every word and every item listed on the app built a clear narrative. Essays were ruthless in communicating kid's character, accomplishments, goals and values...playing back the school values/priorities. When you have so many applicants, it is best to have a clear and differentiated narrative and important to connect the dots for overworked AOs. Anyone reading my kid's app would have a clear sense of what they would study, how they would engage in EC, and made it easy to see how they would easily fit in and make a positive impact on campus. We made it easy for decision makers and our strategy was effective

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The students I know who did well in admissions were packaged. More importantly they had A’s even if it meant less rigor. They were ruthless in their essays. Subtly does not come through. They repeated words, themes, ideas. They made sure admissions saw what they wanted them to see.

100%. We 'packaged' our kid. Didn't need an outside consultant to do so. EC and coursework were tigtly focused and legit. Rigor was strategic. Every word and every item listed on the app built a clear narrative. Essays were ruthless in communicating kid's character, accomplishments, goals and values...playing back the school values/priorities. When you have so many applicants, it is best to have a clear and differentiated narrative and important to connect the dots for overworked AOs. Anyone reading my kid's app would have a clear sense of what they would study, how they would engage in EC, and made it easy to see how they would easily fit in and make a positive impact on campus. We made it easy for decision makers and our strategy was effective

Where is your kid headed?

[Anonymous]

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?

This will sort itself out.

There are self-starters, slugs and highly packaged kids in every generation.

Some kids of all kinds flourish, and some crash and burn. You don’t know till you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Absolutely doesn’t get picked because if AO’s dad is a welder, they would realize you have to be at least 18 to to be a welder because it is classified as a dangerous job. If you are under 18, you are never getting a work permit to be one, no company would hire you because of the liability.

So many of these scenarios are so unrealistic. Not buying some was in several productions of the school play, writes literary journal and is a welder. No one is in band and choir and glee club AND has time for cross country and basketball.

Unless you are at a small school basketball is a hard sport to play all 4 years to not only make the team as s freshman but then never get cut since the roster is so small. Unless a student is winning national martial arts events, no AO is going to be impressed if a student says they are a black belt since so many places hand out black belts. Many kids doing martial arts that many years are quirky and a AO would much rather pick the 4 year basketball player because it is a team sport.

I look at over packaged when students are doing a common instrument like violin /piano, play tennis /golf, have high level of math/math competitions, science competitions, volunteer at hospital or lab, summer STEM internships, President of some school clubs, student government.

There are welding clubs/ classes. You don’t need to be doing this for a profession.

And yes, it still counts as a quirky, hobby or interest.

It is hilarious we are arguing over a hypothetical / absolutely non-existent kid. The example stated "worked as a welder in summer". People on this board are often out of touch with any working class / blue collar job and would never realize working as welder in the summer in high school doesn't make sense.

I think welding is really interesting but it is laughable that anyone can just throw on a welding helmet, light a welding torch and weld. It is inherently dangerous. Not a hobby I would want my kid doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: A lot of expat Asian families or recent immigrants feel that schooling their children in America is offering them a relaxed lifestyle, a chance to have a normal childhood, with activities outside of school (that kids cannot do over there because they're grinding math and kanji 24/7). So if you think they're injecting pressure into the American system... that's their version of relaxed

Oh, the irony. They liked relaxed lifestyle of kids in America and came and made it a pressure cooker just like they had back home.

You can take a girl out of a trailer, but you can’t take the trailer out of the girl.