Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this even normal or healthy developmentally? For a teenager to have a carefully curated spike or narrative that’s the product of an expensive college counselor’s hame plan? Aren’t teenagers supposed to be trying different things and aren’t they just beginning to figure out what they like? I understand that a few scattered unrelated activities, a typical retail or food service job and maybe a couple awards won’t cut it for T-20’s in 2025, but what is all this doing to our kids?

Great question and I agree 100%. Schools seem to want pointy kids who come together to create a well-rounded class. How many of these superstars actually continue those activities in college? I agree that it is important to show commitment to things, but being "very good" rather than "world class" should be fine if a kid is otherwise great.

At my top 10 school, even in the 90s, I remember initially not being happy as it took a while for all of the kids who were used to being the best to realize that not everyone can be the best and it is OK to take a step back and blend in. Pardon the non-PC term, but as we used to say, too many Indian chiefs, not enough Indians.

Agree. It’s all a facade. It doesn’t even make a “well rounded” class because it’s superficial. Plus kids aren’t engaging with each other much at college anyhow. Many classes are online, and in person classes consist of kids with faces stuck in their phones/computers.

Classes at 4 year residential colleges are on line? My kid is in 10th grade, so we're just starting, but this is the first I've heard of this.

Some classes at larger universities are, notably Florida.

If I read about another kid who is president of six clubs, three varsity sports, perfect GPA, 15+ APs, helps six old ladies a day cross the street and cured cancer, I will puke.

I used to help people with MBA apps and I know a number of people who got rejected because they were over-qualified. The schools thought they were too far along in their careers and it didn't really make sense. I feel that way about some of these HS kids.

I would prefer a kid who is really smart (but not 4.0/1600), very good but not great at a few interesting activities, social without being overly gregarious. Confident yet has some natural anxiety. They are the ones who will actually add the most to a college campus and also get the most out of it.

Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. All superstars, all the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's important to understand that there is a difference between a narrative and spike. Spikes should occur naturally and some kids just have them - an extreme interest in or passion for something that shows through their ECs, etc. and perhaps academic choices.

But everyone has a narrative, it's how YOU weave what you've done together. You don't have to plan it. It's more of a reflective exercise. My DS's narrative - if you want to call it that (I think it's somewhat comical that things are termed this way now) - is "jack of all trades," meaning their interest in trying new things, whether they end up being good at them or not.

When people talk about the narrative, they're really talking about the essay, which helps sew the ECs up, or illustrate one or more of them through a narrow lens. In my DC's case, the narrative was one of curiosity, making the most of every day, and the joy of learning for learning's sake. You might say it's not compelling, but it IS a narrative, and it does completely characterize my DC.

Every kid comes with their own narrative. However this thread is more about the kids who have someone help them construct or craft a narrative from middle school on- one that ties courses, choice of major, extracurriculars, essays and summer activities into one cohesive narrative.

NP and I’ll add that what I’ve seen (in real life and here) are the kids whose crafted “self” isn’t even genuine - it is all a game to be admitted to X elite school in whatever way the parents can make that happen (undersubscribed major, etc). There’s a post on one of these threads saying that kids leave activities and interests OFF the application just so they don’t look well rounded. That one nearly broke me, as the parent of an active, smart, genuine, well rounded kid for whom the “genuinely interest in learning” approach failed miserably in the application process.
I think colleges are running the risk of having a bunch of students who are only looking out for themselves and can’t or won’t form any kind of community because they’ve done everything for all the wrong reasons (and only care about going to the “best” school they got into, without regard for the culture or community of the school.

The top schools are pretty good at sussing out authentic kindness and community orientation (both attributes that the top schools actively look for). They often use the LOR for that. So you can't just start vomiting make-believe in your application without someone substantiating it.

ROFLMAO.

Who do you think is reading your application?
Its a 20 something or maybe 30 something liberal arts major, not fukn Yoda.

Who do you think is helping people to curate those applications?
Those same SLAC liberal arts majors but older and wiser and after 10 years on an admissions committee.

Anonymous wrote:Is this even normal or healthy developmentally? For a teenager to have a carefully curated spike or narrative that’s the product of an expensive college counselor’s hame plan? Aren’t teenagers supposed to be trying different things and aren’t they just beginning to figure out what they like? I understand that a few scattered unrelated activities, a typical retail or food service job and maybe a couple awards won’t cut it for T-20’s in 2025, but what is all this doing to our kids?

This is all an effort to keep moving the goalposts so they can keep using holistic standards.

You can pay to get your name on a published article
You can pay to get your name attached to a non-profit.
You can pay to participate in an archeological dig in the Andes mountains.

In the end almost all holistic things other than genuine socioeconomic disparity can be gamed much more and much easier than test scores and AP scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this even normal or healthy developmentally? For a teenager to have a carefully curated spike or narrative that’s the product of an expensive college counselor’s hame plan? Aren’t teenagers supposed to be trying different things and aren’t they just beginning to figure out what they like? I understand that a few scattered unrelated activities, a typical retail or food service job and maybe a couple awards won’t cut it for T-20’s in 2025, but what is all this doing to our kids?

Great question and I agree 100%. Schools seem to want pointy kids who come together to create a well-rounded class. How many of these superstars actually continue those activities in college? I agree that it is important to show commitment to things, but being "very good" rather than "world class" should be fine if a kid is otherwise great.

At my top 10 school, even in the 90s, I remember initially not being happy as it took a while for all of the kids who were used to being the best to realize that not everyone can be the best and it is OK to take a step back and blend in. Pardon the non-PC term, but as we used to say, too many Indian chiefs, not enough Indians.

Agree. It’s all a facade. It doesn’t even make a “well rounded” class because it’s superficial. Plus kids aren’t engaging with each other much at college anyhow. Many classes are online, and in person classes consist of kids with faces stuck in their phones/computers.

Classes at 4 year residential colleges are on line? My kid is in 10th grade, so we're just starting, but this is the first I've heard of this.

They are not online classes, but professors will often post recordings of lectures online for students who were sick or want extra review. It is a nice feature but also creates an incentive for kids not to get out of bed or to be distracted on their phones and laptops during lecture. It is always better for the student to go in person and pay attention.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's important to understand that there is a difference between a narrative and spike. Spikes should occur naturally and some kids just have them - an extreme interest in or passion for something that shows through their ECs, etc. and perhaps academic choices.

But everyone has a narrative, it's how YOU weave what you've done together. You don't have to plan it. It's more of a reflective exercise. My DS's narrative - if you want to call it that (I think it's somewhat comical that things are termed this way now) - is "jack of all trades," meaning their interest in trying new things, whether they end up being good at them or not.

When people talk about the narrative, they're really talking about the essay, which helps sew the ECs up, or illustrate one or more of them through a narrow lens. In my DC's case, the narrative was one of curiosity, making the most of every day, and the joy of learning for learning's sake. You might say it's not compelling, but it IS a narrative, and it does completely characterize my DC.

Every kid comes with their own narrative. However this thread is more about the kids who have someone help them construct or craft a narrative from middle school on- one that ties courses, choice of major, extracurriculars, essays and summer activities into one cohesive narrative.

NP and I’ll add that what I’ve seen (in real life and here) are the kids whose crafted “self” isn’t even genuine - it is all a game to be admitted to X elite school in whatever way the parents can make that happen (undersubscribed major, etc). There’s a post on one of these threads saying that kids leave activities and interests OFF the application just so they don’t look well rounded. That one nearly broke me, as the parent of an active, smart, genuine, well rounded kid for whom the “genuinely interest in learning” approach failed miserably in the application process.
I think colleges are running the risk of having a bunch of students who are only looking out for themselves and can’t or won’t form any kind of community because they’ve done everything for all the wrong reasons (and only care about going to the “best” school they got into, without regard for the culture or community of the school.

That may have been me who posted that. I learned from my older kid (who was too well-rounded). And by reading a LOT, listening to experts. The top schools have a formula. They aren't looking for the "best" kids. They are looking for very specific attributes in a quick 5-8min (or less) glance. I think parents are often naive about the process. I also learned my lesson with my older kid (who ended up ok, after we pivoted strategy in RD to make more specialized - we hadn't realized that was what colleges want).

The issue is that they can't imagine how a well-rounded kid contributes on day 1 on campus. There are too many options and, quite frankly, often too "surface". A specialized kid will jump into "period historical costumes" for the play or stagecraft (from that random other post here) or continue the composting initiative at the campus garden with a planned farm-to-table event, etc.....they don't appreciate kids who dabble and don't know precisely what they will do on campus and how they will do it - only because they don't have the luxury of time with these applications. They need to check boxes and say - yes, this is my food insecurity kid, who is a composter and gardener, who is going to volunteer and plant garlic on day 1 at our campus farm and run xyz programming bc kid has already done that programming in HS. And will take the undersubscribed Anthro classes on water in arid lands and farming in the Middle East....

I do think this will start changing rapidly - even next cycle - as AI is used to "find the best applicants".

Do you have other kids going through the process in the future?

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting because it seems the current parenting approach and overly-cultivated image of many teens is causing them to be both adultified and infantilized at the same time. So kids are very high-achieving in certain regards but also seem quite limited in their ability to function and move through everyday life in more basic ways.

Sounds like a lot of extrapolating and assuming.

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting because it seems the current parenting approach and overly-cultivated image of many teens is causing them to be both adultified and infantilized at the same time. So kids are very high-achieving in certain regards but also seem quite limited in their ability to function and move through everyday life in more basic ways.

+1

It’s interesting because it seems the current parenting approach and overly-cultivated image of many teens is causing them to be both adultified and infantilized at the same time. So kids are very high-achieving in certain regards but also seem quite limited in their ability to function and move through everyday life in more basic ways.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's important to understand that there is a difference between a narrative and spike. Spikes should occur naturally and some kids just have them - an extreme interest in or passion for something that shows through their ECs, etc. and perhaps academic choices.

But everyone has a narrative, it's how YOU weave what you've done together. You don't have to plan it. It's more of a reflective exercise. My DS's narrative - if you want to call it that (I think it's somewhat comical that things are termed this way now) - is "jack of all trades," meaning their interest in trying new things, whether they end up being good at them or not.

When people talk about the narrative, they're really talking about the essay, which helps sew the ECs up, or illustrate one or more of them through a narrow lens. In my DC's case, the narrative was one of curiosity, making the most of every day, and the joy of learning for learning's sake. You might say it's not compelling, but it IS a narrative, and it does completely characterize my DC.

Every kid comes with their own narrative. However this thread is more about the kids who have someone help them construct or craft a narrative from middle school on- one that ties courses, choice of major, extracurriculars, essays and summer activities into one cohesive narrative.

NP and I’ll add that what I’ve seen (in real life and here) are the kids whose crafted “self” isn’t even genuine - it is all a game to be admitted to X elite school in whatever way the parents can make that happen (undersubscribed major, etc). There’s a post on one of these threads saying that kids leave activities and interests OFF the application just so they don’t look well rounded. That one nearly broke me, as the parent of an active, smart, genuine, well rounded kid for whom the “genuinely interest in learning” approach failed miserably in the application process.
I think colleges are running the risk of having a bunch of students who are only looking out for themselves and can’t or won’t form any kind of community because they’ve done everything for all the wrong reasons (and only care about going to the “best” school they got into, without regard for the culture or community of the school.

The top schools are pretty good at sussing out authentic kindness and community orientation (both attributes that the top schools actively look for). They often use the LOR for that. So you can't just start vomiting make-believe in your application without someone substantiating it.

Anonymous wrote:Very few colleges are actually looking for that spike narrative, OP. 99.5% of kids are not even applying to the colleges that (allegedly) do.

Agree. It's just for the top schools. And its not as bad as people here make it out to be.

Again - listen to the Yale AO podcast, the Dartmouth AO podcast, UVA Dean. Hear it directly from them.
Listen to the former AOs too. All over Apple Podcasts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this even normal or healthy developmentally? For a teenager to have a carefully curated spike or narrative that’s the product of an expensive college counselor’s hame plan? Aren’t teenagers supposed to be trying different things and aren’t they just beginning to figure out what they like? I understand that a few scattered unrelated activities, a typical retail or food service job and maybe a couple awards won’t cut it for T-20’s in 2025, but what is all this doing to our kids?

Great question and I agree 100%. Schools seem to want pointy kids who come together to create a well-rounded class. How many of these superstars actually continue those activities in college? I agree that it is important to show commitment to things, but being "very good" rather than "world class" should be fine if a kid is otherwise great.

At my top 10 school, even in the 90s, I remember initially not being happy as it took a while for all of the kids who were used to being the best to realize that not everyone can be the best and it is OK to take a step back and blend in. Pardon the non-PC term, but as we used to say, too many Indian chiefs, not enough Indians.

Agree. It’s all a facade. It doesn’t even make a “well rounded” class because it’s superficial. Plus kids aren’t engaging with each other much at college anyhow. Many classes are online, and in person classes consist of kids with faces stuck in their phones/computers.

Classes at 4 year residential colleges are on line? My kid is in 10th grade, so we're just starting, but this is the first I've heard of this.

No one is online at my kid's Ivy. Same for the T20 we visited for last 2 weeks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this even normal or healthy developmentally? For a teenager to have a carefully curated spike or narrative that’s the product of an expensive college counselor’s hame plan? Aren’t teenagers supposed to be trying different things and aren’t they just beginning to figure out what they like? I understand that a few scattered unrelated activities, a typical retail or food service job and maybe a couple awards won’t cut it for T-20’s in 2025, but what is all this doing to our kids?

Great question and I agree 100%. Schools seem to want pointy kids who come together to create a well-rounded class. How many of these superstars actually continue those activities in college? I agree that it is important to show commitment to things, but being "very good" rather than "world class" should be fine if a kid is otherwise great.

At my top 10 school, even in the 90s, I remember initially not being happy as it took a while for all of the kids who were used to being the best to realize that not everyone can be the best and it is OK to take a step back and blend in. Pardon the non-PC term, but as we used to say, too many Indian chiefs, not enough Indians.

Agree. It’s all a facade. It doesn’t even make a “well rounded” class because it’s superficial. Plus kids aren’t engaging with each other much at college anyhow. Many classes are online, and in person classes consist of kids with faces stuck in their phones/computers.

Classes at 4 year residential colleges are on line? My kid is in 10th grade, so we're just starting, but this is the first I've heard of this.

No idea what PP is talking about. None of the schools any of my kids looked at were like that, at all. but they weren't looking at top 20s.

Very few colleges are actually looking for that spike narrative, OP. 99.5% of kids are not even applying to the colleges that (allegedly) do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this even normal or healthy developmentally? For a teenager to have a carefully curated spike or narrative that’s the product of an expensive college counselor’s hame plan? Aren’t teenagers supposed to be trying different things and aren’t they just beginning to figure out what they like? I understand that a few scattered unrelated activities, a typical retail or food service job and maybe a couple awards won’t cut it for T-20’s in 2025, but what is all this doing to our kids?

Great question and I agree 100%. Schools seem to want pointy kids who come together to create a well-rounded class. How many of these superstars actually continue those activities in college? I agree that it is important to show commitment to things, but being "very good" rather than "world class" should be fine if a kid is otherwise great.

At my top 10 school, even in the 90s, I remember initially not being happy as it took a while for all of the kids who were used to being the best to realize that not everyone can be the best and it is OK to take a step back and blend in. Pardon the non-PC term, but as we used to say, too many Indian chiefs, not enough Indians.

Agree. It’s all a facade. It doesn’t even make a “well rounded” class because it’s superficial. Plus kids aren’t engaging with each other much at college anyhow. Many classes are online, and in person classes consist of kids with faces stuck in their phones/computers.

Classes at 4 year residential colleges are on line? My kid is in 10th grade, so we're just starting, but this is the first I've heard of this.