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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict that high school “research” or publications wouldn’t be nearly as overrated going forward.

The distinguishing feature of true research is its uncertainty and repeated failures. This idea of a high school kid publishing research is oxymoron. We often dread advising even undergrad kids as we have to find a small cute self-contained problem for them (and provide tons of guidance along the way). For those parents who are adamant that your kids came up with the problem themselves. But how to twist it into an executable project takes expertise!

For those magnet or elite high schools with a research class, how many teachers have actually done real research themselves? The vast majority of Ph.D.s never even publish a paper in a decent journal.

+100. I'm an R-1 STEM faculty myself and has been part of NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) where I supervised two undergraduate visitors from other universities each summer for three straight summers. These visiting students are generally excellent students, but they were so young -- sophomores and juniors -- that I had to think hard to come up with projects they could do in eight weeks without knocking on my door every day asking questions or burdening my graduate students excessively. They simply don't have the background and training to do anything other than, as PP pointed out, a small, self-contained project that my graduate students could have completed in a day. They weren't capable of reading related literature (I mean, sure they can read the Abstract and Introduction, but once the math kicks in in Section 2 they're lost), nor could they do any theoretical analysis. At best, what they could do was take a method/technique/algorithm my graduate students and I developed, wrote a computer program that tested it, and comment on the simulation results. At worst, the project was not completed by the end of eight weeks and their final presentation posters were filled with things my graduate students and I had created, not them, that we gifted to them.

But a high schooler can just come in and kick ass!

It’s such a breath of fresh air to see such a quality post on this forum!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict that high school “research” or publications wouldn’t be nearly as overrated going forward.

The distinguishing feature of true research is its uncertainty and repeated failures. This idea of a high school kid publishing research is oxymoron. We often dread advising even undergrad kids as we have to find a small cute self-contained problem for them (and provide tons of guidance along the way). For those parents who are adamant that your kids came up with the problem themselves. But how to twist it into an executable project takes expertise!

For those magnet or elite high schools with a research class, how many teachers have actually done real research themselves? The vast majority of Ph.D.s never even publish a paper in a decent journal.

+100. I'm an R-1 STEM faculty myself and has been part of NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) where I supervised two undergraduate visitors from other universities each summer for three straight summers. These visiting students are generally excellent students, but they were so young -- sophomores and juniors -- that I had to think hard to come up with projects they could do in eight weeks without knocking on my door every day asking questions or burdening my graduate students excessively. They simply don't have the background and training to do anything other than, as PP pointed out, a small, self-contained project that my graduate students could have completed in a day. They weren't capable of reading related literature (I mean, sure they can read the Abstract and Introduction, but once the math kicks in in Section 2 they're lost), nor could they do any theoretical analysis. At best, what they could do was take a method/technique/algorithm my graduate students and I developed, wrote a computer program that tested it, and comment on the simulation results. At worst, the project was not completed by the end of eight weeks and their final presentation posters were filled with things my graduate students and I had created, not them, that we gifted to them.

But a high schooler can just come in and kick ass!

Anonymous wrote:I think families and students have lost the plot!

We should be spending more time trying to figure out the best environment that the student will thrive in first and what is the best "fit". If you do that right, your kid will not have to contort themselves years in advance to contruct a narrative or contort themselves into some kind of spiky candidate by artificial means.

Stop chasing logos (style/prestige) over substance. Spend more time understanding what kind of education and support your student is seeking. Do a lot of research in advance, visit a few schools (not everything in the area) that you've pre-vetted and communicate authentic fit to schools that do fit. Don't try to fit your student into a mold just because the brand name is appealing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict that high school “research” or publications wouldn’t be nearly as overrated going forward.

The distinguishing feature of true research is its uncertainty and repeated failures. This idea of a high school kid publishing research is oxymoron. We often dread advising even undergrad kids as we have to find a small cute self-contained problem for them (and provide tons of guidance along the way). For those parents who are adamant that your kids came up with the problem themselves. But how to twist it into an executable project takes expertise!

For those magnet or elite high schools with a research class, how many teachers have actually done real research themselves? The vast majority of Ph.D.s never even publish a paper in a decent journal.

+100. I'm an R-1 STEM faculty myself and has been part of NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) where I supervised two undergraduate visitors from other universities each summer for three straight summers. These visiting students are generally excellent students, but they were so young -- sophomores and juniors -- that I had to think hard to come up with projects they could do in eight weeks without knocking on my door every day asking questions or burdening my graduate students excessively. They simply don't have the background and training to do anything other than, as PP pointed out, a small, self-contained project that my graduate students could have completed in a day. They weren't capable of reading related literature (I mean, sure they can read the Abstract and Introduction, but once the math kicks in in Section 2 they're lost), nor could they do any theoretical analysis. At best, what they could do was take a method/technique/algorithm my graduate students and I developed, wrote a computer program that tested it, and comment on the simulation results. At worst, the project was not completed by the end of eight weeks and their final presentation posters were filled with things my graduate students and I had created, not them, that we gifted to them.

But a high schooler can just come in and kick ass!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict that high school “research” or publications wouldn’t be nearly as overrated going forward.

The distinguishing feature of true research is its uncertainty and repeated failures. This idea of a high school kid publishing research is oxymoron. We often dread advising even undergrad kids as we have to find a small cute self-contained problem for them (and provide tons of guidance along the way). For those parents who are adamant that your kids came up with the problem themselves. But how to twist it into an executable project takes expertise!

For those magnet or elite high schools with a research class, how many teachers have actually done real research themselves? The vast majority of Ph.D.s never even publish a paper in a decent journal.

+100. I'm an R-1 STEM faculty myself and has been part of NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) where I supervised two undergraduate visitors from other universities each summer for three straight summers. These visiting students are generally excellent students, but they were so young -- sophomores and juniors -- that I had to think hard to come up with projects they could do in eight weeks without knocking on my door every day asking questions or burdening my graduate students excessively. They simply don't have the background and training to do anything other than, as PP pointed out, a small, self-contained project that my graduate students could have completed in a day. They weren't capable of reading related literature (I mean, sure they can read the Abstract and Introduction, but once the math kicks in in Section 2 they're lost), nor could they do any theoretical analysis. At best, what they could do was take a method/technique/algorithm my graduate students and I developed, wrote a computer program that tested it, and comment on the simulation results. At worst, the project was not completed by the end of eight weeks and their final presentation posters were filled with things my graduate students and I had created, not them, that we gifted to them.

But a high schooler can just come in and kick ass!

Anonymous wrote:I predict that high school “research” or publications wouldn’t be nearly as overrated going forward.

The distinguishing feature of true research is its uncertainty and repeated failures. This idea of a high school kid publishing research is oxymoron. We often dread advising even undergrad kids as we have to find a small cute self-contained problem for them (and provide tons of guidance along the way). For those parents who are adamant that your kids came up with the problem themselves. But how to twist it into an executable project takes expertise!

For those magnet or elite high schools with a research class, how many teachers have actually done real research themselves? The vast majority of Ph.D.s never even publish a paper in a decent journal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought I heard that one of the Swiss skiers at the Olympics is on the Dartmouth ski team. This made sense. That would be spiky, right?

Or the Stanford women’s soccer player who is ALSO competing in the Olympics for skiing? Not spiky because she is super talented at two things?

By definition (of the poster somewhere above) this is doubly not a spike, two different things and worse they are mainstream - soccer and skiing are so mainstream they are on TV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought I heard that one of the Swiss skiers at the Olympics is on the Dartmouth ski team. This made sense. That would be spiky, right?

Or the Stanford women’s soccer player who is ALSO competing in the Olympics for skiing? Not spiky because she is super talented at two things?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interested in history of a small Indian tribe is pointy. Publishing a paper on this topic on a high level journal is a spike. No national awards, but the achievement is at the same level.

That sounds like the definition of a faked spike, or maybe your belief about what it actually is. Kids who genuinely have the depth of interest in an arcane subject have done a lot more than “be interested” in the history and published a paper (more likely got their name as the 7th author in a pay-to-play scenario).

Honestly don’t worry about it because you cannot actually manufacture a genuine spike.

Anonymous wrote:I thought I heard that one of the Swiss skiers at the Olympics is on the Dartmouth ski team. This made sense. That would be spiky, right?