I have many times heard the argument about the “quirky” kids who are just too creative or too intellectually curious to be bothered with the assignments that they don’t deem worthy. I have heard of the kids who are just too smart to do work they find boring. I find this argument odd. Life is full of tasks that seem useless or mindless but we all have to do them. There are bosses that need to be pleased and busy work in just about every profession. Why should the bright, quirky kids get a pass on the work they don’t like?
I have huge problems with the way many classes are taught these days. As a history major, the way that AP Global was taught at our high school made me cry. It was basically a year long cram session for a final trivia contest. My daughter suffered through it. I commiserated. I assured her that it wasn’t the way history should be taught. But it didn’t exempt her from trying her best.
I am also sometimes chagrined at the “craft” projects given for extra credit in AP and Honors classes. But my kids had damn well better do them because that is life. Sometimes life is about playing the game. By the way, my daughter – the science kid-- wrote a children’s book for one of those projects which we have now had some interest in publishing. Not only did it add to her grade, but in the end, thinking about explaining science in a simple way really helped her visualize the problem in a new and interesting way.
Really creative kids are not too creative for these projects. They should be able to use them as jumping off points.
I don’t disagree with you about the problems with education. But either learn to navigate the system, or accept the consequences of lower grades, or home school.
By the way, just as there are plenty of schools for kids with high grades and low test scores, there are plenty of great schools who will welcome the kids with great scores and mediocre grades. Let the quirky kids be who they are. Honestly, who cares if they get into Harvard?
"I don’t think the great essays are as easy to buy as people here assume.
The kind of essays (or personal videos) that could help you get into a school like Chicago or Princeton or Brown are not easy to buy. That doesn’t mean that they can’t be bought, though. I just read something about independent education consultants who charge $200,000. I personally know several who charge more than $15,000 for a basic package. And it may require a lot of work and effort on the part of a student as a reasonably reputable consultant coaches them through the writing process over months and years (rather than simply writing an essay for the student, which I would guess also happens).
Do a lot of students use such coaches or actually buy fantastic essays? I’m sure not.
Do a lot of students actually find their SAT scores go up by 300 points from paid coaching that consists of “tricks” (rather than simply learning math that they didn’t learn in school or had forgotten, which is really more like paying a tutor to help with learning that will affect GPA, which is something that wealthier people are also able to do, and yet no one is arguing that colleges should be GPA-optional)? I’m sure not.
“Life is full of tasks that seem useless or mindless but we all have to do them.”
If by “full”, you mean up to 50 or 60 hours a week for a lifetime, then I am sorry to hear that this is your experience of life, truly. I am sure there are colleges where people have that philosophy, and where students who aspire to that kind of life can go. Where college, in fact, is more of the same.
@lea111 I didn’t say that was my life. I would rather this not become personal. I didn’t attend Uchicago, but my guess is that even there, students will face tasks they find boring or redundant or they would simply rather not do.
I can’t imagine any AO would be happy accepting a student whose excuse for poor grades was that the work just wasn’t stimulating enough. If it is so easy, why not just breeze through it, turn it it, and get the grade?
Well, that’s the life of the kids I’m talking about. I don’t think it’s easier for a kid, maybe a kid without even a parent to commiserate with them, to have nothing but the useless and mindless to do for 50 hours a week, for what is their entire life, or at least entire life from the time they can remember on, than it would be for an adult to do the same.
@leah111 according to collegedata.com 98% of enrolled freshmen at U Chicago were in the top 10% of their classes. I don’t know how accurate that number is, but it doesn’t look like UCHI is a haven for quirky kids who are too smart to get good grades.
Please understand, I’m not saying that those kids, who really don’t fit in to a regular high school environment are not valuable or gifted or worthy of an education. And there are colleges out there who are looking for that kind of off beat intelligence. But, unless those kids have significant achievements to offset the GPA deficit, all of the elite universities are going to be a long shot.
Moreover, unless they find one of the rare career paths that allow them to move completely to the tune of their own drummer, “playing the game” is a skill they are all going to have to learn.
@Lea111 : Scoring zero point at the math section of ACT/SAT test obviously is an exaggeration which I am using to make a point that the person might get a low test score because she/he is the opposite of “well-rounded” kid. Honesty if you are on CC long enough you will read examples that someone scoring almost perfect scores on SAT/SAT II was getting a “C” on math or other courses at schools like Princeton, which has a lower average SAT score than UChicago. (one I read has since been deleted) If those perfect-score kids are having some difficulties, I am wondering what would happen to those not-so-perfect-score kids. As some already pointed out early, they moved on and moved on and eventually might graduate with a less desirable degree. They might have thrived at another school.
My kid likes to have “normal” fun. I have heard that the average college student’s idea of fun was much different than an UChicago student’s definition of fun. At my kid’s current school, the normal work load is 4 courses per semester. Eight per year. (Well, labs count as at least half a course, so if I count labs, I could say 5 courses load since two courses have labs) I guess kids at UChicago are having a lot of courses if they take 4 per quarter.
Coming in very late to this thread, but as the parent of a kid with a 28 ACT composite (23 math) who was accepted to Chicago a dozen years (and turned down the spot) — I am very glad to see this. Because my daughter would probably have been an asset to Chicago… and back in the days of the “uncommon application”, she was able to provide an application that told her story, the way she wanted to tell it … which seems to be what Chicago now says it wants. But I think that in the current admission environment… she wouldn’t have even bothered to apply.
Because the message a decade ago was that the college really wanted to read those essays, that there was a value to being original or different or cutting against the grain in some way – that the college truly valued intellectual diversity. Because diversity is more than skin color or cultural heritage, it is also about differences in the way people think about or approach problems.
There’s an irony here, I think, in that so many people can’t wrap their heads around the fact that it is possible for kids who score at the 80th percentile level on a standardized test rather than the 98th percentile can be capable not only of keeping up in a rigorous college atmosphere, but even of excelling – because those standardized tests are uni-dimensional. They favor smart, conventional thinkers and disfavor smart, imaginative and divergent thinkers … but the imaginative and divergent thinkers are the ones who provide original ideas.
So good for Chicago if indeed they are now recognizing that the primary result of standardized testing is to reward conformity of thought, and produce a student body that is very good at picking the one-out-of-five so-called “right” answers… and perhaps that simply isn’t the class that they want.
I know personally at least 3 kids who are extremely talented but never got the best grades because they were too busy with things that interested them more and didn’t care enough about turning the homework in timely. One was an ISEF first place winner. Those of them who graduated are now in second-tier state schools.
While I think they’ll succeed in life wherever they study, if my son (who’s always had perfect grades) goes to one of the top schools, I personally would like there to be at least a few students like these kids - quirky, passionate and contrarian. Nothing wrong with working hard, playing by the rules and doing what you have to do even if it’s not too exciting, and I wouldn’t wish my kid to take the path those kids took. But people like this certainly add some spark to the environment.
Most elites are now showing less than half their freshmen come from hs that rank. Adcoms can tell if you sit high on the hill, but the figure reported is only those who do report.
When D2 was in lower school, I heard one dad tell another that for 10k, some consultant would guarantee your kid into Yale. Lol. Later, I got involved on the college side and I hate to say it, but so many kids really can’t deliver a whallop in their apps, regardless of stats. Most essays are not that great (not on a college level, for admission.) It’s one reason I nag to try to know what the point is, in the app, the sections, the supps. And I don’t believe the price tag for a counselor means he or she knows any better what makes a great essay. I’v elooked at a number of backgrounds, over the years, and they either weren’t in admissions or spent a very short time, some time ago.
I’ve come to believe the best private counselors steer thier clients to the better matches, not the unreachables.
GJ, I agree that the effort you put in is an element of success. If one wants a tippy top, he or she will need the skills to make it through the four years. No getting around that.
Grades are much, much more easily manipulated than test scores.
I know rural schools that have 5+ valedictorians. What do colleges do then? Obviously, there’s rampant grade inflation going at such schools, to the point that you can’t differentiate students based on class selection and/or grades.
Enter a nationwide testing baseline, such as the ACT or SAT. No one is saying such a system is perfect. Granted, some kids (who are otherwise extremely talented), will get marginalized by taking the test. But for the overwhelming majority of students, standardized testing is a fairly effective way of gauging academic ability, especially since students can retake the tests over and over again if they so choose to do so.
5+ Vals? Hold on to your chair. Some legit, challenging hs have dozens. Or rather, had them, til it became ridicilous and many are trending away from any ranking. And that’s no indication of grade inflation. It’s policy. Sometimes, all kids with a gpa over x.xx. Sometimes, it was an egalitarian move against limiting “top performer” to only one.
Adcoms at holistics will still look at the transcript. And the School Report, which offers various details.
Standardized tests guage your ability to master the standardized test. Nothing, including IQ tests, predicts with absolute certainty who will be a great member of a college community or go on to make their mark in society.
I said, the value in a high score is the fact you did strive for that. The reader sees it, makes a mental note, and goes on to the next sections. Nothing says a high scorer presents well in the rest of the app and supp. That’s where the rubber hits the road.
We know this. It’s a fact of life. Your acquaintances who had high scores are not necessarily the ones contributing most, making a difference, or even the ones we want for friends.
Unless UChicago’s course has a different definition, I could imagine people at UChicago are at least as stressful as those guys at Columbia. BTW, Columbia is among the schools we did not bother to apply.
Regarding test scores, as a matter of fact, everyone already knows that all major Asian countries are using test as the only criterion for college admissions. The poorest kids can rise to the top by working hard. The last known person in Korea who did a development case was found guilty of using her position to solicit favours for her daughter is currently serving a three-year jail term. (former president Park Geun-hye’s Friend)
It is worth repeating that test optional and core curriculum are not compatible. Test optional can only work under open curriculum (for kids with spikes). Those kids who can’t come up with a test score is better off going elsewhere.
That’s interesting about Asian countries using scores only (well if is factually correct, no source), I wonder what the unintended consequences of that will be. China leads the world in plagiarism at its universities, and an interesting article on it at Forbes.
UoC is on the quarter system. I believe all Ivy Leagues except Dartmouth use semesters. 42 quarters is similar to 28 semester classes.
The UoC core has more courses than most, but the courses themselves sound like they could be satisfied with simple classes, if a student chose to do so. For example, it sounds like the STEM part of the core could be satisfied by taking courses like the ones below:
AP Bio
AP Chemistry
Elementary Statistics
Drugs Galore: What They Are and What They Do to You
Everyday Physics (Course description reads, No formulas will be used. Questions might include, “Which draws more water from Lake Michigan, evaporation or the city of Chicago?”)
This simply is not true. Because with fairly rare exceptions, undergraduate college coursework is not so extremely esoteric as to be beyond the capacity of most reasonably intelligent students.
Way back when Chicago accepted my daughter with the 23 ACT – and no math beyond advanced algebra in high school -I don’t think they were worried about her ability to manage the core. I don’t think she would have enjoyed Chicago’s core, but I have no doubt that she would have passed the required classes. After all, she had gen ed requirements to meet at her alma mater, and she managed to get an A in stats at Columbia… griping all the way about how difficult it was …but nonetheless an A. (And if it had been a B or a C, it wouldn’t have been the end of the world).