Another applicant rejected from all Ivies.

Parents Forum
241

<p>There is a chance that the schools knew of the father's situation, but I don't think we can assume that- the father is speaking openly now, but that doesn't mean he was open about it during the admissions cycle. </p>

<p>Most Americans would think that its over the top to quit your job to help your child get into prestigious schools. However, this father clearly thought it was the right thing to do and really should not be faulted for doing what he believed was in his son's best interest. Unless he royally po'd an ad com, I can't see that it would hurt the son's chances of getting into a school. And there is no indication that he aggravated anyone with his involvement.</p>

242

<p>pipmom, just in case, I hope you realize that my earlier comments regarding "it must have been the essays" were meant as a joke. Sometimes it seems that whenever people can't explain a result, they blame it on the essays. Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, we persist in trying to make sense of the senseless.</p>

243

<p>Well sometimes we say it must have been the recommendations. :)</p>

<p>It's just a way of saying that it's the intangibles that get a kid into the HYPSM type schools.</p>

244

<p>
[quote]
And there is no indication that he aggravated anyone with his involvement.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, is there any indication his involvement helped? Look at the results! What do you think he did all day long? From posts here, we've learned that HE CALLED Harvard to discuss how the school would view the new scores? Do you think he stayed out of his kid's academics after deciding to quit his job? He would have accomplished a LOT more by keeping his day job and hire a couple of professionals. Or do what most people do: trust the system! </p>

<p>The OP's article AND the picture posted next to the article tells the story with simplicity and directness. Ask yourself WHY the father had to be in the story and you'll find the answer rather easily. A plain tragedy, but one that lacks a hero.</p>

245

<p>pipmom. One of the first things folks should learn as a parent in the process- try to never/rarely let them (the adcoms) see or hear you. (FA is different IMO)</p>

246

<p>"However, this father clearly thought it was the right thing to do and really should not be faulted for doing what he believed was in his son's best interest."</p>

<p>He put the matter into the public record by talking to the press. There are all kinds of foolish and destructive things that parents do because they believe they're acting in the child's best interest. Where, as here, the parent had the education and resources available to figure out whether he was going to help or hurt his son with this level of involvement, it's perfectly appropriate to fault him for failing to do some basic research before acting. I'm not questioning his motives; I'm questioning his choices.</p>

247

<p>I know and agree that the parents should stay out of the adcoms way. When the father called Harvard, however, it is possible that he asked a general question only, not one specific to his son's application. </p>

<p>And yes, I agree that parents must be the ones talking to the financial aid department for maximum results. </p>

<p>All I'm trying to do here is point out is that a lot of the criticism directed at the father on these boards has been based on assumptions that are not necessarily proven. In addition, the father may not have had the benefit of CC- perhaps he didn't know of it. </p>

<p>To condemn, out of hand, the father's decision to quit work to help his son, however, is I believe, unfair. He certainly felt strongly that he needed to do so. Was that "over the top"?- by many people's standards, yes. By his, no. </p>

<p>We don't know whether his involvement helped- perhaps the son is grateful for his father's willingness to go hither and yon. Perhaps there are reasons why the boy doesn't drive. Even if the son did not appreciate the father's involvement- there wasn't a whole lot he could do about it once the father made the decision to quit work. </p>

<p>The article certainly portrayed the father as quitting work for the sole purpose of helping his son. Perhaps there were other factors that did not get reported. </p>

<p>I'm not saying that the dad handled this situation perfectly- just that he did what he did in the best interests of his son. I would guess that most of us have done things for our kids, thinking it was in their best interest, then later realizing it really wasn't. In some ways, it's easy to condemn this guy because we can say to ourselves, Oh gee, at least we weren't THIS idiotic!
Just a cheap form of self-validation.</p>

248

<p>Haven't read all the posts, so this may have been said already, but I've heard of bad interviews completely deep-sixing "shoo in" applicants. Even ones who were amazing on paper. Who the heck knows what this kid is like in person? Also, it amazes me that the father quit work to help get his son into Harvard. That's just weird. Also weird to expect that perfect scores on the tests would guarantee admission. There's a fair bit of hubris in this story. The poor kid only got into Cal Tech, Rice, and Duke, so let's write an article on his sad story. </p>

<p>Sorry, I'm cranky today.</p>

249

<br>


<br>

<p>Should have played the bassoon? (smiley face)</p>

250

<p>I think the guy in the article or his dad goes on CC . . . someone posted stats like his on the forum (indian, same perfect scores, # of volunteer hours, research, 4th in his graduating class, EA rejection from Stanford). The username even resembles the applicant's.</p>

251

<p>You know what? I don't think there was or had to be anything wrong with this kid's applications. He got into great schools! Rice! CalTech! </p>

<p>He also did not happen to get into the cream-of-the-crop Ivy League colleges who turn away 9 out of 10 students who apply, and we all know that those schools are selecting among top-qualified applicants.... for which Ghosh is just one among many. When it came down to who got in and who didn't... for those particular schools, he just didn't quite stand out enough. And it wasn't GPA or test scores or volunteer hours that was going to make a kid "stand out" among a field of kids who all have the same great credentials. Harvard or Princeton don't care if a kid has perfect test scores or scores that are 40 or 70 or 100 points shy of "perfect"... at that level, they all look the same. </p>

<p>The key to admission in a competitive field is to look different -- and even that is not certain. </p>

<p>All of this moaning and groaning is about a kid who won the admissions game... why the post mortem on a survivor? Given the admission to Cal Tech my guess is that the kid came off as very strong math/engineering, maybe somewhat geeky, and he seemed like a great fit for Cal Tech but not so much for the more preppy, less geeky atmospheres at the Ivys that turned him down. Who knows? Maybe he wrote a really great, insightful essay about his fascination with solving some obscure equation it went right over the head of some Harvard ad com with a liberal arts degree, but got the ad com over at Cal Tech truly excited. </p>

<p>The only thing this kid did "wrong" was make the mistake of assuming that he had a high likelihood of admission at colleges that are huge reaches for just about everyone.</p>

252

<br>


<br>

<p>Actually, I think it was the father who made this assumption. I agree...this kid has three great options. CalTech, Rice and Duke are terrific schools. He should be congratulated.</p>

253

<p>
[quote]
“It was disappointing at first, but then I looked at the colleges I did get into and I felt lucky to have choices,” he said.

[/quote]

The kid's reaction is totally appropriate. And maybe Caltech is a better fit for him anyway...</p>

<p>By the way, coming back to all the commotion about father quiting the job... His job was in Dallas. The family is from Austin. Kind of makes me wonder why he did not quit it earlier...</p>

254

<p>I think we need to remember that a rejection from Harvard, Yale and Princeton is not a sign of bad parenting, nor is an acceptance a sign of good parenting. It seems as though these newspaper stories and the success/failure of the applicant are becoming morality plays about what makes a good parent.</p>

<p>In another thread on this forum related to a newspaper article about a very gifted high-scoring student who was homeschooled, it was clear that the parents there made many sacrifices to both work and homeschool their child when their school system wasn't meeting her needs. I'm sure these parents also made many sacrifices to make sure she could accomplish her extracurriculars (such as music lessons). In addition, this family also made it possible for their child to study internationally, devoting time and resources so she could study, for example, Taoism in China. </p>

<p>This student was accepted to all the top elite schools. </p>

<p>The response from the forum community was mostly heaps of praise for a job well done. </p>

<p>In this thread, we have a newspaper article that talks about a gifted and high-scoring student whose parents made a sacrifice to make sure this student could accomplish his goals. </p>

<p>This student was not accepted to all the top elite schools.</p>

<p>The response from some in the forum community is to scorn the parents--the dad was too involved, the dad was not simply following the son's passions, the research activity was made through a father's connection and not the result of the student's work, they were simply obessed with the elite schools, the father made the wrong assumption that with his child's test scores, grades and activities, he would have a high likelihood of admssion.</p>

<p>All this from three basic facts in the article: no admission, quitting the job to enable the student to get to his activities, and the fact the he was 'devastated' and couldn't sleep that night.</p>

<p>We need to be careful that the argument doesn't become circular. Student X didn't get into Harvard. Reason: Student X wasn't 'noble' enough: student X's activities and achievements weren't based on innate intelligence, drive and passions but simply the result of trying to gain admission to an elite school. How do we know that student X wasn't following his/her passions etc.? Reason: Student X didn't get into Harvard.</p>

255

<p>No, it doesn’t make sense, but I do sympathize with the Ghosh’s circumstances. In one year, while QuantMechPrime was in high school, pre-driver’s license, we put 30,000 miles on our car with QMP in it, en route to some-EC-or-other and university classes. Your mileage may vary! :) Most of our driving was in the evenings or on the weekends. But if you figure an average speed of 30 mph, and if our family had followed the suggestion of hiring someone to drive, we’d have needed to hire a half-time chauffeur—and we’re not exactly in <em>that</em> income bracket! </p>

<p>By policy, the high school does not provide transportation to the nearby university for math or other classes (post-Calc BC, when there was no math to take at the HS); parents had to arrange the transportation. Public transportation is very limited in our area, and it was not workable. Car-pooling possibilities were also limited, because of the relatively small number of students involved, and differing university class times. Driving took an hour a day, three days a week, in the middle of the day. </p>

<p>Luckily I could work around the specific driving times; but some positions aren’t that flexible, and that could have forced us to make some difficult choices. Yes, they would have been quite different from the Ghosh’s choices—but on the other hand, on a few frustrating days, I’ve thought I might have to quit work to take care of our dog. ;)</p>

256

<p>
[quote]
We need to be careful that the argument doesn't become circular. Student X didn't get into Harvard. Reason: Student X wasn't 'noble' enough: student X's activities and achievements weren't based on innate intelligence, drive and passions but simply the result of trying to gain admission to an elite school. How do we know that student X wasn't following his/her passions etc.? Reason: Student X didn't get into Harvard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly correct. Good post.</p>

257

<p>^^skrlvr: I agree about the danger of circular arguments.</p>

<p>For the parents of future applicants, I think anothermom2’s comment in #82 is very valuable: “ ‘Perfection’ is not a guarantee of admission to many places, whether the candidate is perceived as genuine, false, motivated, staged, unmotivated, robotlike, or saint like.” At this point, I’ve seen a number of admissions outcomes for students I know reasonably well, and I’ve concluded that there is not necessarily anything wrong at all with a top-scoring student who is not accepted to any of HYPSM--not even the essays or recommendations :) . Most will be accepted to at least one of those colleges, if they apply thoughtfully to more than one; but a few, not the least-deserving in the group, will not. </p>

<p>A number of the admissions decisions would be different, if made by different people. Mixed acceptances/waitlists/rejections are the most common outcome, illustrating this point. Personally, I think that there should be some attainable level of accomplishment where the presumptions start to favor the student--or as Ben Golub once joked on a Caltech thread, “What if you have already won the Nobel Prize? Nobel Prize enuf?"</p>

<p>Northstarmom has provided some very useful advice about the sorts of students HYPSM look for. If NSM doesn’t object, though, I’d like to draw attention to the difference between posts #80 and #118. In post #80, NSM wrote, “The student comes across as someone who probably was a grade grubbing, score grubbing, resume polishing robot.” A parent of a top scorer, reading this and knowing that their top scorer is none of these, might conclude that acceptances can be expected at “top schools.” But this would be a major mistake. Later, in post #118, NSM comments “the boy seems like a nice person.” I think that NSM gained some additional information between the two posts. A student can fit in the category of “nice persons” and still have multiple rejections.</p>

258

<p>With respect to the recommendations, though:</p>

<p>At least two of the earlier posters have commented that the remark by Ghosh's history teacher that Ghosh was “hardworking” might have worked to his disadvantage. I suspect that this is true. Curmudgeon has commented on this issue, and specifically MIT’s question about hard work vs. brilliance, in other threads. What are your opinions?</p>

<p>I’m in a field where hard work is essential. We wouldn’t hire a colleague who wasn’t hardworking. In many parts of the country, it’s a genuine compliment to call someone “hardworking.”</p>

<p>If a quality that seems to be positive is interpreted as negative by an admissions committee, might they not give the recommenders a “heads up” about this?</p>

259

<p>Since not all the recommendations-writing teachers are aware of the "bad" code words (such as "studious" and "hardworking"), I think it is very unfair to use those to disregard the applicant as "not brilliant enough". All the successful scientists I've ever known were brilliant AND hardworking. They would not have gotten nearly as far on brilliance alone...</p>

260

<p>Hardworking, diligent, driven to succeed, always does more than required. In the hands of a skillful torpedo artist, they can be deadly. </p>

<p>MIT (as of 2 years ago) is the worst I've ever seen because they send a form that (paraphrased) has folks select - "does the student succeed : By dint of hard work." I know dang well our overworked GC would have checked that box, and unknowingly sunk the ship of the most brilliant kid ever. "Brilliance " was the correct answer. ;)</p>

<p>It's Alice Through The Looking Glass.</p>