My d. refused to sign the confidentiality waiver and got into her reach colleges. (Net result: 12 applications, 9 acceptances, 2 waitlists, 1 rejection from an Ivy). My legal background tells me that there is no way that the colleges could justify treating one set of recs differently than another premised on a student's waiver of legal rights. I think that waiver is there more for the sake of the teachers who write the recs than the ad com. </p>
<p>I know I represent a minority opinion. but I think given the importance of recs in the admission process, it's far too risky to leave that piece of the application process open to mistakes, such as a teacher who writes the name of the wrong school on the rec or who has serious grammatical or factual errors. My d. also got 3 letters and for most colleges chose the best 2 out of 3 to submit. I am firmly convinced that one letter in particular stood out and helped tipped the scale in favor of her admission at her reach colleges. </p>
<p>That being said, I also think its silly to speculate as to what was in Ghosh's letters The process of Ivy admission is far too competitive to attribute a rejection to a bad letter; the Ivy's do not need a reason to reject... they just need strong reasons to admit. As I noted before, I think this is a matter of fit -- a very strong math/science applicant who is a great fit for for Cal Tech may not stand out with the type of "leadership" or "initiative" credentials that Harvard or similar schools are looking for. Nothing wrong, just didn't make the cut when competing against other students who managed to stand out a little more. </p>
<p>I'd note that a rec. letter can be great, but there is always going to be some other student whose letters proclaim the student as amazing, along with specific facts and anecdotes to back that up. (That's what my d. had from one of her teachers). But even "amazing" by itself is not going to get the student in -- it is the application as a whole. Again.... it's not a matter of reasons to reject, its the "different" and "special" factor that is so elusive when competing in an applicant pool filled with top-flight students.</p>
<p>Maybe there are kids getting into Ivy's via packaging, but I don't see it at our school. The kids work hard, some do Intel projects, most take a lot of APs (6 to 8), but not every possible AP. I can tell you, that if I'd had anything to do with it, Mathson's essay would have been a lot better than it was!</p>
<p>I don't see that the subject of the OP did so badly. He got into Caltech, which looked like a much better fit for him than Harvard, if the info in the article was accurate.</p>
<p>The waiver is a matter of the student giving up a right (set up by federal law) to access the recommendation letter from college files after admission, but the student signing the waiver has NO effect on a teacher's right to show the letter to someone else--for example the student. A teacher could readily write up a good recommendation after the student signs the waiver, mail off the recommendation, and then show the recommendation to the student. Word processing files are great like that: the teacher can show the student a copy of what was sent.</p>
<p>The parallels as I see them are: two extremely intelligent students each engaged in their chosen academic passions and two families who made decisions and sacrifices to further their children's development and education through the high school years and toward the best possible education they could obtain post-secondary. Both wind up profiled in newspaper stories and discussed on CC. </p>
<p>It was noted in the thread on the Chicaco girl that her parents gave up time and attention to their business to homeschool their daughter and invested resources, and time of course, in helping her pursue her intellectual passions and talents. Trips to Ireland to study the Irish harp, to China to study Taoism, to Tibet to study Buddhism to allow the D to develop her intellectual interests. Being able to take time from their work to take her to Shakespeare plays and opera and to facilitate whatever was needed to allow her to take her ideas and dreams to the maximum. Her story brought bravos and kudos nearly universally on that thread. </p>
<p>The Ghoshes followed their own path to educate their bright kid the best way they knew how, finding a magnet math-science school, aiding him in the chemistry EC that interested him, the dad even quitting his job so he could drive the boy to EC activities and a research internship. Nothing in the article I read indicated that his interest in science and research was thrust on him by a domineering father. And it's not my perception of this student that his participation in those ECs were the result of hollow "paint by number" admission goals rather than genuine interest on his part. So this dad sacrificed time and income to help with his son's intellectual development and academic goals and far from receiving any kudos, he gets the "bad helicopter parent award from many on this thread. I just disagree. </p>
<p>I don't think one can really say that the different admissions outcomes in these two cases are due to adcoms not being "fooled" by one of the applicants and divining the authenticity in the other. </p>
<p>They are totally different candidates for admission. No doubt the colleges that rejected or waitlisted G had way more East Asian male, math-science oriented students with research and chemistry ECs than they had space for. (And doesn't waitlist imply that he was an applicant they considered accepting, but didn't have room for, not that they scorned his app as inauthentic.) And the accomplishments of the Chicago woman were certainly unique, from the Irish harp world championship to the Shakespeare plays taught to younger students, and entirely deserving of the many acceptances she received.</p>
<p>And don't forget that G was accepted by Caltech, Duke and Rice. Did he just manage to fool those adcoms or did they perhaps see something worthwhile in his app that made them want him? </p>
<p>In any case, I don't think that either the student or the father deserves to be verbally drawn and quartered for making admission to Harvard a goal and failing to achieve it.</p>
<p>@tokenadult
What about viewing the recommendation BEFORE it is sent? I'm thinking of students who may be using non-traditional teachers for recommendations ---individuals that don't have much experience writing for college admissions and where "pre-screening" may be necessary.</p>
<p>Jazzymom, you're obviously entitled to your very distinct interpretation of the facts related to the Chicago and Austin families, as well as your rather creative interpretation of my prior post. </p>
<p>There is no reason for us to have to agree on the lessons to be learned from those two stories. </p>
<p>All I can say is that I found the outcomes quite predictable, and that I have few doubts that, unfortunately, stories similar to the 2007 Ghosh or 2007 Jian Li sagas will continue to adorn College Confidential in years to come.</p>
<p>Thanks, xiggi. I also think that you are entitled to your distinct and creative interpretations. I hail your prognostication talents. Of course, it makes it a lot easier to predict outcomes once the results have been published.</p>
^^If the kid in question wasn't the real thing, he wouldn't have gotten into Caltech.
[/quote]
Exactly. The very unique feature in caltech admission is they have current student as the admission officers. And they are for 'REAL' not for window dress. Each student officer's vote has the same weight as a staff or falculty admission officer. These highly intelectual kids were high school senior themselves not long ago, they sure can distinct the 'real' or 'fake' passion.</p>
<p>That said, caltech is so unique and concetrate on educate future scientists, not politicians, not funder raisers, not social workers, etc. Most other schools are more main stream, I can see the different approach in admission process. </p>
<p>But to say this kid is all 'packaged' up is not 'fair', quit number of kids who without hook get into the HYP are 'packaged' to tee. MomofWildChild, the three examples you gave all have some kind hook more or less. ... </p>
<p>@collegealum and MomofWildChild, may be you are right for most of these kids. But I've seen and heard a fair share number of type kids described in my post who got into HYP. Yeah, they are smartest, bestest, but not quite the nicest.</p>
<p>As far as his dad quit job to drive him around for after school ECs, I see nothing wrong. There is no difference with some family mom stay home driving kids around, take part in PTA, talk to school teachers and consolers, etc. Besides, as some mentioned his work at different state as his family. ... May be Ghosh is too smart for the taste of some of CC posters. ... so what they don't accept him, their lose!</p>
<p>
[quote]
only the intangibles will distinguish one from another
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But is it really fair to put so much emphasis on intangibles? How a student's "personality" and "authenticity" comes through? Can you really make a fair judgement of that from an application... or make a "fair" judgement of character at all? It seems to be extremely subject to the personal biases and prejudices of the admissions officer. Admissions should stop trying to judge applicants' values as human beings, but judge their academic ability and achievement. And I think we're forgetting that the point of college is academic... so why so much focus on nonacademic, subjective factors?</p>
<p>The current focus with it's focus on leadership favors extroverted individuals heavily, whereas it has been shown that gifted people tend to be introverted... and so I agree in part to that person who posted that "scholars and scientists" are valued relatively low in this culture. It's gotten to the point that even admissions to college, academic institutions, is based more around extroversion, leadership, and a show of sincerity than about scholarship. And I think it's interesting how only the sincerity of the very top students is questioned. I wonder how many students whose parents weren't as involved, who consequently achieved less, were more sincerely in love with school than this applicant?</p>
<p>The number of applicants with, 2400 and 4.0 [reference to another poster] is definitely not so high that we can't start judging applicants on achievement, something clear and tangible, instead of trying to psychoanalyze their 'inner motivations' and potential.</p>
<p>The same can be said for hiring employees, and for voting for political candidates.</p>
<p>A college is admitting a person with multiple attributes, not a machine or a scantron. Clearly it's not possible to be assured of <em>accurate</em> evaluation of those multiple attributes, certainly not 100% of the time, anyway. Naturally there will be mistakes: just as in hiring employees, just as in electing political candidates who sound good and look good. And clearly from a statistical point of view, the larger an applicant pool within a predictably small time period, the greater likelihood of error.</p>
<p>It's one reason that some of us elsewhere on CC have suggested a match system, in which one of the benefits would be more opportunity to evaluate both for qualification and for 'fitness' for that institution.</p>
<p>If colleges wanted to admit test scores and grades, they could do so; they could be like certain Asian institutions. But they prefer to admit people.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If the kid in question wasn't the real thing, he wouldn't have gotten into Caltech.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Getting into Caltech proves only that he was the real thing in the way the Caltech defines the "real thing." Other colleges have their own criteria for determining the real thing. In other words, admissions success at one school, especially a highly specialized place like Caltech, does not necessarily predict success at another school.</p>
<p>Interesting discussion and jazzymom makes some good points. </p>
<p>To me, the difference is that it seemed as though G defined "success" very narrowly - Ivy or bust - such that he didn't even realize / recognize that for goodness sake, Caltech, Duke, and Rice - 3 top 20 schools - are just as much of an accomplishment.</p>
<p>The Chicago girl, on the other hand - one gets the sense that if she had "just" gotten into Duke or Rice (she didn't seem the Caltech type), she would still have been happy about it.</p>
<p>I agree both families obviously devoted a lot of time to nurturing two obviously smart and talented kids. I think there's an inherent obnoxiousness in thinking that one is "entitled" to be admitted to an Ivy and an inherent obnoxiousness about the mentality that Ivies-and-only-Ivies are the brass ring, and maybe that's what picked up on here.</p>
<p>Epiphany:
Reality is created by people. The great Chairman Mao of China created a reality that college admission was controlled by workers and peasants in the 1970's. They selected college students from farmers, factory workers and janitors. The result, of course, was a disaster. I am sure that a lot people on this board may think that is ridiculous, but that was the reality in China, some 35 years ago. Do you want to select students the same way as companies select employee or like a election by popular votes? That would be very interesting.</p>
<p>Correct. Reality is created by people. What's your point, exactly?</p>
<p>"Do you want to select students the same way as companies select employee or like a election by popular votes?"</p>
<p>You know, I really wish people would read for content, not for their own spun agendas. I said that the model of results is similar (i.e., subjective, risky), not that the process is identical, or should be.</p>
<p>Too bad that analogies are no longer part of the SAT. It's obvious that they should be. But then again, logic is also no longer part of formal K-12 curriculum. And here on CC one sees the legacy of that.</p>
<p>^^ Haha, calm down.
"The same can be said for hiring employees, and for voting for political candidates."</p>
<p>Apparently, you are comparing the college admission process to hiring employee and voting for political candidates. The logical question is: "Do you want to select students the same way as companies select employee or like a election by popular votes?"</p>
<p>"Correct. Reality is created by people. What's your point, exactly?"
My point: Reality is created by people. Apparently, you agree.</p>
<p>*Admissions should stop trying to judge applicants' values as human beings, but judge their academic ability and achievement. *</p>
<p>yuck
I think students should quit trying to pick colleges by the ones that they think will add to their portfolio of numbers and look to the ones that will help them mature and grow as human beans.
:D</p>