<p>DadII, what a creative topic! It made me smile, and I'm sure adcoms had fun reading your D's essay. </p>
<p>Sometimes uninformed GCs suggest that essays should describe every single EC and achievement. D says the main comment from her English teacher about her essay was "You did not mention this and that". After that, she scratched her head and <em>deleted</em> a paragraph that looked like she was bragging.</p>
<p>SS, I saw this post from NSM. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I apologize for posting wrong info. In rechecking what the dad had posted on an Internet board, it's clear that the S had taken these tests:
7th Grade SAT:
10th Grade PSAT:
11th Grade PSAT:
11th Grade SAT: 760CR/800M/780W ( 2340)
12th Grade SAT (taken in Jan. or Feb. 08 after being rejected EA from Stanford): 800/800/800 ( 2400)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hard to keep up with older posts. :)</p>
<p>"In other words, is it possible that bad behavior on the part of a parent could get a child rejected to a place they might have otherwise been accepted, or do the colleges keep that totally separate?"</p>
<p>My former Harvard regional admissions officer told me how irritating she found it when parents would call on their kids' behalf and would refer to "our" H application. She said that the admissions officers' policy would be to tell the parents to have the students call. Parents also would call in response to admissions officers' calls. Parents would say they were calling because their kids were too busy to call. Admissions officers' policy would be to politely tell the parent to have the kid call.</p>
<p>While the admissions officer said that they don't take out on the students behavior of overbearing parents, I think that of course such behavior would hurt the students. At the very least, it would hurt the students because the parents' behavior would prevent the admissions officers and interviewers from evaluating the student. Just look at how little the newspaper articles that started this discussion reflect the student's character. It seems that the father took over the interview, so the dad's quotes are what stand out. </p>
<p>Also, a parent who is overbearing to admissions officers probably has done similar things to teachers and guidance counselors. S's GC, for instance, told me about a parent who brought in a college application form the day before it was due, and demanded that the GC complete it right then or the parent would do his best to have the GC fired. I doubt if under the circumstances, the GC's recommendation was as supportive as it would have been if things had been handled differently. </p>
<p>H's handbook for alum interviewers also says that students should be interviewed without their parents' being present, but if the parent insists on being present, that should be included in the interview report. In such situations, what could admissions officers conclude except that the student has been very packaged by a micromanaging parent?</p>
<p>"Do you really think that it ever happens that a crazy parent can cause harm to the child's acceptances? In other words, is it possible that bad behavior on the part of a parent could get a child rejected to a place they might have otherwise been accepted, or do the colleges keep that totally separate?"</p>
<p>Yes, it could, but not because the school wants to punish the kid for the parents' sins. It can happen where there's so much parental "noise" in the application that the student's voice can't come through. Ultimately, HYP need a lot of virtual personal contact (through essays, interviews, recs, etc.) to make the decision to admit. If the parent gets in the way of all that information, the colleges won't have enough confidence about who the student is to justify admission.</p>
<p>Xiggi, it is a fast paced thread. I am not trying to defend the kid's dad, and I would not doubt (as ZGM wonders) that a nutty dad could sink a kid's chances at a place like H that can pick & choose from thousands. I just want us all to be careful & remember that the boy is still a boy. Not fair to trash him or make assumptions. </p>
<p>NSM, your post is edited now, but the "on the ball" phrase was yours, not mine. I DID note that the computer programming situation was a seperate applicant. I am 49 years old and in my h.s., boys took computer programming. (Grils not allowed, so that shows how chauvanistic it was back then.) It was certainly not a room sized computer like the old UNIVAC. In 1976 I took computer programming in college & had to use punch cards. But it was hardly a novel experience. As to whether that kid was packaged by savy parents -- none of us can say. We can just make more assumptions.</p>
<p>"In such situations, what could admissions officers conclude except that the student has been very packaged by a micromanaging parent?"</p>
<p>Again, you've taken a very big leap here about the student in question. </p>
<p>And I have to disagree with you on intellectual passion. Founding and running an organization (which this kid lacks) may show passion but it says nothing about* intellectual *passion. This kid's resume' centers on intellectual achievement, the sort of thing you might need to find the cure for cancer. And running a community service organization in high school is irrelevant toward that end.</p>
<p>With an eye toward the future, would intrusive parents be viewed as those who will be calling every time their child doesn't get a grade they feel their child deserved, etc., and the admissions officers want to head off such trouble at the pass?</p>
<p>The history teacher was interviewed on camera, and his praise was quite stong & enthusiastic. Something about "one of the smartest students I've ever had." If the recommendation letter he sent was weak or faint in praise, it certainly could have had a negative impact on the kid's chances.</p>
<p>I want to share a story that these posts have jogged from the deep recesses of my memory. Back in the day a boy in my school used to send me letters in code to my summer camp job at my "leaky bunkhouse." (his words not mine.) Fortunately the "cipher" (again his word) was included so that I could figure out the letter. He really was a bright wonderful person. Anyway, he had kidney disease, needed a transplant (yes back in those ancient days with few anti rejection drugs), left his college for a local one so he could get treatment, and I lost touch with him. I don't even know if he is still around, lets hope so. Anyway, everyone give their kid a hug right now or as soon as you can. Take a deep breath. Smell the roses. (Sniff).</p>
<p>NSM said
"I agree with you that politics (which could be rewarding students with pushy parents) is involved in which students are chosen to represent their schools at Boys and Girls state. However, once the students are at those events, their own political acumen, passion, and social skills are what causes them to rise to top ranks in those organizations."</p>
<p>True, but neither of our acceptees did anything other than participate at the general level. Simply being nominated was their credential. BTW, our school sent 6-8 kids, not 1. You could look at the list and see who was going because they had demonstrated an actual interest in or aptitude for government/politics, and who was going because the school was handing out those plums again. </p>
<p>" Being SGA president and planning prom and making a short speech at graduation isn't going to impress a place like Harvard, which is flooded with applications from SGA presidents."</p>
<p>True, but the major accomplishment--other than straight As--of one of my acceptees was student council. And they pretty much plan social events.</p>
<p>He's a nice kid and I'm happy that he got into the schools he was interested in. He certainly is smart and will be successful wherever he goes. But he wasn't accepted for displaying any of the out-sized intellectual passion or accomplishments that you seem to think are required for entrance. In fact, had he been in the place of the kid from Texas, you would be able to make an excellent case as to why he was rejected, using all of your cited criteria. </p>
<p>The other kid, I'm not so happy for. He's an egotistical, grade-grubbing suckup (according to the mom of acceptee #1! <g>). But of course his parents hired a college counselor to help package him for his applications. And he's really, really good at sucking up to adults. Most of whom don't see through it until they witness him with his guard down. </g></p>
<p>I guess I just don't think that schools always make the "best" choices, and I don't think that it is possible to justify, or even in most cases to discern, why one candidate gets in anywhere and another doesn't. (Which begs the question of why I'm participating in this thread. Schadenfreude? :) )</p>
<p>Frankly, from reading this thread I think most people don't understand what the profile of a future star scientist would look like in high school. Either that, or there is some lack of respect for the profession in general.</p>
<p>Adcoms are not gods; they sometimes (often) make mistakes. They're not diviners; they can't always figure out who's packaged, who's not or who has passion and who doesn't. Harvard may look for certain things above and beyond GPAs and scores, but it's far from certain that its adcoms always know where to look or to interpret correctly what they do see.</p>
<p>ETA: 10,000 posts :(</p>
<p>I'm left wondering about the huge disconnect between what most of America thinks of as a "star student" and what admissions people seem to have in mind. (It kind of reminds of the difference between Hollywood and middle America, I suppose.)</p>
<p>I think in the small town where I grew up, when most of us think of the kid who's Most Likely to Succeed, it's usually someone who has a perfect GPA, plays a musical instrument extxremely well, is involved in his community (student council, marching band), is clean-cut, goes to church, visits his grandmother on weekends, won the Science Fair . . </p>
<p>whereas the admissions poeple apparently have someone more like the Yale Abortion Girl in mind. They're looking for drama, sensationalism and someone who'd make an excellent candidate for reality TV. And they would perhaps think of the clean-cut, grandmother-visiting kid as boring, unenlightened, dull, sheltered and provincial. </p>
<p>I wonder if the so-called Stepford Applicant's fatal flaw was that he made some blunder like doing all his volunteer work at his local church and actually talking about -- which might have turned the trendy, young interviewer off. I also wonder if a professional applicant packager might have given him some bizarre off the wall advice like "write your essay about your girlfriend having to have an abortion" or "dye your hair blue and pierce your eyebrow for the admissions interview" and in some weird way this might have worked. No longer would he be the boring Indian science geek. Instead, he'd be the out of the box, trend applicant that appealed to the admissions committee. Do you think it would have helped if he'd gotten a tattoo that somehow commemorated his science project?</p>
<p>"Founding and running an organization (which this kid lacks) may show passion but it says nothing about intellectual passion. This kid's resume' centers on intellectual achievement, the sort of thing you might need to find the cure for cancer. And running a community service organization in high school is irrelevant toward that end."</p>
<p>Taking the time to create a viable organization that really does something (isn't just an organization on paper) can show intellectual passion.</p>
<p>Of course, if one starts a games club in which seniors get together once a week to play games to reduce stress (something that one unsuccessful H applicant that I interviewed claimed to have done), that's not demonstrating intellectual passion, at least not the kind that impresses top colleges.</p>
<p>Starting, however, a premed club in which students had weekly presentations from health professionals, did regular community service at hospitals, did medical-related research -- that could demonstrate an intellectual passion.</p>
<p>Starting a politics club in which students got presentations from local officials, attended meetings of government entities, researched and selected issues to lobby for-- would indicate a passion for political science.</p>
<p>Universities like Harvard take pride in being residential campuses with vibrant extracurriculars that are student run at the professional level. For instance Harvard literally has hundreds of student-run extracurriculars, so it needs students to participate in varsity sports (has more NCAA division 1 teams than does any other college), intramural sports, 60+ theater performances a year, to produce a daily student newspaper, weekly student newspaper, a humor magazine, preprofessional organizations, religious organizations, and a community service institution has 72 program committees, over 1,800 student volunteers, and serves close to 10,000 constituents in the Cambridge and Boston area.</p>
<p>" This kid's resume' centers on intellectual achievement, the sort of thing you might need to find the cure for cancer. And running a community service organization in high school is irrelevant toward that end."</p>
<p>Actually, the one student whom I taught who got a Fullbright fellowship to do medically-related research in Africa had been very active doing community service in high school.</p>
<p>It's a fallacy that future researchers do nothing but study and do research.</p>
<p>Still, Harvard doesn't want to fill its classes with people who will get doctorates and do research. There are LACs that take pride in doing exactly that. Harvard, Yale and similar places take pride in filling classes with people who will have various impacts on a variety of different disciplines and communities and in a variety of different ways.</p>
<p>For instance, my class included people who became: a head of state; a Nobel Prize winner; an original cast member of Saturday Night Live; an opera singer; a lieutenant governor; a well known public intellectual; a state supreme court justice; director of a major foundation; and a publisher of a well respected political journal.</p>
<p>Re #171: I think that people understand that a future star scientist my be an introverted lab rat, or that a future National Book Award or Bollingen Prize winner might be a dreamy introverted reader. As you pointed out earlier, founding a community service organization is a worthy activity, but it is not likely to lead to a cure for cancer. Unless it is a <em>fundraiser</em> for the cure.</p>
<p>What people need to keep in mind is that many schools aren't really looking for the kid who finds the cure. They are looking for the fundraiser.</p>
<p>My S, the boring science geek without a tattoo, blue hair, pierced nose or post-modern patter got admitted to two of the schools that rejected the applicant. The Yale abortion student sounds, as Brits would say, "too clever by half." But then, I think the same of Damien Hirsch.</p>
<p>As for future fund-raiser? My S will be lucky to land a decent job with the major he's chosen.</p>
<p>" guess I just don't think that schools always make the "best" choices, and I don't think that it is possible to justify, or even in most cases to discern, why one candidate gets in anywhere and another doesn't. (Which begs the question of why I'm participating in this thread. Schadenfreude? )"</p>
<p>I agree. In fact, one student whom I caught in lies during their interview, was rejected by my alma mater, but accepted by another top university (one that didn't interview, incidentally). Oh, well....</p>
<p>Gee, I thought I was doing my S a favor in letting him take the SAT again! He took it in 7th grade for CTY; he wanted to take it again in 8th to improve his math score, with which he'd been disappointed. So I let him. He did, indeed, improve his math score, not a surprise, given the difference in math instruction in the school he'd been in (almost none) and the school he moved to (classes at grade level, yee-haw!). </p>
<p>Middle-schoolers SAT scores are expunged by the College Board unless one specifically requests to keep them. I had S's 8th grades ones kept, because they were good; I've posted them elsewhere on this board. Guess I shouldn't have! </p>
<p>He took the PSAT in 9th grade, for grins. He'll have to take it at least once more, in 11th grade, and the SAT at least once more, too, assuming he's in NMSF range on the PSAT.</p>
<p>That'll be at least three times for the SAT, and at least twice for the PSAT. Are PSAT scores reported to colleges? I was assuming not. I was also assuming that S would want to take the PSAT in 10th grade, for grins again, and maybe to get out of a class or two again (:) ), since he's like that, but maybe that's a bad, bad, overinvolved parent error.</p>
<p>I.... I.... I feel so unclean now....</p>
<p>"whereas the admissions poeple apparently have someone more like the Yale Abortion Girl in mind. They're looking for drama, sensationalism and someone who'd make an excellent candidate for reality TV. And they would perhaps think of the clean-cut, grandmother-visiting kid as boring, unenlightened, dull, sheltered and provincial. "</p>
<p>I agree that admissions committees at places like H, Y love smart, self-directed, high achieving students who have the moxie to push the envelope.</p>
<p>I predict that the Yale Abortion Art girl will in 15 years or so be very renowned in her career just as some of the folks who were leading the student revolution at Harvard when I was there became renowned professors there or otherwise became notable -- for good reasons-- in the careers that they pursued.</p>
<p>"Actually, the one student whom I taught who got a Fullbright fellowship to do medically-related research in Africa had been very active doing community service in high school."</p>
<p>There's a difference between doing research and being smart enough to be one of the leading minds of the field. That's what you don't seem to get.</p>