<p>I graduated from high school in 1992 as salutatorian. I was a National Merit Finalist, and I took Honors/AP classes to the hilt. I vied for admission to Stanford and MIT. I was the equivalent of a typical CCer back then. But compared to today's students on this board, I was Ferris Bueller or Zack Morris. No, I didn't grow up on the backroads of Mississippi.</p>
<p>I am disturbed by the rise of the Academic Performance Cult, and the irony is that this mania has bubbled up years after I defected from this cult. (I didn't get into Stanford or MIT. I also noticed in college that NOBODY cared about my previous academic background.) I would not have survived undergraduate school if I had continued my intense attitude from high school, because I would have been up all night every night instead of sleeping at least 7 hours per night most nights like I actually did (and this was in electrical engineering at UIUC). The same applies for graduate school, where I earned my Master's Degree in electrical engineering at George Mason University.</p>
<p>I have (by CC standards) skeletons in my closet. Some "lowlights":
1. I was the first casualty of AP US History in the 1991-1992 school year at my school. The workload was TORRENTIAL. The class had more assigned work than all my other classes combined, and I was taking Honors/AP classes to the hilt. This forced me into the regular US History class. Of course, nobody in college cared which US History class I took.
2. As an undergraduate student, I was in the bottom of my class for a few classes. I wasn't firing on all cylinders (GPA of "only" 4.13 on a 5-point scale, or the equivalent of 3.13 on a 4-point scale). Nobody at work cared.
3. I just barely earned my MSEE (GPA of 3.03) and graduated at or near the bottom of the class. (This was because I studied a different area than my undergraduate electrical engineering specialty and also because I did a time-consuming independent study project and an even more time-consuming research project when it would have been easier to simply take two classes.) Nobody at my workplace today cares about this.</p>
<p>So in the long run, whether or not you were a perfect student won't matter.</p>
<p>Hmmm, it's so tough to call. I mean I guess I'm sort of this type of kid. I didn't have lunch two days a week, and I thought of skipping AB to go to BC, and I don't really sleep that much (avg. 4/5 hrs a night). But hmmm, it really is so tough to call, I mean there is def so much more pressure put on kids these days than years past. Everyone wants their kids to be successful, hell, I want to succeed, so I never stop striving to the best I can. And yes I guess it's true, it's unfortuante how much it has gotten out of control, but I think it's just kids trying to keep up with each other since the competition is def crazier than years past. So hmmmm, it really is hard to comment</p>
<p>I have to agree with Tonyt88. If the pressure's gonna rise, then the competition's only going to get tougher. I'm willing to endure some sleepless nights in order to be successful in something I'm passionate about, and I think a lot of us are. Most Ivies haven't substantially widened class size, and with more students competing in the pool, having to work your ass off is inevitable.</p>
<p>Anna Quindlen from Newsweek, however, agrees with you jhsu, and she says that we should feel all right settling for a comfortable life instead of the very best. But I can't help but think that I'd still rather strive.</p>
<p>Even if you are the PERFECT student, Ivy-type colleges can still reject you. College admissions is a 2-tiered system: There's the normal tier where having sufficiently high stats gets you in automatically, and there's the crapshoot tier where having sufficiently high stats merely gets you considered, and most of those considered don't get in. None of the colleges in the normal tier have Ivy-level stats.</p>
<p>The obvious conclusion is that once your stats meet a certain level, doing better doesn't really open up additional options.</p>
<p>its worth the pain of not sleeping and stressing about classses if it means that you are the best, or atleast one of the best. Greater competition means greater efforts. Simply stated.</p>
<p>I agree that the competition for my generation is ridiculous but we really have no other way to do it. If you don't have at least a 4.0 GPA, stellar SAT scores, and a great EC record, you have a really slim chance of getting into a top school. For most that is just unacceptable. I've tried my best to not let the pressure get to me but there are days when I've broken down because I only have a 3.7 (unweighted) GPA, I'm only taking 3 AP classes, and I only got a 2100 on the SAT (it was my first time, with absolutely no prep.) Because I try to have a life other than college prep 24/7, I feel very worried that I won't get into the school that I REALLY want to go to (Claremont McKenna College). But that's just how it is I suppose...people make their own choices and have to deal with the consequences.</p>
<p>paixdehors:
< I agree that the competition for my generation is ridiculous but we really have no other way to do it. >
You are NOT obligated to do all this. If you're not up to meeting the obligations of being in the Academic Performance Cult, do you really think you belong in a college that demands it? Do you really think it gets easier in the next step? Are you expecting a mysterious unexplained force to bail you out?</p>
<p>Do you know any adult out there who could be so much more successful today if only he/she had gone to a more selective college?</p>
<p>< If you don't have at least a 4.0 GPA, stellar SAT scores, and a great EC record, you have a really slim chance of getting into a top school. >
Are you even sure such a place is right for you? That's a lot of trouble to go to. And if they require students achieve all that just to get in, what to they expect students to do to graduate?</p>
<p>< I've tried my best to not let the pressure get to me but there are days when I've broken down because I only have a 3.7 (unweighted) GPA, I'm only taking 3 AP classes, and I only got a 2100 on the SAT (it was my first time, with absolutely no prep.)>
Many people would KILL to have those stats. OK, OK, if you HAVE to improve one, improve on the SAT with the Princeton Review books, <em>Up Your Score</em>, and practice with REAL tests. I've found it FAR easier to do well on a dumb test than to do well in school. At least the test is over after a few hours, and nothing you do afterward can lower your scores. But doing well in school requires that you perform well again and again and again.</p>
<p>I looked at the Claremont McKenna College web site, and it's possible for even the perfect student to be rejected.</p>
<p>Why go to all that trouble for the extra achievement when that extra achievement might not even be rewarded? This is the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns in action.</p>
<p>Loren Pope sites a study in in his book, Colleges that Change Lives, where Haverford did a long term study of its graduates and found that those at the top of their classes were the ones, 20 years later who were most frustrated, who had the least satisfactory relationships with their spouses, and their colleagues at work.</p>
<p>All this hype about Ivies etc is really about status, not competence and ultimately happiness. Given a choice between having my child happy and well adjusted versus validictorian on prozac and antianxiety agents, I will take the former</p>
<p>Well, I agree that it can get insane. But then it comes down to how much the individual knows herself. I think some of us can tell where to draw the line. Like I push as much as I can, as long as I still feel a drive, and as long as I still want to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you don't have at least a 4.0 GPA, stellar SAT scores, and a great EC record, you have a really slim chance of getting into a top school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Stanford's average GPA was 3.9. Vandy has about 1/4 out of the top 10%. Cornell had less than 90% in the top 10% last I checked (These aren't all hooked applicants, especially in Stanford's case.) I guess about half of them had slim chances, eh? Eh? :) </p>
<p>But jhsu, I see what you're saying, completely.</p>
<p>Now, I understand that having high stats is good and all, but some people go overboard. (For example, people get into ivies at my school with only 4 APs junior year, or maybe 3 senior year, yet people feel the need to kill themselves by taking all APs junior and senior year). If you want to be at the top of the class, very involved, 4.0, and study for the SAT, that's great. Hell, I strive for it myself. But the misery of going overboard isn't worth it because it does virtually nothing for your chances (For example, studying your but off to raise an already high score only 20 points. Raising it past a certain threshold, like at least 2100, is different, though). The fact is, most people that do well in school and excel outside of school are going to end up at top colleges, period, even if they don't take 6 APs instead of 3 or get a 2280 instead of a 2190. It may not be a top 5 (or it even might be), but most likely top 25, and these schools are good enough to the point that when you're there you can have the best 4 years of your life if the school matches well.</p>
<p>I'm an international student not yet living in the US and when I came across this board and read a few posts, my first thoughts were the same jhsu is expressing now. </p>
<p>Especially this whole EC thing bothers my mind. Not only that in my home country NOBODY cares about your ECs and we don't even keep track of them (Hell, I have absolutely no idea what sports I've played, what clubs I've been in or what part time jobs I've already had, it's just too much and doesn't matter anyway), but I thought that the basic idea of why ECs are considered in the admissions process is to determine if the student has something going on in REAL LIFE he/she actually LIKES TO DO. But then I found that even ECs are chosen based on reputation and people do the craziest things they DON'T EVEN LIKE just to stand out. Crazy, why don't you just follow your interests?</p>
<p>I would even go one step further and instead of saying that the perfect student can still be rejected by the Ivies, I'd say that Ivies don't even want the 100% perfect student. I just can't imagine that a school wants someone whose only concern is his/her academic record and has no real life.</p>
<p>It's crazy what this whole college thing does to people's minds. I'm happy that I didn't go to HS in the US and that my mind isn't filled with HYP only. Don't get me wrong, I'm aiming for outstanding universities (UCB, Stanford, UCLA, etc) as well and I'm going to do my best to get in and succeed (and I'm going to devote a lot of my time to achieve this goal), but I'm definitely not going to give up my life for them. And you shouldn't either. It's the best time of our lifes and we shouldn't waste it like that. Go out and have some fun.</p>
<p>why don't you just consider this internationally: In Japan, Germany, England, et al. the competition is even worse. For Japanese kids, you have to take a test to get into middle school, which determines what type of high school you get into, which determines college, and so on. In nearly every other country, there is some sort of massive test (the french call it a concour) for placement into universities.</p>
<p>We in the US have got it too easy; sitting back and relaxing seems like the most absurdly American idea posted yet.</p>
<p>I'm glad I wasn't born in Japan. I'd have gotten my clock cleaned so soundly. Ted Kennedy would have a better chance getting elected in Utah than I would have had finishing high school in Japan.</p>
<p>Jhsu, you have to realize that the competition has gotten much tougher since you went to college. Nowadays, someone with your HS GPA would be lucky to be in the top quarter, much less SALUTITORIAN.</p>
<p>You're right on some counts. Some people on this board are a little too obsessed (and morally bankrupt) when it comes to getting into college, but you have to understand. The going is the toughest it's ever been. Sink or swim, man.</p>
<p>Most HS GPAs these days are so high due to grade inflation and $, IMO
Kids are no smarter these days than when their parents were. There is more disposable income and parents spend it on tutors etc for their kids</p>
<p>In addition, I know many parents who will file grievances with their school if Little Johnny gets a B instead of a B+. Kids can do extra credit to raise their class average and they get points for turning in their homework and class participation. In this system, B averages on tests easily turn into As as a final grade.</p>
<p>Really, other than PE classes, are school is pretty good on sticking people the grade they have, I mean basically the only thing parents can really complain about is whether or not their kid is in Academic or Honors classes. B/c especially for the last twenty years, the AP teachers in each dept. would have no shame in failing you, but then in the long run it was the most benefitial thing b/c even if you were failing, you were pretty much sure of a 4 or 5.</p>