<p>And another reality check. Sorry that someone's "Ivy-League D" has announced an opinion that P students are arrogant. I'm sure that would be a contrast to her own Ivy school (if it's not P), which must be devoid of arrogant types. My own D found H students arrogant. </p>
<p>What does this mean? It means nothing. It means the luck/bad luck of the draw. It means that some people, students & parents, believe in gossip. It means that other people have an unfortunate coincidence of bad experiences -- such as on a college tour led by poorly chosen guides with overinflated egos about their own selection, which may not be reflective of a whole campus (Since H has a diverse & large campus, it's not believable that "everybody" is arrogant, despite my D's experience, but it is believable that administrators do not control enough the selection & communication of tour guides. Some cc parent some time ago experienced something similar, on a P tour, that my D did at H.)</p>
<p>So I guess those of us who are P parents have S's and D's who are the only students on that campus who have managed to find the only 40 or so non-arrogant people on campus. (Our students happen to hate arrogance.) Statistically, is this believable? No. More likely, it's an indication that there are probably plenty of similar non-arrogant students on campus (that these students have not yet met, even), AND (much more importantly), that like attracts like & instinctively avoids what it finds not agreeable or toxic.</p>
<p>"Just reality check, here: The students who rely on athletics and/or on high school student gov't as "leadership" quotients are not necessarily in the running in the leadership category for elite college admissions. The students you describe, fictional or otherwise, may by other reasons end up at some 'elite' U, but it will not be for those "leadership" positions, and what those positions have and have not demonstrated about them."</p>
<p>Epiphany, why did you feel the need to throw that word "fictional" in there? Are you implying I'm making this stuff up? Why would I? I've got no axe to grind other than that the proliferation of this gamemanship is a pet peeve of mine. And for the purposes of full disclosure, I'll freely admit that S is a pretty nice kid, but I'd never call him altruistic. And recently D, when she had to select several friends to accompany her to an event at a local Ivy, deliberately did not choose anyone with whom she felt herself to be in "competition". This mentality, spurred by the competitive nature of college admissions, affects our kids whether we ourselves buy in or not.</p>
<p>And to think that your institution disdains the "leadership" accomplishments they jostle and strive for, makes it all the more a travesty.</p>
<p>Since there is no rigorous scientific research of which I am aware that reveals and analyzes the characteristics Ivy League colleges seek, we are left to draw conclusions based on naturalistic observations. The Washington Post article was one such observational example, many of us are sharing ours as well.</p>
<p>As long as doors open wider for students with Ivy League educations, slots at those schools will be more coveted than others. Parents and students will continually try to determine what is needed to obtain one, and go to extreme lengths to procure one. If successful, what then has the Ivy League college admissions office done? Rewarded the student/parent/college consultant who has manipulated the system. Are those the qualities they want their applicants to have? No, but they are the ones for which their hidden process selects, even if inadvertently. Even if the assumptions on which the applicant's behavior is based are flawed ("doors open wider"), the admissions game is still played, and the end result is the same. </p>
<p>I know this is not the way it always works, and admissions officers believe they can detect the frauds. Though I seriously doubt any of my children will apply to an Ivy League college, I can see how it would be tempting to try and "crack the code", especially if those around you are engaging in code-cracking with abandon.</p>
<p>I have no idea what your last sentence refers to in post 43.
[Just editing to remark that I think I understand what you meant by that.:)]</p>
<p>Separately, by "fictional," I meant to distinguish -- or should I say include -- both the factual examples of yours and any hearsay examples. (Both you & jsnq have assented to a certain competitive culture and seem to rely additionally on the confirmation of similar stories or "general knowledge," shall we say, which strengthen these known cases.) Not necessarily saying that one does not in fact tend to srengthen the other, so I'm sorry for not pre-explaining my remark, but no, I did not mean that you are creating fictions, merely that "urban legends," can grow out of misunderstandings, not of the fact of someone's admission, but the reasons therefore, or what that indicates about trends in admissions.</p>
<p>epiphany: I understood the paragraph I quoted above to mean that you were saying that leadership positions such as being an officer in student govt. or the captain of a sports team (positions I used in my examples of gamemanship) are not of a high enough caliber to make it on the radar of Ivy adcoms. In fact, you seemed to question whether these positions demonstrate anything at all--hence the quotes you placed around the word "leadership".</p>
<p>That disdain makes the students' efforts all the more pitiful.</p>
<p>A little common sense here. The competition to get into Ivy League schools is ridiculously intense. So it is not the kids are not "nice", it is just that they are to a greater degree focused and driven and not as likely to take some time and smell the roses. It is the way it is. They aren't teachers colleges, and they are too expensive not to take a full time, dedicated approach to getting through in 4 years. These realities impact the student body, like it or not.</p>
<p>Right. Being competitive and driven does not mean someone is not "nice". But it does probably mean that when faced with limited time and a choice to make, these kids might more often (not always, of course) choose to do that which moves them closer to their goal over something which doesn't. In that sense, it would be more pragmatic for them to study for their AP test an extra few hours rather than visit their sick friend in the hospital.</p>
<p>Last week I sat with a bunch of GCs and High school College Counselors at the Exploring College Options Roadshow. In attendance were Admin Reps from Harvard, Penn, Duke, Georgetown, and the Director of Admisssions from Stanford.</p>
<p>As ususal there were a bunch of questions from the GCs ranging from grades, scores, ecs, interviews (which are evaluative at Stanford & Harvard), facebook (a couple Admin people went on record saying that they do check facebook, my space pages and they google people and the various leadership roles & ECs. One is even a lurker who occasionally posts on CC).</p>
<p>The one clear message whether you represented a public, private, parochial school, in NYC, LI or Westchester that the Harvard and the Stanford admissions people wanted GCs to take back to their students is that they are looking for "nice" people (the rest of the panel shook their heads in agreement) who worked collaboratively, and worked well as part of a team.</p>
<p>Take this however you wish, but it came straight from the horse's mouth. I can only write to what I have observed over the year that just from reading the boards over the past few cycles that some of the students have gotten a lot more arrogant over the years (and I keep saying to myself that I hope their in person persona is different from how they represent themselves on line).</p>
<p>Agree with post #47. In my D's h/s and other social circles the most impressive admissions results were aquired by the BUSIEST of many bright AND NICE kids we know. Most of those admitted to the most impressive schools had NOT been athletic captains or student government leaders. ;) Most of their achievments (including the "leadership" ones) were academic or artistic ones ... and very time-consuming. :( All those kids ARE nice to their friends ... whenever they DO have time for friends. :(</p>
<p>And now, after reading the article ;), I find it amusing how the author identifies the Ivy League selections of students with another kind of social selection: to political establishment (where being a nice person IS a serious handicap, IMHO ;)). Since when political career has been the only purpose of getting the top-quality education?</p>
<p>It would be interesting to hear whether any current P undergrad or Y law students who might be reading this thread, agree with the author's assessment of the "niceness" of their fellow students.</p>
<p>I beg to differ with the author. Based on my experience, the true "best and brightest" can afford to also be the nicest. They rise to the top on their own merit and don't need to use the "backs of those equally deserving but "nicer" people who let them steal the spotlight." It's those that are not the "best and brightest" that need these other boosts. </p>
<p>I also have difficulty with her conception of "leadership". In reality, true leaders lead because they have the ideas, the commitment, and, more importantly, the ability to inspire others. Typically, they bring out the best in everyone. </p>
<p>At least in my community, none of the kids described in this article or in the many derogatory cc posts were offered admission to the elite colleges. Perhaps the guidance counselors tipped their hand. Perhaps the letters of recommendation were not as "glowing" as the student believed they would be. I still believe that most people, see through the "me" types and their activities. Experienced interviewers and adcoms spot most of the "fraud". </p>
<p>Perhaps, some just want to believe that a student can't be successful and nice. I've met many who are both!</p>
It would be interesting to hear whether any current P undergrad or Y law students who might be reading this thread, agree with the author's assessment of the "niceness" of their fellow students.
</p>
<p>No, I absolutely do not agree. In fact, I can think of few things further from the truth than saying that Princeton students are as a whole more arrogant and less nice than those at other schools. I have met more nice, unassuming, humble and also brilliantly talented people here than anywhere else I've ever been.</p>
<p>I have to believe a student can be successful and nice! Our definition of success has nothing to do with college admissions, however. We have this definition posted on our refrigerator:</p>
<p>SUCCESS:</p>
<p>To laugh often and love much; to win the respect of intelligent persons and the affection of children; to earn the approbation of honest citizens and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to give of one’s self; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; to have played and laughed with enthusiasm and sung with exultation; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived—this is to have succeeded.</p>
<p>Interesting point about teamwork. For those planning on a career in a large law firm working on complex matters, please consider that this is usually a team effort. Even though some members of the team may get more credit than others, it is the teamwork that results in the goal coming to fruition. If you can not work well in a group, you will suffer. You can pat yourself on the back, but I would suggest liberally patting others on the back too, and often.</p>
<p>I think it's like the "packaging" issue. Everyone says they don't want "packaged" candidates, yet they admit them in droves. The key is that <em>good</em> packaging is sufficiently artful as to not be obvious. </p>
<p>The kid I know who fits jnsq's description to a T has <em>most</em> adults--particularly the HS guidance people who hand out the plums and make sure that The Annointed get their tickets punched in such areas as "leadership"--totally snowed. That is his specialty:sucking up to adults. The parents of his peers/rivals have seen beyond the veneer, and pretty universally dislike him. (And this is not jealousy or sour grapes: most parents in question have kids who are equally "successful.")</p>
<p>I think that the article's author should read a little more about recent evolutionary theory. Using 'Darwinian' as a perjorative term is a bit short-sighted.</p>
<p>I can't say what percentage of kids that go to Ivy League schools could be considered "nice" or "kind". I imagine the ratio of "nice" to "not so nice" personality types is similar to what you'd find anywhere. Are kids at other universities all "nice"? I'm sure they are not. Maybe I'll have a different opinion after my daughter's first year, but I can say that she, an entering Ivy League freshman, is definitely kind. She is exactly the kind of person who would give notes to a sick classmate, share her books, or give money to a stranger on the street who asks her for help. (It's actually quite difficult for her to say "no" whenever anyone needs anything...Almost a problem for her!)</p>