<p>I thought Naviance was a pretty good read even for our kid with lopsided scores and a lowish GPA. Even though he set a low GPA for a few schools, he had higher SAT scores than most kids with his GPA. He was not really a slacker, just had some minor LDs and refused to use the 504 plan he’d had in middle school. Our Naviance uses weighted GPAs so it factors in rigor to some extent. As always Naviance won’t tell you who is an athlete, or URM, or Intel winner or if having been employed as a computer programmer being paid grownup wages is as good as being an Intel winner. That’s the guess/holistic part of the equation. I’ve never really understood why people get their panties in such a twist about it. There is no formula. The exact same kid might get accepted one day and rejected the next depending on exactly who was reading the file or when they read it. There have been studies it’s best to see a judge in the morning than the afternoon! We aren’t robots.</p>
<p>I agree with mathmom, and particularly the last 3 sentences. In my opinion, there are quite a few students whose admissions outcomes are unpredictable to the point that they literally might have been accepted if their files had been read in a different order or at a different time. I have the impressions that files are read geographically at a number of the “top” schools, so in any given year, a student probably could not have a different (first) reader–but there would be variation in the exact set of qualities that appeal to the regional reps every time they change over. </p>
<p>A lot of schools don’t have Naviance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not seeing anything special in a legless coxswain, don’t they sit down all the time?</p>
<p>“In my opinion, there are quite a few students whose admissions outcomes are unpredictable to the point that they literally might have been accepted if their files had been read in a different order or at a different time. I have the impressions that files are read geographically at a number of the “top” schools, so in any given year, a student probably could not have a different (first) reader–but there would be variation in the exact set of qualities that appeal to the regional reps every time they change over.”</p>
<p>Yep. This is part of life. Likewise, interviewing for jobs. When I was a college senior, the company I wound up working for sent various execs to various schools. The one who was assigned to interview me - we hit it off immediately, I was hired, and we began a deep friendship that has lasted over 20 years, a friendship which has be proved to be life-changing. The exec who was sent to the other school? She leaves me cold, and if she had been sent to my school and interviewed me I’m sure she wouldn’t have hired me, and I would have gone on to an entirely different career in a different field. What does that prove, though? That’s how life works. It’s just not something you can control for in any way, unless you revert to a formula of purely-quant stats. </p>
<p>Different interviewers / adcom members are going to spark to different things. This one will have a soft spot for Eagle Scouts, that one will love your essay about the dolls, this one is subconsciously biased against people named Bob. This is life. It’s only a problem if you set up one elite school as holding the key to your future. If I hadn’t gotten the job I referenced above - well, then I’d have gotten another one, and life would have gone on. Presupposing “the ending” is found only in one school isn’t very bright. </p>
<p>To a large extent, I agree with what PG has posted in #223. I think it is useful for the “winners” to keep in mind, as well as the “losers,” in admissions to any given college. Some years back, it was common to read posts on CC by admitted students who had fairly weak GPAs and standardized test scores, in which the students bragged that they were better personally than the higher-scoring students who were not admitted. I generally thought that if they <em>were</em> better personally, they wouldn’t be bragging about it. If the admitted students had just claimed that they resonated better with the admissions personnel, I think that would have been fair and accurate.</p>
<p>In my opinion, there has been a lot less “better person” bragging on CC lately than there was at first–perhaps as the breadth and depth of information available on CC has grown. </p>
<p>Of course, differences in character exist, and are at least as great as differences in academic qualities–and in terms of life impact, the differences in character are more important. But boasting about the excellence of one’s character? That constitutes a prima facie argument against the claim, in my opinion.</p>
<p>The “one school” issue: I disagree somewhat. In some fields, there is a single school that does confer a detectable advantage. The particular school may shift over time, and there may be a fairly narrow field where a detectable advantage exists. One of my undergrad math profs remarked on the fact that a significant number of the best topologists at the time had a Texas accent. He attributed this to the influence of a mathematician at UT Austin named Moore, and Moore’s teaching methods. (UT has named a building after him.) </p>
<p>Moore was great for white males. I have read that he had significant problems in recognizing the mathematical gifts of students from other demographics–though I have no direct evidence of this. </p>
<p>“Confer a detectable advantage”? Sure. “Make or break your entire life”? Nope. </p>
<p>Quant Mech- if you are British and you don’t get an admit to Oxbridge, than I agree with you. Your life will be taking a different path. That is just not so in America, and don’t you dare start in on the MIT/Cal Tech business and all the special snowflakes you know who sucked it up and studied Math at Harvard because they didn’t get into MIT, or the kids who ended up studying engineering at Princeton or Cornell at not Cal Tech.</p>
<p>This is a very big country we have, and America is the land of second chances. And guess what- there are topologists with Boston accents, Chicago accents, Indian sub-continent accents, Canadian/Toronto accents (eh?). Your comment about Moore proves my point. He was an influential mentor for white males. And the non-white males and females found mentors elsewhere.</p>
<p>I don’t know anyone who did not get into MIT and studied math at Harvard.
I don’t think Caltech is at the top in engineering–it is more for basic sciences.</p>
<p>I actually don’t like the “special snowflake” metaphor. That’s not the type of person I have been talking about.</p>
<p>In England, David Clary, who is the President of Magdalen College, Oxford, and a member of the Royal Society, went to the University of Sussex as an undergrad. There are many routes open there, just as here. A lot of the people doing graduate work in mathematics and theoretical physics in Oxford and Cambridge came from “elsewhere” in the UK. </p>
<p>“I don’t know anyone who did not get into MIT and studied math at Harvard.
I don’t think Caltech is at the top in engineering–it is more for basic sciences.”</p>
<p>CONCEPTUALLY, QuantMech. Blossom was speaking conceptually. You always take things far too literally. If I say “I could kill my son for not taking the trash out,” you needn’t notify the police. </p>
<p>@Pizzagirl “If I say “I could kill my son for not taking the trash out,” you needn’t notify the police.”</p>
<p>But that is what a criminal would say. ;)</p>
<p>I’m sort of fact-oriented, PG. If the facts are off, the concepts being put forward based on those facts are often wrong, too. Quantum mechanics is pretty conceptual, and it is full of quasi-paradoxes–but it is grounded in experimental facts.</p>
<p>I think people underestimate social mobility in Britain. One anecdote does not equal “data” but it’s a pretty striking anecdote. </p>
<p>I think that terming someone a “special snowflake” is demeaning, in some cases. To me, the metaphor suggests that the person, while unique, is distinguishable from all the other “special snowflakes” only by the specifics of their crystal structure (for that, read “the specific unique characteristics the student has”). It also suggests that the person may melt when faced with adversity. There are students to whom this metaphor, if interpreted in this way, is inapplicable and unfair. Did you mean something else by it? </p>
<p>Also, help for the literal-minded, please! I took "don’t you dare start in . . . " (blossom, #226) as literal. Was it not?</p>
<p>Quant Mech- I apologize if I have offended you. But it is clear that you are either going out of your way to misinterpret me, or are unable to conduct a dialogue on a message board.</p>
<p>No offense intended. Sometimes hyperbole and metaphor are used in written language to drive home a point in a much quicker and efficient way than actually going into the detail and drawing out the narrative to make that same point.</p>
<p>Special snowflake, as commonly used on CC, is not demeaning. It is meant to describe a kid- for a variety of reasons- who has educational needs, challenges, could benefit from unusual opportunities, etc. that your typical HS kid does not have. The typical HS kid (you must know some of these in real life) who wants to go to state U within an easy drive to stay close to their HS BF or GF, may study “business” or some amorphous major to provide “opportunities when I graduate”, and doesn’t really care about research opportunities, the number of grads getting Fulbrights or Marshalls, could care less about the college’s rare book library or archive of Colonial ephemera, likely will not step foot in the museum of Baroque instruments housed in the college music department, and won’t stay after class to ask the professor of Art History if he or she can volunteer to tag along on a grad student research trip to view a depression-era WPA mural at a courthouse which is in danger of being demolished… net- this is not a special snowflake.</p>
<p>Apologies.</p>
<p>“and won’t stay after class to ask the professor of Art History if he or she can volunteer to tag along”</p>
<p>And just to be clear, QM, blossom is being conceptual here. It’s not as though she’s saying “this person won’t stay after class to talk to the art history professor” but they might for the philosophy professor. It’s an example. Not a literal statement.</p>
<p>PG- thanks for the clarification. My point holds for ANY college student who regularly approaches faculty members with an interest in participating in non-class required activities. Regardless of the discipline, major, college, or activity. A student who learns that you’ve got a new research grant and stops by your office hours to ask if he or she can be helpful in any way; a student who offers to help index the book you are writing because he/she worked as an intern at an academic publishing house over the summer and learned that nobody wants to work on a book in Galley form; a student who stays after class to tell you that he or she learned Drupal in his/her spare time in case your planned symposium on “Jane Austen and income inequality in Britain’s rural populations” could benefit from a blog/social media campaign.</p>
<p>These kids might be special snowflakes. I am hardly being dismissive of these individuals.</p>
<p>Mary: I think even with unweighted GPA naviance can give you a good start. I would assume that the data points to the right and top (ie high GPAs AND high SATs) are typically taking a rigorous course load. Even with weighted GPA on naviance it is not always easy to figure out if the near 4.0s are the result of excellent grades in easier classes or good grades in rigorous courses. It is also not easy to identify true matches - safeties and reaches, yes, but many kids fall into the “maybe” category at schools they want to attend. Those schools may be matches or “low reaches” - but not automatic admits (safeties). There are always outliers. Is the kid admitted with the lower than expected GPA an athlete? A kid with a really good story or winner of a national award? Did the kid with the good GPA and SATs that got rejected phone in the “Why This School” question or forget to submit a recommendation? There is no way to know for sure why a particular kid got admitted and no database is going to answer the question of whether any particular kid will get admitted to a college with a low admit rate. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, why kids apply to so many schools. </p>
<p>“I’m sort of fact-oriented, PG. If the facts are off, the concepts being put forward based on those facts are often wrong, too.”</p>
<p>99% of people reading blossom’s post would have understood that when she said:</p>
<p>* special snowflakes you know who sucked it up and studied Math at Harvard because they didn’t get into MIT, or the kids who ended up studying engineering at Princeton or Cornell at not Cal Tech *</p>
<p>that she was using “studying math at H because they didn’t get into MIT, or studying engineering at P or C and not Caltech” as theoretical examples of having to “slum it” at a “lesser” institution. Not invalidated because the specific people you know did not necessarily actually wind up at H, P or C. </p>
<p>On a different thread, someone involved with the MIT admissions process jokingly referred to a “bad” recommendation letter using this phrasing:</p>
<p>* "For example, confidential letters of recommendation will become less honest, and less useful, if a recommending teacher knows that their negative letters will be shared with the student (or even a summary “You were not accepted because your math teacher described you as a ‘brown-nosing toad’).” *</p>
<p>Again, 99% of people reading that would have understood that the poster was not actually SAYING that he had read a rec letter describing someone as a brown-nosing toad, but he was using the expression as a humorous and hyperbolic example of what a bad rec letter might say. Everyone else on the thread understood it, but you took it literally and you were all aflutter that someone out there was actually writing rec letters with the words “brown-nosing toad” in them.</p>
<p>It is really difficult to engage in a dialogue with you when you oddly take things literally that most other people understand to be either illustrative (as in blossom’s example) or hyperbolic (as in the second example). </p>
<p>I am confused now. I thought the whole point of the “special snowflake” metaphor was that EVERY snowflake is special, and delicate, too, prone to becoming mere water if not provided with an appropriate environment. That my child wants to go to state university to be near his girlfriend and to party with his bros does not make him any less a special snowflake than your history-of-art-prof-suck-up child. My child is exceptionally loving and loyal, he plans to go to medical school, he is sensitive to family finances, and he wisely is opting for a college where he can obtain a sky-high GPA without incurring debt. He might well be cultivating a sensibility that would sent him sucking up to that art professor, too, if he weren’t so busy with his AP chemistry lab and his AP micro problem set (another passion of his), and the planning committee for the senior class’s Day of Service And Night of Debauchery formal.</p>
<p>In other words, MY child is always a special snowflake. Your child may be too – I’m not sure about it, but I’ll probably take your word for it if you acknowledge my child’s special qualities, challenges, and delicacy.</p>
<p>Yes JHS, your child is a special snowflake. But none of mine are. Even the child who was most challenging to raise would have been happy at a very wide range of colleges. We visited urban- that was fine. We visited rural- that was fine. Big, small (but not too small), geeky, artsy, the kid wanted “good” physics and math and didn’t seem particularly turned off by any of the trade-offs or options. And the kid who was largely self raised (very independent, very determined, highly focused) also seemed delighted by what college offered and other than a moderate preference for “not too far South” was pretty easy to please.</p>
<p>And guess what- they’re all out there in the real world doing their careers and surprise- not special snowflakes. They don’t quit their jobs without another job because 'I’m not challenged enough" since they’ve got to pay their rent. They don’t complain about their psychotic bosses who expect them to work nights and weekends- they understand that they need to prove themselves. They don’t whine to HR that expecting them to kill a Sunday flying out to California for a Monday morning meeting is an encroachment on their social lives.</p>
<p>They are not special snowflakes, even though I work in corporate HR and see kids the ages of my own kids do these things regularly. So it’s a “thing” apparently.</p>
<p>So sorry, my kids were not busy “sucking up” to use your words. My kids were not delicate. But I have absolutely observed the delicate ones out in the real world. Just not in my house.</p>
<p>Really? I think there is often a pejorative tone to “special snowflake.” As I usually see it used, “special snowflake” suggests entitlement. Hence the redundancy of the term: all snowflakes are unique, but a special snowflake decides, with out any justification, that he, or more often his child, is somehow more unique than all the rest.</p>
<p>The special snowflake is the kid who thinks the professor shouldn’t count her absences against her, because she couldn’t have possibly been expected to limit her spring break vacation to just a single week like everyone else, or the student who can’t be blamed for not turning in assignments because they weren’t “challenging” enough (as in blossom’s example in post 238).</p>
<p>Now, that isn’t to say that there aren’t kids who really are outside the norm to the extent that they do need a particular environment. Getting a kid accommodations for a disability, or thinking a shy kid might be better off at an LAC, or noting that your off the charts brilliant kid really does need to go to a school with top-notch math offerings does not mean you think your kid is a special snowflake. On the other hand, thinking your kid is so super brilliant that, say, the Harvard math department wouldn’t be good enough because it has to be MIT is special snowflake thinking.</p>