<p>
</p>
<p>There are few certainties in CC, but one certainty is that ‘special snowflake’ is a demeaning term.</p>
<p>I’ll assume that like the Supreme Court with pornography, we know Special Snowflake when we see it.</p>
<p>I have a young neighbor applying to music conservatories. At a gathering this weekend, a couple of clueless parents were telling the musicians mom that he didn’t need to stress over auditions- the local branch of our state U has a fine music department which does not require auditions. The mom was too tactful to do anything but smile and nod- but truly, the kid is a special snowflake. Does he belong in a college which does a decent job taking Ed majors and having them take a one semester course in music appreciation? Does he belong in a college which barely regards its music department as a service department to round out the Gen Ed requirements for its accounting and finance majors?</p>
<p>Sure- someone who doesn’t understand music or appreciate that a kid who can get admitted to Julliard or Curtis is truly “special” vs. your typical HS “I play in the marching band” musician. And I don’t know enough about music and the conservatory admissions process to know whether or not these folks are delusional about their son’s talent.</p>
<p>But time will tell. And it’s prudent for his parents to have worked with a “really famous teacher” for the last few years, who believes that this is a kid who belongs in a conservatory, and that the “stress” of auditions is what it takes to form a world class performer, and that indeed- he likely doesn’t need to apply to our local state U to become an accountant who plays in a local chamber music ensemble on weekends to scratch his itch for music performance. But again- time will tell.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems that social mobility is equally low in UK and US, but much higher in many other western industrialized countries.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>from: <a href=“Socioeconomic mobility in the United States - Wikipedia”>Socioeconomic mobility in the United States - Wikipedia;
<p>The replies to QM remind me of this Monty Python exchange from The Life of Brian:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol, ChoatieMom!</p>
<p>It occurs to me that an important myth–or maybe it’s more of a delusion–that many of us hold with respect to college admissions and choice is that we can accurately predict the future. We think we know what would be better for our kid (or someone else’s kid) in the long run. But we really don’t.</p>
<p>I am sorry to find “brown-nosing toad” metaphors infecting this site (from an earlier post by PG) as well as the MIT thread. In my opinion, that is a really inappropriate way for someone with any official responsibility connected with admissions to describe a student, hyperbole notwithstanding. If you read the post on the MIT forum where I questioned the description, you will see that I am incredulous that it could have been literal. In my opinion, it is worse if it was <em>not</em> stated literally in a letter of recommendation, because that means that the view was extrapolated by the person connected with admissions.</p>
<p>Can we all agree that “brown-nosing toad” is demeaning?</p>
<p>Just for the record, I would like to say that in addition to mechanical metaphors and reptile metaphors, I am opposed to rodent metaphors and vegetable metaphors. (I think my list on the MIT forum was slightly longer.)</p>
<p>Sorry, I do admit this is off-topic–I sometimes react to components of posts, rather than the overarching issue.</p>
<p>Now I am off to purchase cheesecloth, an enamel pot, and rennet, per this beginner’s cheesemaking site:
<a href=“Hoegger Supply > Catalog”>Hoegger Supply > Catalog; </p>
<p>I am with those who thought that Special Snowflake was a reference to a kid (or parent) that thought THEIR snowflake was so much more unique then every other snowflake out there. Not, as Blossom states, a kid that actually has a unique set of needs that only some specific colleges would meet. It may be that different posters use the term differently.</p>
<p>Um, blossom, I am not certain at whom you were preaching, but you missed the mark with me. I may be an elitist, but I have never, ever been a “one special place” kind of guy. I tell kids all the time – because I believe it – that there are many more than one path, and they can all take you where you want to go, and that it’s their responsibility to adapt to their environment rather than demanding that their environment adapt to them. My kids worked to earn money and experience through high school and college, and both have supported themselves without subsidy since graduating (well, in one case since about six weeks after graduating). Neither worked less than 70 hours/week in the first year after college. Neither had parental help starting their careers.</p>
<p>I agree that “special snowflake” is pejorative, but not overly so, and I think the negative aspects of it are directed at the parents who think that way about their children, not at the children themselves. (I guess kids can learn to think of themselves that way, and according to blossom some do. Honestly, I don’t know any kids like that.) It’s ironic, mostly, the irony being that of course each snowflake is both unique and indistinguishable from the millions of other snowflakes that always show up at the same time. And also that snowflakes are delicate and evanescent, and young adults not so much, however overprotective their parents may be.</p>
<p>We are all special. But few of us are as special as we’d like to think. </p>
<p>This isn’t about facts and who likes them better, or who can name some name or bring up policies at Oxbridge or knows somebody who said or thought whatever. I get tired of “Well, I just don’t understand why you used that word” or “Golly, that sounds mean” or “How can you mean X and Y.” Ad inifinitum, same as every thread tends to when certain players surface. PMs can be used for the off topic private head scratching.</p>
<p>@Hunt (We think) “…we can accurately predict the future. We think we know what would be better for our kid (or someone else’s kid) in the long run. But we really don’t.”</p>
<p>This is definitely true to a degree. However, I do think that a parent who knows their child well, understands the college process, and the job market, may be able to provide guidance and information that will improve their odds of the student being happier in the long run. </p>
<p>A simple example would be a student who wants to be a musician or a sports star. In my mind, there are very few students for whom seriously pursuing these dreams full-time makes sense. For example, if the student is a good athlete, but is not a D1 recruit, deciding to stay home and train 24/7 to get better instead of attending college is probably a bad decision in the vast majority of cases, even though I can’t see the future. </p>
<p>However, you are right that a lot of parents allow their personal experiences to color what is right for their child, and have a difficult time distinguish between what is likely in the future, and their experiences in the past.</p>
<p>"I am sorry to find “brown-nosing toad” metaphors infecting this site (from an earlier post by PG) as well as the MIT thread. In my opinion, that is a really inappropriate way for someone with any official responsibility connected with admissions to describe a student, hyperbole notwithstanding. "</p>
<p>It was a freaking joke, or rather attempt at humor, by someone who was attempting to demonstrate what a “bad” rec letter might have contained. Since it was hypothetical, it was not “demeaning” to anybody in the least. Most people would have laughed at it, or at least smiled, because they understood conceptually what the writer was trying to express. </p>
<p>If instead, someone was trying to describe a good rec letter and hyperbolically used the expression “Student A is the greatest thing since sliced bread,” one would not conclude that the letter writer was explicitly comparing the contributions the student was or would be making to the world to the introduction of pre-sliced bread. </p>
<p>QuantMech, you will continue to be frustrated with these threads - and I daresay, pretty much everything about life – the longer you deliberately take illustrative, metaphorical, or deliberately hyperbolic statements as factual and then express dismay that they were uttered. It’s just not right. It’s very fish-out-of-water. </p>
<p>The myth that is prevailing here is that every top kid want to attend an Ivy / Elite. I am aware of a huge number of such top kids who are currently mostly in Med. Schools, who never cared about attneding the top schools at all. </p>
<p>“Sorry, I do admit this is off-topic–I sometimes react to components of posts, rather than the overarching issue.”</p>
<p>Yes. I am sure you are a great conceptual thinker in the area of physics, but it seems to be eluding you elsewhere. </p>
<p>…I just want to point out that CC is strictly for entertaining, there is no reason to be frustrated with it, there is also no way that somebody is making life changing decisions based on info here, I hope with all my heart, that people are amking thier own personal decisions based on personally obtained information and not anything on the internet. </p>
<p>“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>
<p>And that’s what we are reacting to – repeated assertions that QuantMech, collegealum, etc. know of students who are indeed such very special snowflakes that anything other than admission to the MIT they “deserve” is
a) a horrendous mistake on the part of MIT,
b) a severe blow to the eventual knowledge estate of the scientific world, and
c) a blow to the ego that we could not possibly expect our little genius to ever recover from. </p>
<p>I don’t know why Q feels the need to rehash toads. Is she maybe kidding??? We can ignore some of this.</p>
<p>In all fairness, I brought the “toad” analogy to this board as I had seen her reference it recently – in a context where everyone else seemed to recognize it as the joke (or attempt at humor) that it was, and not a literal example of words in a bad rec letter. </p>
<p>I don’t think its genuine confusion.</p>