<p>Found this article and it makes some points that still hold true:</p>
<p>Confessions</a> of a Prep School College Counselor - Magazine - The Atlantic</p>
<p>That was really interesting, thanks :)</p>
<p>The best quote (modified slightly) - from an admissions officer:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The truth hurts, doesn’t it? :D</p>
<p>My favorite line was about how the books following the lives of applicants were a form of “admission porn.”</p>
<p>Very well written</p>
<p>Thanks so much! I’ll post more comment when I finish reading :D</p>
<p>Kind of a long read to say calm down it will probably all work out in the end. Maybe we needed to hear in again… But, I’m not so sure… I did like the two lines quoted above…</p>
<p><a href=“From%20the%20above%20article”>quote</a>: "The funny thing about teenagers is that very often the best of them, the most interesting and curious, are rather lousy high school students. They have other things on their minds than geeking out every single point on the AP U.S. history exam. They are very often readers, and preparation for elite-college admission does not allow one to be a reader; it’s far too time consuming".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Reading is far too time-consuming? Wow.</p>
<p>How is being well-read taken into account in the BS admission process? Perhaps students’ thoughts in the essays and during their interview discussions emphasize it. It would be sad though if point-driven attitudes deprived so many students of independent reading, one of the finest aspects of growing up. Interesting article.</p>
<p>I don’t think that part is accurate - with the exception that reading slows senior year because - between classes and college apps/visits - time is short.</p>
<p>Most of the best students I’ve seen admitted to MIT have been avid readers. It’s one of the questions I’ve asked for the last 30 years - “tell me about a book you’ve read for pleasure that was not assigned for class.” The substance of the answer tells me a lot about the student.</p>
<p>
So… being bright and well rounded is bad? Selective universities don’t want bright well rounded kids? That doesn’t seem to make any sense…</p>
<p>[Rachel</a> Toor: College admissions](<a href=“http://www.racheltoor.com/PushyParents.html]Rachel”>http://www.racheltoor.com/PushyParents.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep - That’s pretty much it. You can do a lot of things, but you’ll go farther if you can demonstrate a deep passion for at least one thing and do it in depth for a sustained amount of time.</p>
<p>Which is why parents are chagrined to find they coached their children to perfect grades and test scores, but then get passed over for a bright student with weaker scores but a really interesting journeys/endeavors on their application.</p>
<p>
[George</a> Burns Jokes | Stand-Up Comedy Database | Dead-Frog - A Comedy Blog](<a href=“George Burns Jokes | Stand-Up Comedy Database | Dead-Frog”>George Burns Jokes | Stand-Up Comedy Database | Dead-Frog)</p>
<p>In other words, any set of criteria can be gamed, once it becomes known. If you have enough money, you can hire someone to coach your child to display all the signs of deep passion for one thing. </p>
<p>I know I sound like a hippie chick, perilously anti-achievement, but I think there’s a real psychological cost to sacrificing childhood to impress admissions committees. It’s one thing if it’s the child’s own obsession with film making, or bicycling and Italian, but it’s quite another if you’re trying to package your child as the next Fellini or Lance Armstrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Couldn’t agree more. Well put, Periwinkle!</p>
<p>PS I wonder what Benny said to Burns on that one…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have thought quite a bit about this, and will have to disagree. I personally believe that AOs, some with decades of experience and all with a steady flow of candidates year-round before them (both candidates and enrolled students at the school!), have quite well-tuned receptors for fakes. And we are not talking interrogations of trained adult spies here by the k-g-b, we are talking an hour-long chat, choreographed and assessed by an adult, while the interviewee, no matter how talented, is just a kid.</p>
<p>So I do hold the personal opinion that DEGAS AOs know exactly how to use the one-on-one, personal interview in the most effective manner, so for each candidate it meaningfully contributes to the whole picture.</p>
<p>Most AOs are under the age of 30 & don’t have decades of experience.</p>
<p>p43531, the college application process resembles the prep school process, but there are differences. </p>
<p>Take a look at this website, read some of the testimonials: [Testimonials</a> for Class of 2014 Hernandez College Consulting, Inc. and Ivy League Admission Help](<a href=“http://www.hernandezcollegeconsulting.com/testimonials/]Testimonials”>http://www.hernandezcollegeconsulting.com/testimonials/).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really do not think I am being cynical when I say that, for the right price, you absolutely can find consultants who will coach applicants. I would love to believe that AOs see right through this, but the most popular colleges face tens of thousands of applications. Simply reading all the applications is an enormous undertaking.</p>
<p>Interviews are often optional when applying to many colleges. College applicants frequently interview with alumni, who may be easily taken in by carefully coached applicants.</p>
<p>Periwinkle, let’s discuss prep schools, not college. On average, I am convinced that DEGAS schools put far more time and personal effort and thought (per candidate) into the selection process than the Ivy League. As a college, perhaps Deep Springs comes close.</p>
<p>Certainly I find nothing wrong with the candidate doing “prep” work so as to present herself in the best light. Who would not (does not)? However, that is vastly different from faking it.</p>
<p>Riggable criteria will not help under such circumstances. “SSAT 97th percentile” is a clear criterion you can work to attain. Affability and sincerity and charisma are not. That’s why schools do not just throw scores and grades into some machine which then would spit out the first 100, or however many, as “admits”.</p>
<p>The human factor is very important, and while it can be fickle, it is not flawed.</p>
<p>^^Those interviews dont really matter, unless the student was atrocious. A negative feedback from an alum may impact an application, but not so a positive. Those colleges that say that an interview is “recommended” actually mean that unless you’re brilliant and its a major hardship for you to get there, get yourself to the interview. I was given an interesting perspective while visiting a top ten LAC (on the USNews) with my son, by our hotel manager. He said - everyone that stays in the hotel for the early admission Fall interviews are very nicely mannered kids, cleanly pressed, on best behavior, often from BS and we see a good percentage of them on freshman move in day with their parents. Then during the Spring accepted students day we see kids that are obviously super smart, but have zero interpersonal skills. Obviously he exaggerated but he meant that those were rejected by HYP even though they had perfect SAT scores/grades, and had to then slum in a top ten LAC.</p>
<p>Thank you for saying this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. It’s not that hard to spot the fakes and the ones who are “coached”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re being facetious, or hopeful right? The interviewers that are snookered don’t last long. </p>
<p>
This hasn’t been my experience.</p>
<p>And even in the case where a specific AO is “new” - applications are not “just” read by AO’s but by a host of other experienced people in the college or university system who have seen it all. There isn’t any trick a kid can try that someone won’t catch. There are a number of ways you can trip up a coached student. Besides AO’s don’t interview based on a script. So a student can interview, then share their experiences with another student who may walk in to find a completely different set of questions, nuances, etc.</p>
<p>The recent posts just seem cynical. Frankly - it’s the kids who don’t prep who fare better the majority of times. People are looking for “real” kids, not plastic Stepford Einsteins. It reminds me of the movie “Bring it On” that my kids used to like where the team arrives at the championship only to find that their consultant choreographed the same routine for another team. it’s like coaching a kid for MIT to emphasize their robotics, when that year, we have 1,000 of them, what we’re attracted to is the one that does music theatre. Or knowing that, coaches someone to emphasize their singing and extracurriculars when that year we don’t have enough kids with volunteer experience (unassigned by their high school). Or we’re looking for a better mix of readers, or…</p>
<p>But like I said, people are always looking for an edge, or a reason for why the system didn’t vote in their favor when they are rejected. Why not just accept the idea that the kids accepted were the best fit for that particular year and it’s not AO inexperience, overpaid coaches, etc.</p>
<p>Students should be themselves. If they’re not meant to be at a school, then so be it. If they “fake” themselves, they may find out the slot that was meant to be theirs went to someone else.</p>
<p>But I have to tell you - the most aggravating part of interviews both on campus and locally - is not the students, but over eager, over thinking parents. I sometimes get contacted by parents who are still interfering and looking for coaches or “edges” for students who are in grad school. Woe betide those students and god bless them for surviving the undergraduate process with their sanity.</p>