<p>Education</a> Week: Want to Get Into College? Learn to Fail</p>
<p>[Francis</a> Ford Coppola Interview – page 4 / 4 – Academy of Achievement](<a href=“http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/cop0int-4]Francis”>http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/cop0int-4)</p>
<p>Check out the first two interview segments with Francis Ford Coppola:</p>
<p>“I wrote the script of Patton. And the script was very controversial when I wrote it, because they thought it was so stylized. It was supposed to be like, sort of, you know, The Longest Day. And my script of Patton was – I was sort of interested in the reincarnation. And I had this very bizarre opening where he stands up in front of an American flag and gives this speech. Ultimately, I wasn’t fired, but I was fired, meaning that when the script was done, they said, “Okay, thank you very much,” and they went and hired another writer and that script was forgotten. And I remember very vividly this long, kind of being raked over the coals for this opening scene. My point is that what I’ve learned is that the stuff that I got in trouble for, the casting for The Godfather or the flag scene in Patton, was the stuff that was remembered, and was considered really the good work.”</p>
<p>“In your own time, usually, the stuff that’s your best idea or work is going to be attacked the most. Firstly, probably because it’s new, or because they’d never seen an opening of a movie like that, or seen a gangster movie done in this style. So you have to really be courageous about your instincts and your ideas, because otherwise you’ll just knuckle under and change it. And then things that might have been memorable will be lost.”</p>
<p>Patton was made years later. Coppola was about 27 when he wrote the screenplay and the film was released as he was handed the helm of The Godfather, which was a gangster film based on Mario Puzo’s novel. But when the casting came around for The Godfather, Coppola had to buck the studio which refused his choices. He was almost fired but then he won the Academy Award (best screenwriting) for *Patton<a href=“for%20a%20script%20he%20had%20been%20ridiculed%20for%20when%20he%20wrote%20it”>/I</a> and that made it difficult for the studio to fire him (without looking like idiots).</p>
<p>Imagine if Coppola hadn’t held his ground, coming close to being fired as the director of The Godfather – or if he hadn’t taken an unconventional approach when he wrote *Patton<a href=“because%20he%20believed%20in%20it,%20not%20because%20it%20was%20unconventional%20for%20the%20sake%20of%20being%20unconventional”>/I</a>. The Godfather would have been directed by someone else, it would have starred Ernest Borgnine or Danny Thomas as Vito Corleone, and newcomer Al Pacino may have never become a star with Redford or O’Neal playing his part, Coppola would not have been able to make Apocalypse Now or other films, and I’m pretty sure there would never have been *Godfather II<a href=“which%20is%20also%20one%20of%20my%20top%2010%20favorite%20films”>/I</a>. From his point of view, had he not taken these risks at a time when he had no clout or cachet in Hollywood, he’d be known today as the guy who directed Finian’s Rainbow and then used that as a springboard to, perhaps, direct some of the Barbie direct-to-DVD animated videos by Mattel Studios.</p>
<p>Klements, your article also speaks to the concept of “fit” to the extent that it is understood to be an institution where a student will be safe and in his or her comfort zone…or will have the greatest chance of gaining an Ivy admit.</p>
<p>Here’s some suggested reading on risk taking. The list, compiled by Kathryn Schulz, author of Being Wrong, has a blurb at the end soliciting reader comments. The blurb goes, “Good choices? What’s missing? Write your thoughts below” and there are 0 reader comments – suggesting she took no risks at all in coming up with that list!</p>
<p>[Kathryn</a> Schulz on Wrongness | FiveBooks | The Browser](<a href=“http://thebrowser.com/interviews/kathryn-schulz-on-wrongness]Kathryn”>The Best Books on Wrongness - Five Books Expert Recommendations)</p>
<p>And then there’s this, from this past September:</p>
<p><a href=“What if the Secret to Success Is Failure? - The New York Times”>What if the Secret to Success Is Failure? - The New York Times;
<p>It makes me (a natural cynic) wonder if the interviewee in Klements’ link was riffing on this NYT story…or if it was a genuine and original personal observation.</p>
<p>(I thought I recalled this link being posted here after it first came out…and I’m astonished that I couldn’t find it in the Parents’ Cafe. It should have been here. I hope it has been here and I simply did a horrid job of searching for it.)</p>
<p>Thoughtful responses as usual, D’yer. Yes, there have been a spate of such articles recently. I do not know what is driving them. Before the holidays, and before I had seen these articles, I had a conversation with the Admissions Dean from my college alma mater. He has been in the business for some time. Albeit gracefully, he bemoaned the torrent of flawless applicants before him & the increasing inability to draw true distinctions among them. He compared them to bird dogs bred for the hunt. The good news, I suppose, is the college cannot go wrong in selecting this one rather than that one. Cheers</p>
<p>Well, Klements, did you find the applicant’s answer to be impressive?</p>
<p>I didn’t.</p>
<p>To say that he looked forward to college as the time when he could finally fail seemed to be a roundabout way of saying that he had not yet taken any risks.</p>
<p>Okay, he gets points for recognizing (or being coached) that failure is okay and an acceptable, if not necessary, part of growth and innovation. But in making that point he’s also saying that he hasn’t yet ventured down that path. This is like an applicant saying, "I look forward to college as the time when I can…(a) start getting involved in extracurricular activities, (b) really buckle down and focus on my GPA, (c) start doing community service.</p>
<p>If this admission officer values risk taking, then he should be more impressed by the person who talks about failures than the one who asserts he has the untested and unproven capacity to fail. If this admission officer hasn’t seen applicants who have already failed and flopped, then he’s talking to the wrong people. These people who already failed aren’t going to talk about college being the place where they will finally take risks and finally fail because that’s not how college is going to be different for them.</p>
<p>So why isn’t this article about the applicants who talk about their failures in interviews?</p>
<p>Concur. We see the situation similarly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s the increased pressure and recent lawsuits from students with perfect test scores being turned down by elite colleges. I was listening to a report on NPR on Friday in which a student is suing schools for that reason - implying a quota. </p>
<p>I just completed more interviews than usual and saw a trend that’s been building for years perfect kids with perfect resumes and an amazing ability to regurgitate but not synthesize information. One student even admitted he pursued an activity to get it on his college resume. Even more suggested they’d done all the “right” activities and were perfect candidates. I tried to politely say - your resume looks like most of the other 13,000 in the pile - kids who’ve done those exact same school activities and have the same grades - what else to you have going for you?</p>
<p>These days perfect kids with perfect stats are becoming a dime a dozen and in some cases there seems to be an “entitlement” issue. One student even leaned across the table and asked me to “sell him” on MIT. (I declined). Another seemed surprised that he needed to do more than just show up for an interview to be selected. When I press for insight into past failure, struggle, or obstacles, I get few well thought out answers. The most common answer involves wanting something and not getting it (but rarely reveals a redoubled effort to achieve it, or even having learned from it.) </p>
<p>So I wonder if the spate of articles has to do with students and parents concentrating on the wrong benchmarks and then suing when the outcome is not what they expected. We’ve tried to say that, even here on the boards, that the best candidates are broad, well rounded, and have imperfect resumes because they took risks, fell down, picked themselves up and started again. Some won, some lost, but all were interesting and none were cut from the same cookie sheet. </p>
<p>But there will always be a component of the applicant pool that wants to steer any admissions decisions in the direction of scores because, in the end, quantitative data is concrete even if it’s not (by itself) really a true indicator of the measure of the man or woman behind it.</p>
<p>So I applaud the article for bringing up what should be obvious - some of our greatest growth comes from how we approach failure.</p>
<p><<some won,="" some="" lost,="" but="" all="" were="" interesting="" and="" none="" cut="" from="" the="" same="" cookie="" sheet.="">></some></p>
<p>What Exie is saying reminds me of the Andover Dean’s blog I read recently (author - Valenzuela) which recommends making the essay a personal statement and writing the essay as if if couldn’t be written by anyone else but you. Good advice.</p>
<p>I agree that many kids are protected from failure. It seems many parents are doing too much for their children. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I don’t see a solution. There seems to be a tradition of college admissions deans writing about qualities they like to see in applicants. After a while, the sane thing to do is ignore them. If you took them all seriously, there wouldn’t be an applicant left standing. </p>
<p>We want superlative grades…we want kids who’ve been entrepreneurs…foreign travel…exotic languages…male…stand out from the pool…etc, etc. I say it’s spinach, and I say to hell with it. </p>
<p>In the meantime, they’re lying about their median SAT scores. [SAT</a> Scandal Involved Systematic Score Manipulation|Claremont Port Side](<a href=“http://www.claremontportside.com/sat-scandal-involved-systematic-score-manipulation/]SAT”>http://www.claremontportside.com/sat-scandal-involved-systematic-score-manipulation/) I wonder how many very good, admissible students chose not to apply to Claremont-McKenna, because their scores were at the median for the institution, but about 10 to 20 points below the reported SAT scores? </p>
<p>Yes, it’s great for kids to take chances, and to learn from not achieving their goals. On the other hand, college admissions deans don’t help in ratcheting up the hysteria by holding forth on the attributes of superior candidates. It may be a byproduct of trying to improve their institution’s perceived selectivity, but there are parents who are listening, and are willing to game the system, no matter what it costs their children. It is all driven by fear, though. Fear of the college admissions rat race. The pressure and the coddling arise from an impulse to protect.</p>
<p>
[The</a> Dark Side of Parental Devotion: How Camp Can Let the Sun Shine | American Camp Association](<a href=“http://www.acacamps.org/campmag/0601darkside]The”>http://www.acacamps.org/campmag/0601darkside)</p>
<p>I’ll also add that college admissions people could praise the bright, well-rounded kids (BWRK). Rachel Toor pointed out that, in her opinion, Duke weren’t impressed by BWRKs:
[BOOKS</a> IN BRIEF - NONFICTION - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/30/books/books-in-brief-nonfiction-285099.html]BOOKS”>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/30/books/books-in-brief-nonfiction-285099.html)</p>
<p>So, it’s a decade later, and we have super-specialists in the pool. Kids who have devoted the last 8 or 10 years of their lives to an interest, with an eye to college admissions. Cool. I predict many will burn out in college, or at least drop the bassoon to write excruciatingly bad poetry.</p>
<p>I would love to see the system give teens a chance to be young. To live life without the Last Judgement hanging over their heads. To not feel as if they’re failures for not getting into Harvard. To give them the space to try new things, rather than to stay in the track laid out in third grade. To allow them to learn.</p>
<p>If it helps - I have seen the several well known colleges give kids like that a chance. Sometimes they’re easier to root for than kids coming in with all the advantages and perfect resumes. I once interviewed two friends - one opened a book right before the test, had perfect scores and grades, and seemed to see college as an entitlement. The second had hard earned B’s lived in a single family home, worked to help with expenses, and started a club on campus around a subject she was passionate about. Kid A was declined, Kid B was accepted.</p>
<p>I sometimes write at the top of my reports “Refreshingly normal.” </p>
<p>I’ve found that in my case, the BWRK are the ones who followed a path prescribed by adults as to the right selection of courses and activities to get into “X” school. I discover they’re not very passionate, but have done all the right things, studied hard, got high test scores, and are now just one of many in a pile where those type of kids start looking ubiquitous.</p>
<p>Passionate and imperfect, kids who try new things without fear of failing - now those kids are interesting and a jewel to find in an otherwise homogeneous pile.</p>
<p>Maybe we’re reflecting different parts of the country. I was thinking of sports and musical specialists, whose every decision’s been driven by the demands of their respective disciplines. In the early years at least, the kids’ schedules are determined by parents. Think of the Tiger Mother book–all work, and no play, is all that’s permitted.</p>
<p>Some of the kids who are passionate might resemble BWRKs, as their parents think perfect grades and a perfect resume are necessities. Despite all the hoopla about perfect test scores, etc, I haven’t seen any evidence the students are better scholars.</p>
<p>What I have wanted for my kids, and encouraged them to be, after age 12 or so, is simply happy. Now, of course, that sounds awfully trite in this day and age of overscheduled intense activities, but, it was a really helpful focus that proceeded along these lines: if you each make a commitment, honor it, but when done, you’re done - if it does not make you content to continue the instrument, the school newspaper, the high jump, then find some other use for your time. Give what you can to all you do, but where all you can is too much and causing illness, sleep deprivation or the deer in the headlights look, then stop and re-evaluate. More than one interviewer said simply that DS1 and DS2 were happy, and highly analytical, kids - simply the kind of people one would want to be with, and listen to, and consider the opinions of. </p>
<p>I like the idea of going to college to ‘fail’ because, what is really suggested is not failure per se, but a willingness to do what one is good at and not good at, and re-evaluate along the way.</p>
<p>Folks interested in this thread should find this TED Talk very interesting:</p>
<p>[Kathryn</a> Schulz: On being wrong | Video on TED.com](<a href=“http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html]Kathryn”>http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html)</p>