Esse Quam Videri - Or, How To Do College Applications

Applying to College
1

<p>Hi folks - </p>

<p>I spend most of my time in the MITCC forum, but I occasionally venture out to post in the general area. Today is one of those days. I wanted to share a post by David, one of the associate directors of admission here at MIT, about how to best do college applications: </p>

<p>Esse</a> quam videri | MIT Admissions</p>

<p>
[quote]

As I find myself again, railing against something published in the New York Times about the college admissions process, it is hard for me to deny just how much of a curmudgeon I have become. I’m pretty sure that it is not simply a function of age, but rather a fundamental difference in perspective relating to what applying to college is supposed to be about.</p>

<p>As an admissions officer, I recognize that while the application process can be very competitive, it is not inherently a competition. This is a nuance that I don’t think that many students, parents and journalists appreciate. I have the luxury of being able to be a purist in this regard, and I acknowledge how radical my thinking might seem.</p>

<p>Recently, I have been putting my radical thinking into practice by regularly suggesting to potential applicants that they should avoid trying to get admitted. In my mind, it makes perfect sense. It is, at least initially though, nearly incomprehensible to the vast majority. I do explain that I am not discouraging them from applying for admission, but rather making a distinction between submitting an application and trying to manipulate the process in order to gain admission.</p>

<p>In case this distinction is not clear, applying for admission involves the submission of academic credentials and supporting documents from which a composite is formed that enables the admissions office to determine whether an applicant is a good match. Trying to get admitted, on the other hand, is essentially the exact opposite. A prospective student, based upon what they believe will create a “winning” application, works backwards to repackage themselves into their vision of the perfect applicant.</p>

<p>Sometimes students have wonderfully transformative experiences in situations like these, and even do a great deal of good along the way. However, much of the time, students fail to connect with any underlying meaning, and merely end up with a contrived essay topic or an additional faux activity that frequently does more harm than good for their admission chances.</p>

<p>WARNING: You are about to encounter a mini-rant. Have you ever considered how community service became the de rigueur activity that everyone needed to do in order to look good for college? I imagine it went something like this. At the end of another very competitive admissions cycle, a journalist made calls to admissions offices fishing for an interesting bit of information that might make a good story. From that fishing expedition, an admissions officer recounted how there was this one kid that was really memorable, because she saw a need in her community and took action because somebody needed to. Her actions inspired others, and the community came together and made a significant difference. She wrote about her experiences in her college application essay because those experiences were a big part of who she had become. The journalist wrote a compelling story, which got picked up by a number of other outlets, because in addition to being a positive human-interest piece it also represented the discovery of a formula for success in the admissions process that could be replicated by virtually anyone.</p>

<p>Don’t get me wrong. I think kids doing community service is great, but if all they get from their experience is a tally of hours, or they have to travel half way around the world to discover that there are poor people, they are missing the point. If they can’t talk or write about their experiences with some level of introspection, and ponder questions like "Why are resources distributed in such a way that there are individuals in great need, whose very survival may depend upon the charitable assistance of others?" then something is lacking. Rather than creating an image that is unique and distinctive, they have simply completed an elaborate “paint by numbers,” that may be appealling at first glance, but is woefully short on substance. End of rant.</p>

<p>If you are wondering what my point is, it can be best summed up with a Latin phrase that I heard several months ago that has really stuck with me – Esse quam videri, which translates “To be, rather than to seem.”</p>

<p>Beyond the college admissions process, I would say that this is also a good core principle for life. Most of us want people in our lives who are what they seem. This is especially true for close friends. Most would also acknowledge that a relationship that is based upon being something that one is not, is destined for failure. Why then, would the college experience be any different? Of course, it is different because it involves multiple relationships, rather than a single one. And although, an undergraduate experience is finite (4 years for most), the relationships are anything but finite, as they continue throughout the course of one’s life.</p>

<p>The bottom line is this. If an institution doesn’t appreciate applicants for who they are, then the applicants will ultimately be much better off in places where they will be appreciated, particularly if they have the freedom to be themselves. If they want to have that freedom, they need to ensure that the central focus of the college search and application process is on who they are and what is right for them, rather than the prized offer of admission, from the big name universiy, that will impress their friends and family.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'll shamelessly plug my own Applying</a> Sideways | MIT Admissions, which sounded a similar note last year. But I wanted everyone to see David's post. </p>

<p>It's really important, when applying to colleges, that you be yourself. Not just in a more literal "don't lie" way (although that is also important!!). But also in the "just be yourself and do what you want to do." Because it's not worth doing things just to try to get into schools. Be the things you are interested in being. It will not only be more enjoyable for you, it'll put you in a better light for colleges. Win all around.</p>

2

<p>Great post. I still wonder how many high schoolers will read this and, because of their world view, immediate start to distill the bullet points from David’s message in order to re-formulate their admissions strategy? Which, ironically is the exact opposite intent of David’s message…</p>

<p>I concur with David 100%. It’s not what you do but who you are.</p>

3

<p>Suppose you are a selfish freak who only sees the educational value in studying at MIT. What chances does he/she have? Either he is “himself” (like the kid who built a full-functioning nuclear reactor in his garage) and gives up any hope for admission, or he will trick/lie/pretend in any extent necessary, i.e. involuntarily being engaged in volunteer work, to eventually get what he desires. We both know what is the most likely option to be chosen by the average student. Though the fact that <em>all</em> of them will act according to the capitalist rationale hardly should surprise you.</p>

<p>Don’t misunderstand me. It is neither your fault nor the fault of our current economical doctrine - but the studying conditions at many facilities are way to good to be so easily neglected.</p>

4

<p>Wow, Chris, thanks!</p>

<p>But I have a question: do you have any advice on how I can plan my ECs and write my essays so that I can “be” instead of “seeming”? I really want to go to MIT, so I don’t want to be seen as a “seemer.” I’ll do anything to demonstrate how genuine I am. Also how passionate.</p>

<p>Kidding, kidding. Truly, I couldn’t agree more. I recently had a CC discussion with a high schooler who wanted to know if he should continue an extracurricular activity he hated so he could “get into an Ivy.” He wanted to know, would it “look bad” if he dropped an activity after ninth grade? I answered, “Suppose it would. Would you prostitute yourself like that just to get into some selective college? And if that actually could get you into a college, would you really want to go there?” Other teens objected to the notion that doing something you don’t like, that isn’t you, just to get into an Ivy was “prostituting yourself.” I still think it is.</p>

5

<p>I really agree with the message. However, how does one go along with this when most colleges clearly have certain expectations for ECs, GPAs, SATs, etc., when there are exceptions made for legacies and URMs, when there are quotas for the allowable number of kids accepted from certain high schools or even certain regions?</p>

<p>In their attempt to provide a diverse environment, many colleges ignore what each student has to offer. I don’t just mean racially diverse. I mean how colleges look for students from a range of geographical areas, with different majors, different ECs, different skills. It’s as if the colleges are trying to plant a garden with different flowers to make it look good. So what if there are too many daffodils or tulips one year. Will it look imbalanced? What if the daffodils or tulips are the best possible candidates? But no, the colleges want to have a range of flowers. </p>

<p>So I agree with what the MIT admissions directors posted; however, MIT is just as guilty, if not more so, than many other colleges in ignoring qualified candidates in their admissions process. Sorry for MY rant about this.</p>

6

<p>"What if the daffodils or tulips are the best possible candidates? But no, the colleges want to have a range of flowers. " That’s correct. Because the college’s over-riding mission is not to serve any one daffodil or one tulip. Their mission is to have the best overall garden, based on how they view it, each and every year. If a few exceptional tulips are omitted because a huge crop is already coming in, no need to upset the balance. Why? Those other tulips will do fine at other colleges (who have richly benefitted from the spillover from the top schools’ applicants – they have risen dramatically in the last 15 years in stature and prestige).</p>

<p>You’re under the mistaken notion that college admissions is a pure meritocracy for all colleges. For the vast majority, it certainly is. Go to other areas of the globe – stats driven admission only. that’s fine. But don’t you find it curious that the so-called “top” schools are precisely the ones that adopt the less-than-meritocritous admissions policy? Sure, they began with tons of money and resources. But if you think that they have suffered due to their “flawed” admssions policies, they would have changed right? But no – they maintain their holistic admissions polies (leaving out “qualified” applicants). But ironically, they also keep their elite status as well. Any connection? I think so.</p>

<p>Don’t you see any irony in the fact that you’re decrying their admissions philosophies – but that very philosophy is centered around the top most schools?</p>

7

<p>Great post.</p>

<p>I really liked the rant about doing community service just to pad your app. Almost everyone in my school does this. They join Key Club and think they are hot stuff because they volunteer in meaningless activities like 10 hours per year. I have done basically no community service because I feel like I’d be being disingenuous. I have tried to do what I wanted, not what ‘looked good’. Hopefully it well turn out well in the end.</p>

8

<p>The most genuine and useful advice on college admissions condensed into one five-minute read. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Your occasional adventurism is very much appreciated! What’s more, I’m sure all of us on CC would love to see you venture out of the little sequestered corner of MIT forum more often :D</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>I respectfully disagree. Different majors, different ECs, different geographies, different skills ARE some of the things “what each student has to offer.”</p>

10

<p>Allow me to quote myself from the old Clearbrooke thread: </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

11

<p>In short: there is a fundamental misunderstanding about “qualifications.” I can only speak for MIT, but we do not admit anyone who is unqualified for MIT. Period. If we do not think that you are prepared to succeed academically at MIT, then we will not admit you. And we lose a lot of kids I love to that every year. </p>

<p>The problem is that a lot of kids are qualified for MIT. More than we can take. And so when we have to choose, from among a group of sufficiently academically prepared students, a subset of sufficiently academically prepared students, we differentiate among those students along many different lines. </p>

<p>Some of those students are superb scholars - IMO gold medalists, Siemens overall winners, prodigy nuclear technicians, etc. Some of those students are, in addition to being terrific students, great athletes, or musicians, or artists, or comedians. Some are just “glue kids” who are the social center of their community, always making things happen, utilizing the resources apparent in those around them and organizing them as a leader. Some come from a very different experience - a very rural or urban area, the other side of the world, etc - and we know they will bring their perspective and story from which other students can learn. </p>

<p>This is what holistic admissions means. The idea that we are admitted “unqualified” kids is not accurate. We are considering sufficiently qualified kids, and then choosing, from among that pool, a small group who, amongst themselves, will create the best collective class at MIT.</p>

12

<p>Chris, I often read on CC that people believe that a 2300>2250 in elite college admissions. I know the cutoff is not completely black and white but at what level do you think most elites find a student sufficiently qualified (given that gpa etc is all good). It drives me crazy when people advise a 2250 with otherwise excellent stats to retest.</p>

13

<p>Title / scores are a bit outdated but: </p>

<p>[What’s</a> the big deal about 40^2? | MIT Admissions](<a href=“http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/whats_the_big_deal_about_402]What’s”>What’s the big deal about 40^2? | MIT Admissions)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As for your second question: the best way to think about it is that if you can clear 700 on the different sections of the SATs, then your scores will not keep you out of MIT (or anything else). Please note that “topline” scores are kind of useless: a 700/700 on math/verbal is not the same as a 800 verbal/600 math for us!</p>

14

<p>Chris, what sorts of things are red flags that an applicant is unqualified and is unlikely to succeed at MIT?</p>

15

<p>many things, but in this context: poor grades and scores</p>

16

<p>LOL: Chris, I know you’re not trying to be sarcastic but the bluntness and plainness of your answers made me laugh out loud!</p>

17

<p>well i try</p>

18

<p>Thanks for the post. My D is starting the process now and I’m glad that she is ambitious but clearly not so “desperate” as to do anything just to look good on a resume or app. She’s still got some idealism in her, bless her heart.
Again, I appreciate the dose of sanity in a sometimes insane forum.</p>

19

<p>again - i try</p>

20

<p>Maybe MIT is different, but the message is well inculcated into admissions consciousness that colleges – ALL colleges – REALLY REALLY care about community service and want to see those hours, big time! Just as there are test prep specialists, there are now community service specialists who help high schools and individuals max out on good looking community service stuff. If just a few of those hours spent in soup kitchens were devoting to thinking of businesses or actions that might actually EMPLOY the recipients, this would be far better – but then, in order to graduate high school, most high schools REQUIRE you to log a minimum number of community service hours. MIT dare not back down and say, “hey, this is out of control,” for fear that the PC police will storm the gates. So, fait de mieux, MIT is hoist on the petard – the same one that venerates “multiculturalism,” etc.</p>