Family Gets Lesson in Admissions

Parents Forum
421

<p>LOL. Now, I don't like how I wrote this:</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>My point was that if it comes from the kids desire to continue an activity to another level or even start an activity they are interested in that's fine by me even if it's done with an eye towards admissions. I think it's fine for a guidance counselor or parent to suggest broadly that such a thing is looked upon favorably by colleges. The line is crossed when a kid has no interest in Civil Rights and he's Marching To Selma in a re-enactment to look good on his college app. And if that was at the suggestion of a parent or packager, that's where I think the arms race begins.</p>

422

<p>Cur, for me the bottom line is that people have to live with the consequences of their actions. Some parents DO "package" their kids or pay for professional college counselors to do so for them. Maybe they will be successful and the kid will be accepted to a seriously elite college. Good for them.</p>

<p>But what happens when the kid is competing with kids who got there through their genuine talent? Getting "In" isn't really what counts -- graduating is. If the student has been admitted on a false pretext, that will catch up with him or her.</p>

<p>Actually, I remember being a little concerned about the kinds of schools in which my son was interested. I thought he was bright, but I didn't think he was a young Einstein in action! He can be disorganized and I thought all the other kids at these schools would be just brilliant. It turns out that my fears were unfounded. He's still disorganized (his room has been declared a superfund site) but he's holding his own in a difficult major at a tough school. But I would have been very concerned about getting him in over his head if I'd been one of those packaging parents, or if he didn't really have the goods, so to speak. He got in on his own merits and that's what counts.</p>

423

<p>Sjmom, you bring up some excellent points. Yes, some kids "make out" from packaging. Especially if it isn't far off of where they are or would be anyways. But if the shoe doesn't fit, the blisters, and sores can be a real problem. Youth should not be wasted by the young, and one of the most precious things about being young is not having so many responsibilities and being able to try many different things. A kid who wants to try wrestling as a sophomore is not likely to have that opportunity again. Something is lost when the parents insist that he stick with the swimming because he is approaching D-3 recruiting status in that sport and would likely get a captainship if he stuck with it. I've seen this happen. Sometimes it does fall into place, and sometimes it does not.</p>

424

<p>
[quote]
The line is crossed when a kid has no interest in Civil Rights and he's Marching To Selma in a re-enactment to look good on his college app. And if that was at the suggestion of a parent or packager, that's where I think the arms race begins.
[quote]
</p>

<p>OTOH After looking at the big blank spot under community service on my son's junior year brag sheet required by his GC, we told him we thought he had to fix that this summer. Volunteering in the senior center's computer room is not really his idea of a good time, but we thought it would be good for him as well as good for his application.</p>

<p>Okay, obviously I haven't followed the instructions correctly on making those cute little quote boxes, what do you do anyway?</p>

425

<p>Said Marite,
[quote]
Kids who actually need pushing and prodding are those who do not have a passion and no discernible gifts, the "whatever" kids.

[/quote]
And then there are the kids who do not have a passion but do have significant discernible gifts. I can image a logical tree here. 1a. Kids with gifts and passion they find on their own. 2a. Kids with gifts and passions they find with parental nudging. 3a. Kids with gifts and "passions" that are manufactured for them. 4a. Kids with with gifts who sit on the sofa all day and have passion only for daydreams or TV.</p>

<p>But this then begs the question. Because what does the other logical tree look like? 1b. Kids with no gifts and a passion they find on their own?</p>

<p>Don't we imagine that any kids who has a passion has a gift? Perhaps not a gift for abstract reasoning, either quantitative or qualitative, but a gift nonetheless? Which, if I follow the logic, means the most important thing we can do for our kids is foster enthusiasm and capability, because that's what a "passion", in high school or career or parenting, will require. Our job is not to manufacture the appearance of enthusiasm and capability. As jyber said,
[quote]
Yes, some kids "make out" from packaging.Especially if it isn't far off of where they are or would be anyways. But if the shoe doesn't fit, the blisters, and sores can be a real problem.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>However, nudging the kid to find their interests, and their way in the world for that matter, is part of good parenting IMO since one can be smart until the cows come home and still wind up sitting on the sofa with no life. As I told my son the other day, "Yeah, a high IQ and a dollar will buy you a candy bar."</p>

<p>Said son, "Good one Mom".</p>

<p>Then I had to confess I was only updating an old bromide.</p>

426

<p>mathmom, your second
[quote]
needs a / before the word quote. ;)</p>

427

<p>Sometimes the college app can be a wake up call to what activities a kid should be doing. I don't think it is a problem at all when it hits everyone in the face, that the comm service, ECs, or job history part of the app is blank, meaning the kid has missed out on these thing that he probably should be doing. My immature kid would have preferred watching TV, sleeping late, hanging with friends this summer. The idea of any extra academic programs, a job, community service infringed on his idea of summer. It helped a lot that he is going to a college prep type school and the buzz is out that summer activities should be a bit more directed at this stage of life. Didn't mean he went to an expensive precollege program, bought into a life saving community service, or found a prestigious internship. He just looked into bolstering a subject with a cheap cc course, put in some hours of community service locally and found a min wage job. Don't think anyone is going to scream packaging in this case, even though there was a bit of parental boot to butt involved here. He is not going to be applying to such selective schools that these things are going to be as important. I just think that these are things that are important for a young man his age to do, and he needed a bit of a push to see this too. He got plenty zzzs and playtime as well since none of his activities were all encompassing in time and effort. He also needed a bit of a peer and parental pressure to think about SAT prep courses. Packaging and polishing, yes, it is. I am sure that my $$ will buy him some points on those tests, and doubt if he would have bugged me to invest.</p>

428

<p>Many great posts. </p>

<p>Curm wrote:
<a href="Now%20,%20speaking%20in%20general,%20and%20not%20about%20sjmom's%20kid">quote</a> I for one have no problem if a kid has , as one of several motivating factors, a desire to increase their attractiveness to selective colleges by going beyond the norm . I really don't, and in fact I kind of like it as it suggests the kid is taking ownership of the app process . I do have a problem with parents or "counselors" or "packagers" deciding that a kid should do that when the kid has expressed no interest. </p>

<p>I would agree with other posters that longevity of the activity is one factor to look at when the colleges are judging the sincerity of the endeavor (although my D had two short term projects on her list, her projects "fit" with her history and I guess that was enough to allay any suspicions).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here, Curm, is where I agree with you and is the difference between packaging and genuine interest. Kids who do something because they are interested and even excel at something very highly or even that may be unique, is not the same as packaging someone by making the kid do something (other than get good grades, etc) to get into college. That's the difference in a nutshell. But what is bothersome to me is that people are ASSUMING that some kid who did some really cool accomplishment ONLY did so because he/she was packaged to get into college. I think there are many kids with genuine interests (my own kids included) who may excel but chose to do these things out of passion and would do them even if never applying to college and continue doing them once in college. Like others say, there are activities where you could not make a kid do them to this extent who had no interest. I know the huge commitments involved in several of my kids' endeavors and I cannot fathom a kid doing these particular activities with no interest. My kids pushed us to let them do them, not the other way around. So, I don't like to assume that all accomplished kids were packaged to get into college. Also, not all college counselors, for which I am one, package the clients and tell them what activities to do to get in. They take the clients as they are and then suggest appropriate schools and then help them to document and present themselves in the best light but not manufacture things to do that look good. I understand the point that if a kid is not self motivated, parents may need to "nudge" and say, what worthwhile activities might you choose to engage in....here are some things you may wish to look into...pick something you like and we can help find some resources and what not. It is a general expectation, not creating some manufactured activity that the kid is not interested in. I admit to not having kids who need a nudge but if I did, there are ways to have overall expectations without manufacturing activities. </p>

<p>Also, your point about longevity of an activity is something I agree with. I think for true commitments to an area of interest, most would be shown OVER time, not started in 11th grade, for instance. An activity can be started in junior year but it should show some relation to some interest all along. My own children, as well as clients, who have been engaged in certain activities for many years (7 - 13 years or so), I usually have them note the total number of years beside any activity which was done a long time, besides the required notation of which years in HS they did the activity.</p>

429

<p>
[quote]
mathmom, your second (had to leave this out or it messed up) needs a / before the word quote.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Woohoo! I'm sure I could have asked mathson, but he's off doing his volunteer job that he got pushed into.</p>

430

<p>"That's the difference in a nutshell. But what is bothersome to me is that people are ASSUMING that some kid who did some really cool accomplishment ONLY did so because he/she was packaged to get into college."</p>

<p>The easy solution would be for colleges to send a clear message that awards that are prone to manipulation or allow intensive and unchecked participation of adults will NOT be used for the admission's decisions. After admission, candidates could list the various activities for proper credit or placement. </p>

<p>What would be the result of delaying the announcement of the winners of competitions such as the Intel until AFTER July 1st of the senior year is anyone's guess, but it sure would flush the packaged ones out who solely seek a boost in admission.</p>

431

<p>I'll admit to only skimming this thread before throwing myself into it. I don't appreciate some of the manipulative packaging of college applicants that I see around me. That said, I also think it wrong to criticize parents who appropriately support and enable the development of their children's interests and talents. In fact, without the efforts of their parents in providing encouragement, lessons, transportation, supplies and such, many kids would be frustrated or thwarted in their efforts to pursue their passions and to fulfill their dreams. Benjamin Bloom, in his book Developing Talent in Young People discussed the study his team did of 120 young men and women who reached the highest levels of accomplishment in their fields: concert pianists, sculptors, research mathematicians, research neurologists, Olympic swimmers, and tennis champions. "The study has provided strong evidence that no matter what the initial characteristics (or gifts) of the individuals, unless there is a long and intensive process of encouragement, nurturance, education, and training, the individuals will not attain extreme levels of capability in these particular fields."</p>

<p>Of course not everyone is destined to become eminent or a star, and not everyone wants to, nor should they. On the other hand, in order to develop their talents fully, the potential Tiger Woods's, Field Medalists, Yo-Yo Ma's, etc. need supportive and sometimes assertive parents who creatively seek opportunities for them. And I think we others benefit from the expression of exceptional talent.</p>

432

<p>What about in many schools is the popularity contest called Student Elections? </p>

<p>xiggi, your point is a very good one btw....</p>

<p>Colleges are starting to spot the "packaged kids"...and don't much like it from what I have read...</p>

433

<p>citygirlsmom, while it is true that many student elections are popularity contests, being President or something is just a title. Colleges want to know what specific contributions and accomplishments someone achieved, not simply that they held a title. For instance, my daughter was not elected an officer of the student Senate which is as you say, based on popularity not substance, often times. She was a Senator for several years and one year, not even elected to that. She participated in it weekly before school even when she wasn't even elected at all as a representative. However, she single handedly founded two initiatives that she spent two years on which resulted in new policies that her school board adopted. These efforts on the Senate, despite NOT having an elected title, were commented on in every teacher rec and GC report, and her own application. I read a teacher rec that commented that he had never seen any student ever accomplish and effect change in the school like that. Many officers hold a title and do nothing. So, contributions and accomplishments can reveal leadership and more, even without the title. Two of my D's sports teams also had no captains. She was able to list achievements and contributions in those areas as well. My other kid initiated, created and directed student run musical cabaret revues which had never been done at our school, raising a great deal of money for charity all the while. Again, every rec writer commented about such initiatives. These were deeply held passions my kids had and wanted to do, regardless of ever going to college or not. Rec writers and GCs who comment on such things, would hold more weight, in my view, then a title of Vice President of Student Council on an application with no notable contributions or achievements mentioned on the app or by others. So, I think colleges might gloss over a "title" unless they learned of some significant contribution, level of participation, and achievement, or even leadership. In fact, may of these things can be accomplished with NO title, which was my point in the examples from personal experience.</p>

434

<p>Hey, what’s wrong with student elections? OK, maybe it is a popularity contest, but there’s something to be said with winning friends and influencing people. Maybe some colleges are looking for a few of those. (You can guess by now that my kids did pretty good in student elections. They weren’t valedictorians, science prodigies, or Chamber of Commerce Volunteer of the Years- just bright kids with a little charisma.) Maybe they’ll be the ones that go into politics, business, advertising, or communications. The gift of being able to win people over is a valuable skill. And sometimes the student elects actually do contribute to their schools. Just as academic high-achievers aren’t all nerdy social misfits, not all class officers are popular do-nothings.</p>

435

<p>
[quote]
But I would have been very concerned about getting him in over his head if I'd been one of those packaging parents, or if he didn't really have the goods, so to speak. He got in on his own merits and that's what counts.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>sjmom: For elite colleges, there are a very limited amount of spots and literally thousands of kids who are more than capable of succeeding at those schools. A non-packaged kid has to get in without the packaging boost, or at least hope admissions is astute enough to sniff out the phonies. The packaged kids are, I am sure, quite capable of success at their elite schools. But no more so than the organically-grown bright kid whose parents can't stomach the nonsense involved in this crazy admissions game.</p>

436

<p>Quote from xiggi:What would be the result of delaying the announcement of the winners of competitions such as the Intel until AFTER July 1st of the senior year is anyone's guess, but it sure would flush the packaged ones out who solely seek a boost in admission.</p>

<p>I think that notion reveals thinking that is oversimplified. As a previous poster suggested, having a genuine interest, and keeping an eye towards what may be helpful in college admissions is not mutually exclusive. In my son's case, there is no question that he has a genuine passion for research, hence his continuation of this in college. However, I'm not sure he would have gone to all the extensive trouble of doing the enormous Intel application (which is separate from both the research itself and writing it up for publication) if he didn't think an award would help him boost his chances for admission. Likewise, when I spoke to his high school science dept. head about the possibility of reviving the defunct research program, my motives were two-fold: 1) I thought, given his interests, the activity would be right up my son's alley, and I turned out to be right 2) I thought it might help him with college admissions
So, nothing is as pure and simple as having one motive vs. another.</p>

437

<p>


I don't necessarily agree. If a kid has had a lot of scaffolding, with tutors, sat coaches, or whatever, they may not have the discipline to really apply themselves in a competitive college.</p>

438

<p>The scaffolding may last into the college years, in some families.</p>

439

<p>Here's another thing: I don't view SAT coaches as scaffolding. Some kids have the self discipline to do SAT prep on their own with a book or CD. Others do better with the structure provided by a course or private coach. Using one verses the other doesn't make you smarter or more able or more ethical. The one thing I know is NOT prepping is generally a bad idea if you want to make the most of your chances in college admissions.</p>

<p>Finally, while we did not use a private counselor, I think it is wrong to conclude that every kid who does so is presenting a trumped up application. In the cases I know of personally, it was a path taken because the student was not very organized and not that receptive to parental input. Sometimes an outside, more objective voice helps a student stay on track and enables them to put their best (real) foot forward throughout the process.</p>

440

<p>In some families, the scaffolding lasts until the kid gets elected president, though unfortunately that doesn't mean daddy's advice on foreign affairs will be heeded.</p>