Family Gets Lesson in Admissions

Parents Forum
441

<p>Donemom, I appreciate your willingness to present the view from a parent of a student who has been extremely successful. I realize that reading posts that contain critical opinions about the use of national awards must tax your patience, and I thank you for your infinite courtesy in this regard. Even if the criticsms are meant to be generic, it's hard not to interpret them as personal in nature.</p>

<p>I also understand that my position might be viewed as oversimplified. I am indeed basing myself mostly on the simplistic notion that factors that were NEVER designed to be used in admissions have now become de facto admissions' criteria. One key test should be that the criteria established in admission should mirror activities that have reasonable expectations of participation by HIGH SCHOOL students in the confines of a high school. Participation in projects that require multi-million dollars equipment and the supervision by highly educated mentors hardly qualify as a criteria of equal opportunity. For instance, despite the numerous claims by The College Board and other researchers that the Advanced Placement tests were not designed for admisssion selections, it would be hard to find evidence that they are not used to separate students from one another. This is even more regrettable that the access and costs of such program is rather uneven in the country or abroad. Simply stated the disadvantages of some are exacerbated by the erroneous use of tests not designed for that purpose. </p>

<p>It is not hard to see that a competition such as the Intel suffers from the same haphazard access possibilities, except to an even larger degree. The issue, again in its most simplistic form, is that nobody should be measured negtively by a lack of participation in an event that is not part of a high school criteria. The fact that a couple of dozens students do earn an award should not benefit them by penalizing the millions who were not fortunate to have the parental or school support to become a candidate. </p>

<p>Bringing this all back full circle, I believe that to the truly passionate for research or even to the student with burgeoning signs of great scientific talent, the boost in admissions should not be relevant ... at all. We are asked to believe that students would do the same exact thing ... with or without an admission boost. Sadly enough, at this time, we have no way of verifying if that is true or not.</p>

442

<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>

<p>Well said Stickershock. Sums up the whole debate. It's easy for people to say "live and let live" when they or theirs have successfully navigated their way into the ivy league, but maybe singing a different tune if things hadn't turned out so well.</p>

443

<p>Xiggi, I understand your well articulated thoughts.I am not so sure that students who have no access to such opportunities are truly penalized. My kids went to a rural public high school. Nobody here ever heard of the Intel, including me until I read about it on CC. Only after my kids left the HS, did they designate some courses as AP. The only ones called AP at our school when my kids were there were Calculus and Physics. We had Honors level classes which were quite demanding (and in many ways, I'm glad they didn't follow what I read that others do at their schools which teach to these exams....my kids' courses used primary sources and required a TON of writing, more like what college courses do). Anyway, I feel that my kids (and others) are looked at in the context of their school and community. I do not believe one has to achieve something so extraordinary for a high schooler to get into a highly selective college. While I would call my kids accomplished achievers, their activities and coursework were not so out of the ordinary for a high schooler to have done. I think there are many kids like them who enter very selective colleges. While some kids are amazingly extraordinary who do things that one would never think a HS person could do, I think there are many more who are exceptionally good at doing teenage enterprises who get into very good colleges. Slackers do not and couch potatoes might not but I think one need not be superhuman by age 17 or 18 (or in the case of my kid who entered college at 16) to get into a very selective school. I don't think a kid needs to be packaged. I do agree with others that kids who are nurtured, encouraged and exposed to opportunities have a better chance of flourishing than some who have no intervention or support at all. But I still think that adcoms look at achievements within the context of one's personal background, schooling, etc.</p>

<p>PS, for all tlhe profiles we read of kids who did something so highly unusual, there are many who have accomplished age appropriate things or less unique things and sometimes we should profile those kids who got in. For instance, my own kids' ECs encompassed instrumental music, vocal music, theater, dance, several sports, jobs, and so forth. They achieved at a high level but these are ECs that many do and if I posted their stats and resume, some might say, what is so out of the ordinary about THAT? But kids who achieve highly even doing teenage endeavors can get into top schools. I never felt my kids were "penalized." True, they do not come from improverished backgrounds. Kids from such backgrounds as that, however, are viewed by adcoms in context.</p>

444

<p>"One key test should be that the criteria established in admission should mirror activities that have reasonable expectations of participation by HIGH SCHOOL students in the confines of a high school......The issue, again in its most simplistic form, is that nobody should be measured negtively by a lack of participation in an event that is not part of a high school criteria. The fact that a couple of dozens students do earn an award should not benefit them by penalizing the millions who were not fortunate to have the parental or school support to become a candidate."</p>

<p>There are MANY extra curricular activities that are done by High School students OUTSIDE of a high school. The topic of advantaged communities/schools/kids gets brought up regularly on this forum. Yes, it is easier to participate in Intel/STS if your high school has a reseach program or if you live near a top research university, and it is easier to collect soccer uniforms for kids in Haiti if you live in a community where the kids get a new soccer shirt every year. But, going to a high school that doesn't have a research program (or living in a community where the kids particpating in soccer wear the same shirt every year, even when it's too small) does not prohibit you from participating in one of these "attention grabbing "activities. Some students use much more of their own initiative than others when participating in these activities. Most colleges that care about these types of application enhancements can tell whether someone just had to "show up", or if they actually did something to get the award or run the fundraiser. </p>

<p>Your many posts on CC show that you have an outstanding understanding of the objective criteria used in college admissions. However,it's tough to get a handle on the subjective criteria. When you say "measured negatively" , it implies that lack of participation means that students will be penalized -- ie: admission "points" get knocked off for a kid who isn't an Intel/STS award winner. That's not how it works. You will find most undergraduate students at elite colleges and universities did not win Intel/STS and did not ship 5,000 soccer uniforms to Haiti.</p>

445

<p>

Perhaps my reading comprehension is out of whack today, but this sounds like a comment directed to me. I think I've only tried to present the point of view that not all kids who do something exceptional outside of HS have been given such opportunities through their parents -- some just find them on their own. The only other point of view I've presented is the idea that if a student does get into a selective school through packaging, it may come back to haunt them.</p>

<p>Fwiw, I have another son in HS. I don't know if he'll find the same opportunities as S1. But I do know he'll be successful in whatever he does pursue, because he'll do it out of his own drive and intensity. I really don't think he has to attend an "elite" college in order to do that.</p>

446

<p>I’m a newbie to College Confidential, so bear with me on process and etiquette. I was referred here by a friend and have wandered about on some of the various threads but not felt compelled to add anything sage or wise -- until now.
I’ve skimmed this thread, and while I have found many posts with which I vehemently disagree and which seem to be unsupported or inaccurate, I have also found many that have good insights and offer good advice. (Kudos to soozievt and marite for their very reasoned and reasonable arguments and comments.)<br>
I do have a question for xiggi, who appears to be also a frequent poster on other forums as well as here.
Xiggi -- I think I understand some of your complaints, arguments, objections, and disappointments with the admissions process. For example, you seem to particularly object to Intel related activities because it is unclear how much is student, how much is parent or mentor. You don’t like the packaging that sometimes goes on in prepping kids for college (no argument there). You (I think) have complained about the inequities in the GPA calculations, and class rankings. You appear to not like the SAT or AP results as admissions indicators because they were not intended apparently as admissions indicators. And so on.<br>
First, several comments.
Perhaps someone has already pointed this out, but in Bill Gate’s book on business he has a series of advice items for teenagers. Number one on the list was “Life is unfair, get used to it.” Perhaps a bit harsh in tone, it does reflect reality and ultimately no system (e.g. admissions) that involves human beings and subjective factors can ever be perfect or precisely “fair”. All the railing away in the world is not going to change that. Whether we like it or not life is not utopian (not that we shouldn’t try to make it better of course).
Not every kid’s project who wins something at the Intel International Science Fair was the product of his parent’s or mentor’s mind and effort. Clearly some are, but the judges can generally tell quickly during their discussion which ones are “manufactured”. Others are truly creative projects that use common items, simple (sometimes borrowed) equipment and are innovative and superb evidence of understanding and applying the scientific method. It appears you (and others) are arguing that the latter kid shouldn’t be recognized or given any advantage in the admissions process because he/she MIGHT be actually one of the former group. Clearly that is unfair to the student. If this argument stands, then the same should apply to the benchwarmer on the State Champion football team, who clearly is going to note that on his resume, but did virtually nothing for the team.
Nearly every school, especially selective ones, have admissions counselors who specialize in a region (a fact I’m sure you know). It seems to be that it is up to those counselors to understand the vagaries of that school system, whether GPAs are inflated, whether public or private schools “package” their kids through meaningless ECs, etc. To some degree I think we must trust that they are bright, insightful people with experience who (after reading thousands of applications) develop a second sense about the application and student -- and can “see through” the marketing haze. It seems in this thread that some assume that these counselors are inexperienced and uncaring automatons who simply read every application at face value with no critical analysis. I’m sorry but I am not ready to accept that. I’m willing to give them more credit than that.</p>

<h2>Finally, I think that there is a possible explanation why kids are accepted by one highly selective school and rejected by another -- a point that many have probably made elsewhere. First, unless scholarships are involved, each application (out of 20000 e.g.) is generally read by only two or maybe three admission counselors. If certain aspects resonate with the counselor -- you’re good to go; if not, you’re likely out. To a degree then it’s the luck of the draw -- did your counselor have a fight with her husband the day she read your application, or because he is a scientist all the humanity stuff doesn’t seem relevant -- or a hundred other scenarios. Second, every school tries to balance its student body on a multitude of factors, which creates an almost infinite combination of possible successful applicants. If one is in an oversubscribed population you are out of luck; whereas if in an undersubscribed you chances improve. This has nothing to do with the quality of the student per se. I suspect that if same student, with the same credentials, applied for ten years running to a highly selective school (read HYP -- figured that out LOL)) that it is highly likely that they wouldn’t be admitted all ten years. Thus, returning to the article that started this thread, who is to say that next year he might not have been admitted because the class composition might have been more favorable to his resume. </h2>

<p>This is long enough so I will stop and ask the question.
“Xiggi (or others) -- Since you believe the current admission process and tools are so badly broken and that admission counselors can’t see through the phony applicatins, swhat are the metrics, methodologies and analyses that you would use to select students (particularly at the highly selective schools). Said more succinctly -- how WOULD you pick those accepted, recognizing that for 40% of the application class there isn’t a gnat’s eyebrow difference in quality? Please be specific.”</p>

<hr>

<p>APOLOGIES FOR LONG POST -- I won’t do it again. A newbie sin I am sure.</p>

447

<p>SJ, the original quote used in my post included your tag, but my own comments were not directed at you. I usually don’t pay enough attention to each post to see who wrote what, so my comments aren’t directed to anyone personally.</p>

448

<p>It’s still extremely difficult for very bright, exceptional students to get into schools like Duke. The admit rate reveals that many 1400+, 4.0+ kids get turned down. It’s sort of belittling, therefore, to have someone suggest otherwise. Not all kids who get rejection slips are slackers. I known parents who’ve written their kids essays, lobbied to get their kids captainships, used connections to get them high-falutin’ jobs and internships, and sent them to $1000 SAT camps. I’m not saying everyone does this.</p>

<p>But what really get me is when people belittle the traditional high school activities, like helmet sports and student elections, things kids at least do on their own even if it’s pedestrian; while defending those that are not available to everyone, that require money or connections, or involve lots of help by other people.</p>

<p>Sorry about the rant. I’m not directing this at anyone in this forum- truth be told, my frustration is directed at some within my own community that I’ve seen play the games over the years.</p>

449

<p>Spectator- welcome. You sure do catch on quickly for a newbie!</p>

<p>I think you've summarized the debate well and I agree with your implicit endorsment of today's broken system. For all of you who think it stinks, read Jerome Karabel's book for a look at the good old days, when SAT's didn't count, when nobody cared about Intel or other "egghead" activities, when nobody got packaged or prodded. System worked pretty well as long as you were a white Episcopalian who attended Andover......</p>

<p>I much prefer the current broken system, despite the reality that a fraud or two gets in without getting caught. My kids, nieces, nephews, and close friends who attend or have recently attended elite schools seem to have accumulated a nice assortment of extraordinarily talented friends.... rich, poor and in-between, first generation college, first generation American, etc. There are kids who vacation in nice places and kids who vacation behind the counter of the family diner slinging hash....I'm sure one or two of the development cases didn't "deserve" to be there, just as I'm sure that for every wooden spoon kid that I've met that has wowed me beyond belief with his or her intellect and drive and initiative, there are hundreds more who weren't admitted but should have been.</p>

<p>Still... it's better than it used to be, and if it means tolerating the SAT so that the truly exceptional kid with parents who didn't graduate from HS who attends a crappy HS can still make it to Princeton.... I'm ok with that.</p>

450

<p>Thanks Blossom for the nice comment --and see I promised to make future ones shorter. :)</p>

451

<p>Spectator:</p>

<p>Welcome to the Parents' Forum, and thank your for your kind comment.</p>

<p>Alu: By "passion" and "gift" I do not mean to imply extraordinary commitment or talent. But some kids are truly apathetic and cannot express a preference for anything. It actually makes the job of figuring out how to support them quite hard.
I once was told by someone working with Cambodian children the difference between American and Cambodian style of parenting. She said that American parents look at the deficiencies in their children and seek to remedy them. If Johnny is weak in math, Johnny will get a math tutor. Cambodian parents, she claimed, concentrate on finding what they think is their child's essence; once they've found it, they nurture it for all they're worth. So if Johnny is weak in math but excels at sports, he'll get all the support they can give him in sports, and he is allowed to neglect math.
I'm sure this is a gross oversimplification. American parents seek to remedy weaknesses and nurture strengths and interests. But the point is that it's easier to do so if they can be ascertained.
Other posters have made the point before, but it's worth reiterating. You can provide all the opportunities and all the resources; if your child is not interested, s/he won't take advantage of them. Even if the kid agrees to read a book, chances are that it will be passive reading, skimming the surface of words without being in the least interest in their meaning. It's like letting a conversation in a foreign language wash over you.</p>

452

<p>Thank you Xiggi, for your understanding of my perspective. And nevertheless, I do think it's important to look beyond one's own experience to critically analyze the system---and I appreciate your efforts in that regard. It's just that, in the case of the Intel finalists that my son knows from H., the notion that their award was simply the result of a mentor handing them a project just doesn't fit. Just the other day, he was telling me about one of the recipientss from his year who is so brilliant, even at Harvard she has to skip all kinds of even typically advanced courses in science and math in order to be challenged. And another, his close friend, is the one who literally built his project from spare parts and is now applying for a patent. So, the stories of kids who just followed their mentor's instructions during an 8 week summer program and then got handed this award doesn't fit the picture that he (and we) got during the time he spent in D.C. But I do realize that this is all just anecdotal. I also think that at the semi-final level, the amount of scrutiny by judges may be such that perhaps some less deserving students could also selected. Then again, I don't think that making semi-finalist is, in of itself, any kind of significant hook for college.</p>

453

<p>"I do have a question for xiggi, who appears to be also a frequent poster on other forums as well as here."</p>

<p>Wow -- How did you find my "frequent" posts on the ... Alias forum?</p>

<p>Interesting trademark --!</p>

454

<p>
[quote]
I once was told by someone working with Cambodian children the difference between American and Cambodian style of parenting. She said that American parents look at the deficiencies in their children and seek to remedy them. If Johnny is weak in math, Johnny will get a math tutor. Cambodian parents, she claimed, concentrate on finding what they think is their child's essence; once they've found it, they nurture it for all they're worth. So if Johnny is weak in math but excels at sports, he'll get all the support they can give him in sports, and he is allowed to neglect math.
I'm sure this is a gross oversimplification. American parents seek to remedy weaknesses and nurture strengths and interests. But the point is that it's easier to do so if they can be ascertained

[/quote]

Interesting ... I just got the same lesson at work ... most review/development processes focus on the weaknesses of a worker and what they need to do to get better at those weaknesses. The proposed alternative ... find your strenghts, they will be what take you to your highest achievements, and focus on sharpening those skills ... while doing this do not neglect your weaknesses; develop them some so they are not an issue or so you can mitigate them. The punch line proposed ... spend much less time working on weaknesses and much more time developing stengths.</p>

455

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have to disagree with this comment. There really are students who do not prep for the SAT, and do okay in college admissions. The whole prepping thing is, to me, a form of mutually assured destruction--everyone must prep, so everyone's score goes up a hundred points, so no one loses their space in the race. It's donating a lot of time to the cause of not slipping backward, but what is intrinsically gained? How is a student enriched by SAT prep (I dont mean what prize will he or she get, but in what way will it add who the person is, aside from college admissions?)</p>

<p>If the purpose really is to find the diamond in the rough, to level the field somewhat, then it seems to me that there is something a little self-belittling to devoting time to raising a number beyond where one would otherwise be. (by self-belittling, I mean that it seems to be your own time devoted to beating others rather than enriching oneself.)</p>

<p>I know I couldn't have talked my kids into it, that's for sure.</p>

456

<p>There's prepping and prepping.</p>

<p>It's a good thing to familiarize oneself with the format of an exam whether it's the SAT or a college final exam. It's good to know what kind of topics the SAT math exam covers or does not. That is different from spending a whole summer and hundreds of dollars prepping for SATs.
And it's different again, finding out one month before the Physics SAT-II that the teacher had omitted to cover a whole topic on the SAT-II and had no intention of covering it as S1 did. S1 tried to study for it on his own, and, all things considered, did a creditable job on the exam. But he would have failed miserably had he walked into the exam totally unprepared.</p>

457

<p>The same thing happened to my son as Marite's son. He took the SAT2 in Chemistry after 10th grade and did ok, but not great, because about half of the material was not included in his Chemistry class. For the Physics SAT2, in 11th grade, he used review books to learn the material which was not covered in his course and earned an excellent score. The "diamond in the rough" concept defintiely does not apply to the content-based SAT2s.</p>

458

<p>Well, for subject tests, that's of course a different subject. There, you are learning a body of content material. So prepping is learning a subject. </p>

<p>Not that my S would prep for those, either....:)</p>

459

<p>I can't think of ANY test I've ever taken that didn't have a better outcome for having studied. The SAT is no different. The idea that one student is "better" than another because he/she didn't study is ludicrous.</p>

460

<p>I don't think I said anything about "better". what I wrote about was the intrinsic gain for the student, or lack of one, and the loss which I feel the student experiences from spending time on something which has very limited intrinsic reward. Sorry if that wasn't clear.</p>