Family Gets Lesson in Admissions

Parents Forum
501

<p>Uh... just to be real clear on this point. I love scouts. I really really do. Especially Eagle Scouts. I think attaining Eagle Scout is a tremendous accomplishment. (My own brother was one.) Nothing mundane about it. I applaud the kids who work for, and achieve, it. I also know that they are recognized and rewarded for having achieved it, as they should be. Another great thing about scouting: The stakes are generally perceived as so low that few kids aspiring to be Eagle Scouts can be accused of "gaming the system" to achieve it. </p>

<p>Cynicism towards kids who have a passion for science?</p>

<p>If there's any cynicism, it's directed toward a vehicle (any high-stakes competition, take your pick) that is manipulable at the expense of talented kids. That doesn't translate to disdain for all the participants. </p>

<p>The original point--which I expressed badly, regrettably--was about pinnacles and glory. If scouting were suddenly to award a national grand prize and big $$$$$ for the most promising Eagle, would a "cancer cure" or "independent democratic nation founder" badge be far behind? Lots of people other than the solitary student have a stake in the (reflected) glory that stops the presses at that level.</p>

<p>:) Thanks anyway, Xiggi.</p>

502

<p>
[quote]
Somewhere earlier on this thread there was a big brouhaha over parents who fill in all the college app forms for their kids because they decide that their kids are "too busy" with their high school courses and EC's to have time for all that typing. Apparently, if the kid is "busy" enough with something seen by the parent as more important, then the parents think it only natural for them to pitch in and pick up the slack. I would assume that parents of science competitors might think the same thing - if their kid was "too busy" that month with school or athletics or running the charity they created, then the science competition parent might help out with recording data, or working out mathematical formulaes, or typing the paper up, or checking citations to other research, or whatever else that parent figured was o.k. since obviously their kid can't be expected to handle all of his myriad responsibilities all by himself. If daddy happens to be a scientist he can help; if not, then the kid is going to have a problem when he is up against a deadline and has all the other obligations.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>With all due respect, an awful lot of totally disparate things are jumbled together and given the same valence in this paragraph. If a secretary types her boss' letter, it's still the boss' letter, not the secretary's. I typed my H's Ph.D. dissertation. He was indeed too busy: checking formulae and references, going to interviews, etc.... Shrug. By the same token, if the parent fills out the student's name, address, dob, etc... on the application, it's still the student's application. If, however, the parent writes the essay instead of the student, or has so much input into the essay from topic choice, structure, argument, etc... then that is different. When a parent types up a paper a student had written, it is very different kind of help from working out formulae or checking references, and definitely different from masterminding the project from beginning to end.</p>

503

<p>calmom, you posted (in part)</p>

<p>
[Quote]
Xiggi did some internet sleuthing and found the paper the kid wrote for the project which specifically acknowledged the father's contributions. What we don't know is how much the father may have contributed.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>I think you misread xiggi's post. The article quoted by xiggi in the first link WAS NOT an article written by the student. The article was about testing of a "Direct Methanol Hybrid Fuel Cell" -- whereas the student's project title (see the second link in xiggi's post at #139) was “Preventing Degradation in Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells: A Novel, Multi-cartridge Air Contaminant Control System" which is a totally different project I think. One of the authors of the first article had a first name "Jonathan" but this was not the student. Christiani and Sifer were the authors of the first article and were acknowledging the contribution or editing assistance of eight people. </p>

<p>Concerning the time requirements of Eagle and other activities (such as science fairs), there may not be a conflict. Many Eagles get their awards by the end of their freshman year, or early sophomore year -- while most science fair contestants at Intel tend to be juniors and seniors I think. So there may not be a "time crunch" on that basis.</p>

504

<p>Partial post by marite </p>

<p>
[Quote]
... By the same token, if the parent fills out the student's name, address, dob, etc... on the application, it's still the student's application. If, however, the parent writes the essay instead of the student, or has so much input into the essay from topic choice, structure, argument, etc... then that is different. When a parent types up a paper a student had written, it is very different kind of help from working out formulae or checking references, and definitely different from masterminding the project from beginning to end.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Nicely said marite. I think you have succinctly captured the essence of the difference between parental "assistance" and "masterminding". I see no problem with a parent providing some menial chore support (such as you did with your husband), and it in no way diminishes the student's project. I don't even have a problem with a student (whether freshman or PhD candidate) bringing a final (note emphasis on "final") paper to his/her folks, colleagues or mentor and asking them to read over it and comment on it. However, when the parent completely rewrites a paper, or changes the tone or voice of the paper, or provides the creative ideas for the paper or essay, then it passes from "assistance" into "masterminding."</p>

505

<p>


I don't know exactly when that would have been but yes, I would have passed the info along. As a quick check would show, there wasn't any extra time in her schedule. I'm assuming she would have passed on the intel whatever it is, but I could be wrong. </p>

<p>If someone were to come on here and say "my kid had a 36 ACT" expecting everyone to accept that test result as a badge of brilliance , I don't think they'd fare that well. Same for USA Today Scholars, or even Rhodes Scholars. I've seen all the awards bashed by somebody. And I'm not bashing intel. I'm sure they pick the best kids out of the sample that apply and I'm sure they are worthy of the scholarships but to view them superior to other kids who are just as accomplished and just as hard to find? Naah. I don't think so. </p>

<p>And although I did not remember conyat's kid's intel activities, I could have guessed. ;) Just like it's easy to guess my D is an athlete (though not on an athletic scholarship).</p>

506

<p>"If you are actually trying to say these kids are the best and the brightest , well" -</p>

<p>Curmudgeon -with all due respect this is where you jumped all over me and I was agreeing with you (in a bumbling roundabout way). IMO this thread points out that there are many who think one activity defines the "best and brightest" as well as those who think not studying for the SAT makes you more "best and brightest" than those who do. I guess I don't see the distinction between the "besters" and hope for my kids' sake their not in admissions offices when the pony express delivers their applications from the "holler"!</p>

507

<p>There is a current thread whose title I mis-read every time . It reads "Every Parent's Message **Important" and I read it as "Every parent's message is important." </p>

<p>I like it my mis-read way. </p>

<p>Best and brightest, or better than , or more or most accomplished keeps us from moving forward IMO and we end up living the same day on this thread , over and over again. </p>

<p>Fighting the same old battles whether there is anyone truly there or not. We are pavlov's dogs and someone keeps ringing our bells. (And it's each other.)</p>

508

<p>curmudgeion, I liked your quote:</p>

<p>
[Quote]
I'm sure they pick the best kids out of the sample that apply and I'm sure they are worthy of the scholarships but to view them superior to other kids who are just as accomplished ? Naah. I don't think so.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>In reading this thread (admittingly quickly) I think too many people are putting too much emphasis on participation/success in Intel activities (whether is is ISEF or STS). A kid with a couple of impressive science awards IS NOT a shoe-in if that represents the substantial part of his/her resume. Moreover, I agree that success there does not make them "superior" to other kids -- AND if that is there only accomplishment then it probably won't help them that much anyway as admissions counselors look for more balance in the kids I think. </p>

<p>That said, what is a "superior" kid? Aside of the occasional true genius (Mozart?), the superior kid for me is one who is bright and creative (doesn't have to be brilliant), a hardworker, interacts and works well with others, has a passion for a variety of activities (be it sports, science, the arts, journalism, etc.), displays compassion for others, and demonstrates a commitment to making the world a better place. Self-promoting, egotistical, boorish, uncaring kids, however high their SAT/IQ may be or impressive their accomplishments are not. ...and I think the admissions folks are clever enough to discern between the two.</p>

509

<p>Marite, as to your comment about typing, etc: that is how you see it, that is not necessarily how everyone sees things. </p>

<p>I am saying this because there is a rationalization involved: it is ok to do X because X is a simple, unimportant task -- but it is not ok to do Y because Y is a different type of task. The problem is that different people are going to rationalize differently and come to different conclusions.</p>

<p>I have seen that on college application forms there are a lot of different decisions to be made about the little stuff. How are parent occupations described? (Michele Hernandez says its a bad idea to say "bank president"... better to describe the job in more modest terms .... so should my daughter say that her dad is an "attorney" or "lawyer" or "criminal defense lawyer"?)</p>

<p>What about a question that asks what other schools the student is applying to? Should they all be listed? Should the question be left blank? Should there be a strategic listing, of only similarly ranked schools? Big debate on another thread as to that one.</p>

<p>What about the ECs? The application says to list them in order of importance... how do you pick which one that is? How should they be described in the tiny space available? What aspect of the EC should be emphasized? How should the participation be described? Should the kid try to fit it all into the 5 lines on the form, or should the kid attach a more detailed listing? If a resume is attached, should it be limited to one page? or is 3 pages ok? </p>

<p>Even something as clear cut as email and phone number can be subject to a decision: I would have a tendency to list our home phone number (land line) -- but my daughter put her personal cell phone number on every form she filled out. </p>

<p>So I don't think the applications that my daughter filled out look the same as it would be if I had decided to just "type" for her. I think they have the kid's personal stamp. I remember when my son applied to colleges and when asked about his employment history, he said he had a job as a "pizza monkey". Well, I never would have called him a "monkey" and to this day I don't know if that is something he made up or if that is a slang term commonly used to mean something among those who work in pizza joints. </p>

<p>So to me, the creative, independent process starts with the way the form is filled out -- from the point on the first line where the kid decides whether to spell out his/her full middle name or just put in the initial, or elects whether to put anything in a field provided for "nick name". I saw my own kids take very different approaches, and I also saw their personality reflected in the way they approached the task. Whether a college draws any conclusion from that I don't know - but the point is that I see the creative process tied up in all the detail work. For example, my daughter found the online common app form cumbersome, so she printed out the forms to fill them out. I suggested using appropriate software to fill in the blanks, but she preferred to do it by hand. That is a different end product than it might have been if I had offered to fill in the forms for her. </p>

<p>I'm not saying that you have to see things the same way -- but I am saying that you ought to acknowledge that your point of view is subject to debate. I have a feeling that if the college application required a kid to answer the question, "Did anybody help you complete this application? If so, who helped and how did they help?" you might think twice about whether it would be a good idea for your kid to be answering, "my mom typed in all the information on all the forms." </p>

<p>The problem I see, and the reason I see it as a rationalization -- is that some other parent is going to say it is o.k. for them to type an essay while their kid dictates. Or that it is o.k. to change a few words of the essay around while proofreading, or maybe rewrite a sentence that wasn't all that clear, and correct all the spelling and grammar mistakes while they are at it. And another parent might think it is fine to insist that the child change their essay topic entirely -- I know that to be the case because a student I met via CC forwarded their essay to review in precisely that situation. (The student was writing on the topic, "person that influenced you the most", and chose to write about a child she had tutored, while the student's parent insisted that the essay should be written about an adult mentor or role model. So an outside opinion was needed to resolve the dispute.)</p>

<p>So it becomes again a matter of drawing lines. Obviously my line is drawn at a different place than yours -- I'm more of a one-person cheering squad and outside-information-gatherer than a direct participant except in dire emergencies. That's my style -- I also expected my kids to do their own laundry from around age 12 or so, and to prepare their own breakfast and lunch from very early childhood. </p>

<p>I'm not saying that your rationalization is wrong or mistaken; but I do think it is arbitrary, as is mine, based on our own different predilections. The only thing that would not be a "rationalization" would be a very hard "absolutely no help whatsoever" line -- and even I don't go that far. For example, I went to the post office and mailed my daughter's applications for her after she sealed the envelopes and addressed them. I also did 100% of the FAFSA and CSS Profile- my rationalization for that is that my finances are complicated and I don't want my kids knowing all the details -- but not everyone agrees with that approach.</p>

510

<p>Can we all please just agree that we disagree, and end the bickering? We all want everyone to agree that what we decided to do or not do for our kids when they where applying to college was right, but that will never happen. Enough said. They are all in college now, so let's move on shall we?</p>

511

<p>Cur, please see my PM to you. Most of what I know about the Intel, I learned not from D., but from googling it and reading posts by the kids here at CC who have been finalists. Probably everything I posted is commonly available from published sources.</p>

<p>Once I get hold of a topic (in this case the Intel), I kind of have to read everything about it I can get my hands on. You just haven't noticed before because most of the things I read about don't come up much on CC. (Anyone want to know about the crash test ratings of 90's vintage sedans? The contents of every one of the 200+ pages of depositions in a recent lawsuit against SLU that didn't involve anyone I knew? If you start a thread about that stuff, I promise to post just as extensively and seem just as obsessed).</p>

<p>I find the whole idea of the "best and brightest" a very strange concept, so for the record, I would like to make it clear that I am not claiming "best and brightest" status for my daughter or saying it makes her superior to anyone else's child. </p>

<p>We still consider D. getting picked a piece of incredible good fortune. She was just thrilled to be able to go and have the experience. But there were some truly amazing kids up there. I don't think anyone can handicap the winner of a contest like that (or Vegas would be all over it :) ) , but it was pretty clear to D. who the top 5 or so would be (though not the order), because they just stood out so much from the rest. </p>

<p>She made a lot of friends up there, which is one of the reasons that it bothers me when I see people speculate about them without knowing them. And it bothers me to see the reputation of the Intel tainted, when there is so much incredible generousity on the parts of the adults involved, including the incredibly busy people who give up their time to judge the contest. </p>

<p>As for athletics, it probably would surprise you to know that D. and most of her friends were HS varsity athletes; that I'm thrilled for one of her pre-school playmates who is going to Cornell on a football scholarship; and that someone I once cared enough about to marry played college ball umptey-some-odd years ago. </p>

<p>I tend to be critical of athletics (NOT athletes) on CC because I hate what athletics does to a campus community and to the athletes themselves when programs are poorly run. I only brought athletes up in this thread, because it just seemed ironic to me that people seemed to be begrudging Shannon her Intel scholarship, given the much higher scholarships that are given out to athletes as a matter of course.</p>

<p>Mallomar, I don't know much about the #2 kid (or math, grin). But the selection of the 10 winners is mainly about overall scientific potential, not the project itself, so it isn't necessarily politics or sentiment that would cause a "better" project not to win. Most of the interviews are about specific sciences (biology, physics, e.g), so the #2 kid was obviously very good at math and science both. I think Shannon's project (and the math project, as well as the social sciences project this year) show that research doesn't have to be incredibly expensive or topically "hot" to do well.</p>

512

<p>I guess I should add that I didn't really start reading about the Intel till after D. was in DC for the finals. I felt awful about not being able to go up for the dinner that parents are invited to, so it was my way of keeping in touch with what was going on in her life while she was away having interesting adventures. </p>

<p>Before that I only knew the little that was posted on CC, which I found the night before the finals announcement. My "involvement" before that was pretty much limited to driving 100 miles round trip to mail her application, since the post office and Fedex weren't doing so hot down here at the time.</p>

513

<p>I don't get it. If we question the circumstances of one kid's attainment, it isn't an attack on the whole category - whether it is a science competition or athletics or test scores. </p>

<p>My daughter is a dancer. She has danced since early childhood and has participated in dance competitions and performed with professional companies - all for the sheer joy of her art. I am not a pushy parent, just an accommodating one -- but if someone complained about pushy or manipulative stage mothers, I wouldn't take offense. Not only would I understand that they weren't talking about me and mine -- I'd know instantly who they were talking about. Every studio my daughter ever attended had some: they would do anything they could to make sure their daughters were placed in the most advanced classes with the best teachers and were cast for the starring roles in studio shows, and if they didn't get their way they'd yank their kids out of that studio and find one that would meet their demands. I've seen it happen with kids who had talent, and whose training was probably undermined by the parent's constant interference, and I've seen it with kids who had very little talent and who were probably mortified by their mother's constant meddling. I vividly remember one mom who wouldn't allow a group photo of 15 kids to be taken unless her kid was seated front and center, actually pushing the photographer out of the way while she yanked her kid from the back row and rearranged all the others. </p>

<p>If you saw a performance where the prima ballerina seemed a little awkward for the part, and then later learned that she was the daughter of the studio owner -- I think it would be natural to question whether her connection influenced the casting. That wouldn't be an attack on every dancer, nor on every daughter of a dance teacher. </p>

<p>So why the defensiveness here? Are we to believe that no one who enters the Intel competition has ever gotten extra help from a parent, and that no parent has ever pushed a bright but lackluster kid to enter the competition? Intel only attracts pristine, entirely self-motivated kids interested in pure research? If that's the case, then the Intel competition would be unique among all competitive endeavors -- because generally whenever there is any sort of competition involving kids, there also seem to be some parents who pretty much take over the process and do whatever is in their power to ensure that their kid comes out on top. </p>

<p>That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have competitions or condemn them all.... but I sure don't understand the defensive reaction.</p>

514

<p>Calmom, it isn't about the individual Intel contestants. I live in an are where many of the kids make semi finalist status each year. That should have been a tip off on the nature of the competition. Before I moved here I knew very little about the competition other than its general aura of prestige. It was my naive understanding that this competition was a natural outgrowth of a process that kids very interested in science have an opportunity to enter. It is like many other highly competitive endeavors in that if a student is not in a system where the information is widely available for the competition, it does not happen. There are a number of programs like this--summer programs, competitions--the Olympiads, the language awards. It is very difficult for a high school kid regardless of how bright he is to even get a whiff of these things if the school is not aggressive about them, or the parent or other interested adult does not bring up the matter. In our district, as in many districts here, the Intel project starts years before the competition. Kids interested and showing promise in science (through some matrix like qualification for gifted programs) are assigned mentors, usually science professors at local research universities. Don't know if the profs get paid for this partnership, for it is an intensive commitment both on the part of the prof and the student. The project is often assigned, not selected out of interest of the student, though student participation in the choice varies. My son's friends all were assigned projects out of the blue totally selected by the mentor. Not to say that a random bright kid from anywhere can't enter the competition, but it is not a coincidence that the list of semi finalist has so many kids from this area that has this structured program. You can see what an advantage these kids have. They are already blessed with the brains, the school/school district that their parents have chosen is rich in these resources, not even mentioning the specific science mentor program, and they are put in a path that is made to directly end at the Intel competitions.<br>
That is not to say that other achievements are not so funneled by circumstance. Schools with excellent sports programs tend to get more kids who go on to college sports. Schools with more high achievers tend to get more NM finalists. Kids with parents who encourage, support (financially as well as spiritually, and often with directed expertise from the parent himself) ECs such as dance, music, anything that requires a sustained level of practice and progression in difficulty of instruction are competing with an elite group, namely those who have had the opportunity to make this commitment. And as Calmom so aptly put it, " whenever there is any sort of competition involving kids, there also seems to be some parents who pretty much take over the process".<br>
The Intel is different in that the top candidates, at least at the semi final level which is pretty far up there, and is where the kids get the kudos for elite college consideration, is not so much a parent driven thing---though I am sure that the super parent is behind some of those kids, it would be a shock if he were not, but that there is this premade pathway tha† certain schools have made to make it an overwhelming favorite that their kids are going to progress in this competition year after year. This is not an announcement or flyer or info given by the school but an extensive program beginning years before the program. That does bother people, given the impact that semi finaling in this program has on elite college admissions. These programs and mentors are well trained, not only in the art of research but in the specifics of what to do in order to win this particular contest. The top colleges tend not to give a whole lot of weight to things that can be "bought", and packaged, or so they say. The Intel process is very much packaged in certain schools, as packaged as any program can be. Therein lies the controversy, and I have to admit that when I found out how extensively these schools have involvement in this program and how much involvement some of those mentors have including the very choice of the project and the planning of the path specifically designed to hit the judging points in the contest, I was dismayed. See, I naively thought that the Miss America pagents, the Intel, the spelling bees, the Rhodes scholarship designation, were truly the result of something that the kids with the support of their parents, entered on a pretty equal footing. You should read about the Rhodes scholar prep programs some schools have now instituted, and it works. Again certain schools dominate the process that have this coaching for the kids. When I applied many years ago, it was all on the onus of the student. What a change.<br>
You cannot regulate the individual parents who are overbearingly pushy, and want to spend much of their resources on their kids' endeavors. That will always be there, and is also present in the Intel. It is the systematic programming that bothers me. Just as we have individual athletes who take illegal substances--and that cannot be controlled, we also have something more daunting which is when whole teams, country teams, systematically dope, the proof of which we saw with the East German Olympic women teams. Now that is too extreme of an example, as the system put into place for the Intel is not cheating, and does benefit all students in it, not just those who semi final. But it is the systematic part of the process that is bothersome.</p>

515

<p>Getting back to the packaging vs. preparation debate- in my book preparation is OK as long as the actual performance being judged is the student’s. Whether it’s downhill skiing, writing an essay, building a race car, whatever. Now sometimes it gets a little muddy when it involves a team effort. In that case, I would say that the leadership should be the student’s. Who led the team? Came up with the ideas/hypothesis? Who’s did the research, took the initiative, and so on. </p>

<p>As far as college apps go- my son wrote his own, which has been a source of consternation for me since he wasn’t successful getting into a few colleges that I thought he should have (he was in the 75%). We’ll never know. But he did do his essays and apps entirely on his own, and I know they weren’t the best since writing isn’t his strong point. At any rate, he’s having to do all those things on his own now, and I think he’s better prepared in the long run. Keeping up with college involves a lot of minutia- filling out papers, organizing notes, keeping up with deadlines. If a student is “above” all that in high school, how is he going to do a year later in college?</p>

516

<p>As a sidebar- Eagle Scouts and 2%…</p>

<p>I think the Pinewood Derby is singlehandedly the biggest contributor for the scouting attrition rate. My kids were scouts, and the first derby was an eye opener (sort of humiliating for my little boy whose car was abysmal). A year later, I caught my husband in the garage sanding and graphiting my son’s pinewood car. I said, “Dear, I think we need to get our sons into a different activity.” And we did.</p>

517

<p>Most of the highly packaged kids (maybe all) are very talented even when the bells and whistles are stripped. One very successful student I know, was an excellent writer, and wrote all of his essays, came up with all of the topics. But what distinguished him was that he was not only willing and eager to get criticism, he was wise enough to know how to make his changes. Grammatical and spelling errors, awkward sentences, something that is not clear, are all things that another pair of eyes can screen. Even the best writers can use some help in that area. Learning when and how to accept help is important too since there can come a time when it can be valuable.</p>

518

<p>Doubleplay, My son's Cub Scout Troop had a special Derby heat for family members so that the dads could build and race their own cars.</p>

519

<p>motherdear,
What a great idea! Did it reduce parent's involvement in building their own kid's cars?</p>

520

<p>honestly --I think what you describe for Intel is applicable to the entire admissions process. In general one needs sophistication to navigate elite college admissions. We have many student-gems in our state universities --especially the honors colleges-- who just did not game the system. You may need talent to get to the top but talent's not all of it. Everyone knows that. Why pick on Intel?</p>