Family Gets Lesson in Admissions

Parents Forum
641

<p>


Yes, conyat. But in the context of this thread I am saying (without limiting the general) they should consider the relationship of the parent to the research , or the kid's school to the research, or the research opportunities to the research. If every year several kids from the same school get big awards from intel, and some kid comes through from Bugtussle with an intel award, well- I'd say bump her up. The reverse also seems appropriate, at least to me. </p>

<p>And calmom, as I would have thought my post made clear, I know perfectly well when schools consider class rank in admissions and what they have to go on when they do . It was the posts saying val status or #1 rank wasn't considered or considered important by top colleges that I responded to with the data. But , I agree that our one trick pony has stirred the pot. Sometimes with posters like that I feel I'm playing whack-a- mole. Very frustrating.</p>

642

<p>
[quote]
he took a bunch of college courses, most of which ended up on his transcript as Pass/Fail

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Isn't it funny how GPA works sometimes? When our district first adopted mildly weighted grades, the kids who picked up a high school credit or two in junior high ended up with lower GPAs than the kids who didn't, because they had more unweighted grades to dilute the weighted ones.</p>

643

<p>Cur:</p>

<p>As I posted, the data you dug up is very convincing. But we all know cases where a holitic review of the app shows that an applicant has achieved more than the typical sal or val. So it's not an either/or proposition. For applicants with the conventional high school career, being a val or sal is a definite advantage; but many applicants to top colleges do not have conventional high school careers.</p>

644

<p>marite, agreed but the numbers show, conventional or unconventional , the top schools like vals more than sals, sals more than everybody else. I have yet to see a school that doesn't report number of valedictorians to somebody for publication. As I said before a few posts back - if y'all have the numbers , show me the school that prefers by the percentage acceptance rate, non-vals to vals. Until then, my points stand.</p>

<p>Some like to think that top schools look for the extraordinary activities - well, not always. If you can do what some consider ordinary student things extraordinarily well , you can get there, too . That's been my message on this board for a long time. </p>

<p>As the numbers show, being val or #1 at admissions time is one of those things they look for in a student. No research required. No world class artistic talent. No publications. No patents. Just do what students do all over America and do it at the very tip top level of achievement while doing EC's that show your nature . That and great essays and rec's , a good list , and you can find a spot at any college "and don't let anybody tell you any different".</p>

645

<p>


I don't have any idea what you mean by the typical val or sal. Do you mean brilliant , articulate, and gorgeous? Gifted , athletic, and generous? I would assume they are as different and individual as any other applicants are , it's just they succeeded at a difficult long term task that others couldn't accomplish, or didn't choose to participate in. (Kind of like intel. ;) )</p>

<p>Are you suggesting there is a typical val? What charectoristics does this kid have?</p>

<p>Just for fun, I'll tell you that our district in Texas had three schools finish very high in the girls basketball playoffs. All 3 teams had senior starters that were captains of their teams and the valedictorians of their schools. And all 3 are gorgeous to boot. I really like it when kids bust through labels and expectations others place on them.</p>

646

<p>


And before I get zinged, I said "can" find a spot not "will" . Selective college admissions are just that - selective . My point was to say that "you are not excluded from the selection process" , not that anything is a certainty.</p>

647

<p>Cur:
I was vague, I admit. For the purpose of this discussion, ECs (and looks) are irrelevant).</p>

<p>A "typical val or sal" is one who has taken the most rigorous curriculum at the high school, including APs or IB, and has received the highest grades. An unconventional student is one like my S who did not receive the highest grades in high school classes but took a slew of advanced college courses. I wish I could say that my S excelled at basketball or at music or at any other kind of EC, but the truth is that his accomplishments are entirely academic in nature. My S was admitted to the two colleges to which he applied solely on the basis of his academics, which, from the point of view of GPA alone, would never put him in the running for val or sal.<br>
We know that HYPSM reject plenty of vals and sals and admit plenty of students who are not vals and sals. So HYPSM do not prefer vals or sals "over anybody else." I would not be surprised in fact if they actively sought out students who have been homeschooled. I know Stanford has a special section in its admission website for homeschoolers.</p>

648

<p>Curmudgeon, I know that students do not need to be published novelists or Intel award winners to get into an Ivy -- I know many "ordinary" high ranking students who get into top schools. But what concerns me .... and I think this gets to the heart about what bugs me about the USA Today article ... is that we are in an environment where kids and their families are led to think that they need super-star level accomplishments to get in. An article that highlights the fact that an Intel-award winning Eagle Scout who is class valedictorian got rejected by Princeton without also giving more info about the admission process leads other kids to think that they do need superstar credentials. They tend to think that they need to outdo the accomplishments of the rejectees if they are even to have a chance. </p>

<p>Look at the "parents, please help me deal with mine!" thread. There is a kid who is working herself to death, and part of her rationale was, if she can't handle the load now, how will she ever survive at an Ivy? That's why it concerns me when a kid like that is too busy with her EC's to do minor household chores, or parents say that their kids are too busy to have time to fill out the college apps. I don't see a voice of reason telling kids to take a breather or slow down. Instead I see an escalation of pressure. </p>

<p>A large number of threads started on this board seem to be from kids or parents who are afraid that dropping an AP class or a sport will hurt their chances for college admission, or kids retaking SATs that are already extremely strong. So the competition gets revved up-- it doesn't matter what the college ad coms want or what their practices are -- it matters what the public perception is and how the prospective students and their parents respond. </p>

<p>I honestly don't see how kids find the time to do all the activities that I see typically listed on "chances" threads, coupled with the courseloads they are taking. Maybe if USA Today would focus on some kids with more typical profiles who did get into Ivies it would at least provide balance -- by "typical" I mean a kid with good grades, strong test scores, a reasonable number of ECs. Perhaps an article with a title like "6 kids who got into Harvard" with a variety of profiles of kids from different parts of the country and different backgrounds... but NOT the "All Star" winners. I don't know ...I'd just like to something that conveys the message that you said in your post, because I don't think that's the message that kids and their families are getting from the media.</p>

649

<p>
[quote]
I'd just like to something that conveys the message that you said in your post, because I don't think that's the message that kids and their families are getting from the media.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The message that colleges prefer vals and sals is one that students are very familiar with. Think Blair Hornstine.</p>

650

<p>Marite, I was referring to this statement:
[quote]
No research required. No world class artistic talent. No publications. No patents. Just do what students do all over America and do it at the very tip top level of achievement while doing EC's that show your nature . That and great essays and rec's , a good list , and you can find a spot at any college "and don't let anybody tell you any different".
Last edited by curmudgeon : Yesterday at 09:23 PM.

[/quote]

which should have been clear from the opening sentence of my post:
[quote]
I know that students do not need to be published novelists or Intel award winners to get into an Ivy -

[/quote]

And Blair Horstine's downfall was that she plagiarized columns she wrote, in an effort to pad her EC's with something impressive.</p>

651

<p>Calmom:</p>

<p>I wasn't thinking about Hornstine's downfall, but what got her there: her unwillingness to share val status with another student. Had she not made a fuss, her plagiarism would never have been detected.
At around that time, a student who graduated early from her high school and was already enrolled at Wesleyan sued to be val. Apparently, that status was determined at the end of junior year and she was on track to be val had she stayed in school.
One reason that schools do not rank or have multiple vals is precisely to avoid such ugly scenarios. GPAs--and hence val and sal status- are even easier to to game than Intel projects.</p>

652

<p>


Please have some more coffee this morning, marite.That's crazy talk. ;)</p>

653

<p>calmom, that was the best post (648) you have ever made. Please promise me that you'll continue fighting that battle.</p>

<p>All this extreme arms race stuff is just silly. Gaming research at daddy's lab. Dad's best friend prof, mentor, Svengali giving you some research project already lined out for you to robot through. Schools winning national awards time and again because folks cheat the system and it debases the accomplishments of the 4 kids in America who are truly doing research for the sake of research and not college admissions. O.K. Maybe it's 5. But it's not the several thousand who pretend to do so.</p>

<p>That scamming, propped up kid wouldn't last a week in a competitive setting. They'd eat him alive.</p>

<p>All that stuff is unnecessary, dangerous, and self-defeating and kids need to know that they don't have to buy in to what many on CC are selling, because it's not true. Kids, be yourselves. Don't buy into the hype.</p>

654

<p>And Blair did game the system- she pulled out of non-honors classes that were required of other students, and withdrew from the teacher who, as a policy, did not award A+’s, another advantage not afforded her competition.</p>

655

<p>Cur:</p>

<p>You are living up to your screenname today. Where do you get that I'm saying that vals are not capable of shining in non-academic pursuits?
I don't doubt for a minute that vals and sals are accomplished in many areas besides academics. But vals and sals are not chosen on the basis of their extra-academic achievements. That is all I am trying to say. The sal at my H is an accomplished musician. But music is not what got him the sal status. </p>

<p>When colleges choose vals and sals over others, they may do so because they're vals and sals, or they may do so because of a combination of academic and extra-academic achievements. </p>

<p>I've given you one datum: my S who was admitted on academics alone and was neither val nor sal. I can also point to at least three kids whose parents have been CC posters and who were homeschooled: no sal or val for them, but definitely academic superstars.</p>

<p>And since they were admitted to HYPSM while many vals and sals were rejected at those schools, they belong to the "anybody else" category I'm referring to.</p>

656

<p>I don't know Blair Hornstine, but she sounds like a kid who could have done well in intel if the Judge knew the right folks, doesn't she? Gamers game. That's what they do. What they choose to game ain't important. It's the character of the kid, and in that case -the family.</p>

657

<p>Yea, I'm a little enthused. I've had it with people running down ordinary super high accomplishment kids and pretending that academic only's , lopsided kids are what Yale wants. There's a data point for you. I have one, too. </p>

<p>And marite, you have been painting vals with a wide brush haven't you? And the Hornstine touch? That'll set somebody off. It was calculated to offend. And it did. </p>

<p>Look again at the MIT numbers , marite. They seem to love val's.</p>

658

<p>How have I been painting vals except to say that they have achieved academically? </p>

<p>YOU are the one who has been claiming that vals and sals are preferred by top schools. If you want to claim that Yale prefers vals and sals who have other accomplishments as well, I have no quarrel with that claim. </p>

<p>As for gaming GPAs, you should look at posts asking whether it is better to take class A over class B because class A is weighted but not class B, or posts lamenting that the val got to be val by taking easy classes for easy As.</p>

<p>Enough. Peace.</p>

659

<p>
[quote]
YOU are the one who has been claiming that vals and sals are preferred by top schools.

[/quote]
Not me , marite. The numbers the schools put out themselves show that val is the best single indicator for acceptance. Over 40% at some of the top schools. Does a dolt who games val have a chance? NO. But it is still a better indicator than anything else shown BY THE SCHOOLS.</p>

<p>And anyway, it's not a claim. The data is here that proved it at some schools (among the criteria the schools chose to divulge. There could be even better indicators BUT WE DON'T KNOW). As I said, someone show me a school that takes as a percentage acceptance rate less vals than #3's- top 5% and I'll be glad discuss the findings.</p>

660

<p>Curmudgeon--you are definitely barking up the wrong tree here, deliberately misrepresenting what Marite is saying. I don't even have to read back all the back and forth to know that, because I feel I know her--and you too, which is why I'm surprised you're reading her this way (after your other comments, especially).</p>

<p>No one, least of all Marite, is running down the kinds of kids you and Susan have. They are remarkable, extraordinary, accomplished young women, anyone can see, who deserve all the good that comes their way.</p>

<p>But their val status, though of course a very real accomplishment, is not nearly the most important thing about them, at least from what I know about them through the postings of their deservedly proud parents.</p>