<p>Sounds like he is now throwing himself into work after his fun year. Didn’t he do 13 or 14 classes in 11th grade?</p>
<p>Does he have a planned major? Any news on the CC celebrity silverturtle?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that teachers and GC at, oh, probably 28,000 of the nation’s 30,000 high schools aren’t well informed. But all one has to do is look at the acceptance rates that are, what, 7% or whatever, and know that perfect SAT-plus-president-of-French-Club isn’t cutting it. Unless these students seriously think that the applicant pool to Harvard looks exactly like their entire high school pool.</p>
<p>^ OTOH, if he wrote a book in french and sent it to the french departments, he might have a better shot at the Ivies. :p</p>
<p>Yes, Texaspg, he took 9 classes sophomore year (high school, college, and online), then taught himself 4 more subjects for the AP test (three 5’s and a 4 on those). So pushing his limits is in his DNA. Fortunately, he always has the option of dropping a class if he over-reaches.</p>
<p>My son plans to major in computer science/applied math with a possible additional major in physics – the lighter BA rather than the BS. In the end, it won’t matter much if he has the actual physics double-major or just extra quantitative work on his record. He just likes real-world math problems and physics provides plenty of that.</p>
<p>Silverturtle is also at Brown, I believe. Princeton was his first choice, but he never got off the waitlist.</p>
<p>
I agree with this perception as well–and I think it’s this that causes dismay among many parents, especially those who come from other countries where admissions are based on high-stakes testing alone.</p>
<p>The supersmart student who uses all his free time for activities and research is hardworking. He just happens to be supersmart, too.</p>
<p>^ Isn’t that a way colleges are figuring out they might be smart, i.e., they are doing well in school but also are involved in a bunch of activities which require a lot of time?</p>
<p>Good time to introduce athletes here. If they are reasonably good academically while spending 20 hours a week fulfilling their athletic responsibilties, isn’t that considered supersmart?</p>
<p>If you define “reasonably good” as “within or exceeding some reputable college’s admissions standards”, then of course.</p>
<p>But generally the “reasonably good” bar is lowered at reputable just for 20-hours-a-week athletic participation and achievement and not 20-hours-a-week someotheractivity involvement and achievement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Calmom, I think you are really Cal NEWPORT incognito! That is the exact premise of his book (which I loved and recommend regularly on these forums) called “How to Be a High School Superstar: A Revolutionary Plan to Get Into College By Standing Out (Without Burning Out)”.</p>
<p>Two examples from our high school-one supersmart kid, all of his "EC"s were academic related, no sports, sang in the high school choir though-national Science Olympiad finalist, etc., etc., etc. 4.0/perfect ACT and SAT, National Merit Finalist Got in at ONE school that was Ivy level, MIT, (but no Ivy’s) and our state flagship. Next year, pretty smart kid 3.8 GPA 34 ACT, didn’t take SAT. Got into Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Dartmoth, Cornell, Notre Dame, Stanford, MIT and a smattering of other schools, including our flagship. He was a 3 sport athlete, best on site for state solo contest in band and choir (trumpet and tenor in choir). Supersmart kid seemed like a “shoe-in” for every school except that he wasn’t well rounded enough and lacked social skills. Pretty smart kid is everyone’s dream son-in-law :D, poised, respectful, just an all around great kid. Not sure when he slept in high school though :D.</p>
<p>And again, that’s because - to calmom’s point - there ws something in the way that kid #2 presented himself that was interesting.<br>
It’s annoying to see how people seem to think that there are points that are granted, and he-who-gets-the-most-points-gets-in (not saying you said that, SteveMA). There aren’t “more” points given for Science Olympiad than class president. It’s rather like picking a date - you don’t assign x points for brown hair and y points for a good figure - it’s the totality of the whole picture that is either appealing and differentiating, or it’s not.</p>
<p>This makes me think of a recent Ivy presentation ds and I attended. A girl asked the question how important are ECs because she is taking a lot of APs and is a really serious student and gives all her attention to her academics and doesn’t have time for multiple AP classes AND ECs. I thought ds was going to jump across the two rows that separated us and throttle her.</p>
<p>There are points, though. At least at Duke. Check out the book Admissions Confidential.</p>
<p>Each factor is rated on a scale of 1-5. Those with really high sums are auto-admits and those with really low ones are auto-denies. There definitely ARE more points given for national science olympiad than class president. I’d bet a week’s pay that there are, and that points are used.</p>
<p>I don’t think you’re hearing the difference between having an AREA (academics, EC’s, etc.) rated on a scale of 1 - 5 and having actual ACTIVITIES rated (lead in school play is x points, class president is y points, etc.).</p>
<p>And there are absolutely valedictorians, 4.0’s, 2400’s, etc. who are turned down from Duke and similar caliber schools. You KNOW this. This isn’t new news. </p>
<p>Look, anyone who has ever hired has done this. You look across a multitude of different areas to form a holistic picture of the person. Sometimes some factors come to the top, other times other factors come to the top. The whole point is to balance the entire class / organization, not every single person. It’s done every single day in the business world, so why everyone acts as though there is some formula and all they have to do is identify and crack the formula is beyond me. No, Philovitist, there is not some magical formula that guarantees admission to Duke. And frankly if there is - it’s along the lines of parent on the board of trustees who has engaged in significant fundraising (I know such a parent, who has two kids at Duke - fancy that), and is not at all dependent on whether you were #2 or #10 in the state in your sport or whether you got an A- or B+ in junior year French.</p>
<p>^Absolutely. And there’s a huge difference between the class president who writes an essay about what they accomplished (or about whom the GC talks about real accomplishments) versus the run of the mill class president. </p>
<p>I don’t think any of the elite colleges really have a point system as described. There are also things out of a candidate’s control - you can’t have a National award from Science Olympiad unless you have a strong team behind you. Both my kids got state level medals, but the team was never good enough to go to Nationals.</p>
<p>What I think kids underestimate is the value of activities that their friends have that they don’t even know about. Everyone knew my older son was a computer whiz, but I don’t think his friends had a clue that he’d been acknowledged in a published paper, or the kind of paid work he’d done. Even my younger son didn’t take his origami habit seriously. It started off as a way to keep from falling asleep in AP Biology. By the time senior year rolled around, he’d done more with it than he realized. Both kids may well have gotten top marks for ECs, but neither of them were school based or done with any intention to look good for colleges.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I didn’t say there was a magic formula. But I am saying that if you get enough points, you will be an auto-admit. It’s a fact straight from the horse’s mouth. </p>
<p>It’s just that a good portion of those points are personal qualities. It is the PQs that admissions counselors grade to make sure that really unique kids get admitted and boring kids don’t. </p>
<p>Selective admissions counselors do look at applications holistically, sure, but that doesn’t mean that they also don’t look at it systemically. They do. They have to.</p>
<p>(The elite colleges do have a point system as described.)</p>
<p>Of course, elite colleges don’t look at applications in the same way, but they’re probably similar.</p>
<p>Philo,
The book, * Ivy+ Analytics for the Fox Parent * was linked to in some of the posts and it described a point system ( Academic Index) but one that also awarded points for ECs and awards ( more for National and higher level ones like Siemens or Olympic level athletes) and plotted on an X-Y axis so it wasn’t cut and dry but nuanced as to who had a better chance of admission.
It did a pretty good job of explaining why the 2400 4.0 could sometimes be rejected if they didn’t bring anything else to the table while a statistically inferior student might be offered admission if they had the unique ECs or other things that made them stand out. Essentially, everything that has been posted here in this thread…</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure adcoms weight certain accomplishments and activities than others. Compare an IMO medalist to a kid on his school’s math team or an truly passionate kid who’s been doing research for most of HS and done competitions vs a student who does gruntwork for 1 summer and doesn’t really care about science and does it just for apps.
There’s a difference there that stands out. </p>
<p>Of course, people get looked at as the sum, but being standout in 1 area is similar to the date analogy- a person with one really great feature might make that person more “attractive” to certain “people”(schools). A friend that interviews and works in admissions told me that schools want a well rounded class, not always a well rounded person. That’s not to say well rounded people who are just awesome and fun are in the wrong and have no chances, but the percentage of admits is probably lower.</p>
<p>Cal Newport has the right strategy, IMO. Focus on a few things that you desperately care out and do well there and in that way- also enjoy life and be happy, instead of loading up on APs and school clubs that you don’t really enjoy or care for. Very good writer!</p>
<p>A lot of this conversation seems limit elite or "tippy top"schools to MIT and the IVIES.There are many schools that provide an undergrad education equal to or superior to the aforementioned i.e Williams, Amherst,CalTech,Wellesley etc.Let’s broaden our students horizons.</p>