Growing Homogeneity Concerns Admissions Officials

Applying to College
21

<p>No, I’m with you on that, kyle. I think the fact that we are becoming more “known” means that more people are thinking about our school in a way that they weren’t a few years ago. It seems like there’s a lot of demand for Chicago in a way that wasn’t really so in the year I applied or the years before me, either because Chicago was perceived negatively, or that it wasn’t on the east coast, or that it wasn’t seen as a “good” school, or whatever. From what I can gather, this rise in interest is sincere, and the kids who end up a) being admitted, and b) considering the school seriously are the kinds of people I want to go to school with.</p>

<p>It was this news article that gave me that perspective:
[Chicago</a> Maroon | Prospective students judge evolving admissions process](<a href=“http://www.chicagomaroon.com/online_edition/news/2007/04/20/prospective-students-judge-evolving-admissions-process/]Chicago”>Prospective students judge evolving admissions process – Chicago Maroon)</p>

22

<p>Now they want quirky? Since when? They are the ones selecting based on rank, GPA, scores… If you ask me, they’re getting exactly what they’ve asked for.</p>

23

<p>I’m surprised no one has mentioned that the moronic prof. draws a direct inverse relationship between being smart and quirky. In other words, the smarter a student, the less quirky they are. That is one of the stupidest things I’ve heard in weeks, and coming from an English professor nontheless. Intelligence and quirkiness are directly related to each other? Only less intelligent people are quirky? Even IF there was a published paper “proving” this, I would find it dubiious. For a school that prodes itself on “not judging”, this is a pretty strong stereotype!</p>

24

<p>

</p>

<p>Um, I think the professor was saying it not on an individual basis, but on a class basis…</p>

25

<p>Ya, I know what she was saying…as a group, the smarter the students the less quirky the are, in the aggregate. Still a dumb thing to say.</p>

26

<p>How do you measure quirky?</p>

27

<p>It’s a shame, because I think " academically elite" high school students really are becoming more homogenous in the sense we’ve all attained the same sorts of awards, have similar EC’s & community service activities, and (of course) very high GPA’s, but what can really be done? It’s not as though colleges are going to lower their standards to attract a different type of person, and I doubt the average applicant is going to sabotage his chances of getting in by veering away from what he thinks colleges want in an attempt to seem more “quirky”. They got what they asked for.</p>

28

<p>If I understand it, I think the statement is neither stupid nor moronic, though I agree that there are likely to be no studies justifying it. You don’t have to posit that intelligence is positively or negatively correlated with quirkiness to believe their statement. It could be either or neutral and still be true.</p>

<p>As the game of getting into college has become much more competitive, places like Colorado College have gotten many more applicants and undoubtedly do a screening based upon tests and board scores. More Honors/AP course are given weight. Students respond to incentives. They invest more time in the things that get measured. They invest less time in things that are not measured. That is, they hue to the straight and narrow a little bit to a lot more. Mike Spence won a Nobel Prize in Economics for working this out in detail. Some of the things they are investing less time in are things that would mark them as quirky. So, the students they actually look and probably behave in a manner that would seem less quirky (and probably become less quirky as a consequence). Moreover, students who might be called quirkier who choose not to over-invest in the measurable grades/board scores probably have a harder time getting admitted. I’m not sure how easy it would be develop a study to test the hypothesis.</p>

<p>The students and their parents respond to their perceptions of what admissions committees want. There was a period in which people who went off for a summer and did humanitarian work in Nicaragua or Botswana got a big bump in admissions. The Wall Street Journal described this in an article. Thereafter, colleges began to see a huge upswing in applicants who’d gone on foreign do-gooding junkets. This became passe (everybody does that, or at least the rich ones, and so it doesn’t tell us anything about whether the kid did it to get into college or because of his/her compassion) and it won’t get you in and might even hurt. A certain amount of community service has become de rigeur. The minimal amount of effort in various dimensions has ratcheted up with the increasing competition. As such, there is less time for pursuits off the beaten path. Rather than moronic or stupid, given the increasing competition, basic economic logic seems consistent with their observation. The only thing that seems wrong is the inference people on this board seem to be drawing is that Colorado College thinks that quirkiness is negatively correlated with SAT scores or intelligence. At least in the article, they don’t seem to be saying that. What they are saying is that an admissions process that relies heavily on these metrics does seem to be selecting for kids who are good at jumping through whatever hoops are presented but may not be creative thinkers. As I argued above, I think that comes both from self-selection (“I’m going to pursue my interest in X even if it hurts my grades or SATs”) and the influence of one’s choices on what one values and becomes (“By virtue of working extremely hard to get top grades in all of his courses including his 9 AP courses, putting in 250 hours per year into pro forma community service projects, being president of the National Honor Society, etc., Johnny spent a lot less time than he would have writing electronic music or reading about chaos theory and its implications, and, as a result of four years with nose firmly fixed to the grindstone, became a more ‘straight and narrow’ kind of person.”) Either way, schools see that effect. At the very top end, you can find exceptional people who play both games well. The Boston Globe just ran an article on someone we know who is both a rising geneticist and who also writes and performs rock music. [See [Infectious</a> melodies - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2008/06/14/infectious_melodies/?page=1]Infectious”>http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2008/06/14/infectious_melodies/?page=1) )]. But, I think most people have to choose where to allocate their efforts to succeed at a high level.</p>

<p>My daughter attends a private school that once once a girls school. It had an artsy focus and still is superb in arts, dance, etc., but admitted boys and started to be more concerned about sports. Over time, it became one of the more sought-after private schools in our area. Much more competitive getting in, and likely the students have better middle school grades and SSAT scores. I’ve heard the same lament from some of the teachers and even some of the seniors – we don’t have as many of the quirky kids. [I think the students use different words, but the thought expressed is similar].</p>

29

<p>Always thought William & Mary did a good job not being too focused on the numbers. Cant get more quirky than Jon Stewart and Bill Lawrence( creator of Scrubs. the main characters are based on W&M friends)</p>

30

<p>"If I understand it, I think the statement is neither stupid nor moronic, though I agree that there are likely to be no studies justifying it. "</p>

<p>Ok, show me any good reason believe that dumber people are more quirky than smarter people. I’m using dumber and smarter in a relative sense, meaning if your relatives are dumb, you are too…no just kidding. Did that joke make me quirky???</p>

31

<p>being quirky is risky. in today’s competitive admissions environment, people are too scared. At least if you focus on good grades and test scores, you are playing it safe</p>

32

<p>

</p>

<p>I think you’re using “dumb” and “smart” in an erroneous way. Creative, quirky people are less likely to conform to and be accurately measured by standard tools such as GPAs and SATs. That doesn’t make them dumb, just less likely to rank highly when measured on those particular scales.</p>

33

<p>I’m not as sophisticated as all of you by a long shot, but I’d like to put in my 2 cents, if you don’t mind. There is a type of behavior that I have seen at our high school from those students who looked great on paper. They had great grades, great SATs/ACTs, and numerous ECs and astounding resumes. However if you dig deeply, they took credit, stole accomplishments and took ideas from other “quirky” students who didn’t care to play those games. The quirky kids were all over whatever project they were working on. The kids who worked at the resumes, cared deeply about the resume, and many times signed up and didn’t show up. Observers on the sidelines called these kids “resume padders”. In defense of these kids, the parents were putting untold pressure on them. So some of these schools are not getting the great students they think they are getting. By omitting the “quirky kids” they are losing some of the very best kids. Resume padders were some of the worst kids, but god they looked great on paper. Did any of you see this?</p>

34

<p>osage, “over-investing” in measured credentials could easily involve taking credit for others efforts if that taking credit is not discernible by colleges. We have seen a little of that, but certainly of good college admissions results by kids who looked good on paper but did not seem that strong to my son. For example, his partner got A’s, but typically at the lower end of the range, in most courses, was a captain of the track time and was good but generally not recruited, but took credit for his successes with my son until the judges actually told my son that they almost lost because of his partner who wasn’t nearly as good or nearly as prepared. But this kid can put on his resume this success and got into one of the very top LAC’s. He’s a really nice guy and I asked my son why he got in to that LAC and he said, “Well, he looks really good on paper.” [No sour grapes here, as my son is applying to college next year.]</p>

<p>As I said in my earlier post, I think that the increasing competition screens out quirkiness by self-selection (the quirky kids choose to pursue their interests and not invest in grades/SATs/other measurable criteria) and molding (by keeping their nose to the grindstone, students lose some of their quirkiness). osage’s point is also relevant – over-investing in measurable criteria will mean that some students take credit for the efforts of others, if that misappropriation of credit can’t be observed by adcoms.</p>

<p>I suspect that there is one additional way in which the increasing reliance on easily measurable criteria for screening reduces what we might call quirkiness. Grades/SATs as a screen tend to emphasize one kind of intelligence – reading/writing/linear thinking. Some of the really creative people in history have not been strong on reading/writing/linear thinking but have been intellectually brilliant and creative. However, such people might fare poorly in today’s college admissions. Examples include Edison and Einstein, but also John Bardeen, who won two Nobel Prizes in Physics (one for the practical contribution of the invention of the transistor, shared with two others, and one for theoretical developments in the theory of superconductors). Bardeen was apparently so slow that he could answer very few questions when asked but would come back the next day with deep, thoughtful answers. It’s not clear how he’d fare in today’s highly competitive high school classroom, in which producing large volumes of work quickly is valued highly. For more typical folks, only the brighter kids can perform the volume of work quickly at high quality levels, so our system provides one decent measure of ability for typical kids. But, it probably works poorly, perhaps very poorly, for other types of minds. To the extent that the Edisons, Einsteins and Bardeens would be considered quirky, the increasing attention schools have had to give to grades/SATs/other measurable criteria to manage the substantial growth in applications (Harvard going from 18,000 to 28,000 from 2006 to 2008 and 2006 was hardly uncompetitive) has probably disproportionately decreased the admissions rate of quirky kids.</p>

35

<p>wow - that post a couple of pages back by fishnchips was super and mirrored my thoughts to a “t.” thanks</p>

36

<p>I think Shawbridge hit the nail on the head:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course quirky kids aren’t “dumber” than the 2400 SAT (or straight A) golden kids, but they are probably less interested in playing the game. Independent thinkers, to a fault.</p>

37

<p>But there are some schools who recognize the “quirky” and are glad to have them! I believe Carleton is known for their smart and quirky student as well as Cornell College in Iowa. I mention them as I am familiar with those schools. Smart and quirky are not mutually exclusive. Have a friend’s daughter who was a TAG student but only performed well in classes she liked and underperformed in those she felt were “stupid”. She is now a very successful student at Cornell College. I applaud the fact that admissions staff recognize the need to build a diverse campus.</p>

38

<p>Oh NorthMinasota this is strange! The kid who was the worst “Resume-padder” at our high school was given a full ride to Carlton College. He was the straight A/ great SATs kid and literally stole a very large and successful idea from a great kid who just wanted to benefit some orphans in Africa. She told me confidentially what had happened. But her parting words were: “I don’t give a damn about taking credit for the idea, but I will direct and make sure the project gets done the right way. I have a million of those ideas in my head and he had to steal it.” I never saw the Carlton kid at the project again. When I ask where he was, I was told he was the liaison between the teachers and the students. The Carlton kid got his name and picture in the city paper and in the school yearbook.</p>

39

<p>It seems as though all the students at the top college are cut from the same cloth. Admitting junior college transfers helps bring in some more diversity.</p>

40

<p>fishnchips writes:
“Just the other day I was picking up my kid during exam week in high school and saw a bunch of black kids hanging around waiting for their rides. They were listening to rap music, had their pants down to their knees with their shirts off and their underwear showing…in fact their entire buttocks showing. Now what is the likelihood those kids are applying to Duke, Wake, UNC, Vanderbilt or even a lower ranked state university? Nil. What is the likelihood they will go to college, or finish if they even get in? I hesitate to give conjecture on that.”
It’s always the “black kids,” right?
Here’s what I suggest. Go to netflics and get a copy of “Birth of a Nation.” You might learn something about how fear of black masculinity has a long history in our country.
This is the worst kind of bigotry: crass and ugly generalizations.
Shame on you</p>