<p>Looks like Harvard hit the math and science kids pretty hard this year. There are a bunch of top tier RSI, Intel, and Siemens kids deferred, more than usual it seems. It could be that the future of grooming top applicants will now include a trip to the humanities side.</p>
<p>Still trying to figure out "the magic formula" ?? My guess is with the increase in desired economic diversity they just ran out of room for all the perfect scholars.</p>
<p>Bandit, I sure hope that is not what is next. The idea of grooming is not where it is at. Be who you ARE. That's my "nugget".</p>
<p>
[quote]
My guess is with the increase in desired economic diversity they just ran out of room for all the perfect scholars.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you saying that the stat pool will decline and the Pell Grant #s will go up??</p>
<p>We all know that grooming is going on in a great percentage of the applicants. It just looks like the numbers of near perfect math and science kids is way out of proportion to the balance of the class.</p>
<p>Considering that Harvard is expanding into Allston for the sake of doing more rather than less science, I don't think that the deferral of math science applicants is for the sake of the humanities (whose profs are quite concerned about the future of their disciplines). I suspect that most of those deferred math/science types will get in RD. It looks like the Admissions Office wants to reduce the proportion of students admitted EA (from 885 to 800 this year).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Be who you ARE. That's my "nugget".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Soozie, couldn't agree with you more! I think your kids and mine were very lucky to grow up in towns where the whole 'grooming' concept was non-existent. It seems that the real lesson from these results and all the admissions blogs threads is that trying to guess and groom is, for most students, going to be a futile exercise, so why not just be themselves?</p>
<p>I hope it's an indication that RSI and Siemens are no longer a guaranteed ticket into Harvard, as they represent a very small proportion of the brightest kids in the country. I think Harvard is beginning to embrace diversity.</p>
<p>I just feel bad for a top math kid, who LOVES math, and who perhaps has done the analysis....and understands that being a top RSI is a lock on Harvard. Now they hit that year where it does not prove true. </p>
<p>I agree completely with the premise that a kid needs to be who they are.... but, what if who you are is math? or science? and you are the best of the best? that is not enough in today's admissions process. The allocation of slots is so much more complex, the diversity of apps so overwhelming, especially with the increased awareness of globalization. I think it is very difficult for a kid to understand exactly who the competition is......and what it takes to overcome all hurdles to "winning" a seat at the end of the day. I do not think I could ever encourage a kid to "want" Harvard because I think it is just tooo much pressure for an undergraduate experience. For kids who do choose it, and make it, then, that is wonderful.</p>
<p>While I too, was very surprised to see a couple of top Seimens/RSI kids deferred on the Harvard forum, I remembered that 1. All of the top 5 national Seimens winners applied EA to Harvard--I'll bet dollars to donuts that most got in. 2. this years Intel finalists haven't even been announced; out of the 40, typically more than half list Harvard as their 1st choice. So, I am certain that Harvard has already selected some of the very most outstanding math/science prodegies, and they know that they will have many more to pick from in the RD round.</p>
<p>Garland, my kids grew up in a town where grooming is the fashion (sorry for the bad pun) and we just ignored it.... so even kids who hear and see the pressure can be immune from it.</p>
<p>It starts early... mine came home from kindergarden and colored at the kitchen table instead of doing the frenzied rounds of lessons and sports; they played outside instead of working with coaches and wearing uniforms; we went to library for recreation instead of doing gymnastics (the rage here right now, even for 5 year olds).</p>
<p>Nobody got groomed for nothing; nobody filled a "slot"; I worked full time and just didn't have the bandwidth to plan activities in addition to getting the laundry done and dinner on the table. Somehow they got into college although my neighbors were incredulous that kids with so few accomplishments could make it through HS let alone into competitive U's.</p>
<p>The bonus-- none of us seems burned out right now. HS was not a treadmill that we're happy to be done with; college is a wonderful journey; nobody had to be a Renaissance Man at age 18.</p>
<p>I salute you, Blossom; it had to be that much harder, when all around you, frenzy was the norm.</p>
<p>Ah, coloring at the kitchen table; you just don't hear about that much any more.</p>
<p>There ws an article in the NYT yesterday about infants and toddlers sitting in front of computer screens doing (becoming?) Baby Einstein programs, and the like. I still maintain that few toys are as good for a kid's mental development as a set of wooden blocks.</p>
<p>I contend that RSI does not represent the best of the best. It represents the best of a priveledged pool. Just because you attend a NE high school that promotes RSI and science competitions doesn't mean you are necessarily smarter than the kid in podunk high school that never heard of it. Harvard could fill their class with RSI and Siemens kids, but it wouldn't be very diverse class.</p>
<p>Garland...smiling about the blocks...we had the whole wooden set, still do. </p>
<p>Maineparent, I get your point but the only part I disagree with is that the student should not be too consumed with doing an "analysis" along the lines of, if I do X, it's a lock in getting into Harvard. These students who won these prestigious awards are likely brilliant and VERY deserviing. Hopefully they did not do these competitions to get into Harvard but because they are very into math and science. My feeling is that because they are such strong students, they WILL go to a very selective school, just can't predict which one. What they did was not in vane, if what they did was cause they wanted to anyway. If they are brilliant and high achievers, they are bound to go some place great. Nobody is a lock on Harvard and there really shouldn't be a "If I do X, I'll get into Harvard" way of thinking. Do X, make X great, and you'll have good opportunities down the line. That's how I think about it. Yes, it is mind boggling to see these very accomplished kids get turned down or deferred at Harvard but it is not that shocking. NOBODY is immune to this phenomenom....any top kid may or may not get the nod at Harvard....but that same top kid who might be turned down is very likely to be IN some place else very great. That's why we see all the time, a top kid who got into Princeton but not Yale or Harvard or got into Harvard but not Princteon, or got into Yale but not Brown , etc. etc. </p>
<p>I think as long as someone is doing these sorts of things for the sheer motivation and interest whether or not they are going for Harvard or not, they'll be OK. They'll go somewhere good. Nothing is a "ticket" in. There are far too many kids with high credentials to all get the nod at any one single school. </p>
<p>Blossom, you are right that nobody HAS to be a Renaissance Man (or Woman) but if someone WANTS to be, that is a different story. I can say with certainty that my older D never chose anything to look good for college or with college in mind (other than doing her best in schoolwork), but she was a very active person, always was, always wanted to be, still is in college. Just to let you know, ironically ONE of her essays that dealt with her well roundedness and many interests, she actually titled "21st Century Renaissance Woman", :D. It simply is WHO she is, but never what she HAD to be. I can guarantee you that she, and my other D, would have done the very same things growing up even if they never applied to college.</p>
<p>That's why I was saying just be WHO you are, don't groom. However, like Garland says, the concept of grooming was foreign to my kids' experiences as it is NOT prevalent where we live. For that, I am thankful, though I do salute your kids, Blossom, for bucking any trends in their community and staying their own course.</p>
<p>Susan</p>
<p>Bandit, I agree with you that Harvard would not want to fill the class with RSI or Siemens kids as it would not be diverse so they take SOME of these kids. The ones they don't take, will surely be taken by some other very selective college. NOBODY can expect a nod at ONE particular elite college but a very highly qualified kid like the ones you are talking about, can be fairly confident that ONE selective school will take them, just not any one particular one.</p>
<p>For the record, until I read CC, I had never heard of RSI or Siemens, doubt kids in my neck of the woods would have either and we surely have kids who are bright in math and science here. </p>
<p>On a different note, my youngest won an award through the National Foundation for the Advancement in the Arts, in musical theater but I NEVER would have heard of this well known National Competition had I not read CC and then she entered it. She was the only winner in any of the approx. 12 categories (of about 6500 entrants) from our entire state whereas there are many winners from certain states and in some cases, from certain high schools.</p>
<p>No grooming in my town. It's a highly educated town, with what are said to be good schools. I doubt anyone has ever heard of Siemens or RSI. None of the test-prep companies even have an outlet. We routinely have valedictorians or near-valedictorians with 1600 SATs (old) who get rejected at HYP, or, occasionally, one gets accepted and then goes to BYU. The ticket to HYPS from here is, routinely, athletics - virtually nothing else seems to matter.</p>
<p>"There are a bunch of top tier RSI, Intel, and Siemens kids deferred, more than usual it seems."</p>
<p>The adcoms might have read the lengthy debate on CC about the validity and integrity of a number of awards. If I remember correctly, there were numerous stories of winners having received massive help from local universities or high schools with extensive facilities. It also seemed that the competitions that started at an early age were more or less ruined by a variance of the "helicopter parents."</p>
<p>Maybe this is the sign of a return to normalcy that most of us have been waiting for.</p>
<p>Xiggi, yeah, maybe when an adcom/rep has read app after app of kids who did these top well known things, they start getting immune to it, and it doesn't look so "special" after a while.....like "oh, another Siemens....what else do we have here?...let's look..." LOL. But really, maybe they get refreshed when they find some kid from some unknown place or did some really cool thing and it's not same old same old that they have 50 others who did. Not knocking these very accomplished winners, but at places like Harvard, they get a LOT of them all applying to the same college, and so in a way, they don't stand out, as weird as that may seem. If these winners applied to some place like Tufts, then they WOULD stand out. Just a thought. </p>
<p>Susan</p>
<p>Is it possible that the RSI/Siemens/Intel kids figured they were slam-dunks and put little effort into their applications?</p>
<p>DMD, I kinda doubt that. My guess is these are types that put lots of effort into things. But Harvard just cannot take lots of one type of student.</p>