<p>Today, if JHS’s wife could capture some of her “mut,” (the German word) in her application, I think reviewers would be delighted. </p>
<p>One of the ironies of these threads is that people think in finite terms. As if there really are limits and the qualities of being vibrant, engaged, open to new experiences or dedicated to something non-academic (crew, chorus, newspaper) and etc, necessarily push other tasks out of the way. These really bright kids express their competencies in many ways. </p>
<p>I don’t think that is quite the distinction I am making with regard to “entertainment,” Hunt #315 (nor Pinker, as I understand him). Are you saying that the intellectual content of performing in a choral group is the same as the intellectual content of an elective course in the history of China, or Japan, or India, or West Africa (for a STEM major, for example)?</p>
<p>I occasionally read serious books outside of my field. When I am doing that, I don’t really consider it “entertainment.” It is informative. It helps me to understand current world events better. Sometimes my reading also has some carry-over applications to situations that I encounter within my university. But it’s not “fun” in the way that hearing a symphony is “fun” for me. Listening to a symphony could well be “work” for a musician–I do not hear it in the same way that a musician would.</p>
<p>I put the PBS series on the Roosevelts largely in the category of “entertainment,” although there are some very interesting things I have learned from the first two parts of it.</p>
<p>Back to Pinker: I don’t doubt that there is work involved in being a member of a singing group. I know that Yale, for example, takes its singing groups seriously. However, I don’t think that performing with a singing group is comparable to taking courses outside of the major.</p>
<p>lookingforward, #320: Are you saying that being dedicated to crew does not necessarily push other tasks out of the way? Is time-transport involved, so that time on the river generates more than a 24-hour day?</p>
<p>Most of the HS classmates including those attending HYPS found the work, including STEM courses to be easier in terms of pacing and content. This was reflected in their GPAs, feeling more relaxed in college, and sometimes feeling they must increase their courseload to “make it feel like they’re in college” while continuing to happily partake in campus ECs/college social life on and off campus. </p>
<p>The only HS classmates who mentioned comparable or greater academic rigor/workload were those who attended colleges like UChicago, Caltech, Cornell, MIT, Reed, and Swat. </p>
<p>The salutatorian of my graduating HS class found he had much more free time at MIT majoring in EE to the point he was able to get at least 8 hours of sleep a day, never pulled an all-nighter, amazed his roommates at how many clubs/parties he attends, was a serious ladies man, and managed to graduate near the top of his class with a BS & MS within 4 years. Admittedly, he’s one of those genuine geniuses at my HS who was widely considered “scarily smart” in both HS and among his MIT peers. </p>
<p>On crew, specifically, H FAQs:
3. When is practice? Will I have to miss class?
Practice depends on when your classes end each day. That means you could be scheduled as early as 3:00pm or as late as 5:15pm but it will never be when you have a class and not longer than an hour and a half. You will be able to take any classes you want and still row.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>How long is practice?
Practice is about 90 minutes. Overall, you need to allow at about 2 hours a day. You will be able to get from campus to your boathouse, row, and get back to campus in 2 hours, easily.</p></li>
<li><p>Can I do anything else if I row besides going to classes?
All of the rowers and coxswains on the team go to classes, do well in their studies, have a social life, and are involved in other activities including, but not limited to The Crimson, student government, Marching Band and other musical groups, singing, and dancing groups, ROTC, jobs (library, mailroom, sports information, etc), ESL volunteers, IMs, research, tutoring, the list goes on.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>It’s impossible to field a competitive crew team on 90 minutes of practice a day, let alone one at Harvard level. It’s a minimum of 3 hrs of actual practice time, and on Saturday you will spend more time en route to competitions.</p>
<p>And I don’t understand the practice when you can rule in #3. The boat is one cohesive unit, moreso than any other team sport. Random substitutions would be really disruptive. </p>
<p>He teaches something that looks like Intro to Psychology (“PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE | Science of Living Systems 20”), Morality and Taboo, and Languages and Human Nature (open to advanced undergrads + graduates.)
Other than the name, I’m guessing the first class is intro to psych because Pinker taught the major intro class in cognitive science major at MIT for years.</p>
<p>I have absolutely no doubt this is true. On the other hand, I also have absolutely no doubt that it does not mean " . . . and still row in the Varsity A boat." The Harvard and Radcliffe crew teams have, um, boatloads of people, and not all of them are engaged in world-class competition all the time, or have the potential to be. Also, I don’t think that FAQ addresses early morning, pre-class conditioning, weight training, tank work, etc.</p>
<p>I know a kid who does row in the Varsity A boat, and who (as collegealum314 surmises) spends a lot more than 2 hours a day on the sport, and whose spring semester tends to be pretty overwhelming.</p>
<p>My basic point is that even if crew only takes 2 hours per day (and it looks as though competitive crew takes more time), that is definitely 2 hours per day that are taken away from other tasks. Or else from sleep.</p>
<p>Again, Pinker AGREES with you that it’s quite possible to be in crew or chorus and be an excellent student. He just doesn’ t think that the fact that you’re good at one of them should be taken into account in admissions decisions. He also thinks you ought to go to class rather than to practice or rehearsal or a competition or performance. He is NOT advocating “all work, all the time.” He is advocating doing all your course work instead of skimming the reading because you’ve got rehearsal for an a capella group. </p>
<p>I think Hunt is right in one thing he says about Pinker. I don’t think Pinker would be less concerned about Hunt junior focusing on musical performance because he ended up aiming for a professional career as a musician. I don’t think Pinker values musical or artistic talent as much as academic talent…or maybe he does, but he doesn’t think Harvard should focus on it. Instead, as I said before, he’d leave those kids to Julliard. </p>
<p>One of my kid’s good friends at a top college was probably in the middle of the class overall. (Top 30% or so are cum laude or better, and I know she wasn’t.) But she was an amazing artist, and graduated with distinction in her major. She’s making a living as a commercial artist. I suspect Pinker thinks she should have gone to Pratt or RISD. </p>
<p>Yes, you can row 2 hours a day and go to class and have a job, but while some of the students at H can do both and excel academically, many others get by but do not do as well as they would if they had more time to study. (And, you may be able to attend crew practice and go to class, but if you’re in a competition, you’re probably going to miss a class now and again.) I think the person who did ROTC AND crew must be darn near super human. That would be really, really hard. </p>
<p>At Yale, it’s not just the Whiffs who miss classes. There are lots of student actors and directors who miss lots of classes because it’s virtually impossible to schedule rehearsals at times when nobody has class–especially since there’s often a shortage of rehearsal spaces. </p>
<p>My own kid missed classes for an EC that involved a fair amount of travel. The desire to minimize doing so also affected the classes my kid chose. One of my kid’s classmates quit the same EC because he originally wanted to major in biology and being away from campus for the EC meant he could not do the lab work required. I know a football player in the class quit the team because he wanted to major in computer science. One of the required courses only had a a required section on Fridays, and the team bus often left before the class ended. He chose computer science, but he was forced to make a choice. </p>
<p>So are many other students at top colleges. </p>
<p>Somewhat relevant to the recent discussion: Dudley Herschbach, Harvard Nobel laureate in Chemistry (1986, shared with Yuan T. Lee) was a Stanford undergrad. He quit the Stanford football team because practices prevented him from taking lab classes.</p>
<p>His Nobel Autobiography includes the statements:
“Although I gladly played freshman football, I had turned down an athletic scholarship in favor of an academic one. This permitted me to give up varsity football after spring practice, in reaction to a dictum by the head coach that we not take any lab courses during the season. By then the lab and library already were for me much the more exciting playground.”</p>
<p>Interestingly, none of Herschbach’s “known relatives” had graduated from a university. He grew up in a rural area (rural then) a few miles from San Jose.</p>
<p>Not all of Pinker’s UG classes are open to all. Check that.</p>
<p>Jonri, at the point I wrote that, I was referring to some of our posters. One of the ways hs activities are relevant in admissions is that they do show that dreaded word, “rounding.” And that rounding, itself, shows some energy. When a college has 30-40,000 apps they can pick the ones who meet multiple needs, that simple.</p>
<p>I guess we can’t argue about kids’ time management skills and ability to focus, if it’s going to get down to I don’t think so versus I think so. And, I don’t find random stories from past decades as relevant as the fact that some kids clearly are able to manage academics and other.</p>
<p>For interest, Yale entices this way: Do you love rowing? Do you need to compete? Do you have fun under great pressure? Are you eager for hard work? Do you dare to test yourself in a public arena? Are you willing to take great risks? Are you willing to learn, to strive, to struggle, to fail, to persevere and to triumph? Can you measure up to what rowing for the Yale lightweight crew demands?</p>
<p>In many respects, as someone else noted, work skills under pressure, addl ways of self-testing and risk-taking, resilience, etc, are life skills in addition to academic prowess. I might say, valuable in future roles and successes. Fwiw.</p>
<p>I happen to really like Yale. But I am not so keen on the “come on” for crew there, posted by lookingforward:
“Do you love rowing? Do you need to compete? Do you have fun under great pressure? Are you eager for hard work? Do you dare to test yourself in a public arena? Are you willing to take great risks? Are you willing to learn, to strive, to struggle, to fail, to persevere and to triumph? Can you measure up to what rowing for the Yale lightweight crew demands?”</p>
<p>I’d add: And would you like to do all of this in a context where the outcome does not really matter at all?</p>
<p>Perhaps it is actually easier “to learn, to strive, to struggle, to fail, to persevere and to triumph” when the outcome does not matter? I recognize that this could be a serious possibility.</p>
<p>It is also possible that sports such as crew offer the opportunity to win and lose more frequently than more intrinsically valuable pursuits do. This might help one to deal gracefully with both winning and losing–just due to frequency. Also, it might build up one’s confidence to imagine that one is engaged in “self-testing and risk-taking” while rowing. Personally, I don’t buy that one.</p>
<p>My former department chair was very fond of claiming that the women grad students in his group lacked resilience, because they had not participated in varsity sports in college. Oh, heck! They displayed plenty of resilience just by continuing to work for him after he said things like that. </p>
<p>When one is talking about “work skills under pressure,” what does one mean in the context of rowing?</p>
<p>Rowing is a great sport but very grueling if you are doing it right. It’s mostly a test of muscular endurance, although you also have to learn how to row in sync with the others and allow the boat to “swing” under you. One of the things attractive about it to people is that it is one of those sports that has been going on for centuries, and is very ivy leaguish. I wouldn’t say there is a taking risks element to it except the risk of trying something new (i.e., the rowing); someone taking risks in the boat sounds like a great way to have someone end up in the water.</p>
<p>However, since it’s so grueling it’s really very tough to take a full classload with it–especially in the more time-intensive majors. In some classes with a large reading list you can get away with just reading the thing you are writing your paper on–in other classes where you build on previous material, you’re going to get crushed by doing something like that. </p>
<p>Whether there is no point to it, well, I think the point of athletic contests is to find your physical limits. Unfortunately, it’s hard (impossible?) to do this while pushing your intellectual limits. </p>
<p>They say athletes have more energy than most people and also are competitive–attributes that translate to the work arena. However, you could also demonstrate those attributes in your classes. There is also the team skills aspect.<br>
The time management thing is also valuable, but in my view, for most people it ends up in being an exercise in how to shortchange your classes in the least damaging way possible. Also, if you’ve been an athlete in high school and before that, presumably you’ve already acquired these benefits. Some people are so athletic and smart that they can engage in both pretty fully, but those people are rare–even rare among Harvard athletes that would have gotten in without the benefit of the tip of being a recruit. You also have to be someone that can push yourself fully for 3-4 hrs a day and not be too tired to do your homework afterwards. I forget who suggested that only the A boat has to do this; my guess is that to stay in the top 3 freshman boats, you would have to be training that hard and not being missing practice occasionally. The first boat is going to be fully recruited (first years are barred from varsity by league rule); the second and third boat are athletic walk-ons that haven’t rowed before but are training just as hard. And some people are going to be going all out but just don’t have either the athletic ability or height to make it on the first two boats; it helps to be lanky. To my recollection, by the end of the first year attrition left Harvard with four boats. </p>
<p>It’s too bad they don’t have college sports in the summer–that way, you could train like an olympic athlete during the summer, and then try to be a student like a Nobel Laureate/Pullitzer Prize winner during your classes.</p>
<p>Alternatively, they could lessen the requirements for the degree so that people can engage more fully in the classes they do take. I know some people on the rowing team at MIT took longer to graduate so they didn’t have to do the full slate of classes. </p>
It is not that hard. They choose a program that took in 200 students a year. Admission requirements are transparent, and the seniors’ resumes are placed on the school’s website. All I have to do is to look for ones on the honour roll (which is strictly limited), check for name recognition (we are a small country), the secondary schools they attended, and their areas of specialization in the program.</p>
<p>
Fastidious in analysis, and cautious in diction… remember?</p>
<p>
Choice of major is the key. I personally find it a better filter for ability then the reputation of the alma mater.</p>
<p>"
“Do you love rowing? Do you need to compete? Do you have fun under great pressure? Are you eager for hard work? Do you dare to test yourself in a public arena? Are you willing to take great risks? Are you willing to learn, to strive, to struggle, to fail, to persevere and to triumph? Can you measure up to what rowing for the Yale lightweight crew demands?”</p>
<p>I’d add: And would you like to do all of this in a context where the outcome does not really matter at all?"</p>
<p>While on one hand it is true that the final outcome of crew (or football or sources or volleyball or track and field) doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, the same could be said of most endeavors. It doesn’t really “matter” either if the debate team doesn’t win, or the campus newspaper is full of typos, or the singers in the choir don’t harmonize properly, or if the stage manager misses his cue and the scenery doesn’t appear on time, or if Hunt junior doesn’t practice and hits clunkers during the orchestra’s performance, or, or, or. For that matter, it doesn’t much “matter” if QM devotes her energy to being the best prof she can be or whether she phones it in. No one dies from a lost crew match, an unproofed student newspaper, a flubbed line in a play - but no one dies if their Intro Quant Mech experience isn’t perfect either. </p>
<p>But things can matter to people even if they don’t matter in the broad scheme of things, QM. I daresay you wouldn’t accept in yourself “just phoning it in” when it comes to caring for and mentoring your students. You pride yourself in being available, understanding, sympathetic, willing to lend a hand, eager to help a struggling student through a difficult concept. I get that quantum mechanics > crew in terms of seriousness and importance in QM U (and in PG U too), but there are concepts of doing the best you can and working hard for self improvement that people express in different ways. And you can’t discount learning those lessons just because the subject matter isn’t as “important.” </p>
<p>“Choice of major is the key. I personally find it a better filter for ability then the reputation of the alma mater.”</p>
<p>I don’t have a need to take everyone around me and rank or rate them on their socioeconomic background or their ability / smarts as I perceive them by their major or alma mater. I just take them as they are. Do you think it reflects well on you that you do perform this personal taxonomy on people? </p>
<p>Some colleges will end up with many multi-talented students, those with the ability to excel in very different areas of endeavor. No matter how talented they are, they can’t make more hours in the day. At least not yet as far as I know. So, in my opinion, one necessary lesson in college will be how to maximize the waking hours. Prioritizing will be necessary because, at a certain point, it just isn’t humanly possible to do everything at the highest level possible. Not because there isn’t the necessary talent and potential, but because there literally isn’t the time. Someone posted one way to make time for other activities is not to do all the reading in classes. Students prioritizing that class will not only do all the reading, but seek out additional reading included in the bibliography of the assigned reading. To make time to do that, they may take the fewest number of classes possible. Compared with the student who does multiple majors and a sport, this type student may not look like they did very much. (I have both kinds of kids, though the sport got dropped very early on) I don’t think it is a very good message to tell our kids they can do it all, or that they need to do it all. ymmv </p>
<p>Reading threads like these, combined with being an informed parent of a high school student for ten years and counting, convinces me that American culture only respects the casual genius. Being a hard-working striver is uncool and now equates with being a boring grind with no life and probably poor social skills. (Regrettably that ties in with some Asian stereotypes which allegedly scare colleges into keeping a racial “balanace”.) The “The Way We Were” story is a classic example of the hard-working student appearing rather foolish, when the truly brilliant kid does his stuff in little time and with no sweat.</p>
<p>At our high school, if a student obviously needs to exert a lot of effort to succeed in a class, the teacher encourages him or her to drop a level. Having to really struggle to learn something is seen as too onerous for the poor child. Life is short, not everyone can do calculus, so just take a study hall so your life will be easier. D’s Latin teacher just gave them an old national exam this week, and told the kids whose scores put them in medal range to take the real test next year. The message in my mind was: do it if you can already do it well or can master it with little effort. There was no talk of helping the students currently below medal standard arrive at that standard despite the fact it’s only September and they’ve had almost no Latin instruction yet.</p>
<p>It also seems that if a student has to work his tail off to achieve an A or get in an Ivy, some people are suspicious about whether he truly deserved it or is a poser. Hence, the elite school now looks for the high-GPA kid who can also be president of 3 clubs, win the science fair, and do varsity crew, Now that student must be truly deserving, since clearly academics come easy to him because he has time for so much else. Sigh. (How many of those supposedly well-rounded kids are sleep-deprived emotional wrecks?) </p>
<p>Frankly, I think the casual genius is a pleasant myth. No one makes it to the top of their field and stays there without a whole lot of deliberate, targeted hard work. </p>