<p>I left out a lot of my other posts with intervening numbers, and a quick scan shows that I also left out one of yours, lookingforward. Sorry, I missed it.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I imagine some are impressed, Q, with your attention to these details.</p></li>
<li><p>1132: Mollie isn’t comfortable. 1133: you apologize. BUT, go on to say:
However, I hope that you might join me on the old MIT forum just briefly–with regard to the remark about the applicants being “only vaguely human.” You have nothing to apologize for in that regard. But I do hope that you find it no more acceptable than I do.</p></li>
<li><p>You have misinterpreted a number of my remarks. I respectfully request you leave me out of some trail of breadcrumbs.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Sure, lookingforward.</p>
<p>I believe that my posts preceding texaspg’s were #866 and #872. I think they are fine. There is nothing personal about them.</p>
<p>I also left out #1027 by me. (Not my finest hour, admittedly, but with some reason.)</p>
<p>Please also note that I did apologize in #1051, prior to #1132 and #1133.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see “only vaguely human” - whatever poor choice of words it might have been - as not being directed at ANY national origin / affinity group – but as being directed at those students who are extraordinarily one-dimensional, and show absolutely no sign of life about ANYTHING other than a narrow academic field. I don’t see how that can be used as a sledgehammer or seen as targeting a specific group. I certainly don’t think that kids who are anti-social (in the literal sense of the word) are found more in one ethnic group than another.</p>
<p>Eh, let’s forget the personal issues and discuss these topics on the merits. Personally, I’m always interested in this question of the “robotic” or “grind” or whatever student, and particularly with regard to Asian kids. I continue to think that some of this perception is due to cultural factors, and honestly, I blame some Asian parents for perpetuating by not really understanding what it takes to get into top US colleges–or maybe, just not agreeing with it. My daughter had a very good friend in high school who I really liked and thought was an extremely interesting person–but on paper, she probably didn’t look so interesting. Main ECs were violin, piano, participation in a Chinese children’t choir, and ping pong. A good violinist and singer, but not somebody who was going to be a professional musician. A lot of time spent “studying” beyond completion of assigned homework, so after practicing violin and piano, not much time left for social activities or other ECs. She was anything but robotic in person–but how did that application look?</p>
<p>Cross-posted, so I’ll add:
I agree, but I do think that there may be cultural factors that could make kids from one group APPEAR less socialized to members of a different group. For example, if a person is raised to be extremely respectful of elders, not look them in the eye, be deferential, speak when spoken to, etc., they might seem overly shy or introverted to somebody who is expecting a firm handshake and an easygoing manner. As I said before, though, this is something that can and should be coached, just like knowing what to wear to the interview.</p>
<p>QM, If anything you might want to head back over to the MIT forum to the old thread you revived there. A couple of the younger posters there seem none too happy with you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I get it now. Mikalye is clearly prejudiced against the Brits!</p>
<p>Off-topic Brit story: Our family was staying in a bed-and-breakfast in SE England. At 2 am, drunken revelers made noise in our hallway; H politely asked them to be quieter; they ignored him and proceed to pound loudly on our door, at which point H came out and choice words were exchanged. H was called a “knob.” At the breakfast table the next morning, H recounted the story and D said rather loudly to the waiter, “What’s a knob?” The people around us looked horrified until they realized that we were American and didn’t know the expression. </p>
<p>So Mikayle thinks the Brits are all vaguely human knobs, that’s it. Hmmmm. I think someone should look into that. I won’t stand for discrimination against knobs and I hope you’ll all stand with me.</p>
<p>Yeah, I did, sevmom. Thanks for the heads up. I referred to my age over there, and viewpoints changing over time. The students thought that “only etc.” was no big deal. Also that reviving a three-year-old thread was in poor taste.</p>
<p>I was not using my age as an argument. That would be more or less equivalent to the fallacious argument from authority.</p>
<p>But I think that as people accumulate life experiences, some of their viewpoints do change. In my particular case, I have always been a generally liberal supporter of gay rights. But it was not until I came to know personally and to admire several gay men that it became an issue of very serious concern to me.</p>
<p>I think that I have appreciated the influence of historical forces more over time. When the historical forces that act on one are relatively little changed, they are like the air that surrounds us, and (for me anyway) go unremarked. When the historical shift is great enough, then one becomes more aware of the forces.</p>
<p>The circle of people that I care about has broadened a lot (to say the least) over time. I have acquired (due to marriages) relatives who are Jewish and relatives who are Muslim, in different branches of the family–just one example of broadening experiences, not exclusive.</p>
<p>QM-- If you feel that your posts were in good taste and not inquisitor-like in nature, then you don’t need to worry what I think.</p>
<p>If you feel defensive, you might want to ask yourself why. It is certainly not because of anything I said.</p>
<p>And, really, in general, I find you to be very well mannered and easy to read, whether we agree or do not, and just found it out of character enough to mention. There are far ruder posters on CC, obviously. I don’t consider you to be one of them.</p>
<p>Who cares what I think, anyway?</p>
<p>I have made my own idiotic arguments in the past. (Ask oldfort). We all do this on here at times. Let it go.</p>
<p>I really lost interest on this thread few pages back because of this obsession with MIT. It is a very specific kind of school, not the kind of school that would appeal to the general public. I was thinking to myself, “Who cares about their admission policy?”</p>
<p>I am always amused whenever I read about Asian kids. I feel like we must be living in a parallel universe. I frankly didn’t even tie robotic with Asians. I have 2 kids and 4 niece and nephews, none of them were brought up even remotely resembled what people are generalizing here. My niece’s EC was trying to be a model and she spent most of afternoons watching Oprah. A nephew is at a top 10 school. Track and soccer were his ECs in high school. He joined ROTC, ready to be commissioned in few months, because he felt it was his duty to serve his country. I have 2 nephew who never won any math or science awards, and they are at or going to Cornell. So I think they did fine without being typical Asians.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A) I would imagine that an adcom member who is physically interviewing in another country where these are the cultural habits would understand and calibrate accordingly. That would be just common sense, just like I know how to exchange business cards when in Japan. </p>
<p>B) I think some on here are advocating that it’s not right that these things even should be “coached on,” because they have nothing to do with academic ability. But you know, these are fundamentally American colleges, and while they celebrate diversity and want to have international impact, they are going to operate fundamentally from an American-centric cultural worldview, which does celebrate independence, self-assertion, and being well-rounded. (Which isn’t synonymous with “arrogant self-pusher” or “plays the kazoo,” just to be clear.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair point, but it’s worth noted that “self-assertion” as you put it seems to be more celebrated in certain regions of the country than others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, there are multiple facets to intelligence – and one is the ability to question one’s own assumptions in life. The parents (of whatever stripe) who think - well, in my country, you get into college by demonstrating X, so it must be the exact same way in America - are demonstrating a lack of reflective or introspective intelligence. That’s a deficit just as much as how not being good in math / science is a deficit. I have noted on CC how it is remarkable that all these generations of immigrants come in anew with the “I just have to show them how much I study math & science and my good grades and scores and I’m a shoo-in,” that culturally some groups seem to do a better job of - oh, ok, it’s different here, let me learn about that and adapt accordingly - than others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not talking about stereotypical NYC aggressiveness vs California laid-back vs Midwestern nice vs Southern bless-her-heart. I’m talking about self-assertion, not self-aggressiveness. One can be quiet and polite and “midwestern” and still meet-and-greet and get one’s points across in an assertive manner. I have the distinct feeling you are confusing assertiveness, which can be practiced by anybody, with aggressiveness, which is a particular style.</p>
<p>“Based on what Hanna says though, there are plenty of kids who do feel this way, yet through the magic of editing, college admissions officers are none the wiser. My gripe is with the essays and the weight that it is given in determining whether a student is a good fit.”</p>
<p>I see where you’re coming from, but they are 17. I often agree with them that their classmates are trivial. They are 17, too. I’m with Ferris Bueller on this (“It’s a little childish and stupid, but then, so is high school.”) Some of my clients live in areas where the culture is anti-intellectual. That’s a big part of the reason why they want to go to a top college and fit in for the first time. The question is, how can they tell that story without MISTAKENLY giving the impression that they are hateful, snotty people when they are really just frustrated and young?</p>
<p>This isn’t the magic of editing – it’s the magic of <em>education</em>. I’m teaching them how to express themselves more effectively. I like the comparison to grammar. Once you know the rules, you can apply them in a variety of settings. How many times do adults get in trouble at work because a boss or client didn’t like the tone of an email? Understanding your reader and thinking about a writing project from the reader’s point of view is the underlying challenge of both a college essay and a work email.</p>
<p>There’s no doubt that kids with access to better education (up to and including my essay critiques) are advantaged in the college admissions process. But I’m not sure how much you’d want to change that even if you could.</p>
<p>Eh, I am always defensive, poetgrl. It’s in my nature.</p>
<p>I wanted to get to some of the observations that I have actually been intending to post, which have nothing to do with MIT (audible sighs of relief).</p>
<p>These particular observations are related to social skills, as they are present in high schoolers. My debate partner, Z, once sat down at the table in the lunchroom with the most popular group of young men. They objected to his presence. Now Z had better than average social skills, although he was not one of that group. He was intelligent, kind, and good-natured; also tall, fairly handsome, and muscular (which may matter for high school boys), though not very athletic, as I recall. The group of popular students reacted by pounding their fists on the table and chanting, “Get out, Z.” Z moved to another table. There were three lunch periods in my high school, and this happened in the lunch period of my closest friend, rather than my own. I’d like to think I would have done something if I had witnessed this. Probably I would not have. Nobody did, not even the adults who were present. (This was ages before bullying became a concern.)</p>
<p>When I think about how the GC’s would have evaluated the social skills of all of the students involved, I think it is Z who would come out on the short end. The other guys were the school leaders and athletic stars. Z was not. If he “kept to himself” for a few weeks after that, who could have blamed him?</p>
<p>Another instance: A good friend of mine received a telephone call from a group of girls whom many would have rated as “socially skilled,” telling her that they were having a party–right then–but she wasn’t invited, because she wasn’t mature enough.</p>
<p>I think most people could supply their own examples–even members of the most popular groups, who had some internal discord. Possibly times have now changed beyond this. My parents could not understand the situation at my high school. Their high school graduating classes were 9 and 16 in size, so the whole class was smaller than the most popular group at my school.</p>
<p>Since Pizzagirl brought up the Brits, I will mention that I have started to read a book about Turing and Goedel (fiction based on fact, I think). The author mentions Turing’s experiences at a British boys’ boarding school. Horrendous! </p>
<p>Something I have come to believe over time, but that didn’t really register with me till I was about 45: Anything that is permitted to happen to human beings will probably happen sooner or later to someone that we would care about, if we were alive simultaneously (that is, my great-great-great-great-grandchildren, should I have any). </p>
<p>By alive simultaneously, I mean of course, here on Earth, and not in the Blessed Realm. (Tolkien reference).</p>
<p>I shudder at the thought that adcoms would focus too hard on the social skills of 17 year olds. I’d like to think that there’s a bit more tolerance for still evolving people and that there’s a recognition that those who are less poised and more internal have something worth contributing to a community of learners.</p>
<p>^agree with 3girls3cats. Thanks for making the point so concisely.</p>