<p>Actually there are certain colleges - Amherst being the first that comes to mind - that in their articles of incorporation and state charter - calls for the admission of "indigent youth of high moral character" (and makes no reference to SAT scores or GPAs whatsover.). Te extent that ANY students who are admitted are not indigent reflects a massive rightwing shift, maybe even a conspiracy! ;)</p>
<p>I must be dyslexic
I keep reading that as Indignant!</p>
<p>mmboys07--"external factors have kept me from succeeding approach?" I don't think anyone is looking for "unsuccessful" applicants! Perhaps you meant to say " succeeded in spite of (fill in the blank with appropriate hardship) approach?" Left coast--I guess that would be us Californians? Or are both coasts Left coasts?</p>
<p>Anyway, from our experience or going through this experience, knowing kids who have been accepted at top schools, reading the stories on these boards, etc., all of the top colleges have plenty of room for smart hardworking kids who have not experienced hardships, and that includes the UC's (large public universities here in California). So if you have one of those kids, not to worry!</p>
<p>Ideological factors--if one of them includes some form of intolerance of other groups of people, than yes, I think that could be a factor in not accepting someone--probably more so at small schools than large ones.</p>
<p>"Amazing that a student would want so badly to be in a school full of people that are so liberally biased etc"</p>
<p>texastaximom - if there was any significant amount of diversity in the ideological leanings of good universities out there I would agree with you. But since there is not we conservatives simply adapt to the environment we find ourselves in. It is a crying shame that in a different era fair-skinned Black folk had to straighten their hair and try to pass in order to get an education too but history doesn't pass judgement on them but rather on the institutions they were trying to infiltrate :-)</p>
<p>mstee - I am intolerant of practicing cannibals. Do you think my intolerance of this alternative lifestyle should make me an unattractive candidate for admission? What about intolerance of intolerant people?</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>We need to infiltrate and destroy them from within. Lay low and wait for the signal - the Econ department will fall without a fight, concentrate your fire on the English and Environmental Studies departments :-)>></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Wow. A new version of the campus wars?</p>
<p>I defy anyone to detect my S's political leanings from his application, except perhaps his address--the People's Republic of Cambridge. But math and science teams are not left or right (well, they don't discuss creationism). I greatly doubt that the majority of college applications are any more revealing of a student's political sympathies. From what I remember, all parents on CC have been very encouraging of membership in the Boys Scout and Girl Scouts as well as ROTC.
As another poster noted, large state schools are numbers-driven. It's the smaller, private schools that scrutinize applications--but they don't really have the time to divine hiddren messages in the essays. There's also an element of self-selection among students. It's unlikely that the same student will wish to apply to Bob Jones and Wesleyan. But fear not. At Berkeley, the largest student organization is reportedly the campus Republicans.</p>
<p>Boy Scouts=homophobic. Girl Scouts OK. In the past Boy Scouts was OK but they have definitely been targeted by Pure of Thought for destruction.</p>
<p>I do agree that state schools are numbers driven and you could probably write your essay in Klingon and nobody would notice. Also there is a lot of self-selection that goes on, I can't imagine what kind of mindless android would apply to Wesleyan or rather I can but I prefer not to dwell on it :-) The two Wesleyan graduates I know were both obviously shaken by the experience.</p>
<p>I think from what I have read on these boards that membership in the BoyScouts is unusual by high school age and therefore is a "hook". Scouts seem to be doing very well in their admittance to colleges.
I think you can look for diversity even though you personally do not ascribe to the same values. Even the ACLU has fought for freedom of speech for groups that have points of view abhorrent to many members because freedom of speech is a right for all.</p>
<p>Vanderbilt undergraduate school recently conducted a poll which ascertained that the student body was split down the middle in political leanings. Yes, this is a new direction, but worth reporting, especially since many of us watched Evil Robot make the choice to go to Vanderbilt <a href="http://www.vanderbilt.edu/register/articles?id=17863%5B/url%5D">http://www.vanderbilt.edu/register/articles?id=17863</a>
My husband and I were there at the Law School in the 1980s and I know the undergrads voted greatly for Reagan in a mock election. The graduate schools have always been diverse and exciting places, but the debutante atmosphere in the undergrad school is finally giving way, and there are many social groups in the undergrad school to call "home" if totally traditional is not your style. I took my son to a PreVU Day last June, and later he visited in the fall on his own, and he confirmed my impressions that Vandy undergrad is a place with real diversity of thought and geographical beginnings now. He met students from the Midwest and New England as well as from the usual corridors in the South. Combine that with Nashville's arty progressive vibe and cultural offerings, and Vanderbilt's lack of reliance on Teaching Assistants in the classroom, and you have a great institution. Admission Director Wm. Shain really impressed me. Although Vanderbilt admissions greatly increased in selectivity in the last three years, he conveyed a warmth that I found to be the opposite of arrogant and stated sincere intentions to make Vanderbilt an undergrad school that would be an outstanding social experience for people from any sector of the USA. My husband and I have lived in something like 14 states combined, are more Northern than Southern, and we were very happy in Nashville, which more of a melting pot culture than people on the Coasts realize.</p>
<p>Gee, Patuxent, I shoulda read your post before my kids filled out their applications. Both prominently included all their church involvement. Weirdly enough, the adcom from Wes who was featured in Gatekeepers and who probably was the one who read my D's application, emphasized how he had a soft spot for kids who'd rung church handbells--one of her favorite activities. She also taught at Vacation bible School--kiss of death in those "liberal bastions."</p>
<p>And S--mygosh, he described being a liturgist, usher, member of the "Praise Band", and volunteer at soup kitchens, VBS, etc.</p>
<p>Well, in the end, they were accepted to Wes and Columbia--somehow we dodged the bullet.</p>
<p>Or maybe church involvement isn't really such a bad thing to mention.</p>
<p>The OP's concerns and questions are valid ones given the some of the books I have seen from adcoms. It does seem that a kids who is politically left is considered in a better than one equally right of the zero point of a given meter. Colleges in the northeast are traditionally much more "radical" as are the professors. However, my personal experience in admissions indicates that adcoms are generally beyond that. I say this because I know of several fine Catholic schools that have views definitely right of center, and the student body reflects this. There acceptance rates are identical to those of more "left" schools, even given what I would consider a propensity to avoid certain colleges that are "way left". It just does not seem to matter. Also I have done years of work with families who are in a very conservative enclave, the kids tend to be homeschooled, the resumes are dead giveaways to the political leanings, and I just don't sniff even a whiff of such discrimination even given my belief of how adcoms are comprised. In fact many of the areas where the kids do tend to be more liberal are so over represented in apps to selective colleges, that I would say a top academic student from a more conservative area like the south or backwater communities would be more attractive in the name of diversity. </p>
<p>I would say there is more natural selection and avoidance of schools with strong political leanings on part of the students and families than by the adcoms. I know that my kids who never gave me any indication of any political leanings did notice these things at those schools where the political climate meter started registering too far one way or the other. My D, for example, was not comfortable at Oberlin. My S felt that Davidson was a bit too conservative. Not that either totally discounted those schools. They went through the trouble of applying to them. But in the final analysis when only one school could be picked, these issues did surface. But had there not been the slate of choices they did have, I have no doubt that either of those school could have been the top choice. It was not a guiding factor or a cull in selecting where to apply among the 2000-3000 colleges in the US. I would say many kids fall into that category.</p>
<p>"I am intolerant of practicing cannibals." "...Can't imagine what kind of mindless android would apply to Wesleyan..."</p>
<p>Patuxent, your claws are showing. Are you cluttering up the vibes of our beautiful BLUE state with right-wing bitterness? Do you support Bush clone Ehrilich selling off our land to the highest bidder that happens to be a buddy of his? Do you find yourself with intense midnight cravings for pulling the lever on slot machines? Did you help whats-his-name fire those Democrat public servants? Perhaps you work at the Funny Farm - that might explain it (but not excuse it).</p>
<p>Defeat Ehrlich! Keep the Blue State True Blue! Eat the Republicans!</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I can't imagine what kind of mindless android would apply to Wesleyan or rather I can but I prefer not to dwell on it :-) The two Wesleyan graduates I know were both obviously shaken by the experience.>></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>The poor dears. :( Could it be that THEY were the mindless androids who did not know what they were getting themselves in for when they applied, and did not know how to deal with what they found, including transferring? Sheesh. If you want to "infiltrate and destroy them from within. Lay low and wait for the signal," you'll need better warriors than these two.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, i missed that first read through, LOL! Guess a churchgoing mindless android would!!!! Who somehow got an excellent education, met some wonderful people, and grew to become the intelligent, compassionate, passionate, progressive, kind person she is today.</p>
<p>Patuxet--Gee, hadn't thought about practicing cannibals lately. I'm against it though, in case anyone is wondering . . .That reeeeaaally wasn't my point, though I'm sure you already know that.</p>
<p>garland</p>
<p>Why does bell ringer scream Episcopalian to me (not that there is anything wrong with that even if they are not orthodox enough for their own world communion)? Or at least main line liberal protestant? Change that from bell ringer to snake handler in the Church of God with Signs Following and let me know how that adcom feels about it.</p>
<p>Oh and change working in a soup kitchen (again absolutely nothing wrong with, in fact it is commendable) to casting out demons and lets see how tolerant of diversity the adcoms are. It is one thing to admit a homophobic, misogynistic, anti-semitic, religious zealot if he wears a kaffiyeh on his head but it is a whole different matter if he is the homegrown variety. One is a tribute to diversity and the other is simply "ugh!"</p>
<p>Well yulsie for the record I did vote for Ehrlich but I don't particularly like him and I have always been against slots. I will point out though that he is a Princeton man.</p>
<p>BTW we did not have much choice last time around - that was the dimmest bulb in the democrat party they nominated. Anyway no risk of Maryland turning red in my lifetime, MA. will go first.</p>
<p>Ah, Patuxent, I am probably politically right of most posters on this forum. I voted for Bush this last time. I am Catholic. My favorite schools are Amherst, Williams and Dartmouth, in concept. But having visited and studied the schools and now being of the age that I do know myself pretty well, the best fit in colleges for me would probably be Wesleyan. So I would probably be one of those "mindless androids" who would apply there, if I were so many years younger, and this despite not fitting the PR image of the school, something I do try to go beyond when I look at the school environment and really try to get to the crux of a college, academically and out side of the classroom.</p>
<p>I say keep the adcoms guessing, like my son. Come from a Jesuit school, have a "traditional" family with a stay-at-home-mom, and hold odd beliefs such as that all people should have health care, civil rights, and access to a good eduaction; that the environment should be taken care of; that government spending today should not be on the backs of future generations; and that war is bad. AND put on your college resume that you worked for the Kerry campaign. : )</p>
<p>Agreed weenie. If the adcoms skipped over my son's "Why I am a punk rock enthusiast" philosophical personal statement they might think they were admitting "Big Tex" from the south, with the same stay-at-home-mom. (acutally that's probably more non-traditional now) That's not what they got. :) Green Day not Toby Keith. While he worked diligently for Kerry, alas he was still 17 during the election, missing out on by a mere two weeks the privilege of voting. Next project--oust a sitting senator. Youth are so reslient.</p>