Please, please, please. The admission officers are not a political arm of the status quo. They tend to be young adults who see applications from a huge range of HS students, from many, many backgrounds. They read applications all day long and want a lively voice on the page, someone with something to say. Sometimes it is more important to be memorable than anything else.
Furthermore people who work at universities engage with students in their late teens and early twenties every day, sometimes all day. It is totally normal for students to be political, to be activists, to be radical (right and left), even to be erratic and testing limits. When haven’t students been involved in campus protests, debates, activism? When haven’t students done community outreach working with people who that did not meet in their home town?
There are campuses where students just study and party, but they are pretty unhappy places.
yeah mamlion, something like that.
“be radical (right and left)”
(the “activism” on campus is very much one side of the spectrum…who are you kidding?)
OP I would advise you not to expose your “activism” at this point in time. even if your politics go along with all those protesters on campus and the 95%+ of the faculty and staff… just find a new subject for your essay.
@mamalion - you may not realize it, but your post comes across as very passive aggressive. Did you mean to imply that religious schools, with the exception of Jesuit ones, do not want students with a commitment to a better world,
“I suppose not all conservative, religious schools would like it, but most schools, including Jesuit schools, want students with strong commitments to a better world.”
Do you realize how aweful and rightly offensive this is to Catholics and Catholic colleges?
Jesuits would be low on the list, BTW, in terms of service to the less fortunate. Check history. Jesuits also did not officially accept women into the hierarchy until last year. Most other orders as far back as the 13th century.
Do you realize that about 1/3rd of all public service is administered by and through Catholic charities, including Catholic colleges? Much more than half of that is funded by parish and similar giving.
Are you familiar with the role of the Catholic church in the civil rights movement and Theodore Hesburgh’s leadership role, along with other religious scholars that lived through death threats as well as investigations by rogue government officials? How many Ivy League Presidents marched with MLK without guards?
It seems like you equate talking with doing, which nowadays is fashionable.
Okay, if you parse the grammar, you will see that I said: not all conservative, religious schools would like activism: most schools would like it. Now there are schools who would be more ambivalent, between like and don’t like, but most schools, certainly Jesuit schools, would LIKE activism.
Some religious schools, such as Quaker and some Catholic schools, like activism. Many like service to their mission. Acting outside the dogma is frowned upon. There are differences between service and activism.
Several people on this thread have criticized activists for talking. In fact, that is the point of some forms of activism, to bring everyone to the table to negotiate and deliberate over what would be more just. The point of activism is not to singlehandedly feed the poor, but to change the system so that there will not be poor. Changing the system and changing people’s minds require a lot of talk.
Below I have pasted a section of King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” on direct action and talk. It is the clearest statement of the theory of U.S. activism that I know. Of course, he was influenced massively by Gandhi, and Gandhi was influenced massively by the British suffragettes (see the move!)
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
“You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.”
I actually did not say that students should not engage in activism in general. But I stand by the reasoning that if the goal of your essay is to get a college admissions representative to want to bring you on as a positive addition to campus life, another topic would be a better choice at this time. The essay purpose is not as an activism platform. It is to get them to want to admit you. Extremism of any stripe in an essay is risky.
Any essay which focuses on something external at the expense of “this is about me” is a risk. I don’t think the activism is what’s problematic here- the risk is that 95% of the essay becomes about the issue, why the need to protest, etc. and only 5% is about the student.
If it can be done to use the activism as a metaphor for what makes a kid tick than I think it’s fine. But I think it will take a very talented writer to keep the focus away from the topical stuff and keep it on the applicant.
@mamalion Activism without service is just cheap talk. Sadly many people talk a great game but are too elite or busy to actually get their hands dirty.
Feeding the poor, tutoring, providing free legal and financial advice, visiting the sick, visiting the lonely, hiring disabled adults are all ways to, as you say, make the world a better place.
I fear that students really believe their debt to society is making generally pointless noise while good deeds need to be done.
The only difference between service and activism is that really committed people do both while others take the easy way out and just talk. True activists get involved in both sides of the equation.
The intellectual side of activism is also deeply rooted in Christian and Judaic values. You will find that major policy changes had the sponsorship of religious leaders.
Another “old prof” here. Adcoms want students who are engaged and committed, intellectually and psychology, to making things better. They’re not going to sit in judgment in other ways unless the student has a history of violence or is off his/her rocker in some way. To be able to write effectively and with passion about something is a winning approach to admission, IMO.
But what one does in an extracurricular context – aside from demonstrating a commitment to service or community improvement – is not as critical to the decision as the student’s set of skills and abilities (math, writing, music, or whatever these may involve) and strong motivation to learn.
“I’d write about a time when she took an actual action to help someone, not just protested something she didn’t like”
This is what my D chose to do. Although her topic wasn’t activism, it was on a controversial subject. She only lightly touched on the subject, and instead used humor to focus on a difficult confrontation about the topic. She felt that if the admin disliked her views that were reflected in the essay, and rejected her, then she truly wouldn’t be a good fit. Don’t get me wrong, she wants the school badly, but felt it more important to be transparent. Also, it helps that she is excited to go with any of her back-ups, because she feels she will succeed and be content wherever she lands. So, a risk, but a well-managed one.
oops tried to delete…anyway, thanks for the posts NCMom14, JHS and Romanigypsyeyes. I think this really is up to the student. There are ways to write about activism, even “just” protesting or sitting in, that are not at all negative.
Of course we have no idea what colleges this kid is applying to, no reference point at all. So we don’t know if the schools review holistically or primarily by stats.
And we have no idea how OP’s daughter will make this essay relevant to a college admit review. (Plenty of kids get swayed by the advice to tell about some passion or passionate incident and miss also showing the more important attributes the colleges seek.)
“There are ways to write about activism, even “just” protesting or sitting in, that are not at all negative.” Absolutely. The challenge is this: There are ways to write about activism…that are not at all impressive, either.
If OP tells more, we can suggest more.
If I were reading her app, I’d wonder if she truly is a person concerned with the rights and dignity of others the sort who rolls up her sleeves, takes on challenges and does some good around her. Or is this a one-shot deal? Or even just a outburst? I’d be checking her ECs. Show, not just tell.
Nothing wrong at all with having a protester spirit. Not even right now. Lots of activated kids take on worthy causes. The top colleges like that spirit and energy. But the higher the college tier, the more this needs to be more than just telling a tale of one time.
This is the part of the OP that made me think it best to avoid the topic.
Plus, I do stand by my statement that there are certain times it is best to avoid controversial topics. Even if it is something you are passionate about. The goal is to get into the college.
I don’t disagree that the real goal is an admit. But I wish we knew if she’s really “an activist,” in the best sense, or just took off on one issue, mouthing off to an admin that knows her, in the comfy context of her hs.
So far, all we know is she’s “active in her high school’s diversity groups” and “has argued with the administration.” It’s hard to tell what that amounts to, about her. Lots of kids can write about standing up for something, but then what?
If it were my kid, I wouldn’t necessarily stop her. But I’d want her to be able to show what she learned or how this empowered her on a broader scale, including outside the hs.
I agree with @romanigypsyeyes , the statement by @mamalion was clear as day. There was no ambiguity. The statement indicated the thought that conservative and/or religious schools do not want students with strong commitments to a better world. The statement is either unconsciously passive aggressive or consciously aggressive towards conservative and/or religious schools. I disagree with @romanigypsyeyes that anyone was looking for offense. In fact, another poster and I were pointing out a clearly offensive statement. It might not be supportive to you @romanigypsyeyes if you agree with the view, but I find that type of statement offensive regardless of my view on the topic itself.This certainly is not a post about or for questioning the type of students at different schools and the comment does not belong either in this thread or any conversation between high minded adults.
Btw, the apology for the original post was inappropriate as well. The offense was not the lack of clarity; it was the aggressive insinuation about the schools. I think a better apology is in order.
Gee, I had heard all the hoopla about Starbucks hating Christians because of plain red coffee cups, and I heard Fox (Faux) News attributing the church murders in Charleston to anti-Christianity not racism, but I really hadn’t realized how unChristian some Christians have become. Christianity begins with love, tolerance, and poverty:
Mark 10.21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Matthew 5.39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
When all “Christian” schools accept activism for contraception, non-traditional families, refugees, and women in the priesthood, then I will modify my statement. Until then it stands. Some conservative religious schools are driven by dogma, not the words of Christ, not love for the grace of all humans. They will not respect activism, only service to their dogma.
