<p>There are several threads here at CC about the new book "excellent sheep" (a provocative put-down of ivy league education) but I thought this interview with the author was really insightful.</p>
<p>"If you talk to admissions counselors at elite schools, they’ll swear that they want bright, curious, quirky kids — not just well-credentialed winners. Are admissions counselors being dishonest? Or are the standards so skewed that those types of kids won’t even make it past the first cut?"</p>
<p>And the intriguing answer:</p>
<p>"I think that people who work in admissions offices really have the best intentions. I really do.</p>
<p>I think that they’re looking for quirky kids with something special. But every kid has to pass that bar of having really great grades. ..... Also, the kids that do get in have become so good at gaming the system. They know how to look like that kind of person. Kids know how to manufacture the appearance of being an interesting person. That’s not the same as being an interesting person."</p>
<p>Intriguing indeed! And -- as the mom of a rising senior -- I see this all around me...kids who truly know how to brand themselves....but is there anything there but the public face? (btw, I pull my own kid into this group) </p>
<p>OP, I see your point and I sympathize. I know some not very interesting kids who have passed themselves off as more than they are. Smooth and polished but not deep. I figure many of them will peak early and fall by the wayside, leaving room for the truly unusual kids and the ones who take longer to bloom. </p>
<p>Imagine an academic institution looking at a kid’s academic performance in HS (i.e. great grades) as a predictive factor in how he or she will do in college! the horror! How elitist of them!</p>
<p>This sounds like an extension of what David Brooks described as Organization Kids. Professional students, not particularly intellectual unless it’s required as a checkmark, off to rule the world. </p>
<p>Wow! That’s just disrespectful of humanity. Everybody’s interesting. Sure, some people package themselves in a way that will be more appealing to admissions folks. But to imply that some people are not interesting but simply faking it seems very arrogant to me. </p>
<p>Being able to interview well and engage new people in thoughtful conversation is a worthwhile life skill. Maybe some schools place more importance on that than the author thinks is appropriate, but that’s not what he’s saying.</p>
<p>Smart gets you a lot of places in this world, but interesting gets you more. How is a college supposed to know you’re interesting if you don’t present yourself as interesting? </p>
When this guy says this about Yale students, I just have to shake my head. Either he really didn’t get to know many students while he was teaching there, or he’s just lying in order to sell his book. Yale is full of quirky, interesting kids–and no more so than among English majors!</p>
<p>Also, I think it’s weird to think that the people around aren’t really what they seem, but are faking it.</p>
<p>I think what he’s saying is that kids are doing a lot of activities to make them look interesting to colleges and not necessarily because they are particularly interested in them. And this is true, it’s all over this site, kids saying tell me what activities to join so I can get into elite college X. Even in our low key high school I know of kids spending many hours per week on ECs they don’t particularly care about because they believe it will make them look interesting to colleges. </p>
<p>I see a few problems with his contention that they are missing the true intellectuals because those are the kids who will blow off calculus to read another book. Sure, there are kids like that. And some of them will do sufficiently well with their non-mathematical interests to earn some kind of recognition. And despite what the author would like to imply, there are also true intellectuals who aren’t particularly interested in math but are nonetheless capable of gettting an A in calculus without knocking themselves out. </p>
<p>So the intellectual kids he thinks are being overlooked are competing with kids like them who went off and read that book and then distinguished themselves in some way (published a book? won awards at some prestigious contests?). They’re also competing with the kids who are able to do it all academically. </p>
<p>At many high schools, grade inflation is rampant and it’s not that difficult for students to get the GPAs expected by these colleges. Much the opposite. The grade inflation makes it difficult for the true intellectuals to shine. When more than half the class got A’s, how can a college tell whose essay blew the teacher away or who is always leading class discussions and giving insightful comments? Their transcripts all look the same. Hopefully from a letter, but the number of letters is so limited such students may not even have one from the teachers they impressed the most.</p>
I agree that this is what he is saying. But I think he’s making the same mistake those people you mention are making: thinking that this works. Signing up for a bunch of activities, and even spending a lot of time on them, doesn’t make you more interesting. I think college admissions offices are probably pretty good at figuring this out. Also, it’s my observation that the most interesting things are things that nobody would choose to do in order to impress a college.</p>
<p>And look, if it was really true that Ivy applicants were really just doing all of these ECs in order to get into college, after which they just plan to go for the money in finance, law, engineering, or medicine, why would they continue to do ECs in college? ECs in college don’t help you with any of those careers, really. And yet, the students at the Ivies and similar schools put a tremendous amount of time, energy, and passion into ECs of all sorts. Who, exactly, are they trying to fool by doing this?</p>
<p>But who is he to question people’s motivations for beginning a certain activity? I’ll bet a huge majority of EC’s were begun because friends were in it, a cute/guy girl was in it, the kid liked the teacher moderator, or it worked with a parent’s pick up schedule. Or, if you’re my son, they offer food at the meetings. And who knows why anybody stays? Sometimes, kids get assigned jobs and guilt keeps them involved (my daughter), and sometimes they just like being with their friends. Does he think those reasons are valid?</p>
<p>If the kid thrived in the activity, the kid thrived in the activity. If the author wants to make the point that kids are lying about their depth of emotional or actual involvement in that activity, then he should state that point clearly. Maybe he does elsewhere. (I haven’t clicked on the link - I found the excerpt too annoying).</p>
<p>I’ve considered reading Excellent Sheep, but the author’s interviews and opinion pieces stand in the way. So much of it is rabble-rousing populism. </p>
<p>I would like to point out that “But every kid has to pass that bar of having really great grades. .” - that bar is very low in American k - 12, so for a relatively smart kid who happen to have somewhat reposnsible work ethic and does the homework on time and with the best effort, having all As at the most rigorous HS does nore require any genius. There are plenty of those. And they make time for all their personal interests which in cases of relatively smart kids are plenty and of very wide and un-related variety. Now, this kid may not even consider applying to Ivy / Elite, because (being smart and aiming at eventual Grad. school), the kind may be looking for the cheap / free UG degree that they feel they fully deserve based on their hard work in HS, they may be looking for Merit awards somewhere else than Ivy / Elite. You will find lots of those in Honors colleges of state publics or those privates that know how to lure this kids in.<br>
And you do have to be a sheep to be able to atend some Grad. school and actually graduate from them. If you do not follow their practices, protocols, standards you will be out, period. </p>
<p>@Periwinkle‌ Really? In interviews or lectures, William Deresiewicz sounds incredibly authentic to me. Truth is poor students can’t generally can’t compete on elite campuses and it’s not because of money. Yes, they’re on campus, but often they’re window dressing, forced to hide out in an easy department. Wealthy students aren’t just good on paper, they’re actually good. They know how to play “the game,” they have been in the most competitive ethos their whole life and made it out, AND they have the numbers. You can coach up a student from a sub par school system, but there’s no way to teach the exposure to a competitive environment they missed out on. That’s the issue.</p>
Well, the bar is a bit higher than you suggest, because the applicants also have to have very high standardized test scores. But it’s true that there are lots and lots of students with very good grades and scores, and the most selective colleges can pick through them for the ones that have additional characteristics the school wants, including “interestingness,” but other things as well.</p>
<p>Hunt is exactly right. The kids who are asking which ECs to join to impress Ivies won’t be getting into Ivies. I know that because some of their parents want to pay me to get them in, and I have to tell them that I can’t get them in. I’d be very rich if I could.</p>
<p>Sure, there’s some strategy here. I will tell a student who’s considering switching sports senior year to stick with the old sport for a fourth year unless they truly hate it. I will tell a student who’s been enjoying a rank and file spot on the yearbook or student council to run for a leadership role. But those strategic choices will only make an incremental difference in their applications. They’re not going to transform an also-ran into a Yalie.</p>
And who knows why anybody stays? Sometimes, kids get assigned jobs and guilt keeps them involved (my daughter), and sometimes they just like being with their friends. Does he think those reasons are valid?</p>