<p>I guess I am of the “old school” variety. I do believe the teenagers should be encouraged to maintain good grades and take their studies seriously, but as for extracurricular activities, I think they should be encouraged to explore many interests. They have so many years ahead of them to participate in the “rat race” and I hate it when a student takes an easier class for fear of not getting an A in another class that they actually find more interesting or that they don’t get involved in a particular activity because it isn’t as impressive as something else they may not be as interested in. </p>
<p>Teenagers still have a lot of growing up to do and a lot of learning about themselves to do. We need to let them discover themselves.</p>
<p>Specifically, with regard to the student’s claim in the article: Overstating the significance of a science project is unlikely to help any student win any award, if scientists are the judges. Hardly anyone actually “revolutionizes cancer therapy,” and that claim is likely to strike any judge as wildly improbable . . . no need to be a scientist to be skeptical about that! On the other hand, a show of enthusiasm for the work will usually gain positive attention. I like to think I could tell whether the enthusiasm was genuine, though.</p>
<p>I still have a lot of growing up to do and learning about myself and I’m in my 40’s. When do you think we get old enough to realize we still have a lot of growing up to do?</p>
<p>My kids resumes are pretty boring. They both do one thing very, very well. The other day I almost said, “You know, you really need some other EC” to my freshman in highschool. I’ve been on CC too much, because I actually thought “EC”… But, you know, I managed to just laugh at myself.</p>
<p>I think that happened when I was about 36. And with each passing year, the amount of growing up I have to do increases. It’s weird. I’m going to be one hellacious little brat by the time I’m 70.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would think that’s true, but it struck me this year that the two kids from our regional science fair who went to ISEF (i.e., the top two) had really excellent projects but projected utter boredom while presenting them. Which I find encouraging, actually. It’s nice whenever substance wins over style.</p>
<p>mantori.suzuki, I am one of the strong advocates for substance over style, myself. Your comments about the ISEF winner are interesting. Still, I think genuine enthusiasm is a plus, and overblown claims are not.</p>
<p>Agreed, and I can see enthusiasm being a tie-breaker if two projects have equal merit. Why not give the award to the kid who seems to really care?</p>
<p>Should we be surprised that on CC, so many are defending the practice of “playing the game” and pretending to have passions to get into a college, as if it’s even an admirable trait.</p>
<p>I don’t at all blame the students, I blame the system (universities first, parents and schools second). They are just really innocent bystanders of a lot of nonsense. But what its creating…that is actually kind of scary to me. </p>
<p>I’m extremely thankful my kids are not remotely into this game. They are brilliant, they work hard, they are intellectually curious, and aren’t remotely interested in brand name colleges. It all works out great though: just as they value authenticity and having an enjoyable time in their teen years, avoiding unnecessary anxiety, and focusing almost exclusively on what they enjoy (without regard to numbers, plaques, or resume building), but also (whew), having professor parents (who used to teach an Ivy), know what utter nonsense USNWR rankings are. They could not care less how prestigious the name is…and they know with confidence it won’t make an iota of difference to their lives (and will save everyone a bundle). </p>
<p>You don’t have to play along. No one does. And if you don’t play, the game doesn’t work. AND you can have loads of fun and save a bundle too.</p>
<p>I should add all this resume building can only take you so far-- and maybe even hurt you. While it probably appears to some younger folks that the world evolves around form over content…I’d say only to a point. </p>
<p>As a professor, I’ve been truly honored to work closely with students that blow my mind. They are sooo sharp, so well read, so “substance over form”, so much earnestness, and soooo much potential. Ones that are intellectual genuises, but never work past nine; ones that truly care more about the challenge and learning and really couldn’t tell you their GPA because they don’t keep track; ones that get and follow the big picture, rather than jump through hoops or give me nice looking outlines instead of deep though. Gag me. And in recent years, I’m meeting more and more “amazing only on paper” students. They started organizations, they lead this, they do that, they have won endless awards because they apply for them. Yet after working more closely with them I readily see it is all facade. It’s a thin veneer, that is more about appearances, with no real foundation under it. And their thinking and intellectual output has the same useless shallowness to it. I value great ideas, not pretty font. </p>
<p>I think maybe they will make good managers in companies that value this kind of smoke and mirrors (I teach in a business school) but there is no way in heck I’m writing them letters for graduate school.</p>
<p>“One of my seniors made a comment a few months ago in response to how competitive college admissions and the awarding of big scholarships were that made a lot of sense. He stated, “What teenager sits around thinking about starting a big charity?””</p>
<p>There really are teens who think about things like that. For instance, the SGA vp or president of S’s high school got all of the high schools in our district involved in building a Habitat for Humanity House. No indication that teen did this to try to get into a top college. He happily went to state flagship, which is not one of the state publics that people on CC drool over.</p>
<p>He had to do a lot of work to get the school superintendent’s office to back the project because there never had been any kind of fundraiser done like that in our district.</p>
<p>During the tsunami a few years ago, younger S and I were watching the coverage on TV when S called his best friend and started talking about what they could do to raise money to help.</p>
<p>S ended up co-creating the first schoolwide fundraiser his magnet school had had in recent memory. S didn’t do that to get into a top college. He had no such aspirations (and is indeed very happy at his first choice college, a second tier LAC). He was a shy kid who did a lot of work creating that fundraiser because he cared about the people far away whose lives had been devastated.</p>
<p>The middle and elementary school kids who used to live down the street used to regularly sell homemade lemonade and cookies for some charity that the kids cared about. They came from a home in which everyone did community service (which also is the case in my home) – just for the pleasure of helping.</p>
<p>There really are teens – and adults – who do community service, fundraising just to help, not to get personal benefit though I have always found that by giving my time and effort to help others, I always get more back than I give. I get friendships, good feelings, etc. I have gotten other things, too, including some awards, but I didn’t do the service for awards. I did it because I like to help.</p>
<p>Because a college is first and foremost an academic institution.</p>
<p>A football player who wants to get into the NFL (and do well there) needs to work hard on his game. A violinist who wants to join Curtis needs to practice. No surprise there. A student who wants to get into Harvard (and do well there) needs to study hard and get good grades in high school.</p>
<p>Why does faking a passion in an EC work? I suppose it works because colleges are really focused on academic accomplishment and potential. That is why every student has to provide a transcript, take standardized tests, get LORs from teachers of academic subjects. If a student with fake passions arrives on campus and refuses to participate in any ECs in college, it is not going to stop that student from accomplishing the main purpose of college- getting a good education. OTOH, it is a bigger problem if the student has a faked transcript or intellectual abilities.</p>
<p>I agree with you to a point. It depends on what admissions people are getting out of EC’s. If an EC absolutely requires some kind of skill to do it, I think it means something even if the person doesn’t really have a passion for it. Like, if a person won the US math olympiad, then they are really smart and skilled in math, period. Similarly, if they ran a food drive for homeless people, then they probably exhibited some organizational skills and ambition. Perhaps more tellingly, it tells me that in the future if they need to complete something to get a promotion of some kind, they are willing to do it. However, I wouldn’t surmise that such a student is necessarily altruistic or that such activities will continue in college or afterwards. Also, we shouldn’t overblow what these EC’s mean. Raising $200 is not the same as raising $50,000. A lot of these EC’s anyone could do. Also, if admissions directors are trying to create a diverse community, they should be aware that they are not necessarily finding people with different talents or interests. They are just finding more people who are ambitious and are willing to start some club or organization to establish a niche for themselves at a future elite university. I think that’s fine if they truly vet these EC’s to make sure they are substantial achievements, but I don’t think they do that for community service and similar activities as well as they vet ability in, say, math or sports.</p>
<p>But I think in general, talent and passion should result in better performance than those with talent alone. If you have a passion for something but someone outperforms you who doesn’t care about it, then that person deserves credit. </p>
<p>The science fair that the Dartmouth student requires is unfortunate, but that’s a failure in the judges if bragging helps to increase your score. Hopefully, admissions committees aren’t that gullible, although I suspect they may be partly receptive to bragging and making bold statements if the candidate’s record is moderately impressive. I think an 18-year-old that who will cure cance would never say that on their application. </p>
<p>That’s why when you’re evaluating candidates, especially science candidates, you should look for evidence of intellectual firepower in several different subjects instead of merely taking their word for it that they are going to cure cancer. I knew plenty of guys who had done well in science fairs in high schools, and the guys who ended up becoming big shots in biology were the ones that were math team stars. The guys that were merely pretty smart and very comfortable with promoting themselves ended up just being doctors and didn’t distinguish themselves.</p>
<p>Yeah, and a student who wants to get into Harvard needs to work on getting some good ECs too. Good grades alone won’t do it. Without some good ECs s/he will never get the chance to do well at Harvard.</p>
<p>Even though you may have no interest in factoring polynomials or learning to solve the quadratic equation, you need to fake enough interest in math and work at it long enough to get a good grade and good SAT score.</p>
<p>I’m not defending fakery. I just think some of the labels we put on faking an interest in an academic subject and faking an interest in an EC, both for the sake of getting into a top college since both are REQUIRED for a top college, are arbitrary distinctions.</p>
<p>I know for myself that I pursued volunteering at first for college, but I have come to love it and have worked my way up in high positions (district level) for the organization I am in. Not everyone who does it is fake. I love volunteering and definitely plan on being involved in college and helping out non profit organizations throughout my entire life. The opportunities I’ve been presented through my volunteer organizations have been endless and just the feeling I get by helping someone makes everything worth it. I do it because I find it enjoyable and it’s not just for college!</p>
<p>Lots of people start off volunteering because someone makes them or they think it will look good for colleges, but then they discover and learn things from the experience. My lifelong habit of volunteering started because my high school made me do it. (Long before it was fashionable - they did it because they thought experiential learning was important.)</p>
<p>All college essays tend to take what you do and make them sound interesting.</p>
<p>The issue of “posing” for the sake of college applications has been a pet peeve of mine for a while–particularly the resume padding aspect of it. I fear that will negatively affect the honest kids since they will pale by comparison. </p>
<p>Still, I think now I am less concerned about kids feigning passion for activities they are only doing so they can list them on their applications, and more about what these kids are missing out on that they would be doing instead? What potential interests aren’t they discovering? What aspects of their personhood are they neglecting to develop? </p>
<p>My son definitely played the academic “game”, but drew the line at allowing college apps to determine his EC’s and leisure time. What occurred to me later was that when I would bug him about just doing his homework and getting to bed instead of reading news online, was that his interest in and knowledge of current events is one reason he’s such an interesting person and good conversationalist. Also, he stuck with a particular EC that didn’t quite fit into the rest of his profile. By that I mean it didn’t contribute to a unified picture of a kid passionate about interests X, Y or Z. Yet that EC ended up catching the attention of college interviewers and impressed potential employers on interviews as well.</p>
<p>I think the problem will be reduced if they evaluate EC’s properly. Like, for years, going to Africa to do community service was considered a fantastic EC. Now, the top schools have wised up and recognize that going to Africa isn’t any more valuable than EC’s in one’s own community and often reflects the parent’s pocketbook. However, I think it took a couple of decades for them to come to that conclusion. The spotting of dumb or flimsy EC’s seems to be behind-the-curve to the same degree as the testing for performance enhancing drugs in baseball.</p>
<p>What they could use in admission is a little more expertise on how to spot EC’s which are not very substantial. This, of course, is merely my opinion, but I’ve seen some dumb EC’s propel some people to admission to elite schools.</p>
<p>I think if EC’s were evaluated properly, there wouldn’t be a problem of “faking it” because the only EC’s that would count would be ones that represented significant accomplishment. For instance, people don’t feign interest in math by signing up for the math club because everyone knows that math club in itself doesn’t help at all. You’ve got to at least win some regional awards for it to be worth anything at all.</p>
<p>As a student, perhaps my view is biased but I generally believe that the ‘intellectual’ among us so to speak can spot each other fairly easily. I can attest that most of the students I know at my ‘top’ school are full of **** for lack of a better word. Even intellectually, many will spew lingo to impress others without actually communicating any ideas. </p>
<p>I realize peer review won’t always be accurate (I openly admit that my best friend wrote my dartmouth peer rec and its probably embellished) but rest easy parents, at the very least, your kids can learn these lessons when they get to college. More than professed enthusiasm, I find a willingness to be self-critical as the best indicator that someone is eager to learn. The friends I like to chat with over dinner or coffee etc vary in gpa, experience and capacity in fields we discuss but almost invariably I find that those most willing to admit and correct their own mistakes are the ones who later on clear out academic competitions etc. I don’t think pure ability is always the best indicator of intellectualism, more like genuine curiosity (not to be confused with enthusiasm which seems to be more of a personality issue). Ability, I’ve found, often leads to a certain elitism (I admit that I’m guilty of this as well, working on fixing it :/) and frankly, I think actions speak louder than words in learning, which is I suppose the essence of this discussion.</p>
<p>Call me crazy but I would readily sacrifice quality of life to stay in an academic institution. When asked about my ‘dreams,’ I usually respond that I’d like to earn lots of $$$, retire early and then go back to school… indefinitely. I did have a rather unique upbringing though. Instead of being read fairy tales, my parents read me stories of scientists and the adults I knew grewing up all valued intelligence over status despite all being very accomplished in the business world. At this point, I’d like to make a word to the parents. Don’t be afraid of ‘forcing’ your children to study at a young age. If you expose them to the joys of learning early on, they’ll likely learn to value it more. If you let them play with toys and dolls etc then they’ll grow up accustomed to having and wanting these things as they mature. If you wonder why your children are so concerned with status or material goods then look closely at your own actions. This isn’t meant to blame any of you but often what you think is good for us is really not. ‘Fun’ often leads to addiction, teach your children early about whats important in life. For those who think I’ve been brainwashed or something, I’d like to point out that I am a somewhat ‘rebellious’ child. I love my parents but we have fights more often and more serious than the typical family. Not exactly something I’m proud of but I was stubborn to the point of doing the exact opposite of what my parents say to spite them haha.</p>
<p>As for my own experiences with the college admissions process. Yes, I did ‘game’ somewhat. I would have done many activities anyways but I admit that I probably would have put less time and effort into ec’s if not for college. Was it a good experience? Yes, I did learn alot from these activities nonetheless. I won’t recommend other students not to ‘game’ at all since many of my very intellectual friends were rejected from all of the so called ‘top’ schools but at least have a healthy attitude and an inquisitive mind. </p>
<p>Random thing: a very positive experience for me has been the IB program. I complained like crazy going through it but it’s been one of the best things to have happened to me. Nearly all of my ‘intellectual’ friends went through this program as well. Done properly, the question you’re taught to ask most is ‘why.’</p>
<p>I agree with coureur on this. I can’t see criticizing a person for taking steps to achieve a long-term goal. Doing something you don’t care about that much isn’t fakery (although lying about your “passion” is certainly problematic). Am I living a lie because I do my job for the money? And this, from the article:</p>
<p>
My reaction to this is that those kids should have written better applications. The tough truth is that Harvard is looking for students who really are better than everyone else–and you have to prove it in your application.</p>
But, you know, I managed to just laugh at myself.</p>