<p>I do think that the current college admissions schtick preferences extraverts over introverts, and I think that’s a shame.</p>
<p>Just gotta add my 2cents:</p>
<p>collegealum (post #32): “The guys that were merely pretty smart and very comfortable with promoting themselves ended up just being doctors and didn’t distinguish themselves.” So sad you feel this way. This is a sorry viewpoint you have of doctors!</p>
<p>pizzagirl: “extraverts over introverts”…I agree with this completely! Some may call it padding your resume (application), but extraverts win all the time.</p>
<p>In this year’s app process, I know one super political (very attractive) kid who did <em>everything</em> just right, and it seemed to me, just for admittance. Town Hall Representative, School Board Rep., Front Page newsmaker, Organized protests, plus tons of ECs: student gov., newspaper editor, MUN, etc…Most colleges (HYSP, Duke & WashU) didn’t buy it.</p>
<p>Aren’t most passions extraverted anyway? I mean, don’t the students get awards that acknowledge their skill?: music, art, debate, science research, sports, etc. </p>
<p>Whereas other passions, like web-design, gaming, and skateboarding, don’t have those same types of awards.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You need both. No one (I think) is arging about work ethic or presentation: what they are arguing is that too often it is form OVER content or worse, in PLACE of content. I see wayyyyy too many kids without a creative ounce in their body…but they can follow instructions, deliver exacty (and often only) what is asked, and put in the hours. That alone is not admirable. </p>
<p>I would take a singular cool idea in a short paper over a mundane, copied or derivative idea in a long paper with a pretty cover, any day of the week. Class presentations that nail the crux of the business case are A in my class; class presentations whose primary strength is the quality of powerpoint slides and the clothing worn by presenters may not even receive a pass. In my profession, you are rewarded for the impact your research makes, not how many studies your name appears on. In the best performing companies, people are rewarded for their real contribution and positive changes they make, not their obedient face time logging hours to and maintaining the status quo. </p>
<p>I think this is a giant cultural difference here. Facade and appearance is far more important in some cultures than others; while this distinction used to be primarily an ethnic and regional cultural difference, possibly it’s now becoming a generational culture one as well.</p>
<p>I liked Speckledegg’s post that talked about kids who have natural passion and that is only a small percent of the population. I also have two contrasting kids. </p>
<p>D1 has had genuine passion for what is now her major and so works hard at it with enthusiasm and hopefully this will take her far in her field. She lacks discipline in areas that aren’t of real interest to her so she was very mixed in high school academics, etc. </p>
<p>D2 is simply incredibly self-disciplined and focused, and when she sets her mind on a goal, will work as hard as necessary to accomplish it. For example, she is a very good musician and likes playing her instruments, but is definitely not “passionate” about them. It would be anathema to her to try and fake enthusiasm for the variety of things that she likes but isn’t obsessed with. I think she was successful in admissions at schools that valued her straightforward discipline and intellectual depth rather than energetic drive which she didn’t try to falsely project. But I suppose it’s not easy to discern the real motivations and character behind people in applications and the right spin unfortunately works for some.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not putting down doctors. Actually some of the brilliant guys who ended up making big discoveries in science were MD’s. Also, there are also scientists who just show up to collect a paycheck, just none of the people who I knew in high school who applied to top schools.</p>
<p>I’m just saying that the academic superstars ended up truly distinguishing themselves while the guys who were smart and had lots of activities ended up just being your standard doctors. Nothing wrong with that. It’s just that the second group actually did better in college admissions than the first group.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I know having hundred(s) of hours no longer cuts it in elite school admission.
However, I respectfully disagree that organizing a fundraiser/project is harder than doing well in math contests, even regional ones. I’ve done both. </p>
<p>And creating a web page and serving as webmaster? Maybe this seems great to older people that are not as computer savvy. I don’t know. But it’s laughable to most kids. It’s very easy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I agree that extraverted personalities tend to be favored over introverts, I disagree that science research, music, and art are activities which favor extroverts. The people who are best at music, art, and science tend to be introverts because these activities require one to spend hours by themselves perfecting their craft. Even debate can be an activity which introverts thrive in, because making arguments is different than engaging in smalltalk.</p>
<p>Op posted: “Following their admission, many proceeded to drop their extracurricular activities, cease participating in community service projects”</p>
<p>I have no objection that kids participate in many EC the high schools allows…that’s the way they can familiarize and discover a passion in the future. It is an experience, a practice of life - it is reasonable to expect that once in college that they will not participate to the degree they did in high school. College is more demanding that HS and kids have not the same time to dedicate to the number of EC they participated in HS. They will participate in those related to their studies.</p>
<p>However, those EC are experiences that will remain with those kids. I’m sure that when they become professionals, those experiences that were the foundation for community participation, volunteer work, will help those kids to volunteer and participate in social and community activities.</p>
<p>So having the opportunity to participate even though they drop the EC when they go to college it is preferable that to never had the chance to be in high school clubs or participate in EC. Another benefit of those EC is socializing and to be busy instead of to be idle or wasting time watching TV.</p>
<p>
It’s even worst to international students. I knew one person who got admitted in the # 1 school in America with a full ride. Her family is rich, super rich in her country.</p>
<p>“And creating a web page and serving as webmaster? Maybe this seems great to older people that are not as computer savvy. I don’t know. But it’s laughable to most kids. It’s very easy.”</p>
<p>I’ve designed web pages, so I know it’s not that hard. Younger S designed the web page and was web master of our local weekly when he was 12.</p>
<p>Doing an excellent job on a web page and doing it on one’s own initiative – as did the Harvard applicant that I mentioned – takes more work than does doing well on math contests in which there are weekly meetings and an advisor guiding the students in what they do.</p>
<p>In the small city where I live, there are several high schools that each year have nationally ranked math teams, and have students who get regional and national awards for those teams. There’s such an excellent system in place for producing these kind of stars that it isn’t that difficult for smart students to do well at it, and it doesn’t make them stand out here in college admissions for top colleges.</p>
<p>Greenery mentions kids taking many many Ec’s to 'test the waters" to see what they might have an interest in. I haven’t read anything here yet that would disagree with that statement.
What some people feel though, is that those who do an EC specifically just to try to look better on a college ap is deceitful, some even think it’s lying.</p>
<p>I think Collegealum has misread comething: in post 66, alum says he(?) disagrees with a previous viewpoint and Alum feels that organizing a fundraiser is not harder than winning a math contest. I don’t remember anyone saying organizing a fundraiser was harder. I do remember some saying they thought it was more impressive than joining the math club. Did I overlook someone’s statement; or is Alum disagreeing with something that really wasn’t even said?</p>
<p>Compaq cracks me up though. The #1 school? As if there was one rating system accepted by all, that included every factor for every student. It’s like the #1 NFL player. In truth, there is no #1 footballer because all the players have very different positions, responsibilities, obligations, and expectations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was responding to the following comment: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are quite right, Alum. I thank you for pointing that out to me. Apparently math awards are quite common in NorthStarmom’s area; and she feels require less effort than fundraising in her area. I now see what you disagree with; you feel math awards take more effort than fundraising in her area.
Sorry I overlooked that.</p>
<p>Our society is diverse, and there is a need for workers, inventors, and presenters. It makes sense for colleges to have all three. That said, workers and inventors are lucky in that routes to success are diffuse and myriad, while presenters feel early pressure to network.</p>
<p>I don’t think my older son quintessential computer nerd was hurt by being an introvert squared. He did the exam events at Science Olympiad, he had work experience in computer programming (as well as programming the best mod for Civ 4 according to Gamer magazine). My younger son’s most interesting activities weren’t particularly outgoing ones either. He helped archive the neighborhood association papers and he sold origami earrings (which required bringing them to galleries, but not doing the selling himself.)</p>
<p>What if colleges had reasonably high entrance requirements and all students who met those requirements were put in a lottery. Kids would still have to work hard in high school, but once they met those demanding requirements there would be no point in going above and beyond.</p>
<p>Then students could take some chances (I know kids who have dropped classes they loved because they didn’t think they could get an A), pursue true interests, and live a healthier lower stress lifestyle. </p>
<p>Kids who got in would not feel superior to those who didn’t and kids who didn’t get in wouldn’t feel inferior since it is a lottery.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, people have suggested this before. At times, I agree with you. </p>
<p>Your second paragraph is why I think admission to state flagship schools should remain driven by stats for in-state candidates. Some state flagships (like the California schools) have changed to more holistic, ivy-like admissions. I can understand why ivies want to be holistic, but for a state school I think it’s much better to be driven by stats alone (except for highly specialized programs like music). Kids should be able to ace their classes and standardized exams and feel assured that they can attend their state school. And then they can go and participate in sports, spend time daydreaming, and work on developing skills that may not bear fruit in time for college admissions.</p>
<p>A California student with a 2400 SAT scorer and a 4.0 GPA in the hardest classes should know for sure that they can go to UCLA, for instance.</p>
<p>But, just to throw a wrench in it, look at Texas. They have all sorts of problems because of the top ten percent of the class rule.</p>
<p>I think they are going, next year, to top 8% of the class…</p>
<p>I am very pleased upon coming up this thread. As a recent Ivy League reject, I’ve come to terms with several things in the last several weeks, and I have to say, it takes away much of the faith I had in the educational system.</p>
<p>I understand that colleges do look for passion, but sometimes, passion can overrun everything, including the writing of the application. Application doesn’t look as nice and the truly committed person gets rejected. It sucks, but it’s life, I guess.</p>
<p>Anyway, I think this article from college confidential sums up the problems with the admissions process quite nicely.</p>
<p>[Paths</a> to Ivy-Wise Advice](<a href=“http://www.collegeconfidential.com/ivy_league/wise.htm]Paths”>http://www.collegeconfidential.com/ivy_league/wise.htm)</p>
<p>To begin with, </p>
<p>“The elementary years: Encourage reading and broad-range interests. Look for signs of special talents. Get involved with your school’s guidance program. Start developing computer skills.”</p>
<p>Elementary school. Elementary School. I think at this point, it’s often not the kid’s decision. This takes serious meaning out of going to the school.</p>
<p>“Middle-School Years: Continue reading at all levels. Begin to emphasize writing and general communication skills. Watch for emerging leadership traits. Increase involvement with teachers and administrators. Consider taking the SAT I to qualify for advanced programs such as the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth.” </p>
<p>Again, we’re starting at a fairly early age. I can’t comment here because I’m a five-year CTY veteran, but I can honestly say that every moment I was at CTY was because I truly wanted to be there. Those were some of the happiest times of my life. I’d do it again in a heartbeat.</p>
<p>“Ninth Grade: GPA and class rank begin to accumulate. Schedule only the most challenging courses. Consider APs if they are available. Take an SAT I in January to get some testing experience. Excel in academics and extracurricular pursuits. Don’t waste summer.”</p>
<p>Okay, once more, you’re in ninth grade. While caring about grades is important, it shouldn’t run your life. And if you truly enjoy a class, who cares if it isn’t challenging? It’s fun and you’re learning, what else could you ask for? And the SAT? While it’s understandable taking it for a summer program, or maybe even Junior Year, too much time can be dangerous. Every prep class you religiously attend, every practice test you take, every Saturday you take the test could better be used doing something else. It’s understandable retaking a low score, especially if it could keep you out of college, but retaking a 35, is that really necessary? Also, summer. What defines the “wasting” of summer? Is it spending summer with friends? Is it doing something you care about that doesn’t look good on a resume? Or is it anything that isn’t tied with an internship or something for colleges? If you’re alive, you’re learning, whether it be from a book or an environment. At least enjoy those summer days when you’re still young, they won’t be there forever.</p>
<p>"Sophomore Year: Schedule APs where possible. Continue to develop extracurricular interests. Volunteerism and general community service now become important. What academic strengths are developing? Pursue them. Take another SAT in the spring. SAT Is in June? Writing skills and vocabulary should be sharpening. Plan a meaningful summer. Read books from college reading lists. " </p>
<p>Generally the same comments. However, I have a qualm with the last one. While reading from college reading lists is a good thing, so is reading in general. Reading is meaningful no matter what it is, whether it’s an Old Issue of Superman or Great Expectations, as long as you’re analyzing it and learning from it. Or maybe, just enjoying it. Being on a list because it’s “smart” doesn’t make the book any better. </p>
<p>"Junior Year: More AP courses. Prepare for the PSAT (National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test) in October. Parents’ assets need to be positioned for maximum protection from financial aid assessment by December 31. Start looking at college candidates. Have six by summer (Reach, Ballpark, and Safeties). Visit the campuses. Prepare for SAT Is in January and May and Subject Tests in June. Start thinking about college application essays. Volunteer work and extracurriculars should be well developed by now. Begin college counseling. Summer should include something that relates to higher education. "</p>
<p>What’s with the APs? What makes AP classes so special? You’re still learning, aren’t you? Albeit the work’s harder, but especially in classes where it’s taught to the test, what are you learning for? Are you learning to forget it after you take the exam, because there’s really no point to it if you are. I also understand looking at college campuses, but understand that it shouldn’t be your life. College admissions are a crapshoot, as much for the people at the admissions office as for the student attending. If you have six schools on your list that you truly love than you should have the ability to be happy at any of them. Actually, you should be happy anywhere you go. Happiness is ultimately determinant on the individual, so wherever you are, you have the option to be happy. If you aren’t, there’s always the option to get out and go somewhere else. Same comments with summer apply. You live once. Enjoy it.</p>
<p>“Senior Year: The big year. Still more APs. Send for college applications. Pick teachers for recommendations. Consider Early Decision or Early Action for your clear, first-choice pick. Need an October SAT I? It’s essay time. Explore electronic applications. Learn to love your counselor. Get quality advice about the process. Keep meticulous details about your applications. Mark your calendar with important deadlines. Early Decision/Action letters arrive early-to-mid December. Regular decision letters arrive mid-March through mid-April. Learn how to negotiate financial aid offers. Enroll, be happy, and prosper. Work the summer for much-needed college dollars.” </p>
<p>I understand the emphasis on several of these things at this point, although I still severely disagree, but the thing I disagree with most is the application itself. The adcoms are determined to look at the applicant as a person as a whole, but how can you do that with an application. Sure you have grades, but those are only quantitative measures. Recommendations can capture an applicant, but they can’t give every experience a student has had in the classroom over the last four years. Same thing with essay, you can write about what you want, you can write about what you love (I wrote about taking the public bus to school in the morning), but you can’t capture your entire soul in 750 words. After all, it’s still in development. Extracurriculars are nice, but it’s extremely hard to capture how much time is spent, even with leadership positions. In some cases it’s obvious, but in others, it’s not. Take for example, National Honor Society. The last year, I was the most active Senior member, and the only member present on a regular basis for the first semester. I did more than anybody else, and our lovely officers (who often skipped meetings) eventually got canned mid-December. Did it matter? No. It was already on their applications. As for the interview, the only face to face contact, at least you’re looking more into the applicant as a person, but there’s only so much you can tell in one to two hours. There’s personality and mood variables, which are hard to take into account. And once more, the interview is written up on paper.</p>
<p>After reading this article, I felt several things. The first of which being, I felt glad I was rejected from Brown, my top choice school. While I loved the people and atmosphere there, there are other places which I will be happy, and if getting in meant giving up my fun filled summers and quality time with my friends, it wouldn’t be worth it. I would’ve turned down Brown in a heartbeat if it meant giving up my love of anime. </p>
<p>Which is the one thing that the adcoms can’t take away from the truly qualified applicants. Their passions. Perhaps, in that since, the rejectees are better off after all.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>What makes you think I just realized this or it took me a long time? I didn’t write the article in the first post, I just linked to it and quoted from it. The author of that is the one whose eyes were apparently recently opened.</p>