<p>Never been surprised in what way? That they are so similar that you’ve come to expect this kind of behavior?</p>
<p>Natalie’s science partner made me chuckle a little, because I know exactly what the histrionic “omg my chances at my dream college are screwed” plea sounds like.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hehe, tell me about it. I’d like to think that I’m part of the minority in that I stuck with “the program” to the end, but like others, I won’t have anything to show for it besides warmth of soul. Maybe I have lost the game for reasons different than those of others’ who have lost, but does it matter? A loss is a loss.</p>
<p>I agree with coureur’s post #15. I have no doubt that among the pool of top students applying to Ivies, there are many kids who do love learning for its own sake and who are motivated to work hard by that love. But I’d also guess that of the group who are passionate about learning, there are a good number of students who are much less passionate about PROVING what and how much they’ve learned. In other words, they may actually HATE doing most homework assignments or studying for exams. Yet if they force themselves to do so anyway, no one accuses them of hypocrisy. The only difference with EC’s is that there is much more leeway for a student to make calculated choices than there is with a high school course schedule. I remember one girl who chose to learn to fly and it made me chuckle, because her parents were extremely strict and sheltering. They never let her out of the house for anything social, so she clearly wasn’t learning to fly an airplane because she actually intended to GO anywhere!</p>
<p>I also don’t like when people attach value judgments to EC selection when among students there is such great diversity in personality and character, preferences and inclinations, skills and talents, and resources and opportunities. (Obviously, there are illegal, immoral, and unhealthy activities, but I’m not talking about those.) Why do we decide that one sort of activity is superior to another when it’s done in someone’s leisure time? Why is community service seen as more noble than playing sports, or starting a club better than helping one’s family at home? How can we possibly predict what will ignite an interest, reveal a special gift, meet an important need, or introduce someone to a special friend or mentor? </p>
<p>Yet admissions officers do assign value and so do scholarship committees. And more value is placed on leadership EC’s than on other things. I think we best serve society when we use our unique gifts. Why should every worker bee try to become the queen?</p>
<p>The criteria for most scholarship awards are published. Some, for example, specify leadership as an element; others award solely for leadership; still others award for scores, grades, themed essays, or a combination.</p>
<p>I cannot help but arch an eyebrow at the use of ‘leadership’ for what is actually ‘organizing’ and ‘stepping forward’</p>
<p>Colleges that swallow their own hype and hyperbole just do not feel me with yearning to pay $50k/year. But then no one in my or my wife’s extended family is a salesperson or corporate bureaucrat, and we tend to devalue those jobs.</p>
<p>" Why do we decide that one sort of activity is superior to another when it’s done in someone’s leisure time? Why is community service seen as more noble than playing sports, or starting a club better than helping one’s family at home? How can we possibly predict what will ignite an interest, reveal a special gift, meet an important need, or introduce someone to a special friend or mentor? "</p>
<p>The colleges that care about such things don’t value, for instance, community service more than helping out at home or sports.</p>
<p>When it comes to ECs, athletics and service, what they value is achievements, amount of responibility, and initiative. Meanwhile, working a job and doing major work at home to help out family (such as helping with a family business or farm or having substantial household responsibilities due to having parents who work evenings) are rated very highly because of the amount of responsibility and independence such activities require.</p>
<p>I wrote: “I’ve never been surprised by which local candidates whom I had interviewed or knew were accepted for Harvard.”</p>
<p>“Never been surprised in what way? That they are so similar that you’ve come to expect this kind of behavior?”</p>
<p>The only things that they had in common were high stats combined with demontrated passion – along with a high level of achievements in at least two disparate types of activities that it was clear that they had pursued out of their own interests. </p>
<p>They varied in terms of gender, race, and fields of interest and whether they were legacies. For instance, one was a legacy who had been teaching and coaching roller hockey leagues since middle school. My husband and older son had taken classes from that guy when the student was in middle school. Another was the top student in the country for Latin, and had been teaching himself Greek. Another was a truly well rounded individual with passions/achievements across the board: the national president of a student organization (and could describe initiatives he had implemented), and regional, state and local honors in math, Latin and art. </p>
<p>There were, however, many unsuccessful applicants with high stats but activities that were very similar and didn’t reflect initiative or accomplishments that were out of the ordinary for bright students in my area.</p>
<p>Correct. An example of an academic program that I’ve seen a number of kids slog their way through pretty much solely because they were told it would look good on a college app is IB. They had no desire to write all those extra papers, or take TOK, or be qualified for admission to a European U, but they did it to help their (US) college admissions chances. Yet no one accuses them of living a lie or even of being a little bit phony. They were just working hard at something they didn’t particularly enjoy or want to do for the sake of their future prospects -just like those kids with their made-for-college ECS and public service projects.</p>
<p>I was under the (possibly false) impression that students can make up EC’s and work experiences, and the only thing that is dissuading them from doing so categorically is ethics.</p>
<p>What’s the difference between applicant A who has actually worked to help ease familial financial strain and applicant B who has not done anything but nevertheless states on his application that he has worked at company A and company B and has the essays to “back it up”?</p>
<p>No kid who hasn’t done a lot of community service will qualify for the local scholarships offered by PTA’s and other community organzations to the students at D’s high school. Maybe it is different where you live, northstarmom. I’d say a large number of national scholarships are partially based on community service too. Additionally, our school’s academic honor societies now all require related community service to either become a member and/or stay a member. Helping family members does not count; in fact, no family member can sign off on these hours.</p>
<p>My S thought it would be hypocritical to force himself to tutor someone in Spanish in order to get into the Spanish honor society, when he knew we could really use his help with his special needs sister at home who needed tutoring.</p>
<p>In our area, community service is the good kid stamp.</p>
I would prefer a system like this. I think you’d end up with the same excellent students at the top schools, but not as much of the heartbreak about rejections.</p>
<p>
Absolutely true for most national and local scholarships. And I’m completely against it. Unlike most parents and all college admission committees, I hold a very negative opinion of community service in general, and particularly putting it on one’s resume. I object to what I consider brain-washing of our youth by rewarding community service and volunteerism – as though this is the way to improve society. That’s how it’s done in the U.S., but a truly compassionate society would routinely offer services to needy citizens and support them with tax revenue. Community service work that is truly necessary should be mandated through legislation rather than randomly taken on through the “thousand points of light” type of voluntary charity. Relying on volunteerism makes everyone feel good, wins awards for students, and leaves us with the status quo of a rich country with a low level of care for its citizens.</p>
<p>Or, the less fortunate could be offered training, and/or temporary assistance so they could more likely become self-sufficient, rather than legislating and taxing the kindness of others to provide never-ending support. Sort of a “teach them to fish…” rather than “give them a fish…” way of thinking. Help them to learn a job skill, and to make better life decisions. I hold a very low opinion of legislating community service, rather than providing opportunities and expectations. Then community service could be provided by those who want to give even more, such as churches, and other groups or individuals. I prefer the “tide lifting all boats” idea more than the “bigger boat continually bailing out the smaller boat” idea.</p>
<p>That’s how it’s done in the U.S., but a truly compassionate society would routinely offer services to needy citizens and support them with tax revenue. </p>
<hr>
<p>Hmmm … socialism? The U.S. Constitution is a wonderful document that has served our country well for many years. I would have to get myself to the political section of the CC forums to continue.</p>
<p>I find there to be an over-emphasis on community service, and believe this is misguided. We don’t expect all college applicants to be athletes, or artists, or musicians, or debaters, or any other thing but we want them ALL to be community volunteers. Helping others and “giving back” is wonderful, of course, but some people have helping personalities and some don’t–just like some people are athletic or musical and some aren’t. Some students would be energized and inspired by volunteering at a soup kitchen, and others would find it a depressing chore. To assign a value judgment to kids based on their hours of community service is just wrong. We need all kinds to make the world go round. Maybe the one who doesn’t volunteer is energized by looking through a microscope and will one day be the scientist who makes a huge medical breakthrough. Or maybe he’s the consummate businessman who will make enough money to donate huge amounts to the very same charity. </p>
<p>Community service is one area in which a lot of kids live a lie. Many students are only doing it because they think they have to, or in some case, because their school requires them to. Just like you don’t become a car by entering a garage, you don’t become a compassionate or generous person by volunteering.</p>
<p>^ To some extent, I disagree with that. I think it’s important to have the experience of helping others and being involved in your community. Some kids who would not otherwise have tried it will find it very satisfying and deepen their involvement. Others won’t. Like sports, or music. I agree with sending a message to kids (and their parents) that this is something that’s important to experience.</p>
<p>I feel we need community service requirements to break the vicious cycle of greed and self-absorption that otherwise passes from generation to generation. </p>
<p>Some students are raised in families and whole neighborhoods, never meeting another adult who gives a care about any other human being outside their immediate family.</p>
<p>Can we really blame them when they become adults and pass along these entitled and selfish attitudes to their own progeny? </p>
<p>The ONLY way to unhook these leeches, and the multi-generational cycle of self-absorption they engender, is to steal away their children during a few post-school hours to expose them to a different way of life. Perhaps a few will meet inspiring mentors who will model how to feel enriched, not impoverished, by donating time to others. </p>
<p>“The ONLY way to unhook these leeches, and the multi-generational cycle of self-absorption they engender, is to steal away their children during a few post-school hours to expose them to a different way of life. Perhaps a few will meet inspiring mentors who will model how to feel enriched, not impoverished, by donating time to others.”</p>
<p>I agree. By helping out others, they’ll also experience the wonderful feelings that are impossible to get any other way. By giving to others, the giver receives far more than they give.</p>
<ol>
<li>I respect my boss.</li>
<li>My co-workers are great.</li>
<li>I think the CEO really deserved that $35 Million.</li>
<li>No, I don’t think our company has a glass ceiling.</li>
<li>Yes, everything was wonderful.</li>
<li>Thank you for pointing that out.</li>
<li>No, those slacks don’t make your butt look big.</li>
</ol>
<p>Let’s not call it “living a lie.” Let’s call it “things we do to be successful in life.”</p>
<p>That it makes kids feel good is not a valid reason to ask them to do community service. Their service should effectively and efficiently accomplish a goal. It is this feel-good thinking which engenders expensive foreign service trips and missions projects that could be accomplished better and cheaper by paying locals to do the work. But no, we send a group of wide-eyed American teenagers with no construction experience to build houses in Mexico. We pay for plane fare, “safe” food, and “safe” housing for them when those expenses wouldn’t be necessary if we hired locally.</p>
<p>Actually, GFG, everyone I’ve met (of any age) who has done any kind of regular volunteering or even an exceptional one-time ‘extreme,’ unusual effort of some kind, will say that the experience has changed (does change) them perhaps more than those whom they serve, and that the providers feel that such personal change is tremendously important.</p>
<p>Perceptions and attitudes and communicated messages are extremely powerful in that they often result in the concrete “goals” that you mention. People, for example, in extreme straits, who encounter sincere care rather than being dismissed as worthless, often begin to internalize that sense of worth and become energized about changing vicious cycles in their lives (if possible).</p>
<p>Further, I think building up an aware and caring public is a critical counterpoint to the rampant I-am-for-myself capitalism that seems to define the modern U.S. of A. People who don’t care (except about themselves) tend to be less involved politically and less informed on major issues, which always hurts a democracy.</p>