<p>But does MIT selects for strong character? It asks for AIME scores. I don't recall if it measures the extent of applicants moral fortitude. :) Or perhaps it was a prolonged prank.</p>
<p>"But does MIT selects for strong character?"</p>
<p>Obviously not.</p>
<p>Oops, my niece might go there. I have to start watching what I say. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Believe me, colleges know what they want, and they know what kind of students are the most valuable. (...) I'm absolutely sure the values that top colleges look for in a person and the values that will enable a person to be a successful, healthy, and unique member of society are one and the same.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You know, I would swear that you were kidding, but you don't give any indication that you are anything other than serious. </p>
<p>"Elite" colleges (and I use the term in its accepted form, not because I believe it) famously recruit to fill needs first: gender balance, URMs, "prestige" candidates (Jodie Foster, children of senators), children of really wealthy people, athletes, or famous woodwind players. Maybe 25-50% of slots are available for those likely to become "successful, healthy, and unique." From a couple of tests, some grades, and some ghost-written essays (sorry for the hyperbole here, but tell me it doesn't happen) they then divine "the most valuable" 5% of student candidates out of a pool of thousands of valedictorians. Once the barriers of SATs, essays, grades, and vacationing in the right town in the south of France have been passed, the remaining candidates are pretty much interchangeable, and, yes, I think the admissions officers could flip coins, roll dice, or play rock/paper/scissors to fill their freshman classes and it wouldn't make one teeny-tiny difference to the future of the country, the world, or even the school itself. </p>
<p>Oh, and I wish I knew anyone with the omniscience that some posters are attributing to admissions officers. With the pool they have to draw from, Adcoms at uber-selective schools don't have to worry about type I errors. When the fishing hole is full of nothing but salmon, you won't pull out many turkeys.</p>
<p>Clearly you should read more about MIT, Marion Jones, is exceptional. She says openly she saves 50-100 spots every year, for a kid with that extra spark, to get accepted! My D's best friend, got accepted there early, and I bet her strong character was just the ancor that got her in.</p>
<p>Top schools are already too selective, so why not draw names from a hat?</p>
<p>SPRING IS HERE, and along with the crocuses comes the annual admissions panic. High school kids get anxiety attacks as they approach their mailboxes. And in some parts of the U.S., parents stress as they await a phone call from their preschool of choice. The high school kids have tortured themselves to build up stunning credentials and then communicate those credentials strategically in a college application. And the parents of toddlers have struggled to find a way to distinguish their 18-month-old from all the rest.</p>
<p>To today's high-achieving high school students, the future seems to ride on getting into selective institutions such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford or my own institution, Swarthmore, where almost every one of the applicants is good enough to succeed but only one in 10 will be given the chance. And so the competition trickles down: The road to Harvard goes through the "right" high school, the "right" elementary school, the "right" preschool. Thus the anguished "admissions essays" from the parents of kids still in diapers.</p>
<p>We all know this process has gotten crazy. I believe that it has bad effects on winners as well as losers. I'm not just talking about the financial strain on parents, who can spend as much as it costs for a year at these elite universities on SAT prep courses and personal tutoring, on private college counselors and now on "getting-into-college" summer camps, costing as much as $3,000 for two weeks. And I'm not just talking about the stress on students. It's what the competition itself is stealing from our most talented youth.</p>
<p>Students choose classes that play to their strengths, to get easy A's, rather than classes that might correct their weaknesses or nurture new interests. They sacrifice risk-taking and intellectual curiosity on the altar of demonstrable success. Moreover (as documented by a great deal of research), because students are doing the work they do in and out of school for the wrong reasons ? not because they are interested in learning ? the intense competition undermines their motivation to continue to learn for the sake of gaining understanding. As a result, even those who excel enough to get into Harvard, Stanford or UCLA are likely to be less inspired students once that goal has been achieved. By making themselves so competitive, our selective institutions are subverting their aims...</p>
<p>We like to believe, in our least cynical moments, that the U.S. is a meritocracy. Success is about talent and hard work. Luck has nothing to do with it. This attitude may well contribute to a lack of sympathy, sometimes even bordering on disdain, for life's losers. I believe that this attitude is profoundly false. It is not the case that people always get what they deserve. There just aren't enough top rungs on the Ivy League's (or life's) ladders for everyone to fit. If talented and hardworking people are forced to confront the element of chance in life's outcomes when they (or their kids) fail to get into the "best" college, they may be more inclined to acknowledge the role of luck in shaping the lives of the people around them. And this may make them more empathic toward others ? and a good deal more committed to creating more room at the top.</p>
<p>Once again, the above article is completely detached from reality.</p>
<p>Why can't some people accept the fact that education can't always be the end for the majority of the population? It would be great if everyone would learn for learning's sake. But that's simply not true. Those who learn for learning's sake are usually exceptionally gifted and brilliant individuals that will work in academia. We can't expect the general high school population to live up to that standard; otherwise, the practical job market would be dead.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the article in the OP says that people take easy classes to get good GPAs and waste money taking SAT classes that are exorbitantly priced. One solution would be for colleges to reduce the weight placed on grades and test scores. However, this would WORSEN the problem, making it EVEN MORE of a crapshoot. The article says that "meritocracy is a myth." If we decrease the emphasis on GPA/test scores, meritocracy won't merely be a myth, it will be a total lie. In essence, the author believes that luck is a huge part of college admissions (and life), (which is true), and that we should listen to his advice, making luck even a larger element of the equation.</p>
<p>Last but not least, the article says: "and this may make them more empathetic toward others." You CANNOT legislate ethics. How can anyone be naive enough to assert that "having empathy" is a relevant issue as a nation. Individuals can become more understanding, NOT a whole country. Empathy is relevant in personal growth. You can't say a country has become 1.5% more understanding and loving. Irrelevant.</p>
<p>The hypothesis of this author is correct. Luck is a large factor in life. But the final conclusion merely reiterates an obvious statement in life. Life is hard and often unfair...but you have to have resilience and realize that it's not the end of the world. Nothing new.</p>
<p>So, what can we do? Get over the naive notions that the article in the OP presents. Then figure out that it's always better to care too much than to care too little. I'd rather study too hard and get a 2100 on the SAT rather than not study enough and get a 1200. So...my conclusion?</p>
<p>Don't have such a fatalistic attitude. In the real world, nobody cares whether you are doing something because you really want to do it, or because you want to get ahead. Challenges can be purely academic, as they can be purely financial or career-based. Just understand that the colleges have been around a lot longer than the crazed parents and students of this time, and that their sense of "positive character traits" are probably not too far off yours, provided that you are a decent individual. Furthermore, understand that competition is ALWAYS going to be there. If you think it's bad, get over it, because when you apply for a job, you're going to have to compete for it! (apparently, to the OP's article, it's perfectly ok to compete in the job market, but NOT for a preliminary step in getting that job...)</p>
<p>One more thing; everything I said above was purely my opinion. However, one piece of evidence: Asians believe that hard work is more important to success than luck in comparison to other cultures (this is proven by many studies). It may not be a coincidence that the competition caused by this hard work is paying off in the long run.</p>
<p>Interesting - D and her friends who took intellectually challenging classes for their love of learning, who did ECs in areas of passion, and completed community service in hopes of making the world a better place are getting into the schools of their choices. Those friends who have been focusing, since second grade, on activities/classes/ECs they assume will look good on apps with their ultimate goals of acceptance into the BEST schools for the sake of the "win", are getting rejected - by the same Ivy or high-rated LAC schools. Perhaps character/honesty/humility is underrated AND the lack of same is more transparent to adcoms than students (and their parents) realize?</p>
<p>Acutally Countdown, that is good to hear. My D is a very passionate girl, and that is what she has going for her, her contributions. She wrote a post about this earlire tonight, no replies thus far, it will be interesting to see what is said.</p>
<p>You know, I would swear that you were kidding, but you don't give any indication that you are anything other than serious.</p>
<p>"Elite" colleges (and I use the term in its accepted form, not because I believe it) famously recruit to fill needs first: gender balance, URMs, "prestige" candidates (Jodie Foster, children of senators), children of really wealthy people, athletes, or famous woodwind players. Maybe 25-50% of slots are available for those likely to become "successful, healthy, and unique." From a couple of tests, some grades, and some ghost-written essays (sorry for the hyperbole here, but tell me it doesn't happen) they then divine "the most valuable" 5% of student candidates out of a pool of thousands of valedictorians. Once the barriers of SATs, essays, grades, and vacationing in the right town in the south of France have been passed, the remaining candidates are pretty much interchangeable, and, yes, I think the admissions officers could flip coins, roll dice, or play rock/paper/scissors to fill their freshman classes and it wouldn't make one teeny-tiny difference to the future of the country, the world, or even the school itself.</p>
<p>Oh, and I wish I knew anyone with the omniscience that some posters are attributing to admissions officers. With the pool they have to draw from, Adcoms at uber-selective schools don't have to worry about type I errors. When the fishing hole is full of nothing but salmon, you won't pull out many turkeys.</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong (as in nothing that should make us believe that the process is biased for us) with a school that chooses a certain student body to be based on "recruits." Let's assume that College A has an acceptance rate of 10%. 3% goes to recruited individuals. That 7% for the "successful, healthy, and unique" will always exist.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I believe the 25-50% percentage is inaccurate, to begin with, and you are assuming that the groups of qualified and recruited candidates are mutually exclusive in their qualifications. In reality, that's not true. I would say it's more along the lines of 75%. I remember someone saying that the class at Harvard was:
1) the most intellectually promising class of this year
2) people that have special connections (legacies) or special talents (music, athletics)
3) "normal" people (this group was clearly identified as being the largest)</p>
<p>What I think you were trying to conclude: College admission is quite random because URM's, athletes, etc are chosen at elite colleges.</p>
<p>What I conclude: College admission for "normal" people is HARDER than if it was strictly a meritocracy, but because that quota (which I STRONGLY believe is larger than 25-50%), always exists and will continue to exist, it is logical to just imagine the college as more selective. It is not correct to assume that just because the college accepts legacies, etc., that the regular pool's selection will also be subject to favoritism. It is HARDER for students, NOT more random.</p>
<p>Finally your point regarding that in a pool of excellent people, you can afford to make mistakes, is completely untrue for the following reasons. If you were an elite company, would you make a mistake of saying there's so many good fish in the pool, so we'll pick you? NO. ALL elite companies are extremely selective for DEFINITE QUALITIES that they LOOK for. There is absolutely no indication that an elite college would differ from this. In other words, why WOULDN'T they pick you for a good reason? It is a mistake to believe that there is no difference between a semi-qualified candidate and a perfect fit.</p>
<p>I just don't understand the cynicism. When adcoms say they pay attention to every application, they do! If you think it's an important decision for you, it's even more important to them; they are potentially making a lifetime investment in a quality person. They will give you second chances, they will listen to you pour out your soul and tell them who you truly are. It couldn't be any more fair than that.</p>
<p>Some places have systems in which one test determines your life.
Others, in which the socioeconomic status of your parents does.
Others, where you live and where you attend school.</p>
<p>It's definitely necessary to look back, and realize the facts. That means understanding that colleges are institutions that are making investments in human capital, and that this is just about the most fair basis on which a decision can be made. All grades/SAT's? All your family background? Think about the alternatives, and reality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is a mistake to believe that there is no difference between a semi-qualified candidate and a perfect fit.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By the adcoms' own account, they could fill their entering classes at least once, perhaps twice, over with applicants they rejected and they would have as strong a group of admitted students. We must take this seriously. The choice comes down not between semi-qualified and perfectly fit students but equally qualified students. Choosing between them is an invidious task. The point I tried to make is that adcoms fill certain niches first; and these niches do take up a substantial proportion of the admit list. At smaller colleges, the proportion is larger than at larger ones since sports teams, orchestras, etc... must be of a minimal size to be functional. But once those niches have been filled, each of the remaining slots could easily be filled by several of the admissible applicants. Why should we distrust what adcoms have to say on the matter?
Finally, believe me, every class has its shares of turkeys. Adcoms are made up of fallible human beings, despite their characterization as Olympian gods (well those Olympian gods were full of foibles and biases themselves).</p>
<p>I think adigal is correct in that the author, being a psychologist(?) is looking at highly selective admissions from the prospective hs students' points of view and the extraordinary lengths they feel the need to go to in order to make them "stand out".</p>
<p>Ah, and another academic who refers to the USNews rankings as silly.</p>
<p>uh mini-the oboe is passe. Today the bassoon is where it's at. I've got a few Vivaldi vinyls with neat bassoon concerti. Uh, vinyl-today? Maybe I am wrong about the bassoon.</p>
<p>Originaloog:
You're probably right the oboe is passe. It was at the turn of the millennium (how's that for a date?) that a Yale interviewer lamented that my S only played the piano. If he'd played the oboe, she claimed, he would be more in demand. S did not apply to Yale. Since then, two cohorts of students have passed through Yale and other colleges. Maybe there have been too many oboists among them.
Bassoons are great; I like French horns, too. There are too few pieces that require harpists to make harp-playing a hook or even a tip.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Heh. My son the trumpet player took up French horn in 8th grade to improve his chances of playing in high school and college. "Dad, I know that there aren't nearly as many French horn players as trumpet players, and I still have time to learn it." His band also had special instruction in French horn available through a program to support "endangered instruments."</p>
<p>"I think the admissions officers could flip coins, roll dice, or play rock/paper/scissors to fill their freshman classes and it wouldn't make one teeny-tiny difference to the future of the country, the world, or even the school itself."
LOL!!! VERY true, Brady00n!!</p>
<p>To say it's a total crapshoot, is a bit of an extreme statement. However, I do think after weeding out some inferior applicants, many of these schools could fill their classes with truly quality students. Most recently, I've worked with a fine young man who applied to UNC with everything they ask for (and then some!). He was deferred EA and rejected RD. He has great ECs, scores within the USNWR range, recs and essays were off the charts, he did NOT find the cure for cancer! OOS is so tough there! One adcom from Chapel Hill said they use 7 APs as a minimum standard for OOS, Well, he didn't have that many, but he took as many as his school offered! My guess is that his public h.s. wasn't well known by UNC and another very qualified candidate took 'his' spot. He is the perfect UNC kid, but they rejected him...That's life! </p>
<p>He'll have other good choices and will be a fine, productive citizen one day--which is what this is supposed to be about!!</p>
<p>Though I have no evidence, it really seems to me that colleges elect their 'normal' kids (NOT legacies, URMs, development cases, offspring of fame) based on the qualities of the 'exceptional' (the legacies, URMs, development cases, offspring of fame) kids. So many claim that one's (who is academically qualified) admission is really based on the composition of the applicant pool. I think that's very very true. If you're very good at the violin, but the daughter of Joshua Bell (yes, I know Mr. Bell has no kids) applies to the same school, then your exceptional talent at the violin doesn't seem so great because Joshua Bell's daughter applied. Suddenly your great talent is reduced to near nothing. Instead, your friend, the clarinetist who is of similar artistry gets in b/c 'Benny Goodman's son' didn't apply. This is the crapshoot I see. Correct me if I'm wrong.</p>
<p>The one very very valid point I see is that many kids view college admissions as an end in itself. This is not good, and it's clear that many, here on CC.com, subscribe to that viewpoint.</p>
<p>This may seem radical to some, but involving professors in the admissions process would be a useful counterpoint to the 'packaging factor' that can sometimes sway admissions decisions. There are many approaches by which faculty input could be incorporated, even for those students that select UNKNOWN as a likely major.</p>
<p>The responsibilities could be rotated, like jury duty, such that it was an occasional task, say every several years, and did not unduly burden the same faculty members year after year. One would expect the faculty to place more emphasis on academic achievements and demonstrated potential. Once they had made their preferences clear (through some manner of candidate scoring, ranking, or comments), other considerations - rewarding achievement in unprepossessing circumstances, 'bringing life to the campus,' etc. could then be applied by the admissions committee to arrive at the final list.</p>
<p>This approach would move a step closer to academic meritocracy and partially alleviate the randomness complaint.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Students choose classes that play to their strengths, to get easy A's, rather than classes that might correct their weaknesses or nurture new interests. They sacrifice risk-taking and intellectual curiosity on the altar of demonstrable success. Moreover (as documented by a great deal of research), because students are doing the work they do in and out of school for the wrong reasons ? not because they are interested in learning ? the intense competition undermines their motivation to continue to learn for the sake of gaining understanding. As a result, even those who excel enough to get into Harvard, Stanford or UCLA are likely to be less inspired students
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolute BS. The smartest, most brilliant students I know, the ones who go to top schools, are the ones who are truly inspired, who are intellectual and personal risk-takers, who want to develop their minds and characters. and who do it all because they want to. I can't believe this presumptuous old prick has the nerve to blow off, dismiss, and trivialize the passions and accomplishments of thousands of students. I don't think he realizes how talented and driven some students actually are. Way to underestimate us. How dare he act so certain about our motivations? He thinks he is savvy but his cynicism is uninformed.</p>
<p>Sure, there are plenty of cookie cutter kids, who are pushed from age 5 by Mom and Dad. But these kids don't make it to the big leagues as often as their more naturally talented classmates anyway.</p>
<p>Professors should leave it to the admissions officers. Once you've been cooped up in academia so long, you lose touch with the brilliance of everyday people. Admissions officers get to know intimately so many students through applications and research. I trust them more than professors; it's their job to distinguish between fake kids and genuine ones, and to reward the latter. They may sometimes make mistakes, but I don't think that's a reason to eliminate distinctions and selectivity altogether.</p>
<p>It's clear to me there are many many "right" choices among colleges and students. It's a case of the road not taken. You can't possibly know how your life would have been different if you had taken a different instrument, taken dance instead of taikwondo, or learned a different foreign language. If you worked at a summer job instead of traveling to Thailand. Carried to extremes, you should have chosen different parents so you would have had the chance to be the applicant from New York instead of North Dakota. Or vice versa. Perhaps you would have had a French-speaking nanny instead of your babysitter. And now you have to narrow down your college choice, and the "right" college has to choose you. </p>
<p>If you believe in the sci-fi gimmick of branching alternate universes, you could go crazy wondering what all your alternate selves are doing. ;)</p>
<p>He didn't say how the lottery should be done, but it would make sense that the piles of possible admits be divided by major, undecided, and ec's. Then draw from each pile, that way, the lottery system still prevails, and the school gets the percentages of students in the areas it needs. I can't say I agree with this system, but quite frankly, I remember posts I made a few years ago that said that sometimes I think that they took all the possibles and threw them against a wall, and depending on where your app landed... The points made by the author are valid, and we have discussed this situation many times over the years. At least he came up with a solution - perhaps not the best, but a solution nevertheless.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the very fact that you can, to a large extent, choose your classes in college means that even the most uninspired people will think deeply and say, "maybe I should care about this." If you look around, and ask a given individual, it is almost guaranteed that they will be interested in some academic area. College is a place where people who were formerly unaware of their academic passions and only did well in school to get in mature.</p>
<p>It's not warranted to believe that academic passion develops in everyone by high school. That's the purpose of college.</p>