<p>Sybbie, you are absolutely right. An Ivy admissions officer told me that they expect that every kid will change their major and that fact makes their office happy. They want kids who want to explore lots of areas. In fact, she said that she has a special affection for kids who put their perspective major as "undecided". That's a kid with an open mind.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>If it weren't for the "gaming" you mention, would my suggestion do anything to relieve stress and wasted effort on the part of the applicant? Is gaming the only reason preventing colleges from taking such action? If so, is there not a way around it? If not, are not the potential, overall benefits greater than the fact that another layer of gaming has been added to the mix?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>My answers to your questions are:</p>
<ol>
<li> I don't know - maybe.</li>
<li> I doubt that it's the only reason. Schools probably have their own reasons that I am unaware of. The schools may not even be thinking about gaming.</li>
<li> Probably not. As long as there are many more applicants than there are slots at tops schools, we are going to be stuck with "gaming" being a major part of all aspects of high end college admissions.</li>
<li> I doubt it. IMO, its potential value would soon be diluted by all the gaming. The bogus humanities applicants would soon outnumber the real ones.</li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
We see this here on CC: kids asking if they apply as this or that major, will it increase their chances?
[/quote]
YES! I am amazed at the amount of stress surrounding kids and parents trying to figure out what these top colleges want. Just view the "chances" forum. Everyone knows that the student with the best audition gets into the conservatory, the best athlete gets recruited, the most talented artist gets a spot in the studio. Why does admission to academic institutions need to be such a mystery? These straight A kids are not boring as some have suggested, but all of them have other interests. However, they are attending for intellectual pursuits, so intellect should be the priority. Even if schools admitted the best academically qualified applicants, they would still have lots of musicians, athletes, community volunteers, etc to add to the "diversity". Colleges are NOT forthright about what they are looking for.</p>
<p>lfk-- I couldn't disagree more. I think colleges are extremely forthright about what they are looking for; I think that parents assume that there's a way to beat the system. How does it help you to know that Yale needs a bassoon and Harvard needs a cello this year? If your kid is interested in Harvard and Yale, s/he applies, and either gets in or not-- were you really going to pick a musical instrument to study 10 years ago on the basis of which college was going to have an opening in their orchestra for which your kid might qualify????</p>
<p>We attended a hilarious admissions presentation at Stanford. AdRep could not have been more explicit about what they wanted. Parents were all in a dither trying to parse every pause or breath to divine some unspoken meaning. Most outrageous exchange--
AdRep-- "please don't send us additional recommendations. They are rarely useful and just clog our system. We believe our application was designed to bring out the best in you, so just follow the rules."
Parent raising hand, "but my kid worked as a congressional intern last summer. Why don't you want a recommendation from our Congressman?"
AdRep-- "Does your congressman know your child?".
Parent-- "well, no, but he did work in his local office".</p>
<p>The rest of us were in stitches. How much more forthright could Stanford be?</p>
<p>BurnThis wrote (replying first to a quote by Sly VT):</p>
<p>Sly wrote: "I can't imagine a more boring place than a college that accepted students solely based on academic record. Kids with straight A's who do nothing else but study are not going to contribute much to campus life or to society if they continue in that vein."</p>
<p>"And I could say that I can't imagine a more intellectually vacuous place than a college that accepted students solely based on how well they threw a football or where their daddy went to school. Our smart kids don't "do nothing else but study." They manage to get their 4.6 gpas in addition to their ECs which may not involved dribbling or catching, but do otherwise enrich their world. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I'm really tired of being expected to apologize because I want the best for my son because academically he is the best and brightest. That used to count for something. In a year, I'll find out if it still does."</p>
<p>And lfk725 wrote:</p>
<p>"Everyone knows that the student with the best audition gets into the conservatory, the best athlete gets recruited, the most talented artist gets a spot in the studio. Why does admission to academic institutions need to be such a mystery? These straight A kids are not boring as some have suggested, but all of them have other interests. However, they are attending for intellectual pursuits, so intellect should be the priority. Even if schools admitted the best academically qualified applicants, they would still have lots of musicians, athletes, community volunteers, etc to add to the "diversity". Colleges are NOT forthright about what they are looking for."</p>
<p>I think these posts miss the point. Nobody is saying that kids should be good at ECs INSTEAD of being tops in academics. Being tops in academics STILL counts. What selective schools are looking for are kids who excel at academics AND also can contribute in a significant capacity to the student body and campus life outside the classroom. Nobody has to apologize for being the "best and brightest" and yes, it INDEED counts for something. It counts for a whole lot. However, there are LOTS of kids who have great test scores and great grades and academic achievements. If deciding between two kids with wonderful academic resumes and one ONLY has that and one has that but lots of other things to offer, the latter kid is going to be more attractive to the college. I interview applicants all the time and for the most part, all are academically qualified for the institution but the second kid of the options I just mentioned is far more attractive of a candidate. If it were ONLY test scores and grades, no reason to have a long application....submit the numbers and voila, cut it off some place. But is the kid with 1500 who makes some cut "better" than the kid with 1490 who doesn't? Doubtful. I'd rather the kid with 1490 who exceled in areas in addition to academics. Academics being equally great, the latter kid has more to offer a campus. </p>
<p>I don't agree with LfK's assertion that if you just take the best academic stat kids off the list, you will end up with musicians, newspaper editors, athletes, etc. Not necessarily true. There will be SOME very excellent academic kids who don't do any of those additional things. </p>
<p>Nobody is espousing to take kids with "lesser" stats over kids with better ones. That is not truly the issue with elite colleges. They can take kids with excellent stats that ALSO have the extracurricular accomplishments. Kids like this exist. You have to have the academics to be considered at a top tier school, but once you meet that benchmark, the other stuff is going to come into play to build a balanced class. They aren't taking musicians, thespians, community volunteer types just to build a class. First they are making sure the student is qualified academically and amongst THOSE candidates are finding students who have other attributes to contribute as well as great academic records. It is not either/or. </p>
<p>Susan</p>
<p>PS...I'll add a personal perspective.....I'm not against kids who excel academically. I'm writing this as a parent of two kids who did so in high school. Giving just one example, I do have a kid who has only gotten straight A's and was valedictorian. If she ONLY brought that to the table on her apps, I do not think she would be a competitive candidate. The fact that she was heavily involved in lifelong commitments to several extracurricular areas in which she had achieved and which she discussed continuing to do in college, contributed to her candidacy. She didn't get in solely on extracurriculars rather than academics, but had both. By the same token, she was cognizant of the selectivity and unpredictable nature of elite college admissions and knew that even if she had what it took to get in, it was not likely to have every single elite institution give her the nod. She either fit a slot in the class they were looking for or not. But an excellent student IS going to get into some very respectable schools.</p>
<p>So do people think that different recruiting practices in the US to eg Europe and Asia make a significant difference to college life? Because UK universities (and I would imagine, German and Russian and Chinese) universities have sports teams and newspapers and radio stations and drama societies too, so what exactly is the difference?</p>
<p>I didn't see Blossom's post before I posted but agree with all she wrote. I think colleges are forthright about what qualities they are looking for in a candidate. I do not see any way or reason to say we want bassoon players, blah blah blah. Would this affect what your child chooses to do while growing up? My kids never tailored their choices to what colleges want (with the exception that they did try to do their best in the classroom). They did activities they enjoyed, have great interest in, started when young and would do even if they NEVER went to college. And they choose to continue to do these activities IN college cause they WANT to. I don't need colleges to outline anything more than they do. Do well in school....take the most challenging curriculum you can, seek out your interests, delve into your interests in a commited way over a long term period and in a signficant capacity.....and achieve in those endeavors...be it leadership, initiative, drive, accomplishments/awards, or other benchmarks. It's clear enough to me. </p>
<p>Susan</p>
<p>
[quote]
They can take kids with excellent stats that ALSO have the extracurricular accomplishments. Kids like this exist.
[/quote]
I know. I have one (or maybe two) of them. This is what I'm saying...I'm just saying that in an academic environment, academics should come first.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't agree with LfK's assertion that if you just take the best academic stat kids off the list, you will end up with musicians, newspaper editors, athletes, etc.
[/quote]
We will have to agree to disagree. From the students I know personally, I think those at the top statistically will produce many with ECs and talents such as you mentioned.</p>
<p>LfK...then on the first point, we sorta agree :D I was merely saying that academics DO count but kids w/ great academics may also bring the other things to the table and it is not either/or. It is not about putting academics first or second. You HAVE to have academics to get in. But that alone doesn't suffice. You need other attributes you can contribute. Some were alluding to colleges taking kids w/ ECs but lesser stats but I was maintaining that elite colleges can take and do look for kids with excellent academic stats AND the excellent EC achievements and are not putting one before the other. Both matter. They can get kids who have both. Once your academics pass muster, the rest does count. But that is not to say that academics is just a numbers game. A kid with a 3.9 and a 1490 may get in over a kid with a 4.0 and 1510. Academically they are very similar but if the kid with the neglibly lower stats has more to offer outside the classroom that kid is more attractive. Their academics certainly qualify but they have even more to offer. Their academics are not "less". </p>
<p>On your second point about if they just go with the kids with the top scores and grades alone, they'll end up with kids who are achievers outside the classroom as well......I agree in the sense that my own kids and the other top kids at our high school actually were very involved in ECs...in fact, most were in varsity sports for example. But that is not true of all top students. This thread alone was talking of kids with top grades and scores but not that active in ECs and that those kids should get in over kids with great grades that may be neglibily below who have ECs to offer. Also, there are umpteen posts by kids on these forums who excel academically but are not that involved outside of academics in any significant way. Those kids DO exist. I'm simply saying that there ARE kids (like yours or mine) who excel at academics AND other things as well. Colleges don't need to take kids who have the ECs but have much less academic stats as they can find kids with academic stats that are terrific AND do great things outside the classroom. </p>
<p>Colleges are looking for people, not merely stats. Think "whole person". Even the job world looks for people who can contribute to an organization, more than numbers or just skills. That is why there are extensive applications for colleges, recs, interviews, AND stats, and not just stats. Stats matter, indeed. But they are not ALL that matters. If you read the student posts of what are my chances, you would get the impression that stats is the only thing but it is not, at least not at the most selective schools. </p>
<p>Susan</p>
<p>Few of our best writers, actors, business leaders, etc. were the top students.</p>
<p>One thing I want to mention that without the rich families, kids like mine may not have a chnace to go to Ivy leauge school let alone think about prep schools. Without their generous donations, my kid sould have been at home in a public school and would have not found her passions at early stage. Thank the legacies for that.</p>
<p>I fail to see the reasoning by the posters who said that having colleges announce what they need for an incoming class will suddenly result in more students 'taking up' certain ECs in order to meet the criteria. That is ridiculous.</p>
<p>People who take up activites, whether it be music, art, sport, etc, and reach a high level of achievement -- which colleges are looking for -- have usually started at an age well before the college years. And, it is common knowlegde that colleges have certain spots (in music, art sport, etc) to fill by the incoming freshmen. It has always been the case. How is letting it be known to the applicants going to adversely affect the application/admissions process?! Granted (and I never suggested otherwise), the academic standards must be met first. </p>
<p>Once the dust settles from such a 'radical' remedy I believe it may just restore some sanity to the hyper get-into-college scene.</p>
<p>
[quote]
These straight A kids are not boring as some have suggested, but all of them have other interests
[/quote]
If they have other interests and they pursue them, then presumably they have some EC's and they are not being judged by admissions solely on the basis of academics.</p>
<p>But you seem to feel that academics alone should be the sole criteria and let the chips fall where they may to round out the orchestra and the water polo teams. </p>
<p>Do you realize what such a process would do to our kids? Think about what would happen if word got out that the top colleges in the country will no longer look at anything but grades and test scores and the more rigorous and demanding the courseload, the better, and whether you spend 20 hours a week pursuing theater or music or athletics or carpet lint collecting, you will be judged solely on the basis of academics. </p>
<p>All of sudden, instead of going to club soccer or youth orchestra practice every Tuesday and Thursday night, kids with 5 AP's on their junior class schedule would feel compelled to take additional classes at the community college. SAT prep would start in kindergarten. Kids would still try to pursue what they love, but they would have less time to do it. Sacrificing an additional AP class in order to play with the youth orchestra and play soccer would come at such a price, I think fewer and fewer kids would take the risk. And there go some of the oboe players.</p>
<p>Regarding colleges announcing their needs... if you play the oboe, there is nothing stopping you from contacting music directors and looking for programs that have a need. You have to be flexible and willing to consider schools not on the Top Ten list -- and that is exactly what athletes do. Most athletes do not play at Stanford or UCLA or Duke. Most play at schools that would accept "superior academic but not much in the way of EC's" kids in a heartbeat.</p>
<p>Just to further my point and, perhaps, even agree with those who think I disagree with them...
I just finished doing a first draft of my essay to the College Counselor about my son (we were asked to do that). I mentioned his "smarts" once -- and spent another thirty lines writing about his EC. Even I think that's what separates him from the other smart kids! I guess I just get defensive when people equate great grades with staying in your room studying all the time and nothing else (the same way people don't want me equating athletics with being dumb). We need to acknowledge reality, that some kids with less than stellar grades will get in because of other factors and it's a little arrogant of each of us -- me included -- to decide which "other factor" (be it legacy, athletics, or community service) is the correct or fair one.</p>
<p>1down2togo,
I don't think academics should be the sole criteria for admissions, but it should be the primary one. I disagree with admissions based first on a hook (water polo player, URM, oboist, w/e) even though academics may be substantially below par. These things should supplement academic credentials, not supercede them.</p>
<p>If you reread the OP, students with B averages were allegedly being admitted over students with A averages in challenging courses (not a minimal difference imo). This led to the conclusion that elite schools were looking for something else other than intellect, rather than something else in addition to intellect. </p>
<p>I merely agreed that intellect/academic accomplishment should be the main criteria for admission and EC accomplishments should be used to differentiate among the many suberbly qualified applicants.</p>
<p>Okay, I reread the OP. And here is what I read:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thus, the number of pure academic kids who were admitted is very low as compared to kids with legacies and athletic hooks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps this was a poor choice of words, but I read "pure academic" as just that--pure. Sounds like kids with nothing else to offer to me. My guess is that it was a somewhat poor choice of words and that some of these "pure academic" kids actually did do other things. But I don't know that and I'm going by what was written in the post, not but my own guesses. </p>
<p>Also, the OP refers to students from "an elite prep school." Perhaps a B average from an elite prep school is enough evidence of "intellect" -- or perhaps not, I don't know, but I do know that a B average at School A where my son went is much harder to do than an A average at School B where my daughter spent her last 2 years. Everyone at both schools refers to their curriculum as "rigorous" and the grading as "tough" -- but if all you know is School B, you ain't seen "tough" until you've spent some time at School A. There's no comparison. So A averages and B averages mean nothing to me. Yes, an A average at School A is better than a B average at School A, but perhaps a B average at School A is good enough. And I kind of like the idea that at some point, there is "good enough" because otherwise, people are going to continue to try to outdo each other until we're no longer normal human beings. I have read some really crazy things on this board. There is more to life than getting A's in as many AP classes as you possibly can fit into a 7-period day.</p>
<p>My kids are in the strong academics plus EC category, and I have no complaints about how colleges currently select students. But I do wish there were an additional category for kids who were extremely bright (the brightest of the bright). I think these students would also add something interesting to the mix at elite colleges. What I mean is that the artificial ceiling of 800 for the SAT-I and SAT-II scores is not that difficult to obtain for a very bright student. In my opinion, it's too bad that there is not more room to distinguish the really elite students. This could at least be done on the SAT-II exams.</p>
<p>I understand that a student can always enter a math competition, or something like that in another subject, to try to stand out. But there are students who do not have the time or the resources to enter such a competition but would possibly score extraordinarily high in Latin, US History, math, physics or whatever, if they did. I understand that if a kid scores 1600 on the SAT, he can get in to many schools. But if the SAT-II tests were made more difficult and scaled so that all but the very, very highest scores remained unchanged but with an upper limit of something like 1000 or even 1200, then SOME "narrow" but brilliant individuals could be more easily identified. I, for one, would be fascinated to meet the very highest scoring kid in Latin in the US, or even a kid who scored among the top few students in the country in both World History and Physics and Economics.</p>
<p>Why are essentially all students at the elite institutions expected to have significant ECs? What if there were a modern-day Thomas Edison (who as a youth reportedly read almost every book in his local public library). Wouldn't it be interesting to find a poor kid who, just through massive reading and studying on his or her own, was in the top 0.1 percent in a number of subjects? (By the way, I do not mean to imply that Thomas Edison would have had no interesting ECs on his resume.) Does anyone else agree?</p>
<p>Instead of conjecture, let's look at some facts. I'll pick Stanford, since I happen to know quite a bit about the place, having several alumni in the family, know quite a few students and graduates, have several friends who work there, and I live right down the street from it. The introduction to Stanford's undergraduate admissions web page includes this sentence:</p>
<p>"We feel privileged to read your application and to learn about your achievements, talents, and dreams."</p>
<p>Note that they did not say "We feel privileged to read your transcript and learn about your gpa and test scores." </p>
<p>Later on, in the "preparing for college" section: </p>
<p>"Make sure that your class schedule demonstrates that you are taking advantage of all that your school offers. Remember that most colleges will want to see that you are taking courses in each of the five major subject areas...Remember to always sign up from among the most challenging courses that excite you the most. Do not feel pressured to take Honors or Advanced Placement courses just because they are Honors or Advanced Placement Courses. Colleges will want to see that you are pursuing a reasonable load from among the most demanding in your own school context."
(<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/applying/1_2a_admitcriteria.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/applying/1_2a_admitcriteria.html</a>)</p>
<p>Stanford also writes "Deepen your commitment in extracurricular activities."</p>
<p>So, I guess people can just ignore that and engage in a competition at their high school to see who can get the highest gpa in the toughest classes and then be mad when somebody who took a reasonably demanding load and can also play the oboe gets into Stanford, but it's not like the information wasn't out there in the first place.</p>
<p>pafather- I think the type of kid you are describing does get noticed and recognized. I know I went to law school with a few of them. The guy at the top of our class (elite law school) was so absolutely strange that he would never be permitted to see a client. However, he was so brilliant that all the big firms were courting him so they could stick him in their libraries to do research and structure deals.<br>
I can't think of anything worse than an extra level of "challenge" on the SAT IIs or any of the other standardized tests. There are so many different ways to be "smart", and the colleges recognize that. My son is not a 1600 SAT kid, but he is obsessed with the Wall Street Journal and needs his daily fix. Another side of "smart" is Tucker Max (check out <a href="http://www.tuckermax.com%5B/url%5D">www.tuckermax.com</a> if you have the stomach for it). Here is a young man who has made a fortune by being smart enough to capitalize on his own ability to be offensive. Our kids are entralled by this person. He managed to get himself into U of Chicago and then Virginia Law. He makes a lot of money. He is smart- and he is completely offensive.<br>
My point is that plenty of schools will want the perfect scorers. A few wil want Tucker Max.</p>
<p>PAFather, many of the presentations we attended at a variety of schools made the point that every year there are a number of "academic admits"-- just the category you are talking about. However, at MIT where they have a matrix of scores for a variety of things, they pointed out that an Academic 9 (I think that's the highest score possible) is Albert Einstein; a Personal 9 is Mother Theresa, just so people understand that your perfect scoring 4.0 average kid with a slew of AP's is NOT what they're talking about. Yale also went into some detail about the astonishing intellectual gifts of some of their "academic admits". But-- we live in Garrison Keilor's world where all our children are above average, so try telling your typical suburban parent that their "gifted" kid who tested off the charts in 3rd grade and is taking calculus as a junior is actually not that unusual in the applicant pool for some of these schools....</p>