MIT Admissions Dean warns About College Entrance Stress

<p>"the principal was furious, adamantly denied permission, stating that it would be an insult to all of the professional teachers at the school to let a "non-professional" try to help."</p>

<p>I would bet you anything that this same principal will cite "lack of parental involvement" as the main problem facing education today.</p>

<p>I knew we had to leave our old school after this happened: A new student came to the school in the second grade. He was a Russian orphan adopted by an American family. He spoke no English. My son mentioned this to me and I told him that we had a family friend who spoke Russian and could tell him how to say anything he wanted to the boy. My son ended up with a list of twenty words or phrases he thought would help like please, thank you, the bathroom in down the hall, would you like to play, etc. He brought the list in to class and showed the teacher. She handed it back to him and said it wasn't necessary because there would be an aid in class who would teach the boy English. No, good job, no, let's all learn a couple words, no, how thoughtful. (I was a parent helper in class, grading spelling tests, so I saw this.) About the only good thing that came of this was my daughter learned that brat meant brother -- she still gets a chuckle at that one.</p>

<p>I notice you're from Los Angeles. If this happened there, and fairly recently, the teacher was probably afraid to take the list or encourage the behavior. California has some very restrictive English-only laws. There are very strict rules about the interaction that teachers can have with ESL students (in some cases, the reading teacher is forbidden to read with the ESL group; only the aide can do it), and about when and how foreign language words can be used in the classroom. Teachers can even be sued personally if someone decides that they stepped over the line.</p>

<p>(It should be noted that since this legislation was passed, ESL children seem to be making less progress in English and overall academics, rather than more).</p>

<p>"If this happened there, and fairly recently, the teacher was probably afraid to take the list or encourage the behavior." </p>

<p>This was almost ten years ago. I can't imagine she would have lost her job had she just patted my then seven year old on the back and said, that was nice.</p>

<p>The new laws kicked in 1998, I think. Yeah, she was in the wrong, but the climate is pretty hostile, and from one study I read, a lot of teachers think the laws are even worse than they are.</p>

<p>".....California has some pretty restrictive English-only laws..."</p>

<p>....[which are broken right and left]. Many of the public schools are overwhelmingly Latino in student body composition & have at least a handful of Latino teachers (sometimes more). It is very difficult to control or regulate speech. Sometimes parts of classes end up being conducted in Spanish, if a great majority of the students are ELL. No one's there to stop it, & it leaves other enrolled minorities out of the learning. I have no statistics as to how wide-ranging the practice is; I merely know that locally it occurs, in more than one school, so it would not surprise me if it occurs heavily in heavily Hispanic concentrations.</p>

<p>The way some of the non-Latino publicly schooled minorities are reacting, is to opt out & seek some form of homeschooling such as independent study funded publicly. (Article about that which I will paste in a minute.)</p>

<p>Hi everyone -- I'm new here. Marilee Jones is making the rounds in my neighborhood (one of those affluent suburban pressure cooker schools...). I don't see my daughter as aiming for the Ivy Leage or any first tier school for that matter. Should we bother going to hear her? I presume she will cite all kinds of scary statistics, expose the underbelly of the current college admissions frenzy, and that her advice is to lighten up, kids need broad base of interests, nothing is worth the stress, etc. How many of you who heard her took your kids? </p>

<p>Also I have other parents pushing "The Gatekeepers" in my face. I hate to all into the fear/intimidation <strong>industry</strong> of high stakes admissions, etc., so why should I read the book? It's not a rhetoriacal question. I'm interested in hearing all impressions. Thanks...</p>

<p>Letitbe:</p>

<p>Welcome!
I suspect that Marilee Jones will be saying pretty much what she is quoted as saying in many articles over the last few years. However, Jones may be doing an admissions information session at your school. If your D is not interested in MIT, there does not seem to be a lot of reason for attending.</p>

<p>The Gatekeepers is an extremely readable account of the admissions season at Wesleyan for the class of 2004. The author follows several members of the admissions committee and the fate of some applicants, some of whom are admitted and some of whom are either rejected or decide to go elsewhere. It offers a fascinating glimpse into the inner workings of an admissions committee at a top school and what aspects of a student's profile are given weight, the relationship between GCs at some private schools and the adcoms, etc... Well worth reading (yes, another pusher of the book).</p>

<p>LetitBe, I don't know how much college reading you have done, but if you are looking for a more relaxed approach to college admission, I'd suggest starting with Loren Pope's Colleges that Change Lives. You don't have to buy into the admissions frenzy if you don't want to. </p>

<p>The Gatekeepers is an interesting book, but I don't think it had all that much of practical value in terms of college admissions. It's more like an inside view of the overall process, with a few anecdotes that give insight as to why things sometimes turn out the way they do.... but you are right that it doesn't give you a whole lot of insight into the way things work at colleges that accept the majority of applicants. Your daughter may be at the level where her best strategy is to focus on rolling admissions colleges or colleges that offer non binding early action; that is, where the game is to try to get in early and look for schools likely to offer good merit aid.</p>

<p>LetItBe - Gatekeepers is a page turner for sure. There's plenty in there to get you incensed, but it will give you a better idea of what happens to application at an elite. It altered my expectations a good bit, so I was better able to help D create her list of colleges. Recommended!</p>

<p>Welcome, LetItBe, and I hope you'll find wisdom and compatriots in this journey here, just as so many of us have.</p>

<p>Let me start by telling you I have two sons: one is <em>at</em> MIT, and the other, a HS senior, is "not aiming for the Ivy League or any first tier school"... and probably not second-tier either. ;) That said, I believe Marilee Jones is making the rounds in a sort of generic admissions talk and book tour. She is also scheduled to make three official MIT Admissions presentations on the fall tour, in the Pacific Northwest this year (full schedule here</a>) so if the "rounds" you're talking about are on that linked list, you'd be going to the MIT-only talk. If it's something different, you might want to go. I've heard Marilee speak several times and this is one dynamic woman, yet so human and direct that I'd swear I'd known her all my life and could just go up and give her a hug as if she were a long-lost sister. I know she's coming to our area in California later in the year on a generic/book tour and I'm going to try to attend, just because I love listening to her. I might learn something new, or I might not, but I'll leave having a clearer sense of what's important for me, and I'm pretty sure I'll feel relaxed and optimistic afterwards.</p>

<p>So perhaps that will be helpful to you: if you want to avoid the MIT pitch, avoid those dates/locations on the MIT Admissions link above. If you want to listen to a dynamic speaker talk about starting to remove stress from the college admissions process and make it more sane, go to other talks that aren't on that list. :)</p>

<p>(PS: If it's a generic talk, go ahead and take your D. Marilee is a very comforting speaker and accepting person. I think your D would come away feeling good.)</p>

<p>"Should we bother going to hear her?"</p>

<p>I will heartily second mootmoms advice on listening to Ms. Jones.</p>

<p>The Gatekeepers was a great read and offers some insight into the process. Upon reflection, however, I realize we as parents sometimes try just a little too hard to "help". I am fortunate to have a daughter that ignored 90% of my advice and took the classes she wanted, took the tests she wanted, applied to the schools she wanted and wrote the essays she wanted to write for those applications. She too is attending MIT, and four weeks into the experience is loving every torturous moment. The key is it was her decision. She was pretty much stress free except for that caused by my constant reminders of deadlines, requirements and overall difficulty of successful admission to the top schools. She knew the odds and pursued the course she wanted and ultimately needed nor wanted our help. I hope I have learned something for the next go around in two short years and will be able to wait until asked for advice.</p>

<p>NYT "Face Book" article on Marilee Jones:</p>

<p>"An essential part of the effort is a new book, “Less Stress, More Success: A New Approach to Guiding Your Teen Through College Admissions and Beyond.” Published in September, by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the book was written by Ms. Jones and Dr. Kenneth R. Ginsburg, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine." ...</p>

<p>"Ms. Jones said small steps could produce broader shifts in tone and attitude. Like the admissions officers she encountered with her daughter, she used to tell students and parents that M.I.T. rejected lots of applicants with 800 SAT scores. The idea was to indicate how many bright people were at the university, she said, but the message heard by her audiences was quite different.</p>

<p>“I learned that the language we speak, admissions speak, adds to the stress,” she said. “The message is not received as it is intended.” "</p>

<p>“I need to do what I can do,” she said. “It’s not everything, but I can do what I can do.” ...</p>

<p>“We’ve been talking about this in the business for a good three years now,” she added. “What are we doing? Why are we so hard-charging? Why are we competing like this? Is it good for students?”</p>

<p>"Many people in higher education are cheering her on, as are countless high school guidance counselors. “I like what she’s doing, in terms of kids really feeling the stress of this whole process,” said Bob Sweeney, a counselor at Mamaroneck High School in Westchester.</p>

<p>“I see too many kids spending all their waking moments throughout high school trying to make themselves into the image and likeness of what they perceive M.I.T. and the other elite schools expect,” Mr. Sweeney said. “That thinking takes its toll on kids, doesn’t leave them much room for error or to enjoy high school.” "</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/education/11FACE.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/education/11FACE.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Code-speak for: "asians need to stop overachieving"</p>

<p>Well, I'm not sure that is fair...but I think there is among many different groups there is an attempt to discover "the formula" for college admissions. In many parts of the world, the formula is numerically based...you score well, you get good grades, you get into the top university. Here, there is no formula and that frustrates many people.
What worries me is the fallout of the admissions process....It's not only mental health and sacrifice of enjoying the high school years. In our area, we are experiencing a real problem with cheating as kids compete in an "ends justify the means" kind of system. There are kids who change other kids' answers on tests if they are found laying out on a teacher's desk. Kids write down one question each on a test, gather with friends, recreate the test and pass it along. There are kids doing things that are just morally wrong in order to superachieve and stand out in an already outstanding group. These kids are often successful, go to college and continue these antics (particularly in the competitive majors). One day they will be in the corporate world and the punishment for this activity will be prison sentences. We need to be aware of the kind of human being we are cultivating through the college admissions process. I know that colleges want it all: great grades, great scores, exceptional talent..and some think this is merely effortless for the brilliant. We are talking about young young kids in states of hormonal chaos. It is never effortless. It is not age appropriate, healthy, related to any educational objective and, I think, stifles creativity and all of the things we want to develop in our children.</p>

<p>"We need to be aware of the kind of human being we are cultivating through the college admissions process."</p>

<p>Bingo. </p>

<p>I’ve read this thread, and others like it (regarding the Marilee Jones changes -- & for that matter, similar comments emanating from other institutions): an effort to tone down the race for one-up-manship in achievement. Long reflection combined with recent experience interviewing college students have led me to the conclusion that the Jones type of approach is way too subtle. I mean, either MIT is somewhat cautious or ambivalent about encouraging students with different profiles to apply (& high-achieving students to broaden their interests), or they are perhaps not sure of what they are looking <em>for</em>, only what they want to see less of. </p>

<p>The message I receive (I think) from Jones is, “Keep doing what you’re doing; just be more Type B about it, less Type A.” That could produce just pseudo-type B’s or more creative resumes. I think a college has to get a lot more blunt and a lot braver than that. How about, “Beyond achievement, we’d also like to see when you have sacrificed your drive for personal, individual success in order to improve, assist the rest of the world.” “We’d like to see how your involvement in community service (if any) has focused on the needs of people other than your own ethnic group.” “We’d like to see how you have spent your non-study time other than an additional 3 hrs/day perfecting your music, so that you could win the same concerto competition that you already won last year.”</p>

<p>I think just encouraging applicants to be more well-rounded, & stating that a college is looking for more creativity, welcomes quirkiness, etc., will not result in a substantial softening of the Take No Prisoners student profile. This is really not meant as a criticism of Jones; Ithink she’s doing her best, but I think she & administrators of many other colleges are putting their toes in the water rather than jumping in. I’m talking about reducing the merit-frenzy overall. Unless you state, and put in place a policy that limits the admissions value of traditional merit, the negatives about the stress of competition will remain. </p>

<p>Nothing wrong with choosing a meritocractic model if that’s what your institution decides. But I think you first have to be honest within that institution, about your priorities. And then you have to communicate that clearly & uniformly, including to your reps who visit regionally at info sessions. Do you want less achievement-frenzy? Or do you want the same level of achievement, just broader categories of achievement? Do you want to admit students who are mostly Looking Out for Number One? (Because that is what you will tend to get with the Take No Prisoners academic warrior.) Or do you want students who, while achieving, have also a vision and practical idealism that has already been concretely demonstrated – one that shows that they are citizens of the world, not just citizens for self and ego – a narrowly defined civilization? </p>

<p>If a college wants character in its students, its admissions policies must model & reflect that. And they have to decide, at least internally, how to recognize character. Personal discipline is definitely, in my book, an aspect of character, but only one factor. It depends on the goal of that discipline, & who benefits, & the narrowness or breadth of that discipline. </p>

<p>And linking my comments back to symphonymom's quote, I value less the Arrived adult who decides to become generous as a middle-aged millionaire or billionaire, than I value the person of any age who regularly sacrifices & shares the time commodity that is universally available (as opposed to money that is not). Again, maybe a particular college would prefer the former model of "success" than the latter model of character, but I think there is still much inconsistency, if not cowardice, by colleges in making such decisions. Please, don't say you want character, genuine (& clearly defined) leadership, well-roundedness, humanity, creativity -- but then implement an admissions policy that says something else entirely.</p>

<p>Great post, epiphany.</p>

<p>Symphonymom and epiphany: great syntheses of the issues. I think this in particular hits the nail on the head: “Keep doing what you’re doing; just be more Type B about it, less Type A.” </p>

<p>The reason the achievement frenzy has gotten worse is that now not only does the student need great scores, a top GPA, and high level accomplishments in several EC's, he must also have demonstrated he is a concerned, involved citizen of the larger community and has made the world a better place. The new burden on students which will result from the Marilee-style discourse will be having to do all that stuff with a careless nonchalance so that the achievement appears effortless--as though it was done with no thought of self or college admissions, but rather flowed like honey from the child's superior moral character. Just like colleges don't want grinds and grade-grubbers, they now also don't want calculating do-gooders. So what the elite colleges will get will be skilled fakers and actors. Or maybe they will attract the people-pleaser types who do everything so others think they're good people. </p>

<p>The world needs all kinds of personalities, gifts, and talents to function well. We need leaders and visionaries, but we also need followers and implementers. We need humanitarians, but we also need ambitious entrepreneurs. Our top colleges and universities should stop trying to assess the inner motivations and personalities of students in order to socially engineer their incoming classes. They should just strive to educate the brightest students and allow them the freedom to pursue their own unique paths.</p>

<p>


I'm so happy. I think I'm going to cry. Way to go , TheGFG. Way to go.</p>

<p>"So what the elite colleges will get will be skilled fakers and actors."</p>

<p>Not really, GFG. It sounds plausible, but it actually doesn't work that way. Interviewing, personal statements, and "doing the math" regarding the student's time allotment (all combined) eliminate that possibility. Students <em>that</em> skilled will not be applying to MIT or HYP, but rather to Tisch, to USC Theatre or Film, to the Dramatic & Film Academies in Hollywood or NY.</p>

<p>It does flow, and in a way "effortlessly," but not as a supplement to the Val+2400+4.XXXX GPA+multiple awards. What is effortless is the natural inclination & impulse that can be spotted by any intelligent adult: the impulse to contribute, share, collaborate, and lead. Some lead quietly, some much more visibly. There are a variety of ways of being a leader, and great value to being a follower & implementer, as well. By "leadership" is often meant initiative & creative vision, more than extroversion or talent as a dynamic organizer -- although the latter will help for certain "causes" and activities. But colleges are less looking for successful budding organizers than consistent, committed contributors.</p>

<p>The people in this last category are often choosing to make at least small sacrifices in the personal achievement arena (before & during college) for their more broad-based passion which involves longer-term and more generous goals. Some colleges are looking for genuine generosity, & concrete evidence of that. Not very easy to fake that, & very easy to recognize.</p>

<p>This is much easier to understand when you yourself have done some interviewing. In the abstract, it seems very different.</p>