<p>epiphany, I modified my post above because I do think genuine caring is hard to fake . But TheGFG's main point is resoundingly correct. This feigned non-chalance of some parents and supposedly their kids toward achievement/recognition/awards and the hypocritical disdain they show for kids who admit to being goal oriented is stomach turning. Especially when you see evidence that the same parents competitively protect their young and the choices they make like a wolverine on meth, all the while denying competitive intent while being able to recite chapter and verse of every award/recognition/achievement Little Johnny has ever had.</p>
<p>But those are 2 different things, cur: nonchalance of parents and nonchalance of students -- & whether either is faked or genuine. But we were discussing stated & implied (& changes in ) policies of elite colleges such as MIT. Happily, the colleges have not gotten to the point of assessing the veracity, generosity, character, or hypocrisy of the applicant's parents as part of the admissions profile. What a nightmare that would be.</p>
<p>curmudgeon, sometimes the non-chalance isn't feigned. But it sure is comical when it is! Wolverine on meth is a great way to describe it. Heck, I've even seen it in inconsequential arenas like the local recreation soccer league. Parents all mellow & happy & insisting on equal playing time & fun- fun- fun. But suddenly that changes when their kid figures out the sport & those still clueless teamates are dragging down the team. Gotta win that 8 year old town championship!</p>
<p>I'm sorry epiphany , I had inadvertently left the student out. It is the student's non-chalance, and the parents who are competitively championing that non-chalance. The parents' non-chalance is certainly not an admissions issue. But SS is correct, it is quite humorous to watch at times. My edit wasn't quick enough. Sorry, again. Gee, I need some caffeine.</p>
<p>epiphany:</p>
<p>I do not think that a greater emphasis on leadership, character, what have you will diminish the intensity of the rat race; it will merely shift it to different arenas of competition, in other words, ECs. We already see in students' posts, as well as some parents'. "Mediocre ECs" "Your (my) list of Ecs stinks." "How do you demonstrate passion?" "Quality rather than quantity," "What, no national awards? You're screwed." I could go on; in fact, there's a whole CC archetype (subject of another thread). </p>
<p>And, as some posters have already pointed out, ECs are one way of undermining meritocracy. Even more than SAT coaching, ECs reflect parental affluence or lack thereof.</p>
<p>Re: competitive parents -- I know a kindergarten teacher who tells me that parents often ask her, "So how does my child rank academically in the class?"</p>
<p>How stressful will those kids' childhoods be????</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah. But Little Johnny has to win it non-chalantly while picking up the MVP trophy - "and wouldn't ya know it? He didn't even know there was such an award!!"</p>
<p>
[quote]
...ECs reflect parental affluence or lack thereof.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd add parental encouragement as being equally likely to nurture impressive ECs. You really don't need $$$, but of course that makes things easier. A kid with neither $$$ nor parental encouragement is incredibly impressive when he shows great ECs. But how can a college tell if it's the kid or not? A wealthy kid could have duds for parents, unwilling to support his interests, so should that be held against him?</p>
<p>
[quote]
A wealthy kid could have duds for parents, unwilling to support his interests, so should that be held against him?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If a kid can have great ECs "with neither $$$ nor parental encouragement" then a kid with non-supportive but affluent parents is in the same situation as the overwhelming majority of kids whose parents are not affluent and may not be able to afford supporting their kids' interests. For example, if both parents work, chauffeuring the kid to music lessons or lacrosse games is out of the question.</p>
<p>There are certain ECs that involve quite a bit of financial outlay, not to mention parental time. Want to shine as a musician? Banging away on the out-of-tune school piano won't get you there. Private music lessons in the 1990s in my community were $60 an hour. Winning the school's award for best musical performance won't get you there when there is an 18-year old playing Shostakovich's Concerto with the Boston Philharmonic (as we listened to on radio just this weekend). I'll bet the violin in question is not your run-of-the mill violin, either. </p>
<p>For all our collective rants about the costs of APs, SATs, etc... they involve insignificant outlay of money compared to some ECs.</p>
<p>marite,</p>
<p>"EC's" are not necessarily the kinds of leadership that some colleges do look for, & which are not quantitative or cumulatively based. They are not part of the rat race because they spring from internal convictions or in some cases even singular efforts or causes unique to that student. Students are being looked at qualitatively in this regard (as I've explained), not with a score, cumulative list, or measurable quotient as the factor. Please do not confuse e.c.'s in general (including those enumerated on CC by non-knowledgeable students) with character components that have no quantitative reference point.</p>
<p>In fact, if you'll review one of my posts above, you'll see that it becomes obvious when a student has <em>sacrificed</em> a certain level of e.c. achievement in favor of a collaborative effort which will enrich a group more than it enriches any individual in the group, including its group leader(s).</p>
<p>Character cannot be equated with e.c.'s as a category. Let's not confuse these please.</p>
<p>I stand by my post. Just because a student's EC and his dedication to it is "for real" as evidenced by essays, recommendations, and interviews does not in any way imply a complete purity of motive or nonchalance. I've been reading local newspapers since I myself was in high school many years ago. In the last 10 years have I noticed a tremendous burgeoning of kids engaged in volunteerism and fundraising. Now, so many children are starting charitable foundations and traveling to Mexico to build house on garbage dumps that we joke about it. If this high-achieving benevolence is so pure and selfless, where were all the kids like this years ago? Very few folks I knew growing up did anything like that as teenagers, unless it was in the context of an evangelical church mission trip. Maybe a kid would mow an elderly neighbor's lawn, but he sure as heck didn't start a non-profit organization to provide landscaping services to elderly citizens! Sometime a while back community service became part of the formula for getting into a top school. The other reason I know this to be true is that children of immigrant parents who hail from cultures where volunteerism is not so much a cultural value but good education is, have joined right in.</p>
<p>"If this high-achieving benevolence is so pure and selfless, where were all the kids like this years ago? "</p>
<p>Honestly, they were doing it back then too, and it wasn't necessarily any more pure and selfless. My high school had a program (started in the late 1960s) whereby every student in the school did volunteer work one day a week. We volunteered in daycare centers and schools mostly the first two years, on Capital Hill junior year and did independent projects or job internships as seniors. Even though we didn't necessarily do these activities out of the goodness of our hearts they were great learning experiences. I think they got most of us in the habit of thinking of volunteering as something there is always time for. While I think volunteering is a good thing, there isn't a single volunteer activity back then or now that hasn't been a positive learning experience for me as well.</p>
<p>GFG,
You have a very limited understanding of the "benevolence" of which you speak. I am not talking about the kinds of examples you reference -- whether in the anecdotes you mention, whether "reading the newspaper," or anything else in that post. Not about going to Mexico in a phony effort, posed volunteerism, or anything of the sort. Do not presume that your somewhat jaded view corresponds to the experiences of current college students, or of those who interview them & have detailed knowledge of their precise level of effort & the kinds of organizations those efforts include.</p>
<p>And I'm sorry to inform you that you are very wrong about the last assumption in that post. In fact, any culture or family who didn't value volunteerism before are actually, overall, still not valuing it. And they're being left out of the loop because of that cultural or personal rigidity. They have not "joined right in" in terms of <em>trading</em> personal achievement for a broader effort than self-improvement. No, not happening in any large numbers, I assure you. They may have supplemented with a token level, or even a great level, of observable "community service," but have not substantially changed their emphasis or come across any different in interviews, than previously.</p>
<p>You stand by your post. I stand by my recent intimate experience.</p>
<p>But how does one judge character? And who is to say that some student who got interested in science research, whether out of pure love of science or because a relative was struck by a disease is less admirable than a student who volunteers in a soup kitchen?</p>
<p>Personally, there are lots of people who probably have admirable character but whom I cannot stand for more than two minutes at a time.</p>
<p>Edit:</p>
<p>Do colleges actually state they want character as opposed to leadership (defined, often, as excellence)? Of course they try (and often fails) to identify the frauds, but that's not the same as privileging "character" in the admission process.</p>
<p>marite, I think the wealthy kid with dud parents might actually be worse off. That's what I meant by schools holding it against him. The schools may see a certain zip code and make assumptions about privlege & parental fawning that the kid never realized. If a kid is known to be poor, the disadvantage is figured into the equation.</p>
<p>epiphany, I agree that "it depends on the goal of that discipline, & who benefits." Who benefits is a great question for an admissions committee to ask. It's quite simple to do, and quite revealing. If the answer is always "me," then there is a problem.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The schools may see a certain zip code and make assumptions about privlege & parental fawning that the kid never realized.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can't help but wonder whether this leads to inadvertent discrimination against the servants' children, who share the zip code but not the privileges.</p>
<p>Stickershock:</p>
<p>The kid with dud parents probably has greater issues to deal with than not being able to depend on them for supporting his/her ECs. For starters, the dud parents are not likely to urge the kid to apply to HYPS where ECs play a role in admissions, and much more likely to tell him/her to make do with the local university where ECs don't count. I well recall the student who posted that her parents bought a Porsche and a Hummer (I believe the Porsche was for the 16-year old sibling) but refused to pay for OOS college.</p>
<p>Servants? How many people have live-in servants?</p>
<p>Don't ECs play a role in admissions at all competitive schools, not just top tier?</p>
<p>mathmom: We did lots of volunteer work in h.s., too. (1970s) But if we collected food for a food bank, we just collected it and that was that. We didn't set up a non-profit organization called Suzie StickerShock Cares for Kids and write about it at length in college essays. Or notify the media & have our pictures taken holding baskets of food to be loaded into cars.</p>
<p>marite: I agree that students can aspire to study all types of things for very noble reasons. It's just that there are so many readily available avenues for kids to volunteer in meaningful ways around today, it is a bit odd to see no interest or effort in that direction from any given applicant.</p>
<p>Okay granted, I know the kind of volunteer work you are talking about - it's all about looking like a leader I think.</p>
<p>On the other hand my Girl Scout Troop organized a clean up of the C & O Canal. We got Supreme Court Justice Douglas to come for a photo op and got lots of newspaper coverage. I'm pretty sure my troop leader who encouraged this project knew what she was up to. It made a great essay! We've taken volunteering to a new level, but I think it's only a baby step from what existed before.</p>