<p>
[quote]
it is a bit odd to see no interest or effort in that direction from any given applicant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is this why affluent kids spend thousands of dollars to build houses in Third World countries? or why kids claim to have raised $$$ for a foundation they themselves set up? community service is the most easily faked EC, the number of hours devoted to CS the most easily inflated.</p>
<p>I don't think that the problem of excessive competition in college admissions has a solution. Dean Jones' heart is in the right place, but I believe that if the criteria change, then the students -- and/or their parents -- will figure out a way to game the system. I guess it's actually the affluent students who will figure this out -- those with fewer resources, in terms of either HS or parents, will be just as disadvantaged as usual.</p>
<p>marite: I think the phoney ECs, especially trips to build houses in the 3rd World, are pretty obvious. They seem to impress the media, but are adcoms really swayed? I'd rather see a kid write an essay about saving the $3,000 he would have spent on the trip and donating it to a worthy charity. But if a kid has a generous spirit, he could be mowing an old neighbor's lawn or tutoring little kids for free. The kind of community service needed for making your Confirmation in the Catholic Church, for example, is pretty tame stuff. Like singing for senior citizens in a nursing home. Book drives for underprivleged kids, etc.</p>
<p>Since my S was a strong student in high school, I've had other parents approach me to ask for advice about academics and college admissions. Quite a number of times a foreign-born mother has said something like, "The system in the US is so different from what it is in my country. My S/D tells me that here colleges want to see that you've done volunteer work. So, what do you think about my D volunteering at the hospital? Would that help her?" So I can assure you that plenty of kids around here are making the conscious decision to volunteer for college purposes only. Of course this would NEVER be true of the offspring of anyone here on CC. And I'm sure that despite a self-interested motive initially, some students will learn to love what they do.</p>
<p>I may be jaded, but I'm not convinced all this volunteering at an early age is producing life-long community servants. Seems to me that community organizations still struggle with recruiting enough people to help out. You always see the same group of moms and dads working the snack shack, running the PTO, baking for class parties, teaching Sunday School, and coaching soccer. In fact, I just returned from a school meeting for class volunteers and many classes had no one at all who had offered to help. I wonder if all the affluent, successful college alums who live in our town also did hours upon hours of community service when they were high school students.</p>
<p>And if it were really about the economic need of poor and homeless folks in Mexico let's say,and not about some rich American kids looking good while helping them, why aren't we just donating money and hiring some Mexican construction workers to buy supplies locally and build those houses? That would be much more cost effective than shipping truckloads of lumber and bunches of unskilled teens and chaperones to Tijuana.</p>
<p>I'm afraid that "tame" stuff like mowing your elderly neighbor's lawn isn't going to impress an adcom over much.</p>
<p>I hear you, GFG. I don't have any time to volunteer anymore because I'm driving my kids to their mandated community service commitments. (Just kidding.)</p>
<p>Stickershock:</p>
<p>Of course, the adcoms can see through quite a bit of phoniness. That's not my point. The point is that if adcoms make it known that SAT scores matter a huge lots, parents will invest in SAT scores; if the adcoms make it known that excelling in sports is what it takes, parents will push their kids to play sports; if adcoms decide to stress character, parents will urge their kids to perform community service and outshine Johnny or Judy next door while doing so. The arms race has just been shifted to a slightly different arena.<br>
The only thing that will reduce the arms race is for parents and students to become convinced that life is not over if the students don't get admitted to HYPS/ASW where, collectively, there are fewer spots than qualified applicants, however one wants to define "qualified." Top schools are like manufacturers of luxury goods: exclusivity cum-brand name is the key to getting people to shell out thousands of dollars for a bag when a $60 one would do just as well.</p>
<p>I guess instead of being frustrated with my son I should be proud that he wouldn't play the game. He wouldn't take the SAT or SAT II's again to reach the perfection other CCers seem to attain, nor would he go to tutor to get his math scores up to MIT-levels. He wouldn't play sports or an instrument, despite my nagging. He wouldn't spend more than the 12 hours on community service that his school requires. He didn't take any APs he wasn't interested in. He even dropped debate (after winning lots of awards) because it took away too much of his free time. He spent his time on what he wanted, what gave him pleasure. But I was the pushy, neurotic parent pulling my hair out because he wasn't doing the right summer internship or otherwise playing the admissions game. True, he's competing against kids who did all the right things, but hopefully he'll get in somewhere that makes him happy. If not, there's always that gap year to pick up a sport, learn an instrument, start a charity and otherwise pad your resume -- I mean, app.</p>
<p>
I don't think that the problem of excessive competition in college admissions has a solution. Dean Jones' heart is in the right place, but I believe that if the criteria change, then the students -- and/or their parents -- will figure out a way to game the system.
A-greed. The problem is that there are always two ways to go about being good at something -- you can be naturally good at standardized tests, or you can prep extensively; you can get all A's based on ability, or you can take all easy classes to ensure A's; you can keep busy doing ECs you love, or you can grind your teeth through ECs that mean nothing to you.</p>
<p>The job of the admissions committee is to filter the first kind of person out from the second, and judging by my fellow MIT students, I think they do a pretty good job. </p>
<p>Still, I don't think it's a problem with a solution -- if the stakes are perceived as being sufficiently high, there will always be people who try to take shortcuts, no matter how obnoxious the rest of us find them.</p>
<p>BurnThis... your son sounds much like my son. However, since what he wanted to do was build robots (on a competitive team for First Robotics) and build a car (during those long summers which he spent "goofing off in the garage"), MIT was thrilled to get him, with his Bs in French and English and History, his imperfect (mostly) SAT scores, his 2's in APUSH and AP French Language.... Merilee does, in fact, put her admissions policy where he mouth is.</p>
<p>SS,
I agree with your posts 755 and 759.</p>
<p>marite,
colleges are looking at the number of CS hours far less than you may believe. It's not about the quantity of them, lying or not about them, nor about spending mega-dollars going overseas to "look good" on an app. (You may remember my posting, about a month ago, an SF Chron Magazine article which actually cynically referred to that practice, in the article -- comparing it negatively to helping out folks here "at home.") Just because lots of applicants engage in that, does not mean that the colleges are buying it, or that that is/was the reason for admision.</p>
<p>In fact colleges are getting a complete profile of the student along with that CS, leadership, etc. component. It is often possible to discern why the student is doing or has done that, what motivated them, got them interested, in the first place. They look for whether there is an ongoing, present connection with that same activity. They look for whether this is just a transparent "stand-alone" activity as a resume-builder, or whether there is any carry-over whatsoever in the student's personal, e.c., & academic life. Is there a thread there? Is there a generous spirit? Was it an offshoot of a loved artistic activity or academic interest, that morphed into a community effort? They look for whether the experience has changed the applicant in any way, & whether there's a recognition of change. It is just way too difficult to fake this. And it certainly is too difficult to fake it when you get interviewed. The effervescent ones, the quiet but sincere & genuine ones -- these are the ones that get respected & rewarded, not the manipulators. </p>
<p>It can be very humbling & very inspiring, as an adult, to encounter this. It is certainly comforting to learn that idealism is alive and well in at least a segment of youth (& an ethnically diverse segment, that is). It is not the lofty ivory tower idealism of some generations past -- all plans & no action; it is a practical enthusiasm & passion/compassion that is very grounded & realistic, but which clearly gives these students a lot of personal fulfillment. This is especially true in situations where the interest began many years ago, continued into high school, & is now mantained vigorously in college.</p>
<p>Epiphany:</p>
<p>Again, that's not the point of my post. The point is that whatever adcoms publicize will be an important criterion for admissions, this will become the focus of a new rat race. It does not matter in the least that Marilee Jones says that SAT scores of 650 are acceptable, students and parents will spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars if necessary to reach the magic 800 if they believe that SAT scores are important. </p>
<p>If adcoms declare that community service will be an important criterion, parents and students will find ingenious and sometimes costly ways of demonstrating why their community service is better than Johnny's or Judy's. </p>
<p>The point, if I can repeat myself for the umpteenth time, is that admissions to certain schools is considered a very desirable good, partly because of its exclusivity. And this aura of exclusivity is what fuels the rat race. Change the criteria and the rat race moves to a different arena. But it's still a rat race. Molliebatmit has it exactly right:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Still, I don't think it's a problem with a solution -- if the stakes are perceived as being sufficiently high, there will always be people who try to take shortcuts, no matter how obnoxious the rest of us find them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You guys have a lot more energy than I do but: What's wrong with rat races if you want to run the race? For that matter, what's wrong with shortcuts if they get you where you want to go? </p>
<p>It seems to me that people naturally compete for something they want. The key is to make the rules fair, open and honest and let 'em have at it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you can be naturally good at standardized tests... you can get all A's based on ability... you can keep busy doing ECs you love.... The job of the admissions committee is to filter the first kind of person
[/quote]
and that is the problem , Mollie. MIT and other selectives are saying things out of both sides of their mouth AT THE SAME TIME. We all will probably agree with what you say the job of admissions is (or at least that is how they view it) - that's why the kids (and their parents) seek to present in just that fashion. </p>
<p>The nonchalant, non-striving genius who by God -given ability just happens to make the highest grades and highest scores while helping those most needy out of altruism.</p>
<p>That's what parents on this board want other parents to believe their kid is. We have broken the code. </p>
<p>At the same time the adcoms are saying we don't mind if you have multiple takes on the SAT, we'll use the best sections from each. What?? Natural ability?</p>
<p>We want the most demanding courseload your school offers. But we really want to see you really reaching for courses beyond the norm. Accelerate, take EPGY, take college courses. We'll reward you. What??? More than your school offers because you love it so much and just have to have it because you are special?</p>
<p>We want to see that you have a passion for your EC's. But only as long as that passion results in something unique you have to tell us about yourself or national recognition. Time tutoring at the middle school? Ho-hum. Next!</p>
<p>The code has been broken and kid's are being re-packaged as we speak. Some are being dressed by clumsy people with store-bought EC's and see-through motivations. But some are dressed by folks who know the buzzwords, are intimate with the system, and their kids are willing participants. They are carefully crafted to appear at all times slightly "un-groomed" and natural. The tosseled and nonchalant altruistic genius is the student du jour. </p>
<p>Hardworking, diligent, motivated to excel and succeed , competitive, driven, goal-oriented, pre-professional Bob and Barbie need not apply no matter how intelligent and no matter what their character. Except if they know the code and are willing to play the game.;) And that's where we are in selective admissions IMO. </p>
<p>You can't create this Louis Vuitton product and expect people to just draw a line and say "Well, my kid doesn't fit the student du jour. I guess she can't go to HYPSDMC-AWS." That's why there is gaming. The system creates it. Many of us don't believe there are 3 kids extant that genuinely meet the "tosseled and nonchalant wholly altruistic natural genius" category. Of course, we know that all the CC kids do. They can be considered the exception that proves the rule. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
The nonchalant, non-striving genius who by God -given ability makes the highest grades and highest score while helping those most needy out of altruism.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you've met my daughter?</p>
<p>LOL. Sure. I have met her. She used to live at my house.</p>
<p>So let them exhaust themselves in the effort. The efforts may or may not get them an acceptance. When fewer get accepted for merely engaging in a rat race (& it's already happening, has happened), there will be fewer participants. I agree with you that publishing info provides fuel, but only to some extent does the response to that produce results.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can't create this Louis Vuitton product and expect people to just draw a line and say "Well, my kid doesn't fit the student du jour. I guess she can't go to HYPSDMC-AWS." That's why there is gaming. The system creates it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's what I've been trying to argue. You can decide that you do not want a Louis Vuitton bag (I don't; my bag cost $60 about three years ago). But once you decide you want it, you'll do whatever it takes. So if MIT were to decide tomorrow that it will admit only students who can play the violin on top of having perfect SAT scores and what not, you'll find plenty of parents enrolling their darlings in violin lessons and getting them SAT tutors. Not all; but enough to keep violin teachers and SAT tutors in funds. If Harvard were to decree that it will give an edge to Classics majors, Latin will become more popular and Ancient Greek will be revived. And so on.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When fewer get accepted for merely engaging in a rat race (& it's already happening, has happened), there will be fewer participants.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I dunno. I think the contrary has happened. The rat race is more intensive than ever.</p>
<p>marite, my silence to your posts means I have been agreeing with you. Good job. I was just putting my spin on it. I knew I wasn't saying anything new. You just got me simmering and I had to join in. ;)</p>
<p>Here's another thought. There is some voodoo in the way admissions works. DS was not the perfect candidate. He did some volunteering, but nothing extraordinary. He had good grades and scores, but not perfect. He wrote a decent essay, but he's not Hemingway. But something must have come through, because he was incredibly successful in the admissions process. He's definitely lop-sided and never played a sport in HS. The only thing he did was some research, but he wrote about it in a very moving manner. I think his love of physics came through, but I'm sure there were kids who were more "perfect" than him.</p>