<p>“Some extremely intelligent kids are introverted, and apparently, colleges hate these kids.”</p>
<p>THere are plenty of colleges, including some excellent ones, that eagerly will accept such students. The colleges that tend not to accept such students are colleges that have an overabundance of highly intelligent, high stat applicants, so can afford to pick and choose from among those the ones who’ll most contribute to maintaining a vibrant campus life.</p>
<p>^^^You think the OP’s remarks about UVA are arrogant, but you out-arrogant the OP when you state colleges that admit extremely intelligent kids who are introverted have a less vibrant campus life. We all know you went to Harvard because a great many of your over 14,000 posts on CC make mention of that fact, but I think you’ve had too much of the Harvard Kool Aid if you really believe high school introverts who attend college bring down a campus’ vibrancy level. Just look at the other school in Cambridge, where shy high school geeks soundly out-vibrant your alma mater.</p>
<p>^ Well said. <em>initiates slow clap</em></p>
<p>amen 10char.</p>
<p>Wow, as a rising junior I see I’ve got a lot to look forward too!..lol</p>
<p>Overall, I found the honesty of your post very refreshing. At least you were straight up, and I think there are a lot of lessons to be learned by other applicants (me!!). So thanks and good luck at UVA, a lot of people would kill to be there.</p>
<p>Although I have disagreed with Northstarmom on certain points, to be fair to her, she did not “state colleges that admit extremely intelligent kids who are introverted have a less vibrant campus life”.</p>
<p>All she said was that some colleges just have the luxury to ask for more than intelligence, stats and hard work. I disagree with how these colleges evaluate certain students but Northstarmom’s basic point in #81 is sound.</p>
<p>limnieng, this is how I understood her most recent post. She said that the colleges that do not accept introverted, extremely intelligent kids do so because they can afford to pick only those applicants who will contribute most to maintaining a vibrant campus life. This implies she believes that such people (the introverted applicants) do not contribute to vibrant campus life as much as others (otherwise they would have been admitted based on her hypothesis that these schools pick the applicants who would contribute most to vibrant campus life).</p>
<p>If she believed that introverted students couldn’t contribute as much to vibrant campus life, it would seem to naturally follow that she would believe that schools that regularly admit introverted students probably wouldn’t have as vibrant a culture as those that have the “luxury” of rejecting the introverted kids in favor of the extroverted ones.</p>
<p>I hope that I’m misunderstanding her. If I’m right, then I find this viewpoint rather insulting. I’m quite shy myself but still like to believe I contribute in my own way to the culture of my school. Further, I really wouldn’t want to be at a school filled only with extroverts (I also wouldn’t want to be somewhere filled only with introverts). I think a balance is best, and I bet a lot of people would agree. Being introverted doesn’t mean that one contributes less to campus lifestyle than the extroverted kids. In fact, often, at my school at least, the most extroverted kids are off partying all the time. I’m not sure this is the vibrant campus life that she was talking about. 
Many clubs are run by introverted people here. Then again, many are run by extroverted people as well. There’s simply no evidence here that introverted people contribute less.</p>
<p>If this attitude that extroverted students are somehow more valuable components of campus life than introverted ones is common on the campuses of top schools, honestly I’m glad I don’t go to one. Sometimes a little humility goes a really long way, a lesson that seems unusually fitting for this thread.</p>
<p>As for the OP, I truly can relate. </p>
<p>That said, I believe it’s a psychological dilemma that ultimately has little to do with actual flaws in the admissions process. College admissions tends to make people obsess about rankings. I know I was that way when I was applying. I can tell that the OP initially was not like this but gradually became like this. I got over it after actually starting college. I’m sure the OP will too.</p>
<p>In my case, I realized that not going to Harvard isn’t all that bad. I realized that there are some very bright and talented people no matter what school you go to. I’m sure the OP will realize this, too. I also realized that if I had went to Harvard, I probably never would have truly understood this, and that would have been a true shame.</p>
<p>In other words, the whole growing and learning and maturing thing keeps on going even after the rejections. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That point that she makes is one that I highly disagree with. Now I’m not an admissions officer, and I don’t claim to understand the process at all, but picking students “who’ll most contribute to maintaining a vibrant campus life”? I take major issue with this. How in the world can the adcom get any meaningful insight into how the student will “contribute to maintaining a vibrant campus life” with just a stat sheet, a couple of essays, and in some cases, an hourlong interview? It’s impossible. </p>
<p>The truth of the matter is, they pick who sounds interesting. Guess what, all you ‘boring’ smart kids, if the adcom doesn’t like the way your essay reads, you’re out of luck. Even if you were the most popular kid at your high school, and contributed to the vibrancy of your HS campus; if this doesn’t translate in your application, then you have no chance because this group of people doesn’t think you fit in to their image.</p>
<p>Ah well. It’s life. If they didn’t want you, you’re better off somewhere else.</p>
<p>They don’t just accept extroverts. I am the last person one would consider extroverted-I have few friends, am horrible in conversation, and had minimal leadership on my application. I scored a 0-E/31-I Myers-Briggs (without trying to get it), which was essentially as introverted as that version of the test would indicate. Despite this, I still got into one of HYPSM. I think the key is doing something useful in the time you aren’t participating in ten clubs and every other leadership or face-to-face volunteering opportunity possible. My admissions officer clearly thought I had done something useful, or at least something which indicated I could contribute to campus culture in a way him and the admissions committee desired me to.</p>
<p>"That point that she makes is one that I highly disagree with. Now I’m not an admissions officer, and I don’t claim to understand the process at all, but picking students “who’ll most contribute to maintaining a vibrant campus life”? I take major issue with this. How in the world can the adcom get any meaningful insight into how the student will “contribute to maintaining a vibrant campus life” with just a stat sheet, a couple of essays, and in some cases, an hourlong interview? It’s impossible. "</p>
<p>It’s easy: The best way to predict future behavior is to look at past behavior.</p>
<p>Virtually everyone who gets into HPYS (possibly the exception may be millionaire donors’ kids, but I bet that even they do something interesting in their free time) has done something that has affected others’ lives during their free time.</p>
<p>This could be: being a stellar (as in nationally ranked) athlete, musician or actor; volunteering and having a significant impact on an organization or individual; being a leader in a club or organization and having accomplished something in that position that made a major difference; contributing to one’s family by providing significant care for siblings or working a job to help one’s family economically survive.</p>
<p>The fact places like HPY have vibrant campus lives with hundreds of active organizations that students are participating in voluntarily reflects the fact that admissions officers know what they’re doing.</p>
<p>I do agree with you that admissions officers pick students who sound interesting. With so many wonderful students to pick from, admissions officers have no interest in selecting anyone who seems: dull, selfish, narcissistic, etc.</p>
<p>"Although I have disagreed with Northstarmom on certain points, to be fair to her, she did not “state colleges that admit extremely intelligent kids who are introverted have a less vibrant campus life”.</p>
<p>Thanks. I certainly didn’t say that. One can be introverted and still contribute to a vibrant campus. Being introverted doesn’t mean that one spends 24/7 hiding from other people. Being introverted means that one gets one’s energy from being alone, and will probably need to recharge oneself after being in groups for a while.</p>
<p>There are plenty of introverts who are at HPY and also are contributing to vibrant campuses there.</p>
<p>Wait. I dont get it. What happened with Georgetown? Isnt the extended waitlist a good thing…?</p>
<p>“The fact places like HPY have vibrant campus lives with hundreds of active organizations that students are participating in voluntarily reflects the fact that admissions officers know what they’re doing.”</p>
<p>To offer some perspective, my school, which is not prestigious or top ranked, has hundreds of active student organizations that are voluntarily run. So I honestly don’t see how the fact that HPYS have lots of student organizations really implies anything at all about the admissions officers doing their job well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not probably. Definitely. </p>
<p>Also, what people don’t understand is that the Princetons of this world are not choosing societal value over intelligence. They’re looking for both, and KNOW that they get both, in virtually each candidate. The OP may be intelligent, but apparently not intelligent enough to figure out that Princeton does value & get both, and/or to figure out how to do both, and/or he doesn’t belong at Princeton because in fact he doesn’t care that much about society.</p>
<p>Sorry to be blunt, but this is the real world of college admissions. The student bodies in these reach schools are made up of amazingly brilliant AND generous, thoughtful people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree with that. You can’t tell me every student at those top tier schools are generous and thoughtful people. I would even argue that it may indeed to be the opposite. I would probably agree with brilliant. Admission process is not a perfect science.</p>
<p>I think it humbled my daughter when she didn’t get into Columbia. She probably would have felt more entitled if she had gotten in. But I think she is a better person now because of the set back, she has more empathy for other people, and she no longer take things for granted. It was the first rejection she has ever received in her young age.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said nor implied that. Have you actually been to more than one of these super-reach campuses, and hung out with students? I have. It was quite an eye-opener. Some other parents have also hung out at similar & different super-reaches, and have found to their equal surprise an exceptionally large factor of brilliance mixed with generosity. </p>
<p>What I am saying is not that the process is perfect (cads get in, too), but that their supply of available talent + character is huge. That’s one reason that admissions to them is so difficult. Some people have an abundance of character, and even an abudance of talent, but a tiny factor such as overall class diversity in geography or some other technical factor “disqualifies” them on that factor alone. And lots more people have plenty of character but not quite enough qualifying talent. Much more people have tons of talent/intelligence but not the character factor. I also am active in one particular aspect of admissions, so I know what pools to reaches look like.</p>
<p>Good or bad I have siblings that went to those top tier schools, most of my friends/colleagues are graduate of those schools, and my kids’ private schools regularly send kids to those schools, and I don’t see them particularly as generous and thoughtful people. I have also worked with most of those top school students as my interns, smart/aggressive (yes), thoughtful/generous (no). This is not sour grape here because I do think students admitted to those schools are quite special, but thoughtful and generous are not two adjectives would come to my mind. I</p>
<p>Students at top schools are generous and thoughtful? Hahahahah. My parents went to Princeton/Wharton. The kids at top schools are incredibly ruthless and generally terrible people, though they WILL be able to snow you in person and on paper because they’re THAT good. They’re major operators.</p>
<p>Choklitrain,
If your parents are ruthless, terrible people, maybe they are different than are most people who go to schools like HPYS. Sad, but possibly true. The people whom I went to H with weren’t the kind of people whom you describe.</p>