My Final (Rather Self-Indulgent) Thread

Applying to College
101

<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>You go to U Missouri, which has 21,500 undergrads, and many of the clubs and organizations tie into coursework (Mizzou’s excellent student newspaper is an example) or athletic scholarships. Harvard has about 6,600, and has a daily newspaper, " no fewer than five undergraduate orchestras, eleven a cappella singing groups, seventeen dance companies, and 61 theatrical productions a year", a humor magazine, an independent newspaper, more NCAA division one sports teams than any other college, and a host of other student organizations, the majority of which students get no academic credit or payment for participating in them.</p>

102

<p>Just for the record, there are 4 seniors in my high school’s senior class going to Yale next fall, and I can say that 3 of them have spent more time lighting up joints than contributing to society in a unique, thoughtful way.</p>

<p>I realize that the ideal HYPS student will be this intelligent, well-rounded human being, and while I’m sure HYPS manages to capture many of those students, it also manages to intake many more of the prototypical intelligent but uncreative students. And this isn’t just a phenomenon I’ve witnessed at my school this particular year; it happens every year in my town. Every year, approximately 9-10 students make HYPS, and the majority of them really aren’t that remarkable.</p>

103

<p>My parents are neither ruthless nor terrible, but putting Ivy league students on a pedestal as superior in every possible aspect is just plain wrong. Also, Northstarmom, please don’t make any comments about my parents, who have achieved significant success and don’t spend their days on a message board posting “I went to X University” again and again.</p>

104

<p>I agree with oldfort. I spend my time at one of these elite schools. I wouldn’t say these schools are filled with ruthless people, but they aren’t exuding any special trait like thoughtfulness or generosity in any special amount. I don’t know the method to admission to be honest, but it’s not for choosing “social value”, sorry.</p>

105

<p>Well, I know I’m probably going to catch flak for this, so here goes.</p>

<p>7% isn’t a majority. It’s not a minority either. To me, 7% is a statistical anomaly, 7% is the kind of number I get as the margin of error on a lab. When you have schools accepting 7% of the applicants, especially when there are so many applicants, you know you have a problem. Why? Well it’s been said many times before: once you get past a certain point, pretty much everyone is qualified. Pretty much everyone is amazing. Pretty much everyone will “contribute to maintaining a vibrant campus life” or whatever. And yet, only 7% are going to get in.</p>

<p>I think the OPs disappointment and frustration are justified, along with tens of thousands of other kids. They put in the hard work for four years, but get cut out due to numbers; they’re a casualty of statistics. Of course the process is unfair, many kids work their asses off throughout high school and deserve to go wherever they want, yet it often doesn’t end up that way. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That may be all fine and dandy, but what about the kids who are neither eye-poppingly amazing nor “dull, selfish, narcissistic, etc.”? What about the kids who are completely ordinary? Normal? Average? Or are these schools ‘too good for’ or ‘above’ ordinary kids? </p>

<p>Yes, I know the admissions process is unfair. Heck, I totally bought into it when I went through it. It still doesn’t make me feel any better.</p>

106

<p>"That may be all fine and dandy, but what about the kids who are neither eye-poppingly amazing nor “dull, selfish, narcissistic, etc.”? What about the kids who are completely ordinary? Normal? Average? Or are these schools ‘too good for’ or ‘above’ ordinary kids? "</p>

<p>The schools aren’t for the above average or ordinary students any more than the Olympics are for above average or ordinary athletes.</p>

107

<p>^So you think your having graduated from Harvard is comparable to having competed in the Olympics? Get over yourself.</p>

108

<p>The Olympics are COMPLETELY different than admission into these schools, except maybe in the level of competition. In the Olympics, you are in control. With the Olympics, you can try again in four years. With the Olympics, as long as you are in shape and competitive, you get a second, third, fourth, sometimes even a fifth chance, and it’s up to you. College admission, for the most part, is a one-shot deal where your fate is decided by someone who doesn’t know you.</p>

109

<p>^ US olympic team = 600 people every 4 years. Ivy League = about 15000 american students every year. and the olympics often send the same people multiple times. so even in competitiveness they are incomparable.</p>

110

<p>The point, though, is that the top colleges aren’t for average or ordinary students any more than the Olympics are for average or ordinary athletes.</p>

<p>I was responding to this:
""That may be all fine and dandy, but what about the kids who are neither eye-poppingly amazing nor “dull, selfish, narcissistic, etc.”? What about the kids who are completely ordinary? Normal? Average? Or are these schools ‘too good for’ or ‘above’ ordinary kids? "</p>

<p>And, the answer should be obvious: The schools are too good for above ordinary, average, “completely ordinary” students.</p>

111

<p>With the Olympic, you know exactly what it would take to win, all of it is hard work and God given talent. With college admission it could be your skin color, family finance, first generation, geographic location, legacy, or it could be as simple as between a pool of similar candidates an adcom member could relate to one candidate’s EC. It is something to be proud of to be admitted to those top schools, but it is a mistake to some how feel superior to others that were not admitted. I think that’s what my daughter has come to understand. She is at Cornell, not HYPS, but it is still a school many students would like to be at. She knows she didn’t get admitted because she was so much more qualified, a lot of it was pure luck.</p>

112

<p>I’m not sure why people think it unfair that top schools choose to admit those students that they want at their school. ALL schools do this, the Ivies just have more students to choose from. If I was and AdCom, I would choose the student who was president of five clubs over the kid whose only EC was video games, even if both had the exact same grades and SAT scores. Why? Because I would think that, according to past records, the student who participated in clubs in high school would also participate in college, whereas the kid who played video games would go on doing that. And participation in campus organization creates a “vibrant campus environment”. Is this wrong? I don’t think so. </p>

<p>And are people really trying to say that “average” students belong at Harvard? The “average” student couldn’t hack it. I am an above average student, and I’m not sure I could handle the difficult academics and extreme competition. But what about the average applicant (who is already far ahead of the average student). The average applicant could probably handle the academics. But if you were an AdCom, wouldn’t you choose the brilliant student over the above average one? I would. And with the 7% acceptance rate, these schools can choose only the brilliant.</p>

<p>Is it wrong to be upset about not getting into an Ivy, especially with the OP’s stats? No. My stats were slightly lower, and I was still upset. Rejection sucks. But then again, it’s stupid to feel entitled to a spot in one of those schools… everyone who applies has amazing stats. To actually be accepted, you need something more. </p>

<p>UVA is a wonderful school. OP, enjoy the next four years!</p>

113

<p>

</p>

<p>And yet a large portion of students that attend the Ivies are rather ordinary types of students. Yeah, there are those people who have done just about everything, but how does filling a campus with that kind of “special” person bring diversity?</p>

114

<p>NSM of course very few, if any, of these kids are ordinary in terms of academic/extracurricular talent, but in terms of “as people” I’d like to think I’m rather ordinary and so are most of my peers at Stanford. They aren’t overly personable, extroverted, better leaders, etc. They just aren’t. They, like me, got mad lucky in the admissions process and like me, were less academically qualified than the OP. Therefore it isn’t unreasonable for the OP to be humble and still jaded after the college admission cycle.</p>

115

<p>IIRC, only about 30% Americans go on to post-secondary education. The “average” student doesn’t even go to community college. Of course Harvard is not filled with “average” students. They are just average in the sense that they haven’t cured cancer, won a Nobel prize etc, not average as in same as any other student you find in any high school. Nor should they be. The average student would not be able to keep up in an university like Harvard. Look at the average SAT score, ACT score and GPA of an ordinary high school, the average amount of time students spend on academics, and compare it to Harvard admits. It is going to be much lower. There is nothing wrong in saying that some students are not good enough for some universities. Not everyone’s talent is in academia. I know people who literally feel like sleeping every time they open a book. Such person probably would not do very well in a competitive university. They are not inferior people because they couldn’t get into Harvard. However, they are inferior at academics.</p>

<p>Also, introvert doesn’t mean inactive. One can be introverted and still participate actively in the community. However, OP’s self admitted lack of ECs and his distaste for them shows that he is not involved, nor does he like to be involved in the community. Such attitude may very likely show in his essays, recommendations and/or short answers, and will turn off any adcom. Universities don’t have a thing against introverts, they have a thing against bookworms who exude an attitude that ECs are somehow below them.</p>

116

<p>“With the Olympic, you know exactly what it would take to win, all of it is hard work and God given talent.”</p>

<p>Not true. It also takes opportunity to pursue what one’s talented in, the money – often big bucks – to pay for coaching and training, and the parents, medical care, and other support that encourages and allows you to pursue your talent. </p>

<p>"Money Magazine) – Although they live on opposite sides of the world, Charlotte Craig and Luo Wei share the consumer habits typical of their generation. Craig, a shy 17-year-old from Murrieta, Calif., texts her friends on her cell. She goes to the mall. She paints her fingernails black and her toes pink.</p>

<p>Six thousand miles away in Beijing, Luo, 25, wears Nike sneakers. She loves fragrances such as Burberry London. And she splurges on cell phones, like her new $285 Samsung.</p>

<p>Oh yeah, one other thing these young women have in common: In a half second, both of them can knock you flat with a spinning hook kick to the side of your head.</p>

<p>Craig and Luo are world-class practitioners of the martial art of taekwondo. And both are headed to Beijing in August to represent their country in the Olympic Games. …</p>

<p>But elite athletes like Craig and Luo need something else: money, and lots of it. The bills for coaching, training facilities, tournaments and other expenses easily add up to tens of thousands a year. For young American athletes, that financial burden falls squarely on their parents; for Chinese youth, the government picks up the tab - if they’re good enough…</p>

<p>Charlotte turned 14 in 2005, making her old enough to compete for a spot on the U.S. junior and senior national teams. She won gold at the necessary tournaments, earning a spot on both teams.</p>

<p>But the wins were costly: The Craigs took Charlotte to six tournaments that year, spending a total of $12,000 on everything from air fare to admission tickets for Mom and Dad. Jim missed three weeks of work, in effect costing them another $4,500. They found themselves constantly running short. Mom Charlotte borrowed $1,500 from their eldest son, Randy, when their bank account ran low…"
[The</a> American way - Jul. 23, 2008](<a href=“http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/22/pf/price_glory.moneymag/index2.htm]The”>The American way - Jul. 23, 2008)</p>

117

<p>I think it is just as silly to assume that the only great people in the world are (or were) at Ivies, as it is to assume the opposite. (‘Hey, my kid went elsewhere: he or she must be a much better person!’ Not.) Some of you know a very small sample (obviously) of Ivy students, or possibly students at particular Ivies. Others of you have a major, major case of Sour Grapes and rationalization. Here’s the sitch:</p>

<p>The Reaches have a huge pool of talent from which to choose. The vast majority of their applicants are mega-qualified, including those that didn’t get in. Therefore, they can afford to be picky as to additional qualities as well. It used to be that the Reaches were exclusive in more than one way: exclusively for snobs (almost). These days, by contrast, if you have an overdose of Entitlement disease, good luck hiding it, and good luck being admitted. (I’m speaking especially of people who believe they “know” what Ivy attendees are like because their parents or relatives or parents’ friends went there. Again, not. Different generation, different pool, different expectations on the part of the committees)</p>

<p>There are plenty of lovely people in the Ivies, and plenty of lovely people in different schools. (By the way, Cornell IS an Ivy. Very overlapping pool to the other Ivies, an overlap that includes people full of themselves and people much more virtuous.) Instead of looking at where a student <em>didn’t</em> get admitted & assuming either that the committee got it wrong (most often, no), that admissions is “unfair” (because you didn’t get admitted), or worse – that the person rejected is somehow more virtuous by the fact of rejection (pretty silly reasoning), how about looking at the positive? Maybe the Cornell admit - or the Penn admit or the LAC admit, etc. – was admitted not because the other committees were deficient or the student bodies were deficient (a convenient rationalization), but because the admitting school saw clearly the excellent fit.</p>

118

<p>NSM, again I don’t understand the point of your long essay about Olympic. I am probably just slow.
Epiphany, I have no issue with my daughter at Cornell. But I thinly you are the one that brought up the point of kids at HYPS are geneous and selfless, and that’s what I disagreed with.Maybe I misunderstood.</p>

119

<p>Last post was typed on my iPhone, it is still difficult for me.</p>

120

<p>"NSM, again I don’t understand the point of your long essay about Olympic. I am probably just slow. "</p>

<p>It takes more than talent and hard work to make the Olympics. For most sports, it takes opportunity, family support and money,lots of MONEY. </p>

<p>"NSM of course very few, if any, of these kids are ordinary in terms of academic/extracurricular talent, but in terms of “as people” I’d like to think I’m rather ordinary and so are most of my peers at Stanford. "</p>

<p>I’m not sure what you mean by “ordinary.” Of course, no one has a neon sign over their head saying, “extraordinary person.” However, ordinary people don’t take lots of APs (ordinary people don’t even take one AP), get board scores in the 95th to 99th percentile (ordinary people don’t even take the SAT), have high school gpas that are “A” averages in tough curricula, feel compelled to feed their brains to learn new things, have the kind of EC achievements that people at places like Stanford have, and enjoy being at a place like Stanford (There are plenty of very smart people who don’t want to go to colleges with lots of very smart, very driven people. They prefer a less academically challenging atmosphere). </p>

<p>What blends in at Stanford, stands out in most of the rest of the world. </p>

<p>Certainly people at Stanford are similar to ordinary people in that they are: sometimes insecure and socially awkward, play video games, party, watch TV, sometimes have to study very hard to learn information. However, there are plenty of ways in which people at Stanford and similar schools aren’t ordinary. Those ways are why the students ended up at places like Stanford. </p>

<p>Of course, there are similar students at probably every place of learning in the country: Just not in as high a concentration as they are at places like Stanford. What makes the schools like HPYS special is the high concentration they have of students who are extraordinary in the type of things that I mentioned.</p>