<p>Let me amend the last line of my post #219 to say that sincere interest in learning + stellar stats (2400/2400/4.0 UW/multiple AP’s, all 5’s) + state-level recognition in EC’s + varsity athletics (even) will not necessarily guarantee that a student is admitted at one of the top schools in his/her field.</p>
<p>I think that it is really important to re-iterate this, even though I have posted something similar many times before. If parents whose students are coming into the process hear only from posters for whose children the admissions season turned out very well, they may come out with a distorted picture, overall. There is still a lot of “applicant-blaming” when a top student is not admitted to a top school in his/her field. This is misplaced, at least sometimes. </p>
<p>I feel well situated to point this out, because QMP had several “top” admissions and chose one. Ages ago, I had several “top” admissions and chose none of them. The same is true of QMS (QuantMechSpouse). We are not prestige-oriented–not a Harvard applicant among us. However, friends of QMP’s, students we know and care about, did not have the bump-free admissions season that I believe the children of other posters, and perhaps their children’s close friends also, have enjoyed.</p>
<p>sewhappy assumes high school teachers are able to recognize students who love learning and those who work for grades. I certainly don’t think this is universally true. It seems to me students who love learning sometimes aggravate teachers by trying to explore beyond the narrow goals of the class. I think it is very possible for students who love learning to get less than stellar teacher recommendations. It sometimes takes a scholarly teacher to recognize and appreciate a scholarly student. In the sort of anti-intellectual environment that exists in many schools I think many students who love learning really fall through the cracks.</p>
<p>cross posted with several others so I am adding:</p>
<p>some students who really love learning for the sake of learning don’t have time in their lives for all the busywork coursework the “top colleges” tell us are necessary to be the most competitive applicants, but it will take an unusual high school teacher or counselor recommendation to support the non mainstream. With any luck, the student will have recs from outside high school. And, of course, some of these students are the future scholars the “top colleges” really want if they can find them. Well okay - I’m not so sure the admissions office always wants them. I do agree, for the most part, with Quantmech that it is a disservice to these students and society for them not to have the opportunity to develop to their full potential. But mostly as a society we don’t see the need to support the really sincere learners. We support the ones who learn early how to act in a way that teachers recognize as sincere. Of course, there is a sometimes a certain amount of intelligence (and a healthy sense of self-preservation) involved in the act. I don’t know if young scholars who knowingly flout the “rules” are smarter or stupider than the rest of us. Maybe just different values. imho</p>
<p>QuantMech is completely right in #221 with her caution. And as a moral matter, I would not want to dilute my preferred message of “Do the right thing” by adding “and that will improve your chances of admission to the Ivy League university of your choice.”</p>
<p>On the other hand, I do believe that doing the right thing improves one’s expected admissions outcome, however one measures that. It does NOT, absolutely NOT, guarantee admission to any particular college. But I think it makes a student a better candidate for whatever he or she wants, be it super-selective admission or competitive scholarships, or just getting a nice research gig in the lab you want. That doesn’t work out perfectly all the time, but it works out better than any other course of action. And even when it doesn’t work out in terms of delivering goodies, you are still way ahead of the game.</p>
<p>YES. I had one of these kids, who did not get accepted early to his first choice but got accepted during regular decision to every other school - with the exact same application, exact same recommendations.</p>
<p>Quantmech - How does one define a top field for a high school student since all they are studying are basic sciences/math and social studies in high school?</p>
<p>“But mostly as a society we don’t see the need to support the really sincere learners. We support the ones who learn early how to act in a way that teachers recognize as sincere.”</p>
<p>Thank you for stating that, alh! I often wonder if these so called elite schools are mostly filled with suc ups and status seekers that just know how to play the game well, leaving the outside-of-the-box visionaries outside of the school.</p>
<p>texaspg, I agree with your point that a student who winds up with a strong interest in anthropology, or biochemistry, or South-East Asian history may not have much exposure, if any, to those fields in high school. One of the great joys of college is the opportunity to discover new fields, and perhaps wind up majoring in them.</p>
<p>I don’t want my remarks to suggest any lack of support for a student who is undecided about a future field. Age 18 is very young to be making a potentially life-long commitment.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I think that many future physicists have identified their interest in physics by the end of high school, and many will know whether they prefer (say) particle physics to nanotech, or vice versa. Many of the astronomers I know had fallen in love with the field by the end of high school. Clearly there are exceptions–sylvan[number] on another thread overcame very difficult circumstances in early life, and became a physicist via the long route.</p>
<p>A student who is undecided has a more difficult job in selecting colleges, but I am fully supportive of the undecided group.</p>
<p>This is an interesting point. It used to be that anyone deserving got what they wanted regardless of how many others there are. I thought that’s what made the US land of oppotunity. The fierce college admission seems to change that. I wonder it has consequences beyond the 4 years of college.</p>
<p>I think alh makes good points in posts #222 and #223. My perspective is influenced by comparing QMP’s high school with my own. Teachers who were sincere scholars themselves were easily found in my high school, and much rarer in QMP’s. The “busywork” issue is another that varies from school to school. My own high school had essentially none of it. QMP’s school had quite a bit–although I have heard that the quantity of pointless work (to be blunt) has dropped recently, and one lengthy project that looked good on paper, but was a nightmare in practice has been eliminated. Perhaps coincidentally, the children of the younger teachers are now moving up through the school system (sorry for the cynicism in this remark).</p>
<p>I also agree strongly with JHS in #224. A an intellectually inclined student is always better off following the path that will lead to the most intellectually interesting, growth-encouraging experiences–rather than attempting to become the nation’s champion rutabaga grower, unless that is a logical choice! (There are actually quite a few intellectually interesting aspects of rutabaga growing.)</p>
<p>I also agree with JHS that following the intellectual path will lead to greater odds of success overall.</p>
<p>JHS has stated my main point: that there is not a guarantee, and an applicant who is academically and personally excellent may wind up being non-selected. I believe that this is true even when the essays and letters of recommendation are quite strong. The odds that this will happen may be low–maybe 5% for a “top stats, good personality” type of student–but that can still affect quite a few students.</p>
<p>“But mostly as a society we don’t see the need to support the really sincere learners. We support the ones who learn early how to act in a way that teachers recognize as sincere.”</p>
<p>Sample of two, here - my kids’ major activities were outside of school and basically unknown to anyone in their high school. They held no meaningful leadership positions in a school context (and I agree such positions are often, though not necessarily, either popularity contests or suck-up contests).</p>
<p>Based on my own admissions experience, I agree with sewhappy to an extent. When I was in school I could tell who the intellectually mature and curious kids were. Although I did very well in class, (and was certainly not a suck-up) I was not really one of them. Often, these students were not recieving the very top grades or test scores, but they were the kids who always had another book they were reading, or who were expert on politics or world affairs despite having no 24 hour cable news or “world wide web” to easily access this information. </p>
<p>Although my test scores, grades, and frankly my ECs exceeded those of most of my fellow students, including those accepted to the schools where I was rejected, I was probably far more interested in surfing and girls than anything intellectual. I’m sure that came across. And yes, I knew all their objective stats though I don’t recall specifics now. These were good friends of mine, many of whom I helped with their schoolwork, and who were surprised themselves about our respective outcomes. </p>
<p>Only in retrospect, I probably was not that surprised. If I think back, although I wanted to be admitted to my top choice (who likes rejection?) I really knew very little about it and was probably better suited for the beach side school I ended up attending. It’s only now, in my 50s, that I actually really understand that I may have missed out on something.</p>
<p>IMO this type of intellectual curiosity in the math and science arena generally manifests itself in grades and test scores (and competitions). But there were always the kids who were taking apart engines and devouring Asimov but couldn’t solve an equation to save their lives. I think it is easier to miss in literature, humanities, etc if you only look at objective stats. But I could be wrong about that, I’m sure there are exceptions.</p>
<p>^ Bovertine, your high school experience sounds ideal to me. Surely, you would not have traded it for a super elite admission somewhere? You got a great education and actually enjoyed the teen years - how cool is that??</p>
<p>This is a really good thread. Admissions is such an emotionally charged topic that it’s hard to find thoughtful, sustained discussions of it. </p>
<p>Quantmech makes a good observation about my post that just being a “sincere scholar” in high school is rewarded internally but perhaps not by trophy admissions to college. That is definitely true. We’ve all seen it, sometimes it happens to our own kids. But the larger point is that approaching high school in that spirit still rewards the student wherever they matriculate.</p>
<p>Alh also makes a very good and very sad point about quality of teachers and schools. My own kids got lucky. Our older one did freakishly well on the SAT in a talent search and a local private school searched him out and offered him a scholarship. Otherwise he would have stayed in a really troubled high school where the resources were targeted toward just getting kids to graduate rather than grooming kids for top colleges. Our younger one was able to follow her older sibling to this same very generous and very good private school. There is no question that they benefited from the small classes, PhD level teachers and general serenity of the environment. Also, they encountered kids for the first time who were striving to get into name colleges. That was a totally new concept to them. (My DH and I are state U products)</p>
<p>At this moment, a dear friend of my DD’s who she met last summer at an academic program is deferred at the school my DD was admitted to. My DD says she is the type of kid who simply transports seminars to levels that even the professors are astounded by. She is also something of a legend here in NJ on the academic competition circuit. She is also quite lovely and the kind of kid who congratulated her friends who “got in” on December 15th with absolute sincerity and joy for them. It bothers me so much. I don’t think attending a super elite school will stop this talented and energetic kid from doing great things in the world but it really feels unjust. I suspect applying from a fairly prestigious private high school helped my DD and these factors went against her friend. Also, she is Asian. And no – I don’t want to reignite that whole argument.</p>
<p>I offered up the possibility that some kids with extraordinary stats and resumes don’t get in to their trophy school because their applications simply don’t read well or their teachers did not go the extra mile in writing them stand out letters. But the truth is that many kids have all of that but still end up deferred. They will still be okay though – perhaps even better off because they will have the opportunity of weathering a big disappointment at home with the support of family and friends. That can be a valuable education in itself.</p>
<p>Kids who identify top schools in their fields:</p>
<p>One of my kids (not the one denied early to the first choice school) had a very particular non math/science interest since very early childhood. It became more focused over time. He had the opportunity to take university classes in the subject while still in high school. He wanted to study with several scholars in whose research he was interested and applied to the universities where they taught. His safeties were the schools where their recent PhD students taught. He was fortunate to have access to university classes and library to explore his interests while still in high school. A couple of high school teachers really liked him, sometimes scheduled independent studies which allowed him pursue his own interests and still keep up with him years later. But mostly he was seen as an absolute pill. He’s currently in graduate school and I’m pretty sure will be the top scholar of his generation in his particular field. It is a small, obscure field, so that may not be as much of a brag as it sounds. In my opinion he would have been greatly disadvantaged academically by not getting into his one of his top undergraduate choice colleges. He certainly would have been discouraged. Would it have mattered to society? I think maybe. Some of his cross disciplinary research is very interesting and has the possibility to change how we look at the world. Or at least how some people look at the world. I personally think it has implications outside the university world – Now that is definitely a mama brag! But isn’t bragging about our kids the main reason we come here to post?</p>
<p>Serious future scholars who apply to college, already familiar with the most recent research of the academic superstars in their field, are probably coming from very fortunate and enriched backgrounds, though not necessarily monied. So it doesn’t make sense, in my opinion, for a college to choose a whole freshman class of “scholars” if they want a diverse population. ( But I can only be this philosophic because my kids are all done with undergraduate studies. And, even at my most mellowed, I am still mad at MIT) And when some groups see this type of student “successful” at college admissions they are inspired to try and duplicate the path by creating or forcing scholarly interests in children rather than just supporting the child in whatever the child chooses.</p>
<p>On this board and even on this thread we discuss the importance of As, the greater importance of getting As for the right reason (sincere intellectual interest rather than doing the work required for a gold star) whether perfect SATs and national science/math competitions are really markers of a non-intellectual - since somehow this constitutes something other than sincere intellectual engagement, maybe just being a grind or robot. or suck-ups. And pretty much we all do it from a very personal point of view. Whatever our kids do is right and if it worked it was obviously successful. We are pretty suspicious of alternate paths. We’re judgmental of different parenting styles. (for example I just wrote critically above about “forcing interests”)</p>
<p>I really appreciate that Quantmech keeps posting that these young kids are outstanding students who do everything right, do everything they were told and still don’t get the admission letter. Random? Or blame it on the applicant? They are really victims of a ridiculous system imho I think you can question my use of the word “victim” if your kid also didn’t get into a first choice. Not if you can say how you would have responded if your kid hadn’t gotten in EA/ED but you didn’t have to actually live the experience. And with the internet it is very difficult for bright high schoolers to opt out of the whole discussion. We can’t really take away the computer from our 17yr olds while they wait for results. I would rather talk about what a crazy system it has become rather than the supposed shortcomings of some really outstanding student’s application - or even worse, how the application probably highlighted personal shortcomings.</p>
<p>Both of my kids were suck ups in school and also enjoyed what they were learning in school. They knew what made their teachers tick, they knew what they had to do to get their As, at the sametime they truly enjoyed their classes. Feedback from their teachers were often, “her comments were often thought provoking, challenge other students, and made discussions in class more interesting.” D1 was more so in math/science, D2 was in literature/history. Both of them were active in school, as well as with their own major EC outside of school.</p>
<p>Maybe my kids are “the ones who learn early how to act in a way that teachers recognize as sincere.” But it certainly makes their life easier when they need extra help, extension for for a paper, or get a good LOR. To me education is more than just academia, part of its purpose is to prepare our kids for the world someday. There are not that many “true intellectuals” in the world. The place for them maybe schools like Chicago. There is a saying, “It´s not what you are asking for, it is how you are asking.” Maybe it is also, “It is not what you know, it is how you are letting people know.”</p>
<p>When my 1S was in elementary, grade 4-6, our community voted to include a multiple intelligence’s program. Unfortunately it was cancelled the following year and the principals comment was that this program is for students who have extra intelligence, we need to focus on the one’s who are lacking. I kid you not!!! Our society has lowered the standards.</p>
<p>By the time a student progresses through high school, teachers are quite informed as to how sincere their students efforts are. The inquisitive intellectual student does not need to be the one that aggravates the teacher. This student is showing respect and appreciation to the teacher by attending class prepared, informed and eager to learn more. If you are taking an AP course load than there is no way to fool a teacher. Either he/she is capable and committed or not. The teacher will know. These teachers, AP courses, are active learners and truly enjoy students who love to learn and are capable of thinking outside the box. They will work as best they can to bring them to the level to achieve whatever success they aspire, but again, the student must take ownership of his/her own life.</p>
<p>I don’t think you are going to get into any of these elite schools without very good grades and test scores. That’s the baseline. So whatever you need to do to get them, as long as its honest, I think that’s fine. I’m talking about discriminating beyond that point, and how to best do it. I’m sure it’s tough unless you have been around all the applicants for years.</p>
<p>I was in the first AP course in my school back in the 70s - US History. I remember discussing the whole Watergate Scandal and the election. There was a group of kids who knew all the issues and facts involved, they’d obviously spent a lot of time reading about it and thinking about it. They were comparing it to other historical events. In the meantime my contingent was busy assuming the Nixon hunched shoulder victory position and talking about not being a crook. I still got an A in the class and a 5 on the test, but I certainly wasn’t on the top of the intellectual heap in that class. My teacher (who was also my coach) liked me, but it wasn’t too hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in there.</p>
<p>oldfort: Chicago will be perfect for some “true intellectuals” but not others. The core won’t work for the sort of student who is determined to focus on a narrow area of interest. </p>
<p>Don’t you want at least one or two “true intellectuals” at Cornell? Wouldn’t it somehow enrich your daughters’ experience? Or does that seem like a waste of a perfectly good spot?</p>
<p>Quantmech
</p>
<p>It depends, I guess, on the mission of the university whether the “truly top student” ought to be admitted. And how we define “truly top student” since there doesn’t seem to be a universally accepted definition. At least on this board. Except, of course, when it is our own student… who obviously is tops. :)</p>
<p>I don’t really know how I feel about it all anymore. </p>
<p>No, no, I have no issues with true intellects. Just saying there are people who are book smart AND people smart too. It just seem like people are saying one is better than another. Diversity is good.</p>
Wouldn’t it somehow enrich your daughters’ experience? Or does that seem like a waste of a perfectly good spot?</p>