My two revelations about college admissions, and what they meant to me and my kid.

Applying to College
1

<p>Maybe what were revelations to me are common knowledge to most of you, but I offer them nonetheless.</p>

<hr>

<p>The thoughts of parents (like me) and our kids are understandably preoccupied with the parts of the college applications that the kids have either direct control over, like essays, or partial control - by way of practice and prep work - like SAT/ACT scores.</p>

<p>But what part of the larger picture do those things really comprise? Am I pouring 80 percent of my emotional energy into what ultimately amounts to only about 20 percent of the entire evaluation process? </p>

<p>I think I am (or was). And that changed my outlook. A lot. To my kid’s benefit. </p>

<hr>

<p>Imagining myself as an admissions officer, I thought “What part of the application would be most important to me?” </p>

<p>I think I'd probably use test scores as only a basic, ball park, sort of check point. I’d realize that an SAT score, for example, is only a single data point taken on a single afternoon. I’d know that, if taken multiple times, the scores would fluctuate within a fairly predictable range, so those numbers really are only a ballpark figure. </p>

<p>I'd be interested in the essay, sure - a great one might help me with my evaluation, as would an atrocious one - but I wouldn't count on that, either, as my primary source from which to form my portrait of the applicant. Because no matter how good an essay is, it can only address one or two dimensions of the overall person. I think I’d prefer to use the essay to round out a picture that was already mostly formed. </p>

<p>I'd think the best understanding of the <em>academic</em> part of the picture would emerge from the student’s <em>entire</em> transcript, as balanced against the time commitment associated with extracurriculars or other personal circumstances like jobs or family situations. </p>

<p>When I add the extracurriculars themselves to the mix, I imagine the outlines of a picture of the applicant would be formed. </p>

<p>But the thing I think I'd be most curious to see - the thing that I'd hope would give me the best possible insight into the prospective student - is the letter(s) of recommendation from teachers and counselors. I might even look at that part of the application folder first, before I know the kid's academic background. </p>

<p>The teachers and counselors are the people who actually know the kids in a very real way that would matter to me. Those folks are accustomed to, and experienced at, evaluating not only academic talent but also at discerning and articulating any outstanding personal qualities the kids may have. I'm aware that recommendations can sometimes be nothing more than form letters, and I'd be sorely disappointed to receive one of those because a great opportunity to understand the person behind the folder would have been lost. But I imagine that if I were an admissions officer I'd treasure thoughtful, intelligent, assessments from the professionals who know the kids personally and work with them on a daily basis. I look to those to be the best and truest window through the fog of all of the statistics into who that kid really is.</p>

<p>Maybe I’m na</p>

2

<p>Excellent post.
thanks~</p>

3

<p>Great stuff there! I agree, based on experience, that the letters of recommendation must play a really significant role in admissions. Which raises a few questions that I'll throw in here. </p>

<p>First: My D is clearly a humanities kid. She has veteran teachers in English and social sciences who love her, and would write superb recommendations, she thinks. She's always been less excited about math and science, but does fine in those classes. But they don't showcase her real talent in analyzing text and participating insightfully in discussions. The current science teacher would give her a nice letter, but perhaps wouldn't rave about her the way these other teachers would. Should D follow the conventional path and submit a letter from a science/math teacher plus one of the humanities teachers? Or should she just go all out with a couple of stellar recommendations from English and Social Science people? </p>

<p>Second, what do you think about the difference between recommendations written by a brand new teacher and more seasoned teachers? Any reason to choose one over the other?</p>

<p>I hope this doesn't go against the non-controlling spirit of the OP, but I'd love to hear thoughts on these questions.</p>

4

<p>FauxNom:</p>

<p>The OP, that's me, is just a dad who's total experience with college admissions consists of having shepherded kid #1 through the process and is doing the same now with kid #2 (of 2). So run everything I say through your own common sense filter and get other views also. Rather then telling you or anyone what I think you should do, I'm more comfortable telling you what I <em>did</em>, and why. Consider anything I say more along the lines of "thoughts on a topic" than any sort of advice or specific recommendation(s) about what you should do. I'll leave it up to you to decide if anything I say is actually helpful to your own family's situation</p>

<p>Regarding your first question: My kid #2 is a daughter who is also a humanities kid. What she really wants to study in college is history, cultures, literature, and languages. She did exactly what you're considering, and went "all out with a couple of stellar recommendations from English and Social Science people." The teachers she chose know her best, and will do the best job of describing who she is on the recommendations. The colleges will see from her transcript and SATs that she did fine in math and the sciences. </p>

<p>It sounds corny, I know, but what I want most for my two kids is for them to be happy in their lives. There's a not-so-subtle pressure to reach as high as possible not only when it comes to applying to college but also in life in general, to the point that it's all too easy to get caught up in that mentality and end up overreaching. We can't all be president, we're not all Rhodes scholars, or the next American Idol. </p>

<p>My outlook is tempered by my 50 something years. Life is hard enough as it is without tying to force ourselves, and more importantly our kids, into being something they're just not. Of course I want them to achieve; Of course I want them to be all that they can be, as the Army used to say; Of course I expect them to have a good work ethic and not become complacent and "settle" for less than they deserve and have earned. But I've also seen that spending a lifetime - or even four years - in waters that are just a little too deep can wear a person down and take away happiness and the enjoyment of life. </p>

<p>So I've really taken to heart the "good fit" aspect of the college application process. Both of my kids are very good students, but neither of them are true Ivy material. And there's a <em>lot</em> more to what makes a school a good fit than just the academic part of the picture. Just as colleges like to say they take a holistic approach to the admissions process, so I am trying to do the same in helping my kids decide where they want to spend their next four years. I'm definitely <em>not</em> trying to imply that there's any "dumbing down" going on in my kids' college application process. They both applied to reach/fit/safety schools appropriate for their abilities. </p>

<p>After one semester at college my son <em>loves</em> his school. A year ago today, however, the school he's attending was one of his safeties. Now, he can't imagine being anywhere else and is almost grateful to the fates that he ended up where he is. A year from now, if my daughter is just as happy with her school, then for this dad life will be as good as it gets.</p>

<p>Regarding your second question about new vs. experienced teachers: I understand the dilemma. At my age I've developed a great respect for experience. I think there really is something to the notion described in the book "Blink" by Malcom Gladwell; that over a long period of time as both a student and a practitioner of any discipline (like teaching) that a person can develop an insight, an instinct almost, about their chosen field. But even experienced teachers can be jerks, and young ones can be wonderful. So unless you have some sense of the specific teachers involved that might give you pause one way or the other, my tendency would be to fall back to the larger question of which teacher would represent your daughter the best; which one knows her better; which one has your daughter impressed the most; Which one is most like the teacher in the Brad Paisley song "Letter to Me," who "Spent so much extra time it's like she sees the diamond underneath and she's polishing you till you shine". </p>

<p>There I go gettin' corny again, I tend to do that, but you get the idea.</p>

5

<p>That's very nice... :) </p>

<p>I wish more parents thought like you...</p>

6

<p>FauxNom: My S is the same way...he ended up getting excellent rec from his AP Lit teacher and his AP US History teacher. Got ot the teacher they know the best and appreciates their skills.</p>

7

<p>These are great posts, thanks.</p>

<p>The one thing I still do not get, though I see it often and hear it often everywhere, is captured in this quote:

[quote]
Each college or university has its own culture; its own philosophical outlook about education; its own vision of what it is and what it wants to be. One of the best ways for a school to maintain, foster, or change its personality – its identity – is to carefully craft its student body

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why I don't get it is because it just never jives with my experience (e.g. as an academic married to an academic for almost 20 years, one who has been both a student and professor at many schools, from Ivy to state, whose wide network of friends and colleagues covers countless schools and as someone who regularly visits schools to work with coauthors, speak at a seminar, attend conferences and meetings..)</p>

<p>I keep asking myself, if it's real, why don't I see it? Why do faculty never ask about this during the hiring process? Why do faculty never talk about it? Why could I never- nor my colleagues- tell you our particular university culture the way the brochures describe it? Sure they talk about the culture of the DEPARTMENTS in which they work or consider working in. But they are well aware of how that culture can vary from floor to floor (let alone departments, let alone the whole school!). The reason being that most college environments are simply too big and diverse: the differences between departments and sections and areas often outweighs the similarities at the college level; the student body likewise is likely going to vary more by major than by college.</p>

<p>Don't misunderstand me, we know some schools will attract math geniuses, others jocks, others more directed at the partying B student. And schools vary in their ability to select on scholarship as defined by some measures like SATs and GPAs. But beyond that, I believe the process comes down to something utterly subjective that can not be distilled into "fit our culture". I believe this "hand-picking of individuals to complement our culture" belongs solely in the minds of adcoms, marketing brochures, and Deans who think they have more cultural influence vis a vis their 'vision' than they actually do. I know it makes us feel better to have a more kind and fair explanation for admissions, as if these decisions could be documented and replicated, but th ereality is that group decision making among many very similar good options (e.g. tons of great students) is simply not going to be a rational, 'fair' or explainable process. </p>

<p>Even if you take it down to many small numbers (e.g. when it comes to a small group of faculty choosing to hire one faculty member among a dozen equally qualified), you can watch the group process and see the 'non-rationality' through the flow of the discussion. On a different day, or a somewhat different combination of decision makers (sometimes just taking out or adding one person), or a somewhat different mix of faculty to choose from (take out or add one or two faculty), the discussion goes in an entirely different direction and a different choice is made. Now bring that same process up to thousands of applicants applying to much more diverse and larger environments composed of many thousands, and it's simply and painfully 'subjective' and variable and impossible to predict. Sure, decision makers can perhaps rationalize after the fact why they chose A over B using some kind of cultural schema, but I am just not buying that there is a culture-personality fit process going on.</p>

8

<p>FauxNom,
I would absolutely not worry about balancing the disciplines when choosing teachers to write recommendations. After all, the college years, while for exploration, are also for focus, and the expectation is that the students will choose majors and narrow their fields of interest. If your son/daughter has already found areas that are a strength in both interest and ability, choosing teachers in those areas is the right way to go. My d chose teachers in English and History to write hers and was accepted ED at her first choice.<br>
We joked along the way that if she put on her application that she would promise to never take a math class her admission might be assured. Kids have strengths and weaknesses. To the extent that the schools want or need to know the overall kid, isn't that part of the picture?</p>

9

<p>starbright</p>

<p>I understand completely, and I can't argue with anything you say except for one thing: We know that cultural differences do exist among groups of people. What I might offer, respectfully, about the way you state your view, is that it seems to suffer a bit from the problem of not being able to see the forest for the trees. I'd suggest taking a broader view that encompasses a greater sweep of both time and circumstance. Even 20 years is a relatively short period. Look instead at the entire lifetimes of the schools. And cultural differences exist not just among colleges, but among geographic regions.</p>

<p>For example, I'm no sociologist, but I think I'm on pretty solid ground in saying that the Northeast part of the country has an entirely different "vibe" to it than the deep South. There are reasons for those differences that can be traced to geography, climate, and the ethnic and cultural origins of the people who live there. Differences can be discovered between the East Coast and West, and the Midwest as well. </p>

<p>Cultural differences can be seen in my field of work, which is Government contracting. The "personality" of IBM, say, is different from that of Boeing, which is different from Lockheed Martin, which is different from Northrup Grumman. </p>

<p>The same goes for colleges and universities. </p>

<p>Your suggestion that it may not be due to an overt, conscious decision on the part of the admissions officers has merit. Maybe the passage of mine that you quoted over states the case. Maybe it's more subtle than that. </p>

<p>If I were to search for reasons that any particular school is the way it is I'd want to look at the schools' mission statements, philosophical underpinnings, or examine its roots. For example, The University of Virginia was founded by Thomas Jefferson. That school, which we visited, with its football games that were touted by our tour guide as social events with "guys in ties and girls in pearls," and its secret societies, definitely has a culture of its own which I'm sure can largely be traced back to its founder and his ideals. The people who make the admissions decisions are steeped in that culture, some more than others, I'm sure, but nonetheless they're part of it. They can't help but be influenced by it. </p>

<p>Some of it is self selection, too, I'm sure. Some kids seek out party schools (or sports schools, or nerd schools, or liberal schools, or religious schools, or any number of other school 'cultures'), while others avoid them. Some look for "professional" schools (i.e., universities known for their engineering or business schools), while others favor the liberal arts colleges. And admissions officers can select only from the pool of applications they have in front of them. I'm sure that's another part of it.</p>

<p>The bottom line for me is that though it may be subtle, the "personality" of a school can have a significant impact on my kids' four years there so it behooves us to be aware of it and take it into consideration in our search to find a good fit for my son and daughter.</p>

10

<p>Two years ago our first son was going through the process. Great grades, great scores, lots of EC's -- so he threw his hat into a strong selection of the toughest schools (Princeton, Stanford, MIT, CalTech) -- rejected by all except . . . Dartmouth. He's at Dartmouth now and loves, loves, loves it. At the time I didn't know why Dartmouth saw something in him that the others didn't -- but I gained an insight when I started searching the Common Data Sets of schools for our second child. </p>

<p>The Common Data Set questions are answered by the schools. There are a series of questions that can be marked "Highly important/considered/not considered" -- for instance, most competitive schools would say that SAT scores and class rank are "highly important" --- most schools would say religion is "not considered" -- and some questions can be left blank. </p>

<p>Suddenly the light went on. On the question about "personal character", most of the schools did not give an answer. Dartmouth listed this as "highly important." Of all my sweet son's amazing attributes, he is best known for being a fantastic mentor, friend and human being. </p>

<p>I know I am seeing this through the eyes of a mom. I'm sure there are noble beings on each campus -- and some drunken louts at Dartmouth --- but the Common Data Set made it clear that personal character was a specific trait they were seeking at Dartmouth. No wonder he loves it there.</p>