<p>Phew…this is too fast for me to keep up with. Re: Oxford/Cambridge.
Yes - the essay is a very different affair than most American school topics.
The English system is very different. Finances are far different and since all the schools use the same admissions system (not just a portal to a form) there are even some ‘match up rounds’ in which students without spots and schools with spots are paired.
That having been said, their system is also much less holistic. A and O levels play a huge role at most schools, and for Oxford/Cambridge, the interviews and some specialized exams do much of the rest.</p>
<p>There are ways for kids to move beyond their communities a lot more easily than they used to; I think the internet helps a lot. Case in point, D2’s current most intense extracurricular is studying for the USA Biology Olympiad. She found out about it on the web, and wanted to study for it, even though no one else at her school has ever done it. She asked her science teacher to sign her up for it (we had to pay the fee), and we ordered the textbook for her. She studied it on her own and took the test in February. Finished very respectably for a first year student who has not had chem, and is currently working on figuring out the biochem sections of the book on her own/with the internet in preparation for next year (she will have hs chemistry next fall). While we do not live in a rural area, she could easily have done this even if we did. She also belongs to 4H (as many rural kids also do), and has pretty much self-taught herself entomology from books so she could enter a collection in the fair.</p>
<p>I also think you might be able to write an awesome essay about being a ranch kid, the ad coms might find it quite interesting 
Just read Sandra Day O’Connor’s book about growing up on a ranch if you don’t believe it can be an interesting story!</p>
<p>Mitch, not sure why you diagree with Calmom- you’re both saying the motivated kid doesn’t stop at the barriers but finds ways to make the best of the situation.</p>
<p>One of my CC buddies wrote brilliantly and humorously about not being able to stay after school, not having school ECs, because he needed get home to chop wood and start up the wood stove that heats the house-and do other homestead type chores- and he got into his top choice competitive school. (No, not based just on his essay.)</p>
<p>Did all this fuss start because I wrote we liked it when kids had more than just school-based activities? C’mon, now posters are sharing all sorts of ideas about how even rural kids can show they have some “get up and go,” whether it’s an online class, working at church, joining 4-H, whatever. </p>
<p>Now, about the stats-only frenzy: do you all realize there is painfully little standardization among high schools? The kid who can take APs starting freshman year and 3+ as a jr and 3+ as a sr will have a higher weighted gpa than the kid at a school with 2 APs (often only one math and one science) or none (many fine schools don’t buy into APs; the rigorous IB schools don’t always have any APs.) Some schools only allow the first AP in junior year- and it is just one. Schools can have different weighting formulas. Some schools weight honors classes; some treat an AP as a one semester class and 2nd semester is the AP Exam prep in that subject (you can see this on tanscripts.) Those prepped kids can score better on the exams. Some schools run semester-long SAT prep. Schools that inflate grades will have higher gpa kids than tough schools where they run kids through hoops to get an A. Many competitive schools redefine “valedictorian” and have 10 or more. And, on and on. And, do you know not all AP classes are the same? Each hs needs AP course curriculum approval from the AP adminsitration folks- but they allow for variation in content, after the minimum basics are met. (The report is online; they intend to tackle this, but I don’t know where it stands.) So, some hs kids can more easily ace an AP than others.</p>
<p>So, the argument would have to start with standardizing high schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely, he must have had all those qualities. So did many rejected or waitlisted applicants. However, the final discriminator was a sound-bite. The process (including the standardized tests, the grading system, the interviews, essays, etc.) never examined the relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities that would have discriminated rationally among students at this high level of competition. </p>
<p>This process fosters a belief in some mysterious “it”, a you-know-it-when-you-see-it quality, attributed to successful people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And what are those “relevant”, “rational” factors? A 4.59638 GPA vs. a 4.59725 GPA? A 2340 SAT vs. a 2350 SAT? 3 leadership roles in “A” ranked EC’s vs. 4 leadership roles in “B” ranked EC’s? (And what makes up an A ranked EC?)</p>
<p>I do not agree that the “difference” in those factors are the ones the top level schools can, or should, use in constructing a class. I have worked in HYPMS professional school admissions. Once a set of basic criteria are met…which about 80 - 85% of the applicants meet…the process is very similar to what is described in the NPR story.</p>
<p>I believe in the “it” factor and the “je ne sais quoi” factor. In college admissions as well as job candidates. However, if you don’t believe in that, the “picking people for roles in a musical” analogy used very early on this thread by GADAD (around post #16) is a very good way to look at building a class at a school that uses multiple, and subjective, criteria for admissions.</p>
<p>DanAdmiss, an admissions rep on the CC Tufts threads. has been commenting on the NPR story. He stated that the Tufts process had some slight differences, but was basically very much like what was described in the NPR piece. A couple of his comments that allow the “soundbites” from the 7 min. NPR story to be taken a little further are, I think, very helpful. </p>
<p>When questioned about top students being on “equal footing”, he replied:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He also talked about what makes a candidate distinctive. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But you CAN’T “discriminate rationally” between students at this high of a level of a competition. </p>
<p>You simply can’t say that Susie’s weighted GPA of 4.5 is that much more impressive than Mary’s 4.4 and therefore Susie wins the tie - because Mary’s school only offers 5 AP classes and Susie’s offers 20, and Mary’s school had a conflict because the state requires consumer ed which conflicted with AP Physics so Mary couldn’t take it whereas Susie’s school has enough sections for everybody, and anyway, Mary’s AP Calc teacher is so much more of a hard-ass than Susie’s AP Calc teacher. </p>
<p>All you can do is squint at those things and say they are essentially the same, both Mary and Susie can academically compete here, what makes one seem like a more interesting person than the other? </p>
<p>Ditto, of course, if we’re comparing a 2250 SAT to a 2300 – and even for EC’s. Even if all stats were the same, how do you “rationally compare” Mary winning second place in her state’s art competition to Susie being on her school’s soccer team that won state? You can’t objectively compare those 2 things and say one is better or more deserving.</p>
<p>The D of a friend of mine has had the good fortune to get into Stanford, Yale, Columbia, Dartmouth, and Brown (hot-off-the-presses news). So now she has to make a choice. What possible rational basis is there for making a choice between these things? Money’s not an issue. You can’t really rationally argue any of these schools are “better” than any of the others unless you’re a complete moron. So she’s going to make it off of personal feel – which one grabbed her the most, which one she could see herself enjoying / being a part of the most. Where did she get that information? Through her college visits. What info did she glean during college visits? It’s almost all subjective. There’s little objective info that really differentiates these places -they all have great students, great teachers, more opportunities than any one person can handle. What’s the difference between how she is going to choose among 5 great colleges, and how the college chooses among 5 great students? I say there is none.</p>
<p>Examples of things I found distinctive in my admit group this year:
</p>
<p>YES. This is exactly it. This is “distinctive.” Not “look-I-have-AP-scores-as-long-as-my-arm.” Not “president of student council.” Not that president of student council can’t be distinctive – if you have something unique and interesting to say about it. </p>
<p>This is just common sense, really.</p>
<p>
With Brown clearly being the “safety” school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m at peace with “it”, because we cannot easily quantify it. That “it” changes from year to year, school to school. Think about how we pick our President of the United States. Votes rely on “it”, and all men so far. But “it” will change.</p>
<p>Admissions folks, especially at most selective schools, seem to fall back on this thought that hey we have so many applicants with great SAT’s, etc. as long as the person has scores that meet an acceptable high level we then try and pick students with skills/backgrounds that give us an “intertesting,diverse” student body.
In other words while it would seem to be our mission to attract the strongest intellectually curious students its not possible to do that.
I think that’s a bunch of crap. As has been stated virtually every other Country out there has a system like that of England that very clearly identifies who are the most brilliant students and those students get into the finest schools. It’s not that difficult. Tests could be devised for students wanting to apply to top 20 schools that were more demanding than the SAT, schools could actually look at AP scores, and interviews could explore what the student has read or done and really test their intellectual curiosity.
This is all done elsewhere and 30 years ago was done in our most selective schools but for whatever reason schools no longer value that kind of information.
The biggest frustration for me is that it is hard to explain to a kid who is clearly more intelligent, more intellectually curious, who actually reads Russian novels and enjoys them not cliff notes why they did not get in a school while the person across the room did get in. The kid understands why but its harder on a parent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>30 years ago our most selective schools had many students who were admitted based on scores, grades, and interviews – but were well populated with students who did not meet intellectual curiosity criteria. Those students, like some students today, had good connections, were exceptionally well coached, or had the good fortune to attend feeder high schools for the most selective schools. But, some also were “distinctive.” Yes, even 30 years ago, students were admitted with slighly less than stellar grades and scores, because they brought something else to the table. Anyone who attended those elite schools 30 years ago can give you at least a few examples of those distinctive kids. Many went on to shine at their elite college…or in their life after college…even though they didn’t have 1600 SAT’s and perfect grades in HS.</p>
<p>If a student wants to go to school with numbers driven admission and some intellectual curiosity mixed in, they can certainly apply to just about any international school and the many excellent honors programs at US state school flagships.</p>
<p>similar broadcast from pbs in 2004, don’t they change these deans once in a while??</p>
<p>[Online</a> NewsHour: A Look at Amherst College’s Admissions Process – June 22, 2004](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june04/merrow_6-22.html]Online”>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june04/merrow_6-22.html)</p>
<p>2boy you can’t coach a discussion about a Russian novel. Id be fine if these schools would just admit the obvious that we are not really all about admitting the strongest academic kids.</p>
<p>I’ve seen these snippets a number of times. Don’t think for a moment that this is not a planned, staged and selected part of the admissions process… For many apps that are received in the height of the season, it takes little time and no discussion to decide. The way one college I know does it , just has 2 counselors look at the summary sheet of an app and independently make decisions If both agree , it goes in the agreed upon stack. If there is a discrepancy, it goes into a stack for such. Just do the calculaltions as to how much time 30,000 applications is going to get. It 's the minority of apps that make it to committee.</p>
<p>Simpkin, my heart goes out to you. The process is horrible. With all due respect to those who defend it…I’m sorry; the process is horrible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most of the elite schools are very willing to admit that they do not admit all perfect GPA and 2400 SAT applicants…which is the current definition of the Strongest Academic Kids. </p>
<p>For international schools, by admitting the highest scoring kids on whatever tests that country uses, and a brief interview, it would be inaccurate to assume they’re getting the strongest academic kids. In many countries, if a kid didn’t get tracked into the right kind of secondary school, it doesn’t matter how intellectually curious and competitent they are. They will never be admitted to that country’s elite college(s).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you being sarcastic? Per post #400, Simkin’s well rounded and very deserving daughter was admitted to U. Penn, Cornell, and Tufts. Nice “consolation” prizes!</p>
<p>you’re both saying the motivated kid doesn’t stop at the barriers but finds ways to make the best of the situation.</p>
<p>But why the heck should he or she? Why should he/she make insane extra efforts to conform to a template imposed on him/her from above? Why should these kids twist themselves into pretzels in order to play the game by the grownups’ goofy rules? Why can’t a kid stand up and say, “I don’t want to found some dumb club just so it will look good to adcomms. I don’t want to fill my after-school hours with endless regimented group activities. I want to hike in the woods and swim in the lake and hang with my friends and just enjoy being a kid.”</p>
<p>If elite colleges are so unimaginative that they can’t see the value of true nonconformity, then to heck with them.</p>
<p>Parents, why are we buying this stuff? Why are we passively accepting the template, the rules, the whole artificial game? Why can’t we question the entire insane process? </p>
<p>Yes, I feel for the poor, beleaguered, overworked adcomms. But they hold the power, and our kids are at their mercy. I feel a whole lot more for the kids.</p>
<p>If there’s one thing Andrew Ferguson’s book has taught me, it’s the legitimacy of my inchoate feelings that there’s something seriously wrong here. Yes, the process is every bit as warped, insane, and out of control as I’ve vaguely suspected it is.</p>
<p>No, I’m not being sarcastic. No, I did not realize that was Simkin’s (earlier) post.</p>
<p>Perhaps the “problem” is thinking the every school a point lower in the US News rankings is inherently inferior to the one above it.</p>