NPR College Admissions Story

<p>

Don’t be so sure my son regaled the adcomms with stories from our neighborhood association archives. He showed himself thinking like a historian. That’s exactly the unusual sort of thing that makes a kid stand out. Much more than yet another tired essay about how much they learned from losing the big game or how they went off on a trip overseas and learned that we are all human.</p>

<p>

Not from what I observed. A huge part of doing well in science is the ability to present well at meetings, schmooze with other scientists and attract good students to your lab. The odds favor the extroverts.</p>

<p>

Last I looked the Common App’s had the option of writing your own question. At at least one info session the ad officer admitted they always really enjoy getting these because they tended to be much more interesting.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>A few pages back, I wrote that I finally realized why you liked AF’s book so much. Your latest post simply confirms that “why.” You mention that the book was an eye-opener for you. That is great but it also meant that you could not appreciate how wrong AF’s journey was. If it was an eye-opener, you could not realize how insane it was for AF to use his professional connection to get an audience with Queen Kat and HOPE to learn something for … free. Since it was an eye-opener you could not realize how rehashed the “analysis” of the SAT history and discrimination stories at HYP were. Perhaps AF should send 50% of his future royalties to Karabel since he copied him to such incredible extent. And, fwiw, copying is different from understanding as plagiarists rarely understand the finer points of the original discussions. Next, Crazy U served you ample doses of “information” from misguided souls such as Thacker, Vedder, and Schaeffer. Again, you’d have to be aware of the “contributions” of those people to understand why some disagree about the value of AF’s book.</p>

<p>In the end, what was AF’s crusade all about? It was based on the conclusion that his average son --who had not developed much of “application file” at all-- could benefit from some kind of well kept secrets. The same secrets that all the well-known people AF could get audiences with would undoubtly share. Oh yes, Kat Cohen will give him the secret handshake and the other luminaries would unveil the path to the Holy Grail. And all of this should, of course, propel the bright and likeable but truly average Gillum Ferguson into the world of the most selective schools! Since it was too late to develop a compelling background, it required a rigged process full of shorcuts. </p>

<p>Well, his conclusions are all wrong, and since you agree with 99.99% of what he wrote, yours are as wrong as his! Applying to colleges should NOT be an exercise in fabrication, insincerity, and gamesmanship. Those words are for people like AF who erroneously believe high-level contacts can magically erase a lack of dedication and … brilliance. The application process is not the culmination of a journey developed solely to 'impress" some nameless or faceless adcom. Contrary to your claim of rewarding insincerity, it does actually reward the students who stayed true to themselves. For instance, essays are not finding something to “impress” the adcoms. It is about presenting something impressive about yourself, and for that to succeed, it better be true and sound true! Students who pursued ECs for reasons foreign to the college applications have no trouble doing that; others do!</p>

<p>As in everything, there are exceptions to the rule. There is no doubt that some success stories were weaved together by a lethal combination of cynical parents and hired mercenaries. However, the more time you spend talking to successful applicants, the more you’ll find why they were able to “impress” the adcoms. </p>

<p>And that usually boils down to simply being whom they are.</p>

<p>Navel gazing. Just sayin’</p>

<p>

Even back in the dark ages Harvard liked these kids. One of my lab partners was from a farm in Wisconsin. She was the first person ever in her high school to even apply to an out of state school.</p>

<p>(from #457)

If by “academics” you mean standard classroom-based schooling, with an aim to squeezing in as many AP’s as possible and/or a full IB… then in my family the answer is no, we don’t agree. </p>

<p>Life comes first. That means, in the case of a young person who has a strong inner drive toward something… that something often come first. For my daughter, from the time she was in kindergarten through high school graduation, most of the time dance came first. We know kids for whom the “first” thing was gymnastics, or the trumpet, or soccer. That doesn’t mean that academics were ignored – just that school (or homeschooling) choices were often made around accommodating the talent or passion, and the hours spent pursuing that “first” thing often dwarf the time spent doing homework.</p>

<p>Many of us parents never expected or wanted our kids to attend college anywhere other than the local state U – and as we never doubted that when the time came, the kids would have no problem getting admitted to said state U… we allowed our kids to focus on other things. There was time to manage it all, because the academics didn’t really take all that much time because we didn’t push our kids into competitive academic settings where they were loaded down with AP’s. It never even occurred to us to do that.</p>

<p>It’s not that academics isn’t important to us. It’s that some of us feel that the serious academics are supposed to begin in college, not in high school. That’s not a secret formula to get our kids into elite colleges – in fact, most of the offspring of parents like us don’t end up at elite colleges. Some don’t even go to college at all. But when they do happen to have the right credentials academically for an elite school – and seek admission – they often have interesting stories to tell.</p>

<p>xiggi,</p>

<p>I have met Thacker and Schaeffer. I would agree with you on the misguided point of view. They were very attached to their limited perspective and not would I call flexible, or terribly insightful after spending a portion of time talking to them.</p>

<p>I am not familiar with Vedder.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>He does a lovely cameo appearance on the latest REM album.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And I guarantee you the exact opposite. A kid with unconventional ECs and interests is exactly the type of kid that the most selective schools fall in love with. Their eyes cross by the 20,000th application from the soccer captain, newspaper editor, student government president and founder of the Rubik’s Cube club. A kid who writes a passionate introspective essay about medieval Irish history might even get in instead of those kids with perfect SATs and GPAs. And those kids with perfect SATs and GPAs gnash their teeth and don’t understand why they didn’t get in (see thread about the Asians who didn’t get into the Ivies).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As someone who went to a university that prides itself on having outstanding theater, journalism and music, I couldn’t disagree with you more. This reflects a very sciencey view of the world on your part. There are creative sparks that simply can’t be measured by tests.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Some people already do. ;)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Thank you for that.</p>

<p>I never understood why AP classes are necessary to show readiness for college.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What, and IQ isn’t just as genetic? I mean sure, you can go up or down five or ten points, MAX, with the perfect diet, the perfect environment, but ultimately nothing will knock you into the next ballgame. But it’s okay to discriminate on intelligence, because that is relevant to participation in university. Well, so is temperament.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, they had them. But we didn’t know about them.</p>

<p>Many kids would never dream of putting church activities on a college application. I know I didn’t, nor did most of my friends. It seemed immoral.</p>

<p>And as for the money… sigh. No. Nobody said, “Buy a car and pay for gas.” Nobody had to say it because it was obvious to us. It was very hard to put in substantial time outside of school because there were too many kids for the activities available. Not enough strangers. You don’t write about taking care of your cousin, and in some towns… everybody is your cousin. LOL!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I didn’t think that adcoms didn’t know that. I assumed they did and that they reached out to rural students. Until the above poster showed alarming lack of awareness of the huge geographical obstacle. I mean really, unless you’ve lived in a town of 1,000 or even fewer people without a car, you really don’t know…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, yes, but I wasn’t talking about Harvard! I thought this was a question of Amherst. Though, frankly… how to get a job in a rural town without a car is pretty hard. And you can’t get a car without a job. And you can’t volunteer outside of the school without a car. I mean, even now, I’m not sure what I’d advise a young person in that town to do if her passion was history. There simply aren’t ANY adults not affiliated with the high school that do much about history. Right now, I cannot think of one single adult that is not in some way affiliated with the high school, that would have anything to do with history. Because it is a VERY SMALL TOWN. I don’t know how to describe those limits.</p>

<p>And again… I’m saying, why would you go to those extreme lengths just to avoid the high school? Nobody in their right mind would say, “Well, there are all these opportunities in the high school that pretty much involve my whole community, to the very last resident. But I’m going to spend about six hours a day commuting to ANOTHER TOWN, so I can do something unrelated to the high school, so I can show I’m Big Time.”</p>

<p>Wouldn’t that be idiotic? I mean you have school as well.</p>

<p>And what is worse, about 25% of those kids go to running start at the local community college. :frowning: Which is connected to the only hospital nearby, which employs like, 25% of the parents at the high school.</p>

<p>It’s fine to say, “be original,” or “get out of your comfort zone” but in many small towns, that doesn’t make sense.</p>

<p>And again, most of those non-school things are with church, and I for one didn’t write about my church activities for college.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Your interpretation is MUCH more polarized than my post, or anyone posting to that effect.</p>

<p>First, I was speaking to ONE person on this thread about ONE SPECIFIC statement made. Yeeeesh. Second, I don’t believe the word “hate” ever came up–for good reason. Third, I believe I was pretty moderate–asking the ONE poster to reconsider the assumption that kids who are involved in out-of-school activities are thinking out of the box. My point was about an economic and time reality, not about hatred. A student might have the choice between spending money on a car (no, no buses in rural areas, thanks for the tip), gas, and a six to ten hour commuting time per week, or a great productive activity in the high school. It seems insane to choose the “out of the box” activity when you know that tons of kids from the high school <em>in that town</em> are doing the same thing and it won’t even look impressive.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, it was terribly hyperbolic and I don’t think anyone on this thread has posted anything to that effect. I mean really. Can people take issue with one or more admissions standards, without being portrayed as freaking out?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Most kids in rural towns work at the local gas station. Speaking of fresh air!!!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh man. When is the last time you guys were in a small crappy town in the middle of nowhere? LOL What about writing as the kid who had to hide under the counter whenever the cops came because he wasn’t old enough to be working, much less selling cigarettes and beer?</p>

<p>The Mexicans work on the ranch… the white kids get on the bus at 5 a.m. because school is a 75 minute ride away, and they don’t get back until 7 p.m. if they play even just one sport… :shakes head: </p>

<p>My point is NOT that out-of-the-box ECs are not important. They certainly are important and they’re great. What I’m saying is, the school vs. non-school categorization is not indicative of how hard a kid works. For example, I lived in a town that had ten churches, three pubs, one gas station and one grocery store (oranges were always moldy). I knew a kid that worked his butt off for three years to get condoms in the school bathrooms, against every last church in that town. (He was also valedictorian, by the way, never considered applying to Harvard as far as I know.) Wouldn’t that be much more out-of-the-box than, say, my sister who was a candy striper on the weekends?</p>

<p>And it wasn’t meant to be this huge debate, either, LOL! It was just a THOUGHT.</p>

<p>Wait-listed by Amherst; no surprise. :)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But what if they ARE available at your high school?</p>

<p>What if doing that much more requires money that really, truly, is not there, while you could do a heck of a lot in your own town?</p>

<p>What if you do something out of the box in your own school?</p>

<p>I think that doing things outside of school are great. Fantastic! However, I think of them as a sign of privilege–a car, a little cash for gas, a little bit of time, less than a two-hour commute–and not a sign of ingenuity.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well in the suburbs you have buses, but as you say, THAT’S NOT THE POINT. The point is, what is the kid doing that requires passion and creativity? In some cases, a practical decision–to do school lighting and electrical systems, vs. commute to the local studio–might make it look that much less interesting because <em>it’s at school</em>. But really, why is lighting and electrical systems less interesting because it’s for a school project? The decision was not made because of lack of interest in real-world activities. It was probably made due to a responsibility to watch a younger sibling or something.</p>

<p>I would hardly consider an online course something special on the level of… gosh. I dunno. I would think that would require less than it takes to get past cliques and fears and to go the extra mile to change the system you are in, your own high school. That’s my bias, however, and I wouldn’t apply it to kids across the board.</p>

<p>I should say that my opinion about ECs is very much in favor of a more subjective judging process. I have no issues with the current process. My only issue was with one statement made on this thread and I had no idea people would take it up so personally!</p>

<p>Oh, and rural kids were only one example… You could easily find an urban-dweller that had a passion for nature but who turned down a volunteer position at a national park an hour away because she couldn’t manage to do that and work at the same time and she had to work. “Find a way” sounds so easy, but tell me… how do you “find a way” to get money besides working?</p>

<p>@Barrons–LOL!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>One of admission books I read a long time ago discussed an essay written by a young man who loved hunting. The parents made him clean his “victim” and he wrote about how this event made him change his mind about being a hunter. The essay was simple (no excessive navel gazing) but it was beautifully written as it came from the heart. </p>

<p>Living on a remote ranch or in a crappy town does not impede one to describe one little “slice -of-life” that would touch anyone’s heart and offer a positive insight into the writer’s mind.</p>

<p>I want to know what happens if you order Filet-O-Fish.</p>

<p>Would you get rejected from marine biology?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sure – and why wouldn’t that make a fascinating college-essay application? Somehow you’re assuming that these schools would penalize a kid whose “EC” was an activity like that. I don’t think they would, at all. Look, there is room for both the president-of-the-student-council-and-school-newspaper-editor types, there is room for the ranch kid who gets up at 5 am to milk the cows, there is room for the highly-prepped Intel math / science whiz, there is room for the kid who goes against the grain of his community to get condoms put into the bathroom. You keep trying to make this very zero-sum – that if they spark to this, they can’t ever spark to that. Why can’t all of those things be stand-outs in their own way? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No one said it was. It has to do with context. My kids came / come from a suburban-big-city background. IN THAT CONTEXT, it’s not “remarkable” to do school-based activities – the schools certainly offer plenty of them. It was more out of the ordinary that they did various activities in the greater community – one leveraging our proximity to a world-class institution, the other leveraging a particular community interest. Really, the adcoms GET where your kid might live and might get that he doesn’t have art museums to volunteer at, or lacrosse teams to join, or whatever. But he isn’t being penalized for that. These adcoms understand context. They really, really do.</p>