<p>
</p>
<p>That’s your own fault, then. There’s no reason that someone couldn’t talk about a church / religious-based activity as an EC. It seems like you pre-determined that adcoms wouldn’t be interested in certain things and then got all upset over that, when I think they are far more open-minded than you think – and the Amherst discussion reinforces that, frankly.</p>
<p>Furthermore, how many words is Filet-O-Fish?</p>
<p>~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~</p>
<p>“Somebody, get the hook now!”</p>
<p>Yes, I am having too much fun.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I assumed no such thing!</p>
<p>I was illustrating a school-based activity that showed more ingenuity and creativity than non-school based activities. And again…</p>
<p>speaking to that ONE post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT ADCOMS. I was replying to a VERY SPECIFIC statement made by ONE POSTER in which he said that he was more interested in out-of-school activities because they demonstrated ingenuity and effort etc.</p>
<p>ONE POSTER.</p>
<p>Not adcoms in general.</p>
<p>ONE POSTER. Not adcoms. I was talking to ONE THOUGHT expressed in ONE POST. Not adcoms. Not even that person in general. Just that one idea. ONE. Idea. Disagreed with that ONE statement. ONE. Specific.</p>
<p>Sorry, repeated that many times previously but it seems to have been missed.</p>
<p>Second of all, a lot of people think it’s immoral to brag about church activities… sorry. It’s not a question of how they think others will perceive it. I remember conversations about how we felt putting our mission trips on applications. Most of us felt bad. Not that we cared what others thought–we just felt when you do something for God, you don’t put it on your resume, you know?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Urgh, now I have to search the thread to that ONE SPECIFIC POST in which non-school activities were singled out as being more or less better than school-related posts because of a characteristic they demonstrated.</p>
<p>Yes, someone more or less said they were.</p>
<p>And ALL I said–nothing about adcoms, nothing about hate, nothing general–was that such was probably not true, and he should reconsider that assumption.</p>
<p>That was all.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12297867-post312.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/12297867-post312.html</a></p>
<p>That post, in particular, in which, if you will note, so many of the examples are of things available in urban environments. I was talking ONLY to Lookingforward.</p>
<p>I have NO issues with the Amherst team. I have NO issues with subjective judging of applications (which is unavoidable, if you think about it). I have very few preconceived notions of admissions committee members… I was admitted everywhere I applied and I got a scholarship this time 'round so no complaints here! I was just speaking to <em>that particular post</em> because I felt that considering the examples, s/he was overlooking some important aspects of activities being chosen by a child in high school.</p>
<p>That was ALL.</p>
<p>And really, if you haven’t lived in a truly rural town it is soooo hard to describe how limiting it is, how even a trip to the grocery store takes all day and how you have to carpool to buy a carton of milk.</p>
<p>It really speaks to the origins of posters that all the examples about rural essays are about hunting, farming, etc. Like this idealized rural vision of how people in small towns live. But that is not always the reality. Not everyone owns land. Not everyone hunts. I just think there is a disconnect between <em>that particular post</em> and the reality of extracurricular activity choices.</p>
<p>Not some like, massive anti-rural conspiracy.</p>
<p>“Not some like, massive anti-rural conspiracy.”</p>
<p>This made me laugh. :-)</p>
<p>Sorry, Mme ZeeZee, but you weren’t actually “talking” to, or about, lookingforward at all. Reading lookingforward’s post again, it bears absolutely no relationship to what you kept asserting it said. None. It is balanced and sensitive, and incorporates every single legitimate point you have raised. You were furiously attacking a straw man of your own construction, not responding to anything lookingforward wrote.</p>
<p>How remote are you, MmeZeeZee? It really takes all day to get to the grocery store?</p>
<p>We have to distinguish what we parents knew- or did- ages ago, and what the competitive realities are today. Lets not get wigged out because, when I was 17, eons ago, I lived a mile from town, my mom worked far away and came home late, I didn’t have a driver’s license or car, the opportunities were different, etc, etc- Let’s try to discuss solutions and ideas, not diss.</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>Well, that’s your thought- and I believe you’re past those years now, yes? I feel that if a kid does charitable works through a church, school, outside org, family, etc, he can list it, if it is a valid effort. Churches, temples and other religious orgs are, in part, valued for their concern for actions on behalf of others. If that’s the only way a kid can get involved, you have a choice: list it or not.</p>
<p>Until the above poster showed alarming lack of awareness of the huge geographical obstacle…</p>
<p>Who had an alarming lack of awareness of the huge geog obstacles? There’s no big mystery about distance. In the US, even outside major metro areas, there are kids who bus it 1+ hours just to get to the county high school. The topic is involvement. If all you can do is volunteer through school or church , then do it. If you do it and it is valid, claim it. </p>
<p>I really don’t care about grudges and finger-pointing or “stuck in the awful box” thinking. The past is past. I daresay many parents here have been encouraged by many wise words about local history, building at church, a rare intellectual interest, etc. </p>
<p>Too many grudges. I did see descriptions, by the way, from a kid interested in local history and another from a kid who did tombstone rubbing- both were fascinating. Neither required wealth, a car, a gamer’s attitude, etc. These kids had interests. They pursued them. One gal lived rurally and got her school club to make cheery fleece blankets for children and had a teacher drive the girls to the shelter to distribute them. Another wrote about finding pieces in the wood pile and teaching himself to carve. One wrote about collecting old records. C’mon! These kids have imagination. </p>
<p>Adcoms know the kids in East Nowhere have different opportunities or fewer. That’s not a natural disadvantage, though it is a challenge. Since college is full of challenges, how a kid overcomes them counts. The gift we can give our kids is not our outrage. The gift we should give them is guidance. And, that applies equally to kids of privilege- guide them to somehow give of themselves, to give back to their communities when they can.</p>
<p>Re post #494:
No internet in this small town, either --right? </p>
<p>Because if there <em>was</em> internet, the kid might accidentally stumble upon some listserv frequented by historians, and strike up some email friendship with some historian college prof specializing in something obscure. It is amazing how receptive college profs can be when someone actually expresses interest in their research or writing.</p>
<p>I guess the town has no history of its own, either… that is people just sprung up out of nowhere there, not settled by any people who came from somewhere else, no indigenous artifacts to be found, too far away from anything to have weathered the civil war. </p>
<p>You’d be amazed what a creative thinker with an inquisitive mind can think up to do while growing up in nowhere town.</p>
<p>^ That reminds me of Justin Long’s recent movie “Taking Chances” where he, on his own, becomes a one man historical society for a small town … he had a passion and made something out of his passion.</p>
<p>I find the threads on CC about needing to play the game to get into a top school or lack of opportunities to do the things that shine for a top school to off-track from my experience … and it traces itself back to the idea some kids just have “it”. </p>
<p>I interviewed kids for my school (Cornell) and it was a lot of fun to do … and I think I was a pretty good interviewer as I tried to make the kids comfortable and to talk about themselves. For a lot of applicants we would eventually wonder onto a topic and they would move up in their seat, start talking faster, their eyes would light up and they loved talking about something they were passionate about. It might be about academics, their EC, their family, their research, their hoby, etc … but if you found the topic some kids would just light up. Kids with perfect stats or kids with not so perfect stats … extroverted kids and sky kids … etc, etc … it didn’t really matter … a fair portion of the kids had something that lit them up and they pursued this passion and they had done some amazing things … not godlike achievements but the result on a concerted effort in an area of interest … they found a way to make something happen because they were compelled to.</p>
<p>haha. So I reread my post and it sounds darned good if I say so myself. It allows for exceptions. If all you CAN do is at school, then, by gummy, do something valid. And, take advantage of car pools when some club or teacher offers comm service or an unusual opportunity. </p>
<p>As for the “massive anti-rural conspiracy,” I have long felt more disservice is done through defensive attitudes. Great spirit, great imagination, great strength, great minds- are not exclusive to metro areas.</p>
<p>As it happens, I lived for many years in an area where, you know, the big deal was getting a big enough freezer so you only had to shop once/month. Hunting was popular. Some girls could talk better about grain futures than the boys. If you knew me, you’d find I probably love your sort of remoteness as much as…no, more than…you do. And a big part of that affection, after my own experiences, is seeing the kind of kids who grew up there, did well in school and set their sights on a great college. And made a great college application, despite the challenges. Maybe, inspired by the challenges.</p>
<p>Speaking of Calmom’s post re internet: some of the great, ardent genealogy and local history buffs ARE in those rural areas, courtesy of the internet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those are actually great topics for essays and they would help the applicant stand out. </p>
<p>A kid from a remote ranch who can write a great essay? Major plus. Most top schools would value that kid far more than someone who had attended an expensive writing camp and produced another well crafted but generic coming-of-age essay.</p>
<p>Sigh. Why must it be “my way or the highway”? All we critics of the cathartic, emotive “personal essay” are asking is that allowance be made for other options. And all we critics of conventional ECs are asking is that colleges have enough imagination to think outside the proverbial box – to at least acknowledge the value and legitimacy of non-conventional ECs.</p>
<p>Why is that so much to ask? Why must ONLY one particular path be considered right and proper? Isn’t variety the spice of life?</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Who are those “we” who fail to see that many paths lead to success?</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!”</p>
<p>LOL, well, now that we’ve got that settled…</p>
<p>You do know the difference between “just my opinion” and “proven, incontrovertible fact,” right? </p>
<p>Hint: It would be more persuasive if you said, “I think he’s wrong, and I think you’re wrong.” Simply asserting his and my wrongness – as if your opinion were indisputable fact – is not convincing.</p>
<p>Was there any doubt that what I wrote represented what I thought or believed? Would it have made any difference if my post was peppered with “IMHO” or “I think?” Fwiw, I did not merely assert his “wrongness” … I wrote about how and where AF was wrong.</p>
<p>Do you use “facts” and research to support your claim that AF is spot-on 99.99 percent of the time? Or did you measure the accuracy against what you believe or think? And, since you also claimed that most of the book was an eye-opener to you, I can safely assume most of it was new.</p>
<p>So, what do you think? Is there a good living to be made investing in virtual pea shooter futures?</p>
<p>Bless you, DebT, for popping up every so often to give us a laugh. I have long wondered why “virtual exercise” doesn’t work.</p>
<p>One of the weird persistent folklores of College Confidential is that somehow there is an algorithm somewhere that guarantees admissions success at the most desirable colleges. And people continue to believe that even when all the evidence is against it and they are told repeatedly by insiders that it isn’t true.</p>
<p>In some cases, people hold onto that belief because they wish it were true, or they believe it ought to be true. Those are the “it really is all about grades and GPAs, and maybe some secret rating system for ECs” types.</p>
<p>And then there are the people well represented in this thread, who somehow believe that there is some ridiculous, reductive formula that fails to take account of their circumstances. As if “cathartic, emotive ‘personal essays’” are “required” by “my way or the highway” admissions staff. But it just isn’t true. A good cathartic, emotional personal essay can be powerful, but one tick less than “good” makes it go splat. And hundreds, thousands of kids get into great colleges writing dispassionately about things that are important to them. It’s the writing and the personal investment in the writing that matters – a lot – not conforming to a single model for how to write and what about. And same deal with in/out of school ECs. There isn’t any secret list with scores attached. The issue is whether kids are translating their ideas and dreams into action, are being part of a community, stuff like that. And different kids will do it in different ways, and some more than others, and no one says there is just one right way.</p>
<p>I’m sorry if your kids were disappointed by their admissions results and felt hurt and devalued. Just as I felt sorry when MY kids were disappointed by their admissions results and felt hurt and devalued, even though objectively they did fine (and they came back to that belief relatively quickly). But that hurt was due to the large number of wonderful kids chasing limited slots, and the fact that some do a better job of putting together an application than others. NOT because there was some vast elitist conspiracy to devalue your child’s best qualities and exalt someone else’s. (Unless, perhaps, your child’s best qualities are conformism, uncommunicativeness, and lack of imagination or interest in the world around him. Those things do get devalued, sorry.)</p>
<p>Thank you, JHS. I just wrote a post trying to articulate those same things, but deleted it since yours was much better. That’s why you got admitted to multiple Ivies and I only got admitted to one :-).</p>
<p>There aren’t different levels of brownie points given to different EC’s such that the kid in Nebraska who doesn’t have a fine arts museum or a lacrosse team within 200 miles is going to be at a disadvantage. They’re just … different. That’s all. My suburban twins had similar stats, but VERY different profiles when it came to their essays (one highly risky and cathartic, the other light-hearted and quirky) … their EC’s (one who was narrow and deep, the other shallower and broader) … and all the rest. There isn’t just one positioning that wins. This is SO evident when you look at who gets in and who doesn’t, and it’s tiresome to read the continued postings about “they value this … they don’t value that.” It’s possible for them to value it all – the math-and-science-Intel-kid-who-worked-in-a-lab, the Nebraska-ranch-kid-who-is-up-to-milk-the-cows, the student-council-president and the varsity athlete.</p>