Parents Decide Extracurriculars/College Admissions?

Applying to College
1

<p>After lurking this site for a while, I've began to think a little bit.
It seems to me like lots of the great extracurriculars that people have were started by parents. I'm not trying to undermine anyone's accomplishments here; I'm just thinking. How many people play their piano/violin/oboe/trumpet/whatever in Carnegie hall/whatever? Not many. That indeed is in my mind very impressive. However, getting to that point takes lots of practice from a young age. (Think before elementary school.)</p>

<p>Many children won't walk up to their parent and say "I want to play the oboe!" at a young age. Many parents, however, sign their children up for expensive practice sessions with local universities' music professors far before children can imagine anything about college and when being "well-rounded" doesn't even register. (The Tiger Mother book does come to mind.)</p>

<p>Take for example high-tier prep schools. Many children just comply with the process as it is expected of them. Not many plead with their wealthy parents saying "I wanna go to Exeter/Andover." </p>

<p>Hell, it makes me question the word "passion." It seems to be one of those cliched words along with holistic, crapshoot, etc. that is often tossed around. What does it mean to be passionate? From reading this site, it seems to be having a lot of science/music/drama/whatever extracurriculars and writing nice papers. However, it seems to strike me that maybe the thespian who is extremely well-accomplished in theater was forced into it by his high-expectation parents at a young age and grew to like it.</p>

<p>Now, I'm sure that many people exist that truly love what they do and got into it themselves, whether it be pleading their parents for music/sports/dance lessons, or a la Michael Bloomberg, selling popcorn every year so that he could raise the money to go to Boy Scout camp. I highly admire the initiative of those people. But how do you weed them out from the people whose parents force them to do science fairs, seek internships, or play an instrument? </p>

<p>Unfortunately, it seems that in the admissions process favors the latter group of people. Many discover and explore their interests while in high school: they first try out for the school play, measure the growth of a plant for a science experiment, and place their trembling fingers on a piano for the first time only to discover that they love it.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the elite colleges with which everyone on this forum is enamored do not recognize this. With acceptance rates as low as they are, they can demand perfection. When it comes to choosing either the Carnegie hall pianist or the aforementioned "trembling fingers" who just discovered music, they'll choose the former. MIT's admissions rep said that they looked for "Artistic stars": those who have played as a soloist, painted pictures. These take years of dedication to achieve, and are so often made possible only by nagging parents.</p>

<p>Well, rant over, but my question is this: With all the accomplishments going around: Olympiads, Instruments, Theater: How do colleges truly take these things into account? How do they compare the boy who signed up for the USAMO qualifying exam on a whim and found out he loved it against the boy who has been drilled by his parents for years on proofs? </p>

<p>How is the kid who has done what he/she can in order to pursuit their own happiness in an area: Science, art, whatever, for him/herself versus the seemingly perfect child who has had their parents run them through the proverbial system of tutors, lessons and drillings since they were practically a neonate? In this respect, I find college admissions very unfair as opposed to graduate school admissions where a person is out on their own and is free to explore their own interests, discover what they love, and forge their own path independently.</p>

<p>Rant over.
I, for one, welcome our new HTML overlords.</p>

2

<p>Well they can’t really find that out, but if he was forced into whatever and was just talented, I’m pretty sure the personal statement wouldn’t show much emotion compared to a person who truly loves it. Hard to determine, but what can colleges do other than trust what’s on paper?</p>

<p>As for the rest of effort vs accomplishment, the world sucks, but yes, it’s true that a good number of colleges would rather have prestigious awards but that’s only because even when you talk to admissions officers, accepting top-notch students is kind of for a selfish reason: they want to uphold their names throughout the years so that the next generation can see how accomplished the school is with students of that caliber being recognized.</p>

<p>But in terms of selling popcorn on the whatever, I’d say that that’s pretty impressive and if your family doesn’t have enough income that the guy has to sell stuff to go to boy scout camp or if his parents don’t want to pay for it but he is willing to go that far just to go, I don’t see why person #1 (with the science jib jab) and person #2 (with the popcorn stuff) have to be ranked. I could see them both easily go to Harvard. It depends on what they write about and how they portray it. If I’ve learned anything from watching my high school alumni go to high level universities, there really isn’t a magical cookie cutter. I’ve seen people who are both person #1 and person #2. Harvard or whatever wants diversity. They’re NOT going to accept everyone who is a potential Nobel Peace Prize winner. And besides, they accept a few thousand applicants. I don’t think one is preferred over the other but in fact, BOTH would be preferred. One would be just impressive to the eye and the other would be impressive to the heart. </p>

<p>I wouldn’t strike down the CC-ers who are person #1 though. I mean HS kids are pretty independent to a certain degree. If they really hated piano or whatever, 85% of them would have probably quit by now is my guess.</p>

3

<p>Parents may encourage various ECs in elementary school, but I’ve seen countless cases of push back/burn-out by middle or high school, and the kid drops out of whatever it was. And yes, it is generally hard to begin something in high school and become really good at it in high school without being extraordinarily talented and devoted to practicing long hours to make up for lost time.</p>

<p>In my laid back world, it is the kids who are driven. The ones who are accepted to the Ivies and MIT come from mostly modest backgrounds so fancy ECs are out of the question, but they took advantage of the opportunities available and distinguished themselves in other ways.</p>

4

<p>Don’t get me wrong! I’m definitely on your side. I completely agree with your last line and in fact I want to quote it. But I guess if we all saw it that way, it would be just the flip side where kids who are getting accepted are only accepted because their life is some sob story while the privileged kids can’t get accepted simply because they’re overloaded with resources.</p>

<p>So like is said, I agree with you 100000% on the last line. If it was just a good balance where both privileged and not so privileged students were rated based on their efforts and what resources they took advantage of, that would be amazing. But I guess that’s like the public school system, grades aren’t exactly based on effort either. :frowning: Though if you completely omit the fancy ECs, that means the people who are privileged and took full advantage of resources would not be getting credit for what they achieved.</p>

<p>Iono. I definitely agree with you on the big picture though. What an intellectual discussion we’re having! haha.</p>

5

<p>Not all parents are like that. My parents never pushed me to do anything, and allowed me to choose what I want to do with my life. Only recently with college on the line has my mother in particular begun to annoy me about things, but that’s how mom’s are. </p>

<p>To some extent, though, I think passions can be built up over time even if an activity was started by a parent’s push.</p>

6

<p>D started asking to play violin when she was 3 (we constantly listen to music). I thought it would be too hard and started her on piano at 3. A year later, at her insistence, she switched to violin. I never once had to ask her to practice. She takes her violin with her everywhere. So your premise is wrong, there are children who know early what they want to do.</p>