<p>This op-ed piece appeared in today's Providence Journal and really resonated with me. I thought it would be of interest to other CCers.</p>
<p>The piece was very interesting to me. I have two kids who were both accepted to "elite" colleges. </p>
<p>Kid #1 fits the general stereotype described in the article: top grades in the "most demanding level" of all subjects, extraordinary standardized test scores, many EC activities, not much for personal hobbies or interests. </p>
<p>Kid #2 earned very good (but not perfect) grades, did not take the "most demanding level" in the subjects which are not her strength (math and science), earned very respectable (but not extraordinary) standardized test scores (To put them in context, I will say that on this board, many would consider her scores to be weak), was involved with many EC activities, and also has some unusual personal hobbies (at which she does not necessarily excel, but which are of great interest to her) as well as a true interest in learning for learning's sake.</p>
<p>Their college applications presented profiles of two very different types of students, and the colleges which accepted them obviously saw something desirable in each of them. There is more than one path to reach the same goal.</p>
<p>Each year storie of that sort appear in the media. They do capture what is happening at the high schools to those students applying to the selective schools. For some of those kids, maybe most of them, it is the first time they are facing uncertain odd of getting what they want. These are the kids who have often soared into plum programs and gotten all kinds of awards and accolades. Now they are in a national, even international arean facing odds of less than 10% to get what they feel is their next step. They are hearing all of the stories of kids more laden with academic superlatives than they have getting rejected. They are also hearing about those with stuff they do not have such as legacy status, development, URM status, athletic prowress beating their odds by far. And they can see it in their parents' eyes that this above all is what their parents want, more than anything else they have wanted for and from that child ever. That's a lot of pressure for someone who was truly a child not so long ago. It is unavoidable that this pressure occurs given the situation.</p>
<p>The peer pressure alone makes it difficult for these kids even if the parents are not so hungry. The highschool year mark a transition from departure from parental approval to that of their peers. So understandably those kids in school where many of the students are applying to selective schools are going to feel more pressure than kids who are in an environment where most of the kids have and are awaiting State U or local college options that the top kids may already have in hand at this point.</p>
<p>It's wonderful that the writer nostagically remembers how his pressure free childhood environment contributed to his success academically. Both my husband and I graduated from highschools where less than a third went to college directly. The number of kids striving for selective colleges in that group were miniscule. Though this sort of environment didn't have any of that stressful waiting that kids are suffering in those schools where so many of them have applied to the "elite" colleges, it also did not prepare most kids for college. More than 30 years later, as we have gone to some class reunions, there is a marked difference between our highschool classmates and college ones. Though many did end up getting to college later in their lives, the adults from college carefree environment are notably more scarred and beaten from lives right from first appearances. I was shocked at how much more aged they are, and the divorces, financial problems, jail, and other life's hardships visited these groups, from two very distant highschools very hard. The colleges reunions presented a far different picture. Not to say that there are not exceptions, notable ones in each group. But I think those kids who are suffering this waiting game for elite colleges are embarking on a road where they will be going for selective spots for a long time, and are getting this experience now. These same kids do well as a group at college, also as every stat I have seen shows, which is why colleges even as they dislike the "silver spoon" upbringing most of these kids have, admit them at higher rates than rest of the population.</p>
<p>Here's an interesting way to relieve the college application stress: In Millburn, NJ, the seniors took part in a school sponsored bonfire to burn an assortment of SAT prep books, application brochures, and rejection letters. Millburn is a very wealthy town with one of NJ's top school rankings. Lots of pressure there.</p>
<p>I appreciate Reich's frank comments that you can be great at something or good at a few things, but usually not both. Yet that is exactly what we are expecting from our kids.</p>
<p>My D is an excellent athlete and a bright student. Regrettably, the time required to become and stay a top athlete is significant. The same is true of becoming and remaining a top student. This fact is constantly making her (and, frankly me too) feel stressed because it is difficult to juggle the two, yet clearly elite schools seem to be filled with children who have managed to do just that and more. It seems that many kids somehow manage to be very good at multiple things--just read the chances threads on CC. Students like that populate her high school, in fact.</p>
<p>So, despite being quite intelligent, if D doesn't work long hours on the homework and studying for her honors classes, then she will achieve only mediocre grades (which by her high school's standards would be B+'s) But if she stays up as late as she needs to, her athletic performance is affected. And forget about fitting in the community service and other EC's top students manage to handle. </p>
<p>How many children really can do it all? I know there ARE some who can, but how many truly talented kids are held to that standard and so feel like failures because they can't?</p>
<p>There is a radically different way to the elite colleges.
I have two children who were "unschooled" from about 7th grade on. They made their own schedules, choose their own materials, took no tests (other than SATs), had no "assignments", and were given no grades. They also both slept 9-10 hours a day!
There is plenty of time for the "rat race" to start when you choose it as an adult and are fairly compensated for your lifestyle.</p>
<p>I live in an area where the kids do it all. I have seen many such kids. The athletes here who go on to the top schools are no dummies. Many have 1500+ SATs and excellent GPAs in rigorous courses, along with other activities besides their sport. This was not so much the case when I lived in the midwest where much fewer kids went on to the top schools. A big difference I noticed moving here.
It is not easy being one of those uberachievers. Most have parents choreograpphing the moves, keeping the schedules and helping out. But that alone won't do it. These kids also want it and are incredible kids with talent and determination. </p>
<p>My son is a triathlete at his school. Though he is not way up there in athletic prowress, and I doubt he will be on a college NCAA team, the time commitment of being a varsity athlete in highschool is tremedous. If he wanted to take the next step, he would most likely not be doing all three of those sports, but focusing on the one that he wants to pursue and spending the time that he is in those other sports, at honing his skills in the one sport. Summers, he would likely get a job with a program that works on him and allows him to work with other kids as an assistant coach or counselor but excuses him for major events for that he needs to do for his own participation in sports. So there is is work experience. As a team, many community service activitis are organized by these offschool athletic clubs, such as working a Special Olympics Event or a professional sporting event. There lies the community service. Socialization usually revolves around the sport out of necessity. </p>
<p>As for studying, My son is done with his sport at 5:30. On school nights, he eats, studies, fools around on the computer, and goes to bed. Weekends mean competition and studying with maybe an evening with friends squeezed in there. That still equates to about 20 hours a week, and leaves down time. But he reads alot whenever he can, and his school also sponsors things that he can do at odd times. </p>
<p>I can tell you that most parents who are in that rush feel inadquate juggling this madness. For those kids who are unhappy with the life that they are in, there should be a change. The ones who are on this whirlwind ride want to do it and enjoy it. It is not a pace for anyone (except perhaps the parents' carcass) to be dragged. If a student is feeling that way, it is not the life for him. Youth is to be enjoyed as well. (Though you won't catch me saying that to my computer playing, sleeping to noon kids who LOVE lazing to the point that they want it to be their top activity).</p>
<p>There is a handful of kids I've seen over the past few years who really do seem to be able to do it all (although not really top-level athletics and top-level academics at the same time, even if they have the capacity for both). But it's really only a handful, and many of them, if you look closely, have some compensating emotional disabilities which sometimes derail them for a while in college or later.</p>
<p>These kids really do rise to the top, but I don't think there are enough of them to fill all the HYPS classes, or even close to it. They don't all necessarily go to HYPS either.</p>
<p>For most of the rest, certainly including my children, there is a mixture of strengths and weaknesses, even if that's not immediately apparent from looking at their grades and test scores. Colleges know that; these are the bulk of the kids in their classes, even at the top schools. That's why I think they are leaning to kids that do one thing really well, rather than kids who seem to do everything really well. The former is believable and to some extent predictable; the latter is a black box from which anything might emerge.</p>
<p>I have one of each. For the first -- the one-thing-well child -- the college process was not completely stress free, but it was not terribly stressful. She had the outcome she predicted when it started: not accepted at her tippy-top choice schools, but very pleased with where she's going. She only felt really competitive with a handful of other kids who were in her field. Only one whom she knew was accepted by her first-choice college, but she felt fine about that because she really admired his work, too, and thought it was more special than hers at this stage of their lives.</p>
<p>For the second -- the BWRK -- the process has been pretty hard. He doesn't have a "passion"; he loves everything, and why not?, he's been good enough at everything so far that he's never had to rob Peter to pay Paul. His passion is feeling engaged and successful in the environment he's in, getting respect from his peers and teachers. But he feels the weight of high expectations a lot, from his parents (although we try not to do that) and from his peers and teachers. So he is experiencing a lot of fear of failure. Plus, he realizes that part of his job over the next few years is limiting himself to one or two things to be good at. He's apprehensive about that, too, because his mind changes every week or two, and because he resents the anticipated loss of the pleasure of being a complete polymath. He spent a lot of college-essay energy writing explicit or implicit defenses of not concentrating in one or two areas (most of which his father suggested that he throw out). He's definitely gotten the message that he's not really OK, and I'm afraid every rejection will confirm that (and there are likely to be several rejections).</p>
<p>Neither kid has ever done much, if anything (other than applying), with the idea that it would help him or her get into College X. The older one's attitude was "I am what I am, and if College X doesn't like that, too bad." The younger one wishes he had that attitude, and has always acted as if he did, but it only started occurring to him recently that College X might not like him.</p>
<p>"Students of my generation did drugs to blow our minds and take leave of our cares. Students now illegally use stimulants such as Ritilan to get their minds to do more work. That’s right; kids are leveraging even their drug use to help them get into college."</p>
<p>Ah, for the good ol' days! (actually, "blowing my mind" made my grades soar! but that's another issue....)</p>
<p>Not responding now to the article but to JHS...
JHS...I can relate to much of what you wrote. I also have one of each. One who is focused on one major area of passion in which she excels and has wanted to do her entire life. The other excels and has interests in several areas...a true well rounded type. I don't think one path is better than the other. I realize that the trend in college admissions today is for the one singular passion type. I also want to say that my well rounded kid DID write an essay about her many sides (sorta like your son wanted to do) as her main personal essay that went to many of her schools. She showed who she is and well rounded is indeed who she is. Didn't seem to hurt her based on the admissions results. Well rounded is no longer in vogue it seems with college admissions but she didn't care. It is who she is and she showed who she is on the apps. So....there's hope for your son, LOL.</p>
<p>If becoming a superapplicant comes at the cost of losing one's soul it's not worth it. My son decided in his junior year to quit playing an instrument that had garnered him recognition and awards at the state level in the past, much to the chagrin of his teachers. He dropped it in spite of the fact that it was glaringly obvious on his "activity" records that he was a "quitter." :0 He simply got tired of it and it didn't inspire him anymore. Instead, he took up another instrument quietly and independently in his room- no competitions, no camps, no all-state auditions, no awards, ribbons, nothing. Just for himself. When he wrote his college essays, he talked about how much enjoyment he gets out of it, how important it is to him and why. I say- too bad if a college doesn't want him because of this. Too bad for them. Not everyone in the world has figured out at the age of 17 or 18 what their passion in life is. Most 18 year olds are a work in process- shouldn't they be? It may be good for a university to have a well rounded student BODY, that is everyone there has some unique and well-developed talent. But it's also good for the INDIVIDUAL to be well-rounded, which isn't necessarily the same thing.</p>
<p>Girls have to be smarter, 'cause they can't be quarterbacks (and rarely defensive ends.)</p>
<p>This is a not meant as a response to doubleplay's post above, but his comments did cause me to consider the fact that whenever well-intentioned CC parents write about how their child managed to save their soul and stay sane and happy by opting out of the college application-building rat-race in some way (such as by never doing anything for the sake of their resumes or by pursuing a quirky interest behind the scenes just for the enjoyment of it), these kids usually have so much going for them anyway that any deficits that resulted from the student's decision to opt-out are unnoticeable. Or else, as in doubleplay's son's case, the activity they did just because they wanted too still ended up helping them in some way in the process--eg. it made a good essay topic.</p>
<p>The really gifted kids can do it all and fare just fine in the college game. The average kids can't do it all, but don't expect to and therefore don't stress over it. The teenagers I worry about are the ones who are just a tad below the really gifted cohort--definitely talented and smart in comparison to the average student, but not exceptional. They are close enough to the top to aspire to be there, and therefore the ones likely to suffer most if they don't make it. These are the kids who are hurt by the notion they should be a well-rounded jack-of-all-trades. My guess is that they would be happier and more successful if they focused on one passion.</p>
<p>I hope I'm right, because that is what I'm trying to communicate to my daughter. I don't think she is gifted enough to do everything well, so I'm encouraging her to at least do one thing very well. I don't care so much which of her current primary endeavors she chooses: academics, sports, or music. But when she tries to be a top student AND a top athlete AND the best at her instrument, she is tops at none of them.</p>
<p>I know many excellent students who were also college level athletes that went on to top colleges, and none of them were burnouts or emotional wrecks. Where I see the problems is when some kids were given an academic "pass" because of their athletic prowress and went to a college where they were not close in stats and academic preparation. If you look at the sports rosters of highly selective colleges, you will see a disproportianate number of kids coming from excellent highschools, notably prep type schools that are not exactly the pinnacle of accomplishments in many sports. Those kids are likely well prepared for college and the colleges know this. Unless the school is willing to give the kid a pass throughout college,he will not make it if he is not doing work at that level and is in there because of his athletics. And he isn't going to be much use to the team if he is on academic probation or drops out.</p>
<p>There are schools that do not take such care, and that is when you see the high drop out rates for athletes. Basketball seems to be a sport where it is the most offensive even at some schools where you would expect better. </p>
<p>There is a balance that has to be kept with the student's mental and physical health the most important thing of all. But there are choices that should be made with college in the picture. If your kid wants to drop an activity he has done for years right at the time when he is applying, he should be aware of the possible consequences of it. He should know that quitting at that point could be an issue. If he is still set on doing it, well, so be it. But not bringing this up is is laissez faire to the extreme. Given a choice among some activities, it is foolish not to let the kid know that some things are better for the college resume than others. I have told my kids many times that lounging till noon, watching tv, IMing, video games are not going to be viewed as impressive college resume material. Someone short on some community service may need a reminder that he is going to have to be looking a space on the college app that wants something of this sort. Nothing wrong with that. And if you have a kid who cannot do it all, which I suspect are most kids, it is fine to help him work out some sort of balance. It would be irresponsible to watch him try to it all and become frustrated, depressed and fail in all areas. Balance is something we all need to achieve for well being all of our lives. I can tell you that many of the Type A folks so used to doing it all at high speed are beginning to have some health problems at my age that statistically have more of that type of person in that disease pool. This is not just a college thing. </p>
<p>To do a community service project to the level that a top college is going to sit up and notice is something at a level that very few kids are going to achieve, and the midrange for that activity is huge. If you have a big blank space, it may be an issue, but it does not take much to get a few entries in there and be what 90% or more of the kids in that area even in a top school are--average. The same for sports. Unless you are so good that you can play college level, and then it has to be at a college that considers that sport, with a coach that has some clout in admissions and is willing to use it, it may not make much difference. Most athletes I know are at schools that would have likely admitted them anyways. Music? Well, the top school are filled with musicians, so unless you are bound for an audition program, it isn't that big of a deal. The performance in class, impression on the teachers and school, and testscores are the most important things for admissions. Those posters whose kids are in selective colleges probably do have the numbers in the right places for admissions to those schools. You take care of the academics first in highschool and then let the other things fall where they can, and those extras should be for enjoyment, not to just get you into college.</p>
<p>The verdict is still out as far as my son's admittance success is concerned. I suppose if he was interested in applying to heavyweight colleges (he didn't), I would not have been amenable to him quitting his instrument. I guess that's my point- that however well intentioned we might be, it does come down to doing "certain things" to get in, whether we want to see it that way or not. In our case, son applied to schools that were very accessible, so it didn't matter. I'm sure HYP would not have been impressed by the fact that he likes to play the guitar in his room.</p>
<p>But was he such a great violinisit or whatever instrument he played that HYP would have been impressed? I would think that they would be a bit more interested in someone who switched to something else and is enjoying it so much more, especially if he can somehow express his sentiments well to the adcoms.</p>
<p>"I would think that they would be a bit more interested in someone who switched to something else and is enjoying it so much more, especially if he can somehow express his sentiments well to the adcoms."</p>
<p>Football. And they wouldn't care in the least whether he was "enjoying it", but whether he could actually throw. ;)</p>
<p>GFG wrote:
[quote]
I hope I'm right, because that is what I'm trying to communicate to my daughter. I don't think she is gifted enough to do everything well, so I'm encouraging her to at least do one thing very well. I don't care so much which of her current primary endeavors she chooses: academics, sports, or music. But when she tries to be a top student AND a top athlete AND the best at her instrument, she is tops at none of them.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As I mentioned earlier, I have one kid who has specialized in her area of passion (though there are several components/activities to that area) and gave up all of her well rounded stuff she did once she hit middle school to focus on one main area (which she is now pursuing as her major in college...but it was primarily an EC endeavor prior to college). But my other kid never wanted to give up any of her areas of passion and kept doing them all throughout her years prior to college. She did them all well. She achieved in all those areas. But, you are right, she can't be tops at any of them (well, I take that back as far as academics because she actually was val), but she can't be tops in any of her EC endeavors because to be truly TOPS on a more national scale, one must specialize and she was NEVER willing to do that. She achieved on a state level in her endeavors, but was never going to be tops in any of them. But...she didn't care. Her goal then and now is not to be the tops in her areas of passion but to enjoy them and to excel at the best of her ability. </p>
<p>For instance, she was All States in instrumental music (played two instruments very well her whole life) but would never be of a caliber to go to an audition based college for music (has no ambition to do that, however), or didn't try for the State Youth Symphony because that meant focusing on music only and giving up her weekend sports commitments. In tennis, she was the top seed at our school and did well but she is never going to be tops in tennis because she only played in one season and didn't enter competitions out of state. In soccer, she was the starting goalie on the varsity squad that went to the state quarterfinals. But she is never going to be on a college varsity soccer team (though plays goalie for her intercollegiate club team) as she did not opt to do travel soccer because she could only do soccer in one season as she was a three varsity sport athlete and would not give up her other sports to do that. In ski racing, she achieved well but to be tops in that area, one must attend a speciailized ski academy for high school. One of the best ones is in our little town. However, not only couldn't I afford to send her to that very expensive private school, but she would never want to go because it meant giving up music, dance, theater, and tennis...all of which she had done for years and wanted to keep doing and did well. She is on a varsity team in that sport in college and the majority of the girls on her team went to ski academies and many whom she competes against also have done so. My D is at a disadvantage that way as she opted to not specialize, nor attended an academy for HS. However, she has been able to compete and pursue her passion and even so, did quite well last year at Nationals in her best event.</p>
<p>So, she knows that to be tops in any of her EC endeavors, it would mean specializing but growing up, she didn't opt to do that. She pursued each endeavor fully to the max but juggled many. She achieved in each endeavor. However, her goal was not to be tops in a national sense in any of them. To do so, would mean giving up a part of herself that she was unwilling to do. She even wrote a college essay about juggling all her interests. So, yes, pursuing just ONE thing is needed if you want to be TOPS in that field. But pursuing a few things works for some who WANT to do those things and are content to achieve at a pretty high level but not the very tippy top in any of them (again, speaking of ECs, not academics). Anyway, that's how it worked for my well rounded kid.</p>
<p>mini, though you bring up football a LOT, there are plenty of males who get into very selective colleges who don't play ANY sports. They have a lot going for them that is still attractive to colleges. I have met MANY. I can think of a boy I worked with last year who is now at Brown who excels at several things, including the performing arts, and is a leader. He did NO sports. In fact, one of his main essays even goes into why he doesn't do sports (he is short).</p>
<p>cpt- I don't know if HYP would have been impressed or not, but that little voice would have been screaming NOOOO to quitting, had he or us any interest in colleges of that ilk. It just wouldn't have seemed the smart thing to do. I'll admit that. He was doing pretty well, going to all state and getting lots of superiors for solos and the like. No intentions whatsoever of continuing on after high school, however. So it seemed ridiculous to keep doing something that he was no longer getting any satisfaction out of.</p>