Starting over.Well,almost.....(loooong and not funny)

Parents Forum
241

<p>Just a reminder from the language police-- a hook is not a tip and a tip is not a hook. Something quirky which makes your kid unique, all things being equal, is great. That's not the same as being first generation college, raised in a homeless shelter (that's a real kid-- graduated from MIT; parents raised the money to attend commencement by redeeming cans at 7/11) with stellar stats.</p>

<p>I think the part that people call random is their inability to predict the outcome... usually because as parents we forget that although we know everything about our own kid and what makes them special, we know nothing about the rest of the applicant pool. Did Berurah's son go up against a kid from Nebraska with similar stats, a love of epidemiology, but also a potential olympiad? Was Andi's son competing against a similarly stellar kid with the same interests but a Native American from just a bit further West in Massachusetts?</p>

<p>We can't know that; all we can do is cast our nets and bring in the haul.</p>

<p>A practical bit of advice for 'mudge.... while being from rural Texas appears to be a huge advantage, please learn from all of us and go check out your school's profile while it's still early in the game. A lot of kids from "unknown" schools tend to suffer in the competetive admissions game-- poorly listed classes, outdated demographics, things like Band and Yearbook and HandiCrafts appearing as academic subjects. It's great to be at the top of the class.... but especially if you don't have SAT 2's to back up a competetive HS preparation, it's important that the school present itself as an academic institution and not summer camp.</p>

242

<p>
[quote]
But, if you notice, most of the people participating in this thread have kids who are in that super high-stats bracket

[/quote]

Ah, but not all. I'm having fun watching y'all though. :)</p>

243

<p>I thnk a good way to put it with elite admissions is that the outcome is unpredictable. As Xiggi said, perfectly or equally qualified kids can get rejected. A kid can get into Harvard but not Princeton and another kid can get into Princeton but not Harvard. It is not random but the schools build a class and once you make the "cut" of being worthy of a spot in terms of qualifications, you then might NOT make the cut for a slot if you don't fill a need in the mix of class that they are building. That is why I think you cannot say, "oh my kid did not get into X because he must have been lacking such and such" or "I think my kid got in because he had Y factor." Whatever those factors are may have resulted in a YES at one top school and NO at an equally well regarded and selective elite school. To me, the only way you can really analyze what did not go well for the kid is if he did not get into ANY of the schools on the list. You have to have the "goods" to stand a chance but after that, it is a matter of if that particular school wants you for a slot in the make up of their class. If they have ten sheep raising rural VT kids who are also musician/athletes/scholars, your turn may or may not come up and it is unpredictable. You can't say (as so many people in the community love to tell such kids), "you can get in anywhere with your qualifications and profile." Not so, because with the most elite colleges, it is unpredictable if they will tap you for a slot even though you are just as "qualified" as others who get a slot. But what IS predictable to some degree are a kids' chances at getting into at least ONE selective school on a balanced list of schools IF the student has all the "right stuff". The way I see it, if a kid has everything that is needed (and I am not talking just basic numbers like we see on the "what are my chances" posts), then it is not that hard to judge that the student will very likely make it into at least one reach or match school on their list if their list is a VERY appropriate list with balance. </p>

<p>Speaking of my own children, we never counted on any of the highly selective schools individually. Too unpredictable. But we did feel that they were reasonable and appropriate candidates for these schools on their list. They were in the "running". We did not know which one would pick them but felt they had what it took to get in. That is why I call it unpredictable but I will qualify that by saying it is predictable as to the kids' chances or reasonableness of admissions at certain KINDS of schools. Who gets tapped at any specific ONE elite school is not predictable. As I said, an excellent candidate can get tapped at X but not Y and another kid get into Y but not X. </p>

<p>One must need to build a balanced list and carefully assess if the candidate is in the running for schools on that list. In this regard, Mudgette is certainly in the running for the most selective schools and was originally undershooting a bit. However, she is not a shoo in at all and is in the running with a pile of too many kids equally qualified with great profiles for those same slots. That is why the outcome at any one particular school is not predictable. However, it IS predicatable that with a balanced and appropriate list of reaches, matches, safeties, that a kid like her should end up with some fine choices. Building the right list is what is needed. AND not pining for one particular elite school on the list but liking many. With the top schools in the land, nobody has a guarantee of getting in. But with TOP students (in every respect, not just academics), it is safe to say they are going to get into SOME selective schools but likely not all and it is hard to predict which ones. If someone has a balanced list, they should not be totally shut out IF they have an excellent profile. A list with all reaches....not good.....too unpredictable. I do not think the selection of candidates is random but we cannot predict on the outside if a top kid will earn a slot at Podunk, but we can predict if she is in the running of getting into at least one Podunk of similar selectivity. </p>

<p>If it were utterly random, why bother with how one presents their application? It is way more than just stats. You have to have the stats, the profile, an excellent application, and then fit a need in their class. That last part, none of us can predict.</p>

<p>Susan
Edit...I did not see Blossom's post when I was writing my post here. The idea to point to unpredicatable rather than random....we are thinking alike!</p>

244

<p>Sokkermom: you really go the extra mile to make your point! Sorry, thoug, but I still don't agree. I'm not going to go into the semantics of what "hook" means, but I don't care how many goatherders there are in Texas; the fact is, i'm willing to bet, there are probably none at our S's colleges. And that, on top of everything else, makes Mudgie a more interesting candidate. And yes, there are lots of rural kids in Texas, too, goat-herding and not, but they are not applying to the most selective colleges at anything like the rate of prep school kids from New England.</p>

245

<p>1sokkermom, ;) did I forget to mention that she also has on her resume that she bottle raises European Red Stag and fallow deer babies? We have three right now. Anna Belle (red deer), and "Doris and Dinky" (fallow).</p>

<p>I usually don't mention them as they are more pets than market animals and raising goats fits so nicely under the part-time job heading (while the babies are under hobbies). When D interviews it is usually her "babies" that the interviewer asks about in follow up e-mails, so you may be right about goats being too commonplace.</p>

<p>I actually agree with your post. It is the rural nature of D's life that sets her slighty apart . Not goats, per se. </p>

<p>The Penn adcom said it best-I'm paraphrasing, living on a ranch and spending every waking moment at the mall is not a hook while living a ranch lifestyle could be. The goats, the fence mending, the predator control (she may be the only child applying somewhere who has fielded the responsibility to feed and water the roosters in the mountain lion live-traps), the deer, the feedings, the horses, the rattlesnakes, the fishing on our stock tanks (she doesn't hunt, nor do I. We have to kill things. Just not for sport.) are all just listed to show the app reader that she doesn't have any time to spend at the mall, nor does she have the inclination to do so. It's more of an effort to say -"do you have anybody in that eco class that has this background and can bring this perspective to the discussion and has these stats?" That's all. </p>

<p>Is it all just "gaming" even it is all true or is it letting who the real kid is shine through in the app? I don't know. I guess that depends on your perspective,too. I'll let y'all decide.</p>

246

<p>here's the scoop on goat projects -- a link from K-State Extension:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/dickinson/Youth/Goat.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/dickinson/Youth/Goat.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>thought you'd enjoy these too -- on K-State's equestrian offering --</p>

<p><a href="http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/News/sty/2000/horseteam.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/News/sty/2000/horseteam.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/equine/undergraduate%20pages/equestrian_team.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/equine/undergraduate%20pages/equestrian_team.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>there's a rodeo team too - click on the left side of the equestrian link:)</p>

<p>this looooooooooooooooong thread has been a good read. just saw it yesterday. have enjoyed it!</p>

247

<p>Curmudge--I think we (at least I am) are using goats as a short-hand for all that you listed, some of which we can guess at, most of which we cannot as it's just a life we don't run into much. But I have fathomed from your general discussion that she is not hanging out at malls, and is doing a lot of out-of-the-box really cool and different stuff, and yeah, I think it will count.</p>

<p>And, oh my, baby deer. All I can say is, awwwww.</p>

248

<p>
[quote]
And, oh my, baby deer. All I can say is, awwwww.

[/quote]
LOL, Garland. Interestingly enough, that is the response she gets in the interview ,too. "Enough about that marching band/SAT crap. Now just how cute are Doris and Dinky?"</p>

249

<p>garland, I really didn't go the extra mile. I confess. It was a 20 second google search with this morning's coffee. </p>

<p>Despite the fact that we live in the NE (close enough to commute to Boston barely) our town is very much involved with 4-H activities. We actually host a huge agricultural fair every year. Believe it or not, some of the day student prep school kids do participate....</p>

<p>I do agree completely that such activities make Cur's daughter an interesting and unique candidate along with all her other attributes!</p>

250

<p>Oh, oh - the cat (er, deer) is out of the bag. HERE's the edge all those desperate parents in CC have been looking for....</p>

<p>I can just see it now - interviewers for the 2006-2007 academic year being inundated with a stream of applicants, each with a baby goat/ llama/ anaconda tucked inside their jacket at the interview. "Ooh, is that Binky with her head poking out of your jacket? Can I touch her? Look, that's cute - she's nibbling my hand. Actually, she's biting - no, swallowing. Can you make her stop? Can I get my hand back?? OMG, she's up to my shoulder now, she's reaching for my head, HELP, HE.."</p>

251

<p>optimizerdad - allow me to be the first to LOL :D</p>

252

<p>Berurah -</p>

<p>I think you are confusing subjectivity with randomness. The fact that one adcom found your son's app more compelling than did another one reflects the subjective judgments of those two adcoms. And we already know that the essay part of the app is very important and particularly subjective as to how it will be received. </p>

<p>There is certainly an element of chance involved in whether a given app lands in the hands of an adcom who will like the essay or ECs vs. one who won't, but that by no mean renders the whole admissions process random.</p>

<p>If admissions were truly random then a 4.0/1580 kid and 3.3/1230 kid would have exactly the same odds of being admitted. We clearly know that this isn't the case.</p>

<p>Now the hard part comes when we have two kids who are both 4.0/1580/oboe players. But the school has room for only one. So one gets in and one doesn't. Was that choice random? If they flipped a coin to decide the matter, it was random. But I don't think they flipped a coin. They probably kept looking deeper and deeper into the apps until they found something in one that matched a little bit better what they were looking for. It could come down to some very minor thing - a slightly better essay, or a one kid comes from a more disadvantaged background, or one adds little more geographic diversity, or something.<br>
The point it is that it was decided based on <em>something</em> (however minor) and not on nothing.</p>

<p>Binx said:</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Exactly.</p>

253

<p>Thank you Coureur for your explanation because that really is it....there is SUBJECTIVITY involved and you gave great examples. </p>

<p>I still think Mudgette should write about goat raising. It is not totally unique but there are less who have that on the college resume than something like basketball (though the BBall is real good too). I have to say, having rural kids myself, they RARELY are at a mall, way too far to go, no time for things like that either. The idea of "hanging out at the mall" as an activity is foreign from their experience. They get to go shopping for what they need a few times per year. They are never near shops just for pleasure as something to do. My kids do not raise animals. There are kids here who do, however. </p>

<p>Somebody brought up some points about being from a rural public school. This has been talked about on CC before. There are plusses and minusses to that attribute on the profile. A plus is that there are not umpteen kids from the school applying to the same competitive colleges. As well, "rural kid" stands out as slightly different than the numerous applications at these schools from prep schools and places like Scarsdale. Drawbacks include that the college may never have heard of your high school, has no ongoing rapport with the GC, may underestimate the education there, as well as the school itself's profile doesn't have hundreds of AP courses or profiles of most graduates going onto college and nor many to the most elite ones in the land. The top students at such a rural school do rival the students from prep schools and wealthy suburban high schools but the ENTIRE school does not. So, for instance, in my D1's graduating class, she was the only student going to any Ivy league school. In her roomie at Brown's prep school class, out of 80 graduates, 6 got in ED to Brown alone (not counting RD or other Ivies). So, there are good aspects to having a profile of coming from a rural area and a no name school and there are some disadvantages as well. </p>

<p>Still, play up those goats, not the pets. </p>

<p>Susan</p>

254

<br>


<br>

<p>Binx, I think you are probably right. I think geography can be a powerful hook or "anti-hook". Just like ED, it may or may not help depending on the situation, and I think for your son it worked for him at one school, and was unhelpful at the other.</p>

<p>For the greater Atlanta non-athletes applying to Duke, I think some of Berurah's "randomness" comes into play.</p>

255

<p>Have we moved on to essay topics? I think Smudge should write about her father! There has to be a good story there!</p>

<p>And I will concede that there are many goat herders (or raisers) in Texas. But how many also play the tuba??</p>

256

<p>Curmudgeon:
your question in post # 245.....might be worthy of its own thread...</p>

<p>"is it all just "gaming" even it is all true or is it letting who the real kid is shine through in the app? I don't know. I guess that depends on your perspective,too. I'll let y'all decide."</p>

<p>my gut says the only way to not have any regrets is to make sure the real kid shines thru......because of the randomness/ subjectivity / unknown / divine?? aspect of this college application process.... I think the "gaming" part of it begins long long ago..... the way we nurture our kids and provide opportunities for them.... some we do for them, some we do for us, some we do to give them a competitive edge etc etc... the final packaging is important, but if it is toooo slick, then your kid is lost in the glare......nor do we want our kid afraid of their ability to live up to their own hype..... </p>

<p>but, that is just my opinion.... my brother got an athletic tip a long time ago and he was in over his head from day one.... the intention was sooo good, but the reality was ugly..... so, I think if one stays real, but ambitious and optimistic in their application, then a reader might say, I want them in my class......assuming all the underlying components to a successful app are there.....</p>

<p>speaking of gaming, are we all addicted?? one of my favorite side aspects of CC are the nicknames given to parents kids..... andison, mudgette, mudgejr, SMUDGE ??LOL , DS, NSDS (not so dear son??) the nicknames make it all seem so affectionate.... and gives dimension to these kids...never mind some of the screen names..... I know I would never want to meet Evil Robot........the young adult with a real name, sure, but EVIL ROBOT?<br>
must go back to work...... enjoy the on and on of this thread.....</p>

257

<p>cur:</p>

<p>how about taking in boarder's next year? Mudgette's room will be available, and plenty of kids out in cc land would be happy to hurd goats and take care of Binky.</p>

<p>First dibs to BlueD?</p>

258

<p><but what="" is="" predictable="" to="" some="" degree="" are="" a="" kids'="" chances="" at="" getting="" into="" least="" one="" selective="" school="" on="" balanced="" list="" of="" schools="" if="" the="" student="" has="" all="" "right="" stuff".="" way="" i="" see="" it,="" kid="" everything="" that="" needed="" (and="" am="" not="" talking="" just="" basic="" numbers="" like="" we="" "what="" my="" chances"="" posts),="" then="" it="" hard="" judge="" will="" very="" likely="" make="" reach="" or="" match="" their="" appropriate="" with="" balance.=""></but></p>

<p>soozievt ---sooo well said that I needed to say it again. THAT is the goal....the well thought out list that in the end will result in a student having the chance to go to the school where they can happily pursue their dreams in a challenging environment!</p>

259

<p>Cur...about "gaming"....or the "real kid shining through"....</p>

<p>To me, if your D shows who she is on the app, that is not gaming. That is letting the real her shine through. </p>

<p>What feels like gaming to me is when someone says, "what EC should I pick that is unique so as to stand out in the applicant pool in a few years when I apply" (or which animals should I raise, lol)</p>

<p>I know some have said to me that my kids' ECs are not that unique (they aren't!) but I don't care. They never picked what they did to look good for colleges. They participated in things they enjoyed and most of those activities they began at a young age and who was thinking of college back then (not that I'd have them do differently if picking ECs as teenagers either). They are who they are. If their ECs are not unique, so be it. But their apps showed them and their passions. Sorry if their instruments are piano, clarinet, flute, and guitar. What can ya do? Theater? not unique. Soccer? truly not unique.Tap dance? not unique. Jazz and ballet? Nah. Band and jazz band? not unique. Tennis? nope. Student government? Lots have that. Ski racing? ok, I've seen less of these on CC but it ain't unique in my neck of the woods. I could go on but these are all things on my kids' "resumes" and they just are who they are. Not unique. But they did let who they were shine through on the apps. And sometimes, it was what they achieved in those activities or something specific they did in them, that maybe showed who they were, not just that they were a dancer, or a theater kid, or a band member, or a skier or a soccer goalie. </p>

<p>Susan</p>

260

<p>

Here! here!</p>

<p>... and now, can we move on to "monikers?" Among the oft-used mudgette, mudgie, mudgerella .... I find the newly minted mudgling (credit beachy) and smudge (credit NJres) to be especially endearing.<br>
* So much fun, so little time* :cool:</p>