<p>Good job showing your maturity, scar. At least I actually got into an Ivy League school, so I'm talking from a lot more experience than you. Maybe you should take note that essays are a big factor too--I'm sure yours will really show off your good side to adcoms.</p>
<p>I'm gonna quote your two posts, so they can be preserved after the moderators delete them and send you a warning.</p>
<p>"Quote:
Originally Posted by dumb****ing jpps1
'Meanwhile, you're a damned HS freshman and you're on this site. Maybe you should get off and have fun and involve yourself in something.' </p>
<p>Some people care more about thir futures then others. And BTW, I have more ECs than you, I just don't think that That's how colleges should choose who gets in and who doesn't. Keep your mouth shut if you don't know things"</p>
<p>"Quote:
Originally Posted by jpps1
'I totally agree...GradDad's posts seem to be completely inflammatory and based on limited personal experiences. Just the same, I could tell him that I don't know anybody who did something they hated because they wanted to get into a good college. I just know kids who did what they liked, didn't worry too much and got into a good college. '</p>
<p>You really haev a nac for getting on people's nerves don't you. And that an amazing life you have youknow being a newspaper editor. That way when you fail horribly in the future, maybe you can go knock on the editor's door at the New York Times."</p>
<p>O so that's why you're defending it like your life depended on it. But you know that looking at all those ECs to let you get in is a buch of ****... Anyways, it's more an opinion thing -- whether you think that college should be strictly acedemic or not.</p>
<p>Actually I called you a failure not people. And no where in this conversation was I crying. And you can post back, but I really don't feel like replying to this anymore so....</p>
<p>I love how everyone is picking apart my original post. I took about one minute on it so I didn't really have any depth to my thoughts. I still completely disagree with the original poster.</p>
<p>Hmm lets think about this let's say that you are an admissions officer at Harvard: Who are you going to let in the person with a 5.8 GPA and a 2400 SAT or the person with a 5.8 GPA a 2400 SAT and who is president of their class? Well obviously both are brilliant but the second one has obviously demonstrated a greater ability to handle a difficult class load and other responsibilities. The later individual has also showen greater initiative. To me this does not seem like a very difficult decision. I don't get why people are having so many problems understanding this.</p>
<p>Besides the U.S. was established on the basis that everyone had equal opportunity. There are obviously a lot of bitter elitists on this site who resent the fact that the "lower" class is entitled to the same type of education.</p>
<p>Finally I resent all of the people on this site that are mentioning how bad the U.S. academic system is. The main reason that it is ranked below countries such as Finland is because of the immigration problem. I mean how can teachers even write challenging lesson plans when sooooooo many students don't even speak English???? We are flooded with foreigners and I for one am proud of this fact. Nations such as Japan and Finland don't even have half of the immigrants that we do. Thus they don't have to worry about teaching the language before they can teach the lesson. And if we make stricter immigration laws there is a very good chance that some of the snobby foreigners people on this thread wouldn't have even made it into the country. I am referring to the ones that are "saying how slow and stupid American academics are". I believe that the diversity gained from immigration is well worth the minor loss in academics.</p>
<p>Also if the American education system is so bad why are the most powerful business leaders American???? Singapore currently has the number one ranked education system in the world (according to Newsweek) yet there are very few powerful and influential international leaders from Singapore. The countries that just teach their students in order for them to pass standardized tests (Singapore) are not really teaching their students how to think on their own.</p>
<p>Is anyone even taking into account the fact that many (most?) of these well-rounded Ivy admits did all those things that make them well-rounded for the purpose of getting into a good college and not because they wanted to do all those things? Let's admit it: today's best applications are precision-engineered to look good to the colleges. For example, many college applications have something like "9 years of violin" under extracurricular activities. Did the child have some tremendous love for the musical arts back when he was in 3rd grade? No, he would rather be playing outside. The parents were planning the child's future when they enrolled him in music classes back then. It was the same when they were coaxed him into joining that soccer club and the middle school newspaper.</p>
<p>But let's say the student did all these things out of their own will. Still, how is it relevant to the person's future? Someone talked about social skills - the ability to interact well with others as opposed to toiling away alone in room all day. I agree that social skills are very important (although more so in some careers than others). But how do extracurriculars demonstrate social skills? We are talking about the ability to write a news article, kick a ball, or play an instrument. This doesn't show me they can chat someone up and close a business deal or give a lecture at a conference - it shows me they can write a news article, kick a ball, and play an instrument.</p>
<p>And what about community service? That person did 500 hours of service at her church - she must be a very good person! That's nice, but how is it going to help her remember the right answers during the finals or be more competent at her job (assuming it's not social service)? It's great if you've helped more people than Gandhi or Jesus, but I don't see why colleges should care or why it makes you a better candidate than someone else. Also, community service is even more likely to be something that was done simply to spruce up an application rather out of a true passion to help humanity (we are talking about teenagers here - they are more concerned with what to do on Friday night).</p>
<p>I'm not knocking all extracurricular activities. Some activities such as academic team and debate team are very good. State or national level awards received for academic achievements (eg. doing well at a chemistry olympiad) are excellent as well. Things that demonstrate leadership qualities are even better. But these are directly relevant to academics and careers unlike many of these other things that supposedly make some applicants better than others.</p>
<p>And another thing - someone said a person with no extracurricular activities has no passions. Well, what if someone spend hours a day browsing online encyclopedias, reading books, and watching (gasp) educational television? To me that shows passion for knowledge. And yet, most of you seem to be saying "This person has no life. He or she is being lazy and needs to get out there and play sports and do community service."</p>
<p>If you have a passion for knowledge, maybe you'd have some sort of passion for disseminating that knowledge, or (as I said), working as a research assistant for someone. I read all sorts of stuff online; I don't pretend that's an accomplishment.</p>
<p>The fact is, it's not enough to just like something. You should WANT to do something about it. Otherwise, yeah, you're lazy.</p>
<p>ivy leagues schools (and other top schools...I don't know why discriminate over football conferences) want people that will do something in college. As a student, I wouldn't be allured to go to a school if i visited it, and every undergrad was sitting in there rom and studying... i want to go to a school where the kids are out doing things....the truth of the matter is that college is a business, and schools want the students that will make their school seem attractive.</p>
<p>OKay again:
It's all down to opinion:
Wether ot not you think college should be strictly acedemics, or a mix of other things also. I have an opinion and jpps1 has an opposing opinion, now can we stop trying to prove each other wrong, cauz a lot of people agree with both of us/</p>
<p>I'm happy that you read "all sorts of stuff online" but you haven't shown how lack of extracurriculars shows lack of passion. All you've shown is how to change it into something that can be written down on a college appilcation. Moreover, its quite hard for most high school students to get an opportunity to do original research. I would say luck and location has more to do with it than degree of passion.</p>
<p>Actually community service does help your social skills especially if you are a club officer. You spend so much time dealing with people-it really helps in the long run.</p>
<p>"Moreover, its quite hard for most high school students to get an opportunity to do original research."</p>
<p>I NEVER said "original" research. I said being a research assistant. I know a girl who works in a lab that studies the sexual behaviour of rats...and she's no scientific genius. It's something she finds interesting, and she asked them if they needed any sort of help.</p>
<p>Actually, let me summarize this for people:</p>
<p>Elite colleges want people who will make a mark, either in student life or as an alumni. Why? It makes the university look good. </p>
<p>Students who don't take up much initiative when they're in high school probably won't take up much initiative in college or post-college. They may be brilliant, and lead solid careers in whatever they do, but they'll never stand out.</p>
<p>Elite colleges want to enroll as many people as possible who will make a mark in society...so they enroll a lot of well-rounded kids (3.6-3.8, 2250 SAT, good ECs), and some brilliant kids (4.0, 2400, few ECs) and some kids with great qualities (3.6, 2100 SAT, very good ECs). Of course, some students will be a mix of two or even all three of these categories (these are the shoo-ins...the 4.0, 2400 football star or Siemens finalist). In the end, the college admits a well-rounded class and sacrifices very little in academics, since the kids with very good personal qualities/ECs still have very good GPAs and SATs.</p>
<p>And no scar, I don't care--she's not my friend, just a girl in my class. She finds BIOLOGY interesting though, and she was ready to take some initiative--even if it was a ****ty research assistant position at a lab that studies the sexual behaviour of rats. You have to start somewhere.</p>
<p>Actually, sexual behavior is a fascinating field. But I think a lot of the posters here a bit young, and so maybe it just sounds "icky" to them...</p>
<p>Anyway, my two cents on this "issue."</p>
<p>There is no issue. Private schools can accept whoever they want, for whatever reason. If you think the Ivies are getting dumber, then don't apply there.</p>
<p>But I think a lot of the posters here a bit young, and so maybe it just sounds "icky" to them...</p>
<p>It's not "icky". Just wierd, that is, if she WANTS to look at a rat's sexual behavior. ANd I don;t think that ANYONE on CC is that young that they think it's "icky"</p>
<p>By studying the sexual behavior of other animals, we may be able to further understand our own. It may sound "weird," but we've learned a fair amount about human sexual behavior by first observing other mammals first. </p>
<p>And yes, I've encountered posters here that have said that sex is "icky."</p>
<p>You are aware that people study rats because the effects of drugs and stuff on them can be applied to humans, right?</p>
<p>Actually, yes I am aware of that. But most people don't want to, expecially at a young age. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't really know anyone that does.</p>