<p>Very interesting article...</p>
<p>Reading this article makes me extremely happy that my kid is a slightly above average student who has done nothing extraordinary in high school (typical extracurricular - band, sports etc., ) and elite schools aren’t even on his radar. </p>
<p>I’m sure I’m in the minority on this board, bit, imo, high school should be where one learns the basics so they can succeed in college.</p>
<p>Thanks for posting this, fogfog. It’s not just about admissions, it’s about life. Luck favors the prepared, carpe diem, pursue your passion, all that good stuff.</p>
<p>I saw that blog on another thread and had the same reaction as you, emilybee. (I also concluded that the whole blog was a commercial for the guy’s new book.) </p>
<p>But, whatev. If there are kids/parents in this world who see the Ivies and the other elites as the only path to happiness, I say let them pursue their dreams. And let this guy make his fortune helping them. </p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>My point in posting isn’t about ivies
–it’s about really how the dif between the two candidates really bwasn’t about the time involved/dedication</p>
<p>–its about the perception…</p>
<p>and that would affect admissions at any selective school, small or large,
and taking the road less traveled</p>
<p>Haha I agree with this completely. I’m not really much of a standout student, but my work in the state government and my published writing in a political journal I think will take me farther than some of my peers’ 4.0 GPAs and 2250 SATs (admittedly I have a 3.95 GPA and 2190 SATs but I’m still not a superstar at my school). We shall see what happens when admissions decisions come out.</p>
<p>I read the article, but had trouble “getting it”…I thought the track guy was more impressive from the beginning.</p>
<p>While the blogger’s message is valid, he downplays the risks associated with trying to create one’s own path. Perhaps a kid pursues a strong interest and one day finds himself in the right place at the right time to create a “WOW! How did he do that?” effect. But doing this intentionally is a whole different matter, unless you have strong family connections to key decision-makers and huge financial resources.</p>
<p>Ultimately, there’s no free lunch: Admissions committees are impressed with these rare successes specifically because they’re still rare. For each kid who tries this strategy and succeeds, how many will try and get nowhere in particular?</p>
<p>I think the problem – which is missed in the blog post – is that “Steve” and “Kara” probably had no intention whatsoever of applying to or impressing elite colleges when they started on the paths that led to their accomplishments. They probably did things against the advice of well-meaning peers or adults, who probably warned that they were making themselves less competitive for college. So you have the combination of independent-minded kids following their own inclinations, and the serendipitous result that they ran into some very special opportunities along the way. (There are probably many other high school students also doing interesting, non-traditional stuff without any particular results).</p>
<p>So the real takeaway message is to live your life to the fullest, pursuing your own interests, during the high school years… and don’t worry about choosing a target college until senior year when you are able to look back and see what you have to offer. Do your own thing without worrying about whether or not others are impressed. There are probably thousands of Steves & Karas in the world who don’t get into elite colleges… but the measure of their success is in how they feel about themselves and in their actual efforts and accomplishments. </p>
<p>And the real “Catch 22” is that if the kid (or parents) are planning the high school life as a path to elite college admissions, they aren’t going to be able to take the risks entailed with deviating from the common path. The whole “insider” thing is bunk – it’s mostly a combination of personality with fortuitous circumstances.</p>
<p>I thought the track star was more impressive, too. I think it was the Japanese calligraphy lessons that caught my eye. It made me think that this guy follows his interests, while the other guy did what would he though would be impressive for college apps.</p>
<p>Both my kids followed this path to some extent. My oldest was accepted at Harvard with B’s his transcript, but impressive activities in computer science. He certainly didn’t get involved in computer programming with any idea that it would look good on college applications! And we mostly helped him find opportunities in computer science to keep him from spending too much time playing games. </p>
<p>Younger son’s activities were certainly not at the UN level - he worked on the archives of our neighborhood association, he turned a hobby of playing with origami into a small business. He wrote about both in his application essays.</p>
<p>As I read about the two examples - I thought Dave could have done something interesting with the calligraphy, but as far as we know all he did was take lessons. My older son took his last computer programming class as a high school freshman. It was what he did outside the classroom that made his activities impressive. For my younger son it was less the activity than how he wrote about it that was impressive.</p>
<p><a href=“I%20also%20concluded%20that%20the%20whole%20blog%20was%20a%20commercial%20for%20the%20guy’s%20new%20book.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It’s not. This isn’t his first book, and all of his previous books were about college. His recent posts about high school do tend to trumpet the book, but most of the blog has advice (and case studies) on how to approach college life, both mentally and organizationally. His first couple books are basically summaries of the tips he gives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s basically his advice for college too.</p>
<p>I wasn’t convinced by the example. I just assumed Steve had some edge because of his parent’s occupation and connections, as soooo many do. And that this ‘lobbying delegates’ was probably an overstatement. Moreover, the logic didn’t work for me. I could LESS easily imagine myself as Dave because I do not have natural athletic ability, and MORE easily imagine myself as Steve, because as an adult, I have the ability to make lots of things happen and have always been resourceful. Observing natural talent tends to awe me more than just plain old hard work (or the outcomes of an enriched environment). </p>
<p>What I find most sad is that this article is trying to coach kids to end up with this kind of surrendipitous outcome all for the sake of college. What if a kid truly loves 10 things, dabbing in those ‘cluttering’ interests, exploring, learning a lot of different things, and doesn’t want to invest in one singular ‘passionate’ pursuit to maybe fall upon a great opportunity to stand out in admissions? What a complete waste of one’s youthful years. One has a whole lifetime to narrow themselves into an area of expertise and create an impressive brand imagery for themselves. Youth should be exploring right up to and through college. </p>
<p>The US admissions nonsense has gotten entirely out of hand for this generation of kids. I’m just so glad we can just send our kids to a great, inexpensive college in Canada.</p>
<p>I like this posting. My S doesn’t go for grades or most EC’s, but he is probably one of the most interesting people to talk to because he is well-read and follows his varied interests closely. I am hoping he will find things in college to interest him.</p>
<p>I like this posting, although I don’t agree with the psychological analysis of how adcoms’ minds work. I think it’s simply hard to differentiate between all the editors of the school paper, captains of the debate/sports team, student body presidents with good grades and test scores…very quickly, they blur in an ad com’s mind. The kid who can differentiate himself from the pack, has an advantage - it’s just that simple. Steve’s story does reflect some serendipity-it’s true that his nonprofit engagement could have had no results. But having worked with dozens of small nonprofits, I can assure any student that if they send in a resume with a carefully worded statement of what they have to offer the organization and why they care about the mission, they will be offered opportunities. I should add that most small nonprofits are desperately in need of people with computer (web, facebook, spreadsheet, programing, publishing, data analysis) skills, good interpersonal skills, editing capabilities, translation skills, and a host of other capabilities that a student can offer, and can translate into a really meaningful -possibly life-changing - volunteer experience. With the incidental benefit that their essays won’t put the ad com to sleep.</p>
<p>I agree with what you say about the psychological analysis – I think its the differentiation that stands out. When I referred to Steve’s story as being serendipitous – I meant the fact that he was invited to be part of delegation traveling to South Africa. He could have worked for the same nonprofit and simply not had something that seems that impressive on paper come up. That doesn’t mean that he would have had “no results” – what may be more significant is his efforts in publicizing the nonprofit’s work, but it would be harder to put in an essay, “I was the person whose letter-writing campaign got Time magazine interested in profiling the organization.”. In other words, the most significant work for nonprofits tends to occur behind the scenes, and often does not make for very good essay-writing material – or at least requires more imagination on the part of the essay-writer when it comes to bringing their work to life.</p>
<p>I think the main point on this article is applicable beyond college admissions.</p>
<p>What set Steve and Kara apart is the fact that they have successfully treaded off the beaten track. This quality of independent thinking and initiative are highly valued in young people’s first job hunting or later in life. </p>
<p>Just like Dave in the example who put longer hours and more blood, sweat, and tears following a more predictable path, there are 100,000 hardworking software engineers who put in long hours working really hard solving predictable problems and doing assigned tasks. Yet, we reward the likes of Google and Facebook founders more as a society just as the adcoms favor Steve and Kara, because they were able to think out of the box and saw what others didn’t see.</p>
<p>I don’t know that you need a high-falutin’ concept like “failed simulation effect” to explain this. Here’s how I would explain it. Every high school has a track captain . . . every single one. In fact, every high school probably has 20+ sports captains. And those are the high schools with only one captain per sport; many have many more. Some of those captains have good grades, etc., and interesting hobbies. Columbia or Harvard or wherever probably gets hundreds of applications a year that look like the track captain in the example. When a kid does something unique, however, it’s . . . unique. Unique is a huge advantage over one-of-a-set-of-hundreds.</p>