Too much emphasis on 'well-rounded'?

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Why is there such an emphasis on rewarding the 'well-rounded' student in our educational system, both in terms of college admissions and the accolades given to h.s. graduates?</p>

<p>The end of hs was very frustrating for our d. She was #1 in her class, never made less than an 'A' in her entire schooling and had near-perfect SAT's, the only Nat'l Merit scholar in her class of 350. She hates sports and didn't join the band though she is an accomplished musician. She engaged in some very interesting community service, but never flashy, group type activities that receive a lot of attention. Her one passion has been academic excellence. Was she admitted to the school of her choice? No. She only got into her two 'safeties,' competitive schools, both of which made a big deal about encouraging her to attend. Her numbers will help their averages. Then came the hs awards. Our small school system has a number of scholarships which are given out at graduation. Almost all of those mention something to the effect of "for the student/athlete who has been a leader . . ." It was pretty hard to sit through that long ceremony and know that none of these would apply to her. A lesson in humility, I suppose.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I was a 'well-rounded' hs student 25 yrs ago. I wrestled and was recruited by by a couple of smallish programs, but didn't want to keep wrestling in college. I was our Student Body president but never held any leadership position in college. I was near the top of my class but not at the very top. I ended up getting a lot of awards at the expense of, I now realize, those quiet, 'less-popular' girls who kept their nose in the books but were much less well-known by the faculty and other students. In sum, I may have looked good to college admission people because of some of the things I did in HS, but I never did any of the same things past HS.</p>

<p>Why is our system stacked against the kids who aren't 'well-rounded,' even when being well rounded in hs may not count for much later on?</p>

<p>We have a s in 8th grade who's not unlike his sister. We're begging him to play a sport next yr, hoping that when he gets to the end of hs, he doesn't join his s in saying, "that was a big disappointment."</p>

<p>Maybe a college admission person would be willing to respond to this post.</p>

2

<p>I think some schools focus on applicants who are the "best" in their field but not necessarily well-rounded. Harvard, MIT and CalTech come to mind. If your daughter did so well academically, did she also participate in academic competitions in fields she enjoyed. I would think schools would like to see "academic excellence" linked to some form of utilizing these skills and knowledge - Intel Science project, academic research at a local college, participation in an applied use of knowledge, i.e. Federal Reserve Challenge. Hopefully these people become the research scientists and academics we need. The "well-rounded" become the leaders who know how to reach consensus among groups, etc.</p>

3

<p>I"m not a college admissions person but will give ya my thoughts. </p>

<p>I hear a few things in your post. </p>

<p>First, when I saw the subject heading about emphasis on "well rounded" and before I read your post, I was thinking, hmmm, actually well rounded is no longer in vogue these days with regard to college admissions, rather having one unique passion IS in vogue. However, now I see that you are not so much talking of well rounded like I was thinking but of students who are accomplished outside of academics (whether it be at one thing OR many). </p>

<p>Then you talked about high school recognition/awards. I would have thought that there might be at least one award at your graduation that was purely academically based...kinda top student sort of thing. At our graduation ceremony, there was an award of that sort....the faculty award, which my D who also was ranked first like your D and also never got below an A in school, etc. etc. etc. , got. She also won Scholar/Athlete (unlike your D, she did do many lifelong extracurricular endeavors which included three varsity sports but also was in the arts). But the majority of awards, she did not get and kids who were not so "tops" academically got most of these. But at least there was one thing for her and I would have thought there'd be at least one academic type award at yours too. But truly awards aside, she was recognized as being valedictorian, no? The joy is in her achievements so I hope she can see that too. My kids did not let the lack of awards get to them too much. They knew at our school, there is a tendency to give awards to those NOT at the top. It is what it is. </p>

<p>As far as college admissions go.....I have to say that selective schools ARE looking for kids who are not JUST high achievers academically but can ALSO offer something else to their student body or campus life. Almost every applicant to these selective schools has the grades, rank, test scores, etc. So, what sets them apart? Some individuality and achievements and passions outside of the classroom. College campus life also needs kids to do these other things. I don't agree with you that if a kid does all these activities in high school that they are just gonna drop them once they get to college, so why does it matter. For my kids, their EC endeavors are important interest areas to them and they do NOT WANT to drop them in college. They did not do them to get into college, they do them cause they love them and it is a part of who they are and so they aimed to continue these activities in college. Colleges do want kids to round out the class and to contribute to the various activities on campus. So, if every applicant has the academic qualifications, then they also are looking to other ways a kid can be an asset to the campus community. I don't agree with your idea to encourage your son to do sports so that either he gets awards at graduation or that it might look good for college admissions. Rather, I would encourage a kid to pursue his interests in some significant way over a long time commitment but that interest and impetus must come from the kid and it NEED NOT be sports (or even music). Any interest that is pursued with passion, depth, long term commitment, perhaps initiative or leadership thrown in, significant achievement, etc. is the thing, not WHAT the interest is. The interest COULD even be academically oriented if that is how your kids interests lie....maybe research, internships, volunteering in that field, academic oriented competitions, would be worth pursuing. </p>

<p>So, I do think SELECTIVE colleges ARE looking for kids who are more than just excellent academic students but also pursue some interest OUTSIDE the classroom, even if the interest is academically based. I think this kinda makes sense. </p>

<p>Susan</p>

4

<p>It seems as though we are second guessing what those supeselective schools want - "well-rounded?" "Passionate?" D was and is academician with high SATs and SAT II's, salutatorian - outside interests were academically based - Academic Challenge captain 4 years, took first overall honors division at Regional Decathlon, won State Citizen Bee 2 years in a row, 2ms in state Soc. Studiues UIL, and was rejected from 1st choice school - ivy. So just being passionate about something isn't enough. I still don't know what those schools are looking for. Due to the number of apps they look at, I still subscribe to the throw them against the wall theory, unless you are an athlete or musician, etc., that they need to round out their programs. There are many scholars out there vying for those few positions, and sometimes splitting haris just doesn't do it.</p>

5

<p>soozievt,</p>

<p>Thank you for your reply. Mine is a bit of a pity-party, I know, but there are a range of issues related to schooling which may just come into focus around our experience. </p>

<p>No, there is no valedictorian at our hs. They eliminated it a few years ago, because someone complained about it. D was voted by her classmates 'most likely to succeed.' We interpreted that as a sign that her peers could see something in her that teachers and administrators missed. However, it is also true that she has not been a leader to this point. I liked what Obid1 had to say about being a 'consensus-builder.' Again, that does not describe d. She may one day become a researcher in some academic field, not likely in science, though. In sum, she is intense about academics but has never fit in well socially. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, I think she always believed, and we encouraged her in the belief, that this singular focus would be recognized, even rewarded, in some public way. Through the college confidential discussion groups, we learned of students who were measurably inferior academically, but had other qualities, and were admitted to the school which rejected her. Clearly, being a great student is not enough although being a pretty good student and an above-average soccer player may be enough. Alas, we all want our children's special qualities to be recognized, and it is a let-down when they are not.</p>

<p>My point about ec's is not that people use them to pad their resume. I loved the activities in which I participated. However, I did not pursue any of them in college though both athletics and leadership have been big parts of my life post-college.</p>

<p>D will be attending a wonderful university as part of their selective honors program. She seems to be very happy about it (now), and I expect she will do well. However, we do have to go through this whole process again a few years from now. Should we change what we've been doing, or just see where the chips fall?</p>

6

<p>By the way, this thread may belong on the Parents' Forum rather than in the Parents' Cafe. Now that I've already started it, is there any way to switch it over?</p>

7

<p>All of us with kids just like yours feel the same way. Your D and mine also found a place where they will be happy and thrive. My D wasn't a social butterfly, either, although she had a few close friends, but academics always came first. And, as for being a leader - she was when the teachers had a say - but in popularity contests???? As to what to do for your son, I say let him be what he is. Don't make him over for some ethereal idea of what some college "may" want - that doesn't always come out right, either. He will find his slot, just like our kids did. D was courted by a selective LAC, and she is going where she is wanted for who she is. ANd despite initial disappointment, is getting more and more excited every day. And I am not worried about the social aspect, either. She and your D will come into their own with others just like them. And those honors programs really work with those kids. Individual attention, first choices in classes, etc. Trying to make your S into an athlete won't make him good enough to fall into the category you see. And if he doesn't have a true passion for it, the recruiters will see that, and 4 yrs of doing something he really doesn't want to do will go to waste. I firmly believe it is the superselective school's loss, and the gain of the school where these kids will attend. It isn't easy - I still resent the school that rejected my D - she is past it. We feel responsible for what happens to our kids even though we can't control everything. I know exactly how you feel - sometimes it seems as though this world beats excellence down, and rewards mediocrity. Shades of Atlas Shrugged!!!!!</p>

8

<p>having a child with extremely narrow academic interests, your D sounds pretty well rounded to me.</p>

9

<p>It seems to me that the top schools want to see academic excellence plus some level of dedication and achievement in at least one EC (their "passion"). The thing they are trying to avoid is having an entire class filled with nothing but grade/test robots. Plus, when you can fill up your entire freshman class with kids who have perfect grades and perfect or near-perfect SATs, on what basis do you choose to accept some but not others? For better or for worse, the current answer seems to be ECs and essays - in order to try to discern what else the kid could bring to the school in addition to academic firepower.</p>

<p>I think in order to get into the very top schools on sheer academic achievement alone, the kid needs to be in the academic stratosphere --> Intel finalist, published author, math Olympiad, and that sort of thing. And that's a very tough hurdle to jump. And at that level, the academics IS the EC.</p>

10

<p>evitajr1, what a helpful thing to read. Thank you Texas, for some encouragement, too. And, Obid1, I had never heard of the Fed Reserve Challenge. I just looked it up on line. If we could get that started at our hs, I know our son would really love it.</p>

11

<p>It would be helpful in a discussion like this to name schools. Of course it's not surprising that HYPSM want more than just academics, but I guess I'd be surprised if Cornell, Brown and Penn turned down a kid with almost perfect SATs, straight As and val. So I guess the question is, are you dissapointed in lottery schools or schools where they really should have expected would accept them?</p>

12

<p>I pretty much concur with Coureur. With everyone applying to elite schools having the academic firepower, they have to have some other quality that discerns one from the other. Often that is some extracurricular interest. But like he said, the EC COULD be academic in nature...some in depth thing that goes beyond what is done during the school day. </p>

<p>What I was suggesting with your younger son, ParentsTwo, is not to encourage sports (I mean a kid should only devote that kind of time to a sport if he LOVES it) but to see what he truly IS interested in and talk about ways he might pursue that. If it is academic in nature.....look at summer programs, internships, community service, research, independent studies, academic competitions, and the like. So, he is MORE than a great student, he is also pursuing interests beyond the classroom. But WHAT those interests are, are such an individual thing so it is not like you would want to say, "pick a sport" necessarily. </p>

<p>I did not realize you did not have valedictorian but at least her peers voted her most likely to succeed. At our school, somewhat like yours, there is not a lot of recognition for academic superstars and we kind of half kid around about it at home when examples crop up from time to time....believe me, we have stories to tell too. My kid ranked first in class was not even invited to the academic award night senior year (last year). My second child who just graduated was the state winner three times in voice or jazz and at the school concert, they announced winners of those who made All States (which is also good of course) but not the couple of kids from our school (who are amongst a handful in the entire state) to be the state scholarship winners at All States (much higher level of recognition). My D who has won state and national awards in this field was omitted from the concert program this June (for jazz band which she IS in) and then the teacher of that band also omitted her from the performance line up which she discovered as she arrived at school for her final high school concert (opposite of what was told at school and what was rehearsed) so that she would not even be PARTICIPATING in her final concert in jazz at all (let alone be featured in any way given her achievements in this area which were beyond the norm). I could go on but you get my drift. </p>

<p>Back to the other stuff.....I just want to clarify that in subsequent posts you brought up that your D was not social or a leader but focused primarily on academics.....and I just wanted to say that my D who was val also focused SO much on academics (I mean you have to in order to achieve straight A's every year in the hardest classes, which is rare here) and so I was not likening her to a social butterfly but merely saying that in addition to be academically centered and focused, she ALSO was engaged in a myriad of in depth EC passions her whole life because she wanted to. She did not even have time for a social life, LOL. Her afternoons, evenings, and weekends were jam packed with her EC pursuits (and homework) and so it was not like she was out on social gatherings. Her EC activities were her social time. I think she is doing more social stuff just one year in college (at an Ivy even) than in four years of HS. </p>

<p>I also just wanna say that this past year for your D has been one that has been steeped in the college admissions process where all this stuff has been in the forefront but my feeling is that when she gets to her university and honors program next year, this will all be behind her and she will love where she is at. It is not going to matter as much then though it really did, understandably to her this year. </p>

<p>She is an excellent student and she is going to go far.
Susan</p>

13

<p>Not all schools ar elike that. Some do want a renaiassance kid while others want kids who are very focused. Apparently, your daughters first choice wasn't the latter. It's alright because it seems like her safties are great and she'd enjoy them. I think its her lack of memberships/leadership positions that hurt her. If she really liked academics (And her school offerend them) she should have joined some sort of academic team. Wouldn't it be something if that small factor would have gotten her in? :/</p>

14

<p>When it comes to the subject of admissions, most of us are left to ... idle speculation. All we can do is try to read the tea leaves and weave a number of personal anedoctes into our best estinate of what colleges seek when building their upcoming classes. At best such proposal is mostly reactionary and lacks timeliness. When "something" seems to give an advantage, you can be sure to see hordes of potential applicants following similar paths in later years. The fact that schools seemingly rewarded individual musical accomplishment resulted in tens of thousands of families "playing that card", only to find that it had lost all its special appeal. </p>

<p>The days of the well-rounded kids are gone, and so is the pursuit of individual accomplishments. Today buzzwords still include academic excellence but also include team spirit, leadership, and the recognition of EXCEPTIONAL talent. </p>

<p>Schools look for the ways students used their exceptional abilities in the context of their environment. A student that is blessed academically is EXPECTED to contribute to society in addition to earn great grades. Great athletes who do not participate in school activities or gifted musicians who prefer individual recognition over participation in bands do not earn many brownie points. </p>

<p>Lastly it is a given that there are more qualified applicants than ever. For instance more than 150,000 students applied to the eight schools that form the Ivy League. Every one of those students believed he or she had a chance based on a set of qualifications. With admissions running into single digits, it is only normal for the overwhelming majority of applicants to wonder what it takes to get in or what caused the rejection.</p>

<p>Hence the wild speculations!</p>

15

<p>and it often comes down to eeny meeny miney moe...2000 spots, 10000 applicants, some are rejected and some admitted right away...then the admin people see what "grabs" them...they see the same #s and same grades, so something, whatever it is, that intangible IT that we are all trying to figure out, the mood everyone is in, the pile that the applicant is in, such as, the applicants from the same area (many admin people work with geographical areas), the ranking in the pile by look... well tonight I need to pick 5 kids out of this 30...well, these 5 are really good, how do the rest compare....and while its supposed to be how each individual is rated, it can't be helped to compare</p>

<p>Say, at some point in the process the admin person has a stack of ten applicants....they have already decided on 5 with all the grades, test, but notice they are all musicians...well, they might just start looking for kids with other attributes and miss some other great musicians...</p>

<p>Its a crapshoot and luck at the top schools because of shear volume</p>

16

<p>When we went on college visits, the adcoms would use the expression "well-lopsided" in contrast to "well rounded" to describe kids who had very strong achievements in a particular area. Top schools do not necessarily strive to find the well rounded student, -- now they look to create a well rounded CLASS of students that have diverse interest areas. That is not to say that a well-rounded student who has significant achievements in multiple areas would not also be very desireable.</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
The days of the well-rounded kids are gone, and so is the pursuit of individual accomplishments. Today buzzwords still include academic excellence but also include team spirit, leadership, and the recognition of EXCEPTIONAL talent.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I tend to agree with Xiggi on this one. My daughter has said that she is surrounded by specialists and is in awe of their talents. She often feels the odd man out though, being a student who is good in many areas but not over-the-top exceptional at any one thing. </p>

<p>After she received her Columbia acceptance my husband and I speculated that at the moment in time when her application came across the admissions conference room table they just happened to be looking to fill one of the few BWRK spots.</p>

18

<p>I think Larry Summers, president of Harvard, summed it up best when talking about applicants admitted to Harvard. He said they were bright, passionate and lucky.</p>

<p>Bright in that you have to have the grades/test scores/hard curriculum. Passionate in that you have to have something that you've pursued with gusto--including participation in out-of-school venues and leadership roles. Lucky in that if your passion fills a need the school would like to fill, your admissions chances just took a huge leap.</p>

<p>For a person to pursue academics as an EC, that would mean science and math competitions, research, writing a book, etc. as coureur said above. Just hitting the books hard in school isn't enough for the HYP schools. They can afford to want more.</p>

<p>As for your next child:</p>

<p>You may want to check out a book coming out in September, written by the staff of the Harvard Crimson (school newspaper):</p>

<p>How They Got into Harvard : 50 Successful Applicants Share 8 Key Strategies for Getting into the College of Your Choice</p>

<p>You'll be able to have a feel for what kinds of applicants Harvard has chosen from the great sea of applications that floods its shores every year.</p>

19

<p>

What you should change is the insane focus on prestige (Ivy level) schools. What you have learned from the process is that there is a wonderful university with an honors program that was very happy to have your D. as a student -- so there must be places like that for your son. What you don't have to do the 2nd time around is get all stressed out worrying about it - or let your son make the mistake of getting his hopes up about a prestige college. </p>

<p>Since your son is so young -- let him use the next 2 years to develop his own interests. Let him make his own choices - don't push him to do anything for the sake of resume building. When he is a sophomore in high school, have him go visit his sister at her college for several days - that will give him a great view of university life, even if he isn't interested in the same school. Do visit "types" of colleges (small, large, urban, suburban, rural)... don't look at prestige or rankings. </p>

<p>Encourage your son to look for colleges based on what they offer relative to his interests, both academic and extra-curricular. I've posted on another thread that once I started looking as strength of department (rather than school) -- it became apparent that any notions of ranking or prestige had to be thrown out the window - at least once I deviated from the path of researching the most conventional offerings. </p>

<p>The mistake is in trying to make the kid fit the college (what does he need to do to get into college with a name that will impress everyone), as opposed to finding the college that fits the kid.</p>

20

<p>To suggest that those who aren't athletes, musicians or URMs face a crapshoot is LUDICROUS!!!</p>

<p>As someone who is a little closer to the entire process (I will enter Stanford this fall), let me offer a different perspective.
Leaving aside special consideration for certain students whom schools recruit for non-academic talents: sports, music, prior poetry/writing, drama, race (debatable), college admissions is NOT a crapshoot, not even for Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford.</p>

<p>Among my 20 or so good friends (whom I have met in all sorts of contexts) who will be attending Harvard, Yale, Princeton or Stanford this fall, most, if not all, got into AT LEAST two of those schools if they did not apply early to one and remain contented with just one acceptance. Additionally, of the admitted students I met at Princeton, Yale and Stanford's admit weekends, I can say that a significant plurality had also been admitted to AT LEAST two of those four. My friends were from all different parts of the country, of different races and socio-economic background, and with one or two exceptions not recruited for anything. As far as I could tell, this was also the case for most of the people I met in April. But what did unify these people beyond showing passion (work ethic?) was an intellectual spark. There is a certain degree of intellectuality - a thirst for knowledge, a jocular quality, playfulness, questioning - that surpasses simple academic ability and DOES separate one 1600 from another.</p>

<p>I would further posit that this is an important differentiator, as it draws a line between who will simply be smart, who can work well within a given paradigm and apply information, who will become the competent technocrat lawyers, doctors, bureacrats, teachers our country so sorely does need, and those who will contribute to society's intellectual exchange in more meaningful ways. At age 18, you cannot predict who will play this role, but you can forecast. Those who show a certain spark at 18 that surpasses good grades, intelligence, and even simple passion assume their role in the pantheon along with great musicians and athletes as people who are truly unique and whom schools like Harvard and Stanford really want.</p>

<p>Furthermore, the college application serves as an (admittedly imperfect) tool to decipher whose cranium (and not heart) might operate on this level. Essays convey one's cognitive modus operandi, recommendations and past activities back up such claims, and grades and scores establish the sine quis non of academic competence and knowledge.</p>

<p>As an aside, let me note that plenty of people who do possess this quality don't necessarily get accepted to Harvard or Stanford. It is no binary whose presence is always openly and readily discerned, but you can tell...</p>

<p>This is not the only quality top schools look for. Passion, and intangibles of the person (personality, moral fibre) DO matter. As do traditional measures. But when many more apply than can be taken possess not only good grades but also passion and moral fibre, harvard and stanford not only must but SHOULD discriminate based on this intellectual spark. And it is my observation and hypothesis that they DO.</p>