Too much emphasis on 'well-rounded'?

Parent Cafe
41

<p>Iki, do you know WHY a fall cometh after a haughty spirit? It's because people who are so insufferably full of themselves eventually trip and when they do no one volunteers to catch them. I second ellemenope's reference Larry Summers' characterization of Harvard admits as bright, passionate and lucky. I'll grant you bright and passionate. Don't fool yourself on the lucky part. Between now and September, I'd suggest you nurture some humility.</p>

<p>Parentstwo, If you're still with us . . . Without knowing more about your daughter's choices it's impossible to say whether she was treated fairly or otherwise. For sure, superselective colleges are looking for interesting kids who do interesting things. Academic achievement is the minimum requirement. On top of that, colleges seek value added -- whether it's sports, talent, diversity -- just about everybody is smart plus. Of course a college can't force their admits to continue to pursue their interests once enrolled, but I tend to think that most kids do remain engaged and that this is truly beneficial to the collge community. Campuses would be pretty dull without musicians, actors, artists, activists -- and even athletes If the non-academic part of elite admissions wasn't clearly understood when your daughter started her college search, then it was a big miss on the part of her highschool advisors. Right or wrong, these multi-faceted kids are whom the superselectives are selecting. </p>

<p>In answer to your question what should you advise your son to do: Follow his interests, expand on his passions, develop a dimension that can lead to accomplishments outside of the classroom. Sometimes this takes a traditional route within school related extra curriculars. Sometimes it's a little more complex and personal. Whatever it is, it needs to come from the heart.</p>

42

<p>Momrath and others, you beat me to the punch on Iki -- but then again I'm not posting at 3:23 AM!! Not much to add except that even on this board it's rare to find somebody so insufferably in love with themselves and their achievements. Which, at this stage of the game, appear to be gaining acceptance to college. A good college, granted. But I'm still waiting for the answer to Mudge's question -- what wonders can we expect from you?</p>

43

<p>I liked Iki's post although I know, it was not full of humility. There is something in that: that the colleges are looking for something more than just good grades, an intellectual spark that separates the technocrats from the people who will contribute to the intellectual exchange in this country in a meaningful way.</p>

<p>The only thing about that argument is, there are some who will contribute to the intellectual exchange of this country but may not get into HYPS as an 18-year-old. I'm not saying that Iki was saying that JUST these people who get into HYPS are future intellectuals. An example is my son who I think is so very smart, has no much to contribute, is such a good critical thinker, but given his grades, he did not apply to HYPS, he would have been rejected straight away. He did get into Swarthmore and I'm so very grateful for that. He is my son, and I know I must be biased, but I'm so impressed by him all the time. Anyway, back to the original discussion...</p>

44

<p>In post # 26 lki said:
"Ultimately, HYPS etc... are looking for is those who will be truly leaders, be it in politics, on the field, in whatever academic field etc... They do want great thinkers, and do not doubt for a minute that if they knew how to accurately predict who would be a great thinker and shape the course of knowledge (not that I want to sound too hegelian), they would take advantage of this information and select such students in a heartbeat!"</p>

<p>So if Harvard admissions had been able to discern someone who could shape the course of knowledge, would Ted Kaczynski still have been accepted?</p>

45

<p>I do subscribe to the "crapshoot" side of the argument. It seems to me that the US college admissions process is not the best method to assess the intellectual capacity of an individual. For instance, a bad choice of essay topic could cause an "R" on an app. - hence all of the stress about The Application and packaging/presentation. I also contend that the selection criteria/methods commonly employed in the US are insufficient to prove that the applicant has "the right stuff" intellectually.</p>

<p>[Iki - I admire arrogance, as long as it correlates with outstanding achievement, in which case it can be recast as "bulletproof confidence." Check back with us in 15 years - if you're Howard Hughes II (slight detour - I adore The Aviator!) or Maya Angelou or Steven Hawking by then, I will be delighted to publicly bow to you, chanting "Oh Great One."]. </p>

<p>By contrast, I believe that the Oxbridge admissions process (the only other process S followed) is superior in its potential to discriminate, primarily because a) admissions is based on academic merit + potential and b) the admissions process is better designed to identify those with potential. I came to respect that process, and I think that it is much more likely to pinpoint applicants with an "intellectual spark." </p>

<p>Info and details from S's experience to illustrate my contention - </p>

<p>They discourage US students from applying unless they are in the top 2%, have a minimum 1400 SAT (old scale) and either 2+ APs with high scores or a "good spread" of SAT IIs over 700. (This is from the Oxford web site - you cannot apply to both Oxford and Cambridge, so any specific tailoring from Cam is not addressed here). This makes the entry floor parameters reasonably high to start with. They do not consider legacy, URM, athletics, or community service in admissions.</p>

<p>The tutor interview counts for about 20% of the decision after they eliminate the not-in-range candidates. My son's interview was based on a scientific article about an experiment in natural selection, containing statistical formulas which he had not yet learned. It was 45 minutes of grilling by a tutor, with open-ended questions designed to provide an opportunity to demonstrate his understanding and reasoning abilities. He was very impressed with the article and the intellectual level of the interview, which although evaluative, is also intended to be an experience of the tutorial method of instruction. Interviews are scored on a 10-point scale, based on demonstrated reasoning ability and an assessment of how interesting/rewarding the student would be to teach in a 1 on 1 setting. </p>

<p>After the interviews, there is an additional applicant cut, and then all remaining candidates for a given course (major) are asked to sit a test, given on the same day at roughly the same time to all applicants. (For S it was psychology). He was given 15 minutes to read a scientific article addressing how learned behavior becomes automatic behavior, and then wrote responses to a series of open-ended essay questions based on the article. The test results from all candidates are ranked, and I am told that the ranking counts for about 10% of the selection process.</p>

<p>Last in importance, they look at ECs, partly for the same reasons that US colleges do - another avenue to demonstrate energy and passion, and as a sign that a student would find ways to be happy at college beyond academics. It is not important that the student is a star in the ECs - e.g., its fine to have played in the orchestra for four years even if you never made All-State, its fine to have played basketball for years even if you were never ranked in the county, etc. Much less emphasis on ECs as a deciding factor - the impression is that they are just checking two boxes - "Life outside of academics?" "Check" "Interests to keep balanced?" "Check."</p>

<p>In sum, approximately 30% of the admissions decision is based on tutor interviews and the head-to-head applicant test, 70% on the academic record, personal statement (blessedly short!) and one rec from the GC or head of school. There are no tip factors. All offers are initially conditional unless you have already graduated (for UK students, typical offer is AAA at A-levels, for US students, typical offer is 555 on APs).</p>

<p>The process is instructive for the applicant as well, unlike the US admissions process. It was due to their distinctive academic style and his taste of the tutorial method that my son determined Oxford was the right place for him - the interview and test were stimulating, engendered respect, and led him to conclude that constant challenge (i.e., putting himself under twice-weekly pressure to demonstrate his understanding to the tutor via papers and dialogue) was what he wanted from his undergraduate education.</p>

<p>Parentstwo and others who read this post and conclude "My S/D would be a good fit for Oxbridge," feel free to PM me. Also check out the Student Room web site (CC equivalent in the UK) for a wealth of information.</p>

<p>For entry in fall 2004 Oxford received 270 apps from the US and accepted 20% of them. They state that they have a history of receiving well-qualified applicants from the US. </p>

<p>Outside of Oxbridge, the entry requirements for other colleges in the UK are the same, but there is no interview or test, and you do not have to demonstrate interest by visiting. In UCAS (online centralized app system) you can apply to up to six colleges for the same (reasonable) fee. If your S/D is adventurous and has a good idea of what they want to study (there are some interdisciplinary courses, but most are single subject) they could do well to apply to a selection of universities in the UK as well as in the US.</p>

46

<p>"The only thing about that argument is, there are some who will contribute to the intellectual exchange of this country but may not get into HYPS as an 18-year-old. I'm not saying that Iki was saying that JUST these people who get into HYPS are future intellectuals. An example is my son who I think is so very smart, has no much to contribute, is such a good critical thinker, but given his grades, he did not apply to HYPS, he would have been rejected straight away. He did get into Swarthmore "</p>

<p>Swat is known for pure intellectuals. In fact, I am a Harvard grad who thinks that in general, Swat students are far more likely to be pure intellectuals than are Harvard students.</p>

<p>Harvard students of course are smart, but to me, the main factor that differentiates Harvard students as a whole from those at other top colleges is having lots of energy and passion that often is more directed toward nonacademic things instead of being purely focused on intellectual things.</p>

<p>As for Kaczynski -- clearly he's bright and has an interest in shaping the course of knowledge. Who knows how he would be trying to do that now if he hadn't been part of Stanley Milgram's famous experiements at Harvard. That's probably what warped him.</p>

47

<p>A product of his environment. ;)</p>

48

<p>I completely agree with yulsie, but that's probably because I live and go to university in the UK. I don't see why doing tons of community service, for example, (although obviously a Good Thing) has much to do with whether you'll be good at nuclear physics. Intellectual curiousity is more important, and although that could obviously be expressed through some ECs, I would think interviewing as Oxbridge does is the best way to do admissions.
On the other hand, I'm very biased because I don't think I would ever have got into uni in the US. What I do in my spare time is read (other than social things), and it seems as though that's not really something I could put on a US application form.</p>

49

<p>When it comes to Harvard, it's not looking to amass a class of pure intellectuals who will get their doctorates and spend their lives doing research.</p>

<p>Harvard has a great interest in admitting people who will be leaders in a variety of fields and communities. This is different than a place like Swathmore or many other liberal arts colleges, which really want students who'll go on to earn doctorates.</p>

<p>Harvard wants people who'll be farmers, politicians, guidance counselors, doctors, business people, etc. and will be in quiet or obvious ways leaders in their communities - including by being active in community service, something that most Harvard students and grades do simply because they like doing things like that.</p>

<p>If 100% of the students at Harvard graduated and went on to earn doctorates, the adcoms would probably feel like failures because they want to gather and graduate people who'll enter a variety of fields including not at the ivory tower levels.</p>

50

<br>


<br>

<p>Amen! For me, reading "The Gatekeepers" really brought this point home. </p>

<p>The book did a good job at showing how lots of non-grades/test scores factors affect admissions at a selective college--legacy, URM status, sports, etc. I think the book is a must-read for anyone considering applying to super-selective colleges--and an especially required reading for any PARENTS of a kid who is applying.</p>

51

<p>Northstarmom, I agree with you - H is in part emphasizing different factors, which also holds true for 95%+ of US colleges. </p>

<p>I was responding to the OP's post with my own conclusions for this reason (other than avoiding work, my bad) - a student like hers is an example of an entire group of US applicants, e.g., brainy students who may not have stellar ECs and have no tip factors - who might have a good shot at getting admitted to Oxbridge because of the methods employed for selection, as well as what is emphasized in admissions. If even one student ends up applying because of the information presented in my post, it will have served its purpose.</p>

<p>The answer to "What if my student is extremely intelligent and accomplished, and reads the biography of Sigmund Freud for recreation?" may be "Apply where you will be assessed on the qualities you most value."</p>

52

<p>Northstarmom:</p>

<p>Because of its large student body, comprised of several distinct subsets of students, it is difficult to generalize about Harvard.</p>

<p>However, I think that there are lot of similarities in the selection process at Harvard and Swarthmore. Both schools are nearly impossible for an unhooked applicant to get into without a strong, evident interest in "something" and that "something" can be just about anything -- including intellectual spark.</p>

<p>I think that Harvard is the most "intellectual" of the schools in the Ivy League athletic conference and, along with UChicago, probably the most "intellectual" university in the U.S. This shows up clearly in the historic PhD production rates, where Harvard is consistently at the top of the list across a wide range of disciplines, just as Swarthmore is at the top of the list among LACs. If you took out the large "blue-blood legacy type" subset at Harvard, the rates would probably be nearly identical.</p>

53

<p>
[quote]
Both schools are nearly impossible for an unhooked applicant to get into without a strong, evident interest in "something" and that "something" can be just about anything -- including intellectual spark.

[/quote]

Also including fashion design.
<a href="http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050722/LIFE/507220303/1005%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050722/LIFE/507220303/1005&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

54

<p>Interestdad, your post is hilarious. Students at Harvard regularly rate their own experience as quite inferior when it comes to student/professor interaction, the depth and breadth of intellectual vigor in their classes, opportunities for mentoring, etc. They note the frustration of having sections taught by inexperienced TA's because the great professor is in DC testifying before a Senate sub-committee, or in Brussels lecturing at a NATO conference. They rate the energy, ambition, and initiative of their classmates as outstanding..... but more so for their commitment to "doing stuff", and not for their intellectual accomplishments in the lab or library.</p>

<p>Harvard itself during its Admissions presentations and tours notes that they choose "chiefs' not indians (sorry if there's a pejorative connotation there to anyone who reads this); the Crimson has written articles about the short shelf life of many of the hundreds of student -started clubs on campus-- everyone wants to be the founder or the first president, but nobody, apparently, wants to actually keep these organizations going once the founder graduates.</p>

<p>Is this intellectualism? You need to get away from your beloved stats on PhD production and visit a campus or two. Harvard is a dizzying and wonderful environment for lots of different types of kids.... but you are mistaking the enormous productivity and well deserved reputation of its faculty and professional schools for intellectualism. Check out the career services calendars; Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley love to recruit BA's at Harvard, and it ain't 'cause they produce intellectuals.</p>

55

<p>Blossom:</p>

<p>I am familiar with, and agree with, everything you wrote and took all of that into account in my previous post. I certainly agree that Swarthmore has a more focused undergrad classroom experience and that Harvard's great strength is its unparalleled EC resources. [If you could combine the two, you'd really have the whole enchilada.]</p>

<p>However, I think you are confusing "intellectualism" with "nose to the grindstone academics". I don't believe that's why such a high percentage of Harvard students or Swarthmore students go on to grad school in an academic, research, or "think-tank" field. In both cases, the high grad school rates are driven, more than anything else, by students becoming fully engaged in an area of interest. For example, a student getting an advanced degree in an Urban public policy field or poverty law could have been motivated by four years of involvement in PHBA or by a mentoring relationship with a professor. The end result is the same strong interest in "something".</p>

<p>Your Goldman Sachs observation is largely irrelevant because it is so universal. That's a subset of students at ALL elite northeast colleges and universities. For example, Goldman Sachs is the second largest employer of recent Swarthmore grads (behind DeLoitte Consulting). Of course, this also plays a role in the "blue blood legacy" subset I mentioned as the general partners in the Wall Street firms have sent their kids to a pretty small group of elite northeast colleges and universities for many generations now). Where the Goldman Sachs reference does have some relevance is at schools that are so heavily pre-professional and biz focused that relatively few students pursue "intellectual" career paths. That is certainly not the case at Harvard and Swarthmore where 15% or 20%, respectively, of ALL gradutates ended up getting a terminal PhD or equivalent doctorate over the most recent 10 year period.</p>

56

<p>Personally I think the PhD production rate is a poor measure of intellectualism. I know too many stupid or shallow PhD's (I married into an academic family where they number in the dozens) to concede this point. You will find intellectuals in law school, med school, and at my local air conditioning repair school, and to assume that a college that produces kids who end up getting PhD's is a college which produces intellectuals By Definition is an argument I have trouble with. You might argue that colleges which produce large numbers of PhD's is a college with lots of kids who have families happy to support them financially for another 5-7 years or so-- Mini-- bet you have the data on family income and PhD production! However, we agree to disagree.</p>

<p>You also need to look at the raw numbers of kids who get scooped up by banks and the like, and not the percentage. Some schools are just more productive places to recruit, regardless of the relative size of their senior class. My old boss (head of recruiting at a large bank) liked to explain to the newbies in the group when asked, "why don't we hire kids who majored in finance at Fordham, but are falling over ourselves to hire anthropology majors at Harvard" with the wry comment, "Anthropology majors at Harvard are an inch deep and a mile wide, just the way we like them".</p>

57

<p>Blossom:</p>

<p>
[quote]
"why don't we hire kids who majored in finance at Fordham, but are falling over ourselves to hire anthropology majors at Harvard" with the wry comment, "Anthropology majors at Harvard are an inch deep and a mile wide, just the way we like them".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This characterization of Harvard anthropology majors surely applies to all LACs graduates. A liberal arts education by definition is not pre-professional, the way a British or French higher education is. And the quote from your boss surely illustrates that a Harvard education, shallow as it might be, is superior to a more focused, pre-professional education from Fordham, unless your boss went to Harvard and had an incredible bias in favor of Harvard grads?</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
"why don't we hire kids who majored in finance at Fordham, but are falling over ourselves to hire anthropology majors at Harvard" with the wry comment, "Anthropology majors at Harvard are an inch deep and a mile wide, just the way we like them".

[/quote]
My take? The real reason is that the hirers are just as HYPSM-struck and just as prestige-mongering as most of the sad cases on the Chances thread. </p>

<p>And this is NOT sour grapes on my part. I am a HYPSM (Stanford) + Wellesely + Cal Berkeley grad myself, between undergrad and grad degrees. This is just how it is, imo. They figure the brand name school guarantees we're bright (accurate) and they want the reflected glory that comes with the name. They could care less, in the Wall Street invesment banks, about our broad liberal-arts education. Call me cynical.</p>

59

<p>
[quote]
"Anthropology majors at Harvard are an inch deep and a mile wide, just the way we like them"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I assume he didn't intend it to be a compliment. If anyone were to call you "an inch deep" to your face just because you majored in the social sciences, wouldn't you want to break a dish over their head?</p>

<p>If he was implying only that "hail fellow well met can converse on any subject with my college logo pinned to my shoulder" traits were a major success factor in banking, then he may simply be speaking, cynically, from experience about the qualities that are most useful in obtaining and retaining customers. </p>

<p>If a student aims high and wants to be the very best (fill-in-the-blank) they can be, meaning make meaningful contributions to human knowledge or the human condition - break new ground, think the big thoughts, write the great American novel, solve Ferma's last theorem, invent the perpetual motion machine, put an end to drug addiction, whatever - they need tons and tons of drive (even "prey drive" - the need to catch that fill-in-the-blank and wrestle it to the ground). That should spur them to seek out situations that, in their best judgement, are the most likely to teach them what they need to know AND get them where they want to go. And if they align with their inner compass soon enough, those considerations should certainly be the deciding factor in college choice.</p>

<p>This is becoming an Ivy vs. Top LAC thread (with a subtext of Defend/Attack Harvard) as so many threads do. For the OP's student, the entrance to either route was evidently not an option.</p>

60

<p>Yulsie:</p>

<p>I agree this was not a compliment. Is Jmmom right that recruiters are as HYPSM-struck as the students on the Chances thread? Or is it really not about Harvard vs. Fordham, but a liberal arts education vs. a pre-professional one? It's an interesting question since one criticism that has been leveled at HYPSM is that they are far more pre-professional than LACs.</p>