I rather think the report codifies some things Harvard and other elite colleges have been doing for some time. Espenshade’s book, No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal is based on students at a sampling of elite colleges 20-30 years ago. (The book’s analysis is based on data provided by the National Survey of College Experience, collected from more than nine thousand students who applied to one of ten selective colleges between the early 1980s and late 1990s.http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9072.html)
In that book, Espenshade found an admissions advantage for students who performed community service, although some forms were more valuable than others. 4H was apparently negative at that time, so it’s interesting the current report mentions it by name.
The current report also recommends applications ask for no more than 2 or 3 extracurricular activities, looking for depth rather than breadth. So a community service activity (which can include babysitting for family), and one or two other activities.
Other sensible recommendations (condensed version):
No more than two test sittings
Over coach at your peril (yes they can tell)
“Pointy” applicants with deep interests in narrower fields are more interesting than piles and piles of APs
I’m not completely sold on the idea of peer LOR’s, but the argument against them shouldn’t be that some people won’t be able to provide a good one. Some people won’t be able to provide perfect test scores either, and others won’t have perfect grades to show, and still others won’t have ever bonded with a teacher who will write a strong recommendation. Most kids will have a weakness somewhere in their application, right? This would be just another data point–one that will help some and hurt others, just like every other requirement or application question. Also, I was assuming we were talking about the top schools who are seeking the best of the best. I wouldn’t recommend this requirement for every school. I thought the goal was to find some way to screen out the academic posers, the cheaters, and those who are willing to do anything and step on anyone to get to the top. For that, an outside LOR might help. I agree it could be from another adult who is not a teacher per se.
Actually, if Harvard and similar schools really wanted to cut down on the number of students who are these driven, soulless types, all they would need to do would be to drop engineering and pre-med courses, and bar consulting firms, banks and law schools from recruiting on campus. Instead, they could beef up humanities majors.
I’m not serious, of course, But there is a contradiction between the growth of careerism at the colleges, and the idea that the ideal candidate is this person who does all this community service and who doesn’t grub for grades and scores. What you will create is a person who really wants to go to Wall Street pretending that he wants to go into the Peace Corps so he can get into an elite college and then go to Wall Street.
I think the future tense is not warranted. That’s pretty much the system in place today. I don’t think the recommendations in the report would change anything.
“Careerism” is fed by high tuition and slow job growth. Consulting firms, banks and law schools are smart enough to arrange for off site recruiting, if necessary. I haven’t noticed soulless pre-meds. The system of med school admission requires them to be hyper vigilant about grades.
Dropping engineering wouldn’t be necessary. With the exception of Princeton, Cornell, and Columbia many engineering/tech firms targeting topflight engineering/CS graduates tend to not regard most Ivy engineering programs as highly as those from “lower ranked universities” like CMU, Georgia Tech, UIUC, UMich, UW-Seattle, etc.
Zoes who are hardcore aspiring engineers tend not to target most Ivies except the three listed above from my observation and from what I’ve heard from several engineers in my family including those who do hiring for their respective firms.
And a peer doesn’t have to be a friend. D is on the spectrum and doesn’t really have friends. While a letter like this might pose a problem for her, I would suggest she ask a friendly, tolerant classmate in one of her social studies courses who would have seen her projects and presentations and would have noticed the quality of her work and her enthusiasm for the subject matter. This person might have worked with her on a group assignment and seen she carries her weight in a group and is easy-going, etc. And frankly, if my D can’t take advantage of what an elite school has to offer as far as social connections and peer interactions, then she shouldn’t get a spot from among their well-rounded pool of students. She would need to compete for a place as an academic, pointy applicant.
One other thing some here are missing in this discussion.
High school social environments and how well/poorly one does in socializing/making friends there is not necessarily indicative of how well an individual student…even an extremely socially awkward one would do in college or the post-college adult world.
How many threads have discussed highly social/popular students in high school who ended up peaking there and not doing nearly as well in making friends/socializing/networking in college and decades afterwards?
Some stock characters in many movies and literature include the formerly popular HS athlete/cheerleader/social butterfly who ended up being left behind by less popular or extremely socially unpopular HS students who found a larger more socially open world outside the rigid closed-minded social confines of their high school environment.
On the flipside, how many threads have discussed students who were socially awkward or even complete outcasts in high school only to bloom in many areas…including socially in undergrad and moreso in the post-college grad school/working world?
I will grant you a part of this could be maturity of the student concerned. However, I’d also argue a large part of it is the undergrad world and moreso…post-college world is much less judgmental regarding extreme rigid social conformity or being judgmental over extremely petty superficial concerns*.
With the possible exception of socially exclusive organizations such as fraternities/sororities, private country clubs, etc.
Yes, but the same argument could be made for academic late bloomers, cobrat. Some kids are lack-luster students in high school but find their rhythm and passion on college. HYP is simply going to miss most of those kids, just as they will miss many late social bloomers. After all, it’s hard for someone to lead and obtain the accompanying leadership positions colleges like to see if others don’t want to follow that individual because s/he is perceived as weird, mean, arrogant or whatever. Colleges can’t always predict the future development of an individual, but by collecting many pieces of information they make their best guess.
The difference is that colleges…including elites like HYPS are HIGHER EDUCATION institutions. Not HIGHER SOCIAL CLUBS…or at least I hope not as in some ways…that’ll bring us back to the bad old days when the Ivies/many elite private colleges were really much more the latter.
It’s understandable if respectable/elite colleges pass up academic late bloomers…and I speak as someone who was one*.
On the other hand, I completely disagree that someone’s social awkwardness or lack of being a popular social butterfly IN HIGH SCHOOL should preclude them from attending an elite/respectable college if they’ve proven themselves worthy academically.
Something which most college/grad classmates and all Profs find extremely hard to believe from what they've observed in class discussions/exams/coursework.
If they aren’t social clubs, then they shouldn’t care one whit what the student’s parents do for a living or the level of education and schools attended by the student’s parents and siblings. They shouldn’t need to know the student’s race. They shouldn’t need any character references, such as what is asked for on the common app GC’s rec sheet. They shouldn’t need any evidence of any skills, awards or accomplishments outside of the purely academic. Yet they do ask for all of this.
“MIT highly, highly encourages interviews for much the same reason.”
I am not sure that this is correct. It is true that MIT highly encourage interviews, but they also admit a lot of quirky kids over talented, but more socially adroit candidates. My impression is that MIT wants students that have demonstrated a high level of focus on a particular interest area, and that they are not overly concerned that for some students that level of focus comes at a cost in the area of social skills.