Reasonable minds can disagree on this stuff but there are inequities in the system, and I think that at this time of year if parents use this Forum to vent their frustrations about outcomes, that’s OK. My DD went to a school with all the advantages in the admissions process, which sends many kids to UChicago every year (Including my DD), but I don’t lecture people who question the process. You may find OHtoCollege’s position offensive, but you also come across as pretty condescending. You both are coming from a sincere place, however, and both your points have merit, so perhaps best to agree to disagree.
2 Likes
Goodness, this has gotten contentious.
For what it is worth, several decades out of college, some of the smartest and most successful people I know were undergraduates at flagship state schools. C-level in their companies, professors, etc. Academically, I think they would have done just fine at UChicago? (Though I can’t stress enough how challenging the Core can be, particularly if your goal is to ace it.)
No matter what, consider that, at a certain point, having a non-bankrupting college experience is an inherently smart decision. Tens of thousands of students make that decision every year over some exceedingly expensive T-50 schools with very marginal returns, both personal and professional.
(That said, I really, really would avoid choosing a college just because you can graduate in 2 years, no matter how many AP credits you have. You can always find 3-4 years’ worth of stuff to learn.)
4 Likes
My oldest graduated from UChicago. She was also accepted at a few ivy’s and other great universities and programs. She wasn’t the valedictorian or salutatorian. Her HS was a public HS in a not great area that had a fabulous IB program but it wasn’t a top notch boarding school or in an area known for academic rigor. There were 9 NMF in her graduating class and she was not one of them. She’s not a minority, has no hooks, etc. But, when we were visiting colleges and sitting in on dozens and dozens of university information sessions, something struck me. It was never said but somehow woven into the information each university shared during these tours. Maybe Columbia came closest to actually alluding to it. In essence we were hearing an echo of a desire for a specific student they were seeking, or rather one they really wanted to avoid. Professors were excited to teach, loved their subject matter, enjoyed being at an elite institution but gradually their classes had become filled with students whose primary concern was getting into grad school, or med school, or law school. Students whose main focus was on getting the “A” so they could achieve those dreams. It seemed professors were losing some of their joy in teaching. Students came to office hours primarily to figure out what to do to pull up their grade not to discuss something heard in a lecture that sparked an interest. Professors still want to present challenging material that makes students think without worrying everyone will complain. I took from all these hints that IF your child is an amazing student, a brilliant young adult, it is imperative to show that they are also an interesting person who would be a joy to teach, not someone who is after only “A”'s. We also seemed to hear they wanted “nice” people. People who other people would want to spend the day with, people who would grow up to be likable in the lab, people who other academics would want to collaborate on a project with. I think Duke includes it as one of their admission criteria. I am sure most of the tip top brilliant young adults are interesting and nice, but it seemed important to make those elements shine in their application almost more so than in students who didn’t have perfect scores.
4 Likes
Beautifully articulated, CUsucceed.
Having just gone through the college admission process two years in a row with my son, Cornell class of 2026, and my daughter, UChicago class of 2027, I wholeheartedly agree.
Thank you for your insight!
The top schools don’t need valedictorians or salutatorians. History shows that these folks tend not to be incredibly successful in life (they rather tend to be more risk averse and not necessarily be very ambitious)… What the top schools covet are excellent students who do something incredible outside of the classroom and have the potential to be leaders in their field…
Thank you for your note. Your daughter sounds like a wonderful person. While I have been defensive here of the outcome my kid has experienced, I am trying to point out a systemic flaw in admissions process that creates a pool of candidates to evaluate further while forgetting that for a very select few, academic accomplishments themselves are a differentiator. Many of you have said “perfect scores, who cares?”. I would too, but when you put together an ensemble of other objective measures, there are a few standouts, not as common as you think.
We all celebrate that kid who shoots 3 pointers on a basketball court consistently, don’t we? What’s wrong with celebrating a kid who is ranked 1 of 400 (possibly 1200), has perfect scores (in 9th grade), has taken nearly 25 of hardest of classes at state flagship with nothing less than an A, won a few competitions and has shown love of advanced mathematics, has a GPA that the district hasn’t seen, chose to not graduate early so he could be with his mates, play varsity sports and so on?
Having said all this, these are my thoughts as a parent. He himself couldn’t care less what college he attends, he will thrive no matter where he goes. His true joy is working with kids of all ages, elementary through highschool, tutoring them. He will likely be a teacher or a professor one day.
1 Like
I really think your premise is wrong. You do not need perfection to be a “super academic achiever”. In fact, perfection should be frowned upon. That’s not how the world works. There are always bumps in the road and the top schools probably want to see evidence of setbacks/failures, and what was learned from these adverse situations. This is especially true for people intending to go into academics, where most of what you do will fail (particularly in the case of laboratory research)… More often than not, if you are achieving perfection, it probably means you’re not being ambitious enough…
No offense but this is what I call tea leaf reading. Why should parents and students be reading tea leaves on what schools want or don’t want. I am sure if we ask 30 people sitting in your same session, we get 30 different answers. Why not make it transparent what they want very clearly. Calling it holistic admissions and dragging students and parents through a non-transparent process is highly stressful and colleges can do this due to lack of any regulations. I am with @OHToCollege that top academic students are falling through the cracks in this system, where essays and produced/manufactured ECs and tea leaf writing seem to dominate the process.
1 Like
What you call tealeaf reading is called real life. Having interviewed many people in my life from fresh out of college up to C level positions, I can tell you that employers don’t strictly go by stats alone. They won’t hire someone who got a 3.95 vs someone who got a 3.9. They will look for other characteristics – what you call tea leaf reading — that they believe will make them a better candidate. It will vary by company, by department, by individual.
5 Likes
In real life when one gets hired, and it doesn’t work out they get laid off or fired. Not an analogy for admissions. How does that work here? Once a deserving student is not given admission, it is a one and done deal. Hence it is tea leaf reading for those students that denies them the opportunities.
In real life, interviewers pick who they believe are the best fit for their company/job based on what is known about the candidate. In admissions, they pick who they believe is the best fit for their school. “Deserving” by its very nature is not objective, in admissions and in real life.
4 Likes
We’re in the “entitled generation” it seems. It is a privilege, not a right, to attend a tippy top university. It’s all about fit.
2 Likes
no offese, and no disrespect to you but you are wrong. bumps in the road aside, being valedictorian or salutatorian shows you have an incredible work ethic, have taken the most challenging course load available and have excelled. Its not about perfection, its about working hard, putting your nose to the grindstone and succeeding. Dont you wonder why the top schools offer Spring admission as an alternative? Because they realize that there is a percentage of kids who apply and are admitted who might not be able to hack the acadmic rigor and challenge of a T10, and they drop out mid year. And your comment that valedictorians/salutatorians are unsuccessful in life is ludicrious. Even with “perfection” there is failure along the way. Your generalizing is unfair to all of the kids who work hard academically to be at the top of their class. Oh and by the way, being #1, being creative, being a “hook” are not all mutually exclusive. Its possible that kids can have all of those traits.
2 Likes
The tippy top schools could easily fill their classes with valedictorians, but they don’t . They tend not to be the most interesting candidates… Once you reach a certain level of academic excellence, it’s really time to do something incredible outside of the classroom IMHO. That’s the real differentiator–that’s certainly what I look for when I interview these candidates.
1 Like
Like you, I too interview and hire people in STEM field. You haven’t understood the issue here, I would totally agree with you if being a valedictorian was the sole accomplishment for admissions decisions. I have said in many posts here that it’s the collection of numerous objective criteria (including class rank) such as GPA, rigor, scores etc that differentiates these candidates. If they shine in a singular factor, while being mediocre in other, I would concur with you. Also, your contention that these perfectionist don’t try/fail is totally ludicrous, as a matter of fact, typically the top students has taken on most risk (at failure), but despite, they’re successful in their endeavours, which in this case is academics.
If academics isn’t the ultimate goal of institution’s of higher learning, why are we going to college? Leadership? If so, that’s a secondary consideration or benefit. First and foremost, colleges teach, provide skills, content, and educates. All other soft factors, such as team building, collaboration, leadership can be learnt on the side, and besides, it’s not as if the valedictorian aren’t privy to these life skills.
2 Likes
Yeah this is an article based on a book that seems desperate to give validation to the non-valedictorians.
Google “famous valedictorians” and the list includes Jeff Bezos, Hillary Clinton, Natalie Portman, Sonia Sotomayor, Jodie Foster, Conan O’Brien, Alicia Keys, W.E.B. Debois, Correta Scott King. And these are just some of the people who are known to be valedictorians. I’m sure there are many others who aren’t bragging.
Saying this as a non-valedictorian, I’m not sure why the need to find an excuse to hate on high achieving students?
2 Likes
Sure, there are always a few anecdotal examples, but where is the actual data? That article discusses a book summarizing research based upon analysis of a large data set.
I’m not saying it’s wrong to be valedictorian (I was myself!), I just don’t think it’s the be-all and end-all that people are describing. Once you reach a certain threshold, the real differentiator is extracurricular impact/institutional needs/soft skills/etc. It must be as the tippy tops reject >90% of the valedictorians who apply, and admit people with the traits and personal qualities that correlate with future success and leadership.
2 Likes
The trouble with getting to be a valedictorian is that it narrows your focus to doing what is necessary to get the very highest grades. Sure, you’ve got to be smart to get such super-high grades, but the truly smartest people find this objective to be both too narrow and, frankly, too crass. Kids of that calibre are more likely to veer off into collateral reading and independent thinking and let the grades fall where they may. I don’t imagine either Descartes or Kant thought much about grades. After all, thinking is for important things.
Not long ago I had a chat with a prof at Chicago who had taught both there and at Harvard. I asked him what differences he detected between his students at those institutions. “In both places,” he said, “the kids are very bright, but one difference is that my Harvard students were always asking me what they needed to know to get a good grade; at Chicago my students certainly want to make good grades, but they ask me about the subject matter itself.”
Making a fetish of grades, whether in high school or college, isn’t consistent with being the sort of student Chicago really wants. They’re looking for evidence of hard work, but they also value other intellectual qualities - curiosity, originality, daring. If you think these are “soft” things, well, that’s why your stellar stats may not get you in.
4 Likes
Really? All this without ever meeting the candidate in person, not even an interview? All this interpretation based on reading one or two essays a student writes? In my mind, a well crafted essay is not worth its salt. You aren’t sure these days with chatGPT, or paid consultants. Relative to this, grade A in a difficult class, class rank, scoring 1600 or 36 in tests, or the rigour of classes taken shows effort candidates have put in, day in & day out.
1 Like
You can find this relatively easily on a transcript than in an essay.
1 Like