<p>I'm thinking that when it comes down to it, it really is about presentation - the essays, the "picture" that emerges from the combination of academics & activities, whether the kid seems interesting. Even at the UCs, the personal statement probably counts for a lot when there is something about it that stands out. </p>
<p>Some parents have said that the key is to present a persona that could be summarized with two words or basic concepts-- in my daughter's case, it might be that she would be seen as the "dancer who went to Russia". The idea is that there is something memorable in the admission package that leaps out, and it is a common frame of reference for all committee members when apps are reviewed. It is risky to deviate from a standard path through high school, but if the kid does something interesting along the way, it probably adds a very important intangible to the package. </p>
<p>When my daughter was deferred at Chicago and then waitlisted at Brandeis, my take on it was that her stats were way too low but there was something about <em>her</em> that the colleges just didn't quite want to let go of. I'll bet the final result at Chicago will be a waitlist, not because my daughter isn't good enough, but because she isn't a very good <em>fit</em>. She submitted a very whimsical essay about the "death of fun" at Chicago rather than writing on any of their suggested topics -- and while it certainly conveyed her own sense of humor, it probably left them wondering whether the University of Chicago really needs a class clown. She did submit supplemental material after the deferral that was more serious... but when I look at it all, I don't think the application as a whole answers the "Why Chicago?" question very well. "Why Barnard?" and "Why Gallatin?" kind of comes screaming out -- both schools offer good opportunities for her to focus on serious academics while continuing her involvement with dance. It isn't a matter so much of why my daughter would want those schools -- it is more of a matter of why those schools would surely want my daughter over many other candidates. She fills their needs as much as they fill hers. </p>
<p>I have a hard time getting a sense of "Why Brown?" so I don't expect much from that reachiest of her schools - but then Brown was never among her top 3 choices. She just really liked their open curriculum. </p>
<p>It's not even about the quality of writing in the essay or the degree of praise in the recs: I think its all about the story they tell. If it is compelling enough, everyone is convinced; if not then it may come down to grades and test scores. </p>
<p>Anyway, this is just my musings. I think the only ones with the false sense of "entitlement" are those who think that their stellar grades and test scores ought to guarantee them admission over others with lesser "stats". It's not about the "stats" and it never was. It's about real people choosing other real people to be part of an academic community.</p>
Calmom, I think you understand this aspect of admissions very well. And congratulations to your daughter! I wish her the best of luck wherever she ends up.</p>
<p>That being said, I still agree with Marite about the challenges any student faces, especially at an elite college, when their academic preparation is really weak in one area (and I'm not referring to your D, just some of the ideas that have been raised in the thread.) The article by Maia's mother seemed to flout the conventional idea that high school is an important step in preparation for college. To encourage a HS student to skip steps in high school just makes college that much harder, in my opinion. </p>
<p>
The same applies to my college freshman. He had very high SAT I and II's and AP and honors classes in high school. But the level of academic content at the more selective schools is significantly higher.</p>
<p><<< Third, JLauer95 and Calmom are still clueless about the actual admissions prospects for most applicants to the more selective UC's. >>></p>
<p>I am not "clueless" about the admissions process for the more selective UC's. I am a Californian; my nieces and nephews go to the "more selective UC's" (UCLA, UCI, UCSD & Berkeley -- And all got in with their first choices (Sibs and I went to UC's years ago so our own experiences are outdated). How dare you make such an assessment about me. You can't tell me that the UC's expect those who are majoring in languages, Women's studies or some other non science/math area to be math/science whizzes. </p>
<p>Again, as I wrote in an earlier post.....</p>
<p>As a Californian I think people need to keep in mind that the UC schools (and the Cal State schools) are big PUBLIC schools (not privates, not ivies, not elite little LAC's). </p>
<p>UC schools are much harder to get into if you are an OOS student - that fact may be misleading some about how hard it is to get in as a Californian. </p>
<p>The CA taxpayers (who are paying for the tuition!) would have a Sh** F*t, if the only kids who could get into one of their 10 UC campuses (208,000 students) or 23 Cal State Campuses (405,000 students) were students who had the stats that some of the naysayers think is necessary.</p>
<p>There are many majors that don't require a person to be a math whiz (or a writing whiz or history whiz or science whiz).</p>
<p>But I also stated in another post that there was a specific reason for that struggle that was based on a mistake that I made as a parent, not some deficiency on her part. She has taken a statistics class at our local college and received an A, and does well in the math that she's been programmed for. The problem is a lack of class opportunity, not ability. Which makes for a struggle on the SAT and a great worry for both of us.</p>
<p>That is why your D's case is different from Maia's. If your D can get preparation in those areas where she is currently deficient, she should do fine (though I reiterate that college-level science and math classes even for non-majors are not pieces of cake). </p>
<p>As for the fact that the article was published in NR, it makes zero difference to me. I occasionally read NRO and occasionally agree with what I read there--same with other publications.</p>
<p>Well, maybe I'm slow today, but I still don't see the connection with a general concern about skipping HS courses and the fact that the author also writes for the National Review. I read NR regularly and yet I still find the tone of the OP/Ed article to be a little misguided. Are you saying something that I'm missing? Your point just seems obscure to me.</p>
<p>Originally Posted by sjmom2329
The article by Maia's mother seemed to flout the conventional idea that high school is an important step in preparation for college. To encourage a HS student to skip steps in high school just makes college</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That does not seem to me to be responding to a single individual.</p>