<br>
<br>
<p>That’s one way to describe passion for an EC…</p>
<p>jym, I am thinking of the episode from “The Office” where Michael was relying on a GPS and turned into a lake …</p>
<p>As for passion for an EC. I don’t know, is it really necessary to have “passion” for an EC? Isn’t it sufficient to have “interest”? I hate this assumption that teenagers should have already narrowed down the world of possibilities to things that they had passion for starting in their early teens (or in the case of some interests, like sports or music, even younger). Lots of things I was interested in as a teenager that I’m not interested in today … Lots of things I’ve become interested in over the years that wouldn’t have interested me back then.</p>
<p>LOL pizzagirl! I should watch that show. Sound slike my kind of humor.</p>
<p>I think sometimes an interest turns into a passion. Agree that often kids dont know what they are passionate about, or alternatively their interests/passions change. I think showing a committment to an EC is what is important. As our school counselor said, it is not good to just look like a serial joiner.</p>
<p>^^ I agree with Pizzagirl about the “passion” thing. DS’s GC also sees it this way and questions if it is reasonable to expect a high achieving kid to be passionate about anything that is noteworthy. She even asked DH to list his favorite activities and then asked if he was passionate about them. In response, DH said he really likes golf but would hardly describe it as a passion.</p>
<p>Okay, maybe this is something that separates Top 20s from the rest of the colleges, but I see “passion” being used in the promotion of colleges all up and down the ranks. I suspect that many kids are having to fabricate this passion that is expected by schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a darn good question that we should be asking our T20 aspiring kids. So PayFor you did well. My DS1 wavers on this one based on his emotion at the time. When he’s down, he would say things like “I don’t want go to a school where my pressure continues to build. I’ve had enough for 4 year!”. But on most days, he is full of confidence and feels he can take on the best of them at least in the area he wants to pursue. So be careful of when and where you ask this question.</p>
<p>If this is a big concern, have your kid take a class in the most challeging college you can commute to and see how it goes. Also, don’t forget that once in college, your kid will be taking most classes in a subject that he is interested in, as opposed to the more general education approach in HS. So, if junior gets good grades in HS on classes he likes today, then this GPA leverage will be magnified in college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree it is rash to assume the same passion will continue in college; however, I think the emphasis here is the proof that junior can stoke up a passion and that once there, he demonstrates the drive and discipline to pursue it. This quality in a kid can be recasted from one area to another when interests change.</p>
<p>vinceh said:</p>
<p>If the stats are to be believed, the top 20 are populated by intelligent, driven type-A personalities. They are the kids who have pushed themselves, or been pushed by parents, to excel from day 1, from getting into the best day care to foreign language after-school programs to educational summer camps. Their EC lists read like resumes for Nobel Peace Prize winners. Some EC lists are so complex I don’t believe they can be accomplished in the available hours in a year. </p>
<hr>
<p>Two things I might add to the point made above both to reinforce and contradict the point made by the post.</p>
<p>(1) cause for sigh of relief: </p>
<p>it seems that if anything places like Harvard and such actually have easy grading and they hardly let kids fail or drop out. I have talked to some recent Harvard graduates and current students from these places and they all say the same thing: really tough to get in but course works are not very demanding. HOWEVER, the EC competition can be grueling for preparation for certain career path post graduation. Just anecdotal examples: I can not vouch for scientific accuracy.</p>
<p>(2) cause for horror: </p>
<p>Even the natural Type A personalities who have all the motivation may have a real tough time to keep up. Not all the kids who go to top 10 schools were “engineered and manufactured” through the 18 year long project management practice. Some of these kids wind up there without breaking a sweat, and now, when these kids decide to apply themselves, they will be the real tough competition. I know of a few cases of kids. They were mercilessly driven and coached by their parents to go to the top schools. They made it, but they did it by operating at 150 % percent capacity with crutches hanging on both arms. When they got there, they encountered the kids who made it there while operating at less than 50% of capacity. This is when they realized that no matter how hard they pushed themselves, they simply couldn’t compete with the kids who just had 70% more capacity thus un-utilized and now ready to serve as spare parts and extra fuel. I indirectly know a couple of kids (Harvard and MIT) who got into a state of depression due to an issue like this. One dropped out, and the other took a year off. </p>
<p>I have two sons. S1 will be a source of terror for other kids (example 2 above), having made to top 10 school operating at 30% capacity throughout all four years of HS (he was the happiest kid in his ultra competitive HS since he didn’t do much at all), and NOW brimming with the killer instinct to excel once he goes to college this fall. S2 will be terrorized by the likes of his brother. S2 is a rising HS junior, and we are already considering a lot of options. He is very different from his brother: more street smart than book smart. If we just “engineer” the whole thing right given where he is at, probably he may just make it to top 20 school, but I wouldn’t want to do that. I will be seriously unwilling to push him so that he can just barely make it to his reach school. I don’t think that’s the right environment, and I don’t believe his other natural capabilities will be fully developed in such an environment. He will be a good match for a top 40-70ish school, and I believe it will provide the best balance of academics and other things</p>
<p>S1 will succeed in life by emerging as the very best among the elites of the elites. S2 will succeed by inspiring and motivating the common people - the masses and the public. The raw brain power is just one aspect of one’s success in life.</p>
<p>I know as for myself, I thought math was really cool … and French too. I did EC’s in both areas, and I could have just as easily been a French major as I could have the math/econ major I ultimately did. But I’m the kind of person who could find a lot of different areas / aspects fascinating, kwim? I happened to go into a field I enjoy … But I could have gone into 20 other fields and found them fascinating too. And I think the college admin process seems to favor kids who know from the start they Absolutely Want to Be a Research Scientist or Couldn’t Imagine A Life Without Playing The Flute. And I’m not sure that’s always the best thing for an individual kid. I’ve watched my son’s interests morph from creative writing to American history just in the last 2 years. That’s normal, IMO. There’s a lot out there in life and to me college is part of that exploration, not that narrowing-down.</p>
<p>In everyone’s opinion, when a college has a sizeable minority of students who were “mercilessly prepped and coached to be there” (as in the example above) as opposed to those who sort of organically found their way there, how does that impact the nature of the student body and the experience to be found there?</p>
<p>In my experience, the “mercilessly prepped and coached” type is likely to be less cooperative and more cutthroat than the organic “I just am” type. There is a difference between lovingly groomed and merilessly prepped. I think the former is closer to the “I just am” type.</p>
<p>Well, that’s what I’m obliquely trying to get at. I went to a t20 back in the day. You didn’t have to be the uber-genius, Intel-winning, cancer-curing, nationally awarded, don’t-spend-a-minute-in-the-day-that-isn’t-productive type to go there. You had to be smart, of course, and able to play nice with others as demonstrated through some EC, but I’d be lying if I said my classmates had been all driven geniuses. And guess what? Those are the schools that produced a lot of interesting people doing interesting things, rather organically. No one sat around and bemoaned that they got rejected from Harvard or looked down their nose at U of I students who they thought were destined to flip burgers. And while certainly some majors are more competitive with others, most competition was internal / with oneself.</p>
<p>I don’t think I would have enjoyed the experience of going to school with a bunch of people who had been “mercilessly groomed” or who had this kind of parental pressure that they must be the best Or Else. And I wonder if at the same time these schools are being viewed as the Ne Plus Ultra of Prestige, that the experience there is actually less satisfactory because now you have classmates like this, who aren’t going to as collegial, who are going to be more cutthroat, who are walking in their freshman year already figuring out how to finagle a six-figure starting salary at the back end. </p>
<p>How do you get creativity and a nice social environment out of a place where there is not an insignificant number of people who are there because they’ve been “mercilessly groomed” to be there? Sorry about thread hijacking, PCP.</p>
<p>Pizza, I don’t think the kind of environment you describe is at all connected to the selectivity of the university- it’s the campus culture which of course is a very valid selection criterion, but not related to the Top 20’ness of the place.</p>
<p>A friends kid is pre-med at one of the public NYC colleges. He reports a level of ferocious grade-grubbing and competitiveness that puts those Harvard and Princeton over-achievers to shame. I know kids at many “not so selective” schools who find the competition and drive from their peers daunting. In a lot of the much discussed State Honors programs (which some of the CC’ers find to be nirvana) you end up with a level of anxiety and testosterone which can be off-putting to some kids. After all, only 1 person can be top dog, right?</p>
<p>And then there are the historically laid back “top” schools like the Brown’s and Wesleyans on the list… where the vibe is much more artsy and creative and much less about pre-professionalism or grooming. Lot of those kids were vals and sals; some of them just did well and ended up at a top school which surprised everyone at the HS.</p>
<p>So I don’t think you should worry too much about who has been groomed and who has not. Explore, talk to recent grads, current students, get the gestalt of the place. These things tend to sort themselves out.</p>
<p>And even at the most Type A school there will be a hard-core group of students who are not cutthroat at all, and your kid will most likely find his people.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl,</p>
<p>I don’t think you are hijacking the subject at all. I think you touching upon a very important subject matter.</p>
<p>While we are discussing how to help our 3.6 GPA kids make into the top 20 schools, we should also consider whether that’s the right place for them…</p>
<p>I let S1 turn down a full ride honor offer from a school with a very well regarded (top 10) program in his field of passion. Instead, he is going to a private school known for probably the most rigorous intellectual challenge and course work - this, at a full sticker price. I do believe this is the right choice for him. </p>
<p>However, with S2, I think a tope 40-70ish school or even a top 100ish school with an honor program will be the right fit for him. It will provide the opportunity to mingle with and lead the “regular” people (compared with the likes of his brother) and/or more “organic” people and also pursue his career path and interest. S2 is a UW GPA 3.6-3.7 range with probable SAT I 2000ish range score with a very exciting and focused EC (all military stuff: really hard core like mountain search and rescue certification, etc). If we were to mercilessly drive him during the next 15 month or so, he may be able to raise his SAT scores quite a bit, get very good junior year GPA, and squeak by into the top 20-25 schools, but at what cost???</p>
<p>I don’t believe that’s the right path for him.</p>
<p>Blossom: I hear you. Grade grubbers don’t just populate the top colleges and not all top schools are full of those. However, I do hear enough stories about kids in top 10 schools needing a lot of “psychological hand holding” - a friend of a friend of mine had some inside information and once mentioned that she believes a full 3rd of kids in her school should really seek get psychological counselling dealing with success anxiety on top of the “normal” issues kids from all other schools are dealing with as part of the “growth and maturity” passage, and a lot of these kids have been under tremendous pressure from within themselves and from those around them to “prove” that they deserve to be there, and some of them flat out rebel against all those years of merciless coaching and grooming in a way that is not very productive.</p>
<p>Again, I did not run a scientific research on this, so all this may be just unrepresentative anecdotal data.</p>
<p>hyeonjlee, your excellent post has really made me think.</p>
<p>My son can operate at 150% for short bursts, but it makes him miserable. For the most part he has always operated at one of two speeds: 100% on stuff that really interests him, and 75% on everything else, including school. The thing is, I don’t see any of the “killer instinct” you mentioned, so when he gets to college, I’m pretty sure he’ll continue operating at 75%. I should probably be thinking about colleges where a bright kid can operate at that level while getting by mostly on talent.</p>
<p>I hope I’m not giving him too little credit here. But I’m pretty sure I’m right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes! Yes! Yes! </p>
<p>This should be the very first question you ask yourself about any school on your list!</p>
<p>LOL!! “Extreme self-sufficiency masochist” describes my two sons (esp. S1) PERFECTLY. </p>
<p>I think the turn this thread has taken is a valuable one are these schools the best places for kids like ours? What does the GPA represent is it a function of hitting their capacity, a desire not to descend into ugly competition (as a number of posters here describe it), a fear of failure, wanting to save their true intellectual powers for other projects, wanting to maintain a healthy balance? A critical look at why they (or we) are considering some of these schools is certainly in order.</p>
<p>Both of my kids have attended the kind of mega-competitive programs you all have been discussing, and it definitely has affected what colleges they have considered. </p>
<p>S1 took an insanely tough schedule in HS but the hardest classes were the ones where he was intellectually turned off/bored. Spent much of his spare time programming, coming up with projects, reading, teaching, etc. Did his Intel/Siemens project while sitting in the front yard with the dog and the laptop. THAT was where the passion and drive went. He has been self-teaching since he was a toddler. Asking someone for help is tantamount to admitting defeat. </p>
<p>He didn’t waste his energy on striving for another three points on an exam. NEVER worked past midnight on a school project. The kids who did fight for every last thousandth of a GPA and worked at capacity got into the Ivies. He had a 3.76 UW, 4.55 W, mega scores, several national awards, just outside of top 10%. Was accepted to two top ten schools EA (one with merit), rejected at H and Cornell, waitlisted at Caltech. The Ivies were clearly looking for something different than what he had to offer, and in the end, we all agreed they would not have been a good fit <em>for him.</em> He did not pay attention to rankings when making his list except as it pertained to the strength of the math and CS departments.</p>
<p>He has realized after a year of college that he functions better when he fires up the afterburners – but on projects and courses he cares about. It’s internal motivation with him, not external.</p>
<p>S2 rises to the level of expectations around him, but also hates the competitiveness that can accompany it. At the same time, he piles it on academically. He works much harder than his older brother did in HS. OTOH, no late night school projects here, either, though many of his friends routinely burn the late night oil. Virtually identical scores w/ jyms S2.</p>
<p>S2 seeks balance across the spectrum in his life. He is deeply thoughtful and intellectual, but keeps it close to the vest much of the time. He is always quite confident about putting it all out there. Does NOT want to attend a mega-competitive college, and the one top 20 he is interested in is known for intellectual intensity without the accompanying competition. The schools he likes would enable him to be in the top 25% (and happy) at a really good program rather than at the lower end of a mega-competitive school (i.e., just happy to be there), or as a big fish in a less competitive program. After seriously considering over two dozen schools, he has a pretty well-defined idea of where he wants to be.</p>
<p>When S2 decides to kick up the afterburners, there will be no stopping him. But I cant light them for him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve no doubt your S1 is uber-smart and may very well be able to even kick up a gear in college, but I don’t think we can assume this behavior in general. When a person has been operating at 30% for FOUR years, doesn’t this form a habit? I mean henceforth it becomes a habitual thing that unless something drastic happens, the same person will continue to want to keep that 70% slack time. I thought most hard-driven Type-A folks tend to keep themselves fully occupied. On the other hand (and may be this is what your S1 is like), if the other 70% is focused on other worthwhile activities with equal fervor, then I can see how the energy can be realigned when the environment changes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is rather hard to quantify “capacity”. A 3.5 with no ECs is different from a 3.5 with years of EC commitment leading to national awards. It can also be a function of priority. I know kids who will go beyond the effort necessary for an A in a class because they just want to know and do more to satisfy an internal hunger for that material at the expense of other classes that are less interesting to them. To some kids achieving a high overall GPA is their game, and either they have the discipline to reign in excessive desire on any singular pursuit or they lack true passion for anything in particular.</p>
<p>I got into Northwestern, got rejected from the three or four top ten schools I applied to. My unweighted GPA was 3.56, with a few C’s and Withdraws. I had pretty much no school E.C.'s, just a part-time job during the school year that I worked full-time in the summers. I did have excellent test scores, 2360 SAT, 800 math II and 790 Literature. Also, I got suspended for 10 days sophomore year for weed. I don’t know if this will help you, as my situation was unusual.</p>
<p>On the 30/70 split: depends. A student might only need to expend 30% of effort because he/she has already outstripped what is offered in the classroom. A number of those kids use their remaining 70% on ECs, extra courses or independent study/research. I wouldn’t assume that a kid who is only using 30% of his efforts in class is slacking off. He may be an extreme outlier on the curve.</p>
<p>If these kinds of kids can survive HS, they can blossom in college via accelerated placement, research and early graduate coursework.</p>
<p>Re: capacity – I was thinking in terms of whether that 3.5 represents maximizing one’s academic efforts vs. a 3.5 where a student decides that art projects and neatness on a posterboard are not worth the extra couple of points on a grade. (Especially in the case of kids with unaccommodated fine motor issues in which that kind of work is excruciatingly difficult.) A 3.5 with lots of cool hardware does make a difference in admissions. There is also lots of value in a 3.5 without national awards, but with dedication to a few in-depth activities over a long period of time.</p>
<p>I would much rather my kids develop their souls than their GPAs.</p>
<p>mymo91 - I would not quickly dismiss your lack of ECs. The paid job you held may have been the edge for you (aside from your high test scores). Did you work to support your family or yourself? If the answer is yes, it’s a big boost. I’m actually worried that DS1 hasn’t had a paid job yet.</p>