<p>I think at MIT, they've always had sharply angled students in undergraduate admissions and have sometimes entertained the notion of valuing well-roundedness as well, which was what prompted the professor's comments. I'm sure that your daughter will do fine there.</p>
<p>My d received a likely letter already. I found the letter from the head of admissions instructive. In part, it states, " You will bring a special skill to XXX, and the demonstrated capacity to balance your academic life, with your serious commitment to sports... Yet we do not admit "athletes" to XXX any more than we admit "musicians" or "chemists" or "community leaders". We admit people of great promise... This letter is therefore an act of faith in your overall potential for excellence at XXX. It demonstrates that we have confidence in your full set of capabilities..." </p>
<p>I find the message and tone quite meaningful.</p>
<p>I know a number of well rounded kids who go to HPYMS without "hooks". Though they do not have perfect scores, none of them do that I know, nor are any of them valedictorians, they did have close to perfect scores on their SAT1 &2s, took very heavy course loads at rigorous schools and had very good though less than perfect grades. Several kids from my sons' graduating classes went to Harvard that fell in that category. A young man we know at Yale this year was not even among the top of the top students in his very rigorous high school, nor were his scores close to perfect. Though he was well rounded, he did have some activities that interested Yale that I would hardly call true hooks, but something they wanted that year.. My son's highschool get a few kids into top schools because of their excellent Classics prep that they provide, and those kids are not the top of the top or with hooks. </p>
<p>Being a celebrity, legacy, athlete, URM, uniquely challenged, truly top flight nationally in extra academic achievement all put you in a pool where the odds are better to get accepted at these schools. But according to what I read in an article written by Yale's admissions director, one third of the kids accepted are simply the top of the applicant pool in terms of academic without any special hook.</p>
<p>I believe that Princeton accepted only 17% of valedictorians in 2006. It might be different from year to year. I am glad D. (graduated at the top of her HS class) did not want to apply to Ivy's. Apparently, we avoided a lot of frustrations. Best wishes!</p>
<p>I think it all depends on what we call "well-rounded". I don't think soozievt's D is "well-rounded", for example, since she excelled at several of her areas of interest.</p>
<p>The "well-rounded" kids that don't get into top schools are the A students that score reasonably high on standardized tests, join every club in and out of school, but don't rise above the crowd in anything.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But according to what I read in an article written by Yale's admissions director, one third of the kids accepted are simply the top of the applicant pool in terms of academic without any special hook.
[/quote]
The kids who are at the top of the applicant pool in terms of academics at Yale and other very top schools are the kids who win various academic competitions at least at the state level. Those are not your run of the mill "well-rounded" students.</p>
<p>nngmm....When I say my D was well rounded in HS, I mean she had no one singular passion or hook....she was into MANY things and chose not to specialize. In fact, often to rise to the top in an interest area, you DO need to specialize and she CHOSE not to. My other D who also was well rounded for years, chose in middle school to specialize and reach the tops in her chosen specialty. D1 was very good at many things but in order to be the "best", it was impossible without specializing and that was her choice. </p>
<p>For example, D1 played two instruments very well and made things like All States and so on. But she would never be in the state orchestra or tops as a musician because she would never devote ALL of her time to music like the kids who are best in that field. Rather, she ALSO was a three sport varsity athlete and exceled in all three sports. But again, she would never be at the top in soccer, tennis, or ski racing (her three school sports), because she chose to not specialize in one sport. For instance, in ski racing, she raced both for the school team and on the USSA circuit. But by about age 14, those who stay on the USSA circuit tend to atttend ski academies for high school and she did not want to specialize and give up her other interests, despite her strong passion for ski racing. Thus she could not be at the top in USSA racing against the kids doing it full time. Same with soccer...she did not do the elite soccer teams as she was in other sports and arts. She was in several dance classes her entire life. She was not in the elite dance company at our studio as she did not devote six days per week to dance like her sister did who was in that troupe but she went two to three times per week. She also was very involved in student government and meanwhile was a top student...straight As, val, etc. She straddled all her athletics (did four sports, and gave up two others when entering high school) with several areas of performing arts....the two instruments, band, jazz band, wind ensemble, dance, and musical theater. Each of these things she was very good at but would never be the best in the nation as she chose to not specialize in one interest area. So, I would say she was the epitome of well roundedness (everyone who knows her would say this) and she exceled in each area. This is not the same as joining every little club and spending an hour at this or that. Each of her areas of devotion required huge commitments and over many years. She had achievements of note in each area, but not on a national scale. But she never chose just ONE or TWO things to commit to. My other kid gave up all of her sports, for instance, to focus solely on performing arts. She truly had a specialty.</p>
<p>Few kids at high school age are willing to give up so much for a single passion. It's sad that many are being pushed into doing so because of the college situation. I think Soozievt's daughter was much better off for her variety of experiences.</p>
<p>In my opinion, this specialization should be totally on part of the child. Not something a parent or someone else pushes on the child. When else is there the opportunity to try so many different things? As you get older and get responsibilities, it becomes ever so much more difficult to have the time to enjoy being well rounded. I guess I am well rounded in that I HAVE to do so many different things, but it is not as though I am trying them for fit these days.</p>
<p>College does not have to be so specialized either. Good grades in college and learning the subjects well can help someone get into a fine grad/prof school where now the objective is to specialize. I just looked at some info my H has on his employees. Most of them have grad./prof degrees from the name brand colleges. Few do as undergrads. It's more important for kids to enjoy their college experience and get through it successfully regardless of where they go.</p>
<p>Funny about MIT. Didn't that last admin director who got released keep harping on well rounded?</p>
<p>I just spoke to a college counselor I know. She said that a lot of her HPY accepted kids are well rounded. Actually few have a hook. Without that hook, and even with it, however, she said that she doesn't know many accepted without above 3750 on the SAT1&2s. Though a lot of folks think high 1400s (out of 1600) is a terrific score, and it is out side of the very top school admissions, when you are at that level, you really need nearly perfect scores. Ironically, there isn't as much difference between the perfect scorer and the near perfect scorer, however, I was told. I don't even know any perfect scorers but I know some that were pretty close. With top grades in hard courses as well, they tended to get into the top schools even without outstanding ECs, is my observation</p>
<p>cpt...I don't post my kids' SAT scores but my D who got into several highly selective schools, had what we think was a very good score but on CC, it likely would be considered not in range for the top schools! I knew it was in range. It simply is not that the level that some CCers think you MUST have.</p>
<p>When you consider that two thirds of the spots go to kids who fill some specialty category the college wants, the one third who get into these top schools for academic reasons without such consideration have to have high numbers indeed, I would think. Being in range for consideration and the actual range of kids accepted who are well rounded without sharp edges (I like that term) is a different thing. My oldest son's friend who was accepted to Harvard was a recruited athlete AND had scores that were in range. He was rejected by Princeton. Another athlete accepted to Yale, again had scores in range, but her classmates with similar or higher stats in range but without the athletic hook were not accepted to the HPYMS schools. However, those with close to perfect scores all were accepted who applied, at least from this particular high school. There has been a change in what the top schools define as good scores for academic admits is what I have been told. </p>
<p>I also agree with the poster who said your older daughter is not your average BWRK. She seemed to really shine in a number of areas.</p>
<p>cpt...I'm just saying that D1's scores were very good in our view and within range for the most selective schools but were not at the level of the "must have" that you mentioned and that others on CC would likely say if she ever posted a "what are my chances" thread which in a million years, she never would do, LOL. </p>
<p>I do believe my D was (and is) well rounded and had no one singular passion or hook like many think one needs to go to an elite school these days (and yes, that does help to have). I never said she was "average" and while I am her mom and am biased, I think she is not average and others would refer to her as "exceptional." But my point was that she was good at many things and not just one or two things. And to be the "best" at any one thing, you often have to specialize and she made a conscious decision NOT to specialize. My other kid DID specialize and sorta rose to the top, so to speak, in her field.</p>
<p>I remember about 3 and a half years ago when first set foot in the college counseling office at my school and said that Stanford was one of my top choices...the counselor told me that, yeah, I was a strong candidate academically, but that I needed a "hook." That was the first time I had ever heard the term. I had always thought that colleges wanted well-rounded kids, and, being that I was interested in EVERYTHING, I thought I'd be set.</p>
<p>I didn't really take his advice...he wanted me to show my focus on science and everything...I got a recommendation from my chem teacher, my art studio/art history teacher, and (after switching counselers by chance) my former English teacher. I wrote my 4 essays about various topics: One was about a religious trip, one was about my experiences with track, one was about my dabbles in music, art, and writing (none of which I had planned to major in), and one was about traveling to the Philippines to see my dad's old home. I got in (I think my SAT was 1440/1600, 2090/2400 or something like that..my II's were better though, and I was close to the top of my class...). I also literally wrote for their "career goals" question that I would either be an aerospace engineer or an English teacher. </p>
<p>I didn't feel the need to skew my experiences/interests to angle them a certain way just to get into college. I put all the clubs I did, even if I only did them for one or two months (and there were a lot of them). I told my friends, and my parents, "Look, I'm just going to show them all that is me, and if they want me, cool, if not, then I don't want to go to a school that I need to 'change' for. It'll work out."</p>
<p>In the end, I didn't go to Stanford, but the lesson I took from it was just show the world who you are, and it will help you find your place in it.</p>
<p>My D is a very good dancer and a very good athlete in her sport. She will never be a GREAT dancer or a GREAT athlete, because she refuses to give up one for the other. A number of parents told me that I should make her choose between them, but she's happy this way. She doesn't plan to make a living at either activity, or to continue them at college other than as an intramural or EC - in other words, simply because she enjoys them. She respects and understands the dedication required of athletes and of artists. I don't really care whether this makes her more or less desirable in the eyes of a college admissions officer, it makes her a happier kid. She has decent grades, and on top of those 2 EC's she's also a class officer. I'd say she's well rounded. I hope she gets into the college of her choice, but I'm confident she'll get in somewhere and do fine in life.</p>
<p>edit: cross posted with somebodynew - I love your last sentence! " just show the world who you are, and it will help you find your place in it." That should be a CC motto (along with "Love Thy Safety.")</p>
<p>While students certainly should do their best when applying to HPYS type colleges, IMO the best support that parents can give them is making sure the students also apply to reach and match schools where the students can be fulfilled and that the parents can afford.</p>
<p>No one -- no matter how stellar -- is guaranteed a slot at a place like HPYS. Since those colleges have such an overabundance of high stat applicants, the colleges are able to pick and choose to create campuses that are vibrant and diverse in all meanings of those words.</p>
<p>"Think of the not so brilliant people who also populate HYPS- legacies like Bush..."</p>
<p>Well said, wis75. Case closed. :)</p>
<p>Lafalum...I can SO relate to your post with regard to my oldest daughter. She would not have chosen to specialize as she would not have wanted to give up any of the activities that she loved and I saw no reason why she should have to. All of her EC passions are not fields she will make as her career. My other D who did choose to eventually specialize around age 13 has made her EC passion her career field. Different story. </p>
<p>My D could care less if being well rounded was not as atrractive to adcoms as she would never change a thing. She chose her activities because she wanted to do them and had been doing them her entire life and not with college admissions in mind. I very much agree with "somebodynew" who mentions just to show the adcoms who you are and let the rest fall into place. It certainly worked for my kid. She didn't change anything about herself for college admissions and didn't blink at the fact that she had no singlular hook or sensation. She is who she is and the rest followed. So, as much as elite schools do look to build a class of different "types", rest assured that some well rounded types who are good at several things, still are admitted.</p>
<p>I think it is pretty tough for those outside the admissions committee to really know why one very talented kid is accepted while another one is not. The first time that I ever heard of a perfect 1600 SAT was about 10 years ago when the son of an acquaintance applied to colleges. He was a lovely boy from what I knew of him, and he had outside interests that he actively pursued, was a youth leader, not an athlete, excellent grades, etc. He really really really wanted to go to Princeton. He did not get in. He had to settle for Harvard.... </p>
<p>Anyway, my point is that a top, well rounded student can have a great chance at the top schools, but could also loose the admissions lottery just due to the sheer huge volume of applicants. Have some matches and safety schools that are choices that the student would like just in case.</p>
<p>SoCalGal09: Did your son applied for Financial Aid? If not your son might have a much better chance of getting in. The number of applications has surged at Yale SCEA but so does the number of students applying for FA as most think the HYPS may not compromise on the admissions because of FA application but you might be surprised to see how HYPS react this year. It seems the endowment of HYPS have been affected drastically.</p>
<p>Amid</a> poor economy, even mighty Harvard struggling - Yahoo! News</p>
<p>"Despite amassing an almost $37 billion endowment, Harvard University is warning that the economic slowdown has reached America's richest university"</p>
<p>ParentofIvyHope...</p>
<p>I disagree with you when it comes to schools like Ivies. These schools have had a major push in the last year or so of trying to attract a wider range of socio-economic levels of students and have increased their FA offerings for lower and middle income applicants.</p>