@planit Carolina and her family are very comfortable in the public eye:
"Williams’ parents were thrilled, too. So were her friends. They convinced her to start a Twitter account just to tell Papa Johns the crazy news. She posted a picture of herself in a Yale shirt holding a plain cheese pizza (her standard). It got her some retweets and a few gift certificates. "
The more relevant point for this thread is what the Yale adcom told Carolina: “I want you to know that every part of your application stood out in our process and we are thrilled to be able to offer you a spot at Yale.”
Every part = holistic = not the pizza essay, not the 100 books, not the first-generation. No one piece can be used either to explain or to mock the admission decision.
Incidentally, mocking people for having “special snowflake” children who didn’t get into Yale doesn’t foster much friendly discussion.
I’m mostly concerned that in the self-publicizing photo of her dad driving her to Auburn she is NOT wearing her seatbelt! I think that sheds a certain amount of doubt on her “common sense.” B-)
Re sbjdorlo, #58, I know that Stanford has said that they are looking for “intellectual vitality” for quite some time. On the other hand, one of their admissions staff members wrote that “intellectual vitality” had been demonstrated in an essay about shopping. Elle Woods, anyone? This seems like a rather elastic criterion, that can be reinterpreted from its plain meaning in order to accommodate the students they otherwise want.
For sure, like the kid that wrote the same phrase 50 (100?) times in an essay, and got in: they wanted him. But of the students I know personally that got in, I can see why they got in; they fit the model that I know.
It’s possible that what top schools look for in applicants is plainly clear but some of us don’t see and understand as clearly as others. I had separate conversations with two recent graduates from the schools mentioned above and I came to understand more what they said in later think-abouts.
When I asked them to share their experiences and advices, one mentioned the ability to utilize what’s available and the other said discipline to reach your goal. Now I think that if a person has the discipline to reach their goals and knows how to use what’s available then how high can they not soar and what goals can they not reach? Maybe having the ability to fully use what’s available and the discipline to reach their goals are the reasons why high achievers of low income and first gen are attractive to top schools.
I’d like to see my kid develops the discipline and the ability (and that may take years and years). But aren’t they related to drive (which is somewhat individually unique)?
My d went to U Cambridge. To get in, she read a book of strategies for oxbridge admission at age 12 and set some priorities, all of which she knew Cambridge would look for.
Basically, she 1) got the grades; 2) chose her area of specialization (archaeology) at about age 15; 3) read extensively on her own a number of scholarly books on the archaeology of the Bible and the historical Jesus, exclusively from a secular point of view; 4) did 2 internships in Israel, working alongside real archaeologists, getting ideas for her admissions essays and demonstrating her passion for the subject (in addition to a number of local internships on French medieval archaeology); 5) pursued extra curriculars that were related to her field or fit with the activities that were popular at Cam (choral singing and student paper editing); 6) worked extremely hard on her admissions essays, with minimal input from us, as part of her project to learn how to write (a necessity at Cam, where you write 2-3 essays per week); 7) prepped for interviews, in effect providing clues to what she wanted to be asked about in her essays.
She was most focused on this project for the last two years of her high school (a science lycee in France). It was very stressful for everyone in the family, so much so that her brother did not want to apply to oxbridge (he’s about to start in McGill). That being said, she was disciplined so that she rarely worked more than 3 hours at home each night, getting to bed by 10 pm for a solid night’s sleep. She also got some tutoring, mostly training in how to take tests in France, i.e. not content, but more style.
My point is that, to get into a top place, you really need to formulate a strategy that is carefully tailored to the particular institution and then execute it well. There is luck involved, more than we would like to admit, but many of the factors can be controlled. Cam was her dream school, everything in preparation was governed by her desire, though her self esteem was not bound up in whether or not she got in.
i agree with @compmom completely. Raising or guiding children to pursue what a college might be looking for deprives them of the opportunity to pursue what they might want. For every post on CC that suggests a clear path to a top college, there are dozens of posts about kids simply being smart, unique, passionate and genuinely just nice kids getting into tippy top schools.
I would love to hear a perspective from students who actually attend (or attended) Ivy-level universities who say, in retrospect, the hard work they put in to get there wasn’t worth it.
You could also hear from students who applied for very good reasons (and for some an Ivy is indeed a good fit), who did not “strategize”, overwork, or overstress about admissions- and attended.
I realize this might be a bit cynical, but I think what these colleges really want are successful alums. When an alum is successful financially they tend to donate back to the school, or if the alum receives honors (like a Nobel Prize or something similar) the school can claim some part in bringing that about. Then, when alums are successful a virtuous cycle ensues and more students (who already are likely to be successful) attend the school.
So, which candidates are more likely to turn into successful alums? Well, those who in their young lives have already been successful as measured by grades/achievements/awards, those demonstrating great creativity/insight in their essays, and those with rich/famous parents likely to ensure their kid is the same.
So ironically, if a student needs to go to an Ivy to be successful, they don’t want you. If you don’t need to go to their school to be successful, THEN they accept you.
@compmom it was completely of her own volition, so we encouraged her. While she might have been trying to meet expectations she perceived we had for her, we did not push her and would have been happy to send her to a slac (but Cam was 1/4 the cost of Brown, another option). The reading was also completely done on her own - she picked up a book of mine and got engrossed in the subject.
It was just the way she was, it came from within. Her younger brother was much more easy going, which was fine with us (and certainly easier, given the stress!). We think that respecting who kids are is key to the process.
Please note, compmom, if you are a troll or disposed to accusing me of something, I see no reason to continue the dialogue. I just want to help others from our experience. And of course, I do not mean to presume to know your intentions.
I’m a bit confused by one of the comments assuming that parents of kids/students who go to Ivies, Stanford, MIT or whatever, are specifically pursuing what a college is looking for in order to get into said college. If that was referring to any of my posts, that’s misrepresenting what I’m saying. (And I do know that there are students and parents who do this, but that’s not where I’m coming from)
What I’m saying is find a college that’s the right fit based on who you are as a student and what you love as a student. I’m not saying to do the other way around-find a college and then do what it takes to try and get in. No, not at all am I saying that.
I work as an independent college consultant, and I’ve taken two sons through college admissions. My encouragement to students is do what you love, and then find a college that seems to fit you. My oldest son is a great example of this. He/we never thought about college as the means to an end; rather, he pursued what he loved, and then applied to colleges that seemed to be the right fit. And in fact, his eventual college, MIT, wasn’t even on his list until October of his senior year, after MIT had flown him in for a special program.
He didn’t think he wanted a STEM school, but after revisiting Princeton after he’d gotten in (on their dime, thankfully), he realized a STEM school was exactly what he wanted.
I very much encourage my students to think about what’s important to them, “fit”, and that includes financial fit, and to stay true to themselves. If they are interested in particular highly selective colleges, then we look at what the college’s mission is, and see if they would be a good fit for a particular college.
@sbjdporlo are you saying that students should never strategize to get into the college of their choice? Your post sounds almost like a hippy plea, though I think what you are getting at is that a student shouldn’t fixate on a place tpp early particularly if uninformed.
I think that if the student likes a place and has specific reasons for wanting to go there - not just for the subject matter but also for method and simple intuition - then it is smart to devise a strategy.
Also, I would say it depends on the student - some are comfortable thinking ahead and making a plan, others are not.
My kids were both. The oxbridge method suited my d, she knew what she wanted and went for it. My s wanted a more American style and wasn’t into strategizing.
If by strategizing you mean working hard to excel in your classes, have a study plan for the SAT or ACT, try to do what you love and take on leadership roles, then yeh, strategize. Otherwise, there is no recipe for getting into one particular college. If it were that easy, we’d all strategize. All you can do is stay up on the ever changing field of what is known in College Admissions and play your best hand at the time it is dealt.
Many of us are saying the same thing, and the article linked above says it really well. “Strategizing” is a mindset that can be unhealthy, because it impedes authenticity, and can distort the high school experience. A discussion of what a college may or may not want may indeed by helpful in getting in- not denying that. But we are saying that this mindset has it backwards. Don’t fit a template (and there aren’t any), find something that fits the kid. The difference may seem subtle, but it really isn’t.
Delaying all talk of college until mid-junior year can help with this- a simple thing that has become difficult in some environments.
Not strategizing, which effectively is what you’re doing if you wait until junior year to think about college, definitely has drawbacks in an environment where “passion” seems to be valued by admissions officers. For example, like many boys, my son loved sports and played all three seasons throughout middle school and high school. However, although he was a varsity athlete, he was no star. By failing to adjust to that reality and instead simply continuing with something he liked but that would lead nowhere as far as impressing colleges, to his detriment he gave up pursuing different school-based EC’s related to his academic interests. He didn’t participate in Model UN, debate, or the history club because they met after school at the same time as team practices. By the middle of junior year he began to realize that may have been a mistake, but by then he was committed to athletics and given his large, competitive high school, would not have been able to suddenly switch gears successfully. Consequently, a question that he was asked in many college interviews was “You say you’re very interested in history and political science, but I don’t see that you’ve been involved in much related to those interests.” Summer he had to earn money, and the jobs he found were good ones, but were things like being a lab tech at chemical company. I think this hurt him in admissions. Obviously, I can’t prove it, but interviewers noticed what was missing.
My DD liked UChicago, she liked the visit (over all the Ivies) and decided that is where she wanted to go the summer before her senior year. She liked the idea of the school (represented by the slogan life of the mind and the intellectual aspect of that idea, in contrast to the ivies that seemed to be more about prestige and wealth than intellectual pursuits, not saying that is accurate, just what she perceived) She, like many others, researched what was different about UChicago and what the university was looking for in an applicant. Outside the box essays were probably the most important thing that she worked on (they seem to be for UChicago). Like most who get in, they really convince the AO that this University is really where they want to be, and you do that by researching and communicating your interest, of course you have to be academically qualified also.
@TheGFG , he may not have had a good enough answer about what he liked about sports that made it his choice when he hadn’t yet cracked the code for being in 2 places at the same time. As you note, it’s hard to know, but I think that in many cases, interviewers want to know that you have thought through your choices and that they are intentional. If he’d been sitting at home rather than joining MUN, that’s a different issue!
There are a zillion good reasons to play a sport as a mediocre player - even to the exclusion of academic ECs, so I would not beat myself up over that or second guess it.