What if high school just wasn't your thing?

Applying to College
1

<p>A few weeks ago I read a thread about students with bad high school records that go on to succeed in college. I thought I would offer my own take on it.</p>

<p>It is often said that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. I myself have heard it many times, including here on CC. That statement forms the basis of inductive reasoning and is used in many processes, from criminal background checks to credit reports to college admissions. If a person has a history of criminal behavior, the investigating agency will assume that that behavior will continue in the future and will probably choose not to hire the person in question. If a person has defaulted on loans in the past, a lender will choose not to approve a loan or credit card in order to avoid financial loss, since they feel that the borrower will not repay given past behavior. And if a student has done poorly in high school, the college admissions committee will assume that he or she will do poorly in college as well, and will deny the student admission.</p>

<p>This line of reasoning proves valid in most, if not nearly all, cases. But what if high school performance does not always accurately predict college performance? I'm not talking about slackers who later "woke up"; I'm talking about people (like myself) who hated high school simply because it was high school. What about those who hate high school as a matter of principle? Saying that someone will do poorly in college because of their high school record is often a fallacious argument. College and high school are totally different environments; success or failure in one may not always indicate the same in the other.</p>

<p>Consider the contrast between high school and college. College is, in most cases, a learning environment. The students are there because they choose to be there. It is an intellectual forum for the exchange of ideas, ideas that are actually relevant to society and to the individual. There is little control over the lives of students, and most do choose the right path. That is not to say, however, that college students never make mistakes. The governing principles of high school, on the other hand, are both antithetical to those of college and inimical to college success. High school is like Lord of the Flies; there is no real authority, only the illusion of authority, and the intellectuals (like Piggy and Simon in LOTF) are persecuted by the savages (like Jack Merridew). The students are there because they have to be there. They are often immature and care only about superficial, relatively inconsequential matters such as celebrities, clothing brands, and sports. The people who can look beyond these things are outcasts. It does not matter how you feel about politics or literature or anything of consequence; those things have little place in the average high school scene. The only thing that seems to matter is whether or not you shop at Hollister! Little actual learning takes place; many students pretend to listen but are actually texting underneath their desks or being otherwise indifferent to the lesson. Is it any wonder that 96 percent of high school seniors cannot name a single Supreme Court justice? (I conducted this survey myself as part of a school project.)</p>

<p>This may seem a bit exaggerated, but it is intended as an illustration, not an example. My most basic question is this: how can a person's performance in the environment I just outlined be a consistent predictor of performance in a place so (refreshingly) different? I feel that it can't, unless the student is simply a slacker. How can college admissions committees discern whether the student dislikes the prospect of hard work or is just frustrated with the idea of high school? I would appreciate your thoughts. </p>

<p>Note: I am not criticizing high school students per se. (I myself am only 18 and in my senior year.) I am criticizing the general environment of high school and contrasting it with that of college. My motivation for writing this was that I seriously messed up high school. My GPA is only 3.0, and my transcript will make your eyes bleed if you look at it long enough. I just wanted to know what others think of this aspect of the admissions process.</p>

2

<p>I actually think this is a great question, which can easily warrant further discussion. I’ve thought about this many, many times. I’m not doing too well in high school either, or not as well as I could have done. And when I went to visit colleges the past spring break, I’ve noticed how the people live there…the work may be harder, but the environments are so different! I think the admissions committee takes grades into account because they feel that study habits stay the same. I personally think that’s not true. I have bad study habits–but that’s because I hate high school. I hate going to school, and I hate the environment. I presume I’ll enjoy college much more because the environment is just so different. </p>

<p>Bottom line is, you’re right. it shouldn’t be a predictor. I know people who literally failed high school, but were outstanding students once they got to college.</p>

3

<p>Assuming everything posted here were true, how do you suggest college admissions officers make decisions if not based on past performance?</p>

4

<p>Well from my perspective highschool really wasn’t reflective of my grades/success in college. I had a 3.2 in HS. Scored in the bottom percentile(literally, it was so bad i couldn’t even read a pie chart) of students taking the star tests. Failed the California high school exit exam. Was, dare I say?, in special ed (the only reason for the ostensibly passable gpa). </p>

<p>However, in college, I’ve earned a 3.88(unweighted) in a tough major(math). I improved my vocabulary by several magnitudes( I know thousands of advanced words), my memory, reading speed, reading comprehension, and spacial visualization. I have been accepted to 4 UCs and am hoping to transfer to Cal or UCLA. </p>

<p>The only conclusion is that HS wasn’t conducive to education whereas college is. Hence the disparity.</p>

5

<p>Past performance is an indication of future performance just like past postings by ihavenochance is an indicator of future BS postings.</p>

6

<p>Well, lets look at the top colleges. Almost all of their students had 3.8-40 unweighted while in highschool. And yet, in college, the spectrum is wider( 2.0-4.0). So good grades don’t guarantee anything.</p>

7

<p>I know lots of kids who did better in college than high school - for the very reasons the OP listed.<br>
High school just doesn’t agree with a lot of kids and vice versa.<br>
This is a benefit of taking SAT’s if the SAT’s are higher than the GPA suggests then it gives an excellent indication of potential.</p>

<p>FWIW - I have also known kids who thought they were brilliant in high school turn out to be not so brilliant in college…</p>

8

<p>So what, colleges should, from now on, only accept students with not-so-great GPAs, because obviously every last one of them is going to blossom in college, and not one of them will fall back into the study habits that got them the subpar grades in the first place?</p>

<p>A lot of what you say is true, at least to an extent- some kids who didn’t do so well in high school either find that the college environment is more conducive to their learning, or they wake up and realize they need to put a ton more effort into their education, so their performance vastly improves- and yes, the inverse can also be true. Kids with 4.0s in high school burn out in college.</p>

<p>I just don’t get where you’re going with this- how do you take this into account in admissions? Admissions officers are not psychics. They cannot tell which overachievers will keep up their overachieving ways, which will find that college doesn’t come so easily and flounder, which underachievers will see the light and get stellar grades in college, and which underachievers just aren’t ever going to care about school all that much. They use past performance for a reason: despite it not being perfect, it’s the best predictor they have of your future success.</p>

9

<p>bump 1 of 20</p>

10

<p>I agree that the environment in high school is completely different from that of college. It’s true that high school behavior doesn’t necessarily predict college behavior, but on average, it does give a good idea.</p>

<p>Basically what it seems like you are asking is, how can admissions officers recognize that a slacker in high school is ready to start working hard? I think the answer is, they usually can’t. The hard truth is, college admissions are based on what you’ve accomplished as a high school student.</p>

11

<p>after reading thru the OP’s lengthy post, the only possible conclusion is he has no idea what college is really like. Virtually every time he contrasted HS with college, he is contrasting it with a college environment that exists only in his imagination.</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>this is illogical. when you take all the people that are at the tops of their classes, you have to set a curve among those. you can be in the top 1% of highschool students but when your entire class consists of people in the top 1% as well it doesn’t matter. you can be the 10th best student on earth but if you are being curved against the 9 students above you, you are at the bottom of the class.</p>

13

<p>It’s true that some students that don’t like high school would do just fine in college. It’s also true that some high schools don’t offer good learning environments (as in not having AP classes which often make school more tolerable to the intelligent).</p>

<p>But I agree with salamander. Adcoms cannot give the benefit of the doubt simply because it is possible that a student will do well in college, especially when there are so many students who were willing to put up with the bs of high school and learn even when the class sucked…or learned to find positive aspects of everything they encountered in high school, used challenges as a chance to grow, and ultimately became a lot wiser for it. Not everyone who does well in high school likes how superficial and downright idiotic it can be, but hating it “as a matter or principle” is absolutely useless.</p>

<p>Really, adcoms aren’t going to admit people based on the theory that high school just “wasn’t for me.” If someone really believes that college is a better learning environment, they should be willing to do what it takes to get there even if they don’t always like it.</p>

14

<p>I wonder why the OP thinks he knows college so well, especially considering how he has never experienced it.</p>

15

<p>College is very much like high school, it’s just a lot more intense. In college you still take examins, but you only have 1-2 examins then the final, whereas in hs you have one every other week, so you could afford to slack off on a few and still manage to get a decent grade. In college you still need to write papers in the format dictated by your professor (not teacher), instead of writing only a few papers a year, you may need to write 6-10 papers a semester. In high school you may be able to do some extra credit projects to bring your grades up, but in college “it is what it is.”</p>

<p>There are some students that may do better in college than in high school, but it is only because their attitude and work ethic have changed, not because of college vs high school. If I were an adcom and I have 20,000 kids applying to my school, my bet would be on students that have consistently performed well. It is similar to on the job - managers do not want excuses about why you could’nt do your job well (too boring, don’t like your colleagures, not have the right tools…), they just want you to do it.</p>

<p>For those of you that didn’t do well in high school, stop making excuses. Go to a community college, change your attitude and show you could do the work then reapply to your dream school. Put the money where your mouth is.</p>

16

<p>I agree with oldfort, but I also think a proper learning environment is a necessary part of doing well, or at least having the motivation to get good grades. I really dislike my high school (badly taught classes) and I have a lot of Bs in classes where I should have gotten As, but I’ve gotten As in all of the advanced math classes (ex: Differential Equations) I’ve taken at a local, high ranked university. Because of that, I really don’t think high school is the best measure of a student’s capability. In my own case, the college environment (which I have experienced and been able to logically compare with a high school environment) is much better. </p>

<p>Of course, that doesn’t mean top colleges should pick me over someone with a flawless, consistent resume. There are too many applicants for them to devise a more in-depth evaluation of students. They are forced to rely on GPAs and numbers to determine who’s good and who’s bad. If they reject me, then I’ll understand. </p>

<p>A bad high school isn’t much of an excuse to get mediocre grades - I acknowledge that. All I can say is to do better next time. Be more responsible. I know that’s what I’ll have to do.</p>

17

<p>I realize from the replies that I made a major omission in my original post. I did not do poorly in high school simply because I hated it. Much of the time I didn’t care at all. In other words, I was a slacker. But that’s not all, or even most, of the story. Most of my academic hardships were because of family health issues; my mother has nearly died 8 times since I have been in high school. For a related reason, I also had to spend 13 months in out-of-home placement. I have had my share of hardships, but they still cannot excuse my general apathy during freshman and sophomore years. I guess I was a bit of a hypocrite in my original post, even though my intended topic was not slacking. Also, the other posters raise two very good points–admissions committees don’t have crystal balls, and I have not actually been to college yet. My opinions on college are just that–opinions. They are nothing but extrapolations of observed behavior. My statements about college life are probably pretty idealistic!</p>

<p>I want to apologize to the respondents for my misleading and ambiguous statements, particularly my failure to mention the reasons for my own high school record. I would still like to hear your thoughts, however.</p>

18

<p>Most college admissions committees are cognizant of the simple fact that high school doesn’t agree with everyone, and that many high school students “wake up” in the second or third or even fourth year and start cracking the books instead of slacking off. There are plenty of colleges out there that will admit you with a record that shows that you have finally got your act together, decent test scores, and good teacher recommendations. The trick is to find them. Many of them will be small liberal arts colleges - not the hugely famous ones, but the decent regional or denominational ones. If you have no luck with these, go to your community college, hit the books hard, and you will be able to demonstrate fitness for college-level academic work to the admissions committees at the colleges/universities that you apply to as a transfer student.</p>

19

<p>“Most of my academic hardships were because of family health issues; my mother has nearly died 8 times since I have been in high school. For a related reason, I also had to spend 13 months in out-of-home placement. I have had my share of hardships, but they still cannot excuse my general apathy during freshman and sophomore years.”</p>

<p>Those are the kind of major problems that colleges would take under consideration when weighing your application – if you get your GC to include that info as part of their recommendation.</p>

<p>" I have had my share of hardships, but they still cannot excuse my general apathy during freshman and sophomore years."</p>

<p>You may be being too hard on yourself. If your mother’s medical problems were going on then, you may have been too stressed or depressed to be that involved in your academics. Also apathy can be a symptom of depression.</p>

<p>And you can get it to many 4-year colleges with a 3.0 average. You may be able get into a tier one if your junior and senior year average was much better than was your freshmen and soph year average.</p>

20

<p>Northstarmom: I was rejected by UW-Madison because of my HS record. I have wanted to go to Madison since 2003. Fortunately, I do not have to go to a 2-year college; I was accpeted at UW-Eau Claire, one of the best state universities for transfer into Madison. UWEC may not be as well-known as Madison, but it is ranked #5 among Midwestern public universities. I hope to transfer to Madison in fall 2009. However, it is possible that I may like UWEC so much that I decide not to transfer…</p>

<p>I decided not to pursue Madison’s Guaranteed Transfer Program or Connections Program. They both require you to attend a junior college for 2 years. (If I did this, I would not be going to Madison until fall 2010!) I worry that this would be inappropriate considering my post-college plans.</p>

<p>(I personally feel that the only reason I got into Eau Claire was because of my test scores. I got a 34 on my ACT and a 2110 (1440) on my SAT. It seems to me like my test scores were my only redeeming factor!)</p>