<p>Please take a moment to check out this thread in the Parent Forum: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=406892%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=406892</a></p>
<p>Papa Chicken has posted a link to a fairly amusing article in the Washington Post on college admissions don'ts. I especially enjoyed the part about the laundry.</p>
<p>Thanks for leading us to that. That was very informative.</p>
<p>Its very informative/</p>
<p>I disagree with point #2. If you'd rather lose your individuality than get rejected from your top-choice college, don't bother applying to Chicago.</p>
<p>^but having pictures of yourself getting wasted or doing something illegal floating around the internet is never a good idea.
I think there's a difference between keeping you individuality (playing your favorite music for the background of your myspace or w/e) and being stupid (posting pictures of you doing something that could be taken out of context (or are even dumb things to do in context)).</p>
<p>I'm sorry, but I still disagree. Your actions portray who you are, and if you hide your actions, you're hiding yourself. You'd be just asking for a rejection if you posted pictures of "dishonorable" acts (whatever the hell that means). You'd also simply be hiding your identity and conforming to societal formalities. Then again, I suppose, the purpose of "formal education" is to conform everyone toward the same product. Right?</p>
<p>Then again, I thought Chicago stood for exactly the opposite.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm sorry, but I still disagree
[/quote]
then we disagree (and on many levels). first off, I was talking about more than just applying to the university of chicago.
thirty years down the road, you may be running for president (extreme example, but it can be applyed to many things). those pictures of you that you put on the internet doing something that, at the time, was just silly and fun (maybe only slightly illegal) get dug back out. You're no longer that person, but when you were a teenager, that's who you were. However, people would attach that picture of you doing something that people are now saying is dumb to the presidential candidate you. It could very easily cost you the election/ whatever the example is that you want to use.
Things that you put on the internet last a LONG time. </p>
<p>Second, I don't think the purpose of "formal education" is to conform everyone into the same product. I would argue that that's more of religions job, but I can see how you would say that. I do think that in many ways formal education may force people to conform (people with different learning styles have to figure out how to get by, people with different interests get by, etc.) However, and this may just be sematics, but I don't think that's it's the PURPOSE of "formal education" to make everybody to conform.</p>
<p>Thirdly (and somewhat related to my second point), I don't think that Chicago stands for the opposite of "formal education." Again, this may just be how I look at the wording, but when I think of a formal education, I think getting an education across many disciplenes, and I think that that is in many ways exactly what Chicago's goal is. To promote thinking individuals that can formulate their own opinions should be the goal of formal education. You may call me naive (i may be), but then again, we do disagree. ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
then we disagree (and on many levels). first off, I was talking about more than just applying to the university of chicago.
thirty years down the road, you may be running for president (extreme example, but it can be applyed to many things). those pictures of you that you put on the internet doing something that, at the time, was just silly and fun (maybe only slightly illegal) get dug back out. You're no longer that person, but when you were a teenager, that's who you were. However, people would attach that picture of you doing something that people are now saying is dumb to the presidential candidate you. It could very easily cost you the election/ whatever the example is that you want to use.
Things that you put on the internet last a LONG time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If I recall correctly, every person running in the democratic election last year admitted to smoking pot, and I'm pretty sure it was the same case this year as well. As a young person, you say a lot of things that may be looked down upon in the future. Is that any reason to hold back what you say or think today? Should we hide ourselves until we develop into a more mature, sophisticated being? Should we hide our true selves just to impress an admissions team? Just to prevent a harsh judgment from society?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Second, I don't think the purpose of "formal education" is to conform everyone into the same product. I would argue that that's more of religions job, but I can see how you would say that. I do think that in many ways formal education may force people to conform (people with different learning styles have to figure out how to get by, people with different interests get by, etc.) However, and this may just be sematics, but I don't think that's it's the PURPOSE of "formal education" to make everybody to conform.</p>
<p>Thirdly (and somewhat related to my second point), I don't think that Chicago stands for the opposite of "formal education." Again, this may just be how I look at the wording, but when I think of a formal education, I think getting an education across many disciplenes, and I think that that is in many ways exactly what Chicago's goal is. To promote thinking individuals that can formulate their own opinions should be the goal of formal education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Does it really take 4 years to 'promote' a viewpoint though? In addition, wouldn't you say that the vast majority of UChicago students matriculate already having a love of academics? In that case, wouldn't you say that it's then the job of the Core to do nothing less than 'teach us how to think'? How is that not conformist? Also, how do you teach a student to think and form opinions?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You may call me naive (i may be), but then again, we do disagree.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I think you're naive.</p>
<p>Leave it to the UChicago forum to kill the fun of a funny article...</p>
<p>You're welcome, rszanto. </p>
<p>The article may be funny, but the points are meant to be taken seriously. To summarize about half of the points:</p>
<p>Getting into your top college is easy! Just hide every aspect of your personal life and pretend to be the mature adult that you aren't! I for one am tired of this attitude, and I don't think colleges benefit by it either. Probably 90% of the people they admit aren't even real.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Should we hide ourselves until we develop into a more mature, sophisticated being? Should we hide our true selves just to impress an admissions team? Just to prevent a harsh judgment from society?
[/quote]
I'm not saying that people should try and look fully mature in their applications. The reason that I'm in love with UChi so much is because they give you a real opportunity to show your true personality and your quirks (which, I typically think of as immaturity shown in the right light). However, I still think there's a difference between being yourself, and putting something on the internet that, while it may represent you now, may come back to bite you later.
Your question "Should we hide our true selves just to impress an admissions team?" to me seems more rhetorical (though correct me if I'm wrong). However, "Just to prevent a harsh judgment from society?" is far more interesting. While your ideals are so that you would rather be "true" to yourself, even if it means receiving said harsh judgements from society, I think that it's would be bad advice to give to a large percentage of teenagers. You are already in a very good college and obviously very smart. You have made up your own mind as to the long term consiquences, and you would be ready to deal with them, because to you it's worth it to be the real you. However, the majority of high schoolers won't have thought out the long-term consequences of posting something on the internet. I, myself, am already fairly "conformed" to what society wants (I would say it's of my own accord, but that's debatable). I don't smoke pot or drink, so there aren't pictures of me to be posted, however, if there were, I would rather further conform myself to societies expectations for the end result of getting what I want.
In the end, it really will be up to the individual. Can you be both independently happy and "acceptable" to society.</p>
<p>
[quote]
wouldn't you say that it's then the job of the Core to do nothing less than 'teach us how to think'? How is that not conformist?
[/quote]
If the Core does its job in teaching the students truly how to think, then it isn't supposed to conform people. People naturally don't think alike. It's why we are disagree right now.
While some of the smaller things taught by the Core may force students to conform (to write in MLA, or something like that), however, conforming thought is not one of those things. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I think you're naive.
[/quote]
nice point.</p>
<p>um , just putting this out there, they wouldn't accept you probably if you put on your application that you have a criminal record, so why would you want them to know that you're commiting a crime by posting pictures of yourself doing illigal things online? also i do know peopel that have been turned down jobs becuase an employer saw them. and honestly all the poeple i know that post things liek that are only doing it to be like, "look at me, i'm a rebel"</p>
<p>On a very practical level, one admissions officer recently posted to her personal blog how she is quite averse to overtly pre-professional applications. Specifically, she noted how too many individuals wrote essays describing the College as but a mere springboard to the Graduate School of Business and medical school. </p>
<p>This aside, part of being a student at a leading university is coming to terms with certain elements of the system / the status quo / existing cultural norms. You are asking to be part of a community where the maturity you will need to exhibit to succeed is far higher than that called for by the average 18-22 year old. Consequently, I do not think it is unreasonable that applicants be required to polish themselves a bit, not insofar as an institution actually thinks its applicants are perfect schoolboys and girls, but to the extent that it needs to be certain you will dot your is and cross you ts socially in the many future endeavors where you will be judged precisely on these grounds. </p>
<p>This is especially salient for the U of C, where oddball personalities have been a small but chronic problem for the school. While their numbers have drastically declined with the improved admissions standards over the last several years, there were many amongst the fourth year class when I was a first year that simply were so non-conventional it was glaringly apparent they would never make it in the real world venues that UChicago graduates historically track into. Unfortunately, many today have either pink-collar type jobs or work as service employees as a result. Frankly, I personally cannot come to terms with the idea that someone would spend four years at the U of C to then work as a projector operator at an art house cinema or a starbucks barrista.</p>
<p>"Specifically, she noted how too many individuals wrote essays describing the College as but a mere springboard to the Graduate School of Business and medical school."</p>
<p>This was a worry of my S when he interviewed and visited. He was relieved to find out that students came to U of C because of the core and not in spite of it. That is a symptom of wanting to engage and learn, not simply get through. I think that it speaks to uchicagoalum's comment about maturity and I agree that in order to succeed at Chicago students need to have their act somewhat together.
However I wonder how many of those new graduate barristas find their way into more compelling occupations as they age. The 20s tend to be a time of pause and wondering for many. What are they doing in their 30s and 40s, do we know?</p>
<p>The springboard between college and career is either too apparent or not apparent at all. I consider myself lucky that while I'm not pre-professional, and I do not see college as the vehicle to career, I still have a word document on my computer with a laundry list of jobs I think I'd like to pursue immediately after a a few years after graduation. These are not particularly pie-in-the-sky jobs (ie. work at Goldman Sachs, play in the NBA, etc.) but rather jobs I know I will be considered for by virtue of my having a bachelors' degree and some experience in the field.</p>
<p>I know there are smart people out there who don't have their stuff together, but sometimes they don't appear that way on the surface. For example, one of my high school classmates (a smart kid, a generally tolerable kid, but a bit of a lazy jerk) was admitted to an superelite school (a school that is not Chicago, mind you) and FAILED OUT after his first year. Now he's at home, taking classes at a not-well-known four-year college a mile from his house, and though he had a summer job as a barista, he got fired from that after he didn't show up a few times.</p>
<p>I think the worst part about it is that he has no regrets about failing out of Super-Elite school. He has no regrets about being fired from Starbucks. And if you met this person at a bar and talked to them for an hour or two, nothing would strike you as amiss.</p>
<p>I would disagree that the 20's are a time of pause and reflection in terms of making post-BA service jobs acceptable. Temping for a few months after graduation to make money while you interview for full time positions, or working as a clerk for a year before graduate school is all fine and well. But if you have attended Chicago, or any other selective research university where large sums of other peoples’ money goes into your education, you have an ethical obligation to do something becoming of your endowed capabilities. No major donor subsidized your schooling out of a concern for your love of learning after all. So when six months at a coffee shop turns into four years, and the amount of your social contribution beyond that boils down to spending three or four hours a day playing scrabble and reading blogs, there is something seriously awry.</p>
<p>Ah, my definition of pause was not well communicated. I see many 20 somethings doing very interesting work that pays little while they let the college experience settle and they figure out where to head next. Some are working for beloved NGOs and some are fiercely working political campaigns. A few are traveling on the cheap and working service jobs while applications and thoughts of grad school bubble. It's not that they are unmotivated. They are actively engaged and forward thinking, they are however, taking time to decide on a direction. It's just a time of transition, and they are exploring options rather than pushing straight away into a defined conventional profession.
I do agree that working service jobs w/o anything else brewing is a sign of being lost. I find that scenario troubling.</p>