why do colleges want interesting people?

<p>HAHA this is such a weird thread, but i was thinking. yes, i know that having interesting people would equate to an interesting community, and that makes everyone feel better, but other than that is there any other reason? </p>

<p>for example, the chinese university system has everyone test into the colleges. so there is no weight on ECs or even high school grades, etc. and so ppl start preparing for these tests really early (which is really really really stupid; no, i'm not supporting the asian school systems, i really hate the way college works there. besides the competition is wayy too unhealthy.)</p>

<p>and american colleges want their share of "interesting people"--ppl with leadership and cool ECs and talents. but besides making a cool, non-cutthroat community (which is important, i totally agree), what else does it do? i mean, the ppl who graduate from top chinese universities did NOT have ANY ECS or anything, and still end up, on average, being the most successful. and so do the Americans that come from their top colleges. and if you compare the asian and the american economies, China's economy is doing a lot better than ours. so is Japan's. so the whole "we don't want nerds who study all day cuz they're never going to do anything worthwhile in life" doesn't really apply to other countries who emphasize testing in college apps.</p>

<p>don't get me wrong; i like this system. no way will i want to have a japanese-type schooling system where we all study from age 5!!! </p>

<p>well anyways, yeah..</p>

<p>You make a very good point...but I don't believe one stupid test (like the SAT) can identify a student's individuality. Sure the SAT is one drawback in the US, but we still have the recommendations, list of extracurriculars, and the essay.</p>

<p>flawed logic.</p>

<p>My guess is that if you had a school of boring people, life would be....boring.</p>

<p>You wouldn't have all of your on-campus groups (orchestras, community service groups, theater, greek life, etc etc.) that contribute to a college campus. Little or no campus life.</p>

<p>College would almost become an extension of high school.</p>

<p>Sort of going off-topic here, but I think the kinds of groups created by our school system can still be sort of cutthroat. If you cram together a whole bunch of student body presidents, MUN secretary-generals, newspaper editors-in-chief, and dance team captains, they're all going to try to lead each other. I don't know... It seems to me like it'd be sort of oppressive in a group where everyone's a leader and no one's a follower. Some control issues maybe?</p>

<p>You could almost make this into an extended argument about the merits of an open market system. A university that based its admissions entirely on test scores and failed to attracts diverse, interesting students, would likely attract less applicants. Conversely, universities making a decision as a collective to place such absolute weight on test-scores makes it easier to do so.</p>

<p>A veritable Animal Farm could be made out of this. The Capitalists control the means of production and oppress the laborers!</p>

<p>Perhaps the more interesting community is supposed to lead to exposure to more ideas and thus a better education (as opposed to just a more interesting community).</p>

<p>More interesting people means better university.</p>

<p>Better university means more donations, higher rankings, and more prestige. Usually, better university means more results/progress, too.</p>

<p>Many U.S. schools want to provide stimulating and vibrant educational environments, so they try to attract bright, motivated, talented students who, collectively, bring diverse backgrounds and interests.</p>

<p>
[quote]
flawed logic.

[/quote]

agreed.</p>

<p>also, i doubt that Japan's economy is doing any better than ours, and China's economy is only growing rapidly because they have almost no regulation.</p>

<p>to answer your question, i wouldn't really say that colleges are looking to create a student body full of "interesting people." they focus more on finding those who will be able to make a difference in the world. since test scores and GPAs don't help colleges find these difference makers, colleges have to look at things like ECs, work experience, recs, essays, etc. looking for difference makers is good for the school because it increases the school's prestige. </p>

<p>more often than not, the kids who get the best test scores, have great grades, etc. are not the students who are most capable of making a difference. a lot of these students, from my experience, lack the leadership skills and attitude neccessary to be a difference maker. these students would be like leeches to colleges; they'd just go to class, graduate, and then get themselves a decent job. they more than likely wouldn't be interested in helping out others/making a difference in other people's lives.</p>

<p>"more often than not, the kids who get the best test scores, have great grades, etc. are not the students who are most capable of making a difference. a lot of these students, from my experience, lack the leadership skills and attitude neccessary to be a difference maker."</p>

<p>I'm not sure that's true. There were kids in my daughter's class that were just innately bright. They got perfect test scores without doing test prep. They got great grades because they found even AP classes fairly easy. To challenge themselves they moved into ECs that interested them, and because they had the time to dedicate, found themselves eligible for leadership positions. If you don't have to study, you have immense amounts of spare time. So you can have the scores, grades, and proof you can make a difference. </p>

<p>And yes, some kids do hard work on test prep and studying to get the same grades and scores. I suspect often these are the kids that find it terribly unfair that EC, essays, or anything else count at all.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure that's true. There were kids in my daughter's class that were just innately bright. They got perfect test scores without doing test prep. They got great grades because they found even AP classes fairly easy. To challenge themselves they moved into ECs that interested them, and because they had the time to dedicate, found themselves eligible for leadership positions. If you don't have to study, you have immense amounts of spare time. So you can have the scores, grades, and proof you can make a difference.

[/quote]

You must...know me. lol.</p>

<p>I think people (who study all the time) get jealous about the ability to do well in all conditions but it's developed. I used to be one of those kids that really studied insanely hard before I realized that I really didn't need to study THAT much...to do about the same. I try to challenge myself but it's difficult. The world is so complacent.</p>

<p>I know people who work their asses off to get the same grades but I find that those people tend to be less involved (as said) because they're so OCD about their grades that it basically consumes them. Though I do know some people like that who somehow cut out one hour for one EC that they OCD about in addition to grades. Otherwise, they tend to be overly wrapped up in class to really get involved between forming study groups, spending way too much time on insignificant things and making mini review sheets for themselves.</p>

<p>And yes, I believe that ECs and essays are the BEST parts of the application.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure that's true.

[/quote]

i'm not saying that what i said is completely true. it's true of my experience that "more often than not, the kids who get the best test scores, have great grades, etc. are not the students who are most capable of making a difference." i'm pretty sure there are kids like your daughter's classmates who are the perfect total package (perfect test scores, genuine ECs, good leaders, etc.), i just haven't come across any.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And yes, some kids do hard work on test prep and studying to get the same grades and scores. I suspect often these are the kids that find it terribly unfair that EC, essays, or anything else count at all.

[/quote]

couldn't agree with you more. it seems as though a lot of kids on CC would fit under this category.</p>

<p>Well, I think a lot of kids who work really hard on their test scores/grades 24/7 tend to be a bit more introverted and less likely to be a strong leader in their ECs because of their shyness. </p>

<p>A friend of mine ran for a position for a club against someone really outgoing. She lost because nobody knew who she was though she would have been a fantastic officer due to her organization skills and responsibility. I felt badly when I heard.</p>

<p>To answer the original question, I really do agree with the poster. Though I love introverted people, I find that you can't get anything done if everyone's being polite and shy. And also, they're less likely to really get into the campus spirit. I mean, for the college's perspective, you'd probably want someone who was more involved within it--and more likely to represent the college positively for that reason. And the simple fact that college is about expanding your horizons and meeting different types of people from different backgrounds.</p>

<p>Several thoughts:</p>

<p>1) Competitive people will meet whatever requirements you set for your college. If you want "interesting people" your prospective applicants will assuredly be competing over who can be the most "interesting".</p>

<p>2) The typical EC activities that make people "interesting" (orchestra, whatever) are actually quite ordinary. Most truly out-of-the-box things are beyond the understanding of adcoms. Will an adcom weight beating Battletoads without losing a life over your standard debate team accomplishment? I doubt the college would accept the former as legitimate, but as someone with experience in both areas I think the former would take a hell of a lot more dedication.</p>

<p>ECs are totally unobjective, and I really don't think they should be included in college applications at all. I am not exceptional--look into your average "What was your SAT score?" thread and most will be higher than mine. My objection to subjectivity in applications is that it twists applying to a college into a social game, and I don't think that's a good thing. </p>

<p>I think that the application process should be as objective (number-based) as possible and, if also possible (which is likely), automated (e.g. by computer) in their application process--no adcoms whatsoever. My ability to get into a college or not is totally independent from my stance on that. If other people have better stats than I do, in my opinion they deserve it more.</p>

<p>edit: If you want smart students to go to your college, testing for IQ in addition to SATs/APs would be a definite way to ensure that. People like me with lackluster IQs would get rejected all over the place, of course, but you'd easily be able to distinguish who is bright and who isn't. Personally, I think the only relevant materials to a college application are those that assist in predicting college grades, such as APs--the current SAT is not one of them.</p>

<p>It seems to me that the college or university (certainly a private institution, if not publicly funded ones) has the right to determine the standards and criteria by which they will determine admission. If a prospective student doesn't agree with those criteria, perhaps that's an indication that the school is not a good fit , academically or philosophically.</p>

<p>I find it amusing that the historical reason for the change from simple grades and test scores (in other words, objective academic achievement) to things like extracurriculars, and the subjective 'qualities of leadership' in college admissions originated in anti-semitism, so colleges could have an excuse in limiting the number of Jews who attended. </p>

<p>The more you know...</p>

<p>When you compare America's test score averages with other countries, it seems obvious to me that less emphasis should be placed on sports and clubs, and more should be placed on academics (okay...maybe not sports...there are a lot of fatties!).</p>

<p>lol. maybe schools are looking for the most intelligent people. anyone, really, can get a 2400 and 4.0 by studying all day in an American school; it's only those that can do that PLUS have lots of ECs that are really smarter (than the ppl who get those scores but don't have ECs). In other countries, however, it's nearly impossible to do well on their tests AND have a life + other activities. They learn everything that we learn in HS and college in...HS...plus more. So in the end, I guess it evens out--the people who attend top colleges are basically, on average, smarter..............</p>

<p>but I have cousins in Asia, and their colleges are nothing like ours. They work super-hard in HS to get into a good college, and their futures are pretty much set...you don't do crap in college. Therefore I guess those kids will have time to go out and join clubs and do things they like to do for fun (after all, who actually likes to study 24/7?)</p>

<p>Tests don't give insight to who you are. There are other coomponents and thats the point of the whole college process...even if it means stress for us to get leadership positions and do a whole lot of other crap, while staying on top of our grades.</p>