<p>Why, in order to get into a top school, or even a fairly selective school, do colleges and universities expect a bunch of kids to have "interesting" experiences and compelling essays AND feel obligated to save the world, all while maintaining a 4.0 and getting a perfect ACT/SAT score?</p>
<p>What do I know? I don't mean this in a condescending way, but what can the average, middle-class American 17 year-old (who generally applies to college, i.e. me) know and learn from their life experiences? I haven't HAD any life experiences! Participating Model United Nations doesn't mean I want to save the world; it means I want to cut class for a couple of days while having fun with my friends and maybe get a sweet award.</p>
<p>I almost want to tell my admissions interviewer that the reason I want to go to college is to learn something. It's not because I know everything and I want to show that off to an admissions officer who has probably never met me and may not even remember my name. It's the exact opposite. I need to go to a great college because I need to learn something. And I'm capable of it; that's why I'm applying. </p>
<p>Having a slightly lower GPA or not knowing which classes to take and what grades to get so I can become valedictorian is no reason not to give someone a world-class education. The very idea of competing for something as basic as an education outrages and disgusts me. Why should a starving village girl in a third-world country be unable to meet Nobel Prize winners, live in a dorm with her best friends, and find the school that "fits" her best?</p>
<p>I didn't earn any of the privileges I possess. Why does going to a school in the right ZIP code make me worthy of a top-flight education? It doesn't. But I'm still human, and like any human being, I have the propensity to learn if given the chance. </p>
<p>Ugh, this is totally and utterly rambling, weird. I hope it makes sense.</p>
<p>Yes, supply and demand. One could just as easily ask why so many 17-year-olds insist that their happiness depends on attending one of the same handful of schools.</p>
<p>It’s not surprising that schools pick their most promising applicants, or that students want to attend the best school that accepts them. That’s the way the world works in general. Employers select the best applicants for jobs; applicants accept their best job offer. I seem to recall attractiveness being a factor back when I was dating.</p>
<p>Universities have a limited number of spots. How do you think Harvard should choose which of the 2000 applicants out of the 30k+ they get should be offered admission? They physically cannot accept all of them. Therefore, acceptances are given to the kids who have proven themselves to deserve it the most. Kids who have shown that they will take full advantage of the incredible opportunities a great college can give them.</p>
<p>The essence is that there is so much competition out there and limited supply. People have been lead to believe that the person who will be the most successful say 20 years from now (however you define success) is one with a great education and great education comes from HYP. Once you subscribe to that theory (or at least agree your chances will be better at HYP), you will make yourself more attractive to HYP. Now, given HYP has limited spots, so if you want to get into HYP you need to outshine your competitor, so this begins the classic rat race. Simplistic yes but not far from the truth.</p>
<p>yep, few spots for so many applicants, so applicants need to “prove” themselves. but in Canada, all it depends on are you marks. It’s good in a sense, but it lets people get away with being bookworms and not being well-rounded or doing something besides school work. Only a few programs require supp. apps. that aren’t very detailed. And scholarships require apps. But if you have have a 90% or higher average you’ll get in almost anywhere, except for the very selective programs, there are only like 5 of these. So, its not like the US, all you need is a certain average and your in.</p>
<p>That’s why I like the US application process. Makes people well-rounded and makes kids more responsible at an earlier age. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the idea of essays, supp apps, etc. But at least after its all done, I’ll have a sense of accomplishment and independence. I can say that I did something to get into college. Not like Canada,which is more like I went online and picked the program in 2 minutes and told my GC to send them my transcript. Done. Takes like 5 minutes to apply in Canada lol</p>
<p>The US admissions process is, as far as I know, unique in the world. It is much more straightforwardly based on grades/scores not only in Canada but also in the U.K., China, and Japan. So do we have a better system? I don’t know; I’d be open to persuasion either way. But I’m not so sure that our system, compared to the British system, makes for more well-rounded students. You’d have to look at the admissions process against the background of the entire high school education process, as well as post-graduation outcomes. </p>
<p>Personally, I like the Oxford/Cambridge model, based primarily on grades, test scores, and an interview. The interview does not revolve around softball questions like, “Why Oxford?” Instead, a professor asks questions pertaining to the student’s area of interest. Examples of these questions (“What happens when you drop an ant?”) have been posted on CC and elsewhere on the Internet.</p>
<p>I think it is odd that a few top American schools often reject students with perfect test scores and excellent grades, instead accepting somewhat lower-scoring students with stronger extracurricular records. I’m not convinced that this makes for a more interesting educational experience for all students. The rejected, high-scoring students perhaps have interesting personal qualities that are not being exposed by typical essay questions or interviews; the “well rounded” ones who are picked perhaps don’t necessarily make the strongest contribution to classroom discussion (which is where, in my opinion, the rubber really meets the road in liberal arts education.) These schools may be selecting for qualities that predict post-graduate career success and high levels of alumni giving (which is not an important factor in other countries, where education is financed primarily by the national government.)</p>
<p>Read “What You DOn’t Know Can Keep You Out of College.” That book will answer that part of your concern. I read it and I must say they have super good reasons for doing that.</p>
</i>
<p>It is because many of these kids can do pretty amazing things. If they are capable of it, why not expect it?</p>
<p>To this: “I think it is odd that a few top American schools often reject students with perfect test scores and excellent grades, instead accepting somewhat lower-scoring students with stronger extracurricular record”</p>
<p>I would attribute this to one fact, and that is just competitive everything is. Most kids at these schools have both great test scores/grades and strong academic records. Kids that have only one generally aren’t getting in. But there are far more kids with perfect test scores and good grades, mainly because it is actually easier to achieve. Meanwhile, to be truly great at some ECs can be particularly more difficult. And as you said, the people with stronger records are only “somewhat” lower scoring/lower grades, and such a difference is generally negligible.</p>
<p>Is it true that in some countries everyone with certain grades and test scores can get in because the education is paid for by the government…?</p>
<p>I agree with the OP that what we expect from our children seems quite ridiculous…research, publishing etc are a few things I have seen listed on accepted applicants to fine univ …</p>
<p>When did we stop letting children grow into young people so they can explore different venues of interest without having to fully commit their lives to one thing?</p>
<p>As a kid, we could for example, play a different sport each season, but at out student’s school the kids are specializing in a sport by middle school so they can be competitve in high school…same for an instrument, mathlete etc…we are asking kids to choose and specialize at ages 12-14…</p>
<p>There was a time when applying to univ meant being a jack of all trades master of none…(my application era) but now we ask them to be a specialist…</p>
<p>The kids applying at the highest levels , at the most selective schools, often have GPAs, SATs and accomplishments that are HIGHER and MORE IMPRESSIVE than the AdComm themselves have in their own records…</p>
<p>I do not place this issue on the schools but on the families and kids. The schools are trying to select the best class they can out of the 25,000+ applications they receive and naturally they pick whom they perceive as best to fill the class … and these folks will be quite accomplished. </p>
<p>There are a lot of kids who on their own are driven to do very well in the most challenging classes and also excel in the arts or sports and do other things also … not to look good for colleges but because they are driven to. To me the issue arises when kids (or families) want to go to Elite school X and do a bunch of activities to impress the school and not because they are internally driven to … it seems to me the vast majority of folks complaining about the standards … the work load … the stress … etc … are kids who added things to look good for schools. </p>
<p>As a parent the question I ask for my kids is … if they have the natural ability to match up to the standards of Elite School X but are not naturally driven to push themselves that hard how much as a parent should I push them. For me there is a corralary to the CC mantra “love the child on your couch” … which is “find the appropriate level college for the child on your couch”. For me, if my kid would need to kill themsleves in HS to have a resume that would impress Harvard I would advocate AGAINST that path for my child … find a path through HS where you challenge yourself, keep busy, explore new ideas and experiences, keeps your options open, succeed and grow confidence, and have fun … and when it comes time to apply for colleges we’ll figure out where that path leads (as opposed to let’s follow a path that enables Harvard)</p>
<p>My SIL is Russian born. She went to Moscow University (or was is UofM ), lived at home as were the rules (no dorms really) and it was paid for completely by the Gov’t. However, her Father is a scienctist and her Mother is a teacher and at one point neither one of them were paid for nearly a year - by that same govt. So… there’s definitely some down sides to those kinds of economics.</p>
<p>They still admit some of the well-rounded folks, but I do agree that adcoms are more likely to be impressed by people who are truly outstanding in just one area, since they’re now looking for “well-rounded student bodies”. My dad would often get into arguments with my mom when I was younger about my extracurriculars (lol), since from what he understood, you had to be “well-rounded” in order to gain admission to a top university, and he was angry that I wasn’t good at sports. </p>
<p>However, ever since my mom found out where my strengths were when I was really little (think 4 or 5 years old), she’s just been focusing on them and has supported my interest and love for them. I’m very much “well-lopsided” now, and since I’ve excelled at what I’m good at, my dad has also become supportive of my desire to pursue those things. :D</p>
<p>Here’s a hint. The standout students who apply to top colleges are anything but average. That’s why top colleges want them.</p>
<p>And no offense, but I truly believe that the average, middle-class American 17-year-old can learn a lot from his life experiences if only he learns to reflect. Even mundane experiences can be insightful.</p>
<p>The real reason is affirmative action. If admissions was based mainly on scores and grades very, very few non-asian or non-whites would go to the highly selective schools.</p>
), lived at home as were the rules (no dorms really) and it was paid for completely by the Gov’t. However, her Father is a scienctist and her Mother is a teacher and at one point neither one of them were paid for nearly a year - by that same govt. So… there’s definitely some down sides to those kinds of economics.</p>