<p>I find the article annasdad linked to pretty flawed: rankings by merit may not be objectively determinable, perhaps, but that doesn’t mean humans aren’t ranked by merit, it just reinforces that that ranking is subjective and nuanced and relative, etc. Were we all admissions committee members, we would all choose differently. That doesn’t mean that the grounds for the decisions the adcoms make are not debatable; it just means that our debate is irrelevant to their decisions. There is, however, a difference between preferences born of an overall vision of what “the class” should look like, and preferences that are determined by policy. If the adcom is given a slate for a class with 500 students, and told up front that 175 of those students are already identified by the coaches because of the need for specific players, that is a policy that represents a clear statement of where priorities lie–those students are not competing for spots on the same terms as the rest of the class. The preference for legacy is much less clearly stated, and it is left to the adcom to express that preference, along with whatever other preferences that go into the ranking that is inevitable if one is to offer a limited number of acceptances. </p>
<p>One problem is that even if schools were to eliminate legacy preference (and I think they should), it might still be observable as a coincidence–I really do believe that many if not most legacies choose their school not because of the possible edge their status as legacy might give them, but because they know and like the school. So even if the application were legacy-blind, legacies would still apply, and many of them would be accepted on their own merits (however that is defined). And it is very possible that that number would still be higher than that of the rest of the population, given the advantages that it may be presumed that a child of a well-educated parent will have had. Then what? Do we ask the colleges to disadvantage legacies in order to make sure the class is diverse, as defined by a specific number of legacies? Right now, a student applying from Westchester, NY, or the suburbs of Boston, already is disadvantaged because he’s competing against the perceived over-representation of his geographical area. Add in a disadvantage for legacy, and he’s really riding uphill in a headwind. I’m not sure that’s fair, either.</p>
<p>Then it is much more incumbent for parents to expose that child to multiple fields/activities and encourage a sense of natural curiosity so the child will have that spark to find his/her own interests/talents. </p>
<p>As for hard work…agree but feel that alone is not enough. Hard work must also be paired with learning how to work intelligently and more efficiently so one can maximize one’s return on effort and maintain some sort of a balance. </p>
<p>A reason why working off of one’s talents/strengths first is the best way whereas applying the “Tiger Mom” approach uncritically could actually be quite counterproductive. For one exhibit, I cite numerous upper-middle class high school/college classmates/cousins whose experience with being forced to learn classical musical instruments they had no real talent and desire to take up has ended up causing them to develop a strong antipathy towards that musical genre and its associated instruments…and not develop beyond being average at best and often mediocre musicians. </p>
<p>Some are still so embittered about the experience that I’d be concerned about the strong possibility that they may smash/vandalize any instrument within close proximity out of uncontrollable rage over their formative experiences.</p>
<p>“I think there are a few areas where natural talent shines through at an early age without as much support–perhaps singing ability is one example.”</p>
<p>Yep. I’ve been involved in singing programs for young people for almost 30 years, including at the elite college level. People with average to above average ability can improve a great deal with training and practice. But the kids who start out tone deaf or lacking rhythm remain below average even after years of practice, and the kids who end up stars have a lot of natural ability. I joined the Chicago Children’s Choir at age 7. My agemates who became voice majors, some of whom are now professional vocalists, were without exception standout singers at 7 and 8. They also improved more quickly than the rest of us when they got training.</p>
<p>Being in a highly selective auditioned singing group at college is a pretty close skill analogue to being a recruitable athlete. Speaking as someone of above-average, but not stellar, talent who topped out at that level after years of training and practice…I don’t believe most kids could do it with the right kind of prep. My natural talent is easily within the top 10% of the population, and I worked very hard for years and still barely made it.</p>
<p>Exactly. And saying, “Well, with enough hard work our kids could all become recruit-worthy athletes” is as ridiculous as saying, “Well, with enough hard work our kids could all join the Whiffenpoofs” (or whatever). No - you have to have some raw level of talent, otherwise all the practice is for naught. I really think Bay and GFG have no idea what it’s like not to be naturally athletic!!</p>
<p>I agree that parental or extended family support usually has to be a key piece. In addition to the obvious ways in which this manifests, a very important role the adult needs to play is providing the long-term perspective to encourage the child through the boring, discouraging periods when the EC or academic activity is just plain hard work. Once the child breaks through into competence and success and possibly affirmation from outside the family, then that cycle of “You like what you’re good at, so you spend more time doing it, and so you get even better…” can kick in. Where there’s early evidence of talent, the cycle starts more naturally with no need for tiger mothering. Clearly there are limits to what should be done in the name of “encouragement”, as in the case of cobrat’s friends.</p>
<p>As to whether a high level of success is possible in the absence of parental resources and support, the answer is yes–if there’s widespread community interest in that activity. Plenty of soccer players come from very humble, disadvantaged backgrounds, and I wonder if the same isn’t true of baseball players from Central America. Here in the US we might see this best with football. My friend simply did not have the time or interest after a while to do the Pop Warner thing for her child. Yet she had coach after coach volunteer to drive her son back and forth to practice and games because the kid was good, the coach wanted him on the team, and having a good team in that town brings a lot of recognition.</p>
<p>In academics, there’s a socio-economic correlation between income and success in school. However, that can and has been overridden within certain immigrant communities who initially lacked both money and connections–a phenomenon we discussed at length on the tiger mother thread.</p>
<p>I’m going to give an obnoxious opinion here–I wonder if some of us are the kind of person, or have the kind of kid, who is pretty much good at everything–and really good at just about everything he turns his hand to. I think that kids like that are pretty common at top schools, and perhaps CC has a lot of people like that. If you are like that, you may be more likely to think that most people are like that as well, but don’t apply themselves. I just don’t think so–I’ve seen too many kids who weren’t really that good at the one thing they were passionate about. And unfortunately, human diversity suggests that there may be some people who just aren’t that good at anything.</p>
<p>I would like to see the “system” tweaked to make this possible. For example, perhaps there should be fewer school projects that cannot be completed without extensive parental assistance and more homework of sorts that kids can do on their own. In poor families, adult help with school projects is a resource that may not be available – because the adults are working multiple jobs, don’t have sufficient education themselves to be of help with the project, or can’t afford to pay for the supplies.</p>
<p>And you, pizzagirl, probably have not been around enough youth sports teams to have followed the trajectory of young athletes from elementary school to high school, nor to have watched enough team practices to have observed the gradual shift over time as hard work and dedication trumps natural talent. </p>
<p>Also, I live in a very ethnically diverse town, so my perspective on the impact of hard work is colored by that. When I go to the town library, 99% of the young people studying and being tutored there are Asian. There are signs for Vedic math classes around town, one sees a steady stream of Indian-Americans using the nearby Kumon center too. The high school honor roll, last I saw it, had edged up to about 80% Asian, despite the town’s demographics being half that. Is this a coincidence or do we conclude Asian children are innately more intelligent?</p>
Well, the Asian children in the United States may be, on average, more intelligent than the average American. So the work ethic may not be the whole story.</p>
<p>Well, to continue yet another diversion, there’s a big difference between thinking that “Asians” are smarter than other racial groups, and thinking that Asians who have immigrated to the United States are unusually smart.</p>
<p>Intelligence confers some extra value to the elbow grease, since intelligent people likely do a better job of indentifying what needs work and focusing their practice accordingly, as well as finding ways to work more efficiently and overcome obstacles. When they’re young, this could make it seem that they’ve got more natural athletic or musical talent than they actually do. So then they may receive more encouragement, etc.</p>
<p>Well, in my town the Indians and Chinese have conquered the high school kingdoms of academics (including robotics and bowl teams), tennis, swimming, and stringed instruments. They are encroaching on soccer, xc and track, brass and woodwinds. Football might be a stretch for a while, but watch out once they focus their exceptional work ethic in that direction too!</p>
<p>“Football might be a stretch for a while, but watch out once they focus their exceptional work ethic in that direction too!”</p>
<p>Requires specific diets to compete.</p>
<p>I was talking to someone recently who was once closely associated with a well known boarding school in Maryland with a lot of rich international students. What I gathered was that the students parents have specific well known colleges in mind where their offspring need to get in. So the school prepares them to play a specific sport to get into that school. One of the main requirements for Asians is to determine which sport to train them for based on the person’s size. Once the sport is decided on, they try to get them bulked up first, by feeding them 6-7 meals a day for a sport like football. So a kid shows up skinny when he joins and three months later, he has added 50 pounds.</p>