Why do we allow college admissions offices to shape and pass judgment on our children's character?

Parents Forum
421

Agree with you on both points. Top undergrads have a plan in place with help from faculty; they aren’t wondering “Will a C freshman year keep me out of grad school”.

Re: Financial rewards-if you have time, find the article in the New York Times about Kati Kariko and her pioneering work on MRNA and Covid. It is an incredibly moving story about a scientist who flew under the radar her entire career, never earned much, and who persisted in the way we all delude ourselves that our kids can/would/will. So it’s about grit and character and work ethic in addition to the science.

2 Likes
422

This thread is really long. I haven’t read all of it since the initial few pages.

But put simply, we don’t have to allow admissions to shape our kids. In fact, paradoxically, those who don’t chase after the best GPA may have enough time to develop interests that do actually appeal to admissions.

And colleges certainly are not passing judgment on our kids either. Many of us have posted this but I’ll say it one more time: admissions is not based on a hierarchical view of the value of teenage humans. Admissions (after recruits and legacies if applicable) is interested in assembling an interesting class.

Imagine a class of kids with perfect GPA’s and scores who all won an international science competition, just hypothetically.

Uncertainty is tough to handle, and the best thing we can do for our kids is let them know early not to have a dream school, and that admissions is NOT a judgment of their hard work, character or anything else. Then let them be themselves, whatever that means, while helping them pursue and develop interests.

17 Likes
423

I don’t think anyone is suggesting classes should only consist of scientists. But a class of kids with perfect GPAs and scores who all won an international competition in their subject would be close to the ideal for any Oxbridge college (though they would reject the kids they thought were unteachable). And I think the students would all find that interesting and enriching too.

You would however still end up with plenty of other talents. Most of the top British comedians and even many actors went to Oxbridge (eg Hugh Laurie, Eddie Redmayne, John Cleese), but that didn’t help them get admitted.

1 Like
424

Sounds like Hugh Laurie was both a legacy and athletic recruit at Cambridge (from Wikipedia):

Laurie was brought up in Oxford and attended the Dragon School from ages seven to 13, later stating, “I was, in truth, a horrible child. Not much given to things of a ‘bookey’ nature, I spent a large part of my youth smoking Number Six and cheating in French vocabulary tests.”[16] He went on to Eton College, which he described as “the most private of private schools”.[7] He arrived at Selwyn College, Cambridge in 1978,[17] which he says he attended “as a result of family tradition” since his father went there.[7] Laurie notes that his father was a successful rower at Cambridge and that he was “trying to follow in [his] father’s footsteps”.[7] He studied archaeology and anthropology, specialising in social anthropology,[18] and graduated with third-class honours.[19]

Like his father, Laurie rowed at school and university.[7] In 1977, he was a member of the junior coxed pair that won the British national title before representing Britain’s Youth Team at the 1977 Junior World Rowing Championships. In 1980, Laurie and his rowing partner, J.S. Palmer, were runners-up in the Silver Goblets[20] coxless pairs for Eton Vikings rowing club. He also achieved a Blue while taking part in the 1980 Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race.[21]Cambridge lost that year by five feet.[22]During this time, Laurie was training for up to eight hours a day and was on course to become an Olympic-standard rower.[23] He is a member of the Leander Club, one of the oldest rowing clubs in the world, and was a member of the Hermes Club and Hawks’ Club.[7]

3 Likes
425

I think my hypothetical was either unclear or misunderstood :slight_smile:

2 Likes
426

You misunderstand how it works. There’s no advantage to your parents attending, but yes if my kid went to Cambridge it would be only natural to apply to the same college as one of his/her parents (since you get to choose) and “follow in their footsteps”.

Likewise there’s no special privileges for athletes at undergrad level (graduate admissions are easy in comparison if you aren’t in need of funding), that isn’t taken into account in the admission decision (remember admissions are at college level, completely separate from university level sports). In fact Selwyn is useless at rowing anyway so you certainly wouldn’t go there to row for the college. But he did clearly devote himself to things other than studying: getting both a blue and a starring role in Footlights is an astonishing achievement and it’s hardly surprising he ended up with a third.

1 Like
427

It was said tongue-in-cheek. I know how they say it “works”. It would be impossible for the good people in the archeology dept/Selwyn to be wowed by anything other than young Mr. Laurie’s prodigious archeology skills, and not, say, his father’s Olympic rowing medal. Impossible, I tell you!

2 Likes
428

Honestly, knowing about (let alone being wowed by) his father’s athletic achievements is even less plausible than considering his own rowing prowess during admission.

I know one person who people considered to have got in as a legacy, because his father had donated a building that bore his name. He was still pretty accomplished (ended up as one of the youngest and best known public company CEOs in the country).

429

Could be, could be. It just seem much more plausible to me that there was a rowing fan at Selwyn. Humans are flawed creatures, and I would totally understand if someone thought charming Mr. Laurie was a good fit for archeology, all the while subconsciously thinking it might be great to have a rower and an entertainer around. Maybe human weakness is less likely in maths, but I think Occam’s Razor applies to Mr. Laurie’s particular story.

Sounds like Dad was the stuff of legends, especially at Selwyn:

Laurie began his rowing career at Monkton Combe School,[2] and continued rowing when he attended Selwyn College, Cambridge in 1933, where he was a member of the Hermes Club. A. P. McEldowney, the chronicler of Selwyn rowing and founder of University of London Boat Club, said of Laurie: “This year (1933) there arrived at Selwyn a Freshman who was not only the most famous oarsman Selwyn ever had, but also one of the most famous Great Britain ever had – WGRM Laurie. And we can truly claim him as a Selwyn oarsman. He had always told me he learnt all his rowing from Taffy Jones at Monkton Combe School. And where but Selwyn did Taffy learn his rowing?”[2]

Laurie rowed for Cambridge in the 1934, 1935, and 1936 boat races, all of which were won by Cambridge. He was in the boat with Jack Wilson, who was to become his rowing partner later in their careers. At the 1936 Olympics, he rowed as stroke in Great Britain’s eight, the team eventually finishing in fourth place. Together, Laurie and Wilson, rowing for Leander Club, won the Silver Goblets at Henley Royal Regatta in 1938.[3]

After war interrupted their rowing careers, Laurie and Wilson returned to Henley in 1948, once again winning the Silver Goblets. This was followed a month later by a gold medal in the coxless pair event at the 1948 Olympics in London, rowing on their familiar Henley course.[4] It was described by Laurie as “the best row we ever had”. Laurie and Wilson were the best pair of their generation, and it was not until Steve Redgrave and Andy Holmes won the Olympics in 1988 that Britons once more excelled in this class of boat. Laurie and Wilson were known as the “Desert Rats” because of their sojourn in the Sudan. They were trained at Leander Club by Alexander McCulloch, who won a silver medal at the 1908 Olympics. Their boat is now on show at the River and Rowing Museum at Henley-on-Thames, hanging above the boat that won the 1996 Summer Olympics with Redgrave and Pinsent.[5]

Laurie was elected a steward of Henley Royal Regatta in 1951, and also served as a Henley umpire. He sat on Henley’s management committee between 1975 and 1986.[6]

430

Meh. Laurie Sr was “the most famous oarsman Selwyn ever had” because Selwyn never has any famous oarsmen, and likely very few “rowing fans” either. Laurie Jr attended 45 years later which makes it almost inconceivable that any teaching fellow doing the interviews would have remembered him. And there’s zero collective memory for sporting achievements of that era, Chariots of Fire notwithstanding - at my college the actual college four won the Olympic gold medal in 1936, and I don’t know a single academic who was aware of that fact (though they could all tell you how many Nobel Prizes had been won by the college). Did professors at UW (or anyone else in Seattle) remember the 1936 gold medal winning eight before “The Boys in the Boat” was published?

I would find it more plausible to suggest that Hugh Laurie’s own talent at rowing counted in his favor, but I know that my college rejected the Eton boat club captain while I was there, to a great deal of chagrin from the boat club.

431

To be fair the Senior Laurie won gold in 1948. It is entirely possible there were professors still bumbling around the college years later when Hugh attended. It sounds like he stayed a figure in rowing into the 80’s. If Selwyn was as awful at rowing as you say, then the name recognition and old glory would matter.

Is now a good time to say I loved Hugh Laurie in House and know exactly squat (and care even less) about rowing? I know a little about archeology, though, because in my American college I was able to take a class in it. (See what I did there? That segue brought to by the College of William and Mary - Go Tribe!)

2 Likes
432

I doubt anybody was accepted to Oxbridge based on their rowing skills recently. Using the Freedom of information act, anybody can request information about any given cohort including their results on the entrance exam and the interviews (anonymized). Any result out of the fold will stick like a sore thumb. Yes, they accepted Malala in 2017 but even she had to pass the exam and the interview. William and Kate apparently did not make the cut and had to attend St. Andrews.

There are plenty of extracurricular activities in college. My daughter’s friend who studies law is a playwriter, and my D and her friends produced one of her plays. All of the people involved were amateurs. Sports are played and not watched (apart from the annual boat race between Oxford and Cambridge), and nobody is recruited. Debate societies and student newspapers abound. As the ECs are not a factor in admission, people only do what they are truly interested in.

2 Likes
433

I love this. I went on a secret bender about a year ago, researching Oxbridge in the hypothetical scenario kiddo would be interested. My favorite thing for him after the singular academic focus, the tutorial system, and being done in 3 years, was the very robust opportunities to do side things just for fun. He has always done sports, but absolutely refused to do club level because he just wanted to have fun with his friends. He has done choir since 4th grade, but totally as a hobby. It is actually really hard to do activities like those “for fun” as a teen these days - the kids with talent leave the rec programs. He has been able to play and sing in school, and that has been fun. But (gasp!) there aren’t really national competitions he can put on his app.

It seems upside down to me that the competition and awards for ECs should matter more than the authentic enjoyment and commitment to an activity. I think there is a place in undergrad admissions for holistic admissions, the question is whether they are looking at the right things. I would hope the AOs are not so dazzled by the heavily curated child with the non-profit, and instead can recognize that surviving high school with your mental health intact is valuable in and of itself.

2 Likes
434

IMHO, it is because education today (and maybe always) is a BUSINESS. It is about marketing and spin, and creating a perception of excellence based on low admission rates. Greenspan’s “irrational exuberance” comment about dot coms comes to mind.

I know that this is a generalization, but we must look at the schools too for creating this environment of insanity. And we must look at every entity within that food chain that partakes of this feeding frenzy, whether it’s the colleges, the standard test companies, consultants, test prep companies,etc. All of them are part of the feeding frenzy. And ask yourself “whom are they feeding on”?

Do you remember the very first words of The Great Gatsby, before you even get to Chapter 1?:

Then wear the gold hat, if that will move her;
If you can bounce high, bounce for her too,
Till she cry "Lover, gold-hatted, high-bouncing lover,
I must have you!"

Think about it: who is “her” and who is the “Lover, gold-hatted, high-bouncing lover” she must have? Is this what US higher ed and our kids has become?

I do not for a moment mean to suggest that there is no importance to excellent colleges and the brilliant work that they (or perhaps, more accurately, their faculty/staff have done). What I am saying, though, is that so many of the US higher ed institutions have adopted pure business approaches to education that we, as parents, shouldn’t fall for that.

There is NO WAY I want my children to go anywhere except where they are happy they will grow. If that’s an Ivy or one of the very many acronyms that are used, ok. If it’s not, that’s ok too.

1 Like
435

Exactly my son’s experience. He’s played college football, basketball & tennis with his friends. While chess was more competitive playing on the uni team, he also spent plenty of time in church halls (and pubs) across Oxfordshire playing local clubs.

1 Like
436

I’ve read the story (and actually posted a link to the story to one of the CC threads some time ago).

I agree that she demonstrated grit, character and work ethic in a less-than-supportive environment. The story also shows another problem related to this thread: how the colleges are run these days. Most colleges are in the business to build their brands. It’s much easier to build their brands by producing well-known celebrities (politicians, corporate CEOs, financiers, entertainers, athletes, etc.) than by pursuing highly uncertain scientific discoveries. The name Kati Kariko is still not well known today, even though we all have heard about mRNA vaccines. UPenn didn’t suffer any reputational damage, AFAIK, for the way it treated Ms. Kariko.

437

Not to derail the conversation but quite a few actually, including his direct competitors like Edwin Moses. If you do a search on ‘Carl Lewis endorsements’ some articles from back in the day pop up. I did it because I remembered him having endorsements but I think that must have been later on, maybe after his second Olympics?

438

Re COVID research and Twoin18’s earlier comment asking what colleges celebrate, here in Chapel Hill and Orange County NC we celebrate all of the achievements of UNC students, faculty, and alums. We had a Dr Kizzmekia Corbett day in Orange County to celebrate her achievements in vaccine research and she and Dr Fauci spoke virtually at UNC’s commencement. Sure, we celebrate our basketball players too, but we also celebrate Dr Ralph Baric who has been studying the coronaviruses for his whole career. And we celebrate our Nobel laureates too (Dr Aziz Sancar won in Chemistry a couple of years ago).

My kids are not Ivy League kids and it is interesting to see all the talk here on CC that is geared toward the Ivies both from the parents and from the prospective students. I’ve got no beef with HYP but I think what is great about the US system is that you can go to a state flagship like UNC and become one of the most important people in the fight against a worldwide pandemic.

Also I kinda lost the thread about playing club sports in college/university — don’t most schools have intramural teams that are just for fun? I know we did when I was at UNC. My roommate and I formed a basketball team. We lost every game but had fun.

Couldn’t agree with this more.

3 Likes
439

This is the truth that too many refuse to see. There is a myth perpetuated by those with a financial interest to propagate it that ranking and student success are 100% positively correlated and one causes the other. There is no evidence to support this and plenty that shows we know who will be high achievers regardless of college/university at the time they graduate high school.

4 Likes
440

Sadly, that’s also true in the UK, in part because of limited employment opportunities in STEM fields and relatively low pay. The City institutions start recruiting young, with various vacation schemes in HS.