<p>Thanks Marite, there is a lot of that extra credit stuff going on in her school too which which also skews things. Some teachers give it and some do not. </p>
<p>Your system sounds much cleaner, but as we say here (or at least I say), "we have to play the cards we're dealt." What country are you from?</p>
<p>^^ from France.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As for myself, I must say that I found the title of Ms. Wissner-Gross's previous book about the "secrets of college admission" really annoying: What Colleges Don't Tell You: (And Other Parents Don't Want You to Know)</p>
<p>It seems to me that the generous and good-spirited willingness of parents on this forum to offer helpful advice to other people's children is a refreshing contrast to the attitude reflected in Ms. Wissner-Gross' title.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It could well be that the publisher came up with those annoying titles/subtitles and not the author. From the desciptions of the book, however, it doesn't seem like the author objected.</p>
<p>It's a pretty standard stipulation in a publishing contract that the publisher, not the author, gets to pick the title. Often the author's working title was very different from what you see on the cover (or the spine) of the book in a bookstore.</p>
<p>Whether the title was chosen by the author or editor or publisher doesn't matter. It fits the book perfectly.</p>
<p>In truth, I found Michelle Hernandez someone who I would enjoy spending dinner with (though probably not for $40K), and Mrs. Wissner-Gross someone who I suspect would cut me off in traffic and then flip me the bird.</p>
<p>Hi Classic Rocker dad and everyone - Since I wrote Acing the College Application and am the "other book" quoted in the article, I thought I'd say HI and thank you for that nice compliment. I don't know the other author personally, but I totally disagree with her methods. My practice is based on ACTUALLY strengthening kids' academics and sense of scholarship not just doing cheesy cosmetic things. Over the years I've contributed to CC and given lots of free advice - am happy to clarify any points in the article, but I don't see many disagreeing with what I said. To elaborate, clearly for the 40% who are "tagged" at the Ivies as legacies, development cases or recruited athletes, many are privileged white kids, but for them it is EASIER because of the tag. What I was trying to say is that for the OTHER 60%, it is harder if you come from a super privileged family, yet are "standard" in terms of grades and scores. Does that make sense? Comments welcome. And Rocker dad is right - I wouldn't flip him the bird and I am nice to dine with.</p>
<p>The implication in these "faking" excercises is that if the faker can somehow get admitted, the faking can then stop and they can pursue genuine interests once enrolled at Super Selective U.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, they've wasted several years in not discovering what genuinely interests them, only to start this exploration at Super Selective U.</p>
<p>Oh, I forgot, in order not to flunk out, not genuinely qualified kid will not have time for exploration at SSU. Guess that will have to wait until graduation.</p>
<p>So now you've got a 22 year old confused about why life makes no sense, not connecting with any true passions, having done little internal exploration during high school and college.</p>
<p>Books like these, which I have looked at in the bookstore, scare me to death. I know that in a large part they are true, and being on CC doesn't help. It would seem to me that many students on CC follow Ms. Hernandez's advice.</p>
<p>I can't tell you how many times I've seen students who do medical research during the summers, have regional awards in some orchestral instrument, and letter on varsity sports teams. These students also tend to have 100+ hours community service and involvement in religious activities. I suppose some students genuinely like to keep that busy, and who are actually that good at everything, but I'm not sure how many others are qualified for that.</p>
<p>There are so many of us who are good at one or two things, but who have, by choice, ignorance, or otherwise, not pursued them at the highest levels. You know what? I rather like shopping, and seeing movies, and hanging out, and being a mediocre guitar player.</p>
<p>It's easy to argue that I'm being defensive, trying to make up for my competitive lacking; that's totally true. I'm scared poo-less about college because I just don't do the huge competitions, I can't carry a tune, and, to be honest I have no desire to join a church charity group or to involve myself in science. What I can do is carry a darned good class discussion, write convincing analytical and research papers, and engage other students in meaningful intellectual debates-- isn't that what colleges should primarily be concerned with? </p>
<p>Maybe this is why I admire Cambridge and Oxford's method: pick the most academically successful students; clearly those so competent at school will choose things to do that support that. By disregarding extracurriculars, the British model encourages truly diverse, passionate, and creative students to come together!</p>
<p>" . . . Maybe this is why I admire Cambridge and Oxford's method: pick the most academically successful students; clearly those so competent at school will choose things to do that support that. By disregarding extracurriculars, the British model encourages truly diverse, passionate, and creative students to come together!"</p>
<p>Thank you, hollyert!!</p>
<p>I've voiced this sentiment before on CC and been flamed within an inch of my life.</p>
<p>Hi Michelle! </p>
<p>It's an honor to communicate with you. As I said, I think you've been a great influence and we appreciate your books and insights. We have both A is for Admission and The Middle School Years. I like the first one, real nuts and bolts about the thought process of AdComs - I could never before really figure out how I got into MIT many years ago - but I think the second one is the real gem and is more about getting educated than getting in, which is the real goal isn't it. </p>
<p>Keep up the good work!</p>
<p>Whoa, Michelle, where is the the 40% numbercoming from? Is that the % of tagged students who apply or the % of tagged students who are accepted? If it is the second, that makes it even less likely for non tagged students who don't "walk-on-water to have much of a chance.</p>
<p>Hello Michelle, agree A is for Admission is a good tool for familes.</p>
<p>A question, do adcoms flinch when they accept 6 people from Greenwich High and 6 from Andover ED if their hearts are with those who overcame adversity? </p>
<p>MPmom, that figure, according to Price of Admission is the accepted figure.</p>
<p>I just want to know how/ from where she got that figure. Seems very hi to me given the huge increases in the # of applicants at top colleges in the last few years.</p>
<p>"clearly those so competent at school will choose things to do that support that."</p>
<p>My Harvard a cappella group sang with an Oxford a cappella group in England and then in Massachusetts. In their view, there was no comparison -- there was a lot more extracurricular activity, and more types of activity, going on at Harvard than at Oxford. More sports teams, more community service groups, more arts activities, more everything. Granted, these were Oxford kids who chose to be active on campus anyway, but they expressed envy about the kind of options we had to choose from.</p>
<p>If you don't value those things, then abandoning consideration of ECs makes sense. If, like me, you think that the activities are the heart of the elite college experience, then it makes no sense at all. It's clear that when kids aren't chosen for their EC prowess, you get a lot fewer ECs on campus.</p>
<p>They still need the same number of athletes and keep percentage of legacies steady. That'ss the 40% right there at ivies.</p>
<p>I agree with Hanna's point. Anecdote: For his Williams winter study course S chose a three week academic/workshop of the Tempest taught by an English prof and a theater prof.</p>
<p>Coincidentally, the student theater group is performing the Tempest. 7 out of the 10 students in the class auditioned for and received a part in the play, S among them.</p>
<p>First night's homework: Read Acts 1 & 2 of The Tempest. The 7 kids in the play had already ready the play aloud the previous night at a read through. Extracurricular and academic issues are dovetailing. All the kids cast had previous experience acting in a Shakespeare play. Williams had to value EC's to get that result.</p>
<p>This is just one among many anecdotes. </p>
<p>For those just academically inclined there are strictly academic options: science research, mock trial, mock UN, mathletes, quiz bowl, publishing a paper. This are all academic activities outside the classroom that colleges would value.</p>
<p>It seems like there is an untapped market for elite colleges and universities in the US that emphasize scholarly achievement over all other factors. I wonder why none have evolved that way?</p>
<p>My concern is not with the students at Williams who genuinely like theatre. What about the students who participate in theater, the newspaper, and quiz bowl who do it to look active? They won't continue to do these things in college. When schools accept students who have forced structure activities, how can they expect them to continue them in an unstructured environment? Harvard may have a more high-school like EC system; Oxford's is supported by student interest and not the institution. Many university systems outside the U.S., such as Canada's and England's, expect students to pursue extracurriculars outside of schools, much like adults would have to. </p>
<p>I agree that going to a school such as Williams with great student interest is a boon, but I don't see how over-scheduling or forcing interest in activities contributes at all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems like there is an untapped market for elite colleges and universities in the US that emphasize scholarly achievement over all other factors. I wonder why none have evolved that way?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think we are seeing this evolution happening with Cal and UCLA. (And all the UCs, actually). For those of us old enough to be familiar with the former "personalities" of each of the campuses, it is bittersweet.</p>
<p>Thanks again Rocker dad - you're making me blush. I'm glad the books were helpful. I'm actually in the process of updating A is for Admission for its TENTH year anniversary! Might be out next summer.
To answer the question about numbers, yes, if you had the recruited athletes (about 17% of the class), the minority students (about 10%), the development cases and the legacies, that means that 40% of the class is "Reserved" for those students. So yes, that means that for the OTHER 60% of the class, it's much more merit based and harder for a kid from a wealthy background to get in if he's not SUPER strong.
And yes, colleges DO flinch if they take too many one from school. The trend has been to take a LOT fewer from schools like Deerfield, Hotchkiss and the elite prep schools which is why if you look at the admission RATES from those schools (not that they make those public), you'll find they are LOWER than the admit rates from top public schools. Sure, more kids apply, but the actual acceptance rates are not great, and remember, lots of those kids do actually have "hooks." Hope that answers the questions....</p>