Forbes Article and Magic 700s

[Pizzagirl]

And again, that's because - to calmom's point - there ws something in the way that kid #2 presented himself that was interesting.
It's annoying to see how people seem to think that there are points that are granted, and he-who-gets-the-most-points-gets-in (not saying you said that, SteveMA). There aren't "more" points given for Science Olympiad than class president. It's rather like picking a date - you don't assign x points for brown hair and y points for a good figure - it's the totality of the whole picture that is either appealing and differentiating, or it's not.

[Youdon'tsay]

This makes me think of a recent Ivy presentation ds and I attended. A girl asked the question how important are ECs because she is taking a lot of APs and is a really serious student and gives all her attention to her academics and doesn't have time for multiple AP classes AND ECs. I thought ds was going to jump across the two rows that separated us and throttle her.

[Philovitist]

There are points, though. At least at Duke. Check out the book Admissions Confidential.

Each factor is rated on a scale of 1-5. Those with really high sums are auto-admits and those with really low ones are auto-denies. There definitely ARE more points given for national science olympiad than class president. I'd bet a week's pay that there are, and that points are used.

[Pizzagirl]

I don't think you're hearing the difference between having an AREA (academics, EC's, etc.) rated on a scale of 1 - 5 and having actual ACTIVITIES rated (lead in school play is x points, class president is y points, etc.).

And there are absolutely valedictorians, 4.0's, 2400's, etc. who are turned down from Duke and similar caliber schools. You KNOW this. This isn't new news.

Look, anyone who has ever hired has done this. You look across a multitude of different areas to form a holistic picture of the person. Sometimes some factors come to the top, other times other factors come to the top. The whole point is to balance the entire class / organization, not every single person. It's done every single day in the business world, so why everyone acts as though there is some formula and all they have to do is identify and crack the formula is beyond me. No, Philovitist, there is not some magical formula that guarantees admission to Duke. And frankly if there is - it's along the lines of parent on the board of trustees who has engaged in significant fundraising (I know such a parent, who has two kids at Duke - fancy that), and is not at all dependent on whether you were #2 or #10 in the state in your sport or whether you got an A- or B+ in junior year French.

[mathmom]

^Absolutely. And there's a huge difference between the class president who writes an essay about what they accomplished (or about whom the GC talks about real accomplishments) versus the run of the mill class president.

I don't think any of the elite colleges really have a point system as described. There are also things out of a candidate's control - you can't have a National award from Science Olympiad unless you have a strong team behind you. Both my kids got state level medals, but the team was never good enough to go to Nationals.

What I think kids underestimate is the value of activities that their friends have that they don't even know about. Everyone knew my older son was a computer whiz, but I don't think his friends had a clue that he'd been acknowledged in a published paper, or the kind of paid work he'd done. Even my younger son didn't take his origami habit seriously. It started off as a way to keep from falling asleep in AP Biology. By the time senior year rolled around, he'd done more with it than he realized. Both kids may well have gotten top marks for ECs, but neither of them were school based or done with any intention to look good for colleges.

[Philovitist]

Pizzagirl, I didn't say there was a magic formula. But I am saying that if you get enough points, you will be an auto-admit. It's a fact straight from the horse's mouth.

It's just that a good portion of those points are personal qualities. It is the PQs that admissions counselors grade to make sure that really unique kids get admitted and boring kids don't.

Selective admissions counselors do look at applications holistically, sure, but that doesn't mean that they also don't look at it systemically. They do. They have to.

[Philovitist]

(The elite colleges do have a point system as described.)

Of course, elite colleges don't look at applications in the same way, but they're probably similar.

[jandjdad]

Philo,
The book, Ivy+ Analytics for the Fox Parent was linked to in some of the posts and it described a point system ( Academic Index) but one that also awarded points for ECs and awards ( more for National and higher level ones like Siemens or Olympic level athletes) and plotted on an X-Y axis so it wasn't cut and dry but nuanced as to who had a better chance of admission.
It did a pretty good job of explaining why the 2400 4.0 could sometimes be rejected if they didn't bring anything else to the table while a statistically inferior student might be offered admission if they had the unique ECs or other things that made them stand out. Essentially, everything that has been posted here in this thread.....

[ecouter11]

I'm pretty sure adcoms weight certain accomplishments and activities than others. Compare an IMO medalist to a kid on his school's math team or an truly passionate kid who's been doing research for most of HS and done competitions vs a student who does gruntwork for 1 summer and doesn't really care about science and does it just for apps.
There's a difference there that stands out.

Of course, people get looked at as the sum, but being standout in 1 area is similar to the date analogy- a person with one really great feature might make that person more "attractive" to certain "people"(schools). A friend that interviews and works in admissions told me that schools want a well rounded class, not always a well rounded person. That's not to say well rounded people who are just awesome and fun are in the wrong and have no chances, but the percentage of admits is probably lower.

Cal Newport has the right strategy, IMO. Focus on a few things that you desperately care out and do well there and in that way- also enjoy life and be happy, instead of loading up on APs and school clubs that you don't really enjoy or care for. Very good writer!

[Icarus77]

A lot of this conversation seems limit elite or "tippy top"schools to MIT and the IVIES.There are many schools that provide an undergrad education equal to or superior to the aforementioned i.e Williams, Amherst,CalTech,Wellesley etc.Let's broaden our students horizons.

[Pizzagirl]

I'm pretty sure adcoms weight certain accomplishments and activities than others. Compare an IMO medalist to a kid on his school's math team or an truly passionate kid who's been doing research for most of HS and done competitions vs a student who does gruntwork for 1 summer and doesn't really care about science and does it just for apps.

IN CONTEXT WITH WHAT'S AVAILABLE TO THE STUDENT, ecouter. You don't just get X number of points for being (say) a USAMO finalist. Good grief, there are probably only 1,000 of the 30,000 high schools in this country where there's a single math teacher who has even HEARD of USAMO, much less provides support for students wishing to enter. Look at the list - Philips Exeter and other elite schools are all over it. Colleges KNOW this.

And when you talk about research - that's a VERY urban/ suburban / rich kid vs rural thing. It's one thing for the kid whose parent works at a research lab in suburban NY or Silicon Valley to "get an opportunity" doing lab work. The kid who lives in the ranch in the middle of Montana doesn't HAVE that opportunity. Colleges get that. That's why the kid on the ranch may be more compelling and more interesting than the overly prepped kid who dutifully racked up all the appropriate wins and worked in an internship gotten through mom and dad.

Is there anything wrong with getting internships through mom and dad? Heck no. Hey, I tried to get my D an internship at a lab in our area through indirect contacts, though I didn't succeed. But it's very - oh, I don't know, upper-middle-class-like - to think that colleges automatically award magic points for these things. They know darn well that the kids who live in X places and come from X backgrounds have far more opportunities to do X things than kids who live in Y places and come from Y backgrounds. So you have to cut it out with the blunt "research lab = x points" mentality.

[ecouter11]

I'm talking about students that post chance threads here on CC or post on HSL regarding whether dropping AP Bio is ok. Obviously a kid in a rural area wouldn't have the same opportunities as a student in NYC and they will be judged differently. I'm very grateful that I've been brought up in areas that have opportunities for me and am most definitely aware that everyone doesn't have the same chances.

My point was the Cal Newport approach is to develop a *genuine* interest in something by exploring and trying things out and then pursuing it vigorously. Newport's entire point is to do something new and different and to do that thing by following your interests to logical ends. By doing so, you'll have time to live your life and have interesting ECs, instead of a laundry list, i.e. - instead of just joining a club or team, take a deeper interest in the topic and explore. Don't do a research internship because it's what X, who got into [insert school] here did, do it because you actually like it. This 'tactic' with ECs, in conjunction with having scores in the right range will probably make your life more satisfying and increase your chances more than self studying 7 APs just for admissions. Doing amazing, focused ECs because of genuine interest > loading up on clubs you don't care for.

Again, this book is geared towards elite admissions crazy kids and parents, not necessarily the general population of people that apply or the US in general.

Also, (I don't think your intention was to generalize) there are all kinds of students out there who get internships and opportunities all on their own. While having contacts in the area helps, it's not necessary if you are really committed and want to really work and have access to a laptop. The 2012 ISEF winner did it, as do many sciencey kids. Obviously, more in the know kids might find it easier to do and get support from their school, but if you go in with an idea and know what you want to do, a lot of Professors are (amazingly!) willing to help an interested kid out.

Edit: realized I didn't actually explain my point. It's that Cal Newport postulates that colleges, when looking at applicants from the "in the know, wealthy" schools will prefer students who have genuine interests and have followed them (be it through USAMO, internship, starting a club etc.) instead of trying to do stuff just for the letter.

[Hunt]

One way to look at this is that the college admissions offices are not just "hiring" back-office students to crunch the numbers; they also need a lot of "front-office" students who can handle customer contact--i.e., athletes, performers, class leaders, EC leaders, etc. The smartest guy in the world is not going to get hired as a salesman if he doesn't have certain personal qualities.

[mekozak]

"Two examples from our high school-one supersmart kid, all of his "EC"s were academic related, no sports, sang in the high school choir though-national Science Olympiad finalist, etc., etc., etc. 4.0/perfect ACT and SAT, National Merit Finalist Got in at ONE school that was Ivy level, MIT, (but no Ivy's) and our state flagship. Next year, pretty smart kid 3.8 GPA 34 ACT, didn't take SAT. Got into Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Dartmoth, Cornell, Notre Dame, Stanford, MIT and a smattering of other schools, including our flagship. He was a 3 sport athlete, best on site for state solo contest in band and choir (trumpet and tenor in choir). Supersmart kid seemed like a "shoe-in" for every school except that he wasn't well rounded enough and lacked social skills. Pretty smart kid is everyone's dream son-in-law , poised, respectful, just an all around great kid. Not sure when he slept in high school though ."

The reason the 3.8 GPA got in is that he is the type to more likely get hired since he is more well-rounded. I know that firms in my industry (major financial services firm) are far more likely to hire a well-rounded 3.5 GPA (from college) than the kid who obsesses about getting a 4.0. The obsessed 4.0 type rarely takes leadership positions in anything and more often than not seems to be a loner type. In the real world, a person has to know how to deal with failure – something the 3.5 is more likely to have experienced – since most things in life are beyond one’s direct control.

[Kitty40]

" The obsessed 4.0 type rarely takes leadership positions in anything and more often than not seems to be a loner type."

Gee whiz-talk about perpetuating a stereotype.

Completely false much of the time. A "4.0 type", as you put it, often seeks leadership positions. If you hold yourself to a high standard it carries over to high expectations in your EC involvement as well.