Best and Brightest, but Not the Nicest

[Bay]

Perhaps the author has a personality flaw of her own that brings out the worst in others - making them act "not nice" to her. When I reflect upon the Ivy League-bound students I know well enough to have an opinion about, only one of the 8 stands out as "not nice." The other 7 seem to be either outstanding or "normal" kids, although 1 of them is so painfully shy that I have never heard him speak, even though I have known him and his family for 5+ years.

[coureur]

>>In my D's h/s and other social circles the most impressive admissions results were aquired by the BUSIEST of many bright AND NICE kids we know. Most of those admitted to the most impressive schools had NOT been athletic captains or student government leaders.<<

This sums up our experience as well. The notion of the dozen or so HYPSM kids that I know having "stepped on the toes" of others to get to where they are is just nonsense.

[doubleplay]

I take exception and admit am a little insulted by the comments about students who end up captains and student government officers. My kids did both, and it was because they were: 1. good at sports, 2. good with people, and 3. enthusiastic and hardworking. What they weren't were Ivy League material, whatever that is. What they weren't were valedictorians, NMF, Science Contest winners, 15-AP Class-Takers. Oh well, I guess they didn't deserve to be the class president or the captain. Those positions should go to the smart kids. Otherwise, somehow it's just not right. WTH?

This seems to be a recurring theme, that the kids who are smart but non-assertive or shy in high school get shafted because they lose out when it comes to "popularity" contests to other less-intellectually gifted kids. The way I see it is this- EVERYONE, not just the most brilliant or the best test takers of the world- have gifts. Some are good at organizing things, some are great inspirers, some of wonderful confidantes, some are just drop-dead gorgeous. Some aren't- some suck when they get elected, but hey, isn't that what student government is about- kids learning how to vote for the right candidate?

And yeah, some are world class musicians, artists, athletes, scholars. Not everyone is brilliant, but does that mean they have nothing to offer? Why can't people just accept that you are going to be good at some things, "OK" at others, and horrible at still other things? Why cast aspersions at other people because they were/are better at getting voted into student government or captainship?

Sorry about the rant- I've been skulking in other threads that seem to carry the same theme (entitlement, who should get selected, etc.) and this has just been building inside me. I feel better now.

[CTTC]

Why can't people just accept that you are going to be good at some things, "OK" at others, and horrible at still other things?

I'm waiting to read the replies from the posters I'm going to call the CC Greek Chorus, who make sure we know every chance they get how stellar their own children are in all areas. (Oh, and doncha know, they weren't pushed at all....their parents just stood back in awe!)

[je_ne_sais_quoi]

I think it's great there is a place where we can share our experiences, hear about others, and perhaps even broaden our perspectives!

[TheGFG]

doubleplay--neither I nor anyone else is saying that your children or any others who manage to become team captains and student council officers are necessarily not nice or don't deserve it. But as epiphany points out, holding these positions might not represent true leadership or signify anything at all about the character of the student. On the other hand it might. My point was that I can see how easy it is in very competitive environments for kids who desire to attend Ivies, to feel they have to resort to manipulative and cutthroat measures to achieve. That pressure might cause them to be not so "nice."

[idad]

The article is a much softer (and shorter) version of this: Lost in the Meritocracy

[epiphany]

Well, (post 64), I doubt that those of us on this particular thread think our children are "stellar in all areas." One of mine will never be a leader in any conventional sense, which is why it's important to understand that not all colleges, including "Elites," value leadership equally, or, more accurately, they want followers as well, but followers with enough integrity & wisdom to follow an ethical leader.

There are many varieties of leadership. Some lead quietly, by example.

doubleplay, I also had no intention of criticizing student gov't, etc. per se. (Agree with GFG on this.) My comments were more to the fact that leadership should be broadly viewed, not by title, and should be viewed in the context of character. (A response to those who reported that students sometimes clamor for the titles, in the mistaken expectation that a title will result in a particular college outcome.)

In any case, I knew sybbie would verify my own information on this. (Thanks!)

[epiphany]

I second Bay's post 61, which is similar to some comments I and at least one other made on this previously threaded article.

[myau]

And I commented on sports and government kinds od leadership only to point out there are many other things that can get kids into Ivies.

[JaneyPT]

I know a kid going to Harvard and his mom is the most gracious woman I have ever met, and so is he!

[TheGFG]

The extremely high level of intellect and achievement required to gain admission to HYP is such that it is not acquired by the accidental genius. There is a certain amount of intentionality and selling of oneself that goes along with such an accomplishment. That is not to say that every HYP-bound child did all of what he did solely to get into HYP. But I'm getting a little weary of the CC parents' idealized vision of these students as perfectly altruistic kids who are motivated only by their joy of learning and their compassion for their fellow man, and just by chance, that landed them a spot in the freshman class. First of all, they had to want to attend and apply. Secondly, a kid can be passionate about learning and still flunk out of high school if he lacks the self-serving desire to get exceptional grades and teacher recs. Someone can be a Mother Theresa clone, but if she honestly follows the Christian principle that the left hand shouldn't know what the right hand is doing, then her charitable work will not be listed on her college application and the adcoms won't ever know she did it.

[epiphany]

"But I'm getting a little weary of the CC parents' idealized vision of these students as perfectly altruistic kids..."

Who said this? No one I saw. If you're referring to my earlier mention of "sainthood," it was not a descriptor so much as an analogy: what decision makers look for in 'leadership' is not titles per se, but qualities, which may or may not be accompanied by titles/positions.

I'm sorry that the competitiveness apparent in your region seems to have soured you on the possibility that there are independently motivated students out there who really do enjoy learning for learning's sake and are not self-aggrandizing. Anecdotal examples on this thread have duplicated my own observations as well. Certainly not meant to be a scientific sample, a statement of percentage, but I guess I have more faith in other people.

"Self-serving desire to get exceptional grades & teacher recs"? If they're so "self-serving," it will be so apparent to teachers that the recommendations will be either lukewarm or silent, when it comes to the "personal traits" categories.

Many children of CC parents did not in fact "sell themselves" at all, and were surprised at their own admissions results. I have enough faith in other people that when parents go to the trouble of mentioning this, I believe it to be most likely true. (And lots of people who got admitted to 'elites' did not list "charitable work" on their applications. However, it probably helps to do that when applying to Catholic colleges.)

Similarly, I believe individual CC students when they relate similar observations.

I'm sorry that your experiences & perceptions are so different. It doesn't invalidate the contrary experiences & perceptions of others.

[TheGFG]

So now you're saying that students can fail to sell themselves and still, quite surprisingly, be admitted to HYP?

There are plenty of kids who do what they do because of internal motivations. We agree on that. But, unlike the brilliant dreamer who sits in the cornfields contemplating the meaning of life, those studentsy still have to harness that motivation, and guide it in a disciplined way into clear, specific pursuits. The latter must necessarily include top grades, near perfect test scores, and stellar EC's. Those things don't just fall into their laps by accident.

[CTTC]

Many children of CC parents did not in fact "sell themselves" at all, and were surprised at their own admissions results. I have enough faith in other people that when parents go to the trouble of mentioning this, I believe it to be most likely true. (And lots of people who got admitted to 'elites' did not list "charitable work" on their applications. However, it probably helps to do that when applying to Catholic colleges.)

I think the salesmanship aspect to college admissions has become so ingrained that parents no longer recognize it for what it is.

"Charitable work" = community service. You don't think that community service ends up on most people's applications? Seriously?