<p>It’s fine to select people with a broader vision, energy, commitment, maturity, all the things you mention. We all agree there. How you measure that is debatable. I don’t think you get there by looking at community involvement at the age of 18, especially since all savvy people know that these things help admissions. Those types of activities were altruistic back in the 50’s before people could cash in on them; these days they are much less meaningful in terms of being reflections on character. If a person seems conscientious, honest, appears to work well with people in the classroom and elsewhere, is respectful, down-to-earth, doesn’t promote themselves above others in their own activities if others have done better, doesn’t step on others to get ahead (e.g., a Tracy Flick in “Election”), then I think that person has good character and is likely to direct their academic talent in ways to benefit others. You can observe someone in the classroom or in a variety of other activities to reach that conclusion, and it should come across in the recommendations. I’ve known a number of Tracy Flick’s who did <em>very</em> well in admissions, better than people who were more talented but more humble.</p>
<p>Incidentally, I read that Businessinsider article and I think it typifies the kind of misunderstanding about what type of person ends up making a broad, positive contribution to society in the future.</p>
<p>The type of person who wants to prepare themselves to potentially make a large, positive contribution to society in the future (particularly in the area of science, but i think also other areas) tends to be a perfectionist about developing their own fundamentals. You can’t build a high rise if the foundation has tiny flaws in it. They have the ability and desire to look at a subject matter rigorously and from different angles, and find the problems and then solve them by pulling out the root of the problem, not just by finding a superficial solution. Creativity and being able to sense if there is some thing missing to an analysis of a situation, even if they can’t yet pin it down, is crucial. And one thing they won’t do is pretend like what they are doing is changing the world when they haven’t done so yet.</p>
<p>I’ll use an analysis not in the science world. I know someone who spent sometime in nonprofits trying to solve world problems such as hunger and poverty. He told me that there is an emerging consensus that the microfinance idea which was meant to help lift up third world economies is actually hurting them. That idea, microfinance, won the Nobel Peace Prize. What the world needs is more people who are smart enough and willing to anticipate such problems, and who care more about what will <em>actually</em> benefit people than being perceived as getting the “correct” answer and be on the “i’m helping people” bandwagon. The world also needs people who will, for example, risk their own health and travel to other countries to treat ebola; however, I don’t think many of the activities high schoolers do actually demonstrate such altruism.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the statement about bringing “nothing else to the table” suggests that applications from students with strong stats will be viewed with a somewhat jaundiced eye. </p>
<p>That’s projecting. And why did you bring up ancestors? </p>
<p>CA314, these adcoms are faced with a huge pool of qualified applicants for limited seats. No state mandate to serve their residents. Based on their knowledge of the U and how kids interact and perform there, and later, they can cherry pick. If a kid has engaged in X, they don’t need to stop and ask- or guess- was it family influence, some idea to look good, etc. The point can be that the kid recognized the value, did pursue it and remain committed. The app is what it is, adcoms don’t guess or fill in blanks (tho I sure know CC does.) And they don’t select based on empathy, but on what IS there. Nor do they have the years-into-the-future orientation some CC folks think. Imo, ime.</p>
<p>And QM, I think PG was referring to your posts, not life in general. Your choices, your interests, your explanations- and how it continues. Relentlessly.</p>
<p>Good grief. When this train is back on track…til then, carry on.</p>
<p>collegealum314 mentioned the issue of treating Ebola, in the context of altruism. I think this is relevant to the discussion at hand, more broadly.</p>
<p>There is a critical shortage of the sera needed to treat Ebola, once a person has contracted it. I am no biologist nor physician-researcher, but as I understand it, in order to prepare the sera, one needs a blood sample from someone who has survived Ebola. Hence the current shortage.</p>
<p>There is also a critical need for an Ebola vaccine.</p>
<p>If I had the right qualifications to handle either the production of sera or the development of a vaccine, I would be “grinding” on that right now! With no apologies that I was not also heading a drive to collect science books for schools in Africa or entering unicycle races in my “spare” time . . . which I would not have any of. I hope that the people who are qualified to work on stopping Ebola for good are “grinding” away.</p>
<p>Colleges cite many different reasons for the policies, including finding future leaders in different areas and also finding people with empathy or other personal qualities. They may also want to see the same organizations on their campus that the candidate ran in high school–that is another cited reason for admitting people for certain activities. I’m sure there are many others as well. In MIT in particular, there was a hyper-focus on the personality/character aspect, though.</p>
<p>In parallel to your description of how adcoms can only evaluate the words and actions of candidates, similarly we can only look at the words of adcoms and the admissions results to divine what their general philosophy is.</p>
<p>Moderator’s Note: I am not sure why we are stuck on Ben/Marilee Jones 10 years later. There has been enough “grinding” on this topic over the years.</p>
<p>Cool, TPG, let’s move to a MIT vs Caltech debate! </p>
<p>Regarding the high stats kids, is there a possible consensus that this group enjoys much better results in general than students with great but not super high stats? While 36/4800 students might not receive admissions at every school (or be guaranteed to be a shoo-in) could we agree that their odds are very good at a great number of schools, and this without oodles of ECs? </p>
<p>Lastly, regarding the lack on the “table” have we not seen posts right here of students who relied exclusively on high stats and received advice they’d need better essays or altruistic activities? And, in the days after decisions, opinions that high scores are just an piece in the overall puzzle? </p>
<p>My perspective on this is that students with really high scores will find a prestigious home and lots of “love” from plenty of adcoms, but not necessarily all of them. And this because adcoms have the benefit of looking at stacks of potential peers and pick the ones they think will be a better … fit. </p>
<p>Going back to the big puzzles, we all know how frustrating it is to have a dozen pieces that are ALMOST perfect but only one that fits perfectly. But we know that in the end, the other pieces will ALL find a perfect spot later. </p>
<p>Re xiggy’s #227: I have no evidence to agree or disagree with your proposition about the admission of students with great stats. Although I know several 36/4800 students, I do not know any without substantial EC activities. On the other hand, I don’t know whether their EC’s meet the “oodles” threshold.</p>
<p>There are some “newbies” who think they can rely on high stats, probably. This was much more likely before CC existed. So CC has been of great benefit in informing students about true admissions requirements and strategies. A quick perusal of the results threads at top colleges would tell students that they cannot rely on stats. And how smart are they if they don’t look the evidence practically in front of them? (It’s anecdotal, probably biased by non-responses, and probably fictional in a few cases, but still generally reliable, I think.)</p>
<p>For any student who wants to be admitted to a top school, it is clearly better to take advice from lookingforward than from me. (This statement brought to you by Captain Obvious.)</p>
<p>Interesting. There are kids who think high scores are enough? Internationals, maybe? Even back in the dark ages (20 years ago), it was banged in to our heads (granted, at a public magnet) that, once our test scores and grades were “good enough”, essays and ECs were paramount. </p>
<p>There are recurring themes in so many apps. One is this idea they want to make the world better. So, as in any ordinary conversation, the logical question can be, “and then what?” Meaning, so what have you done so far? What “shows” this orientation, versus you just telling it, because it sounds noble? </p>
<p>Sample answer: “I spent all my time studying virology and biochemistry, in preparation to counter the Ebola-like threats that will show up when I am fully qualified to deal with them–because I assume Ebola will be a threat of the past by the time I am ready to work on vaccines/sera against viruses, and I know that it takes a lot of work to be prepared.”</p>
<p>Not a good answer, right? Sheesh, clueless applicant, organize a [Verb]-a-Thon. Get out there in the community and do something! Raise money for Ebola awareness, in case there are people who don’t ever read newspapers, watch TV or listen to the radio. Prove your interest out! Never mind that no responsible researcher would let a high school student work with a blood-borne pathogen for which there is no cure. </p>
<p>But the answer is good from my standpoint. It’s okay, the student will be welcome where I am and a lot of other places. Too bad the student might miss out on a more rigorous undergrad program. But that would give more time to pursue research in virology, or continue to prepare for it.</p>
<p>“All serious scientists work at a level of persistence and intensity that might be characterized as “grinding.” In fact, a close friend of mine [Y] who was on the MIT faculty said to me once that there was nowhere he would rather be than in the laboratory.”</p>
<p>All people who are serious about their work, whatever that work might be, do so with a high level of persistence and intensity. I know you scientists find it hard to believe, but you really don’t work any harder than anyone else. </p>
<p>“One thing I’ve noticed is sometimes engineering/math types who are completely left brained think there is some kind of huge separation between the social skills realm and the academic realm.”</p>
<p>Lol! Isn’t that an unofficial definition of being on the spectrum? </p>
<p>And perseverating on MIT seems a little spectrum-like. You’d think it was The Only Place in the World. </p>
<p>“Regarding the high stats kids, is there a possible consensus that this group enjoys much better results in general than students with great but not super high stats? While 36/4800 students might not receive admissions at every school (or be guaranteed to be a shoo-in) could we agree that their odds are very good at a great number of schools, and this without oodles of ECs?”</p>
<p>Oh, no. It’s all a complete disaster if this kid winds up at CMU or JHU or Berkeley or Michigan instead of MIT. </p>
<p>Actually, I don’t assume that all high school students, or even all high-stats high school students have spent any time on CC. My remarks about the utility of CC were made in response to xiggi’s comment: “Lastly, regarding the lack on the ‘table’ have we not seen posts right here of students who relied exclusively on high stats and received advice they’d need better essays or altruistic activities?” By “right here,” I assume that xiggi meant CC.</p>
<p>Perhaps those students were only posting and not reading.</p>
<p>Obviously, I disagree with some of PG’s recent comments, but I am not rising to the bait. At least, not now.</p>
<p>Also, I am sorry that my spell checker has left my posts littered with references to xiggy. I didn’t catch them all.</p>
<p>I’d love to know how much of our kids’ acceptance was due to no FAFSA/aid-requested applications, especially the one who got into a reasonably high ranked school off the waitlist.</p>
<p>Purely a guess, but I do guess that full-pay students who decline acceptance are replaced by full-pay students from the waitlist, to keep the financial aid budget balanced. So the answer to Dad<em>of</em>3’s question, in my opinion, is: probably not that much is due to full-pay status. Your kids had to be at the top of their categories to get in (not only full-pay, but other components of the categorization, whatever they are).</p>
<p>People who know more about this can correct me. </p>