<p>collegealum: I continue to be intrigued with the excellent sheep argument.</p>
<p>The first priority may not be research $, but in keeping the momentum. Or we could call it âbrand,â which is not a flat concept. (And which is very separate from some media rankings.) And as times change, years go by, things do shift. </p>
<p>So sure, faculty can complain- but that alone doesnât mean theyâre right. They can get involved in admissions, you know.</p>
<p>Adcoms donât tell you how to raise your kids. Our kids make choices and the elites simply donât have space for all applicants. The pick those they feel embody their spirit and who will fit, thrive. and contribute. Would you prefer a lottery? Or a stats hierarchy? Many state flagships operate in those ways. </p>
<p>Anyone besides me beginning to wonder if there is any correlation between emphasizing âfunâ personality aspects in the admissions process and the number of our best and brightest ending up in Silicon Valley working on âfunâ projects instead of using their skills in more traditional research areas? And if so, do we care?</p>
<p>But itâs not âfunâ personality aspects, as if acceptance to elite schools depended upon showing that youâd be the life of the frat party and no one puts on a lampshade quite like you. </p>
<p>Itâs very blunt, linear, and dare I say not neurotypical to assume that demonstrating an interesting personal characteristic has to be either âprove you are the life of the partyâ or âdo something quirky for quirkâs sake.â </p>
<p>I wonder, are people who have some characteristics of mild autism prone to go around accusing others of being autistic? </p>
<p>No, itâs not the fun aspects. Far from it.<br>
I think, again, folks think too hierarchically- as if some test scores prove more than those a notch down. Or that working on world health trumps some other good efforts. Or that someday working on Wall Street says more about success than lower paid responsibilities. </p>
<p>Where does this idea come from that SV is all about fun projects? Or that âtraditionalâ research is more worthy? </p>
<p>Iâm still baffled by posters who are so certain kids canât stretch in many ways, be multi-dimensional- and happy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Itâs not âhas to beâ, itâs what has been observed. There are some cases Iâve seen where something quirky seemed to move the needle because the person apparently didnât have much else, or because the adcom said it moved the needle. </p>
<p>Observed by whom? Some posters on CC? You donât know how quirky plays- or to what extent, in holistic. Itâs a misconception that standing out just to be different is what it takes. Even if you heard it direct from an adcom, not whisper down the lane, you still need to interpret it in light of the whole process and the whole that kid brought to the table. </p>
<p>So, quirky can be a nice overlay, a nice extra, when the kid is also realistic, goal oriented, has the academic chops, shows other sets of experiences and attributes, etc, etc. But by itself it is no tip.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Perhaps a result of missing the possibility that a booming Silicon Valley relies on a balance of fun projects and research and that its success is based on correctly creating products and ideas people want to use and do not mind pay for. And in the meantime elevating traditional research and lifting it from the depths of arcane journals few read beyond a small group of insiders. </p>
<p>âItâs not âhas to beâ, itâs what has been observed. There are some cases Iâve seen where something quirky seemed to move the needle because the person apparently didnât have much else, or because the adcom said it moved the needle.â</p>
<p>So youâre privy to the totality of some kidâs app AND the competitive set in which that kid was evaluated, so you can conclusively conclude that âquirky activity Xâ moved the needle? You know for sure? How does that happen if you arenât on an adcom? </p>
<p>Speaking of devaluing, it devalues the kids who get in to suggest they merely tacked on a quirky activity for the sake of being quirky. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Without sitting on the admissions committee, how do you know that they are illiterate and were let in because they could throw a football? You didnât see all the holistic factors which went into the decision.</p>
<p>Wow, this thread went from ridiculous to ridiculous-er.
It also devalues kids, the process and the institution to state they are looking for âfun personality aspects.â </p>
<p>Or maybe it devalues the process and the institution to look for âfun personality aspectsâ, not to state that they are looking for it. And it devalues kids to have to present such a quirky facade to get into school.</p>
<p>Um, these arenât places that admit holistically. Really bad try. </p>
<p>âOr maybe it devalues the process and the institution to look for âfun personality aspectsâ, not to state that they are looking for it. And it devalues kids to have to present such a quirky facade to get into school.â</p>
<p>But kids donât HAVE to portray âIâm so fun at the partyâ OR âlook at this quirky thing I didâ to be interesting. </p>
<p>Maybe people who arenât all that interesting themselves donât understand that interesting encompasses far more than either party-on-dude or oddball-quirk. </p>
<p>And of course if these places are so âdevaluedâ by looking for interesting kids, then it begs the question why youâd all give your left arms to go there. The company isnât quite up to snuff academically, but you sure want to join it. </p>
<p>I think the real translation is - I canât be bothered to stretch myself in interesting ways, so Iâll stay within my comfort zone and insist that my superior intellect as measured by scores entitles me to admission. Or, I canât be bothered to lower myself to the humiliation of CMU or JHU instead of MIT. </p>
<p>And of course we are supposed to act as though the disappointment of Peter Perfect who fails to get into MIT is somehow more compelling that Betty Bright who fails to get in. Peterâs ego must be massaged and he mustnât have disappointment because he will just up and leave science. Or so has been alleged in previous threads. </p>
<p>"Without sitting on the admissions committee, how do you know that they are illiterate and were let in because they could throw a football? You didnât see all the holistic factors which went into the decision.
"</p>
<p>@@ because they donât meet the normal academic standards of the institution and because special classes / exceptions are being made for them so they can faux-pass. Tell me, does that happen at MIT with your alleged âquirky admitsâ? It just must kill you that people can be smart and interesting, too, and in a genuine fashion, not some made-up juggling of cats on unicycles. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do think one thing admissions committees are trying to avoid are students who never took a true risk academically or with a time-consuming EC because they were trying to keep a perfect transcript/perfect scores. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I got a letter from admissions about the makeup of the incoming class and unicycling was mentioned out of a list of 4 or 5 activities. I assume they did so because it was an interesting activity. I donât know if they were juggling cats on the unicycles though. </p>
<p>The hard part is training the cats to ride the unicycles in the first place. After that, juggling the cats on the unicycles is easy.</p>