5 Little Known Tips for Getting In

[collegealum314]

<p>

How the heck do you know this kid has “almost unlimited potential to make a difference in the world?” That’s the thing- how do you know? Along with presuming he can save the world and would make higher scores, if such grading existed, if he’s not now doing anything beyond his academics (or can’t get whatever it is on his app,) why are you so all-fired sure?

</p>

<p>Well, the coursework at some magnet high schools is college level, and the caliber of talent is comparable to the ivy league. Personally, if I had been one of two national merit finalists in my graduating class as is the case in most good high schools (instead of more than 70), I would be less confident in making generalizations of what the colleges seemed to prefer. There was plenty of clear stratification in terms of demonstrated academic ability.</p>

<p>

I don’t get that either. How do you really truly know at 17 who has "almost unlimited potential? " Some kids peak early, some kids are late bloomers. I really don’t think you can tell everything from tests scores and have no problem with schools looking at things beyond academics to choose a class.

</p>

<p>There is a story of someone’s kid who was a late bloomer, went to Virginia Tech and got good grades in engineering, and then got into a good grad school. I don’t remember if that was your kid or not. However, the story was told to demonstrate that you can’t tell who is going to be good anyway and there are people who haven’t blossomed yet, so it’s not important to admit according to demonstrated abilities. Well, my answer is why was it important for this kid to get into a good grad school. What about all the people who spent time in college having fun, or who had other priorities, but that still have potential? </p>

<p>

First–and this is what I think most colleges would do–we can look at whether the student has won prizes in reputable poetry competitions (like Scholastic, for example), and whether the student has had poetry published in magazines that apply critical standards. Second, we could ask the student to submit sample poems which we will have our English Department faculty examine. We might do both of these things. … It just seems to me that the most selective colleges are already following practices like this for poetry, music, and math and science, and are doing a pretty good job of it.

</p>

<p>I agree with you, actually. What they don’t do is vet leadership/community service activities in the same way. </p>

[sevmom]

<p>My niece did a 3 week summer writing program when she was in high school, at Bard or Bard at Simon’s Rock, can’t remember for sure. But there are quite a few programs out there, I believe.</p>

<p>lookingforward, my engineering kids really didn’t pursue anything engineering related in high school (one of them did a robotics program briefly in middle school but that was really it except for some summer science type camps in middle school -which they didn’t mention in college applications)… Nothing really in high school so that is not always necessary. They focused more on things like sports, music, scouts, outside of the classroom. They would never have wanted to participate in things like math competitions. Couldn’t even get them to prep for the SAT’s, let alone a math competition.</p>

<p>collegealum, My younger kid did go to Virginia Tech and graduated Magna Cum Laude in engineering (and was Summa through his junior year until he started slacking off a bit). But he is not in grad school . He is working since he graduated last year and enjoys his work ( Is working for a scientific research and engineering firm doing research on facial recognition) and thinks he will be published later this year (although his name will appear last since he is working with PhD’s and other people who have contributed much more to the research). He was a B + student in high school so I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that he has exceeded any expectations I had for him. </p>

[mathmom]

<p>There wasn’t a lot else in my son’s application. Excellient, CR score, glowing recommendation from APUSH teacher, 5’s on all the history APs, B+'s in English except senior year when he jumped off the honors/AP track and got an A+ and a minor role on the school literary magazine. He wasn’t selling himself as a future novelist. He applied either undecided or interested in IR. I figured adcoms saw a kid who’d been a bit of a slacker in high school, especially in the EC department, but he’d done a couple of interesting things that he made sound even more interesting than they probably were and he clearly had plenty of potential. He was actually a classic well-rounded kid - he also did orchestra and Science Olympiad.</p>

[sevmom]

<p>Just wanted to add (ran out of time to edit) that my kid’s high school grades were such a problem that he was initially waitlisted at Virginia Tech. When they took him off the waitlist, they would not admit him directly to engineering. He had to start in University Studies, did very well and then he was able to begin the transfer into engineering after the first semester. In general, you are not going to get into the better engineering programs with lackluster high school grades, no matter what your SAT’s are. So, collegeaum, I’m not sure if you are referring to me or not because I have never thought that schools should not admit based on “demonstrated abilities.” I think a kid who has potential but has not demonstrated that in high school may very well have to take their colleges years to prove themselves . </p>

[lookingforward]

<p>re 561. It’s not always necessary, no. But when you’re staring down thousands of apps, it’s a good thing to have. Different schools have different expectations- I should have put in the “ime,” ha. </p>

[texaspg]

<p>@hunt - good post #546.</p>

<p>@xiggi - this is the process I expect adcoms to be following when they are picking top humanities students at top schools, not based on professed interest in a major alone. Stating I love something is not sufficient when their profile shows they have only a school published article to show for it. Btw, the first ever female Fields medal winner wanted to be a poet when she was younger but got more interested in Math by teenage years.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>So, if I’m a college, maybe after fulfilling institutional needs (like athletics), I fill half my “academic” slots with kids who have already shown great promise in some particular area, and the other half with kids who are smart, motivated, and accomplished, but not in any one thing. Wouldn’t that make sense? And it seems to me that this is pretty much what the top schools do.</p>

[apprenticeprof]

<p>As I’ve said before, where I disagree with QM is that I think, to a large extent, Gary Genius, barring any disqualifying factors, is already getting into one of the very few top schools in the country. Maybe not MIT, on occasion, if they get just so many Gary Geniuses of precisely the same type that you actually need to be Gary Supergenius to be a real auto-admit, but then Harvard or Stanford or Yale. Unless we’re straining the definition of genius, maybe if GG can’t manage to get accepted to one of these schools, the adcoms didn’t think he was all that brilliant - or, at least, not so brilliant as to override other weaknesses in the application, and that strikes me as totally reasonable.</p>

<p>On the other hand, where I differ from others, at least in principle, is that I do think that to the extent that admissions can identify those students who stand out FOR ACADEMIC REASONS even in an already extremely talented pool, those students should be admitted. In other words, yes, Gary Genius should be preferred to Bobby Bright. That doesn’t mean Bobby Bright isn’t going to get in too, because by definition the GGs are pretty rare, and even MIT isn’t going to fill the entire class with them. We still have room for plenty of BBs, who we should select on the basis of all kinds of personal qualities, rather than trying to split hairs to decide if this BB is a little smarter than that BB. But I do think that when we’re talking about the small group of students at that highest level of academic achievement (and I don’t, of course, just mean SATs or rank) it should be possible to get into an institution of higher learning pretty much purely on the basic of that achievement. Yes, I suppose if GG is so absolutely inept socially that he has zero ECs other than the math team, can’t get a reference saying anything other than “He always does well on tests,” gives monosyllabic answers at his alumni interview and writes essays that sound like they were churned out by a robot, that would constitute a disqualifying factor, but I don’t think that’s a typical case, and just having a less holistically interesting application package than someone else shouldn’t, at that level, make the difference.</p>

<p>I don’t know if Derek Jeter is the most interesting man in the world, or how much diversity he adds to the Yankee clubhouse. He just happens to be a phenomenal ballplayer. I get that a college’s mission is a lot more diffuse than “win baseball games,” so selection isn’t simply going to be a matter of scouting the nine most talented people in one very narrow area. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for some students who got in just because they stood out for being really, really smart.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>apprenticeprof, I think perhaps one point of disagreement here is that some of us think the most selective colleges are already doing what you describe. The appearance of occasional anecdotes that suggest they don’t always do this may simply show that sometimes they make mistakes, or that some of those stellar applicants had high school disciplinary actions for cheating (or something else like that). In some cases, I suppose, the available “slots” just may be too few. If the top violin teacher in the land only takes two new students each year, what happens if, one year, there are four students who are better than any others in generations? Perhaps the teacher will stretch things and take three.</p>

<p>I just don’t buy that any highly selective college is rejecting somebody it believes is a genius in favor of somebody at the bottom of their admissions pile. I think they do reject plenty of really bright, accomplished kids in favor of other really bright, accomplished kids with somewhat lesser stats because those other kids have something else the school wants. But they aren’t going to reject the future Feynmann in order to get a smart kid from Idaho. They’ll accept the future Feynmann and the kid from Idaho–and reject two kids from New Jersey with slightly better stats than the kid from Idaho.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

@xiggi - this is the process I expect adcoms to be following when they are picking top humanities students at top schools, not based on professed interest in a major alone. Stating I love something is not sufficient when their profile shows they have only a school published article to show for it. Btw, the first ever female Fields medal winner wanted to be a poet when she was younger but got more interested in Math by teenage years.

</p>

<p>What does the “this is the process” refers to? Is it post 546? </p>

<p>For the record, do you understand that “stating something is enough” is exactly what I … questioned in our first exchanges. For reference, I wonder how the signals were incorporated in the application, and how anyone indicated preferences of majors in that same application.</p>

<p>And, again, my position from the get-go has been that the signals have to be supported by some evidence. The rest (a la I want to be a poet when the entire HS career is stem based) is just blah-blah. And that evidence should be clear from the activities list, a well-chosen LORs, or supplemental information. Not a problem when the applications is true to the candidate behind it. But I am repeating myself ad nauseam! </p>

<p>From my vantage point, it seems you are now disagreeing with your earlier stated position as it espouses what I wrote days ago. That or I am missing your point, which might very well be the case. </p>

[sevmom]

<p>But Jeter was a great high school player. He gave up a scholarship to Michigan when he was drafted 6th in the MLB draft . He spent 3 years in the Minors with the Yankees organization before moving up to the Majors. He just did not explode into the Yankees starting lineup right out of high school.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>

And, again, my position from the get-go has been that the signals have to be supported by some evidence. The rest (a la I want to be a poet when the entire HS career is stem based) is just blah-blah. And that evidence should be clear from the activities list, a well-chosen LORs, or supplemental information. Not a problem when the applications is true to the candidate behind it. But I am repeating myself ad nauseam!

</p>

<p>Why do you think I said anything different? I specifically said they need to SHOW with several language scores at a minimum that they are good at languages to profess interest in languages and not just claim interest.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>I agree with what xiggi is saying–if you want your interests and preferences to help you gain college admission, your whole application should support it. Otherwise, why would a college believe that you really want to be a Classics major?</p>

<p>There are a few situations where the background may not make much difference–for example, music performance and music theater–it’s pretty much about your audition. Nobody cares much how many times you had the lead in your high school musical, or even if you won awards. They will judge from your audition for themselves.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>

So, if I’m a college, maybe after fulfilling institutional needs (like athletics), I fill half my “academic” slots with kids who have already shown great promise in some particular area, and the other half with kids who are smart, motivated, and accomplished, but not in any one thing. Wouldn’t that make sense? And it seems to me that this is pretty much what the top schools do.

</p>

<p>By a “showing great promise in some particular area”, do you mean academic subject matter? If not, what would be your approximate breakdown? </p>

[Hunt]

<p>Well, I mean academic subject matter, as long as you include the arts in that. You are going to have high school students who are accomplished in various math and science fields, in writing, in art, and in music. There will be some, but fewer, in subjects like history, and there may not be many at all in subjects that aren’t really taught much in high schools, like political science, economics, psychology, architecture, anthropology, and lots of others. If you take only kids who have already staked out an area of interest, where are all your anthropologists, sociologists, etc., going to come from?</p>

[QuantMech]

<p>I will be back at some later time, when I have time to comment on posts in the interim. There is a lot to think about!</p>

<p>But I did want to respond briefly to lookingforward’s post #542, when she wrote, “Right now, I don’t see how saying a kid ‘has nothing more to put on the table’ versus ‘did not put anything more on the table’ are operationally equivalent. One is speculation, the other is based on what’s there or not in the app. As I keep saying, adcoms, ime, don’t guess. I think some here are guessing.”</p>

<p>I think the two statements are operationally equivalent, because the evidence of <em>more</em> needs to be present explicitly in the student’s application, or it is just as if he had no more. When I suggested that the two might be viewed as operationally equivalent, I characterized this as extending an olive branch to you, because it would permit the most charitable interpretation of “having nothing more to bring to the table.” I realize that you are not the author of those words, in any event, but as I read it, you do seem to support that point of view. Perhaps I am mistaken.</p>

<p>The person who asserts that an applicant “has nothing more to put on the table” is the one guessing, in the absence of information, in my opinion. And also guessing counter to what I regard as an ethical principal of regard for other people (though some may disagree). It is a cliche that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” </p>

<p>There is a Taoist story about men on a bridge looking at fish in the river. This version comes from a web site of Lucas Klein who is an Assistant Professor in the School of Chinese at Hong Kong University:</p>

<p>"Zhuangzi and Huizi were strolling on a bridge over the River Hao, when the former observed, “See how the minnows dart between the rocks! Such is the happiness of fishes.”
“You not being a fish,” said Huizi, “how can you possibly know what makes fish happy?”
“And you not being I,” said Zhuangzi, “how can you know that I don’t know what makes fish happy?”
“If I, not being you, cannot know what you know,” replied Huizi, “does it not follow from that very fact that you, not being a fish, cannot know what makes fish happy?”
“Let us go back,” said Zhuangzi, “to your original question. You asked me how I knew what makes fish happy. The very fact you asked shows that you knew I knew—as I did know, from my own feelings on this bridge.”</p>

<p>I assert that every individual fish has something more to bring to the table. (Added: This is a Taoist remark, and not a sick joke.)
I am not guessing.</p>

[uskoolfish]

<p>Haven’t read the thread yet, but wanted to comment on intellectual vitality. I wondered why D had been placed in one of NYU’s scholars programs given the fact that she had a 90.2 high school gpa and a 1330 sat. Certainly her stats were high enough for admissions (especially because she was a studio art major), but I did not expect the scholars placemen since I expected them to be numbers driven. </p>

<p>That question was solved when the dean of the school wrote a letter of recommendation for D last year (after knowing D for 2 years.) She said lots of wonderful things, but the most revealing was when she said that D was the personification of what Steinhardt was all about --someone immersed in art, theatre, music and education. So to them, it wasn’t about her precise GPA, but rather they valued the time she spent in and out of school pursuing the arts through summer programs, private lessons, various classes, performances, etc. and that she shared her passion with the community through her work with children.</p>

[sevmom]

<p>That’s a very good example, uskoolfish. Your daughter met admissions standards in terms of GPA and SAT and had lots of other things going for her as well. She sounds great. There may be kids with higher GPA’s or SAT’s that did not get into the program but may have also not shown the passion your daughter has shown.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>"The person who asserts that an applicant “has nothing more to put on the table” is the one guessing, in the absence of information, in my opinion. "</p>

<p>Fine. Trees falling in a forest. If the person has not demonstrated through (X) on his app / interview / personal presentation that he HAS something more to bring to the table. then it really doesn’t matter if a) he doesn’t have a thing extra to bring or b) he does, but he neglected to show it. </p>

[xiggi]

<p>

Why do you think I said anything different? I specifically said they need to SHOW with several language scores at a minimum that they are good at languages to profess interest in languages and not just claim interest

</p>

<p>Gee, TPG, you really are making this harder than it should be. Look at my entire post and not the “belly” only!</p>