5 Little Known Tips for Getting In

Parents Forum
81

<p>Here’s something that I found interesting: my D1’s college advisor absolutely raved over D1’s extremely rough first draft of a Common App essay, because she said it showed who D1was and that she was an original and interesting person. She even pulled up the essay of another student she’s counseling (with identifying info redacted) to show us “the kind of thing I usually see”, and it was well written, perfectly grammatical and analytically sound, but she said “it tells me nothing about him. It doesn’t even make me want to read all the way to the end.” </p>

<p>This advisor is someone who used to read applications for Stanford, so she does know something about the typical application essay that gets submitted, if not about exactly which applications ultimately get accepted (since I think she was just one of the first-round readers).</p>

<p>I guess we will see where D1 gets accepted to see if she is right!</p>

82

<p>Of course I can see intellectual vitality in some of my students, lookingforward. They are in college or grad school, and I have the luxury of the time needed to cultivate talent and interest when I see those qualities. </p>

<p>I have also seen intellectual vitality in some of QMP’s friends, when they were of high school age. And I have seen my assessment of those students amply borne out by their subsequent performance (all are in grad school or out in the work world now). They weren’t waiting to catch fire intellectually while they were in high school. Their intellectual vitality was already evident to anyone who actually knew them. </p>

<p>Based on observations of admissions outcomes for other students in QMP’s cohort, I have some skepticism that a student’s statement and interview (even a smashingly good interview) can overcome lack-luster recommendations from one or more of the high-school staff. Sometimes there is mismatch between the student and the GC. In some cases, the GCs are rightly pre-occupied with students who pregnant, using drugs, or going on trial for felonies. In the current high-stakes testing environment, teachers gain much more by moving a borderline student across the line into “proficient” than they do from challenging very bright students. In the local high school, there were a few teachers who were genuinely wonderful for the top students. They were in the minority in the school though.</p>

<p>QMP got acceptances on 7 of 8 applications (including multiple colleges represented by single initials on CC), so I cannot complain on a personal basis.</p>

<p>You are right that we are back to the same argument as before. (I note that you posted before I did, on this thread.) You have much more faith in the judgment of admissions committee members than I do. You also have much less faith in the observations of parents who have been around the block a few times, and do not have the limited outlook that you ascribe to a lot of the students you encounter, in person, on CC, or on paper. </p>

83

<p>Remember, these schools don’t have to be perfect in terms of identifying “intellectual vitality” or any other trait. They just have to get it mostly right. And it’s my belief that they do, at least when I observe my kids’ peers at their college, as well as the college results of their high school peers. A few “grinds” are admitted, but the colleges may want a few such people, especially if they are trying to grow their engineering department (sorry).</p>

<p>It is possible, of course, that a change in focus in the admissions office could have a significant impact on the kind of kids being admitted, and this may well have happened at Chicago. But it’s also my observation that the people coming after us never have quite as much intellectual vitality as we did, even if they are coming right after us.</p>

84

<p>@Hunt - I get your drift and tongue-in-cheekness wrt “it’s also my observation that the people coming after us never have quite as much intellectual vitality as we did, even if they are coming right after us”…but it reminded me of two things:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Kids today are definitely learning more, and faster, than we did in the olden days. My own children get stuff like RSA algorithms in Algebra II and of course decades of US History that hadn’t happened yet. :wink: FWIW, scores are also a lot higher, but I think that is also the structure of the test and the “rescoring”. GPA’s too, again possibly not due to kids alone… (Of course, they did drop subjects like interpolation from log tables, for better or for worse.)</p></li>
<li><p>There’s something going on the other direction in some areas, though I’m not sure exactly what - to wit: In practicing for teacher tests in physics and chemistry, I ran out of practice exams and the easiest ones for me to find online were the NYS Regents Exams. (I have no connection to these exams or to NY, but they seemed like good exams.) I ended up working back about fifteen years in each, and the tests definitely got harder as I went back in time. I don’t think I got dumber or got less practice :wink: as I went along.</p></li>
</ol>

85

<p>I have always been a very intellectually driven person, I am about to start my PhD in the fall. However, I personally don’t think I had truly remarkable teacher recommendations (I waived my rights so I don’t know maybe I did) for undergrad applications simply because I didn’t really connect with teachers at my high school or with my counselor. He suggested I apply to colleges that were ranked far below where I ended up. He seemed surprised that I got in as he thought only the other girl applying, a real grind who also got in, would make it. It seemed that he and other teachers favored these types of students. My chemistry teacher, who definitely was not an intellectual type, openly did this while becoming very annoyed at my questions (which were actually very valid and I got the answers I was looking for in my honors chem class in college). I’m sure there are other kids like me who had this experience. Essays may not always be enough to counter this. </p>

<p>There was also the fact that my high school was very competitive and grades were not inflated. I didn’t share notes with anyone like other students did and this probably hurt my grades as I spent the required hour taking notes from the US history book. I also didn’t write to please the teacher in English which is probably why I would get an A- instead of the A. I also had trouble in math (which it turns out I am quite good at and understand very well) since I could not finish the extremely long tests. If I had been able to overcome these factors I probably would have been competitive for HYPSM.</p>

<p>In college that wasn’t an issue as I connected really well with my professors as I wanted to go to academia. I also assume that many saw themselves in me since I have that type of personality. People who saw my recommendations said they were so impressed that I had a great shot at any school based on my recs alone.</p>

86

<p>@Poeme - it sounds like you were, and are, a very strong, creative, intellectual student, and it’s great that you’re going for the PhD. And by the way, I don’t think that what it takes for a successful PhD is the same as what it takes for a successful HS/undergrad career. There’s a whole lot more creativity/rebelliousness/sheer-strength-of-will required to get that PhD. At some level, you can’t be too beholden to what people said was true, before you came along with your original research (yes, yes, you do a sources review and learn the background also).</p>

<p>I would say, however, that there is not necessarily an “either/or” with intellectuality/PhD skills vs. being a successful HS student, or even with the learned “grind” behavior of jumping through hoops.</p>

<p>I have taught HS for 18 years, and I have seen all types. I enjoy talking to the more creative, rebellious types who don’t always get the highest grades - and I enjoy talking to them more than what I think you’re calling the “grind” type of student who is only focused on the next grade and would never e.g. read more on a topic just out of curiosity. I myself was not always a rule-follower, in spite of going to “one of the colleges CC people refer to by a single letter” ;)</p>

<p>However, what I’m seeing more and more is the kind of student who manages to be the best of both worlds - creative, fun to talk to, driven, and also successful within the HS context (whatever hoops that means). Kids today are more groomed than ever, and that includes the kind of parenting that reinforces the importance of what you refer to as “pleas[ing] the teacher” and also reading for pleasure and doing independent work. Not all kids can hit it on all cylinders, but my guess is that HYPSM admissions people can pick a whole lot of admits who do succeed.</p>

<p>Your other point also stands strong, which is to say - undergrad admissions are, we all hope, not the end of a process but the beginning. Successes and efforts in college and beyond are at least as important in one’s eventual success, even one’s eventual academic success.</p>

87

<p>QM, a kid submits his application, 13-16+ pages of “self-presentation” to adult strangers picking a class for their institution. Adcoms don’t go in circles trying to second guess or fill in the blanks. You have what they want and are savvy enough to show it (not just tell) or not. </p>

<p>Some posters repeatedly say ECs don’t matter, that the elites want you to stand out in most unusual ways, that it’s not a rounded student they seek, but a rounded class, that interviews don’t matter, that teachers love the student in question and are sure to tell adcoms what they need to know, that founding a club shows leadership, that this book or that is definitive, etc. Not the picture I observe. So we disagree. </p>

<p>I keep saying, with holistic and in any fiercely competitive pool, it’s the “whole” - ie, that every piece matters, leads to impressions, that you can cautiously be aware of the impressions you create- or not. And that these are institutions first, serving their own needs first. You have noted, in the past, pieces you feel should matter more. Some posters dismiss certain elements or promote others. I think I take the safer position. Know your targets, what they like, want and need. Stand back and try to realize the impressions you create in your app. Be able to self-edit. It’s your college app. It’s not that hard.</p>

88

<p>@intparent‌

</p>

<p>Come on, you honestly think UChicago is asleep at the wheel? They know exactly what they’re doing.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think “strivers and grinders” are what UChicago has always attracted. Kids partying on a visit? Shocking. For what you said to be true about the culture shifting, you’d also have to have the professors turn soft. Which simply is not the case.</p>

89

<p>

</p>

<p>You mean tricks like getting a 4.0 and a near perfect score on the ACT or SAT? Or do you mean “tricks” like hiring tutors for your kids, hiring a college adviser to read (write?) their essays, urging them to pursue leadership positions and spinning their time shadowing a doctor to sound like they helped cure cancer last summer? This stuff has been going on for ages. It is my opinion that UChicago branding – not necessarily the common app – has made them a “cool(er)” destination for kids that would have gone to Duke, Northwestern or lower tier Ivies.</p>

90

<p>What the heck is a “lower tier Ivy”?</p>

<p>Give it a break GullLake!</p>

91

<p>What the heck is a “poser” that gets into UChicago? Is that a euphemism for a gifted person that has social skills?</p>

<p>Lower tier Ivy in this context would be some students who target Cornell and Dartmouth, who both have a large Greek life and are known for their partying? I assume these are the kinds of characters s/he is referencing at UChicago’s accepted weekend. People that may trade the Ivy prestige for the Top 5 US News ranking of UChicago.</p>

92

<p>GullLake. You say you are a current rising HS senior. I’m not sure I believe that…but that is what you are saying. </p>

<p>Where is YOUR first hand experience with the issues about which you are posting? Or are you getting your info for friends, cousins, relatives, and others (like another not very credible poster does)?</p>

<p>Where is YOUR life’s experiences to be ever so knowledgable about any of this?</p>

<p>I’m not saying that 17 year olds can’t have opinions…but you state your opinions like they are solid facts.</p>

93

<p>@GullLake - I don’t think anyone interested in Engineering, ILR, Hotels, or a bunch of other majors would ever think that Cornell was lower-tier than other schools, particularly other Ivy schools. Isn’t Cornell the highest-ranked Ivy in Engineering, if we’re concerned only about “ranking”?</p>

<p>My sense about Greek life is that it is ubiquitous (I guess except for Oberlin? And a few others) but that doesn’t mean that most students join. The highest fraternity/sorority joining rate that I’ve heard on our tours was around 40%.</p>

<p>And finally, partying - if that is a euphemism for alcohol, yes, colleges have alcohol around, and again, there is a huge variety of what kids do, at all schools. I think these stereotypes aren’t really helpful.</p>

94

<p>I was merely addressing another poster who questioned THE most analytical university in the nation’s admissions department. He implied UChicago is getting bamboozled by what I’d characterize as potential sorority and fraternity party stars, who don’t fit the UChicago (academic) ethos?</p>

95

<p>

</p>

<p>First of all, MANY of the people on CC who weigh in about elite schools not only attended them, but have children who have applied, been accepted, and graduated from them. What qualifications do YOU HAVE which trumps their personal experience? Why should anyone believe even one of your assertions (stated as fact) if the threshold of credibility is having “first hand undergrad exposure to elite schools”?</p>

96

<p>There’s also another group of us weighing in–people who attended elite schools ourselves but who have kids who aren’t, but who in some cases are getting opportunities beyond either what we had or what their elite-school peers have now.</p>

<p>And then of course there are adults who are doing just fine without an elite school education and are understandably reluctant to pay a premium for their kid’s ill-founded prestige obsession (and the entitled attitude that goes with it).</p>

97

<p>AOs are no superman so don’t expect them to go out of their ways to “detect” or “second guess” the “intellectual vitality” if you haven’t demonstrated it in some spectacular way(s). They are there to carry out certain tested processes, which don’t guarantee every talent will be found but rather a high quality student body that meets multifaceted institutional needs can be formed. By “holistic review”, they are free to take in someone who per their judgement has demonstrated the intellectual vitality through means other stellar academic records at school and the tangible awards/projects done outside classroom, but it’s unrealistic to ask them to identify “late bloomers” or “maverick talents”. Over time, they have been doing well enough to warrant the continuation of their selection process.</p>

98

<p>

This is the kind of sour-grapesy-sounding comment that keeps us defenders of elite schools coming back for more.</p>

99

<p>As the parent of two University of Chicago alumni (and the friend of several others), I can report that both of my kids were the target of older students claiming that their class was not intellectual enough, and both of them complained bitterly about the low intellectual standards of the classes that followed them. My peers who went to Chicago can’t believe my kids and their cohort could possibly be up to snuff given the diluted version of the Core currently in use. In other words, if you listen to alumni reports intellectual standards at the University of Chicago have been in constant decline for a generation, maybe two, notwithstanding continuous improvements in the paper credentials of the students and the fact that they still seem to win name-brand scholarships and get admitted to good PhD programs at the same high rate.</p>

<p>So, I agree with Hunt. Those who come after us, no matter how closely, are never our equals.</p>

<p>At least in my little corner of the world, I think HYPS (and Chicago, too) do a pretty good job of identifying intellectual vitality. Not perfect, and not without rational exceptions (it’s OK if star running backs or the children of Presidents are mere grinders), but pretty darn good.</p>

<p>The thing is, there isn’t that much proven intellectual vitality in the 18-year-old world to go around. In some cases, you have to wait for kids to mature. If you tried to fill the top 20 universities with nothing but intellectually vital kids who also had the focus and achievement to take advantage of what they offer, I think there would be a whole bunch of unfilled seats. Kids do mature into more intellectual vitality; it happens every day, but it’s not as if every high school encourages or rewards that.</p>

100

<p>Hunt, I am talking about a specific poster who has complained in other threads about his parents making him settle for a “lesser” state school. Not all kids who want to go to elite schools have prestige obsessions.</p>