<p>@jym626 - I don’t think any of us really has the monopoly on refraining from posting, in this thread…</p>
<p>@pizzagirl - I thought @cobrat’s idea was kind of funny. At any rate, I think as an essay reader, I’d rather read about using Barney and recombinant DNA than a hundredth essay on “how I helped poor people, you know, the kind of people who aren’t like me”</p>
<h1>1468</h1>
<p>
</p>
<p>seriously?</p>
<p>Although I might agree with the authoritative voice, I’m pretty sure QM has never given advice to students on how to get in, in contrast to some other posters, and don’t understand the sense of outrage she seemingly inspires by questioning or criticizing the admissions process. How is someone reading her posts potentially damaged by incorrect or misleading advice?</p>
<p>I kind of enjoy cobrat’s inserts of comic relief. Though if I don’t have enough time to read all the posts as carefully as they deserve, I may just skip his joke ones, as I try to concentrate on the main points. Sorry cobrat : (</p>
<p>Since I hail from the rural south, I definitely understand cousins. I could write pages, but won’t. I definitely get that perspective, for sure ; )</p>
<p>I appreciate it when posters addressing different points split the posts up into more readable segments, especially when the ideas are complex.</p>
<p>none of my ideas are complex</p>
<p>It’s the ■■■■■-like distractions on thread that’s already confused by protestations of confusion. </p>
<p>Some may not know you can edit a post for up to 15 minutes, add a comment that way. I get that some want to be nicey- and let others say what they want, whatever it is, even unfiltered, irrelevant or coy. But it’s also nice not to hog. In theory, this thread doesn’t belong to any one poster, the topic isn’t really one poster over and over. And, as in college essays, one should be able to self-edit.
Anyone claiming not to closely read may not be as bothered, sure. But that leads to more confusion- eg, who said what. Over and over.</p>
<p>lol, alh, #1485!</p>
<p>I think that some of the information that has emerged recently on this thread could be very helpful, in line with the original topic.</p>
<p>For example, the list of activities of people in the entering class at PG’s daughter’s college is quite illuminating. I agree that it shows that “this school really values people who do something that is unexpected and unique,” and that no one should rush into fox-hunting in an attempt to get into this school.</p>
<p>The list is interesting to me in other ways as well. For one, it seems quite short, given the number of students in the entering class. My guess is that this reflects web design issues and thoughts about the right length of the list to communicate with the audiences of incoming students and prospective students? I would also guess that there were many students in the entering class who also did something unique, but who aren’t listed. I would be curious about the fraction of the class who had only more traditional EC’s.</p>
<p>Another way that the list is interesting to me is through the implicit emphasis [made explicit by PG] on doing “something that sounds like it would be fascinating to learn about,” including the emphasis on “doing.” Certainly that seems to be a consistent point of view throughout looking forward’s posts as well. (I think this is right, but please let me know if not.) </p>
<p>The work of people in my field does involve quite a lot of “doing,” but it is really more focused on “learning.” Part of the time, we are teaching or collaborating, but a lot of the time we are just alone, working. I don’t think that a proclivity for this type of thing should necessarily be disqualifying for an academic institution–and I do assume that such people can still get into the mix at a top school. And granted, one doesn’t want all of the students holed up in the library learning all the time, or in a dorm room working on problem sets all the time.</p>
<p>The emphasis on “uniqueness” is strong as well. I find everyone interesting, whether they are doing something unusual or whether they are engaged in very common activities. Needless to say, I think I could find the (n + 1)st Asian American USAMO contestant who is a virtuoso pianist and All-State tennis player quite interesting. I don’t actually know anyone who fits that description; this is a conjecture–and I am not hoping to advance the admissions odds of that group, specifically. </p>
<p>With regard to the dollhouse collector, I would guess that it would be much more productive for her to <em>build</em> dollhouses, and give them to preschools, elementary schools, children’s classes in churches, other religious organizations, and shelters for the homeless or battered women. It would be especially nice if the dollhouses weren’t stately colonials or Victorian mansions. It would also be good if the layout of the dollhouses displayed some cultural sensitivity. For example, I think some people would really like to have fireplaces in the dollhouses. Others would really like for there to be sufficient space for the whole family to eat in the kitchen. (We mostly ate in the kitchen when I was growing up, though my mother sometimes lamented that we ate in the dining room such a low fraction of the time.) Swimming pool in the back yard, and what type, or none? I am sure that there are many more examples of good design. This is on the right track, yes? Not that I suggest this specific activity to applicants, but modifying this type of thing according to their interests.</p>
<p>For me, fox-hunting would be a negative on an application, even if no foxes were injured in the process, and it just involved a group of people who were out for a jolly good time, riding around the country with their dogs barking. So training fox-hunting ponies would not help an applicant, with me. Perhaps this illustrates lack of fit to the particular college.</p>
<p>Apologies for the length of this–it might have been better to split it up.</p>
<h1>1486 was cross-posted with this. #1486 reads as slightly hostile, in my opinion. I am not sure who is putting up “protestations of confusion.” As far as I can tell, I am not confused at all. I do apologize again for the mis-attribution. I didn’t double-check, and I definitely should have done that. I think the dollhouse collector was your example, lf, and was a hypothetical red-headed young woman named Janie? The thread is long and I didn’t check back, so I didn’t mention the source on the dollhouse-collector example in the earliest version of this post.</h1>
<p>Uncertainty is distinct from confusion, in my book.</p>
<p>“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.”
― Richard P. Feynman</p>
<p>“It is not that I’m so smart. But I stay with the questions much longer.”
― Albert Einstein</p>
<p>: )</p>
<p>Fretful,
Sure anyone can post. But to encourage posters to read them it’s helpful for them to be in a form that isn’t inclined to make the readers eyes glaze over. </p>
<p>“The list is interesting to me in other ways as well. For one, it seems quite short, given the number of students in the entering class. My guess is that this reflects web design issues and thoughts about the right length of the list to communicate with the audiences of incoming students and prospective students? I would also guess that there were many students in the entering class who also did something unique, but who aren’t listed. I would be curious about the fraction of the class who had only more traditional EC’s.”</p>
<p>For someone so book smart, you’re missing the obvious. This was a list to give a FLAVOR of “and here are some of your new classmates.” Of course it’s short - they can’t list 500 students. Of course there are students who did interesting things that didn’t make this list- including kids who did more traditional ECs. They never claimed “and here is the subset of the 20 most interesting kids and the other 480 are yawners.” </p>
<p>And probably the majority of kids “only” had traditional ECs. Because there is no formula. Which is why you have to be your best self, not try to conform to what you think they want. </p>
<p>QM, did you really need words and words to describe different types if dollhouses, who eats in the kitchen, etc, when my comment was about the sorts of current students a college touts, as a way of understanding what that school values? You yanking our chains? </p>
<p>I wasn’t even meaning rising freshmen who have not yet started. Those are samples of their hs efforts. </p>
<p>The trouble with these lists is that in fact probably the vast majority of the class didn’t do things that sound nearly so cool. So kids get the idea that they need to do weird stuff to get in. Certainly if you have an unusual EC you should hype it up. If you have a merely interesting EC you should figure out a way to write about it in an engaging way. My older son started his I’m a computer nerd essay with a bit of humor. My younger son’s interesting EC’s were pretty marginal I thought, but it was the way he wrote about them that made him sound interesting. I can’t prove anything of course, but I have to think that his essays and recommendations pushed him over the edge because his grades and scores were all over the map. (Well not all over - but he had several B-'s, and a 100 point spread on the SAT.)</p>
<h1>1421</h1>
<p>
</p>
<p>I had to back up to this. Is there a core group and everyone else is just some spice to enhance their college experience? In my scenario, is PG’s list the core or the spice?
…</p>
<p>LF: I am reading QM’s dollhouse post as using that example to show & tell something very important about the student. Some of these tellings could be seen as positive, others as negative. The response will probably depend on the reader. It hadn’t yet occurred to me, that in certain circumstances, fancy dollhouses could be see as evidence of lack of perspective. For me, an interesting idea. And definitely relating back to what sort of students a school values. Who fits.</p>
<p>“Oooooo…look at us! We admitted an actress! Isn’t that soooo awesome?” …yawn.</p>
<p>Sorry, I find these lists tiresome and boastful. No humility here. </p>
<p>These lists aren’t meant to be prescriptive. They’re simply a way for the school to say to incoming freshmen, “Look at what an interesting bunch your classmates are. Now go out and get to know them!”</p>
<p>Only overly nervous applicants and their parents trying to read the tea leaves read such lists and think, “Oh no, I’m neither a fox hunter nor a junior fire fighter. How will I ever get in?”</p>
<p>“Fox hunting” carries such a weight of connotations. I guess that is true of “fire fighter”, as well. I have to look at that list more closely and think about the “marketing/branding” implications.</p>
<p>Admitting someone who is famous or will be famous is not that hard. Most colleges do it.</p>
<p>Getting them to show up at your college is the hard part.</p>
<p>She’s actually a pony trainer, but that doesn’t sound quite as interesting without the “for fox-hunting” part. 
</p>
<p>I think sometimes we focus a bit too much on the word “fit” when a lot of what the admissions committee is looking for is the ability to contribute to the school in some meaningful way. This can be as an academic, an athlete, a student leader, a performer, or in a host of other ways. Of course it’s going to be hard to contribute as a brilliant computer programmer at a school without a CS major, or as a linebacker at a school without a football team, or even as French major when the school has been flooded with applicants who want to study the language. When a student’s interests/talents and a school’s need meet- there’s the sweet spot.</p>