<p>Interested Dad,</p>
<p>Your favorite school has lots of these students. They are far above average students at that school and probably could not be admitted to a school at which they were average.</p>
<p>This could have been an interesting argument if you folks were not so determined to avoid the topic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>a) You don’t have to have a “hook” to get accepted to most selective colleges in the country. Many “just regular” kids get accepted every year. How? They presented a personality, an interesting something or other, that allowed the admissions committee to picture a vibrant young adult contributing to a college community. I know one whose “interesting something” was a refusal to take the state mandated high school performance test, organizing a protest of standardized testing, and being ineligible to get a high school diploma. I know of another whose “interesting something” was going on archaeological digs for dinosaur bones. There are no national awards for digging for fossils, but it’s interesting…or at least it probably sounded interesting to whomever read the college essay.</p>
<p>b) Your comment about “truly surrounded by intellectual peers” makes your hypothetical student sound like a complete snob.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Baloney. My daughter was pretty much “average” for her school by the narrow measurements you have provided, which means that about half the enrolled students have lower “stats” and a bunch have higher “stats”. The only thing your hypothetical applicant has told us is SAT scores. That tells us nothing. My daughter’s school rejects 60% of their applicants with perfect 800s on the Verbal SAT or the Math SAT. They accept a ton of students with SATs below 700 on one of those.</p>
<p>Your comment about the hypothetical student being a snob is symptomatic of the problem, which is the entrenched anti-intellectualism built into the selection process. This is not, I repeat not about the SAT’s, but rather about the desire of college ad coms to inject totally non-intellectual elements into the selection process to the point that intellectual criteria, however you define them, are crowded out.</p>
<p>“A question of fit”</p>
<p>When I saw the title of this thread, I thought for a moment it belonged over here 
:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=331308[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=331308</a></p>
<p>I have no idea why the school took your D, and I don’t care. But the rest of your post just supports my point. Many of the students, that your D’s school takes so much pride in rejecting, could have been accepted were it not for the school’s desire to use non-intellectual criteria for making this decison. Are you going to tell me they don’t?</p>
<p>*Emeraldkity,</p>
<p>Yes you have mentioned it before.*</p>
<p>I realize this- I only mention it again- for the new people & because while your hypothetical student doesn’t want to have their interests outside the classroom drive their choice of schools, the schools do look at the whole student, not just one facet.</p>
<p>Afterall the student will be living there for 4 years at least- a big chunk of your life, particulary for someone not yet two decades old ( I assume)
While I have heard students say at the outset, that buildings- student activities, living space, sports, etc “dont matter”, after spending a few months 24/7 with things that “don’t matter” , they may find that they do. ;)</p>
<p>Many of the students, that your D’s school takes so much pride in rejecting, could have been accepted were it not for the school’s desire to use non-intellectual criteria for making this decison. Are you going to tell me they don’t?</p>
<p>I wasn’t really aware that they take pride in rejecting anyone- I don’t have that impression. I do have the impression that schools who are able to take the time to read portfolios and essays, are able to craft a class with varied interests and abilities.</p>
<p>even the UW which has a freshman class of about 5,000, is looking at applications individually</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope. Just the opposite, in fact. If I were to try to finger one common trait about the successful applicants at my daughter’s school it would be that each of them managed to communicate some kind of intellectual curiousity or engagement about something…almost anything…above or beyond standard “stats”. And, I’ve watched several hundred applicants here on CC give it their best shot.</p>
<p>There are applicants with perfect 800s on their SAT who fail to do that. There are applicants with 600s on their SATs who do.</p>
<p>I don’t think that approach to admissions is unusual at all. I think it’s the basis for un-hooked admissions at many colleges and universities.</p>
<p>Curious
Re: post 45-
Go and argue with the adcoms about how you think the process SHOULD BE, instead of with parents who know how the process IS!</p>
<p>EK</p>
<p>Why do you think ID knows these numbers. It’s because the school brags about them.</p>
<p>menloparkmom, </p>
<p>If you don’t have anything to say why did you post?</p>
<p>Can one judge the degree of intellectualism of applicants by stats alone? MIT doesn’t think so. Which is why the teachers recs ask whether an applicant has received presumably high grades by dint of hard work, memorization, grade-consciousness or brilliance. One has to conclude that as far as MIT is concerned not all SAT 1500 are equal. Some may indeed be more brilliant (or “intellectual”) than others. Adcoms rely on teachers’ recs and students’ essays to distinguish among students with similar board scores and GPAs.</p>
<p>The fact that some colleges pass over some high scoring applicants in favor of lower scoring ones is not a sign of anti-intellectualism on their part. Chicago, that bastion of intellectualism, is said to put the least emphasis on board scores among the selective schools, and far more on essays.</p>
<p>ID,</p>
<p>Are you telling me that your D’s school does not bend over backwards to recruit athletes and URMs and does not lower its standards at all for legacies, development candidates and celebrity children.</p>
<p>Marite,</p>
<p>Could you read the thread before joining in. This is not about using SAT’s to judge intelligence, if you want to start a thread to argue about that I’ll join you there.</p>
<p>curiosu14 - i’m sorry but you keep getting yourself tied up in knots with your own hypothethical. to try to get away from the sats, you say you aren’t talking about them. but then you go right smack back to them to try to prove that ID’s school is admitting less “intellectual” students. because you keep assuming that those with the 800’s must be more intellectual than those with the lower sat’s. </p>
<p>you keep wanting to talk about shear intellectualism as if it is a static measurable attribute. it isn’t. there are different types of intellectualism. some one who sees the beauty in complicated formula may be bored to tears by the most thought provoking piece of literature. some one else who may love to discuss greek philosophy may glaze over at the mention of international politics. and then there may be those who “score” lower, but can hold their own and then some in any of those conversations. who are you to judge the relative value of their intellectualism?</p>
<p>you have set up an artificial construct trying to use a narrow definition - shear intelligence – and then bemoan all of us for not getting your point because we just don’t sympathize with the poor intellectual who is simply seeking his own kind. you are the one who is failing to comprehend the breadths of the issue of intellectualism – which is why everyone keeps saying that the issue of fit goes well beyond the simple question of how much “smart” an individual student has.</p>
<p>your constant repetition of the same flawed construct just doesn’t make it any more rational or thought provoking.</p>
<p>Bizymom, </p>
<p>Here is a challange for you: try to state my argument. If you can do it accurately, I will re-read all of your posts before reposting. As far as I can tell you have paid absolutely no attention to my posts and are just spouting the same tired arguments you are used to posting on issues that sound similar to mine.</p>
<p>Curious:</p>
<p>Touchy, aren’t you? I HAVE read the whole thread. You have chosen to define intellectualism in a way that many other posters as well as adcoms disagree with.</p>
<p>Marite </p>
<p>I offer you the same challenge I offered Buzimom. Bet you can’t do it.</p>