<p><a href=“http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/12/admitting-the-artist.html[/url]”>http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/12/admitting-the-artist.html</a></p>
<p>One thing I think that the ivies do well is find and admit the unconventionally brilliant. They strive for a well-rounded class, not necessarily the well-rounded student. </p>
<p>Of my daughter’s cohort at Yale, most were kind of quirky and artsy, or math wizards. OK, they may have been A students in high school- but how hard is it to get As these days at our high schools, anyway? Not very, it seems. As for Harvard- I’d say that Zuckerburg was a pretty good example of unconventional brilliance. It’s not like these colleges have a template that they are looking for students to fit. Originality is certainly welcome and prized- especially at the top colleges. Students who have distinguished themselves in any arena are usually the ones the colleges compete for.</p>
<p>Many students don’t actually blossom until college, but I don’t think there is any way to get around that. They may be brilliant and have untapped potential, but they haven’t done anything yet to distinguish themselves. Spielberg is a good example. I don’t think there’s any way to know about these kinds of people until they actually produce something. Fortunately for artists, schooling is not that important for them to pursue their talents. What matters is that they get to practice and perfect their art, and often, that doesn’t require any college at all.</p>
<p>I think, Annasdad, and I think you may even agree with me here, the more important question is really, “Does it matter that the elites are ignoring the unconventionally brilliant?”</p>
<p>I would say, “No.” it does not matter. The unconventionally brilliant will be unconventionally brilliant with or without the “elites.” YMMV</p>
<p>I thought thats what schools like Reed and Evergreen and UChicago were for.</p>
<p>poetgrl, I do more or less agree with you. </p>
<p>moonchild, as I read the article, the author (a Harvard prof) is concerned that Harvard is becoming too one-dimensional in its acceptance strategy. </p>
<p>emerald, shouldn’t every university - especially universities that like to hold themselves up as intellectual havens - be seeking out students with the potential to become the next Emily Dickinson, even if it means potentially turning down the next potential Mark Zuckerberg?</p>
<p>I wasn’t aware that the Ivies held themselves up as intellectual havens.
For that to be true, you would see more students being weeded out after admission, rather than it being unusual to drop out or transfer, except in cases having to do with expenses.</p>
<p>It may not matter to the unconventionally brilliant.
As poetgirl suggests, they’ll get by.
Another question to ask is, does it matter to the conventionally brilliant?
When up to 40% of Harvard graduates are choosing careers in investment banking and business consulting, I wonder how much exposure they’re getting to other viewpoints and values.</p>
<p>Holding oneself up as something does not necessarily mean one deserves to be so regarded.</p>
<p>I am not sure a lot of the unconventionally brilliant kids apply to the elite colleges. Just because they are elite does not mean they have a reputation as intellectual (not the same thing). The grinding for high stats that seems to be required along with a one-sidedness in some area is something a lot of brilliant people just won’t do. Just watched a documentary on Einstein, and he was not a great student in his early university years. He would never have gotten into a top college in the US today. But as others have said, that does not mean that he would not have accomplished great things in physics.</p>
<p>And Annasdad, from a cynical perspective, why should they value the next ED over the next MZ? If MZ had actually gone on to graduate from Harvard, he surely would have helped their endowment more. And been more famous in the short term (and thus a credit to Harvard sooner), as poets are almost never recognized until after they are dead. :)</p>
<p>Emeraldkity, that is what U of Chicago USED to be for. Now with the Common App, increased advertising, and the move to a more pre-professional focus, they are just like the rest.</p>
<p>Gosh, given this</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you imagine the pages and pages of CC Parent Forum discussion about meritocracy, AA, holistic admissions, hooks, etc. that adopting the policy of looking for the next non-straight A artist will engender?</p>
<p>intparent, for the answer to the question you directed to me, read the article (the full article from Harvard Magazine - follow the link in the Blog post I linked to). She answers that question directly.</p>
<p>Here is the story without the weak sauce of the Daily Beast:</p>
<p>[Helen</a> Vendler on admitting and nurturing creative undergraduates | Harvard Magazine Nov-Dec 2012](<a href=“http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/11/writers-and-artists-at-harvard]Helen”>http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/11/writers-and-artists-at-harvard)</p>
<p>The original author does have a very valid point. But then so are the people who think Harvard needs more STEM students, more students from a lower SES, more foreign students, more girls, more hockey players, more goat herders from Bhutan … and the list goes on and on. </p>
<p>The reality is that there is a finite number of seats, and Harvard as a victim of its own riches and marketing prowess of its “prestigiosity” cannot accept everyone and every year. So, they have to zig and zag ans try to please all the vocal requests for more of this or that group. And they probably do a better job than anyone else, considering how people flock to their application with increasing vengeance. </p>
<p>High trees catch the most wind. And no tree is higher than Harvard. Even if they got something to say about that in … Palo Alto!</p>
<p>Why is it that kids whose talents lie in the arts and humanities are now called “unconventional.” Emily Dickinson was considered odd, but not because she was a poet.</p>
<p>Unconventional from the standpoint of a society that values economic success above all else.</p>
<p>I’m confused … don’t we have 2 or 3 other threads going now where others are complaining the the admission of the Ivyies do not focus on raw academic measures (GPAs and SATs) enough and they focus too much on other stuff … and now in this thread the argument is they focus too narrowly on traditional academics and not enough on other stuff … tough crowd.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think it is accurate to say that up to 40% are choosing CAREERS in IB and consulting. Especially with respect to consulting, I think many elite grads are seeking consultimg JOBS as their first jobs out of college but they have no intention of staying in the field for more than 3 or 4 years. Many, many McKinsey alums have gone onto to bigger and better things (albeit often times lower paying things). A stint at one of these firms opens many doors in the government and non-profit worlds. i know quite a few HYPS grads who after a grueling stint at one of the elite consulting firms went on to land fabulous (though relatively low paying) policy-making jobs in govt or non-profit worlds. Many others have gone on to corporate management jobs in varying industries. Some have gone to law school, and, yes, some end up on Wall Street. But very few of the young HYPS grads getting these consulting jobs intend to stick around long enough to make partner.</p>
<p>I’m interested as to why people think ivies would have to lower their standards in terms of grades and test score to get people who are creative and “unconventionally brilliant.”</p>
<p>If anything, you would need to lower the expectations in the EC department. It’s more likely that the next Emily Dickinson would be a great student than it is for her to organize a fund raiser for cancer. Or more accurately, several fundraisers and found several clubs or events. Creative intellectuals take second place to multitaskers in elite admissions. </p>
<p>As I’ve said before, once you get to the point where you are near-perfect grades and stats, you have diminishing returns in elite admissions at most places.</p>
<p>The point the author makes us that to admit a student who has the potential to be a brilliant poet but who has Cs in math and chemistry would mean denying a spot to the conventional high achiever. And had you read the article, you’d have noted that she does talk about ECs.</p>
<p>I did read the article awhile ago when it was first posted, but didn’t remember that.</p>
<p>However, it’s worth noting that no one mentions the EC part of it when they comment on the article. </p>
<p>I for one wouldn’t be opposed to recruiting potential writers/artists even if they had bad grades in another area. However, the key is if they are able to reliably identify talent. I’d be more comfortable with such a policy if real writers were evaluating writing samples than by the regular adcoms doing it.</p>
<p>I never held a Telethon,
Nor cured sickness in Capri,
Yet still I think that Harvard
Should attend to Poetry.</p>