<p>I always chuckle when people say that schools like Harvard miss the really creative people. Of course Harvard (or whatever school) doesn’t have a monopoly on awesome students, but it’s hardly lacking. Yo-Yo Ma, John Adams (the composer), John Updike, Elliott Carter, Emerson and Thoreau, Darren Aronofsky, John Lithgow, Peter Sellers…artists wild and conservative, path-breaking or genre-defining, conventional and not…</p>
<p>This list can go on and on. And these are just some names of those involved in fields that are ‘conventionally artistic’. I haven’t even started listing the names of non-fiction writers (i.e. Walter Isaacson, James Gleick et al) or TV writers, or people behind ad campaigns you’ve seen and love. (Or about several dozen other categories/fields) </p>
<p>I can probably come up with a list for most of these ‘elites’. You can too. Just go to the wiki alum page. Half the sitcoms and HBO shows currently airing are probably written and run by Wesleyan grads.</p>
<p>re: Galanter. No one should underestimate Brown. Pick a crazy, random major there like semiotics and you’re talking alum including everyone from Duncan Sheik to Steven Johnson.</p>
<p>Maybe in NYC it begins that early but not out here in suburban San Diego. Both my girls ended up at Ivy colleges. D1 says applying to Harvard never once occurred to her until half way though her Jr. year when her SAT scores arrived. Even then it wasn’t on her radar until I pointed out to her that her scores possibly made her competitive in the college admissions big time. Prior to that my own hopes for her had been focused on UC Berkeley - which is about as high as her high school GC ever thinks to aim as well.</p>
<p>D2 probably started thinking Ivy a little sooner in her career because she had the example of the success of her big sister, which probably served to make the possibilities seem more real and achievable. And BTW, we are middle class white folks. No big wealth. No Ivy legacy. Not famous. No URM status. Not recruited athletes. The very sort of people that some on CC love to insist just can’t get admitted.</p>
<p>Brown IS underrated on this board, but the post above overrates it substantially. The difference between Brown’s open curriculum and the rather mild core/distributional rules at other peer schools is a matter of nuance, if that. It is mainly a marketing strategy.</p>
<p>And the statement, “whether you are talking Rhodes, Fulbrights, or other more conventional signatures of achievement, Brown does as well or better than the more conventional schools like HYP”? What “more conventional” signatures of achievement are there than Rhodes Scholarships? In any event, Brown doesn’t even come close to Harvard (or Yale, or Princeton, or several other colleges) in those particular derbies. It’s fair to ask whether they really matter – no, they don’t – but Brown can’t claim a lot of bragging rights there. As for career success after college . . . of course, Brown graduates do great. And Brown has lots of author/actor/musician grads, too, albeit not so many of the caliber of Yo-Yo Ma, John Adams, Alan Gilbert.</p>
<p>@JHS. While we’re at it. I’m gonna add two names that most will recognize: Alan Jay Lerner and Leonard Bernstein. My Fair Lady or West Side Story? </p>
<p>American orchestras notoriously hate to hire American music directors. Most are European imports. The NY Phil is an exception, and out of three American music directors, two were Harvard grads–Bernstein and Gilbert. Not even artsy Yale can claim that. And no one can ever call Bernstein conventional.</p>
<p>Whenever I read or hear people talking about the “unconventionally brilliant,” I’m always reminded of a quote: “When people say ‘I’m not book smart, I’m street smart’, what I hear is ‘I’m not real smart, I’m fake smart’”. I’m not saying there’s only one kind of intelligence, but smart students should be able to present something to show what they can do. Whether that’s creative writing, math/science oriented, or business savvy, there’s never been more avenues to express your abilities than the present.</p>
<p>Most of the unconventionally brilliant, artistic students in Providence are at RISD. And RISD students can take courses at Brown (and vice versa).</p>
<p>It’s not that there are not creatively brilliant students at HYP. It’s that their creative brilliance must come ON TOP OF superior conventional credentials for them to have a shot at getting in. Show me a student with a 3.3 in high school who spent 24 hours a week in the dance/music/art studio (and is artistically gifted), had no other ECs and good but not great test scores who attends any of these schools. The “one-sided” creative geniuses won’t likely find themselves there, nor would they necessarily find the campus environments to their liking…with Yale drama being the obvious exception.</p>
<p>Here is the top 25 list for Rhodes Scholarships throughout the history of the program, as of this year:</p>
<p>HARVARD UNIV. (including RADCLIFFE) 335
YALE UNIV. 223
PRINCETON UNIV. 199
STANFORD UNIV. 91
U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY 87
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE 61
BROWN UNIV. 50
UNIV. OF CHICAGO 49
UNIV. OF VIRGINIA 47
U.S. NAVAL ACADEMY 44
UNIV. OF NORTH CAROLINA 42
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 41
DUKE UNIV. 40
U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY 37
UNIV. OF WASHINGTON 37
WILLIAMS COLLEGE 34
REED COLLEGE 31
UNIV. OF WISCONSIN 30
SWARTHMORE COLLEGE 28</p>
<p>Brown’s 8th-place showing is great, reflecting that it’s one of the strongest American universities, but it doesn’t come close to HYP.</p>
<p>For the decade 2000-2009, Harvard averaged 3 per year, Yale 2, and Brown 0.7.</p>
<p>This year Harvard had 6, Yale 8, Stanford, West Point and Annapolis 2 apiece, and Brown 1 (which did nose it ahead of the University of Chicago for sole possession of 8th place).</p>
<p>The moral: Harvard does a great job of admitting the conventionally brilliant. No question about that.</p>
But does a person with a 3.3 in high school belong at Harvard, even if he is a gifted dancer? Isn’t somebody like that more a natural for a conservatory in the first place?</p>
<p>Maybe, maybe not. Anyone in the arts knows it’s good to have a backup plan. Also, some artistic careers–dance in particular–are short-lived under the best of circumstances.</p>
<p>In my experience, the “unconventionally brilliant” are often not motivated by conventional markers of intelligence like grades and test scores.</p>
<p>^^Another question is why should Harvard take someone who spends 24 hours a week in the dance/music/art studio (and is artistically gifted) and has a 3.3 and SATs to match over someone who spends 24 hours a week in the dance/music/art studio (and is artistically gifted) and has a 3.9 and a 2210? (And believe me, those kids exist. I’ve met some.)</p>
<p>If modest grades are the key indicator of “unconventional” then I guess Harvard should shoot for people with really crappy grades. Or maybe people whose academic record is so dismal that they never learned to read. That would show all those critics!</p>
<p>I would think any unconventional genius will have a portfolio to submit or paper cuttings. If they have not reached that status, then it is all in their head anyway.</p>
<p>coureur, did you read the Helen Vendler piece?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not that mediocre grades are a sign of creative brilliance–yes, a portfolio/audition reel/etc. would reveal that–but that HYP and their ilk seem hamstrung to admit people who fall within a very narrow range of “unconventional.”</p>
<p>What evidence do you have for this statement? Every year, Harvard et al. admit a few students with head-scratching stats, and everyone goes nuts about what a lottery it is. What if among those students are a few brilliant musicians, actors, writers . . . ? Obviously, truly brilliant artists aren’t going to show up in great numbers; a dozen per year is probably way too large a guess. There is plenty of room in HYP’s class profile to fit them in.</p>
<p>It is important to recognize that the brilliant young artist has to want to go to Harvard (or wherever). Lots aren’t going to want to do that, won’t see the point. But some will, and it’s positively silly to suggest they have to have 2300 SATs or 3.9 GPAs in high school to succeed at Harvard and to benefit from the experience.</p>
<p>So are you saying that they are a truly insignificant number in any given year? Isn’t that the whole point of this thread, that the university is failing to look beyond its usual “box”? Last year the 25th percentile for the SAT was 690/700/690 (CR/M/W), with the 75th percentile 100 points higher in each subject. This is out of about 2000 admitted students. I am sure the GPA stats are equally narrow in range–which is exactly what the professor was questioning.</p>
<p>The point of the Helen Vendler piece is that Harvard is missing out on admitting students who are brilliant creatively, but do not hit the conventional GPA/test score/EC marks. That this is both a loss to the school and to Harvard’s potential contribution to the world. So to say that there are (or must be) creatively gifted students who are capable of and do hit those conventional marks, and that Harvard should just admit those students instead, misses the author’s point. Presumably, the author is reacting to something she’s actually observed from her vantage point as a professor there (wikipedia Harvard alums notwithstanding).</p>
<p>I’m curious as to why anyone would be so defensive as to argue with Helen’s piece? Should those who are supposed to be naming the cannon not wonder what the admissions arms race has done to those applicants who will some day be creating the cannon?</p>
<p>I’m wondering why anyone would believe Helen would write such a piece if there weren’t some actual concern on her part?</p>
<p>So courer, I can’t figure out why you are asking “WHY” should Harvard admit the students Vendler says they are not admitting. The question is not do these unconventionally brilliant suffer at a “loss” of Harvard. They do not. They are unique enough that Harvard, in fact, suffers from their absence.</p>
<p>Like anyone who truly loves an institution, she is asking how to make it better and whether or not the recent changes are, in fact, as good for the institution as they seem to be in US News.</p>
<p>@daisychain: no professor has access to all students. Helen Vendler is a very accomplished woman, and a wonderful scholar of poetry, but that doesn’t mean she is aware of everything every Harvard student and alum does. It’s certainly no wider a perspective than say Bill Fitzsimmons’s. I don’t think the overall creative output by students and alum will increase much if Harvard starts admitting more artists with mediocre grades and test scores but fantastic portfolios. I think Harvard is already doing so, but that number is probably exactly at where they want it. For every additional future novelist you let in, that’s one fewer cellist, or one fewer oncologist. </p>
<p>I do know Drew Faust and Vendler are not crazy about so many students entering finance and consulting; I share that sentiment. Many are not going to do that for the long haul anyway; it’s a default path, and there’s no reason for many of H (and other schools’) grads to fall into the default. It’s lazy. </p>
<p>There are a number of grads and alum trying to change that, and trying to create and foster a post-grad environment that encourages alternative, and, dare I say, more creative paths from the get-go. It’s all very behind the scenes right now, but it’s happening.</p>
Also, some artistic careers–dance in particular–are short-lived under the best of circumstances.</p>