<p>@poetgrl: There are at least two possible hypotheses here. One is that Harvard admits too many ‘conventionally’ qualified people rather than taking chances on ‘unconventional’ students. Another way of looking at it, might be that Harvard (or whatever school) already admits unconventional people who, because of a variety of social and environmental factors and pressures at the school, become more conventional–e.g. the aspiring poet who ends up studying econ and goes into finance.</p>
<p>Or… the unfathomable, many unconventional people find Harvard too conventional. ;)</p>
<p>Either way, I admire the impulse in the piece but doubt that it will be fruitful in the days of 6% admissions. I mean, let’s face it, for every truly productive creative, there are hundreds of potentials who flame out. There seems to be less room for them in the Ivies these days, which is probably fine.</p>
<p>There is a long tradition of the poet with another profession. I think it is more challenging when it comes to the playwrite or the novelist or the film maker or the Einstenian creative, whose mind needs more time to develop its genius.</p>
<p>But, does this creative belong at Harvard?</p>
<p>That might be the real question in this day and age of the romanticized STEM education and the desire to, above all, have a representative American class.</p>
<p>Thanks Daisychain and Poetgrl. That’s exactly what I was fumbling for in post 73.</p>
<p>@windcloudultra: Vendler writes she was on the admissions committee so has some insight into the decisionmaking process. The numbers may be where “they” want them but not where she thinks they should be. And the people she is suggesting be displaced in the zero sum equation are not the cellists and oncologists but rather the future masters of the universe (I do have trouble imagining Emily Dickinson turning out as one of those - even with the environmental pressures of Harvard in 2012).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And while we’re on the subject of unconventionally brilliant students, how about admitting these guys:</p>
<p>[Horrible</a> Histories - Literally: The Viking Song - YouTube](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qSkaAwKMD4]Horrible”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qSkaAwKMD4)</p>
<p>They certainly don’t fit the conventional preppy academic overachiever or any university student for that matter. And yet, they were remarkably successful in their own way in history. </p>
<p>Granted, they’re probably much more interested in raiding the libraries, dormitories, and especially Final Clubs, Eating Clubs, and Fraternities/Sororities for all the fine grub and drink like your modern-day party-crasher than academics. However, one could make a good case that all of that is part of their live performance art. 
:D</p>
<p>I have no way of judging. I don’t read apps unfortunately 
</p>
<p>Frederic Rzewski and Christian Wolff are two of my favorite Harvard alum. Both are composers, but neither are people you’d call conventional artists. You can argue that Alan Gilbert and even Leonard Berstein, by virtue of taking a ‘prestigious’ musical position such as the music director of the NY Phil, both ‘sold out’ to an establishment institution–the equivalent of a musical or artistic Goldman Sachs. </p>
<p>One can hardly say that about either Rzewski or Wolff. Rzewski teaches composition in Holland…and is apparently very fond of smoking up with his students and colleagues. He wrote piano music based on socialist workers’ songs and tunes. </p>
<p>Wolff on the other hand, is also legendary. He taught Classics for many years at Dartmouth, but he’s the lone survivor of a quad of avantgarde composers that included of all people, that most unconventional of artists…John Cage.</p>
<p>the true “unconventional” kid wouldn’t want to go to any Ivy League school; far too conventional.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because one has to shun all socializing and fun in order to be considered ‘unconventional’?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. Just that the type of socializing the ones in the video enjoy may not be the kind understood or appreciated by their more conventional classmates…especially after all the food/drink supplies are consumed. :)</p>
<p>On this thread it seems to be accepted without question or evidence that brilliantly creative people with mediocre grades are somehow more brilliant and more creative than brilliantly creative people with good grades.</p>
<p>I’m not buying it. I’ve seen too many of the latter, some of whom I met at Harvard, to be convinced. If the brilliance and creativity are there, I see no advantage whatsoever to also being weak in the classroom.</p>
<p>It’s like saying that that a basketball team is somehow weaker for missing out on some great free throw shooters because they also expect their players to be “conventional” - to dribble the ball, pass, shoot the jumper, and run plays. Well, it’s true those players who are terrific at shooting free throws but are not so hot at the rest of it probably will not be on the team, because, if he can, the coach will fill the roster with players who can shoot, pass, dribble, run plays, AND be great at shooting free throws.</p>
<p>College is a step, not the destination. Therefore, it doesn’t matter. </p>
<p>Brilliance doesn’t need an Ivy environment. It will flourish anywhere.</p>
<p>Ivy grads call me “sir”, just like the others. :)</p>
<p>Helen Vendler “criticizing” the admissions staff for not paying enough attention to poets is a little bit like Xi Jinping criticizing corruption. Yes, there may be a problem, but what you are getting is not an outsider’s plea for change but an announcement of official policy. Which is why the admissions office features it on its website. I think Vendler is more describing what they try to do, and admonishing them to try harder, than complaining that they aren’t doing enough.</p>
<p>coureur – I think there are not so many truly brilliant people to start with. If they have great grades – like, say, Natalie Hershlag – then great. But having less than great grades doesn’t make them not brilliant, and therefore not worth having around, so long as they have the intellectual capacity to survive at Harvard whether or not their grades show it (although very low grades will put it in question). It’s not a question of comparing brilliant person 3.4 with brilliant person 3.9. If they are both truly brilliant, who cares? It’s a question of comparing brilliant person 3.4 with not-quite-all-the-way-brilliant person 3.9. But the plurality (at least) of Harvard’s classes are mode of people who are not-quite-brilliant and capable of outstanding academic performance.</p>
<p>I call lots of people ‘sir’…esp in the morning. I usually take my top hat off and nod politely as well.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This is the (false) assumption I’m talking about - that the 3.9 student can’t be as brilliant as the 3.4 one. I’m saying if the 3.9 kid is truly brilliant then why in the world would you take a 3.4 kid brilliant kid instead?</p>
<p>And the track record for brilliance and creativity among its alumni shows that Harvard gets a very impressive number of truly brilliant people to enroll there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m thinking it’s more of a nuanced concern that there’s a fear someone who may be brilliant in an unconventional way(i.e. creative arts) or exceedingly strong in one area to the point of having high potential for being prominent in those areas may be missed due to admission requirements which require one to be strong all-around along with having that special talent to even be a viable contender for admission. </p>
<p>While I believe this concern is overblown if the definition of “elites” is expanded beyond HYPSMCC considering many elite/respectable colleges do admit the “unconventionally brilliant”, it is not something to dismiss out of hand.</p>
<p>For instance, it’s very unlikely Albert Einstein would have been admitted to many/most elite colleges in the US nowadays due to his inauspicious rocky early educational record…including having arguments with teachers and getting an F or two along the way. Yet, look what he ended up achieving in his life. </p>
<p>I’d think most people would think his achievements far eclipsed those of most “conventionally brilliant” students in German, Swiss, and other universities. </p>
<p>And I’m not including those who were admitted, did well enough to graduate with topflight degrees, failed, and ended up being more dubiously well known for being war criminals…such as Joseph Goebbels(Heidelberg, PhD Literature 1921), Ernst Kaltenbrunner (Graz University, Law 1926), Hideki Tojo (IJMA*, 1905) or Fumimaro Konoe(Kyoto University, BA 1917). </p>
<ul>
<li>While it wasn’t technically a university, the IJMA was considered highly prestigious and an incubator of future military and influential political leaders during the heyday of the Japanese Empire to the point that it accepted around 1 out of every 40 applicants.</li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Ivy adcoms are indeed doing a good job if they have not yet admitted a Goebbels.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. And I am glad to see Harvard acknowledging that perceptions have changed (and not for the better) on the subject of future hedge fund managers and corporate raiders. Few are impressed with what some of the most well-known HBS grads are doing to our economy right now. (And that of others–the worldwide GS influence is well documented.) So it makes sense that they begin to look more closely at the qualified “one-sided” talents who are perhaps less likely to end up on Wall Street.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not quite the same thing. All basketball skills fall within a fairly narrow range of ball handling and physical aptitude. I’d say a coxswain on a rowing team or a goalkeeper on a soccer team would be better analogies.</p>
<p>But still, you miss the larger point that IN PREPARATION for college admissions, the kids who are most seriously committed to a single pursuit just don’t worry as much about the rest of it. Are they smart enough to do the work? In many cases, yes. But they simply don’t care if they get Bs (or worse) in school subjects that hold absolutely no interest to them. Also–and this is important for elite college admissions–they don’t care if others do better than they do. They are generally not all-around-competitive, just competitive and focused in their area of interest and expertise. It’s no surprise they aren’t getting into HYP–again, because of the narrow range of academic “proof points” these schools currently demand.</p>
<p>
What does she mean by “respectably?” I’ll bet she’s not thinking of the kid with a GPA of 3.3, but rather one with a 3.6 or 3.7, and an SAT of, say, 2050.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not so sure about that!</p>
<p>Eistein was actually a brilliant student in math and science in high school. He sat for the entrance examination to ETH Zurich (one of the very best technical universities in the world at the time and still today) as a 16 year old without even completing high school. From the published examinations scores, had it not been for poor grade in French and geography he would have been accepted. </p>
<p>[Albert</a> Einstein’s certificate of qualification for university matriculation](<a href=“http://www.einstein-website.de/z_kids/certificatekids.html]Albert”>http://www.einstein-website.de/z_kids/certificatekids.html)</p>
<p>Einstein actually stood out enough that the president of the university himself recommended he finish high school and reapply the next year, when he was admitted. </p>
<p>Had Einstein applied with a similar recod to let’s say MIT today, he may very well have been admitted the first time around. His poor grades in french and geography would not have mattered. MIT occasionally admits brilliant young students in math or science who have not graduated from high school and he certainly fit that bill.</p>
<p>BTW it is a myth that Einstein received an F in any subject!</p>