http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/03/college-admissions-narcissists/475722/
Interesting article in the Atlantic. A lot that we already talk about. I thought the part about using consultants for admissions was interesting, and also the discussion of whether 24 year olds are the right pool to be making admissions decisions.
I think there should be a question whether teens and their parents should be driving their lives as much as many do with the goal of getting into elite or top colleges – more particularly, the tippy top. So many distortions in the lives of young people fitting their CV’s into a mold defined by the admission criteria.
I admit that we took a lot of interest in the education of our kids, from day 1 really, and we wanted them to be exposed to many ways of contending in life – intellectually, socially, physically (oops, athletically). We knew that grades and test scores were important to admission, but that was a long way off from day 1. We focused more on developing the kids’ talents, or exposing them to opportunities to discover their interests. Art, music, sports, math, books, games, etc. We weren’t trying to produce “well rounded” kids. We would be happy with “well lopsided” ones who had some passions and talents that didn’t directly align with high test scores or high grades across the curriculum.
In fact, it proved hard when the “Testing Time” arrived in late high school years to get either child to take practice tests or study specifically for the exams. No study guides, practice tests, vocabulary lists. But they took the standardized tests often enough that they learned how to take them. And they got excellent scores on the first taking.
It was also the case that neither kid could be motivated to do “community work” or “voluntary work.” If that mattered for admissions, they’d just have to make it up elsewhere in their records, namely by having demonstrated intellectual or artistic talent.
By any reasonable standard, the colleges they attended were “elite” (UChicago, RISD), but they could have done equally well, in my opinion, had they attended any number of other colleges. I would have steered them rather to liberal arts colleges. In fact I did that for #1, and he ended up at Chicago which in many ways has the undergrad ethos of a liberal arts college, and it suited his interests extremely well. #2 only applied to art programs, all but one at a stand-alone art school. Later on she gained an interest in sustainability, and went back to college for an MBA and MS. For that, btw, realizing the importance of getting into a very good business school, she did study for the GMAT, took a math course, and used a PR self-guided program. It worked.
I thought the discussion on faculty as part of their recruiting process was interesting. When we toured the campus where D2 attends (in the summer), the tour guide took us past the office of a math prof, and stuck her head in. He came bounding out, and spoke to our group, answered questions, and gave an all around charming impression of the faculty at that college. 
My guess it that the tours are told if his office door is open, to stick their heads in and he will be happy to talk to them. Out of 40 (yes…we like to visit colleges) campus visits with two kids, I think that is the only time something like that ever happened. With D1 we made a couple of appointments with profs to meet and talk about her major (she is super outgoing and loved it) – and my kids attended classes where possible. But that is the only time I can think of where a prof chatted with our tour group. It was effective (I want to take his class :D).
That’s a nice thing, @intparent. I think it can help for some kids to talk to a professor. (My children could talk to one every day at breakfast and dinner!). It’s not feasible for most kids (and professors), except on a very selective basis. My son did meet with a professor at one of the liberal arts colleges he applied to, but only after he was admitted. That helped him to decide not to attend that college – not based on his judgment of the professor but rather on what the professor said about the college environment. My son concluded that it would be a poor fit. (This was a very highly ranked LAC.)
We were surprised and pleased to find a prof leading an info session and interviewing D at the LAC she wound up attending. Since our initial visit had to be made during the summer, she wasn’t able to sit in on classes at that time. We did have a prof ask us if we needed directions (we must have looked lost!) and chat briefly during a visit at another school. I found it interesting that there is so little exposure to faculty for a decision that is ostensibly largely about academics, but I understand that not all faculty have time or interest to be involved in admissions.
I think it’s safe to say, the higher the tier, the rarer the 24 year olds. And remember, at that level, there is no one person calling the shots.
In the British university system, admissions is handled entirely by faculty. Both tours and admissions decisions are handled by profs. My D applied to several English unis this year and met with faculty at each. The different academic system (kids apply directly to majors) makes this easier.
This is all just a by-product of how easy applying to college has become, including the common AP, multiple test taking and super scoring, water-downed writing requirements at many schools and the rarity of interviewing.
The end of this article also summarizes the problems with viewing admission to top-anything schools (but especially top 20, the Ivy League, and above all HYPS) as some badge of merit, or a reflection of one’s self-worth.
I might just copy this excerpt every time anyone asks “Am I good enough for (selective school here)?”
It isn’t a lottery to get into the best 5,000, though.
That’s right. About the only way to define the “best 5000” is to use grades and test scores. And then somebody might insist that the grades be weighted to take into account the quality of the high school program, or some other criteria, ad infinitum.
@intparent’s story of the importance of faculty in student recruiting reminded me of my oldest’s college visit experiences: She found out from college tours that she’s a liberal arts kind of girl, and struck all 20ish public flagships and near-flagships off her list after visiting 10ish of them, except two: The one we haven’t visited yet (and so is still in a tentative place on the list, but would be a good financial safety), and the one where a faculty member took the time to seriously geek out with my daughter about the stuff my daughter’s interested in even though it’s only barely related to what that faculty member does.
Okay, I am going to be honest – D2 was a zombie the day of that tour. I had picked her up the day before from a summer program where she had taken 2 college courses in 3 weeks. She was seriously sleep deprived, it was almost 100 degrees that day, and she barely remembers the tour at all. She wasn’t really sold on her school until accepted student days. I remember that prof, though.
But in thinking about accepted student visits, at another school she got brushed off by a faculty member in her planned major when she stopped by the department to talk to someone – none of them had shown up at the lunch where the prospies were supposed to meet faculty. So she went looking for someone, and the only prof there was too busy to talk (which is actually not unexpected – but given no opportunity to interact with profs in the dept, during her visit, it didn’t improve her impression of the school – and she didn’t attend).
One consideration in choosing among types of colleges is that within many large flagships and other major universities there are residential colleges and honors colleges. Some of the residential colleges with which I’m familiar provide close student-faculty contact and advising, a “liberal arts college” experience within the context of a very large university. The faculty there often participate in the student recruitment process, since there is a secondary selection into the the residential college after admission to the university is granted. Students who have such an interest should seek out faculty in those residential and honors colleges.
Three examples, at Michigan State University, are Lyman Briggs College, James Madison College, and the Residential College for the Arts and Humanities. Those colleges provide a special environment and also have excellent records of placement of students into graduate and professional programs. For example, Lyman Briggs sends a lot of students to medical school.
Whenever I read something like this I wonder how many kids and families really follow a program of shaping the kid’s life solely for college admissions. And I wonder how many of those admitted to elite schools really lived that way.
There really are kids who do things because they enjoy them and do well on SATs without prepping.
There was this piece today that popped up:
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11301078/high-school-stress-college
Is this really what is takes to be in that 5,000? Except for those few who are so exceptionally bright, motivated, organized and fast at their work, it seems many kids are slogging through HS with the only goal a top college.
There are kids (at least according to parents who posted on this issue in another thread) who genuinely find the pressure stimulating and who do not feel overwhelmed or unhappy about the stress level. But going to a super elite is certainly not the only way to achieve almost any goal. I wanted to tell the kid that it was OK to go to VA Tech, if he didn’t get into W&M or UVA. He can still be very successful.
One part of the Atlantic article makes changing the system pretty unlikely:
That is why I disagree with this idea that requiring meaningful community service is going to work to reduce stress on HS students.
I also object to the idea that just because kids answering a survey suggests they are more interested in their own happiness than anything else, reflects anything more than the fact that 17 and 18yos are pretty self involved. They tend to grow up and become better citizens. Certainly, being constantly told that everything they do will have monumental impacts on their future would make them more likely to focus on themselves, than on the world around them.
Completely agree that changing the grid just redirects the rat race, and kids with genuine passions for something have a harder time shining through.
When my kid was looking at different colleges they sent emails to different professors asking to meet them on our visit to the college. I think they met with 4 or 5 professors at different schools and sat in on a number of classes. It was very helpful. One professor who was very nice told them they thought it was the wrong college for them. I was amazed how honest some of the professors can actually be!! Also talking to the kids in the actual classes was very helpful.
You are right about some profs being honest. We met with a prof who is an acquaintance at a top school when D2 was just starting her search. D2 was interested in the major taught by the prof (bio), but interested in research (not med school). The prof was thrilled to meet someone interested in research, then pretty much warned D2 off from her school.
Interesting. We have a friend who is also a bio prof and had an interesting perspective on the difference between research at a big research U and at a LAC or small school, which says everyone gets to do research. This prof thought that much of that research was more on the lines of student projects and not cutting edge work. But he also acknowledged that getting into a lab at a big research U is tough for undergraduates. It did make me look more critically at the actual areas of interest and actual research projects at the LAC of interest, which were not as impressive. My kid, also interested in science research not med school, ended up at a research U and is working in a lab (mostly on computer stuff). OTOH, I know kids at smaller schools who are very happy with their projects.