<p>I meant sage advice.</p>
<p>Achat, I liked it either way . . . with age comes wisdom. I’m hugging him (BWRK-S) just as soon as he gets home, whether he wants me to or not.:)</p>
<p>Achat, You stole the words right out my mouth. You know, my late Irish grandpa used to have a saying “Never chase after a boy or a bus…they’ll always be another one along in a few minutes.” I am beginning to think that you could substitute “college” for “boy” and still have the saying work pretty well. </p>
<p>This isn’t some contest to be won, our kids aren’t things to be packaged, their lives won’t be ruined forever if they don’t get into a specific college (or even a specific rung of colleges), and we’ll all somehow survive. Take a deep breath everyone and just trust that there will be another decent college along in few minutes.</p>
<p>I was e-mailing with a pal from Westchester the other day…she said that she was keeping her kids in the public school because she hoped they’d look “underprivileged” that way…in a town where a shack will set you back 500k!</p>
<p>Isn’t the trend now that the most selective colleges and IVies are looking for a well rounded CLASS and not so much a well rounded student?..My husband was hinting that he’d love it if our son (11) went to his alma mater, Harvard. I told him that from what I read and hear from my friends going through all of this college admissions business, our son would need some sort of hook…He took great exception to my saying that…in that he was a good student and athlete from a good prep school and that was enough…I reminded him that that was enough in 1971 perhaps but that things have changed, alot…hmmm…</p>
<p>dke: Your son already has a ‘hook,’ otherwise known as a ‘legacy.’</p>
<p>I don’t think legacy counts for much unless a few large donation checks have preceded the application…unfortunately!</p>
<p>dke: Well, then, I guess you have 5 or 6 years to start getting those checks in … :-)</p>
<p>On legacy as a hook: There’s a New Yorker cartoon featuring a man with his arm around his son’s shoulder:
“Well, son, this is the definition of luck: when preparation meets nepotism.” :)</p>
<p>LOL, yes. Legacy would help, but a lot of legacy kids don’t get in, so it must not be the be-all and end-all, no?</p>
<p>Dke, there is no question in my mind that there is an aim to build a community of all sorts of people. One of the questions running all through this thread was, “so do you have to be a specialist with world-class accomplishments?” I think the answer was a resounding NO. There are a lot of BWRKs who get into the top schools. </p>
<p>From there, what constitutes a BWRK? Or, what sort of BWRK would get into top schools? All sorts. There appears to be no set of guidlines, but on this thread, I would note that I see no example of a BWRK who got into a top school without at least solid academics. Also, it appears that it does help for a child to follow his heart, not be doing things as a means to get into college.
Whether there is one strength or passion, or a couple, or whether one is the 21st Century Renaissance Person doesn’t seem to matter. </p>
<p>I imagine adcoms saying, “What will this person bring to this community?” but that is just my gut feeling. At every high school in the country there are kids doing all sorts of interesting and wonderful things, so what a choice these adcoms must have. Still, it means that kids who have the academic strength in addition to some combination of
talents/accomplishments/strengths/passions/interests and so on, have a chance at top schools. </p>
<p>My own desire was not for an Ivy, but for the best for my child. There was no denying the wealth of academic offerings, the splendid and varied lectures and events going on, and the peer factor at what are considered the “top” academic instiutions in this country, yet my child applied to only two of these. Go for excellence and “fit” as you see it. Find at least several options he/she can be happy with.</p>
<p>dke:</p>
<p>everything I’ve ever read seemed to indicate that legacy was a much bigger factor at H than any other college. But, you HAVE to apply early for it to be a tip factor.</p>
<p>Dke, I didn’t mean to impy that you were wanting an Ivy just because it’s an Ivy–just speaking generally there to all those in CC land. I can certainly understand why a parent who is happy with his education would want the same for his son. I think it speaks well for a school when the alumni are enthusiastic. Who better to know if a school might be suitable for a child than a parent who knows him, loves him, wants the best for him–and has inside and extensive knowledge of the place! </p>
<p>A postscript about the thread: I’ve also noticed from what parents have said that BWRK does NOT mean having a laundry list of activites. Instead of dabbling in everything under the sun, it appears that there is sincerity and committment–to however many things.</p>
<p>Cricket: I agree with you; after starting with a broader list, my child narrowed the choices and applied to 6 schools, and though they are in a range (from public to private, and Ivy), all are excellent schools, and they each offer something that was a real draw. My child would be happy at any of them. Now… after interviews and more input, the schools (from the 6 applied to) that are looking really good, though, are those that are making a real effort–those with a volunteer student actually making phone calls to the house; those with administrators who are incredibly helpful and forthcoming on the telephone when the my child calls; and at least one highly selective school, where the interviewer came across more like a recruiter–more like, ‘here’s what <em>we</em> can do for you, here’s why *we" are unique, and why you should be coming here,’ and following the interview up with emails…turns out these are now the schools my child is becoming more and more interested in, and why not? Who woudn’t rather go to a great school like that? I have to wonder about the school interviewer who consistently asks the question, “So why should take you? What makes you such a standout (unique)?” Frankly, I think that’s a bad question and the mark of a poor interviewer. If you want to know more about a student (or any person, for that matter), you can ask insightful questions that will get that person talking, and then you will find out what might be ‘unique’ about him or her. Engage the person in a dialogue, for instance.<br>
And no one ever seems to say it, so I guess I’m in the minority here…but I do find it somewhat distasteful that a select committee is “shaping” a class… almost like forming a town or filling the Ark… seems awfully God-like in some ways: Let’s see…we need 3 world class musicians; 2 great, but not too bright, tennis players; 4 really great scientists; at least one person who is quirky, with a great sense of humor… That’s a bit of an exaggeration, but only a bit… But, really, ‘shaping a well-rounded’ class?..I mean, that’s amazingly subjective. One person’s well-rounded class (town, village, ark) may not be another’s. For instance, if I was shaping my own village…I’d omit all the world champion synchronized swimmers right off the bat–but only the blue-eyed blond ones (you know…just as an example). My interesting diverse group of people I’d like to hang out with, may not be the same diverse group some committee thinks is best for me (or my child). Just my thought. I don’t know how to correct or change that, and a school needs to be diverse, for sure…but do nationally ranked whatevers, and schools filled to the rafters with ‘stars,’ really make a community more diverse and well-rounded?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please let one of them be mine!! :)</p>
<p>Jack, I agree that it is subjective. But I see it more as “not just by the numbers” --an attempt to make for an interesting class by appreciating qualities and talents other than high SAT scores. And, since a lot of BWRKs will be there, the school won’t be filled to the rafters with nationally ranked whatevers! </p>
<p>I guess I prefer an adcom’s attempt at diversity of all sorts, rather than a computer’s compilation of test scores.</p>
<p>Well your child’s interviews and college contacts sound interesting. I have heard lots of crazy interview stories, but that’s why it’s good that your child is talking to others and doing other research. The interviewer is only one person, and it would be crummy to have this one person have total influence upon your child’s attending a college/university made up of thousands of people.</p>
<p>Good luck with it all! 'Tis an adventure!</p>
<p>Cricket: Yes, I don’t think college admission should just be by hte numbers either, and I support diversity–absolutely. I guess my point is that kids seem to think it’s the be all and end all if they don’t get into a certain school…and really, those that are “shaping” a class…well, they (and parents) need to remember that it’s just some committee’s very subjective design that determines the mix. That’s all, really. And if you’re not ‘chosen’ for that mix…then maybe you don’t belong there and would be happier in another mix. I don’t know. The attempt to shape a class in the name of diversity seems somewhat pointless to me. A ‘just by the numbers’ approach seems a lot more honest in some ways; even this approach can create a wonderful mix of bright, creative, and energetic students, I believe. Just because kids managed good test scores and have an easy time of it academically, does not make them uninteresting. They are still very much individuals. I do think if one wants and desires diversity on all levels, then many public state universities will offer a fine education among a very diverse group of people.</p>
<p>There’s diversity and there’s diversity.
large universities can achieve it without much effort. Smaller colleges need to put some effort into having a student body that can field an orchestra (all brass and no strings might make it difficult to play some music); that has students interested in a variety of majors (if only to placate the faculty), that can play some sports; that is willing to do some community service; and that can bring different experiences and perspectives to the classes they take. The needs of each college vary from year to year. Just because an oboist got in last year with so-so grades does not mean another oboist with even better grades will get in this year (maybe the chances have gotten smaller, in fact). Looked at from the perspective of the college, the selection process is quite rational. From the student’s perspective, it is a crapshoot.</p>
<p>Jack- All that subjectivity makes it hard to know who will get in where, but you’re smart to have a good list that your child really likes. But you know, at least this way, even a student who hasn’t had access to the best k-12 education and tutoring and so on, but who excels in the context of his school and his community, has a shot at whatever school in our country he wants to attend. More numbers driven, at top colleges, this would be less likely, I think. Not a perfect system, not a perfect world. And not always predictable. Alas!</p>
<p>Marite is probably right as usual–the colleges know what they’re doing. We just don’t know what they’re doing.</p>
<p>A little factoid re legacy: Stanford sent a “kissy kissy” letter to us legacy parents, putting in writing what adcomm had said at info session - that legacies are admitted at about twice the rate of other applicants. This is a statistical observation, NOT that they somehow double an applicant’s “score” or whatever. I have no idea if this legacy advantage calculates out the same at the other HYPS, etc.</p>
<p>I’m sure the real point of the letter was to “keep those cards and letters coming” (the ones with the check$, that is).</p>
<p>Marite: But I sense that what you are saying is that really smart kids can only do academics. In fact…so many academically top notch students are also outstanding in orchestras, are also active in theatre work, do write fiction, or are great swimmers or tennis players, too, and many also do a tremendous amount of community service. Some actually tutor others, and have never been tutored themselves. In fact, some of these smart kids don’t happen to be one-sided. They are equally adept at physics as they are at English Lit. They often have a lot of interests and pursue many of them. Perhaps, though, they just don’t happen to be on the national scene with any of those pursuits…but they sure make for interesting, creative, vital people…even though they’re smart and happen to do well on standardized tests. One of the problems people have with top notch schools and diversity…is taking an athlete, for instance, who happens to be the football player a school needs in any given year…but who also happens to have low SAT scores and GPA, in comparison to what that particular school normally demands. For the sake of diversity and the football team, the school takes that academically unqualified student (for that school) over someone who is qualified. All things being equal, wouldn’t it be more desirable to have a football player or other athlete, musician–you name it–who also meets those academic standards demanded of every other applicant? The point is, those kids are out there…and I believe those are the truly well-rounded kids who would make for a well-rounded class. And if one wants to attend a school where high SATs, GPA’s, good academics aren’t that important for admission…then, again, those schools are out there, too, and many of them are very fine schools. Why not simply apply to those instead. I believe the smaller, more selective, colleges can certainly fill a school with a diverse group, without lowering their academic standards.</p>