<p>This recently occurred to me while I was lurking around the forums/talking to my friends.</p>
<p>Most of the kids that I know who got into the top tier, (I say most, not all), brand themselves as either: </p>
<p>1) passionate research kids/science competition winners- if they’re into STEM
2) school leaders-we know this girl that really got into ‘interfaith’ activities, got accepted into Yale/Harvard
3) sort of the not confirming to a certain stereotype-therefore unique type
4) writer type-newspaper/school lit magazine
5) musicians/athletes</p>
<p>These are just ones that I thought of right of the top of my head.
Am I correct with my assumptions, or am I generalizing too much?</p>
<p>Basically these days kids generally don’t get into a tippy top tier simply on the strength of grades and test scores so “any” alternative passion is what will tip in their favor. But I must say it was like that 3 decades ago when I applied to college…it took “more” than simply good grades and test scores. The operative word is passion…simply having a laundry list of ECs doesn’t cut it either. Is it personal “branding”…perhaps that is the buzzword for passion these days.</p>
<p>“Branding,” to me, isn’t “I’m a STEM major” or “I exhibit a lot of leadership” or “I’m a musician.” Those are simply product descriptions. Branding is – I’m the unique person who does X in Y way and this is why I add value / interest to your campus.</p>
<p>One more category - stealth kids. An acquaintance of ours sent one kid to Stanford and one to Berkeley (back to back) with serious aid received and even more serious academic performance. To say that nobody had heard of these kids is an understatement (out of a senior class of 1000). Maybe one EC each max, too, but incredible grades, incredible test scores, incredible skills (multilingual etc) and most of all, very low key.</p>
<p>Yeah, our neighbor spoke of a stealth kid who was the class val this year. The girl was shy enough she wanted no part of making the speech at graduation, so the sal did the honors. Sal is going to UPenn. Val is going to UCLA. She did not have ECs related to the HS so people guess maybe she did something outside of it? However, she didn’t have enough of a package to get into Berkeley so …</p>
<p>Well way back when, I was a good student, but branded myself as serious artist and serious Girl Scout with alot of leadership all outside school.</p>
<p>Our theory was that it makes sense to focus the application on two qualities or ECs besides good grades/test scores (which are taken as a given). You usually have two essays to work with–dedicate one essay to one focus, the other essay to the other focus. On the EC list, be sure that the focus ECs are at the top of the list and well organized to show leadership and awards.</p>
<p>So in mathmom’s case, it would be art and Girl Scout leader.</p>
<p>FAP…I’m confused; isn’t UCLA basically considered comparable/lateral to Cal (not from California, so I’m not sure)? FWIW, I know USNWR has them basically ranked the same.</p>
<p>^At least in terms of admissions, UCLA is becoming even more competitive than Cal. I, along with many other top students at my high school, was accepted at Cal but rejected from UCLA. I haven’t seen the other way around (though I suppose this could just be my school, for some odd reason).</p>
<p>Add those kids with pushy parents that complain if their kid isn’t seen as the best and spend their time comparing their kids stats with the other uppity parents. Then these parents hire private tutors and college consultants. Not sure if these kids fit into the already existing categories or if they are their own.</p>
<p>I love the stealth kid idea. There’s something in me that recoils at the “I led every activity on campus” kind of kid, because so much of that is about arbitrary high school popularity, not leadership talent. I also recoil at the comparing-of-stats-to-other-uppity-parents. I could not imagine any scenario in which I’d ever tell another parent in my kids’ hs what my kids’ grades or scores were, ever. Really, let people wonder. Their problem.</p>