As previously stated in each post I’ve made on this subject, I am not claiming that HYPSM… have similar admission criteria to Sarah Lawrence. Nobody has said this (unless you count your post above, which I am assuming is a typo). Instead it was an extreme example to show that different colleges emphasize essays to different degrees in their admissions process. While I am not aware of any “elite college” that places as much emphasis on essays as Sarah Lawrence, the point was the same principle applies to elite colleges. That is, different “elite colleges” emphasize different admissions criteria, and there is not a universal way of how “elite colleges” use essays for admissions decisions. There are many elite colleges that claim to make essays a very important criteria for their admissions decisions in a combination of CDS information, their college’s website, and admissions officers comments for that college… more than just a minor component, as implied in the original post I replied to. And there are some “elite colleges” that show evidence of the reverse and imply essays really are generally just a minor component to their admissions decisions.
MIT admissions talks about the “And” here. Take a look! It probably applies more broadly to other competitive schools. Hey, how about high school being primarily for, you know…high school. Wow What a thought! http://mitadmissions.org/blogs/entry/applying_sideways
That post sure brings back memories of a certain MIT-themed thread! All kidding aside, unless the nuclear reactor kid is a budding terrorist or his guidance counselor reported he tortures small children in that garage, should a college care about some minor blemish, like if his science teacher’s rec was a little lukewarm? Brilliant and creative people are often misunderstood and disliked, after all. And a small town high school is just that–it’s not always a reliable microcosm of the world. My own very sweet high schooler wrote a creative piece that her English teacher mocked as too weird. In general, the lady did not appreciate her work. Guess who just got notified she’s getting it published by a magazine? The editor LOVED it, he wrote to her in caps. My son was very politically divergent from the prevailing winds in our high school. One teacher told him he was a “despicable human being” for believing ordinary citizens have the right to own guns, given the violence today. One of the first things both my kids said about college was that finally they were appreciated for how they could think. I agree, the nuclear reactor thing is depressing. Admissions worked out for my kids because they both found outside validation in time for application season, but I can very easily see how other students may not. My children noticed that the kids our teachers love are indeed nice and hard working, but they are not the super bright or talented. The latter intimidate them.
@TheGFG, this is a subject for another thread, but I believe that there is a significant bias against gifted kids in our present educational system, particularly at the lower levels. Such kids are often highly asynchronous in their development, and require more structure and support than less bright and talented kids who are often favored by teachers because they require less attention. With No Child Left Behind schools are focused on those who lag, and there are fewer and fewer resources for those who are gifted. Many are labelled as ADHD because they are bored in school and have an excess of creative energy.
By the high school level, many of those who have elite schools in their future have learned to adapt to some extent. High performance tends to help a bit. But the system is far from perfect.
Don’t bright and talented kids, by definition, need less support than the average kid? And, if there is something they do need, that something needs to come primarily from home? Society just doesn’t want to use scarce public resources to promote the extra, extra achievement of the very bright kids.
@JustOneDad, I don’t think that’s the case at all. I don’t know if you are familiar with the literature on “giftedness”, but frequently such kids are highly asynchronous, especially at younger ages, and frequently require support and understanding, which is often lacking. Of course it should come primarily at home, though that isn’t always what happens. How public resources should be allocated is a much bigger question. In a system where resources are already fairly strained, these kids sometimes fall through the cracks.
Yes, I’ve followed the literature on giftedness since the 1960’s. I think you just agreed with me, nearly completely. Let’s take another run at the support they do need.
I don’t think we can expect teachers to provide for the needs of kids which are, frankly, challenging even for parents and psychologists. It just isn’t going to happen. The best that we might routinely expect is to identify them and get them steered somewhere.
Agreed, but my point was regarding the concept of likeability not educational resources. Just because a student is not the darling of his high school teachers or peers does not mean he has character flaws or social deficiencies. He just may be out of the optimum element for his personality and intellectual mode. A bright middle school boy I know texted his mom from summer camp saying, “This is an example of what I deal with. The kid next to me is licking his arm. I asked him.what he was doing and he replied 'I like licking myself. ’ Then all the other kids around him started doing it too. Am I supposed to fit in here?”
See? Something as mundane as summer camp has the potential to teach all sorts of higher lessons.
=))
One thing I wonder about, is the quest for AND in some cases leading to uniqueness being valued above more substantive accomplishments?
I heard the dean of admissions for one of the tippy top schools talk a few years ago, and was disappointed at some of the examples he gave of admitted students . . . a champion unicyclist and someone who’s well known in yo-yo circles for his innovative tricks are two of them.
I’m sure those two are outstanding people with other attributes beyond unicycle and yo-yo, but the way the dean talked left me with the impression that he values novelty for its own sake . . . it sounded like recruiting people for a circus, not selecting who gets admitted to a highly selective school.
It was just a brief part of an otherwise very good talk, but it is something that stuck out to me.
If we get defensive, we lose the point of the thread.
Sorry, but a kid controls what he can, not what he can’t. He can choose some stretch in activities, he can try breadth and go for some depth, he can keep his mind open. He can research his colleges and find right matches, then present himself to them in a capable way.
Or not. That’s s choice, too.
Likeability for admissions isn’t whether you got along with the arm lickers. Certainly not how they bothered you.
I suspect it has happened before, but I don’t think there is a real danger of having it become a leading factor. Besides, you have to consider the value to the other students.
Think about it. Would you rather that your kids went to school with yet another student who had 800 math SATs and played the violin for 10 years only to quit when they got admitted or someone who could teach them some good yo-yo and hackysack?
"Just because a student is not the darling of his high school teachers or peers does not mean he has character flaws or social deficiencies. "
Agreed. That’s why it’s so strange on CC that people always seem to feel confident that they “know” their neighbors’ kids / their kids’ classmates. Maybe some kids aren’t the “darlings” because they’re appropriately not interested in impressing all the neighborhood nosy nellies and yentas who are keeping tabs.
“I’m sure those two are outstanding people with other attributes beyond unicycle and yo-yo, but the way the dean talked left me with the impression that he values novelty for its own sake . . . it sounded like recruiting people for a circus, not selecting who gets admitted to a highly selective school.”
I’m willing to bet you misinterpreted, because it’s clear that they are not admitting people who aren’t otherwise qualified just because they unicycle or yo-yo.
Fair point JustOneDad. The unicycle and yo-yo examples one right after the other struck me as kind of silly, but I do think his larger point was around having a lot of interesting people in the mix and I certainly agree with that.
@bluewater2015 Your point is exactly the one I’ve been trying to make in this thread. The reason why the issue of bizarre interests or talents keeps popping up (see my Caltech link, Hernandez quote, and Tufts dean quote) is that you are more appealing as an applicant if you help to build an exciting, diverse class. That is the “and” that gets tacked onto being a qualified candidate (great GPA and test scores, challenging course load, good essays, …) and that can get you noticed and ultimately admitted.
I keep saying, No, they do not value uniqueness above substantive. The harder point for some to grasp is just what substantive is. It applies to more than stats. It’s not always smack you in the face measurable (built this, won that, published.) Forget some adcom’s yo-yo talk. He or she may have been trying to express something completely different than admissions criteria. Ya think?
Quit thinking hierarchy, wanting to rack and stack. Or focusing who impresses you, rings your own personal bell. Admissions is a different sort of “contest.” It’s not rocket science to comprehend that they are building a community, their community, not yours. Know theirs and you can assess and present your fit. Focus on the local high schools and you can’t.
For elites, nearly all those kids past first cut are smart, did well in their hs classes, have reasonable enough scores, etc. Many did “more.”
The task is to filter through that mass and find the kids the college feels will best fit and thrive, in that environment- not just the academic bar, but the whole, in and out of class, etc, down to clubs, roommates. Not some uniformity, but some mesh. The vehicle is the college application and supp. They won’t know your kid helps with the dishes, they don’t need to. They aren’t looking for kids who love their pets more than their peers. They don’t need to hear why your personal political stance is superior or you love Jane Austen. And, huge hint: write about your problems with arm lickers and you’ll raise a lot of eyebrows.
I don’t see why it’s so hard to distinguish appreciating variety as some neat sort of thing to comment on, after the class is built, versus demanding ultra uniqueness and CC thinking of it as a necessary AND. You don’t build a more appealing class because you yo-yo. Nope.
The rodeo kid was an interesting bullet. He wouldn’t be coveted because he rides rodeo, nor because no one else in the applicant pool does. Nope. He might be *appreciated/i because of the years of hard work, the commitment, the improvement, and what his commentary showed. And maybe he also mentored other riders, whatever. A picture of many attributes, not a line about a hobby. Can you see how that is different than just doing “anything” unique? Just hanging by the beehives? Just riding a unicycle?
But that’s not to say you need to have an interest like that, not at all. It’s just that some CC folks want to focus so much on the “unique” and miss how holistic works. There is rarely a magic line that trumps all others, in holistic. It’s not enough to win some award. It’s very much about the whole that comes through. Or doesn’t. If the rodeo kid came through as a pompous arse, shallow thinker, the sort of kid who never did anything but classes and riding, maybe narrow viewpoints, uh, I don’t think so.
No one has ever written or implied that uniqueness should be valued over substance. Nor has anyone written or implied that uniqueness is a magic line that trumps all other. Nor that uniqueness is a necessary AND for admission (that is, that you cannot be admitted without being “unique.”) And it’s understood by everyone that, regardless of an applicant’s unique talents, he/she will not be admitted if he/she comes across as a pompous arse or shallow thinker. So, thanks for the unnecessary statement of obvious caveats. I agree with them all.
The question was, is uniqueness valued over substantive? You pointed to links and quotes an suggested there is AND value in those examples, that it “can get you noticed and ultimately admitted.” True, you tacked it onto “qualified.” But where do you really think talk of beekeeping, yo-yo-ing, et al, really take a kid? A well done pursuit is part of what makes a kid substantive.
Little point in parsing my individual phrases and missing my overall point. In holistic, there is little shortcut. There is no saying kid X got in because he had an unusual activity that some adcom mentioned. And implying that others kids equally require some unusual stand out factor. For most kids, simply tackling the app and supp well, having made solid, more ordinary, choices and commitments during the hs years is the important challenge.