I don’t know about that. Yale took two musical saw players in the same year. I think there is a difference between the detail that makes a kid more interesting and perhaps brings the application a bit more to life, and something that the college actually wants or needs in particular. Harvard and Yale don’t “need” any origami artists or musical saw players or chinchilla ranchers or lobster boat deckhands, at least not the way they might need cello players or potential classics majors or tenor singers.
@TheGFG : I get your drift… But, if she makes origami earrings, teaches the craft to other students and then donates them to low-income girls to wear, that would be memorable 
@Hunt, I think there is a difference between being viewed as a “positive” and being an “and”. Scouting is a positive activity; the more time invested and the higher the level of achievement, the greater the positive. But I doubt it is distinctive enough or that it would ever reach a threshold high enough to make it an “and” in and of itself. Perhaps combined with other things it would have synergistic value (e.g., someone who is focused on environmentalism, or conservation).
I think that synergy between activities is important, as is how an activity fits into an applicant’s overall “narrative”. Both can lower the threshold of achievement required to make an individual activity have a strong positive effect. As a classical musician alone, maybe you have to have won major awards and performed solo at notable recital halls in order to have a significant effect; but if you are also interested in music therapy and have created a volunteer organization to work with patients in rehab centers and/or hospitals and studying the effect of music on their recovery, then you don’t necessarily have to be at quite the same level for your music to be perceived as a significant part of your narrative. I can think of lots of other examples. The more things that are additive, the greater the overall effect: to use your scouting example, someone who has studied environmental policy and leadership, who has taken AP Environmental Science and Biology courses and done well on the exams, who has participated in Outward Bound programs (some of which are funded), who is an Eagle Scout, and who has been on a competitive Environthon team will have a strong cumulative activity in the context of an overall narrative which may reach the “and” threshold.
Mentioning Eagle Scouts also reminds me of a point about causation and correlation. My son (who is an Eagle Scout) noted that quite a few of his classmates at Yale were also Eagle Scouts, or Gold Award recipients (in Girl Scouts). Does this mean that Yale “likes” Eagle Scouts and Gold Award recipients? Maybe. It could also mean, however, that students who are admitted to Yale and who were involved in Scouting are quite likely have put in the effort to achieve those awards.
And, of course, this could be true of all of the ANDs that I’m talking about–perhaps successful applicants to the most selective schools just tend to be people who do lots of interesting things, and that may not be a causative factor in their admission. Still, I think it can’t hurt to be interesting in a pool of thousands of applicants. And colleges often mention these things when talking about the admitted class–again, not proof of causation, but suggestive.
NCmom14, I think my D will be too tired after just making the earrings…
I think the admissions qualification of being “nice” can also be hard to demonstrate for some ambitious and competitive kids, and also for some reserved ones. As an example, during cross country practice D regularly has to choose between running alone or running with other teammates but at a pace that will be detrimental to her personal progress in the sport. If she were sure that running slower with the other girls would help them become faster, it would be an easier choice, but for the most part they are not interested in pushing themselves. Therefore, she can help the team best by training hard herself. However, by training more independently, D can seem not to be a team player or stand-offish. A friend’s D frequently landed the lead in school and local musicals, but found that this provoked some envy. The stage manager and ensemble girls were perceived as being “nice,” in part because they contributed to the show for little personal glory. But the star, even though she was actually sweet and humble, was not seen as so nice.
I don’t think you need a super high level, just as I don’t think you need national awards or recognition.
The problem with just saying, “follow your own passions,” is that it’s too catch all. Your kid loves to noodle on the guitar, uses his free time to practice. Great. As a parent, you have encouraged a love- and maybe a talent. But that alone doesn’t make it relevant to that college, offer some insight into your vision, energy and how you expand on your interests. Some colleges won’t care as much about the extra attributes. The top colleges do.
Sure, Scouting is good, even if you don’t achieve Eagle. The difference is that Eagle s a planned course of action, over a couple of years, with some sort of standards. But the kid who paints park benches for his project (real example) won’t appear as the one who took on a more complex community project does. Why not? One can seem to be just racking up the time. The top colleges are looking at how you challenge yourself, what values and strengths- and awareness- come through. And what level of thinking lies behind the choices.
AND is qualitative, all that implies. RenDad just fleshed it out nicely.
The origami story has been repeated many times and you have to get the whole if it- her son didn’t just fold paper, he used that as a vehicle to get out there and I’ll put money on that he wrote a fine essay that revealed many, many good qualities the colleges sought.
@NCMom14, there is a “nature vs. nurture” argument here. I agree that it doesn’t make sense to artificially try and create an “and” (“take up origami, it’s distinctive and will stand out on your college applications”) - the motivation and drive (“passion”) have to come from within. But how those are nurtured can make a huge difference.
Suppose an applicant posts on CC and says “I’m a sophomore and I’m interested in politics and social activism, and I participate in Student Council, MUN, and Speech and Debate”. Not very distinctive. To stand out and make a significant impression on adcoms would take an extremely high threshold of achievement in MUN or Speech and Debate.
Now suppose another applicant posts on CC and says “I’m a sophomore and I’m interested in politics and social activism, and I participate in Student Council, MUN, and Speech and Debate; but my real passion is poetry. I’ve written poetry since I was in 6th grade, and I’ve been told by my teachers that I’m really talented, though I’ve never published. I spend at least 10 hours a week doing this, but all by myself. Is this a good EC?” The motivation and passion are all intrinsic to the applicant; but nurturing those can make a world of difference to having an “and” and standing out. Some things I’ve suggested in this kind of situation include:
- Creating a blog and putting poetry and essays related to social activism out on the net.
- Getting involved with a literary activism organization.
- Applying to prestigious creative writing summer workshops (Iowa, Kenyon, Sewanee, Breadloafetc.)
- Submitting to literary journals (student or otherwise)
- Applying to prestigious competitive/funded summer programs dealing with the arts and leadership (Notre Dame Summer Leadership Institute; TASP has had seminars dealing with this in the past), with the understanding that these are very competitive
If the second poster does some of these - not to impress colleges, but as a natural extension of their basic interest - then their poetry interest will be expanded, and their MUN/Speech and Debate will be seen as synergistic within the context of their overall narrative.
Is this creating an “and”, or just nurturing someone who already has the inherent passion and drive, but who lacks an overall vision and understanding of how to direct that passion?
The student poet can also submit his poetry to competitions like the Scholastic Art and Writing Awards–if the poems win awards, this is a way of showing not only the passion but that the student is good at it. Is this packaging? Well, maybe, to an extent–but I’d say it’s sort of like taking an SAT Subject Test.
I guess I’m surprised at how flatly CC still sees all this. It’s not about being number one. Nor is it about the opposite extreme, proclaiming this sort of competition is soul killing and you’re going to give up. Somewhere in the middle is what I think RD is trying to express. You’re either activated or you’re not. You can either “show” that or not. Your viewpoint either stops at the hs walls or extends beyond.
RD is also giving examples with some depth/breadth. Not just a blog (any kid can start a blog,) but one with some viewpoint matched by actual getting out there, some stretch that shows, not just proclaims purported “passion.” And it would be all the more powerful if his PS/poetry kid also got involved in some sort/any sort of political work outside school (or some hands on social activism or social welfare issues in the community.) Same as not just loving to play the guitar at home or taking years of violin lessons, but doing something with that interest.
It’s not being number one in the race or having the lead in a play, Eagle, a national award. It’s more organic. The phrase that comes to mind is, “Put your money where your mouth is.” (Not dollars, but the right sorts of follow through.)
And sure parents can help with this awareness. It is just as important as emphasizing school work and discovering their interests.
Hunt, you often note contests and awards. It’s not that hierarchical. The intelligent, aware efforts a kid puts in can be more important than the winning, express far more. RD’s example is broader. It;s not winning the national hs violin competition. It is the “what else.”
"Crazy as this may sound, I don’t think students should create an AND. "
I agree with this 100%.
It can easily appear contrived or not based on a genuine interest, but created only to impress AO’s.
That was why I originally said, and was summarily jumped on by some, that the OP should nix the “lobster fisherman” idea- because it looked to my eyes like he was trying to come up with “something” to do to put on his application. NOT that he had already done it.
Well, in my opinion, it’s winning the national hs violin competition and the “what else” as well. I don’t think you’re discounting the value of winning competitions, are you? This is one of many “pre-screens” colleges can use to evaluate students–getting accepted to TASP is a prime example.
My point is that selective schools don’t just want students who are passionate about poetry and who are involved in poetry–they also want students who are very good at writing poetry. You can perhaps show that by submitting a portfolio, but another way is to be recognized for it. This would be a trivial point if we were talking about people who want to rely on a sport to get noticed by a college.
Adding: With respect to arts portfolios, it is pretty much the universal advice on CC that students should only submit arts portfolios if they demonstrate a very high level of achievement in that art form. The point is not to show your passion, but how good you actually are at it. My point is that colleges care about this, and students should not neglect opportunities to demonstrate this. That’s why I always suggest that kids who are artists and writers consider submitting to Scholastic (as an example).
“I think the admissions qualification of being “nice” can also be hard to demonstrate for some ambitious and competitive kids, and also for some reserved ones”
that is one reason that I am personally a fan of Dartmouth’s peer recommendation.
DS’s best friend in MS, who was picked on by other kids because he was short and an piano prodigy, wrote the most incredible letter about what a great friend and genuinely nice person DS was-to everyone.
I think that kind of recommendation by another student should be part of the application process by all private colleges.
jmho.
While it is possible for parents to support and nurture a child’s interest or passion, for the most part it seems to me there are some individuals just more self-directed than others and they are generally advantaged in elite college admissions. Adults can help these kids package themselves, but I am not really sure how necessary it is. I am not sure it is possible to deliberately create this type of student with this sort of profile. Tiger parenting may result in extremely accomplished students, but that seems to me something different than what we are really discussing here. jmho.
Contrived or not, when these are still things the kid sought, experienced, and committed to, it is good. There are lots of life experiences we seek out for reasons other than true “passion.” We don’t have to love them oodles and dream of the activity at night for it to be worthwhile and worthy.
I would never tell a kid to pass up lobstering because someone else thinks adcoms will find it fake. This isn’t some personality quiz in a magazine where you can swing the results by choosing astrophysics over sweeping the sidewalk. This is about what the kid did choose and did do. And then how he/she expresses that. And the rest of the “narrative” presented.
Is it crazy? Sure, sometimes. But many of these high achieving kids are truly interesting, able to see the wholer world around them. They have a “go for it” quality that stands out nicely among all the same old/same old.
I have generally found all the high-achieving kids I’ve know truly interesting.
This is very true–but some of these kids have parents who hold them back when the thing the kid wants to go for doesn’t fit a particular mold. And then those parents come here to complain about how colleges don’t care about hard work.
@Hunt, I have nothing against competitions. But our society is tremendously competitive, and there is a tendency to turn everything into a competition. It’s a small step from working as a oysterman for a summer to competing in oyster shucking competitions. Our society creates competitions around music, art, poetry, the environment, gardening, and just about everything else. Pursuing an activity for the love of it, with dedication and devotion, should not necessarily be defined by placing well in competitions, and those who chose express their passion and commitment without competing shouldn’t be considered less serious or accomplished.
This is a noble sentiment. However, what we are talking about here is persuading a highly selective college to admit you as a student. As I said above, they care about passion and commitment, but they do care about accomplishment. Certainly, there are ways other than competitions to demonstrate accomplishment. But for many activities, they involve submitting your work for judgment by somebody–i.e., by sending in a supplement, by getting a recommendation from somebody who can credibly evaluate your work, by submitting work to a selective journal, or by getting recognition in a competition.
As an analogy, it might be highly admirable for a kid to be devoted to tennis, to teach small children how to play, etc. But if that kid chooses not to play competitively, a college that is seeking people who might be able to play for the college is not going to be interested.
Let me add this: perhaps instead of accomplishment, the word I really want here is talent. You can be committed to certain types of activities, and have certain types of accomplishments, without really having much talent for it. (My musical resume may have looked pretty good to colleges, but I really wasn’t talented at all.) So if you are depending on something like that, you will need somehow to demonstrate your talent, not just your commitment and passion. I think this is true of not just the arts, but science as well. There are, of course, some accomplishments that don’t really take talent in this way–these (in my opinion) include public service, Scouting, and many others. In these things, the accomplishment demonstrates commitment and passion, and is valuable for its own sake.
And just to bring this back around, if you have some unusual interest that makes you stand out as interesting or just brings your application to life, you may not have to be all that good at it. You may not be asked to prove that you play the musical saw well, or that your origami earrings are award-worthy, or that the chinchillas you raised were best in show, or that you were a top lobsterman.
TASP is a nice challenge, but not an “it.” You don’t need to win at poetry. The adcoms aren’t saying, she won Gold, let’s take her more seriously than RD’s example. The rare exceptions where just being in certain programs is all out impressive are more rarefied air. Some of the leadership programs most have never heard of that take very few kids. And most of them require more than academic performance in the hs or some early SAT. And then, when applying to most competitive colleges, the overall app still matters.
The colleges do care about hard work- but that’s more than hs rigor, more than just getting Eagle for a few hundred hours painting benches.