I think someone seeming to be “likeable” can go a long way. I think it has helped both of my sons in the workplace.
There was a recent thread in which a high school student expressed his question in a way that annoyed a lot of posters, many of whom criticized him pretty soundly. He admitted that it came out wrong, and was probably in part because he’s from another country. After that, people were nicer, and gave him some good advice. But what if that had been his college essay?
If I read about the size 11, I might wonder why they heck she felt it was relevant. And from there, wonder how she thinks and can self-edit. (I guess I’m tough.) I do like the right sorts of self-deprecating humor, though. I guess just in the right places.
IMO, likeability is important. You’re building a class and it’s not all about how that kid will do in their coursework (no matter how many poster quote studies about gpa.) Likeability can get a kid an extra minute in the review, when you are leaning against, to ensure you didn’t miss anything.
Lack of likeability can move you in the wrong direction. But it’s not exactly “likeable.” It has a lot more to do with kids who made the right moves, weight them in the right manner, are grounded, clearly get along well with others and value that, and show they are willing to flex, to try new things, to accommodate others (wow, there’s an idea counter to just being yourself and following your own “passions.”) I.e., the qualities that make them likeable, not the likeability on its own. (Make any sense?)
IMO.
I think coming across as likable is very helpful. Both my kids used self-deprecating humor in their essays. My younger son, in particular, perhaps because he was aware that his stats weren’t perfect, really understood the marketing angle. He thought a lot about how the various different essays gave a complete picture of himself. He writes well and was not afraid to use a very colloquial voice.
@lookingforward, I think you are making a pretty bold claim–that you (and presumably admissions officers) are able to look beyond surface characteristics like likeablity and unusual activities to discern the more abstract traits that you identify as vital–making the right moves, willing to flex, etc. I don’t disagree that this is the goal, and that applicants should understand this. But I don’t think this point results in any different advice for an applicant than what I’ve been promoting since the first post in this thread: in your application, tell your story in a way that makes you come alive as an interesting (and also likeable) person. I think it’s a good point that your unusual activity is even better if it illuminates your overall story in some meaningful way.
But I have to add that I haven’t been persuaded that admissions officers are not influenced by minor good and bad details in deciding which applicants to support and to decline to support. This is another reason I think students should make sure that some smart adults other than their parents read their essays to make sure they are putting their best foot forward. I keep going back in my mind to the NPR report on admissions, in which an admissions officer said that it was a negative for a kid who wrote something like, “Until I found music, I was never deeply engaged in any of my subjects.” The officer said the school (Wesleyan, maybe?) was interested in kids who were deeply engaged in many subjects. My thought was that a minor edit to that statement would not have carried that connotation at all. Was this the straw that kept this student out of the school? Maybe not, but that’s what the admissions officer identified.
I think it’s pretty hard to come across as “likable” in an essay/application; it’s much easier to come across as arrogant, or with a chip on one’s shoulder, or making excuses. I think that recommendations probably carry more weight with adcoms in terms of judging whether a kid is fundamentally nice.
Hunt, I may have to read that a few more times to see where we differ.
I’m not sure something like willingness to flex is so abstract. It can be shown. I don’t disagree with your core advice. I just see it as more than that. An interesting kid for Elite X is not the same as interesting in hs or at my bbq. It’s one of the reasons RD’s words, synergy and narrative, are helpful. This all has to add up and in the right ways for that college. Especially the single digit schools, where the competition is so fierce. And to add up, a kid (or someone in his orbit) has to know what resonates with his targets. It’s not as simple as being a good hs kid.
Yes, when reviewing more than 10k apps after first cut, for, say, 2000 spots, a minor detail can have major consequences. Unfortunately, reviewing, until the finals, is a culling process. That one crank can hurt.
Are you asking if, in contrast, one good solid (minor) bullet can save a kid? Maybe. Depends. I want to keep this short for the moment. It depends on what comes through and how that meshes with what the school is looking for. It helps to think of the adjectives.
The adcoms I know work to find the positives.
I guess I’m not really thinking in terms of “saving” a kid. The kinds of things I’m talking about–I mean, like playing the musical saw–are not going to pull anybody up out of the first-cut reject pile. Where I suspect it might make some difference is in the horse-trading stage that we’ve all read about, where admissions officers talk about–and advocate for–candidates. This is where I think the positive detail might help, in terms of likeability and memorability. I guess it’s also where the minor negative detail might hurt–“Let’s take the musical saw kid over the one who is only interested in music.” Does this happen? I don’t know if it really gets to that kind of either-or decision. But I suspect that officers advocate for kids they like, and sometimes it may be, at least in part, based on some detail that rings a bell with that particular officer.
I am so glad my older kid did not really enter into the fray (he thought about it). He had the goods but we also had UVa instate which he loved and I think was really the best fit for him. The frenzy for getting into “elite” colleges seems to have gotten crazy. My H got into Yale in the 70’s with great SAT’s (didn’t go there). He would probably not get in today because he was not a superstar with EC’s ( he was an athlete, Key Club kind of guy)… You just didn’t need to be a superstar to get admitted like you seem to these days.
You don’t have to get in a frenzy. My older son followed his own drummer. I thought many admissions officers might find him too one dimensional, though I think he looked more well-rounded on paper than he was in real life. He told his Harvard interviewer he hadn’t applied SCEA because Harvard wasn’t his first choice. He never did anything with an eye toward college. The biggest weakness of his application was that he didn’t want to play the game. I figure some admissions officers found him a breath of fresh air.
I’m having the same problem finding the right examples that won;t offend. But I can barely imagine an elite final decisions selling point being that a kid plays the saw. For lots of reasons. One question would be: what does playing the saw show you about that kid? It’s a stretch to say, adventurousness or dedication. At best, maybe you get quirky. And quirky isn’t a selling point, by itself. (At some art school, maybe.) Multi-faceted might be a good impression, but that rests on more than just playing the saw or having an equally rare side interest.
So, why are we still thinking this is as easy as some one-off odd activity?
I don’t remember the details of the NPR bit. But for the elites, looking for that intellectual curiosity, somehow saying you are only interested in music (or only in science classes or only in your own interests, etc,) runs counter to the traits they like. Hinting that you were running on empty before discovering music is tricky. Better to rephrase.
Yes, agree, you don’t have to get in a frenzy. My H and his father went to your son’s school, CMU . Neither of my kids had any interest in It and we had no interest in paying for it when we had good instate options ! Most kids and families just don’t stress about any of this as much as the average CC person.
Absolutely. What troubled me about that piece was the suggestion that one poorly worded sentence could have that kind of impact on an admissions decision. I hope there was more to it. Maybe the kid was weak in non-music areas in other ways.
For what it’s worth, I think playing the musical saw suggests you have a sense of humor. That could be shown in lots of other ways, of course, but I suspect that a lot of applications are pretty grim.
Yeah, I get the humor. And IRL, I’d probably see the spirit. But again, when you’ve got these thousands and thousands of apps, one note may not be enough.
As for NPR kid, sorry to say, when they’re facing so many kids to cull through, they can’t really stop to guess what he really meant or assume that what he wrote wasn’t representative. The kid has the chance to plan, execute and edit his app. He has the chance to think. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but the numbers are a problem for everyone.
I think a point most of us would agree on is that if you are trying to gain admission to a highly selective college, you can’t be cavalier about any part of your application. Pay careful attention to all of the questions and essays, and have some adults look over what you have written. Listen to what they say. I can tell you that students have proposed some really bad essay topics here on CC over the years.
I think some of you give admissions officers too much credit. First, think for a minute about all the work and organization meetings you have attended in your life. After how many did you go home frustrated or angry over what transpired or failed to transpire? How many times have you witnessed decisions being made based largely on the social power/likeability of the person who suggested each competing idea? How often did a choice fit with political realities at the company or group but was clearly not the best option if success was the goal? How often was it close to lunch time or late on a Friday afternoon and so a determination was arrived at rather haphazardly because everyone just wanted to get out of there? How many school awards ceremonies did your S or D attend where less qualified kids won academic honors over stronger candidates because the winner “always laughed at my jokes” or possessed some irrelevant quality like reminding the teacher of himself as a teenager. How many times have you watched a coach keep in a player who simply was not performing adequately, and when every single person watching knew the kid really needed to come out? Do you really think admissions decisions are made with more precision and perfection than all other human decisions? 5-10 minutes is not a long time for someone to read all the essays and other materials in an application and deeply consider a person’s willingness to flex and all those other somewhat nebulous traits. That’s why the rodeo clown gets in. It’s easy to pick that out as interesting and people like easy.
1 Like
I may have a live example, although I have no way to prove it. As an alumni interviewer for an elite, I interviewed 5 kids last year. The only one who got in was the one I would have rated as #3 or 4 out of the 5. He had all the check boxes, grades, scores, played a varsity sport, proficient in an instrument, couple of leadership things, research, etc.
However, his personal activity that probably became his “AND” was that he participated in a regional Bollywood dance troupe since middle school. Apparently, not only was this his personal outlet for fun, but his group also was accomplished at the regional and national level. I keep track of my kids who matriculate, and he immediately auditioned for and joined a bollywood-meets-hip-hop dance troupe at the university in the first month, and seems to be thriving. Maybe the U made that connection during admissions, maybe he did the research about the troupe and sold it in his app? Who knows?
So there you have it, something he did for fun, was apparently good at it, and kept going with it upon getting to college. “Passion”? I guess. “AND”? Evidence tilts towards yes. But of course, as we all have posited here, you never really know, do you?
Know what? You can assume the process is flawed, focus on your own ideas, theories, and likes, throw out any old app, and take your chances. Maybe you get in and proclaim you had it right, ECs don’t matter, writing doesn’t matter, it’s random anyway, etc. Or you don’t get in, so it’s definitely flawed and random.
Or you can try to understand what it takes, put some effort into your match, be savvy about the app and accept that you don’t have perfect control, but you tried your best.
Getting into an elite is about what “they” want to see. I think this thread started there.
Funny that you should say that. I had the same thought:
In my opinion, what “you never really know” when an application is successful is: What actually put you over the top? Were the admissions staffers correct in what they saw in your application, or did they misinterpret something?
What “you never really know” when an application is unsuccessful is: What actually kept your application from being put over the top? Were the admissions staffers correct in what they saw in your application, or did they misinterpret something?
These questions apply for students who have all of the obvious application elements covered: High GPA in rigorous coursework, strong standardized test scores, strong ECs with a coherent cluster of interests, good essays, good personality, and genuine interest in learning. Of course, if the application lacks one or more those elements, there would have to be something really compelling to push it over the top.
I don’t think it is possible within the word limit of most applications to ensure against misinterpretation of some phrase or sentence, while also writing in an “interesting” fashion. Of course, something that strikes an adult as “totally bone-headed” is out of place and risky. On the other hand, an admissions staffer–who is wondering whether a particular applicant is worth pushing hard into the “admit” pile–may object to something that is actually pretty innocuous; or at least the admissions staffer might be made unenthusiastic on that basis.
At its root, why are applications so difficult for someone who has all of the obvious elements covered? For a sub-set of students, it is the “show us who you are” aspect of the application, with the implicit idea that students are accepted on the basis of “who they are.” Some people do not actually enjoy self-revelation to a person they don’t know. (Probably, some people do; I know a few who would.) Then, you couple that really rather personal aspect of the application with the advice not to take rejection personally. What, after the student has applied on the basis of “who they are”? I understand that it’s not actually personal, but it sure looks personal.
At some point, a student has to accept the process for what it is, and live with it. If the student is surrounded by “savvy” people, the student starts out considerably ahead, in becoming “savvy.”