<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps my english ain’t too good, but I don’t read that on this thread.</p>
<p>The operative word in the above post (Micromom’s) is “if”.</p>
<p>For as many pushed overachievers, who are pursuing activities simply to pad their resumes, you will also find true super-achievers with excellent scores, who have actively pursued their OWN passions (not those of their parents), and still have compassion and empathy.</p>
<p>These are not either-or situations. I know several of the aforementioned kids, and they really are the real deal, not just an application “package”.</p>
<p>I agree. It does not have to be either/or. </p>
<p>And frankly, I don’t see how taking apart computers or playing computer games all summer long is going to show “compassion, wisdom, empathy and a servant attitude” any more than doing summer college programs (And what the heck is a servant attitude? a servile attitude? Do we want a nation of yes-men and yes women?) </p>
<p>However, spending a summer taking apart computers can be a great topic for an essay showing passion (but we’re in the realm of holistic admissions which many decry–NB: I don’t)</p>
<p>mathmon, I used the term “servant attitude” when I meant kids who like serving or helping others, asking nothing in return.</p>
<p>I knew a lot of young people who had a lot of dreams in their youth, when I was growing up with them in a community that had no focus whatever on aiming children toward highly selective colleges. One of my best friends growing up was a boy who was talking to one of his elementary school classmates one day in junior high about the necessity of nuclear disarmament, a dream that has still not been achieved. I thought that topic was interesting, so I introduced myself to him, and we became fast friends. He later dropped out of high school. He attended one of the CC top 25 LACs for a time, but he ran out of money to keep going there. He eventually got his undergraduate degree from our state university, just as I had a few years earlier. </p>
<p>He and I were both “naturals” as to taking standardized tests, and I think we both thought we would have a wider array of affordable college choices, based on academic scholarships, than we actually had. (I didn’t really put the issue to the test, applying only to our state university and nowhere else.) It is in light of these childhood experiences that I hope that young people who dream of a better world and are self-motivated to learn new things all day everyday–as my childhood friend is–develop EXPEDIENT, realistic strategies for gaining educational credentials that may help them achieve their dreams. I don’t deride, at all, young people who have their own personal dreams not connected to school lessons. Young people who march to their own drummer are precisely the young people I hang with today and who I counted as friends in my youth. But children who are not advised in school, as I was not, how to pursue dreams different from the school mainstream need sources of information about pursuing those dreams from other adults. Some lucky young people have parents who have already pioneered the same path. Other young people have parents who are fully occupied just making ends meet. I THINK (I don’t know one way or the other from personal experience) that many “elite” colleges may open career doors to such thoughtful young people that the young people can’t open for themselves. I also think, subject to changing my opinion based on real-world cases, that such colleges would find such young people a refreshing source of “diversity” if those young people come forward with applications, and meet perhaps rather minimal (and, for those young people, easy) requirements to show readiness to study at those colleges. All this I am still investigating. But, no, when I raise these issues I raise in this thread the idea is not to make all young people clones of another, but to make all young people have the broadest array of choices for a fitting education to pursue THEIR dreams.</p>
<p>“Many of these kids that you so eloquently describe as “not ready to steer their ships” would do wonderfully in elite colleges when provided access to mentors and resources:”</p>
<p>True. However, there is an overabundance of stellar applicants to elite colleges who are ready to steer their own ships. </p>
<p>Fortunately, the U.S. has plenty of wonderful colleges for students who are gifted and could use mentors, etc. (indeed, my younger son --high SATs, relatively low grades, wonderful potential, does marvelously with mentors – willl be going to one of those this fall). It even has plenty of wonderful colleges for students who aren’t gifted.</p>
<p>And it has plenty of wonderful colleges for people of average to above average intelligence and grades whose “ECs” are watching TV and playing video games.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why many here seem to think that the gifted, low academically achieving or gifted, but lack ECs students should be headed to places like the very top colleges when those colleges are designed for a different type of student, one that those colleges can find in overabundance. There are plenty of colleges that are excellent fits for gifted, but needs mentoring students or gifted students who lack ECs. </p>
<p>And, the elite colleges don’t need the diversity of gifted – but- need= lots- of -one-on-one- mentoring or gifted, but lack EC students. Why add students who won’t enrich campus or community extracurricular life (at colleges that pride themselves on having active students whose activities enrich campus and community life) or who have needs for mentoring that the college isn’t designed to meet?</p>
<p>Whew. I feel better, thanks for the clarification.</p>
<p>There are different ways of being of service. Some do it by emulating Mother Theresa; others work in labs researching cures for Alzheimer or Parkinson’s disease or cancer, or inexpensive ways of purifying water… Colleges are primarily academic institutions, not seminaries.</p>
<p>I’d like to concur with the recent turn the thread is taking–in defense of the non-focused, non-driven bright kids.</p>
<p>Not only is it not either/or self vs parent/school driven, but there are students who are very bright, think outside the box in fascinating ways, but don’t necessarily strive for opportunities to demonstrate this. Who, say, read about string theory for the heck of it, but don’t go to astrophysics camp. Who are not interested in competitions–who maybe don’t like the idea of competition. Who love playing their musical instrument, but don’t win places in state level bands while doing so (who may not want to.)</p>
<p>Well, yes, obviously I was describing my own kid (who isn’t, right :))? but the good news is, a bright, non-focused/driven kid (neither externally or internally) can still find a place at an “elite” school. My S did so, through good SAT 1’s though very uneven SAT 2s and APs (excels on conceptual tests, wouldn’t work independently to counteract HS deficiencies on content-based tests), good grades, but more importantly, I believe, a thoughtful, engaging and engaged mind and personality, which came through in essays, recs, interview, and in ECs, though all were local ones.</p>
<p>And got himself into a pretty good school being his non-striving self. So while I have the utmost respect for the go-getters and the accelerated, I do want readers here to know that there is a place in an Ivy for the kid who just likes to think about things.</p>
<p>Northstarmom wrote: “However, there is an overabundance of stellar applicants to elite colleges who are ready to steer their own ships.”</p>
<p>Exactly. But, as already discussed, there is also an overabundance of “perfect scorers” and valedictorians. If we followed the above logic, there would be no place for those less accomplished in that arena, either. </p>
<p>I don’t believe “high achievers” (as defined by resumes full of EC accomplishments - which may or may not have been the idea, choice, or passion of the student) are more “deserving” of admission than “high ability” students who have a passion for learning. </p>
<p>There are many applicants who have “big ideas” and need to learn how to bring them to fruition. I fear that these students may “get lost” amidst the applications of students who appear to be more accomplished - but may in fact have just had an earlier access resources/guidance.</p>
<p>garland wrote: “So while I have the utmost respect for the go-getters and the accelerated, I do want readers here to know that there is a place in an Ivy for the kid who just likes to think about things.”</p>
<p>Agreed!</p>
<p>“There are many applicants who have “big ideas” and need to learn how to bring them to fruition. I fear that these students may “get lost” amidst the applications of students who appear to be more accomplished - but may in fact have just had an earlier access resources/guidance.”</p>
<p>Students who have big ideas, but have no clue how to bring ideas to fruition don’t belong at a place like an Ivy, which is for people with some experience in bringing their ideas to fruition. After all, things like student newspapers and other activities at Ivies are completely student-run without faculty advisors to mentor, etc.</p>
<p>There are many colleges that would be perfect for the kind of students whom you describe: They have opportunities for students to be guided by professors and other adult mentors who can teach them how to bring their big ideas to fruition.</p>
<p>Bill Gates is an example of an Ivy-accepted student. He already had accomplished some leadership things (benig an Eagle scout was one) before going to Harvard. Whatever he did at Harvard that helped him develop Microsoft was, I believe, done without any faculty help. </p>
<p>I don’t see a problem with the kind of student that you describe being overlooked by places like Ivies when they can go to colleges that are much better suited to meeting their needs and helping them develop their potential.</p>
<p>Also, there are lots of people who dream big. There are relatively few with the discipline and passion to bring their ideas to fruition. Much of what determines this is internally based, not something that one gets by going to a particular college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dang–going into his senior year, and now I find out he doesn’t belong. Don’t tell Columbia, 'k?</p>
<p>Northstarmom wrote: “Students who have big ideas, but have no clue how to bring ideas to fruition don’t belong at a place like an Ivy, which is for people with some experience in bringing their ideas to fruition.”</p>
<p>I disagree. I think that statement is as ridiculous - perhaps more ridiculous - that saying that “Anyone with less than a perfect SAT does not belong at a place like an Ivy” or “anyone who was not the valedictorian of his/her class does not belong.” </p>
<p>At least the admission committee knows that the test score was generated by the student - there are identity checks. There are also checks and balances on grades - A’s in AP classes should be balanced by 5’s on AP exams. Many - NOT ALL - applicant’s “accomplishments” were done by helpful mother, father, etc. or their “connections”. You’d be surprised how many Eagle Scout Projects are not done by the Eagle Scouts!</p>
<p>I wish no one would ever bring up Bill Gates again. He is only one of 1400 or more students who were accepted in his year. And not every one had a great idea going in–or even coming out.</p>
<p>The top schools (not just the 'Ivies") have a place for a wide range of kids, some of whom do not know what they want to do. Some of my S’s friends still don’t know what they want to major in–and they are rising juniors! So let’s drop the idea that the top schools are the Mt. Everest of education.</p>
<p>Marite - glad to hear you say that. My son, a senior in high school, worries because “everything still looks good to him”.</p>
<p>I agree with Northstarmom (with a footnote for garland). There are PLENTY of places at the higher education table for students with all kinds of potential. Where there aren’t plenty of places is one teeny-weeny corner of that table, although maybe it has the nicest views and the most impressive waiters. But the food all around the table is fundamentally the same. And it isn’t any kind of tragedy if some of the kids who wanted the Princeton seat wind up in the Penn State seat, or if one of the kids in a Yale seat looks less “deserving” from certain angles than a kid in a Michigan seat. We all want the “best” (as we define it) for ourselves and for our children, but you can’t always get what you wa-hant . . . . In this situation, almost everyone can get a decent shot at what they need, and the differences aren’t that great, no matter how much I obsess about them.</p>
<p>Actually, I believe all the “elite” colleges strive to some extent for a mix of polished achievers and unpolished potential achievers. However, the volume of applications is so great that I’m sure to some extent they are drawn to the kids that stick out, and thus simplify the selection process somewhat. So there will likely be more proven achievers than unproven dreamers in the selected classes, while I suspect the applicant pool is weighted heavily to the latter group. In any event, some of both will get accepted, and more of both will get rejected, and it won’t ever be possible to tell, from the outside, precisely what made the difference. It’s silly to spend too much time trying – the things we will never see (recommendations, essays) are way too important in the process.</p>
<p>Unpolished, not-yet-achieving kids are great. No one is keeping them out of good colleges. Some people design good college programs for them . . . but not so much at HYPS. Lots of them would thrive at HYPS, etc., but so would lots of people who don’t get that opportunity. Some of them will thrive there (and some will go and not thrive); the rest will get the opportunity to thrive at other institutions.</p>
<p>
I don’t agree. I think an Ivy or other select college is a wonderful place for kids to LEARN how to bring their ideas to fruition. Both of my kids are dreamers – one is currently at an Ivy and the other has the grades and scores to apply. I still view college – at any level of selectivity – to be about exploration and trying out new ideas and new personas. Those who already know exactly what they want to do and how to do it can do just fine at a more career oriented school.</p>
<p>And being a “dreamer” is not incompatible with high scores or a high GPA.</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, Richard Feynman was inspired by a wobbling plate to develop the ideas which led to his nobel. There often seems to be a certain kind of playfulness with great ideas.</p>
<p>Northstarmom: You paint with such a broad brush. My son was accepted at Brown but rejected at Dartmouth. Accepted at UofC and Williams, waitlisted at Amherst. He composed a string quartet but wasn’t agreesive about submitting it to contests. Help me please! Is he Ivy material or not? My daughter was accepted to Barnard, but the major she is pursuing is at Columbia. Is she Ivy material?</p>
<p>My problem here is with hierarchies and elitism. Yes, kids should go to schools that fit their temperament, but they grow during four years too. When fit becomes a code for better amd worse and we begin rating kids – those with ambition vs. those with great test scores, those with perfect GPA vs. those that volunteer, we’re in trouble.</p>
<p>And there are kids accepted into Ivies rejected at LAC’s as well.</p>
<p>Let’s not replace one litmus test for another.</p>
<p>No one has said that everyone accepted to Ivies has great ideas. My post was in response to posts suggesting that people who dream big, but have no record of action on their dreams, need to go to Ivies because somehow Ivies will give them the guidance they need.</p>
<p>I disagree with that. There are schools that are designed to provide the mentoring and other guidance that dreamers without a leadership background would benefit from experiencing. Ivies aren’t designed for those kind of people.</p>
<p>When the dreamers with no leadership background get Ivy rejections, that may lead to their attending colleges that are better equipped to helping them develop their leadership skills and implementing their dreams. Such students probably could benefit, for instance, by being in activities that have faculty advisors, something that Ivies tend not to have.</p>
<p>I am not saying that all students accepted to Ivies have exhibited major leadership ability such as having spearheaded a citywide or schoolwide project. I have, however, not seen any students accepted who hadn’t demonstrated some kind of leadership ability including the ability to implement at some level some of their ideas.</p>
<p>I would bet money that the parents who are saying that their dreamer students were accepted to Ivies still had students who had demonstrated some abilities to implement their ideas.</p>
<p>And certainly all students accepted to college, including Ivies, are expected to grow in terms of their academic as well as social and extracurricular skills. Research has indicated, however, that people grow most in any learning experience when they have talents in the area that they are learning. Consequently, if one provides a learning opportunity to someone extremely good in leadership and to a person who’s mediocre, the person will grow most who is the one who started out extremely good. If anyone wants to verify this, they can check into research by the late industrial organizational psychologist, Dr. Donald Clifton, and also read his books,which include “Soar with your strengths”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Violating your wish here, I’ll mention that I have a local friend who was his classmate in his graduating class, and she bases her lifelong preference for Mac computers on her memories of her college classmate. ;)</p>