Social science researchers deal with similar cases all the time in assessing qualitative factors. It’s totally doable. But colleges may not want to do it, as that will take away the mystique. That’s why the Federal Govt has to step in. College Scorecard is a great first step. We should ask for more transparency for institutions that take taxpayer dollars. I don’t see why that is such a contentious topic.
Ask any guidance counselor of a large high school which has Naviance just how useful the granular data is.
A GC just told me a funny story of a kid last year whose dream school was Brandeis. GC sat down with the kid and the parents with the data- which showed that since the school began tracking (a while ago), no kid (that means- zero kids) were admitted to Brandeis with this kids profile. And there were a lot of datapoints- it’s a popular college at this HS, and there were a robust number of kids who got accepted AND rejected.
No lack of data.
The family kept insisting- But Brandeis is the dream.
So the parents left in disgust at what a moron this GC is… and went and hired a private college counselor. Who quickly came up with a list of “dream schools” similar to Brandeis- some significantly less competitive in admissions, some marginally less competitive. Kid got into a couple of them-family is thrilled, what a great private counselor, what a terrific use of funds.
Note- kid did not get into Brandeis. Nobody could get this kid into Brandeis.
It ain’t the lack of data. There is plenty of data. Nobody wants to believe the data.
A savvy private counselor who can redirect the discussion away from Brandeis and towards Muhlenberg and Farleigh Dickinson… and gets a reputation for getting their clients into two or more colleges… can do quite well for themselves.
But it ain’t the data. It’s all about the marketing. A public HS guidance counselor who says “You aren’t getting into Brandeis but you are a strong contender for Queens college” isn’t making friends among the parents anytime soon.
But a quick check of the Naviance data… and the time to select some leafy/suburban/attractive alternatives to Brandeis- that’s the magic.
Any parent who is insisting that their kid add an EC based on “data” about college admissions is falling down on the job IMHO. Your kid should add an EC if his/her afternoons are spent sitting on the couch posting selfies with the kitten. Your kid should add an EC if his/her self-esteem is taking a hit from a bunch of classes he/she isn’t enjoying, and where a non-academic outlet will allow him/her to shine. Your kid should get a job if he/she has time on his/her hands and doesn’t have the initiative to fill it with something useful or artistic or educational.
But you’re going to look at a chart and some analytics and decide how to parent your teenager???
Good grief.
“It ain’t the lack of data. There is plenty of data. Nobody wants to believe the data.”
exactly. And if anyone chooses to NOT believe a pro like blossom, who has been posting valuable admissions information and facts here on CC for years and is right in the trenches with college GC’s, then you are also NOT listening- just like some parents.
“I believe that college admission is often subjective or not transparent.”
that is correct, and it is not going to change either.
no matter how much the more analytically driven parents wish it.
As they do every year.
Trying to read the tea leaves and figure out how colleges choose students these days is like trying to peer into a bottomless “black box”.
All parents can really do is to encourage/guide/ support their kids to choose EC’s that THEY [ the kids] are interested in. Because their interest will be what the college admissions officers pick up on.
Blossom, You write:
"Any parent who is insisting that their kid add an EC based on “data” about college admissions is falling down on the job IMHO. Your kid should add an EC if his/her afternoons are spent sitting on the couch posting selfies with the kitten. Your kid should add an EC if his/her self-esteem is taking a hit from a bunch of classes he/she isn’t enjoying, and where a non-academic outlet will allow him/her to shine. Your kid should get a job if he/she has time on his/her hands and doesn’t have the initiative to fill it with something useful or artistic or educational.
But you’re going to look at a chart and some analytics and decide how to parent your teenager???
Good grief."
This is obviously a value judgment which has nothing to do with college admissions. There are so many value systems in the world. I try to be tolerant of all of them, while following my own.
The original question posed in this thread was: “How many strong EC do you need for very selective colleges?” This is a very concrete question. There is no value judgment in this. There is no ask about what are proper parenting techniques.
If data can answer the question in a statistically verifiable manner then what is the problem? This is no different from asking a nutritionist on average what should the right diet to ensure a long, high quality life? Instead of bringing value judgments into the mix, medicine tries to answer the question objectively.
Equating diet to ECs, and long, high quality of life living to admissions to selective colleges, I just don’t feel there is any need to bring value judgments in the mix. IMO we should just do the research, find the answer, and objectively communicate it.
We have already seen that the data-driven approach is vastly superior to the experience-driven approach in pretty much every field of life. I think we should embrace it rather than shun it. Besides, the experience-driven approach is also an imperfect form of the data-driven approach, but based merely on a very limited set of data that the individual is familiar with, backed up by their own value systems. That’s why the objective, data-driven approach works better.
I actually don’t think that college admissions is subjective. I think that it is very objective, but uses a few rules that many parents don’t like from their own subjective perspective. But that doesn’t make the rules any less objective. Even with the very limited set of data that is available, the objectivity is very easy to figure out.
Transparency is another issue, however. It is true that college adcoms like to project a mystique and avoid transparency where ever possible, But, again, if you read that book, you will see very clear statistical patterns. The only problem is that the data is self-reported and not comprehensive. If comprehensive and accurate data were available, predicting a student’s chances would be quite straightforward.
" This is a very concrete question."
there is NO concrete ANSWER.
data CANT answer the question because the college admission decisions are made by people, gathered in a room, not by machines . Their decisions are in many cases subjective, especially where there are many candidates to choose from who are “equally qualified”. And they do NOT dictate or transcribe all of the reasons for their yes or no decisions.
if the decisions were made by computers, they could generate the kid of data that you would prefer to see,.
but that is not going to happen.
not every subjective decision in life- who to admit, who to hire, who to marry, is going to conform to a data driven world.
You can continue to pontificate on the benefits of a data driven approach all you want, or you can accept that some things are not going to change in the near future, regardless of whether you think another system might be “superior”.
Actually, human behavior is quite predictable. Marketing professionals make a living out of running conjoint analyses. Also, colleges and corporations have institutional memories, norms, and guidelines. Those are stable over any time period and hence predictable, too. Finally, no one individual makes the decision to recruit or hire. It is always a team, who are all given the same guidelines. The collective decision makes the prediction even more easy, as the subjective outlier decisions are ruled out.
But I don’t want to belabor the point. There is enough research out there, and social sciences use statistics for pretty much everything these days. That is proof enough for me, and I do not need to convince anyone. I would, however, encourage anyone who doubts the data driven approach to read the book Money Ball (or see the movie, which is a really poor substitute), which shows how much more effective a data-driven approach is over an experience-based one.
.
:-@
Except that I don’t want my kid to pick ECs based on DATA! I want him choosing to spend his time on things that make him feel productive, or more alive, or helpful to those in need, or creative. THAT is how my kids picked ECs.
As a parent, all I want is for them to make good use of their time - and they will get into the colleges that suit them. There is no way in he## I would design my kid’s HS life around admission to a particular college or colleges.
surfcity, Personally, I completely agree with you*. But others may not, and I think that’s fine too. What is important is that we have all the facts to make decisions.
- With one caveat. I don't even want my son to make good use of his time when it comes to ECs. He does them in his free time out of his own volition, and it's his free time and not mine. I am just here to pay.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Bingo. Therefore the debate on this issue is useless, aside from the fact that CC is not a debate society. I realize that the conversation has gone off-topic, in main part because the OP took it OT, but I’m not allowing pointless debates. Move on, please.
Waaaa. Wish I weren’t stuck with only my cell and could rip out a fuller answer.
Adcoms at top schools read your full app and supp. NOT a summary (like a CC chance me or results post shows.) You can’t get a full view from a CDS.
Safest bet: depth and breadth. Anything less risks.
Referring to advice from a recent grad who never worked in admissions but mined partial details is so incomplete that it boggles my mind.
Be savvier than that.
The safest bet to win the lottery is to buy up all the tickets, but that’s not very savvy.
Just talked to an ex-adcom member from one of HYP who now does private counseling. Her advice is choose depth over breadth, and that the breadth approach is now dated and not in use.
@SculptorDad, to answer your original question (with more anecdotal stories):
I work as a college consultant, and I really try to steer my students away from dream schools, though I do work with many high achieving students that end up at schools like Stanford, UCB, and the like (For the record, only my own sons were admitted to Ivy League schools of the students I have worked with. Not very many of my students have applied to Ivies, and none besides my sons have gotten in, though several were waitlisted, so I am not overly experienced in Ivy admissions.)
My own two sons did not have dream schools. In fact, the community college was their safety, and we did not assume they would get into any schools. It was just the reality of the unknown homeschooling world.
I think if your D is at a high school, I would suggest talking with the counselor and using Naviance to guide your questions regarding ECs. The counselor may have some worthwhile insight.
As far as ECs go, in my personal experience:
Oldest son is a highly energetic extrovert who did multiple ECs at a high level because he loved doing everything. So-nationally ranked chess player, national level math and physics competitions, MVP of his freshman baseball team, and high level musician (professional work, lots of performing, etc) in addition to church-related stuff were his main ECs.
The one EC that I encouraged him to try was joining the math circle in 10th grade. I always let him take the lead, but in exactly two cases, I suggested that he try something, and then if he didn’t like it, he could drop. In the case of the math circle, he’d done Mathcounts in 7th grade, and gotten to the state level, but his mentor said he couldn’t teach my son anymore (he was doing Calculus that year), and my son went to Mathcounts by himself, and felt like an outsider as a homeschooler, so he quit math circle/math competitions.
I knew he needed more challenge, as he’d already finished all the math and physics classes at the community college, and had 2 1/2 more years of high school. I told him to try the math circle for a month, and quit if he didn’t like it. He ended up seeing a friend from chess there, and the rest was history. He made a lot of friends (a number who ended up at MIT with him), and competed in his most beloved competition, ARML, for three years. It was a good call on my part; I knew he needed the challenge.
This son got into all his colleges (including 7 highly selective, including two Ivies), but he is also a URM (1/2 Puerto Rican). Yes, his scores, grades, rigor (doing upper division math and physics) and ECs were pretty over the top, and he’s just a strong people person, but I can’t say that he would have had this kind of success if he was not a URM.
But all his ECs, except for that suggestion by me to try math circle again, were on him. There is a time to suggest, but mostly my job was running after him finding resources for his multiple passions.
MIddle son:
Total opposite of oldest son. Introvert, very few ECs, rigor rather weak,no 4.0 gpa, disabilities, and not a people person. His one major EC was playing cello. His main story was that he was an extemely shy child and almost didn’t play cello, but finally performed seven years after he began cello…which opened the flood gates to tons of opportunities. In his case, I made suggestions for music opportunities all the time. Sometimes he took them; often he didn’t. Unlike older brother, this son is very self-depricating and never thought he was good enough.
One of the activities I strongly suggested he try was a particularly selective chamber orchestra. He felt sure the director didn’t like him (he’d worked with her before at a chamber camp), but he agreed to audition anyways, and was invited to join. It turned out much like the math circle for my oldest-the best thing he could have done. He was a soloist twice, and made his very best friends in the group.
He also was the best bowler on his team for 4 years (just a homeschool league), did FTC robotics for one year (but it happen to be the best team in the city that year, and they went to regionals), and did some community service through church-but most of his ECs related to cello: he did professional work with several local theater companies, did a ton of fund raisers, played in a paid quartet, busked cello duets, and played in several orchestras/chamber programs. He could have gone the conservatory route if he was so inclined, but he definitely was not inclined.
All his ECs were picked by him (he can’t be forced into anything), but he did grudgingly take my suggestions a couple of times. He would never do activities he didn’t like, and he quit stuff he was done with (like robotics after a year).
I did not ever with either boy look at an activity in terms of college admissions-never. (Oh wait, I take that back. I had my middle son join Phi Theta Kappa-not an EC- even though he saw it as useless, but I thought there might be some benefit like scholarships, so I stand corrected)
He did better in admissions than I thought he would, for sure. He applied to schools ranging in admissions rate from 5% to 90%. He was detached from all colleges, and was just looking for one affordable college. He got into exactly one highly selective college, an Ivy, and was waitlisted at two others (he applied to 7-8 highly selective). He is not a URM, so I can only think that his one EC, cello, did have an impact on admissions (though U Rochester commented on his robotics in addition to giving him a large music scholarship, so perhaps both ECs were important).
I can tell you that Stanford absolutely looks for tippy top talent, and will admit students with one main EC if it is at the national/international level. I know this from having worked with two students in this category who were admitted there.
HTH a little.
Stanford has a “something else” they are looking for, beyond one main EC at which they perform superbly. It is a quality that takes them to aim in certain directions, in the first place. And showing that quality can be enough to get their apps further, even without the national/international level awards or competitions. The problem is that too many kids think in terms of absolutes, those awards.
Sbjdorlo, I agree with so much of your thinking here. But I think many read about “national ranking” and MVP and gloss over the baseball (i.e., team,) music and church, as well as being a strong people person. (Like, “bingo!”) And so on.
Many times, when a kid is applying high and has only one main EC focus, the fact is other applicants have that and the rounding. With very few exceptions, the "what else"and how it’s presented can be very telling.
@sbjdorlo Thanks a lot for your detailed experience! Seems like you have homeschooled your kids in Bay Area, as I had done as well!
I have always known that my daughter is an introvert. But now that she is in a boarding school, I see that she is more introvert than I thought. She wanted to to be with more age peers (rather than older friends at community colleges) and is happy about it. But after spending school and sports hours, she needs lots of time alone in evenings and weekends to recharge her energy. She tried couple of student clubs but quickly withdrew from them. I don’t see her having any strong EC other than her visual arts. So possibility of one main EC working is exciting. It will be still very difficult, and we would be totally fine if she doesn’t get in to UCB, Stanford, or any IVY. But why not try?
P.S. Maybe I will advise daughter join Phi Theta Kappa too. Couldn’t hurt.
Right, @lookingforward. One should not gloss over the people person in my son’s story, because that is a huge part of what makes him who he is, and what is appealing about him.
Same with my middle son-one should not gloss over “disabilities” because I believe that was also a big part of why he was successful in applications. He was amazingly successful in his own right despite the incredible challenges he faced. Presented as such, schools take notice.
Often it’s those deeper, less quantifiable qualities that make admissions take notice.
@SculptorDad, we are actually in San Diego County, and our local high school is one of the crummy ones. Homeschooling was pretty much the only option given our income and location, but I’m glad we went this direction.
My boys never wanted to go to high school. We considered it for my oldest because the local high school really wanted him to play varsity baseball for them, but he would have had to join a charter school and compromise his academics, and it wasn’t worth it.
My oldest found ample social opportunities in all his activities, and my middle son found his few friends in our co-op and his orchestra.
If she’s into it, sure. Why not try for highly selective schools? Have a good array of schools on the list and see what happens. As long as she understands the realities of college admissions, I see no reason not to have her apply if there are schools that have what she wants.
FYI, my oldest wasn’t even thinking about selective colleges until junior year in high school. We (ok, I) was hoping he could go to a Christian college. He visited two schools in his sophomore year, Taylor University and U Chicago. He really liked Taylor and didn’t like U Chicago (even though the physics prof he met with encouraged him to apply a year early based on what he knew of my son). It was only when we realized Christian colleges didn’t have the depth he needed that he begin to look at colleges such as Princeton and Penn. MIT didn’t get on the list until October of senior year.
I wasn’t even sure my middle son was going to be able to attend college because of his disabilities, to be honest. Attending the community college full time senior year was an important step.
Let’s just say the way we do college admissions is very different than many families. No one way is better than another, but I’m all about lowering stress for students, particularly ones who are already feeling intense stress in their high school curriculum.
“I can tell you that Stanford absolutely looks for tippy top talent, and will admit students with one main EC if it is at the national/international level. I know this from having worked with two students in this category who were admitted there.”
I have been told by two independent private college counselors that are helping my son that such is true for most top schools.