I sat in on many webinars for college admissions. I found them pretty clear about what they were looking for. No, they couldn’t say - do X,Y,Z and you are in. Because too many kids can do X,Y,Z. They were pretty clear in pointing out the data on acceptances. They told the students it didn’t matter what their extra-curriculars were as much as it mattered that they showed interest and passion beyond achieving grades. They told them their essays should demonstrate that they could write and to humanize their application.
Anyone looking for a guarantee or a way to better game the system is most likely going to be stressed or disappointed.
Then tens of thousands of kids apparently are not receiving that message ( or don’t believe it due to distrust of the college) so the schools need to make that more clear.
As a general matter, I would take schools’ statements with a large grain of salt. Perhaps a shaker.
I agree many people do not have the info because their parents aren’t savvy or they do not go to a school with sufficient support. They don’t believe it because they are getting info from tiktok and social media. I suspect they prefer to believe the social media info because it is more likely to tell them what they want to hear.
I honestly don’t know what the colleges could do to get the message out better - the whole lead a horse to water thing. My kids got flooded with emails inviting them to info sessions. The upside of Covid for college admissions was that it forced colleges to get more virtual.
You want to believe that the process is BROKEN and should be more like the European models. That’s fine. We just disagree.
Nope, which is in part why I still peruse the CC Parent’s Forum despite the fact that both my kids are already in university and neither in the US, because I find many of the posts informative and interesting.
That is the crux of our difference. I prefer a system which does not require savvy parents or tremendous high school support, which the majority of teenagers do not have.
And I just don’t think that’s likely. More and more kids are going to college. More families have the disposable income to save for more than standard safe public universities. I don’t encourage kids to have unrealistic expectations, but who should tell a kid not to shoot their shot because the number of applications drives down the certainty for more “worthy” students?
Ugh. Must 17 year olds really have “passion?” Jonas Salk said in an interview that he wasn’t really interested in Biology. He thought he might be a lawyer, but then being a doctor turned out to be more practical. But he didn’t like patient contact, so he stayed in the lab as much as he could. His high school classmates remembered him as a grind and a perfectionist. Maybe if interviewed today they would call him a “bot.”
It was stated in the context of dispelling the notions that they needed a million super impressive and unique extracurriculars. Yes, you should have interests outside of school. No, you do not have to start a non-profit or have any specific extracurricular. Jobs, even babysitting for your family because your family needs that from you, are just as worthy. For me, it felt like they were trying to tamp down on the craziness.
Doesn’t a system purely based on academic achievement also require savvy parents and/or high school support? How would a talented kid with clueless parents, attending an unsupportive high school, distinguish themselves academically?
I’m just not sure that the modern day equivalent of Jonas Salk is being shut out of the most selective universities.
What I tell my students is academics first. Probably first, second, and third. When they are applying to schools where there are way more QUALIFIED students than spots, the essay, the extras, might be the thing that puts them to the front of the pack. In no way is a B+ student with a 1350 going to beat a 1600 A student with rigorous classes and national awards because the B student was the president of a club he convinced a teacher to sponsor for the sake of checking the E.C. And leadership box.
There should definitely be more support in high school. But, realistically, that’s not going to happen.
A college cannot MAKE a student look at their info, but it is published and they do give virtual info sessions. I’ll agree that a lot of the advertising is over the top and there is a drive to get lots of applicants to look more selective.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but it seems your end game is to have the college have very specific metrics that are well known so fewer kids apply to the more competitive schools and the most worthy, qualified students won’t have to stress about getting in.
Perfect timing, the ad for a college confidential seminar just hit my email: “Crafting Compelling Extracurriculars with a Former UPenn Admissions Officer”
We are advised in that ad that " presenting a strong extracurricular profile can make the difference in acceptance", that we can learn what to do to " evaluate and grow your ECs", how to execute an extracurricular plan, and how to use extracurriculars to “develop a personal brand”
Though I would personally love to see a scientific and quantifiable way to define merits especially for students who are interested and aiming at STEM degrees.
There are still problems if test is the only measures. There are always cheating.
For example, the known cases in Varsity Blue scandal. Recently even the Math competitions such as AMC encountered cheating issues.
That’s not data. It’s fine that the school considers extra-curriculars. As another poster has commented, the school has the right to shape its priorities and mission. Hopefully, they will tell kids they don’t need to make up a non-profit or club, they don’t need to go irrigate some village in Africa.
What I am asking for is actual data that less “worthy” kids are getting into competitive schools over their more academically accomplished peers based on extracurriculars.
