My Final (Rather Self-Indulgent) Thread

Morsmordre · June 22, 2009, 9:23am

Perhaps I should have been more clear. The applicant pool at Stanford has all that, or at least most of the pool does. I’d say OP had everything except perhaps the extracurricular achievement, and even there he was certainly not glaringly lacking (compared to some of my peers) and compensated with his better than average stats. Therefore, it is not because of any “extraordinary” characteristic (in most cases that is, there are some really extraordinary kids here but you find some almost everywhere) that delineates those who get accepted from those who don’t. That’s why a lot of people have been debating some of your statements.

Northstarmom · June 22, 2009, 9:44am

This is the way the OP described himself: "I’m a boring, suburban kid with a high IQ and what appears to admissions to be a lousy work ethic. "

If this is how the OP presented himself in the app, then it’s not surprising that the OP got the rejections that the OP got. Complaining about the system isn’t going to change the fact that the admissions officers call the shots.

An applicant would need to do their best to package themselves so they don’t come across as a boring, high IQ applicant with a weak work ethic. Still, even if a student seems to have everything that top colleges are seeking, that’s still no guarantee of acceptance. There are more qualified, interesting applicants than there are spaces at top colleges, and factors beyond a student’s control may make the difference between acceptance and rejection.

In the OP’s case, however, I think that the OP could have raised his chances of admission to a very top college by developing more aspects of his personality than his intelligence. He still may not have gotten into those colleges, but his admission chances would have been higher.

Morsmordre · June 22, 2009, 10:03am

Ack! That, I cannot agree with.
The way I see it there are only two scenarios, assuming the admissions officers are pretty sharp at discerning personalities from an application-which is not too unreasonable an assumption considering the experience they have:
1.Top colleges do not like that type of personality and will cull those from the pool that demonstrate such behavior.
2. Top colleges will admit people with all types of personalities.

I say 1 cannot be true because through personal experiences and my friends at other top schools we have seen many kids who would fit that mold of “boring suburban smart kid, who’s lazy”. Therefore, if 1 is not true, 2 must be true and his chances would not have been higher (unless colleges have x% for y personality, which I guess could happen in theory-but seems weird to me). This all goes back to my sentiment and others that you can be rather ordinary in everything else and still gain admission, therefore its not unreasonable for him to be complaining.

And furthermore, the guy was waitlisted at Harvard, and if the meaning of waitlist has not changed, that means he met the bar for admission but there was not enough space. I doubt OP would be waitlisted there if his something was glaringly (or even slightly) wrong with who he is as a person.

Northstarmom · June 22, 2009, 10:18am

I didn’t say that he definitely would have been admitted, but that he would have raised his chances of being admitted if he had done more to come across as more than the student whom he said admissions officers probably saw him as: a boring, high IQ suburban kid with a lousy work ethic.

" through personal experiences and my friends at other top schools we have seen many kids who would fit that mold of “boring suburban smart kid, who’s lazy”

But my point is that they probably didn’t come across on their applications that way. Admissions officers at top schools try not to admit boring, lazy students. Whether it’s having the good luck of being legacy or being from an underrepresented area or whether a student put the effort and creativity into producing an essay that stood out or had a stellar recommendation that said more than “this student is nice and smart,” something about those students tipped them in.

“and if the meaning of waitlist has not changed, that means he met the bar for admission but there was not enough space.”

Most students who apply for Harvard admission meet the bar for admission.

From what I’ve seen, waitlist can also be a message of encouragement to the student’s school so that the school continues to send strong applicants Harvard’s way even though H didn’t want that particular applicant. I’m guessing that was the case with a high stat student who got waitlisted and ultimately rejected after having an interview in which the student answered all queries with brief to the point of being rude replies and then got up, shook hands and left before the interviewer had concluded the interview.

2-iron · June 22, 2009, 7:44pm

Hi all. I haven’t been on these boards for a while now…and I am rather amazed and mortified to see this thread hanging around.

I really wish people would stop attacking my character. I’m a really nice guy! Most of my friends say that, if anything, I’m too nice and tend to be a bit of a doormat to others.

I’m angry at myself and a little bit at the system for not getting in. Good people are allowed to get angry.

I’m truly mortified to see that people think there is something wrong with me for being angry.

nilkn · June 22, 2009, 9:15pm

Admissions to top schools is an unfair process because there are more qualified applicants than there are positions. I think it’s totally fine for you to be aggravated at the whole process, especially considering how much work you put into it and how much you actually achieved. You changed your entire way of approaching academics just with the hope of getting into Princeton and didn’t make it in the end. I totally understand your frustration.

The good news is that all the qualified people who get rejected have to go somewhere! In other words, that means don’t underestimate your peers at the college you do end up at. They very well could have been in the same situation you’re presently in. In fact, I can practically guarantee that there will be some people there who had the same luck you did.

epiphany · June 23, 2009, 2:24am

I’m reading this

in the light of this

2-iron, Would it be “fair” if you were admitted, but other equally qualified people were not?

nilkn, Welcome to the World. “Unfair” means not everyone has an equal shot. He had an equal shot. The fact that he was not admitted is a disappointment, not an unfairness. After college admissions, life will bring way more disappointments and some actual unfairness, such as: You performed better than a colleague at work, much better, and you alienated no one, but someone else was promoted to a position you were seeking because of political preference.

Unfair also means you did your best studying & wanted like hell to go to a fine university, but because of your parents’ literacy level and an underperforming high school, your goals exceeded your practical ability to achieve them.

Then there’s this disconnect:

With this embarrassing self-revelation:

First you claim you “had no chance.” (I suppose that’s why admissions are “unfair.”) Then you admit you have a lousy work ethic. (That does not make admissions unfair.) Earth to OP: lousy work ethic is a behavior, not a genetic trait. You would not be on an even playing field if one could inherit laziness as a genetic trait; trust me, people work really hard at being lazy. You earned that one.

And you stereotype people by assuming that over-archievers are merely “hiding their incompetence” --whereas you are competent, apparently (in your mind’s eye), but choose not to work hard, and we’re supposed to join you in condemning Princeton for not rewarding you for not living up to your potential?

Just a teeny, tiny point: your dismissal of diversity & overachievers is not something Princeton considers “nice,” as in “nice guy.” Maybe you indicated nothing of such an attitude in your application, but if you merely forgot about the rest of the human race while pursuing your own admittedly self-indulgent life, do not expect Princeton to reward you for that, either. I know firsthand that their classes are filled mostly with students who are both top achievers (non-lousy work ethic) and who care about others and do not stereotype others.

Morsmordre · June 23, 2009, 4:10am

lol admissions is a FAIR process? that’s gotta be one of the best things I’ve read on CC. I think OP is a great guy and should ignore those maligning his character. (cough cough…epiphany)

ChoklitRain · June 23, 2009, 9:56am

^ Agreed. I thought that while his initial posts were a little raw and emotional, his most recent post was extremely mature. I hope he doesn’t hang out on this thread and read the garbage being posted about him.

limnieng · June 23, 2009, 10:53am

People usually see what they want to see. Whereas the actual truth is (cough cough…)

limnieng · June 23, 2009, 11:02am

Another example of what goes on in CC a lot: word-twisting.

whereas what was actually said was

2-Iron did not stereotype all overachievers, he merely pointed out that the criteria admissions are based on may be flawed, with the EXAMPLE that there maybe overachievers who are not really academically as competent as he is.

nilkn · June 23, 2009, 3:49pm

Thanks. It seems to be a really pleasant place so far judging by your post.

You should really just ignore my use of the word “unfair” and save yourself so much frustration. But should you still cling on to this, I’ll point you to the definition of the word I had in mind: “there are more qualified applicants than there are positions.”

Yes, sir, I did indeed take that straight from my post! It’s amazing the sort of information people willingly give out. It’s as if they don’t want to get into debates over semantics.

2-iron · June 23, 2009, 10:18pm

Wow, epiphany. I’m amazed that you continue to hold a grudge against my character despite my persistent attempts to explain myself. I simply don’t understand it.

I am not characterizing all overachievers as incompetent. Some overachievers are smart to begin with. Take Thomas Edison. Smart? Yup. Hard worker? Definitely. And of course you would ideally like both.

I just feel that the current mindset amongst admissions officers is geared too much in favor of the overachiever instead of the guy who has the natural potential but has not yet worked hard enough to get there. It’s all part of the “Generation Y” problem documented a couple years ago on 60 Minutes: this generation gets applauded for “effort” regardless of performance. I’m sorry to all those who “try really hard”, but sometimes it’s not good enough.

And in terms of it being unfair for the low-income kid whose situation makes it impossible for him to get into a top school…some people (myself included) would argue that it is also unfair for this person to have his expectations on his SATs, etc. lowered just because of his situation. Same reason why some people (again including myself) feel welfare is fundamentally flawed. What can I say? I’m a Republican.

What I’m saying is that my opinions probably clash with most people who read that. I understand. But I think people could understand my story from a fundamental, emotional stand point and maybe learn a thing or two about admissions from it.

Feel free to oppose my opinions with your own. I will respect that. Just don’t attack my character.

A simple “I’m sorry” would suffice, epiphany.

Northstarmom · June 23, 2009, 10:25pm

“I just feel that the current mindset amongst admissions officers is geared too much in favor of the overachiever instead of the guy who has the natural potential but has not yet worked hard enough to get there.”

I don’t believe in “overachievers.” I think that some people work very hard to achieve close to their potential (and these are people whom some call “overachievers”), but most people do not.

Someone who is bright, but doesn’t work hard isn’t likely to do as well in life as is someone who is not as intelligent, but works very hard.

If a person has sailed through high school, easily getting good grades, and hasn’t done anything to push the envelope – to learn above and beyond (either in the classroom or through other means) what teachers were expecting isn’t showing the kind of work ethic that indicates they’d take great advantage of being at a top college.

I am not speaking of you since I don’t remember well your initial post. I do know, however, that overall, when I’ve been in positions of making selections among applicants for internships and other opportunities, I’d always prefer the person who worked very hard over the person who was more intelligent, but had been sailing through without challenging themselves.

2-iron · June 23, 2009, 10:35pm

I understand, Northstarmom. You believe that hard work > natural talent when it comes to the bottom line. I don’t.

Your opinion fundamentally differs with mine. And that’s fine. I respect your opinion. I can be civilized about this.

Northstarmom · June 23, 2009, 10:40pm

2-iron, I appreciate your mature way of handling our differences of opinion on this subject. What’s your reason for believing that natural talent should best hard work when it comes to college admissions?

epiphany · June 23, 2009, 10:59pm

Those that only do that, do not get admitted to fine U’s, least of all to Princeton & its peers. Such students may get inappropriately applauded/rewarded for various things in life – esp. until college --, but it won’t be with an Ivy admission or similar fine schools.

Nothing to be sorry for. I responded to revelations you made & language you applied to your own self, ascribing certain less than praiseworthy character traits to yourself. I didn’t start this thread. Again, if you were so brilliant, you would have figured out what was necessary to get into the college of your dreams. Instead, you seem to lash out at admissions committees and any on this thread who don’t buy your rationalizations about why OTHERS DID get admitted.

Here’s what many college-bound students do not get: There’s less and less either/or any more. After the athletic, development, and exceptionally artistic admits, colleges have this gigantic applicant pool of national and internat’l students who are both academically brilliant AND academically hard-working. To top it off, a surprisingly large portion of these also care about something outside their own egos.

All the childish stories on CC about ‘I know someone who didn’t deserve to get in,’ are drops in the bucket compared to the many who did deserve and were admitted. Further, your (“your” second-person plural) personal opinions about who did and didn’t deserve it, colored as they are with your various likes, dislikes, hatreds, and jealousies of such persons, make the so-called claims of “unfairness” not credible, and certainly not objective.

Also, (back to the OP): A Bowdoin acceptance and a Georgetown waitlist are not rejections from fine U’s. A waitlist is a statement that your essential qualifications are there but that other equally qualified students were admitted over you due to additional achievement or additional reasons for admission (such as similar academic results but against much greater challenge than you had; therefore, they demonstrated drive in addition to potential). It’s not a statement that you were not Georgetown material.

UVA is a great school. Many well-qualified students do not get admitted there. Like the Ivies, UVA has way more qualified applicants than spaces to fill.

What would obviously only be “fair” to some on this thread is that the class sizes grow to unmanageable size so that literally everyone qualified gets in to whatever college he or she wants. The fact that class sizes are finite does not make life, or admissions “unfair.” It makes it hard. Again, welcome to the world of hard knocks.

big_dreamer · June 23, 2009, 11:36pm

I really can’t believe how this thread became such a hot topic! I think that it is quite wrong for people to bash 2-iron for his troubled emotions in his first post. I mean honestly, don’t we all have dreams? Do we all achieve them? No. There’s nothing wrong with getting one’s hopes up of getting into a fabulous school like Princeton because it is that person’s DREAM. People set goals for themselves, and when we fail to accomplish that goal, we have a propensity to feel angered.

The OP was venting early on everybody, and I don’t blame him. It was a tough time for the guy, so give him a break (sneeze…epiphany…sneeze). Would you not be upset after working relentlessly to reach the academic level/expectations for ‘typical’ admission into Princeton, and then be rejected because you incorrectly guessed that natural talent would trump ECs and strong work ethic?

Hindsight is 20/20 people, and 2-iron proved to me that his was merely angry early on in this thread, and he actually is a nice guy. I quote Stephen Colbert: “I accept your apology” (hope you get this epiphany).

I am going to go through the college admissions process in the future, and I will most likely feel this way when I receive my letters. Sure, I hope that I can get into every college I apply to (like HY, Brown, UPenn, JHU, Duke, etc.) but the odds are that I won’t, unfortunately. I just hope that nobody bashes me like this because rejection does hurt, to those of you lucky enough to not experience it.

@2-iron: I wish you the best of luck, bro. You’ve worked hard and I hope that you accomplish your goals at UVA (or another school if you decide to transfer). It’s a great school with a beautiful campus, and hopefully it will meet your intellectual desires!
Don’t listen to these haterz because they are arguing some pointless stuff!

nilkn · June 24, 2009, 12:15am

You say this immediately after he had just had a very civil interaction with Northstarmom.

In fact, if you look at all his replies to this thread, you’ll find that he never lashed out at anyone. Maybe you’re considering his request for an apology from you “lashing out,” but I fail to see how it would count as such.

Was this directed at me? You really are hung up on that word, huh?

You know, I never said “class sizes [should] grow to unmanageable size so that literally everyone qualified gets in to whatever college he or she wants.” You are reading way too far into what I wrote.

epiphany · June 24, 2009, 1:40am

Correct. You said that because the OP didn’t get in, that admissions is unfair. The only way for even one additional person to get in over manageable, finite class size, is to over-enroll (not just over-admit). Every year 3-4 times the number of qualified applicants than the available freshman spots are rejected from super-reaches like Princeton. It is no more “unfair” to the OP than it is to the thousands of similarly qualified who got rejected. The reaches have way more than their share of qualified candidates.

I am not reading anything into what you said. I am coming to a logical conclusion based on your very words about how it’s supposedly so “unfair” to the OP. If so, then it’s unfair to those thousands as well, and the only way to reverse the “unfairness” would be to admit all the qualified, which by definition would grow the class to unmanageable size. The applicants don’t want to attend a college with classes that size. If so, they’d be happy to limit their applications to their State flagship, many of which (like UVA) are quite excellent U’s.

My Final (Rather Self-Indulgent) Thread

CONNECT WITH US