on cc, connotations are the most important

Parent Cafe
1

<p>There have been several threads lately about distilling CC knowledge down to an essence. I think that would be difficult to do for newbies unless they look at our unique vocabulary (the debater’s old parry-“define your terms”). Words that commonly have a negative connotation have a favorable connotation on CC, and vice versa. And to make it more confusing to neophytes-that which we value in institutions we sometimes think less of in individuals (or again ,vice-versa). It has become my belief that “elite” adcomms share these connotations with CC posters.</p>

<p>To that end I propose we start a list of those words (or phrases) that might be confusing some of the newer posters. I’ll start with a couple or three.[ul]competitive, un-decided,valedictorian, artistic or artsy, well-rounded, career-oriented or goal-oriented, edgy, popular,unranked, pre-professional, diligent, legacy,athletic, political, prep or preppy, social or sociable[/ul]</p>

<p>These are some of the words I had difficulty understanding the first few weeks on the board. I’m sure there are more. </p>

<p>So I guess the most important thing I’ve learned is to know the CC (and potentially adcomm) connotations to ordinary words and to not let your applicant self-define or allow others to define her as a “competitive, diligent, well-rounded, popular, goal oriented pre-med athlete who is first in her class” as that appears to be the kiss of death to elite admissions. </p>

<p>For those of you who are thinking this is “tongue in cheek”-it is most certainly not. D will present instead her "edgy, political, passionate, artsy, team-oriented self " (all of which she is also) to the elite schools, and then let the dry numbers speak for themselves. We would never have thought to do that in a million years.</p>

2

<p>One that is fairly clear, but that I had not thought of until S was going through the process of applying to “selective schools” is well-rounded vs. well-lopsided. I believe I read the term on Harvard website or in their materials. Suddenly I felt a ray of hope for my NOT well-rounded S. And I notice I have picked up some of the CC vocabulary. I described my six year old to someone recently as an artsy/edgy little girl. . . And when I first started hanging out here, I couldn’t resist trying out LOL in an actual conversation with my family. They thought that in itself was pretty LOL.</p>

3

<p>Early Decision, Early Admission and Early Action stumped me. I have that in order now.ASK EACH COLLEGE THEIR POLICY.</p>

4

<p>When I first found CC, I had started to look at colleges like MIT and JHU because I did not realize that many LACs are strong in the sciences. Now, I can’t believe that I ruled out LACs so quickly after becoming interested in science! LIBERAL ART DOES NOT= HUMANITIES!</p>

5

<p>Add Wellesley’s “Early Evaluation” to that mix. It also took me forever to figure out what a BWRK is. (It’s a Bright Well-Rounded Kid, for the uninitiated.)</p>

6

<p>After observing the process for three years and judging from my son’s classmates, I’ve concluded simply that colleges are looking for “interesting kids who do interesting things.” Now of course this evaluation is purely subjective – what is interesting to one adcom member reading your child’s application may be either too far out or too humdrum for the next reader. But what has really impressed me from the kids that I see who get into and thrive at selective colleges is how multi-dimensional they are. The all have the foundation of being smart, getting good grades, good scores, good recommendations (and since they are friends, they are by definition all nice kids) but then they float up to another level of accomplishment that is very, very difficult to define. It’s this intangible quality that makes them appealing and, I think, serves them well once they’re in. The connotation here is that 17-18 is not too early to present an interesting character, that “it” quality that makes them shine on paper. I don’t mean a packaged persona, I mean a sincere and pulsating sense of self, for lack of better description, someone you want to sit next to at a dinner party. Someone who has an opinion, asks good questions, listens, can contribute, laughs a lot, loves life, takes pride in what s/he does, wants to take on the world. This is the spark that the selective colleges are looking for.</p>

7

<p>I’m so pleased to have discovered that I can call my S “well-lopsided.” It sounds so much more dignified than obsessive nerd! :slight_smile: Thanks, CC.</p>

8

<p>momrath - Wow. I’ve heard that answer from every single university that I’ve visited/applied to in one way or the other but just in different words. The way you stated it makes the most sense to us lowly kids right in the middle of the application process though. Those words are probably the ones that high school kids should live by in finding themselves and the qualities that make themselves themselves.</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>And it is precisely that required indefinable “it” or “spark” , that which makes interesting people interesting, that had escaped me until CC. It had escaped me that “it” has to shine through all parts of the app-essays, rec’s,ec’s you name it. Let your numbers stay dry -they just go in as variables in some arcane formula which spits out an index number. It’s the “it” that separates you from the poor slobs who don’t have “it”. The deferred, the waitlisters, and the never-wuzzers.</p>

<p>I quite literally had no idea about the process. I naively and incorrectly assumed that those with the highest “objective” performance marks-whatever those may be-would be the most likely admits to the selective colleges.</p>

<p>You have to admit that phrases like hard-working, diligent, persistent, driven, goal oriented, career-oriented, and motivated to succeed are rarely considered in our culture as anything but positives. Only in this selective school admission process have I heard those traits considered as anything but very high praise. I am not arguing whether they should or should not be-I am a convert. I believe. I’m only interested in what “is” in this regard. Not what I think should be. I don’t plan on running a one-person crusade for BWRK’s, or high stat dullards because my student is neither.Someone else can fight that battle.</p>

<p>I am just incredibly thankful that I can give a vocabulary primer to those writing D’s rec’s, as I would assume that without it they may have inadvertently made D sound like a grade grubber or stat monger or ec hound when in fact they were attempting to praise her as one of their finest students in their career. Brilliant and edgy risk-taker. Artsy, yet passionate…they would all say that if they knew it was what the adcomms were looking for in a student.They’d say it because it is true. They just didn’t know that was what was needed in a rec letter. </p>

<p>I think back to D’s first sort of interview where in response to a basic intro question she rattled of a list of accomplishments with a few shrugs and aww shucks thrown in for good measure. Looking back I can see that the interviewer was asking followup questions that elicited D’s competitive streak, career orientation, and how hard she worked . The interviewer would embellish each facet and then spit it back at her multiplied. D didn’t flinch at the caricature of herself the interviewer presented as a “winning is important, wanna-be doctor, work 24/7 to get 2 extra credit points on a paper to stay ranked number one” kinda student. D just went for it hook, line and sinker. She had no idea she was being played. She was a sophomore. I was 48. We didn’t have a clue.</p>

<p>Now we know, thanks to CC.</p>

10

<p>curmudgeon:</p>

<p>certain terms have acquired negative connotations because they are used to disguise (vainly) the fact that the rec-writer cannot describe the applicant in ways that would appeal to readers more. For example, top schools want students who are creative and imaginative. The teacher, however, knows that the student is neither, but has gotten good grades by dint of hard work. The teacher will say the student is hard working, disciplined, conscientious, diligent. These are actually good qualities to have; the best rec will combine both creative and imaginative with hard working. But hard-working on its own may give the impression that the student will do all the readings but will not be able to do so critically and come up with his or her own synthesis and interpretation.
This practice is a consequence of the fear that students will have access to their files and read negative but more honest assessments of their abilities. It is very interesting comparing recs written by American with those written by British teachers.</p>

<p>I have come to the conclusion that reading recommendation letters is a bit like reading real estate ads. It takes experience to understand that a “bijou” residence means slightly larger than a doll’s house.</p>

11

<p>marite, I agree whole-heartedly. In my parlance ,when buying a ranch in Texas never trust the word “creek” or “river”. Most often it is a dry arroyo and will be well over half the year. I believe it can be “code” from educator to educator. I think it is also possible that some rec writer’s don’t know the code. </p>

<p>This is just something I was totally un-aware of in the process but fortunately it is reasonably easy to guard against. Again, without the CC “code -breakers”, I wouldn’t have known. I wonder if “elite” high school gc’s know the code and pass it along to the rec writers? Is this another example of preference ? It certainly works against the unsophisticated GC and those in her tutelage. I would assume that private schools and schools with “established relationships with the Elite Schools” have the code. My daughter’s high school most certainly would not. Until now. (I have become a pamphleteer.)</p>

<p>Y’all may have known this code between rec writers and elite colleges but I can tell you, most of us out here in Grinders Switch don’t , and that includes overworked gc’s and rec writers. This peek behind the curtain is the most enlightening moment in the whole process to date. Heck, I AM the rec writer for a good number of students at several schools , and I didn’t know I was greasing the pole for the kid by using what I THOUGHT were superlative words and phrases , but that in secret code were negatives. Only recently have I discovered that I was in “Alice” and up was down and down was up. Now that I have a map with a legend, it’ll be a lot easier.</p>

12

<p>I am often struck by comments from kids on CC who describe their recs as “awesome” or some variation thereof. Leaving aside the issue of whether they should have read the recs, I think it might be useful to focus on what is not said even more than on what is actually said. If words such as “creativity,” “imagination,” “originality,” “leadership,” “passion,” “self-starter,” “initiative,” and so forth together with supporting anecdotes don’t appear on the rec, it is not an “awesome” rec in my book.</p>

13

<p>I’m enjoying this thread and especially appreciate momrath attempting to describe the “it” factor that is so elusive and difficult to define. For schools that don’t require or accept recs, such as the UCs, it would behoove students to take some of the qualities described here into account when writing their essays. These essays are the only opportunity students at many of these schools have to show their stuff.</p>

<p>I have a related question. What adjectives would you give to a quality
that I would describe as an ability to empathize and relate to others. I’m not talkiing about simple empathy for others, but a stand-out degree of personal sensitivity to others - the ability to see behind what people say and do coupled with an uncanny ability to find common ground among differing viewpoints.
My son has social skills that in my experience are extraordinary for his age - and for any age, frankly. I have yet to come up with an adjective or two that really describes this adequately. Any suggestions?</p>

14

<p>I like Marite’s decipherment of the codes and now wonder about the D’s recs in that regard…written by earnest but unknowing teachers and counselors. Certainly “intellectual passion” and “originality” should have been in there but I don’t know if they were. Karma…water under the bridge and it worked out well in any event.</p>

<p>Yeah, real estate ads are one place where understanding the code can help. Many readers mistakenly think “Needs TLC” means “tender loving care” when in fact it means “tons of loose cash.” </p>

<p>And restaurants described as “intimate” mean the tables are too close together and it’s dimily lit so that either a) you can’t read the menu or b) see your food or c) can fairly well conceal who you’re there with.</p>

15

<p>

LOL. Hadn’t heard that one. Again in Ranch Real Estate “scattered oaks” means there may be a tree on some other guy’s property, and “water available” refers to the Ogalolla (sp.?) Aquifer , 2000 feet down below the surface. I ,too, appreciate marite’s help in deciphering.</p>

16

<p>A.S.A.P. ,not an adjective but would “agape” work in somewhere? The concept of a selfless love seems like it might fit in some way. The intuitive knowing that a person is suffering and the desire to help them with their suffering is most certainly a character trait to highlight.</p>

17

<p>You know, curmudgeon, you have a good idea. GCs and teachers really ought to get some tips on how to write effective recs. </p>

<p>I also like the word “agape.” Empathy has been overused in place of sympathy.</p>

18

<p>Thanks marite. I know I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I would have continued unintentionally sabotaging creative students by not stressing their creative sides. I would have to assume that others were doing the same.</p>

19

<p>Cur, I’m afraid I did sabotage some for whom I wrote recs early in my career. :frowning: I learned what was an effecitve rec by reading others’. Not many GCs get to do so.</p>

20

<p>“This is just something I was totally un-aware of in the process”</p>

<p>I kind of went at it from the other direction. My son’s ECs, grades and scores were quite good but not stellar and I knew he needed to compensate. (Stellar, there’s another buzz word.) I didn’t have the benefit of this board at the time but felt instinctively that he needed to take some chances in his essays to get his persona across. Being highly prejudiced of course, I felt that my son had “that special something.” I didn’t read his recommendations but believe they must have emphasized his ability to “think differently.” (I feared greatly that they would emphasize his ability to be woefully inconsistent, but if they did I guess it was submitted in a positive vein. Later he used one of the recommendations for application to a summer program and his recommender told us that the program director called her because her recommendation was so “unusual”. The director congratulated the recommender on her creativity! That’s the kind of information that gives us parents angina.)</p>

<p>Luckily whoever read his application “got it”. I think it’s the kids who do have the stellars that are the most disappointed when they learn that they’re not enough.</p>

<p>“What adjectives would you give to a quality that I would describe as an ability to empathize and relate to others?”
I can’t get past the open mouthed connotation of Agape, but I like intuitive, charismatic, nurturing. I’d guess that these qualities would be better described in examples than words. This kind of personality is in big demand at LACs where everyone must work and play well together. A lot of colleges now offer courses or even majors in fields like “conflict resolution”. Swarthmore, for example, has a department of Peace and Conflict Studies. </p>

<p>Lastly, as an inveterate traveler I’ve learned to be wary of inns that guidebooks describe as having “old world charm.” Usually means Napoleon slept here quality of mattress.</p>