When various posters say that “social skills” are important for admission to the top colleges, I would like to know what exactly they are talking about.
I think that part of the reason that the broad term “social skills” makes me uncomfortable is that I think back to the popular group in junior high/middle school. This group may only arise in schools of certain sizes–ones that are too large to include everyone in the same social group, but small enough that a single “popular” group can emerge. Objectively, I feel that I would have to rate the people in this group very highly in social skills, because they were very popular; and as we know from “Wicked,” it is important to be “very, very popular.”
However, I would not want to encourage anyone to act in the way that members of this group in my school acted. From the shouts of “Get out Y!” when student Y sat at a table in the cafeteria that was largely filled by the popular guys, to the phone call to a friend of mine, informing her that some of the popular girls were having a sleep-over, but she wasn’t invited because she “wasn’t mature enough,” to the various small day-to-day cruelties practiced by students of that age (and even into high school), their actions were problematic. Presumably, there is a distinction between social success and “social skills.” It would be helpful if someone could draw this distinction carefully.
I suspect that the exclusionary behavior that I noticed may be more general at the middle school and high school level. I have read that young people who are very popular tend to act in a way that discourages others from trying to become friends with them, because they can only handle so many friends, and too many people want to be their friends. (I can’t provide a reference to a serious sociological study of this phenomenon, though.)
I would also like to know why the term “character” is not used. Some of the qualities that are presumably desirable seem to me to be more an element of character than of social skill. Empathy is a good example. I believe that true empathy flows from qualities of the heart and from understanding of other people. Regarding empathy as a skill, rather than as a quality of character makes me a bit uneasy. I would wonder about the sincerity of empathy when practiced as a skill. As Ronald Reagan may or may not have said, “Once you can fake sincerity, you’ve got it made.” Faking it seems to me to be a “skill.”
Leadership skills also puzzle me to a certain extent, when used in college admissions. I have observed people with little detectable leadership at the high school level who have later become true leaders. The people did not change in any appreciable way–it was just that the responsiveness of the people around them to their leadership qualities was much higher among adults than among middle school or high school students.
Maybe it’s me but I don’t think I’ve ever seen “social skills” mentioned on here. I’m not sure how that would even be demonstrated.
As a side note, you can demonstrate leadership outside of school. I ran a youth basketball league in high school that wasn’t even in the same city as my school.
Maybe the term “soft skills” is more frequent. But I have seen “social skills” fairly often.
A high school student running a basketball league might be working with younger children who recognize her/his leadership, as opposed to working with age peers?
I also don’t recall seeing “social skills” mentioned in posts. However, I’d expect the relationship to be correlation rather than causation. For example, highly selective colleges generally base admissions decisions on a lot of subjective criteria, rather than just objective stats. Some of these subhective criteria may be correlated with “social skills.” Teachers likely on average give better LORs to students with which they had good social interaction, than isolated loners who don’t participate much in class. Students with good social skills are more likely to be successful in certain types of out of classroom activities, such as being elected president of class or being captain of a state championship debate team. However, there are also plenty of ways to do impressive things out of the classroom that are not as dependent on “social skills.” Interviews could be a weakness for students with poor social skills, although they generally are not weighted much in admissions process, and at the HYPSM… college where I interview, interviewers are instructed to primarily rate students on a different set of criteria that should be fairly easy to display when present, if questions are answered genuinely.
I’ve been hanging out on the thread, “Encouraging ‘gifted’ students to branch out, rather than go up,” in the main Parents forum. There is a lot of discussion of “social skills” and how students develop them on that thread.
In the college admissions context, I have generally seen “social skills” or “soft skills” mentioned in threads where a science/math/engineering applicant has first-rate objective qualifications, but is advised that MIT is a long shot (to say nothing of HYPS) if the applicant does not “fit” or have good social skills. It seems to me that direct assessment of “soft skills” by the admissions staff is anticipated.
Being elected President of the class is the type of thing that characterized members of the “popular” group in my high school. It did not necessarily demonstrate leadership, since the class President rarely actually accomplished anything; in fact, as far as I could detect, the class President rarely even tried to accomplish anything. This could be much different in other schools. Being captain of a state championship debate team depends a lot more on quick intellect, analytical capability, in-depth research, and presentation ability than it depends on social skills, in my experience.
Could you say a bit more about the criteria used by interviewers in rating students, Data10?
Two things come to mind when you say “social skills”
The first is proper etiquette in social situations.
I remember reading my mom’s “Emily Post” book growing up. Fascinating in many ways because so many norms had changed but then “Miss Manners” showed up and updated the norms 40 years later. Etiquette always changes and expands to fit different situations but always good to know what “should” be done.
Those are the “book” rules. It’s a good start.
The other component is empathy (part of character) which takes more than a book to learn.
When etiquette fails to have a written rule…what do you do?
Or you run into the situation where someone else doesn’t “know the rules” and now it’s a bit awkward?
The “right” thing of course!
Take more consideration of the other person’s feelings than your own. Make them feel at ease despite your own discomfort.
The right thing is to minimize someone else’s discomfort no matter the awkward situation. It’s a learned skill through experience.
Interpersonal skills, the ability to successfully interact, and evidence of engaging well, caring about others, flexibility and an open mind, etc. Not some deep evaluation for cotillion or prom queen. Not rating. Lol. They’re building a community.
Of course, this could be dissected into minute pieces, on CC. Not sure why we would. A kid can simply show he or she does get along with others. It tends to be subtle, show, not tell.
That’s the thing: no magic formula, no formal definition. Don’t most of us easily recognize those who get along easily with others?
I’ve made similar possts about “fit” at MIT, but not “social skills.” They are by no means equivalent. MIT defines what they mean by “fit” at http://mitadmissions.org/apply/process/match , listing the following characteristics that they value and why – alignment with MIT’s mission to make the world a better place, collaborative & cooperative spirit; initiative; risk-taking; hands-on creativity; intensity, curiosity, and excitement.; character of the MIT community; and ability to prioritize balance. A collaborative & cooperative spirit is probably correlated with social skills, but plenty of kids who don’t excel in social skills.are successful in groups and enjoy working in groups.
I agree that it primarily depends on other criteria, but I’d expect there is a correlation with social skills.
The rating categories are very similar to what the college says they are looking for on the admissions page of their website. I ask a series of questions, trying to get the students to demonstrate examples of that criteria, and delve in to more detail if there is something that stands out, either positive or negative. Interview training involves specific examples of what types of things constitute what ratings. Whether the student has a firm handshakes, makes good eye contact, has a confident voice and similar type of social skills has little impact.
"However, I would not want to encourage anyone to act in the way that members of this group in my school acted. "
Wish everyone who has suffered could get an apology but I know that isn’t happening.
People do grow up eventually. They really do. Some take longer than others.
Maybe not all of them but the majority do.
Even ones that haunt our dreams from middle school and high school.
It’s hard to erase memories of hurt. Doesn’t matter the source.
But those " horrible people" at some point become fine upstanding citizens who care about their world–they just didn’t care that much in middle or HS.
After years, I think they had many more troubles than I did at the time.
It still seems to me that the important qualities that affect interpersonal interactions are qualities of character, rather than “skills.” Caring about others and being open-minded seem like obvious qualities of character. (I agree that MIT may not be calling them skills.) Is the reluctance to write about character an indication that existentialism has triumphed? Or is it a fear of the religious connotations? In the “olden days,” I recall that people did discuss character with respect to college admissions.
If your school had a “popular” group, do you think they got along well with others, or poorly, or about the same as any other group?
The people in the “popular” are not haunting me, except to the extent that I think I should have stood up more for the students who were being bullied from time to time.
But when “interacting well with others” starts to be emphasized by top schools, I do worry a bit that it’s the “popular” kids all over again, except now they are controlling admission to places like MIT, rather than just to the sock hop. (Olden days reference again.)
How does “popular” figure? Why assume MIT is looking for that.
Do you seriously equate the simple “interacting well” with frivolous popularity? Do you think various types who don’t seek overt social standing can’t get along well with others? That’s so contrary to your usual position.
Are you suggesting tippy top adcoms are looking for superficials?
Your problem is you want to apply objective rules for what is an arbitrary, subjective evaluation. It’s kind of silly to think adcoms know about the social interactions of students, but it’s the admissions process we have. Just look at the “Harvard memes” kids who got admitted and then had their acceptances rescinded. Adcoms only see the tip of the iceberg, although even faking what they want to see takes some savvy.
I would never have equated “social skills” as being remotely the same as middle/high school popularity. If that were the case, my kids and I would not have had college degrees! I do think this may be an overthink, and what most people mean is, as you say, character. I haven’t been on that thread you reference, but if people are using it as code for popular, well, that’s an anomaly, I think. I sometimes hear “interpersonal skills” which I take to mean something along the lines of: can greet a new acquaintance politely, carry on a conversation which shows interest and kindness to the other person, understands one is not the center of the world–in other words,see others as humans with interests as vital as one’s own. A person who will listen as well as speak, govern one’s behavior to control emotions when frustrated, angry, etc. Things like that. Someone who will be a fair and contributing citizen in a class conversation. Who, preferably, won’t be the kind of nightmare roommate we read about here sometimes (and I’m willing to bet, some of those icky popular folks you describe are very likely to morph into the nightmare roommate with the list of demands that must be met.)
So, respectfully, QM, I think this is sort of a strawman post, because i haven’t seen evidence that the sort of “social” skills you fear (which I think are actually, literally anti-social) have ever been, or certainly at least are not in the present era, what colleges are looking for when they look at “soft skills.”
This has nothing to do with being in the popular group…or not.
There are folks out there who have difficulty with interpersonal communication. This can be problematic in some situations and jobs…and not others.
But reality is…often people are dismissed from some jobs because they have these issues…NOT because they lack the knowledge to do the work, but because they have significant interpersonal communications issues.
Also…in some professions…your resume gets you TO the door…but your ability to interact gets you IN the door. Medical school, for example. Resume can get you the interview…but the interview gets you the acceptance.
This message and the next contain a few things that I genuinely don’t understand and/or worry about with respect to soft skills and top college admissions:
When I think about interacting well with others, it seems to me that this is characteristic of the vast majority of people. (Please be assured that I get along much better with others in real life than on CC! ). For example, we do not select our graduate students for the ability to get along with others, but I would guess that only 1 in every 200 has any limitations in that regard. Mostly, there is very little detectable difference among the students in ability to get along with others. Their educational experiences prior to grad school don’t depend very much on the ability to get along with others, in my field. (It could be different in some other fields.)
We also don’t select our faculty for ability to get along with others. There may be an influence of the ability to get along with others on success as a grad student or post-doc. However, the proportion of faculty who (regrettably) seem to have a limitation in that regard is higher than among the grad students, perhaps 1 in 100 integrated over time, but still it is not very high.
So it is hard for me to see how this can serve as a screening criterion.
I don’t think the issue of popularity is totally a straw man. It seems to me that Owen Labrie was fairly popular at his prep school, at least for most of the time he was there–and well liked by the teacher and headmaster, until character issues emerged. I would not be at all surprised to learn that the members of Harvard’s dark memes group were quite popular in high school.
I don’t presume that admissions committees are looking for popularity per se. Nor do I equate it with social skills. You are right about that, looking forward. But not having been a member of the popular group, I do wonder whether the members actually have great social skills, which got them into that group to begin with (and which I have had limited opportunity to observe).
Fairly recently, a brilliant colleague of mine talked with me about the career limitations that he believed he faced, due to being an introvert. I think he is right about that. He is perhaps one of the few faculty members who is even more introverted than I.
It is starting to be understood that the difference between extraverts and introverts is not that introverts do not like other people, and not that they cannot get along well with them, but rather that extraverts are energized by being around others, while introverts find it draining to be around others and need time alone to regain their energy. It is also recognized that being introverted is not the same as being anti-social or being a “loner,” though some of the externally observable signs might be similar. I suspect that introversion/extraversion has a strong genetic component, though there are no doubt environmental influences as well. My hypothesis is that introverts may be mentally registering a larger number of “events” when they interact with others (tone, facial expressions, gestures, underlying meanings of comments) and this takes a lot of energy; or perhaps they are just not as efficient in registering those events, so it takes them more energy. But this last set of ideas could be wrong.
In any event, I do think that introversion is a scientific career limiter for some people. My question is: If that belief is correct, is it proper to screen out college applicants for introversion (which might be thought by some to be signs of difficulty in getting along with others), because natural extraverts will be more successful? My own thinking is: at Harvard yes, at MIT no; but others may disagree.
Grad students and faculty are not undergrads. It’s not the professional level/expertise expected nor the learning context.
Nor is this about introverts (and the false stereotype that they are all paralyzed.)
In solid analytical thinking, in scientific reasoning, the first principle. I was taught, is to examine your premise(s.) Not to assume the basis is legit and run with it.
So a thread about MIT or it’s sisters looking for “social skills” akin to jr high popularity doesn’t make sense. Where do you get the notion they do?
The conventional concept, which garland notes, is much simpler, less to be feared. And isn’t about our own historical anecdotes.
Quick answer: I think my “strawman” comment is because my understanding is that looking for “soft” or “social” skills isn’t so much a way of picking students, so much as a way of screening out the “1 in 200” who truly have issues that might make their particiaption in college life difficult. And I don’t even think that’s very accurate (at least if you look at some first-year students I’ve encountered!) I don’t think it’s a big issue at all. Interviews are not where candidates are chosen. I’ve met scores of socially “awkward” people who went to fine schools. So I think the whole issue is being overplayed here.
I do think that a truly “nice”, friendly, empathetic student might make an impression on an interviewer that could possibly tip the scale on a borderline student. My S got into an Ivy ED, and though he had the goods to be qualified, he had no hooks or tips and nothing to stand out. However, he had an enjoyable interview, and the interviewer did make a lot of follow up calls and questions. It didn’t hurt. I would call S an “extroverted introvert” which probably describes me as well. We can handle social situations reasonably well, but crave non-people time.
He is probably the most opposite you could find to those HS popular student types you reference.
I think you shifted the parameters when you went from “worried it’s going to be the popular gang” to “what about introverts” but I think neither worry is really a large concern.
I think if anything, too many sociopaths are accepted (despite questionable social skills!). Only half kidding.
“My question is: If that belief is correct, is it proper to screen out college applicants for introversion…”
In scientific reasoning, wouldn’t one first be expected to question her notion that this is a screen? Who or what says they are? You, some posters on a forum thread? Some random conversation?
We need be aware it’s not just an interview. In the app itself, kids can show much. Any college that values how undergrads are open to interacting with peers, including collaboration, will hope to find that in the total package, including activities, LoRs, and how the applicant chooses to present.
Thinking more about this, I do think there may be a bias toward “go-getter” types in some schools–the whole achievement/leadership thing. But I also think that this is not a social skills attribute–it is a type of personality. Which is not the same thing. And even given that, plenty students at Harvard, MIT, and the like are not that type.
). For example, we do not select our graduate students for the ability to get along with others, but I would guess that only 1 in every 200 has any limitations in that regard. Mostly, there is very little detectable difference among the students in ability to get along with others. Their educational experiences prior to grad school don’t depend very much on the ability to get along with others, in my field. (It could be different in some other fields.)