<p>I have heard that speech listing the odd and interesting passions and accomplishments of the incoming class at many schools, tPG. For instance, it was given to the Freshmen and parents entering my older D’s private HS. And to same D’s class and parents at the start of her LAC. It seems to be standard fare as a way to “introduce” the class and so forth… I remember her private HS listed a championship embroiderer and needle-pointer (male)! I am pretty sure the same type of speech is given at Hunter, one of the competitive (stats- based) admissions high schools in NYC, the non- STEM, non-Arts one.</p>
<p>The philosophy of pointedly deep passions and accomplishments (outside of academics) in individual students to create a diverse and interesting class seems to be a ubiquitous philosophy or tenet at selective admissions schools in the US, even at the HS level.</p>
<p>Yes, it does create variety, probably ensures maximal use of the school’s resources, and is used to indicate to the ability to focus, work hard with a talent or deep interest, which seems to be considered a proxy for success. Without back-testing research, this is anecdotal and common-sensical.</p>
<p>My sense is that using these criteria to build a class and select students does leave room for a bit of packaging. And also that well-rounded kids (our family is pretty much that way if left to natural paths) can be discounted inaccurately as whiffers. And I do question what percentage of these very activities will actually continue to be pursued at the school. Or, frankly, that a new EC type of activity will be pursued in the same style. </p>
<p>Anyway, I have no direct experiences with STEM kids or majors, or technically focused colleges. My sense of Stanford is that it does have more pre-professional, practical, entrepreneurial flavor (how can I change the world? what can I start up? even in Humanities or Social Sciences kids), but that at the UG level it is a liberal arts school which sincerely encourage academic experimentation and variety.</p>
<p>I cannot count how many times I have written that none of us know why a candidate was rejected, let alone accepted. Well, in this case, a notable exception might be if Dean Shaw were an “undercover” adcom in our midst. I will, nonetheless, safely assume that he has a few more uses for his time than being entertained by our small community. </p>
<p>Regarding the case of the successful applicants, there is a great danger in defining him or her on the sale basis of what was highlighted at the commencement. After all, we do not have a clue about what other elements wooed the adcoms. Could it possible that this athlete had stratosphering test scores and GPA? </p>
<p>While the CCC (CC Consensus) has long been held that the angular student replaced the well-rounded-bright kid as a successful applicant at the elite school, nothing as ever been said that the “angle” hides an otherwise lackluster application. There is no reason for someone to do something exceptionally well and be below average in almost everything else.</p>
<p>^ agree. When they make special mentions, it is automatically assumed that it is the skill that got them in whether they had stratospheric skills in other areas. </p>
<p>Stanford being a very competitive division 1 school does nt use the academic index unlike the Ivies. So academic exceptionalism has nt been a must for all the admits.</p>
<p>Colleges want to portray themselves as fun and interesting places to be. Indeed, I think they actually want to be fun and interesting places. So, they want fun and interesting people. They won’t sacrifice very much in terms of academic achievement to get them, though.</p>
<p>You’re not understanding brand building, at all. Stanford isn’t trying to build a brand of “the very tippy top smartest, as defined by GPA and test scores.” They are trying to build a brand that stands for smart, interesting people who think differently about things, who go down paths not trod, who are the leaders of tomorrow, who look at things different ways.</p>
<p>And anyway, who are you to say, unless you were there, that skeet-shooter didn’t have the academic chops that Stanford requires?</p>
<p>But anyway, if you think Stanford is filling too many spots with undeserving skeet-shooters who aren’t really worthy of Stanford academics but just came up with skeet-shooting on a list of “things I’ll pretend to be interested in to impress Stanford admissions” – well again, you’re not forced to apply to Stanford and its resulting not-up-to-snuff student body.</p>
<p>I think interesting people like being around other interesting people.</p>
<p>Much more often than lots of CC parents assume. Many students find that their previous passions become reignited in a new (or sometimes identical) way on campus and beyond campus, despite never assuming such when they originally enrolled. What’s especially interesting to me is that often the social relationships at college result in mutual new interests that were latent in each of those students, until meeting up.</p>
<p>D1 is continuing a lifelong activity right now, 2 yrs post-graduation and now in graduate school (also engaged in as an undergrad, as well as during study abroad & interships), along with lots of other grads at that same school, all of whom engaged in the same activity throughout childhood, some of whom “knew” (encountered) each other while pursuing the childhood activity.</p>
<p>No, because who said that ALL they look for are the “unusual” skeet-shooters and male needlepointers? </p>
<p>These colleges say it over and over again, and half of CC never seems to listen. They want some kids who are the stereotypical nerd-genius-in-the-lab-at-2-am. They want some kids who are the leaders and motivators, some kids who are the unusual skeet-shooters and male needlepointers, some kids who might have unique deep talent in music or theater or dance or so forth, AND some BWRKs (bright well-rounded kids) to round it all out. </p>
<p>Why people jump from “they didn’t admit this one 4.0/2400 I know, so they must not value 4.0/2400” or “they admitted the male needlepointer, so there’s no hope for my BWRK” is beyond me.</p>
<p>Bay, you REALLY don’t understand Stanford and who they like to have as students. They LOVE scholar athletes, and not just recruits or ones that participate on Stanford’s teams or win trophies for them. There are hundreds of inter mural teams there, and if you drive around or through the campus, as I do daily, you’ll always see hundreds of students, running, biking, playing soccer, frisbee ,tennis, etc, etc. The admissions office has always had a noticeable preference for smart, hard working, scholar-athletes and the energy and vitality they bring to the campus.
That doesn’t mean they only accept scholar athletes, but given a choice, more times than not they choose an “academically equal” student who also was a top athlete in HS over a non athlete.
My hubby was one such student and there are whole bunch of students- scholar athletes all-and most are not recruited- at my son’s HS who get into Stanford every year.
My son, who does not have an athlete bone in his body, but had higher stats than most of his athletic classmates, and was accepted at every other school he applied to, including 2 Ivys, did not get the nod.</p>
<p>That’s my personal observation about Stanford based on the kids I know who got in as well. And? So? They’re entitled to have whatever preferences they want (so long as they are not illegal). If they wanted to automatically drop any kid from consideration who wasn’t a varsity athlete or otherwise athletically accomplished – well, that would be their prerogative. If, theoretically, they instituted such a policy (either implicitly or explicitly), I doubt their student body stats would change dramatically, nor would they lose one bit of prestige in the outside world.</p>
<p>menloparkmom,
lol you REALLY misunderstand my position! I also LOVE scholar athletes, in fact, I think every admit to elite colleges ought also be competitive athletically. </p>
<p>I was responding to QM’s and texaspg’s implication that the skeet-shooter would not be on par with purely academic admits, because he was an athlete.</p>
<p>And likewise…some students EXCEL in college who were not as wonderful in high school. I will say…our DD was a top 5% student at a school with very little grade inflation (her weighted GPA was top 5% of her class). Her SAT scores were fine but certainly not superior. She had a terrific four years in college…terrific. The only school where she did not get accepted was Davidson…where we knew she did not have the SAT scores for a second look. Too bad for them…because I think she would have excelled there too. BUT reality is they (like Stanford and many other schools) have PLENTY of well qualified applicants from which to choose…with varieties of ECs (btw…DD is an oboe/English horn player…no that was not a hook ).</p>
<p>Thumper!- your D sounds fabulous!!! I am missing something in your post… was the issue that her test scores kept her out of the running for the tippy tops?
I also thought that her instruments were rare enough to be a hook, depending on the level of her playing and the college’s needs.
Glad she had a great experience!!</p>
<p>To all the naysayers who think the EC’s are resume padding for high schoolers: Go check in to a Holiday Inn or cheap motel near one of these colleges some random weekend. Start by getting tickets to student theater Friday night and end up at a poetry slam or sports event Sunday night. In between, you will not have time to breathe between political rallies, art exhibits, chamber music concerts, avant-garde performance art, etc. Who are all these undergraduates doing all this stuff? Surely they pursued these interests just as window dressing! How can they be playing in a high level student orchestra and not be a music major? How do they find the time to edit a student newspaper (which has won awards for investigative journalism) if they are at a school with no journalism major? Imagine running an art gallery filled with student works when most of them are computer science or engineering majors!</p>
<p>Yeah, nobody likes a fraud. And the kids who “discover” medieval sword play or entomology a few months before the applications are due are an annoying by-product of paid college counselors who help manufacture hooks where none exist.</p>
<p>But if you spend time on campuses and see the incredible range of talent that sits there, percolating for four years (and then repeats itself) it is really hard to claim that most kids show up at elite colleges and drop their EC’s in order to have more time to watch Bravo and play beer pong.</p>
<p>PG, if you remain bewildered, think about the fact that apparently not enough CC’ers have spent sufficient time working in the field of marketing, or learning about it. Think (others should think) about how non-intuitive it is that “elite” colleges, with so much at stake with regard to their cherished, and bloodily fought for, reputations would want to:</p>
<p>(1) sacrifice those reputations for the sake of novelties & fads in admissions (at the expense of academic excellence)
(2) become the laughingstocks of academia, domestically & overseas
(3) casually eliminate geniuses in trade for merely “interesting” slackers, watching glazy-eyed while competitor U’s gratefully accept the geniuses while relishing such triumphs, rubbing hands together
(4) passively stand by while geniuses admitted by the other schools become famous in the students’ selected fields; no high-profile U is going to stand for that for one minute.</p>
<p>Get a clue, guys. It’s vicious out there in college admissions. Just watch how they fight for the cross-admits; it can get pretty ugly.</p>
<p>Bay - I don’t think they have a tap dancing team either. Only pointing out that they do make exceptions on grades if they need to although if shooting is NCAA sport, they can always start the team with one person.</p>
<p>Stanford is the only school I have noticed who make it a point to mention the number of olympic medals won by current/former students associated with Stanford and talk about where they would be ranked if they were a country.</p>
<p>Please note: I didn’t make any statement about the academic qualifications of the skeet shooter. The person might have been the top academic admit also.</p>
<p>I questioned Stanford’s publicizing the admission of the championship skeet shooter. It seems to me to suggest an odd scenario where the admissions people think, “You know, what we really need around here is an excellent marksman.” Ditto for MIT and the rifle team.</p>
).</p>