<p>^^^ LOL!! Deborah T!</p>
<p>To build on a previous poster’s point, Olympic athletes that represent a given school can be a major marketing point - not only Stanford, but many other schools are quite proud of their athletic accomplishments, as well as their academic accomplishments for their current and former students. </p>
<p>You can often check the Wiki page of the college of your choice and see the medal haul by year and since the inception of the Modern Olympics.</p>
<p>Its good to know Chicago wants the non Olympians. Do they need to be coffee drinkers?</p>
<p>Yes, Texaspg. It’s good for an applicant of UChicago who has aspirations to get the Gold in his or her sport while an undergraduate to consider another school. </p>
<p>Telling them you want to play a Division 1 sport while a Maroon probably will get your application tossed, too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This reminds me of a story about Feynman in his autobiography. For those that don’t know him, he was quite the card in addition to being one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. I probably can’t do him justice. </p>
<p>Anyway, Feynman liked to play the bongos, and the people at the Encyclopedia Britannica wanted to use a picture of him playing the bongos to put next to their entry of him. They wrote him a letter gushing on how cool it was, and saying it was great that they could get a picture of a great physicist doing a human activity. He wrote back an angry letter saying that science was a human activity.</p>
<p>According to some, growing rutabagas, raising goats, etc. are things which supposedly make one interesting, which set you apart, while pushing oneself from being a top student in high school into someone who can creatively tackle the world’s problems–that makes one boring. “Yawn.” And don’t tell me it’s not either/or. I’m not talking about admissions here; I’m talking about prevailing attitudes on this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I divorce myself from any such attitude; never had that attitude. And I don’t know why it often comes up – here and elsewhere. I did not see the Stanford literature, either. I only hear about such “summaries” as part of what I described earlier as mythology (that gets repeated often). Not only do I think it’s a distortion of even whatever college promotional piece is being reported on, I think that often this kind of “interpretation” is a deliberate attempt to subtitle yet another CC thread as, Let’s Discredit the Elite Schools (or their admissions process). </p>
<p>The reason I say that is that the people on this board are far too educated to have trouble reading critically, understanding hyperbole and metaphor and colorful language used for effect. Secondly, a quick analysis of any of the hard data (not the metaphors & obscure examples of activities) of these schools’ admissions results would make it abundantly obvious where the emphasis continues to be, regardless of any outliers.</p>
<p>“Not only do I think it’s a distortion of even whatever college promotional piece is being reported on, I think that often this kind of “interpretation” is a deliberate attempt to subtitle yet another CC thread as, Let’s Discredit the Elite Schools (or their admissions process).”^^</p>
<p>It is obviously somebody’s agenda, and aside from wondering if it is a robot with limited programming, it isn’t that hard to figure out why.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure whether you are referring to the colorful language of university reps or people on this thread, but it seems that there are people on this thread who: (1) wholeheartedly embrace the admission philosophy of ivies and (2) literally believe such things as raising goats or growing rutabagas are more interesting than more traditional academic achievements (like math olympiads or the equivalent in the humanities.)<br>
For instance, when the subject of raising goats was brought up, one poster on another thread exclaimed, “It takes tremendous discipline to raise goats!” as if this activity was comparable to playing in Carnegie Hall. </p>
<p>It’s not just the cynics who see this philosophy.</p>
<p>Anyway, as I grow older I care less about such things, but I didn’t want quantmech to be the lone voice in the wilderness…There are “Bears and Dogs” out there, you know…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s possible. “Cleverbot” just beat the Turing test, after all.</p>
<p>P.S. I’m a unicorn, not a robot (makes sense if you saw one of the recent press releases for the Cleverbot.)</p>
<p>When I read the summaries put out by my kids’ colleges about their incoming freshman classes, I don’t think that “stand-up comedian” or “champion unicyclist” means that the accomplishment itself got them in and the school wants more of the same because those avocations are especially prized. I think the schools are attempting to show the diversity of interests represented in the new class. In the freshman profiles I’ve read for W & M and Vanderbilt, pretty tough schools to get into, the list usually reads something like “210 valedictorians, 193 National Merit Scholars, 43 yearbook editors, 24 athletic team captains, 12 certified paramedics, and one goatherd/juggler/champion bagpiper.” </p>
<p>I also don’t understand where all the skepticism about goat herding comes in. Don’t I remember that one CCer’s accomplished kid did indeed raise goats but also had killer stats and ECs, was accepted at a host of big name schools, and is now at a big name medical school? She’d almost certainly have had all those acceptances without the goats.</p>
<p>If everyone applying to the elite schools grew rutabagas while achieving top grades, the adcoms would probably want some diversity and look for kids who had the culinary talent to cook them, too. ;)</p>
<p>What makes this world a great place is that all of us many talents that can take us far. These talents may not be easy to discern on paper. For kids applying to the most prestigious schools in the country, they have to stand out from all of the other amazing kids out there.</p>
<p>It may be skeet shooting or rutabaga growing or they can stop a ball being thrown into a net or they won an Intel award. Or multiple variations. </p>
<p>One activity is not better than another. </p>
<p>The key to getting a ticket to one of the elite schools seems to be to be academically exceptional and hope to get the attention of the adcoms during the admissions reads. Maybe being a bagpipe player will accomplish this goal. </p>
<p>There are no guarantees. </p>
<p>Hopefully, all of the kids who attend high school, whether an underperforming high school, an excellent public high school or the most elite prep school are living up to their full potential and seizing every opportunity to pursue their passions and develop their talents. </p>
<p>If they want to raise goats, or build robots or write fiction, than go for it. Work hard. Study hard. </p>
<p>Ultimately, know that you can get a fine education at many schools that are not even ranked in top thirty on the US News College list. Maybe you will get a ticket to HYPS. Maybe, not. Either way - work hard and enjoy the opportunities you have before you!</p>
<p>My understanding is that of all ecs to pursue things like raising goats and rutabagas were the only actual “anti hooks”. Wasn’t there an article relatively recently saying that 4H and ROTC in high school correlated with lower admission rates?</p>
<p>I appreciate collegealum314’s arrival on this thread–the Feynman bongo story is right to the point. Thanks.</p>
<p>I like 100% of the things I know about the young woman who took care of goats–curmudgeon’s daughter. They live on a ranch. She is a top-notch scholar. She did other things, as well. When she was volunteering at a hospital, she noticed that a number of the patients spoke Spanish, but a number of the staff did not. She developed some simple system to permit vital communications, when a Spanish-speaking staff member wasn’t immediately available. That speaks volumes about practical intelligence and compassion. And if she picked up 10% of curmudgeon’s humor and perspective, she is going to be a great physician.</p>
<p>Anything that involves taking care of living animals trumps rutabaga-growing in my book, because there are heavy responsibilities involved in working with sentient creatures.</p>
<p>I think the “top” universities are pretty much what they are cracked up to be, in terms of the academics (although students need to make choices of courses that are right for their levels in different subjects, and stretch their comfort zones a bit, to really profit). That’s why I think the admissions choices matter.</p>
<p>What’s my agenda? I’d like to see the field of quantum mechanics flourish. There are certainly a very large number of difficult unsolved problems in the area, whose solution would most likely bring major improvements in the quality of human life–even more immediately so, in fields like molecular biology. And progress in all of the sciences and math tends to be inter-dependent. Beyond that, there is definitely a need for ethicists in the sciences, among whom I particularly admire Amy Laura Hall, at Duke. And, further, if we don’t solve some problems in the area of diplomacy, drawing on an in-depth understanding of history and sociology, there may be no time for the other discoveries to happen.</p>
<p>So, I think there’s a quite lot to be said for “hum-drum” devotion to preparing to solve the world’s problems, for a bright high school student–as opposed to trans-continental unicycle riding, for instance.</p>
<p>Some Olympians do in fact contribute to solving the world’s problems, e.g., Jesse Owens’ success in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin tended to show the falsehood of the prevailing local thought. But for the most part, I can’t see what real difference an athletic accomplishment makes. There are some Olympians who go on to have distinguished careers in other fields, so one could argue that their athleticism prepared them for that. Tenley Albright comes to mind. But in general? </p>
<p>I don’t find people boring if they are just very smart–with no sideline quirks of world caliber.</p>
<p>Also, hhmmm, I tried several times to engage Cleverbot in a conversation about the weather. No appearance of it’s being human after the first response. Maybe some will have better luck.</p>
<p>Not sure if Curm’s daughter did it as part of 4H (I think he said she did nt participate in any competitions). So may be raising animals outside 4H is better.</p>
<p>I have read the different attributes of the person who raised goats and I am certain it was the package that made her attractive (colleges not drowing in applications 5 years ago could also have a made a bit of difference). A rural candidate who was interested in everything, being on the band, played basketball on a championship team or almost, did well at school, etc.</p>
<p>Quantmech - there is hope.</p>
<p><a href=“Robot-To-Robot Chat Yields Curious Conversation : NPR”>Robot-To-Robot Chat Yields Curious Conversation : NPR;
<p>
</p>
<p>It is interesting to me how some people seem so brilliant, yet do not appreciate physical development and accomplishment as an important facet of human existence and achievement, or believe it should be pursued together with intellectual achievement.</p>
<p>I wish there was a “like” button to post after reading some excellent, informative posts.</p>
<p>I suspect Curmgal’s goats were briefly mentioned in an essay e.g. “Tell us about your community” but her accomplishments in school and ECs shown through.</p>
<p>In the movie “Caltech Hoops”, the history of the “athletes” at Caltech was reviewed. I was amazed how these men became so accomplished as engineers, scientists, etc. One man continued to play BB into his 70’s. While not everyone wants to commit to a team sport, I too think that it is important to keep one’s body active and fit. Personally, I’m happy to hear that the worm went hiking than that he spent the day playing video games.</p>
<p>Bay - if everyone agreed on everything, this thread would have died at - Shelby Steel - he can’t write and he does nt know anything about Ivies.</p>
<p>One post, everyone concurs and this thread would be dead.</p>
<p>Let’s try looking at this from another angle. Think of the goat herding as an in depth, long-term internship for a student intending to go on to become a veterinarian. She may have learned quite a number of valuable business skills along the way, too, related to accounting for these goaties and even sales if she took them to market. Perhaps she was actually a sole proprietor or one of the owners of the ranching business. She may have helped support her brothers and sisters with income brought in from the business. I don’t know the full scoop, but the adcom probably knows a lot more about it than I do.</p>
<p>^True. Admitting athletes isn’t part of the politically correct liberal agenda anyway, so I assume Steele isn’t criticizing it anyway.</p>