<p>I guess, epiphany, if I were to really split hairs, I might argue that these unique EC’s might not get the applicant IN, but they DO get the attention of the Admissions Committee and Readers!
It feels like a marketing game: how to make sure your application gets noticed, you look “unique”. (Certainly, some candidates just are unique, so no insult to them.)
I do feel sad that just being a “great kid” (who does well at stuff) is boring, may get missed. This is different from saying it is not fair or that undeserving kids get in. I am sure you see the difference in those sentiments.
Or, one could word it that the definition of a great candidate is evolving way way way beyond being an excellent student with leaderships EC’s and awards, good character, excellent work ethic, with some evidential products of all this during HS.</p>
<p>Yes, the holistic process in attempting to enable each applicant to showcase himself in a process of growing and maturing with a certain take on the world, but I am sorry, it does feel a bit as if the applicant has to somehow entertain the Readers and AdComm! </p>
<p>As we go through the process a second time in three years in our family, as the numbers of applications continue to surge and pour into the Admissions Offices, as the applications become more and more standardized and abbreviated (word and character counts, Common App), it is also a very reductive process for an applicant.
How the heck can an applicant really express the holistic/kaleidoscopic/holographic experience he has had over the last three plus years into this format??? I realize that has become a big part of the challenge itself, favoring those who can do this, but I wonder how valid or effective all these constraints have become.
To wit, the chance threads here seem almost longer than the latest version of the Common App!!! Yikes.</p>
<p>I am not flaming or arguing aggressively here. Just expressing things. At a point in time in this process.</p>
<p>And I do realize that this applies to only the top 30 or so secondary institutions, who do get the attention from the academically deserving, for whom there are not enough slots.</p>
<p>curmudgeon is a lawyer. I doubt the family needs the extra income from the goats.</p>
<p>texaspg, #609, lol, Yes!</p>
<p>The Caltech basketball players are not very good, viewed as basketball players. The Caltech team recently won their first league game in years. This is athletics purely for fun (and for fitness). Sensible break from work.</p>
<p>Bay, could you explain why you think that physical development and accomplishment is an important facet of human existence? And then, how that relates to the academic mission of a university? I am interested in your thoughts, but not buying them at the moment. If there had not been a stone-cutter in Florence with superb musculature, we probably would not have had Michelangelo’s David. But otherwise, doesn’t the accomplishment generally perish with the person?</p>
<p>The first man noted for running a marathon, Pheidippides, might as well have walked to Sparta, because the Spartans wouldn’t send help to the Athenians until the full moon.</p>
<p>The Caltech basketball players are not very good, correct. D3. However, my 05 high school son ,a varsity bb and vb player did get a funny letter from them. The letter said they were actually going to start trying to find some guys who had actually PLAYED varsity ball, that they had “run some numbers” -SAT,SAT 2’s,AP physics,BC calc,etc.-and that his name came up. He passed on following up with them but the letter was very memorable and quite funny.</p>
<p>Here are some votes in favor of the star quarterback:</p>
<p>Leadership
Knows how to work effectively as part of a team
Strategizes
Has discipline
Challenges himself
Does not let obstacles stand in his way
Will help bring in revenue</p>
<p>And that’s what I thought of in 30 seconds or less.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon isn’t the kind of lawyer who makes tons of money. Lawyer doesn’t always equate to wealthy. He’s one of the good guys.</p>
<p>Re: athletes. The traits that make me a disciplined and good competitive runner are the ones that serve me best in my profession, help me get jobs etc. (also a lawyer…).</p>
<p>Chicago- You guys are wrong. My runner-kid was strongly recruited, admitted EA and admitted again as a transfer student (he again declined). Chicago particularly values the athlete/philosopher combo. We were told this in advance and it certainly proved to be correct.</p>
<p>The vast majority of people are here on earth to enjoy life, 99.999% perhaps, imho. It’s the scientists, broadly defined, who discover/invent things that enable the rest of us to enjoy.</p>
<p>2400ers/36ers and science competition winners aren’t necessarily to be among that kind of scientists, not more so than the next group. Most schools would kill to get the next Feynman. Without a crystal ball, they try their best to get to or stay on top.</p>
<p>An Intel winner typically has all of the qualities listed by Deborah T, except for the revenue item. In addition, the Intel winner has accomplished something that is valuable in itself (the work in the project), in a way that winning football games is unlikely to be valuable. And at many universities, the revenue that the sports teams bring in stays with the sports program–there’s no general benefit.</p>
<p>Also, with regard to the post by lake42ks: Yes, and I suspect that if admissions committees really want to identify the next Feynman, they need to look for people who are pretty undisciplined.</p>
<p>I would imagine sports, like football, can also bring in increased recognition to the school, increased loyalty and increased donations, all of which can benefit the schools, including their scientists.</p>
<p>And the entertainment value of a top team playoff game won’t be considered to be matched by that Intel award win by a great many people. Tell them sports holds no value.</p>
<p>“Feynman embraced the discipline and pleasures of figure drawing as well as the challenges of portraiture.”</p>
<p>Sorry, I couldn’t resist. ;-)</p>
<p>edit: Just noticed some of the artwork shown on the page. To be on the safe side I am going to delete the link. Quote is from Armory Center for the Arts website.</p>
<p>Maybe he was letting me know there was, um, a problem with the link on my post. I’d done a search on Google and then went to the site and scanned the text, very quickly finding that quote. I’d neglected to look over the rest of the page!</p>
<p>Also, just as a quick note, prior to this thread I haven’t read anything about a goat herder accepted at an elite university. I was simply trying to point out that a sound bite doesn’t give the full picture. I know absolutely no details about the individual, just that someone posted the catchy phrase. I was writing in the abstract.</p>
<p>Chicago- You guys are wrong. My runner-kid was strongly recruited, admitted EA and admitted again as a transfer student (he again declined). Chicago particularly values the athlete/philosopher combo. We were told this in advance and it certainly proved to be correct</p>
<p>Did Stanford ask him to come run for them? If not, he is still classified as a non-olympian.</p>
<p>They are not being COMPARED. Why aren’t you getting that? Adcoms are not uniformly saying that goatherding is unequivocably more important than Carnegie-Hall playing and that goatherding gets you 50 points and Carnegie Hall only 25. They are trying to find SOME Carnegie Hall players and SOME goatherders. SOME rutabaga growers and SOME Intel science winners. Why is this so hard for supposedly smart people to understand? That if one Carnegie Hall player or Intel science winner doesn’t get in, that isn’t evidence that the school doesn’t value Carnegie Hall playing and Intel science fair winning overall?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I personally finding Let’s Discredit the Elite Schools (or their admissions process) combined with But I Salivate Over Getting My Kid In and A Great Injustice Has Been Perpetuated If He Doesn’t Get In to be the absolute ultimate in hypocrisy.</p>