<p>Ah, apologies QM. I see that you have found the thread I just mentioned.</p>
<p>
I’m not sure if it’s the same thread, but I remember a similar thread (I think there are countless threads on this subject) with the title “Are colleges racist?”. I’d suggest there are probably less inflammatory ways of starting off a discussion of the subject. </p>
<p>I hestitate to rehash a topic which has already been hashed into gruel. But most people questioning the premise of the question asked for objective, real statistical evidence. Most of the evidence provided was unconvincing or anecdotal, at least in the point of view of many posters.</p>
<p>Of course, all those negative comments are completely out of place. I find the term “grade grubber” particularly annoying, however I find it is quite often used by students (or even parents of students) with high standardized test scores and low GPAs to disparage students with high GPAs and lower scores. But these things are to be expected on a message board, particularly one generally frequented by teenagers. Sadly, that’s just the way it is.</p>
<p>QM,
Can you please restate exactly what your beef is?</p>
<p>Is it that you do not believe anyone should be able to voice their opinion about an applicant unless the wording is to your satisfaction?</p>
<p>It took me all morning and a pot of coffee to catch up on this thread. QuantMech: Bless you! </p>
<p>#827 QuantMech
</p>
<p>I believe, from my own local experiences, that c is non-empty, too.</p>
<h1>888 QuantMech
</h1>
<p>Although you didn’t direct this to the CC community at large, I would like to sign on to do this. I never read the student forums, but if you will just post in the Parent’s section, with a real clear title, and give us a model of what might be an appropriate response, I would very much like to participate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are these quotes from CC parents, or are these comments posted to a newspaper article?</p>
<p>In any case (apart even from the above), what we have here mainly (it seems to me) is a collection of intensely investigated, “incriminating” comments from possibly several years of postings on CC (among thousands and thousands of posts). Apparently we have “just discovered” :rolleyes: that adolescents sometimes:</p>
<p>write crassly
exaggerate
accuse without foundation
do not exercise restraint & modulation
provoke
use words intemperately
generalize</p>
<p>Neglected in this investigation is the pursuit of balance, such as the transparent fact (including on CC) that adolescents often (and sometimes simultaneously, within the same response):</p>
<p>are sensitive
show empathy for complete strangers
can be remarkably thoughtful and reflective – about self and others
show uncanny insight
are capable of spontaneous & sincere support
engage in constructive criticism
show wisdom beyond their years.</p>
<p>Yes, both students and adults should not be judgmental, let alone provide highly personal commentary without knowledge of that person. But the former continue to make absolutist statements well into their 20’s. The maturing process will be self-corrective.</p>
<p>Hi, Bay. In response to your post #1023:
At the moment, I am providing examples requested by epiphany in posts #970 and #971.</p>
<h1>970: “With regard to what follows from your statement, I’ve never seen particular students on CC being called ‘robotic’ by either parents or other students.”</h1>
<h1>971: “Hopefully, I have already answered your challenge in post 882, by registering surprise that 2400 kids are called ‘robotic.’ I have not seen that. Can you pull up some of those old posts on old results threads? (An indirect challenge I also made in my last post here.)”</h1>
<p>Posts on the Ivy forums may be much more polite in response to the 2400-scorers who are rejected. So I do not question that epiphany hasn’t encountered these characterizations.</p>
<p>Please note: I might be cross-posting with epiphany.</p>
<p>There are a few that are worse than “robotic,” including suggestions that the person kicks puppies, or has committed arson.</p>
<p>Want to say again: Sometimes the students definitely draw fire by criticizing affirmative action. Sometimes the students do come across as somewhat unpleasant.</p>
<p>However, if a student has high stats and is surprised by the rejection, I don’t think that in itself ought to elicit negative reactions–perhaps just links to other similarly qualified people who were rejected.</p>
<p>Still, “only vaguely human”? (By an adult, who interviews applicants for MIT?) This does not fall withing the bounds of acceptable discourse, for me.</p>
<p>I should also note that in post #975, I did refer to supportive student comments. It’s worth re-highlighting ducktape, tongchen1226, sooxee, and axxiom.</p>
<h1>975: “There are also a number of posters who were supportive of the students who had high paper qualifications but were not admitted. Among those who appeared to be students, I would like to highlight ducktape, tongchen1226, sooxee, and axxiom. (This list is incomplete at this point.)”</h1>
<p>and my response again to the student comments in post 1026 is my post 1025.</p>
<p>Epiphany.</p>
<p>Sorry. I thought I had made it clear that these were not adolescents. The quotes are, in the main, from CC parents on that thread.</p>
<p>I also mentioned a “small minority of posters” on that particular thread. </p>
<p>I am a child & adolescent clinical psychologist, so I am familiar with adolescent behaviour. I still have a tough time figuring out some adults though :)</p>
<p>While ill-intentioned name-calling is inappropriate, I don’t think it helps CC readers who are hoping to learn from others’ experiences to candy-coat impressions in order to spare feelings. If a rejected 2400 student posts on CC asking “why did this happen?” I think it is important to hear honest opinions about where s/he might have gone wrong. There are plenty of well-educated, highly intelligent adults on this site, so if their impression is that the student comes across or might have come across as a “drone” or “robot” or “grade-grubber,” it is highly likely that an adcom or interviewer might hold the same opinion. I think it is valuable to know this, even if some of us find it offensive. </p>
<p>We need to distinguish the fact that this is an anonymous message board and not a face-to-face interaction. Valuable info can be shared that would not otherwise be. At the same time, we need to acknowledge that people exaggerate, or take out their own insecurities on others when they post anonymously.</p>
<p>I tried to limit the examples I cited today to posts by people who are most likely over 21. (The exception to this is the student who used “machines” twice in close succession.)</p>
<p>Mikalye is an adult to the best of my knowledge, and interviews internationally for MIT. He/she is the source of the remark “only vaguely human.”</p>
<p>Northstarmom is also an adult. I respect Northstarmom, deeply. She was probably provoked by earlier comments on the thread into her remark that the applicant came across as a “grade grubbing, score grubbing, resume polishing robot.”</p>
<p>Some of the other posters on the thread “Another applicant rejected from all the Ivies” might be younger people, although it was in the Parents Forum.</p>
<p>There are lots of OTHER stereotypes that come to mind, based on stats and EC’s:
- female in perf arts, good at Langs and Humanities, high verbal scores, low quant
- visual artist with low grades but amazing art-work
please add more!</p>
<p>The problem is that the stereotypes are somewhat based on patterns (actual neurological trends) and also social self-selection. YET each candidate is OF COURSE unique.
And, the AdComms sort of perpetuate the stereotypes for sorting and simplification purposes, yet, in their very goal of looking for uniqueness, as well as a balanced class.</p>
<p>THIS is why each candidate needs to somehow take advantage of the holistic aspect of the process, create a moment or surprise, show their inconsistencies proudly, go against type and expectations, showing their genuine and authentic personality.</p>
<p>Kids who are not so verbally mature may have a harder time expressing these things.
And self-awareness itself is not a reliable characteristic in 17 and 18 year olds.</p>
<p>It is a quandary!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the target schools are the super-selectives, having near-“maximum” academic credentials (in all subjects in high school) is pretty much necessary (but not sufficient) to have any chance of admission, so “low quant” or “low grades” would disqualify those applicants at those schools.</p>
<p>For those who do have near-“maximum” academic credentials, the chance of admission at the super-selectives exists, but is still low, and not predictable by the student or others on the outside. Best for the applicant to think of an application in this case as a lottery or raffle ticket.</p>
<p>I have posted before on the “drone” question. It’s my opinion that few, if any, high school students really are “robots” or “featureless drones,” but:
- Some of them may appear that way on paper if they don’t have very many extracurricular activities to list.
- Some of them may not have been allowed to do a lot of activities other than studying and practicing the violin–this reduces the number of “features” they have, but says nothing about their personalities.
- There may be some people who really are drab and boring–but I doubt if this hurts them that much in college admissions, unless their recommendations make this clear. I just don’t believe the interview will cause somebody to get rejected who otherwise has great qualifications and who just seems boring to the alumni interviewer.
- One problem is not that students are featureless, but that they have features very similar to a lot of other students. This can be very strongly noticed if there are cultural norms pushing them to have those features.</p>
<p>My other observation is that here on CC we always like to figure out how rejections must be based on some factor that (we think) we don’t possess. Since we all think we are fascinating individuals, rejection of a high-stats kid must be because he isn’t so fascinating.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am afraid you missed the finer points of the prior discussion. Finer points such as having an applicant who was handicapped by an overinvolved parent who quit his job to micromanage his son’s “expected” path to the Ivy League for … several years. This over-involvement was probably easily noticed through the “adult” choices of activities and curriculum, and contributed to the "relatively’ negative outcome. </p>
<p>Further, a number of negative reactions came after the obvious expressions of entitlement by the father in his ill-advised decision to take HIS (read the father’s) story to the newspaper. In a nutshell, a father cannot expect nor claim a right to privacy after deciding to take the story to the press. In all similar cases, one ought to consider that BEFORE deciding to wage a public crusade and hope to … control the final text that is printed. This never happens as the press wants the sensationalism over the substance. </p>
<p>In so many words, it is the FATHER who placed his son life and ego on a tee and invited everyone to take a swing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This makes me think of an anecdote from my own D’s successful application to Princeton which might help illustrate how it may be the little things in the package that push a kid over the edge.</p>
<p>As part of the Princeton supplement, they asked some short answer questions about favorite song, book or movie quote. D, academically a science nerd, took very seriously the advice that she should just be herself in apps and answer questions honestly. As it turns out, the movie quote she gave was used in President Tilghman’s opening speech to the class of 2014 when she was giving examples of some of the students that composed the class by mentioning a few of the books, songs and quotes they liked, etc. </p>
<p>Although she totally mangled the reference, Tilgman said “and one student…” as she proceeded to cite the quote from the first Harry Potter book/film which D had used (and which she had often repeated mimicking the accent). D told me about it after the speech and I went and watched it myself as Princeton posted it online.</p>
<p>What we speculate from this is that Tilghman requested from the admissions office some examples of answers that stood out as interesting to include in her speech. Who would have thought that an HP line would capture their attention? I would guess that a lot of kids would be afraid to include something so low-brow in their answers and conversely, try too hard to impress adcoms without being natural.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe that the above constitutes the key words of the anecdote. In a sea of objective yardsticks such as GPA, test scores, and academic accomplishments, there very few opportunities for an applicant to present a simple but compelling image. </p>
<p>There is a reason why the simple essays such as the Stanford’s letter to your suitemate give students fits. Most students have been programmed to answer questions that have answers, and go through punch lists. When looking at an unusual and seemingly trivial question, the typical pattern is to dismiss it or rehash something from the existing application and serve a few more scoops of “academic excellence.” </p>
<p>The problem for many is that the efforts to tackle the whimsical questions tend to come late and become an afterthought. A fact that is compounded for serial applicants.</p>
<p>Xiggi.</p>
<p>I can only assure you that at the time I was finely attuned to every nuance of the Ghosh thread. As a reserved Englishwoman I cringed at the public sharing of the sons academic history. Moreover, given that my own sons attended boarding schools from the age of 13, where parents were told (and I paraphrase): you give us your son and in five years we will give you back a decent, interesting and well-educated young man. Now goodbye and let us do our job, the micromanagement of that boys life was and is very alien to me.</p>
<p>In my post I was responding specifically to the query about whether or not 2400 applicants had ever been described by CC parents as robotic. I referenced that thread only for evidential purposes.</p>
<p>I have no particular interest in participating in rehashing that Ghosh case. As far as CC Parents, in my opinion it was the best of times it was the worst of times </p>
<p>
For a second there I read that as “Rehashing the gnosh case.” LOL</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair enough. </p>
<p>I did, however, as I recalled the thread, want to point out that the immediate reactions to the story was a lot more about the parental influence than to find reasons to criticize the applicant himself. </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/498251-another-applicant-rejected-all-ivies.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/498251-another-applicant-rejected-all-ivies.html</a></p>