Really, here’s the subtext – which has always been the subtext on CC: If “I” personally don’t understand it – from my extremely limited vantage point, not from a vantage point of sifting through thousands of applications to a single college – then the process must be any or all of these:
irrational
rigged
corrupt
a sham
suspect
arcane
loathsome
random
like a lottery
Second false supposition/subtext: If “I” personally don’t have control over the information that the committee sees – if I can’t obtain the exact information they have, and thereby verify that the committee made the “right” decisions [translation: decisions I would have made] – then the process must be
irrational
rigged
corrupt
a sham
suspect
arcane
loathsome
random
like a lottery
So, unless it can be reduced to a formula, and/or unless I have access to the elements of that formula, and/or can control the formula, the entire process has no value. That’s really the message that is too often conveyed.
There are plenty of colleges both in this country and outside the U.S. where admissions is much more formulaic than at any Ivy or “top 20” or even “top 50.” So go there already.
I am paraphrasing here but in a recent college event featuring Stanford, Harvard, Georgetown, Penn and Duke, someone asked the question about how many volunteering hours are expected and the answer was that they admitted students with no volunteering hours.
This type of threads always exhibit remarkable patterns. There are accounts of students who are killing themselves by building the perfect “résumé” to fit a perceived “paint by the numbers” chart culled from collecting stories of purportedly perfect applicants. This often followed by stories of how the “lottery” did not turn out that well and the ubiquitous claim that the system is corrupt, racist, or simply random to the extreme.
On the other hand, the stories of students who simply were themselves through K-12 and combined being good students (let’s face it HYPS does not grab bad students to balance its classes) and pursued activities they enjoyed, most often because they EXCELLED at them. For some those activities are athletic, for others in the art, and for more simply activities that show a heart and a soul that feels for … others.
Perhaps hard to understand as it is, students who won the “lottery” often wonder why they were selected during the first months. After all, they appear remarkably “normal” with the required “decent scores” and a normal personality. Although there are the rare geniuses a la John Nash, the overwhelming number of students did not invent the new Facebook nor cured cancer at the age of 15. By the time, they graduate, they know why they were picked.!
In the end, what appears to be random to many is that the results do NOT espouse the … expected “known facts” that brought legions of aspiring HYPS to be driven to the next Suzuki, become first flautist, seek individual athletic achievement (over teams) and collect the necessary AP badges just as a good Eagle Scout would do with different elements. To keep it simple, it just happens that one cannot create the Frankenstudents who will BEST the normal kids who happen to be … very good naturally. The laboratory that produces the Stepford Children simply does NOT possess the right recipe, and this because there are no universal recipe to be followed.
Yes, they do. Once again we have an example out of the thousands such examples on CC where everything must be quantified. So of course yes, when a questioner phrases the question in a particular way, a satisfactory answer may result. While I mentioned “community service” by name in my Reply #75, I did not limit the concept to that. Rather, I said this:
There are many ways to show an overflowing enthusiasm for activities and subjects which ends up reaching out to others in some observable and regular way. It doesn’t mean that has to be perfunctory “hours.” Thus, one of my students whom I helped get into an Ivy this year happened to enjoy a particular activity of hers very much. It wasn’t an “organized” activity or “sponsored” activity such as something from a volunteer group, something associated with a school, etc. Rather, it was her chosen, private commitment which she merely enjoyed doing but which benefited both her and the people involved. It included interaction with a particular age group. No one else was doing it; no one else joined her, “officially” approved of it or any such thing. And I’m trying to remember if she listed it on CommonApp as “community service hours.” I doubt she did. It was simply a pure pleasure for her. Over. Out.
Add that to Stanford’s statistics that its students enroll with an average of 4 APs. Another deflating statistics to the Dozen APs club!
Fwiw, the volunteering has often become a mere rite of passage DIRECTED by high schools which is not different from the mandatory health or gym class. To put it mildly, the 20 to 100 required HS hours will not generate much more than a yawn. Same thing for the shadowing “deal du jour” as it has become as usual as ketchup on fries.
The difference? For some people, the volunteering can be one’s athletic or art expression. Adcoms have little problem separating the real volunteering from the heart from the mandatory exercises.
Fwiw, the real world starts where the high school ends. Students who stick to activities in the confines of their HS are missing the boat.
Yes, texaspg, they can admit a student with no vol hours.
But they’re still looking for the attributes that show perspective, vision, energy and the willingness to commit to activities other than personal interests or that silly, poorly defined word, “passions.”
It is possible to show those without specific volunteering. Many kids can point to mentoring, organizing, managing, etc, without listing them as “community service.”
But when the point includes looking for kids who can take on addl responsibilities, enjoy them, and have some impact, without including the notion of service, somehow, you’re rolling the dice an adcom will interpret as you do.
The irony includes that many of us do do something, often through religious organizations or even hs clubs. We value that (to whatever degree.) And then some still insist it’s baloney on a college app, to show those values.
Agree with xiggi that there is a major difference between kids who engage and kids who just look for hours. And, I don’t care if they go do some hard work “for their college app.” After all, they ARE doing it. Way better than insisting it has no value. And good for one in so many ways.
Well, I’d say … duh! The problem with most of the research on admission is that the researchers simply confirm what has been known for years. One reason there is so little research on the issue as there is little “novel” to uncover.
HappyAlumnus, it’s quite simple. Upthread you referenced not knowing what got you into Harvard. In other threads, you’ve posted that you went to HLS which is great and all but isn’t relevant to this discussion. You posted just yesterday that you went to a top LAC. So why are you referencing Harvard here? This isn’t a thread about law school admissions.
It’s considered gracious to correct misunderstandings. You posted recently that I must not have gone to an elite school and had venom towards those who did. I corrected you by pointing out that I did in fact go to one, and I have one kid graduating from a top 10 LAC next weekend and another from a top 20 uni in the next few weeks. I’m confident you’ll be able to clarify why you were talking about Harvard admission in this discussion when you had posted you went to a top 10 LAC. Thanks in advance!
Apparently I have to say this again. I did not say that one must have, and list by category, “community service hours” by name, in order to be admitted as an unhooked student to an Ivy. I said that one will have difficulty getting admitted without some demonstrated interest in the wider community. And for that matter, it is also not “essential” to have “community service hours” by name/title to be admitted to a top UC campus. Example: one of my students was just admitted to UCLA with zero community service hours. However, it is verifiable that UC’s (some more than others) value “Community Service Hours” by title as one of the elements of Comprehensive Review. As with all selective admissions efforts to publics and privates, admissions is comparative. And for UC it is also holistic. That doesn’t mean that a UC applicant is specifically excluded if he or she doesn’t have CommSvc hrs. It means that that’s an available category for consideration. And that category has specific points attached to it, in the case of UC.
Projecting this to an Ivy, if two candidates have similar/“identical” assets on everything else, but one has shown a teeny, tiny interest in the world outside of Number One, it’s really not rocket science to figure out who will break the tie. Because all selective admissions contests are comparative. All. Hmmm. That’s why they call them “selective.”
Anyway, to return to square one: it’s not all about- and only about- “having stellar grades, high SAT scores, exceptional ECs.” They matter, but are just a part. (And most of that is formed in the one high school.) It’s not random and it is a highly selective process. You get in when these colleges want you.
So, go figure what makes them want you. Don’t proclaim what doesn’t matter. Don’t guess what makes a kid a compelling applicant, based on what got hs accolades or peer acclaim. Now we’re talking college- and some mighty competitive ones. Go look at their freaking “what we look for” and process it. Skip the “Well, I heard” or “Susie got in and she didn’t X.” You cannot control for their decisions. But you CAN control your hs choices and the presentation you make in your app.
" a high-performer in grades and scores who has never done an ounce of community service does not meet Line 1. You would be surprised at how many families assume that Ivies will overlook a disinterest in the wider world."
Contrary to what you said here, it’s not true that if you don’t do community service that you have no chance to be admitted. I just had to respond to that. Backpedal all you like, but you said it very clearly and so have quite a few other people on this site.
@xiggi its changed far too much in the past 5 years alone to compare it to the past 3 decades. There are certain traits colleges need and they will do anything (even lie ie. “need-blind admissions” ) to achieve quotas and keep the university rich
That’s quite a statement. @BoxChecker2. First, mathematically 99% of the population cannot be in the middle. Second, I don’t care what economic stratum you fall into, one cannot predict on a individual basis catastrophic illness, being rearended in your car and pushed into a semi, or any number of other issues, many on the positive side as well. Just because they are positive doesn’t make them predictable.
I didn’t “backpedal.” I explained that the context of my literal phrase “community service” should be understood precisely as I wrote it in that same reply you conveniently excised a portion of. (Speaking of backpedaling; you’re the one manipulating someone else’s words, removing them from context. Good job.)
“Community service,” as I explained both in that reply and in later explanations is either formal or informal, organized or unorganized, official or not, a private initiative known only to the student, or a public, quantifiable endeavor that has been recorded somewhere, such as on a transcript or an application. The larger concept is that the Ivy League does care about demonstrated interest in the wider world. They also care to admit more students from families able to think beyond the literal than students who can’t imagine anything non-linear or “technical.”