<p>Are we seeing a dumbing down of the Ivy League as they change their admission procedures to skip over the truly brilliant kids for the socially well-rounded? </p>
<p>Americans are over achievers to a fault in everything but academics these days. Now we are seeing this do everything, or as much as you can attitude creeping into higher education. </p>
<p>We are sending mixed messages when we focus on academic excellence in the primary and secondary schools and then shift to building well rounded individuals in our colleges and universities. As a parent it is my job to ensure my child is well rounded. When I am paying $40k - $50k for a year (really 2/3rds of a year) of higher education I want them to learn what I cannot teach. </p>
<p>I want my children to be surrounded by the smartest kids in the country. I really do not care if the person next to them had spent 50 hours a week on community service in high school. They could not have been much of a student with so little study time.</p>
<p>The real schools to benefit are the so-called first tier non-ivy schools where all the truly brilliant students are going to wind up. We are already seeing the beginnings when students report being unchallenged at Harvard after attending a solid New England prep school. Across the board students at the Ivy League schools are reporting grade inflation, large class sizes, and uninspired professors.</p>
<p>These schools, who do not play football in the same league as the old leaders, will soon become the academic powerhouses in this country. Football has long been seen as a sport for the academically challenged to play so perhaps it is fitting that the schools that are best known for their football league sink to that level.</p>
<p>It is prestigious to get accepted into an Ivy League school and it is very had to choose to attend a slightly less famous school with a better academic record. But what is it about bragging rights or education?</p>
<p>The smart students would be wise to follow their equally smart friends to where education is still the first priority.</p>
<p>I completely disagree with pretty much everything you said. Basically the majority of people that are not well rounded are just not healthy. They obsess so much with school and being perfect that they have no time for a “real life”. Academics are great yet everyone needs something more. At this point you are implying that it is better to sacrifice happinness in order to get the highest GPA. I find it somewhat sickening that schools would even consider someone that had done nothing outside of school. Leadership and clubs are tremendously important. Not as something to put on your resume but as something to make you grow as a person. Besides what will happen to these people when they get into the work force? They will suddenly need to learn to live a balanced a full life. Being well rounded is much more important than simply being the “best” in school and having the highest SAT score.</p>
<p>Huh? The Ivy League has always had truly brilliant kids – who also are leaders, talented, etc. There’s no dumbing down that’s occurring. Just look at the stats for who’s admitted.</p>
<p>Hehe… This is true. I’m from a different country and when I first came to the United States, I was literally shocked at how “dumb” the kids were. I had to wait 3 years in math alone for them to catch up and for me to actually learn something. I mean it’s true that through community service and EC’s, you become a good person and it is completely understandable that America does want well-rounded, nice people. But it has become too extreme. Why can’t a student with 5.0 and 2400 SAT get into Harvard? She may just be very independent. It’s not fair in a way and kind of ridiculous.<br>
Do you know during the past several years, we (United States) went down dramatically in academics?
America cannot and will not stand in that #1 position if we do not focus more on EDUCATION… hehe</p>
I agree with GradDadalso totally. Why do colleges need to see if you did 800 hours of community service, and you were in the student government? I mean there’s a lot of people who have other lives and don’t have time for all that other stuffin HS and they’re truly brilliant. And just because someone takes there acedemics very seriously doesnt mean that they’re not well rounded, or that they’re unhealthy. I’m sure kids at HYP and kids at community colleges have a well rounded life, the only thing separating them is how seriously they take thier acedemics.</p>
<p>
Almost all foriegn students experience that, including me.
<p>So why then does Harvard have the second highest SAT average in the country?</p>
<p>
You’re missing the point - there are plenty of ‘academically qualified’ students out there, so the top schools (not just the Ivy League) take the ones that are not only academically gifted but are also able to do other things as well.</p>
<p>“You’re missing the point - there are plenty of ‘academically qualified’ students out there, so the top schools (not just the Ivy League) take the ones that are not only academically gifted but are also able to do other things as well.”</p>
<p>Oh yeah, thanks for pointing that out. A lot more people could have 4.0s and 2400s if they quit all their activities and had 25 extra hours each week to study. The newspaper editor and football star with a 3.8/2300 is a lot more impressive than the 4.0/2400 kid with no leadership qualities or extracurricular interests.</p>
<p>I do not think the Ivy League is “dumbing down” especially since YOU used that phrase instead of a word (really now, get a dictionary). Schools are simply looking for applicants who are motivated and will ultimately contribute something to the world and boost the school’s prestige. You also can not deny the correlation of extraccuriculars, grades , and motivation.</p>
<p>In whining about the 4.0/2400s that are rejected, people fail to realize that the smartest students aren’t necessarily those with perfect scores. I think by putting a great emphasis on say, research and awards, the top colleges are doing a better job of separating the brilliant from the hard workers. </p>
<p>Lastly, I think there are very people that are accepte to top schools on account of non-academic EC’s. I still think debate, music, etc. when done to the appropriate level is still the primary thing colleges are looking for. I think community service doesn’t matter unless you did something extraordinary. I was prob. accepted to Stanford b/c of my service activities (I raised $14,000 for orphanages in China), but I also have a 2330 SAT. </p>
<p>I think it’s good that schools are willing to sacrifice a couple B’s or SAT questions for those that are actually doing things that help our world, whether that be service oriented, academically oriented, etc. I hardly think I should feel better about myself as a person - or even more “brilliant” - if I managed to get those 3 SAT writing questions right at the expense of not being involved in the experiences I have had.</p>
<p>BTW, if you look at the lenience that say Harvard gives to its applicants in terms of GPA and SAT, it’s not much. If you don’t go to a prep school, anything short of a 3.9/2250 pretty much takes you out of the race. So, we are essentially talking about trading at most 1 B a yr and 6 SAT questions for the kind of student that appears prone to make a difference.</p>
<p>I agree ScAR with EC’s. I don’t see why colleges have to see how much community service you did etc… not everybody can be the leader of a club, or there would be 1000000 clubs… Me, for example, i wasn’t so social so my ECs weren’t spetacular, but i had some…I don’t like being the leader and i don’t like being bossed around either (which sticks me in nowhere) my brother also, was a good student, but wasn’t the most social person in the world. His ECs involved mostly piano and math/science related things.</p>
<p>But I guess if you do have equally qualified students, one would choose the one with more ECs…</p>
<p>The top colleges don’t choose students with the most ECs. Anyone can puff up an application by joining lots of organizations while doing nothing in them.</p>
<p>Top colleges look for students whose applications demonstrate exceptionally strong academics as well as superior skills in things such as athletics, music, leadership, etc. Just being valedictorian class president isn’t enough. The top colleges top applications have such achievements plus extracurricular, athletic or leadership achievements at a statewide or national level.</p>
<p>Top colleges look for students whose applications demonstrate exceptionally strong academics as well as superior skills in things such as athletics, music, leadership, etc. Just being valedictorian class president isn’t enough. The top colleges top applications have such achievements plus extracurricular, athletic or leadership achievements at a statewide or national level."</p>
<p>In a talk he gave at Stanford Day in Los Angeles (the subject was “It Takes a Whole University to Understand and Care for the Brain”), William C. Mobley, Professor and Chair of the Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford, talked about the need for top researchers at the cutting edge of the sciences to collaborate across disciplines in order to share the latest discoveries and information with each other with the ultimate goal of finding ways to cure illness. He talked about how research discoveries are very nice feathers in the hats of the researchers and institutions themselves, but that ultimately these discoveries need to be put to use to help people. So neuroscientists, psychologists, biotechnologists, geneticists, the pharmaceutical industry, etc., need to work together to find ways to take what has been learned and turn it into something useful to humanity. </p>
<p>Now, who do you think is more likely to do that? The people who toil away in obscurity 99% of the time, or those who toil away 80% or 90% of the time and spend the other 10-20% interacting with the world in one way or another?</p>
<p>Mobley could have stayed home working on his research instead of traveling to LA to give a lively and informative talk to Stanford alumni. It probably took some time to prepare the hour-long talk, and then there was all the mingling and such before and after. All of that could probably be classifed as “extra-curricular activity.” Taking the time to bring the latest information, developments and challenges to the public arena in an accessible form is an important component in attracting the greatest human and financial resources possible to the sciences. The world needs people who are willing and able to toil away in relative obscurity to produce great things, but it also needs people who are willing and able to mix it up with others and in disparate arenas. </p>
<p>College admissions isn’t a reward for a job well done in high school. It’s an opportunity to get an education that can be used for something that adds to the greater good. Whatever it’s going to be–poetry, rocket science, theater, etc., – it isn’t worth much if it won’t be shared outside the classroom door. A certain amount of evidence that a student is both willing and able to do something outside the classroom is a reasonable expectation at the top colleges which aspire to produce graduates who will shape society in the future.</p>
<p>Mobley, by the way, did his undergraduate training at the University of Nebraska. It’s not where you go, but what you do once you get there. So if you got a 2400 and a 4.5 and didn’t get into an Ivy because you didn’t have any EC’s, maybe you aren’t destined to be a mover and a shaker, or maybe you are…but there are more than eight good colleges in the U.S. and the average 18-year-old has 50-60 years left to grow and contribute.</p>
<p>The Ivies are going to hell in a hand basket. Well-bred ladies and gentlemen are being denied admission. Instead admission offers are going to all sorts of minorities: Native Americans, inner city blacks, and more Jews and other religious minorities than ever. Some of these applicants have not had great academic and cultural advantages and a few are even a little behind on grades and SATs. If the Ivies are going to make some exceptions, it should only be for athletes.</p>
<p>Whoa. Because of the current Ivy League standards, the admits come across as MORE brilliant than before. Perfect or near-perfect SATs, straight As with a heavy course load, community service, varsity sports, leadership positions, impressive jobs, awards . . . the admits are super-achievers. It takes a lot be socially well-rounded AND perfect gradewise. The Ivies are not dumbing down at all. </p>
<p>My beef with the Ivies right now (and it’s not really their fault since the applicants are so accomplished) is that they leave no room for the late bloomer and the creative introvert. Upward trends used to be important, but now you can’t get in unless you started getting straight As freshman year and never faltered. Creativity, unless it manifests itself in a gallery showing or a performance in Carnegie Hall, has little impact. I wonder how many kids arrive at the Ivies already burned out from four years of non-stop accomplishments and studying. </p>
<p>I agree that the first-tier non-Ivies will benefit from the uber-selectivity of the Ivies, MIT, and Stanford. Second tier schools will get the overflow from those just under the Ivies, and so will gain many first-class students as well. Because of the now well-known disadvantage to women applying to the Ivies, the competitive all-women’s colleges will also gain a highly accomplished group of students.</p>
<p>“Well-bred ladies and gentlemen are being denied admission.” How do you define well-bred? WASP?</p>
<p>“Me, for example, i wasn’t so social so my ECs weren’t spetacular, but i had some…I don’t like being the leader and i don’t like being bossed around either (which sticks me in nowhere) my brother also, was a good student, but wasn’t the most social person in the world. His ECs involved mostly piano and math/science related things.”</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but being social is an incredibly important thing. My parents immigrated here from China and they make it very clear why they prefer the American admissions system over China’s (based solely on college entrance exams). Because things like volunteer service (why is this getting so cr**? i’d go as far as to say that not few people get in only because of volunteer service - it has to be pretty amazing to do that, a la set up a foundation for poor kids in South Africa or something), activities like debate and research (because the value of getting a 4.0 and being valedictorian differs at different schools because some are more competitive than others) and leadership (true leadership, not fake little name tags of “President” for clubs that only your friends are in) are critical. </p>
<p>The people with 4.0s and 2400s may be SMART, but they will not be successful unless they cultivate these other skills. The former President of Flour Daniel once told my dad (who was recruited by Flour out of Stanford Grad) that he would take someone who knew how to work well with others but graduated from a state engineering school over a Stanford grad who had no social skills (and who didn’t know how to do anything else but sit in a cubicle and crunch numbers) anyday. At the core, Ivy league and other first tier schools are businesses who want successful alumni (for prestige and also for donations later on) and thus admit students they believe will be successful in the future - and a 4.0 and 2400 do not guarantee that BY ANY MEANS. Many fields like business require teamwork, leadership, and ability to work well and socialize with others. Your ‘EQ’ is as much a good predictor of your success in life as your ‘IQ’.</p>
<p>Just from another poster though: “Upward trends used to be important, but now you can’t get in unless you started getting straight As freshman year and never faltered.”</p>
<p>That is not true at all. If it were, I wouldn’t have gotten into Penn, having only been in the top 30% of my classes freshman and sophomore year.</p>