<p>I think you could rectify this by having him play and excel at an Ivy-recruitable sport at a high school that has a nationally-known program. I am not aware of any colleges that recruit for archery, and I think only a few offer varsity fencing. The Ivies don’t usually get the tippy-top athletes because of their League and no-scholarships, but I understand they are usually happy to get some of the lesser acclaimed athletes who have experience playing on the top teams. (I know you didn’t limit this discussion to Ivies, but the athletic expectations are so different among all the top colleges, so I focussed on Ivies).</p>
<p>I think the problem there is how to ensure that he will excel at this recruitable sport. One thing I don’t want to do is pour a lot of time into something that won’t pay off. If it’s football or basketball, what if he doesn’t grow enough? Maybe baseball might fill the bill–it’s a team sport, but individual stats are maintained as well.</p>
<p>Haha, I have a friend who admitted that she wanted her sons to fence in part because she thought it would stand out more than tennis-soccer-track.</p>
<p>I agree with activities outside the school. I think too many school-based activities are popularity contests, anyway. Both of mine did significant activities outside of school that I think made them stand out (though obviously I’m biased in the matter).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would amend this to say “talent or interest.” You don’t have to be necessarily talented in an area that you show interest in. For example, my D was interested in a given area, and wound up being a tour guide for a museum that specializes in this area – enough that her LAC’s acceptance letter specifically mentioned her activity in their “welcome class of 2015” letter. She wasn’t doing research in the area, however – she was just interested and followed that interest.</p>
<p>There are quite a few Ivy football players in the 5’10" range, but you are right about the growth thing. However, one thing is certain: if he doesn’t play a recruitable sport, there is no chance he will ever be admitted as a recruited athlete.</p>
It seems to me that if your goal is to build a recruitable athlete, you’ll have to start in elementary school, at least for the popular sports like soccer, basketball, and baseball–otherwise you’ll be behind the curve. Also, sports take an awful lot of time, and if the kid doesn’t develop enough, he may lose opportunities to build other parts of his resume. I still wonder whether an unusual sport–even if it isn’t recruitable–might make a kid more admittable.</p>
<p>I, too, am a little put off by the premise (or maybe OP just has the guts to bring all our worries and efforts out in the open here).</p>
<p>First thing I would suggest is move to Buffalo NY and enroll said kid in City Honors (routinely ranked as one of the top schools in the nation.) While he’s there, have him meet Mayor Byron Brown (one of the nation’s first black mayors of a major urban city) and brainstorm on creating a volunteer program (similar to the ones for $8K a pop where your child gets to go to Nicaragua for a week with their peers and build a house). There’s poverty here, too. Get some celebrities behind it (Bills football players; Sabres hockey stars) and make it fun. Give back. </p>
<p>And then if he gets into college or not, at least you have created a smart, sensitive kid, which to me matters a whole lot more.</p>
<p>Maybe for those sports, but I personally know athletes who were recruited by top colleges (including Ivies) who didn’t play lacrosse, crew, sailing, or waterpolo until high school, so it does happen. (All of them did play other sports before high school, however, so they were already physically fit and athletic.)</p>
<p>If I can assume that I have all the time and budget in the world, I’d pack him up (along with some siblings or friends) and head out for some adventures around the world. Screw fifth grade. I’d give him a Kindle and an unlimited book budget, we’d work on some algebra, and the rest would take care of itself.</p>
<p>This is just a hypothetical–sparked by the discussion of “Chinese” parenting. I thought, well, what would you really do, here in the U.S., if your goal was to get your kid into Harvard? What would really be the most effective strategy for achieving that? There are plenty of other threads–hundreds–about whether that’s a good goal to have.</p>
<p>
Waterpolo is an intriguing idea. Do they start as swimmers?</p>
<p>Donate money at huge levels (as in 8-figure donations over time, peppered with a few 7-figure ones just to cleanse the palate). Seriously. Since you asked.</p>
<p>Hanna’s point is interesting, because there was a thread maybe a year or so ago, about a young girl from the Chicago area who was homeschooled, had amazing academic success, put on Shakespearean plays, the family traveled extensively and made full use of those opportunities, and she wound up getting into umpteen of the top schools. (Does anyone remember this? I believe the girl’s name was Chelsea Link. Disclaimer: I vaguely know her father professionally.) The mother actually came on here and posted, after an article was printed about the daughter in the newspaper. </p>
<p>That’s sort of the complete opposite way from the “Chinese parenting” mode of skinning THAT particular cat.</p>
<p>Yes. I should have added track and field to that list. There are lots of kids who do not know they have track and field talents until they get to high school: ex-soccer players who turn out to be great distance runners; ex-football players who can sprint; ex-softball players who turn out to be shotput/discus throwers; ex-gymnasts who turn into pole vaulters; ex-volleyball players who can long/triple jump or hurdle.</p>
<p>This is a fun game!
I approached this two ways: educationally and geographically.</p>
<p>Some of the brightest people I’ve known attended Lab schools (associated with a major research university).
Colleges like geographic diversity and kids who have interesting backgrounds (EC’s etc.)</p>
<p>My perfect applicant goes to the University of Wyoming Lab School in Laramie. On breaks and in the summer, she is a ranch hand on the family’s working cattle ranch, where she’s learned to wrangle cattle and do various other jobs. Because she has access to the facilities of UW, she’s been able to take classes there also, focusing on her emerging interest in Classics. She’s not a great athlete, but competes in riflery because it’s helped her develop discipline.</p>
<p>This is an issue tha can be debated forever. One reality is that behind closed doors or among a small number of friends, many will express the thought that success in thecollege admission’s rat race might the result of “manufacturing.” After all, there IS an industry that has successfully convinced many that there is more than luck involved. In addition, although this goose has stopped laying eggs years ago, one has to recognize that the molding of the “perfect” candidate who schleps from one EC to another in the pursuit of INDIVIDUAL recognition DID work every well, and exceptionally well among old and recent immigrants family. As it is known, selective schools that faced a sea of all-too-common Bright Well-Rounded Kids who were better than average in schools and in the typical american sports DID welcome the “refreshing” appearance of truly angular Suzuki graduates cum great test scores and a demonstrated commitment to academic achievements. However, because of its increasing popularity and perhaps the realization, the attraction quickly vanished Hence, the pursuit of a newer and better mousetrap. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the bar for the better mousetrap has been raised enormously. All one has to hear are questions such as “Is it enough to take 12 AP” to understand the degree of the insanity in the HS world. Add the avalanche of “must-have” summer camps, organized travel abroad that masquerade as Quasi-Mother-Teresa programs, and constant tutoring at all levels, and you do have to admit that one HAS to start thinking about “molding” the perfect candidate. And to a certain degree, as the Long Island/SUNY Intel well-greased pipeline shows, it is still available to the well-heeled and well-advised. </p>
<p>While it works for a very small number of candidates, one has to realize that embarking on a life-long creation of the perfect applicants must come with an enormous dose of frustration and disappointment. The simple math that admission in single digits also mean that 18 to 19 applicants are rejected at the HYPS level is often forgotten. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, there is another conclusion one could arrive at. The truly superior applicant WILL emerge without superlative packaging – be it through academic, athletic, artistic, or social prowess – as so will the applicants who overcame profound disadvantages. </p>
<p>The best path to trust the system and not spend every waking minute trying to game the system. In the end, the biggest victim might very well be the recipient of all the “packaging.”</p>
While I agree with you, I will note that people also actively seek and use “methods” to improve specific elements of their academic package–such as SAT scores.</p>
<p>Ditto here. I think what Brooklyn may have done is to assume that Stuy is the same school with the same degree of competition as it was when he attended and compared that memory with a more recent version of TJ. </p>
<p>Back to the question. A former prez of Amherst college once said “Give me a 10 year old with a butterfly collection and I can get him into any college in the US.” </p>
<p>I think the point is that the game plan works better if the kid has a passion or at least a strong interest in something. If (s)he does, then you pour on parental support and as much funding as you can. These are the “Johnny Inc.” parents. It works --or it least it works in enough cases that others copy the model. </p>
<p>Whether Idaho or Fairfax is better depends upon the kid. If the kid truly is a genius, then advantage Fairfax. If he’s just a really bright kid, Idaho it is. It also depends on what the interest is. A butterfly collection? Idaho. Ballet? Fairfax–it’s much more likely that you can find top quality instructors. </p>
<p>Finally, don’t confuse packaging with creating the product. If you’ve got a kid who is a genuinely talented artist, have him/her create a portfolio and get help doing it. Attend those “national portfolio days.” (If that’s not the right name, I apologize.) If your kid is an excellent actor, have her attend one of the numerous high quality summer programs, or at least enter things like the national Shakespeare contest. All of these will help develop a talent and package it. But don’t think that if your kid has no artistic talent whatsoever, you can “package” him or her in such a way as to convince someone that
(s)he does. And if your kid can’t act at all, (s)he isn’t going to win the Shakespeare contest. </p>
<p>The sad thing is that there ARE kids out there who are extremely talented artists, actors, musicians etc. who don’t get the kind of training they need to develop those talents and/or aren’t “packaged” in such a way that it’s obvious to an admissions officer how good they truly are.</p>