<p>"Because it’s not just an academic institution. Or we wouldn’t have football teams. "</p>
<p>True. But I totally agere with Dr. Ben Carson said, we are putting too much emphasize on college sports to the point that it is in some cases more important than academics.</p>
<p>If 5% of graduating students end up in elite schools and the other 95% end up in not so elite ones, those kids probably find it funny?</p>
<p>One of the famous tag lines around on CC is what hooks do you have. She said pretty much what most kids who did not get in think about the hooks needed.</p>
<p>fourkids, she’s apparently going to a Big 10 school but I don’t know which one. The most selective would be Michigan.</p>
<p>LI. You’re missing that leadership titles and/or popularity are not what’s coveted. The quiet kid is fine if he’s active in meaningful ways.</p>
<p>Sally, they feel rejected as people when they believe that the admissions decisions unfavorably considered factors inherent to their essential selves–skin color, parentage, gender identity–as opposed to the normal student things like grades over which they have some control.</p>
<p>I don’t get it either, but 3 years after D’s acceptances, people still make snide comments along the lines of “I hope my S/D gets into XYZ schools, but S/D probably won’t be as lucky as the TheGFG’s D because s/he isn’t an athlete.” They believe (erroneously in my opinion) that being athletic is only about genetic luck, and therefore their perfectly wonderful S or D is shut out based on something not his/her fault. See above. (Of course they also completely ignore the fact that TheGFGD was also a great student with rigorous AP and honor courses, top GPA and SAT scores.)</p>
<p>Not just grades! They have control over their activities, how they present themselves. All the talk about hooks and stats misleads those who don’t dig deeper. And those who don’t…</p>
<p>
Political correctness was one of General Sheridan’s favorite weapons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LF, with GPAs and SAT/ACT test scores already in a fairly tight range for Top-20 college finalists, the hair-splitting will often come down to one’s EC leadership roles. The savvy extrovert will almost always step into the high-profile position and encourage the group’s introverts to do much of the supporting work – then take credit for the group’s accomplishments.</p>
<p>Introverts also tend to undersell themselves, which almost certainly applies to their college applications.</p>
<p>Not empty titles. Not founding a pie club. A stem who plays a minor told in a lab can be more impressive than running the pencil drive or leading the prom decorating. Meaningful to adult adcoms. In contrast, the bump on a log, who can’t get out…yes, an issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have two children who got into fancy-schmancy elite schools. Both are introverts and neither held any key leadership positions in any EC’s. They did <em>interesting</em> things (outside the classroom), but they weren’t things that required them to glad-handle / press-the-flesh-pleased-to-meet-ya types of things. I think this is a canard.</p>
<p>I understand we all bring different points of view to the discussion. In all honesty, the tone struck me as unfortunate and ugly. Obviously she wasn’t writing for someone like me. I would enjoy the article if she had only used herself as a source of humor, if it was all about “being herself” and nothing about others at all. I think it is possible to write an incredibly humorous article about the college admissions arms race without getting into any of the issues she touched on. I guess she knows her audience, though. Seems to have been a hit. </p>
<p>I enjoyed the video a year of so ago, “Yale, Yale, Yale” where the deferred legacy laments her fate and shows off a tee shirt collection.</p>
<p>Bay - some of us are trying to reclaim “snowflake” and intend to use it universally instead of D, S, kid, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. No. A thousand times no, based on my kids and their friends / classmates. The savvy applicant will do something DIFFERENT – not different for the sake of being different (look, watch me juggle! mime! start a charity to find missing socks in the dryer!) – but something authentically different that reflects who they are and the lens through which they view themselves, their education, the world and their place in it. Sorry; I find it asinine to suggest that all of these colleges are “taken in” by pleased-to-meetcha student-body president glad-handler types, but we all know better and see better. They know better too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You let such comments fall right on the ground, right? Along with “Elvis is alive and living in Michigan”? Really, lots of stupid people say stupid things all the time – there is no need to consider them or let them rattle around in your head. They are the boorish ones in this instance; let 'em say what they like.</p>
<p>My three kids all got into elite schools and all three of them are introverts. Have you read Quiet? The author cites research that points to introverts doing very well in high school while extroverts shine in elementary school.</p>
<p>I really want to read an essay from her about “Real Housewives” 
Catch me up. I’ve never seen it and don’t know the characters.</p>
<p>Do I think it will get her into HYP or a top 20? No idea. It may not be savvy. It might be refreshing. And being herself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I heartily disagree with this entire paragraph. Sure, maybe it is harder to get in without the traits you listed because URMs etc are filling space, but is it possible? Definitely.</p>
<p>My kids, not classically introverts, but definitely not rah rah leaders, both also got into what could be termed “elite” schools. We, like the young woman’s parents, encouraged them to be who they are, but part of that, I would hope, is being interesting people–by being interested people.</p>
<p>Being open to the world around you, taking honest interest in what’s out there and how it works, being curious, having interests and pursuing them–that translates, organically, into being students who have a possibility of getting into difficult-to-get-into schools. And I think that’s what many of them are looking for, not president of a trillion clubs.</p>
<p>Could that be gamed? I suppose so. But that doesn’t matter to the student who is authentically engaged. And if she’s not? Well, just as well if she doesn’t game. Good on her for not.</p>
<p>In that sense “be yourself” works.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol, classic. URMs are filling the spaces available for students who don’t possess special traits?</p>
<p>"The most selective would be Michigan. "</p>
<p>As a wolverine I hope you are correct. But I think Northwestern might be a tad more selective as they admit fewer students each year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes? Obviously since URMs get a bump in admissions it is harder for the white/asian students with equal qualifications. Same as legacies and recruited athletes. All of these groups are filling room in the class.</p>
<p>Wait, to be clear, I never said “students who don’t possess special traits.” I said they are filling spaces that would be taken (or at least competed for more fairly) by students who do not add to the school’s non-academic institutional needs (legacies, athletes, diversity admits). And it is also completely unnecessary to be “willing to run around like a chicken with its head cut off 24/7.”</p>