<p>From some research I have done, I can corroborate that colleges want to see a high level of passion and devotion in whatever extracurricular field the kid chooses - it can be anything, as long as they are devoted and passionate and do it 24/7.</p>
<p>(“…However, many students reached above those titles and found their own niches.”)</p>
<p>Speaks for itself. Such students were apparently not viewed as “less valuable,” but rather <em>as</em> valuable as those listed in the paragraph that preceded. Had they not been viewed as equal in worth to the sports captains & presidents, they would not have been admitted. It’s very simple.</p>
<p>In the link from bidkid, note the number of athletic team captains accepted to UPENN! That confirms the importance of varsity sports. Being editor-in-chief of the school newspaper is another accomplishment Ivies seem to like a whole lot.</p>
<p>When you look at all of those U Penn. accepted students who were editors in chief and student government presidents, keep in mind that those were the ones who got accepted. Probably thousands of students with excellent stats who also were SGA prez or student newspaper editors applied, but most probably were rejected. After all, places like U Penn. don’t even accept the majority of valedictorians who apply.</p>
<p>It’s not as if being a student newspaper editor or SGA president will open doors wide at Ivies. Those are very common ECs for applicants. The successful ones will need to have something in addition to such ECs and good stats.</p>
<p>Yeah, I think the schools that I applied to loooooved the fact that I was principal investigator of my research. And not just any research. Medical anthropology research. Yeah.</p>
<p>Good point northstarmom, but those activities are among those that the institution itself chose to highlight as noteworthy, assuming the stats were given to newspaper staff from admissions.</p>
<p>I think that the university highlights those because they are some of the most common ECs, and also are ECs that many colleges think are notable. </p>
<p>I have heard from a Harvard admission officer that music is the most common EC of Harvard applicants. That is a big reason why Harvard’s annual arts weekend arts festival has about 200 student performances, which are mainly music: Many Harvard students are musicians.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean, however, that Harvard is trying to recruit musicians or that playing an instrument is a hook at Harvard (unless one is a prodigy). Indeed, one will stand out far more in the pool if one has gotten state level recognition in a much less common EC than if one makes All State band.</p>
<p>All of the postings on this thread, as well as the helpful link to the UPenn article, are statistically insignificant. Zero conclusions can be drawn as to the particular weight any individual’s e.c. activities will have in the ultimate determination of acceptance to any particular college.</p>
<p>FACT: Harvard has stated (according to N’StarMom) that “music” is the most common e.c. of H applicants. (And that’s just H, btw.; no other info has been put forth, I think, about other colleges on this thread, unless I forgot.)
FACT: “Music” is not all music. Band is not orchestra. A concert soloist is not a drummer in a marching band or going to private piano lessons. “High school participation” is not national & international touring. Etc.
FACT: Somewhere else I read – sorry, I forgot where – that the single most common e.c. in <em>general</em> among college applicants to all colleges, is sports. Therefore, a list by any college that is top-heavy in sports does not necessarily indicate that sports is more valuable to that U than the activities of other applicants. (See N’Starmom’s comment about how that would be qualified with the applicant’s academic & other-ec. record. Not only are many Vals rejected from H & Y,P, etc., many, many sports captains are rejected. I can name SEVERAL.)
FACT: H, and some other Ivies, both long ago & recently, have expressed exactly what it is they like about certain e.c.'s, why those e.c.'s, or the role in certain e.c.'s, is attractive to those Universities. </p>
<p>Some poster said earlier that colleges shouldn’t be so “secretive” about what e.c.'s matter & why; actually that info was posted & linked on CC several months ago – from a couple of published sources. It has also been written about in books from ex-admissions officers (more than one). Colleges like proof of independent drive, which often includes off-campus activities; they like an appetite for competition; they like sustained, genuine, personally “owned” interest (sometimes called “passion”) in one or more activities not related to academics; they like leadership & initiative as demonstrated in those activities; they like prominent awards in those activities because that is evidence of progressive, independent achievement, sustained commitment, & discipline outside of what is mandated by an institution to graduate from there (high school, college).</p>
<p>Sports can be a wonderful indicator (a catch-all) of all the above, depending on the level of commitment. However, one can also be “just a participant” in a sport, and not a leader, an achiever, etc. The same holds true for any other e.c. You can “just show up” in your performing art e.c., or you can take initiative, begin a new arts group, experiment with a new film, direct a play, stand out, etc. It is the TRAITS that the college or U is seeking, not the activity per se.</p>
<p>In addition, keep in mind that except for an unusual musical instrument or star status (such as Yo-Yo Ma who later went to Yale, etc.), a h.s. varsity athlete who may, or definitely will, be playing that sport in college will have an advantage, in that particular e.c., over “just any” instrumentalist. And that, i.m.o., is as it should be. If the college’s orchestra is renown, and/or tours, a musical applicant may be viewed as somewhat of an economic asset to a college or U. However, generally he or she would not be as financially valuable as an athlete, because the latter brings in bigger money (more universal interest, more paying customers, more alumni commitment in terms of continued donations). Colleges & U’s need to continue to meet their bottom line & attract donors & offer financial aid to those needing it!</p>
<p>So when we see lists such as the UPenn article, these are not statistically significant for the additional reason that we don’t know which of the athletes listed will also be money-making athletes for UPenn, which may have influenced the decision to accept some of them.</p>
<p>One little correction to the last post. Yoyo Ma is a Havard grad. :)</p>
<p>“Some poster said earlier that colleges shouldn’t be so “secretive” about what e.c.'s matter & why…”</p>
<p>Also, that info wouldn’t help because the kiss of death to admissions is when it looks like a student has chosen a particular EC to impress colleges. Colleges do want students who are truly interested in their ECs, and particularly through interviews, it’s very easy to differentiate those who did ECs out of interest and passion and those who did ECs to try to impress.</p>
<p>Referring to the U Penn. article, if a student somehow concluded that the ticket to Penn would be starting their own line of clothing or mending jeans to give to poor students and then started projects like that, it’s very doubtful that the student would have done those things with the same talent and interest as did the students who were mentioned in the article. A copycat who’s trying to dress up their resume simply won’t have the passion as someone would who has an original idea and real interest.</p>
<p>Consequently, the students are most likely to stand out who creatively and independently run with ECs related ot their own skills and interests. Even they aren’t guaranteed admission even if they also have spectacular stats. They just would have better odds than most.</p>
<p>THanks, N-StarMom. Someone told me an “untruth” then. I thought he had “done time” (hehe) at Y. I stand corrected.</p>
<p>Just isn’t true that commitment is what this is all about.</p>
<p>True, N’Starmom. I don’t think your post #189 contradicts mine.<br>
Atlantamom, I don’t think I’ve stated that it’s just about commitment (if you were referring to my post; perhaps you weren’t). No, it’s not just about commitment; it’s also about the level of achievement and many unwritten factors, “immeasurable” qualities, shall we say, as well. It’s also about who else is in the pool, relative to any particular admirable applicant with fabulous e.c.'s on their face. Comparative factors such as similar accomplishments but a different geographical region, & other unpredictable & uncontrollable factors, will be at play. </p>
<p>Admissions is always, always a relative game, not an absolute one.</p>
<p>The recent statements supporting secrecy in college admissions are stunning. Few if any colleges publish their criteria for successful applicants and the weight they assign to various factors. Why in the world would you be in favor of giving colleges that kind of raw, completely discretionary power over its applicants? Transparency is important in public life - even for college admissions.</p>
<p>DRJ4, What were the (stunning) “recent statements supporting secrecy in college admissions”?<br>
I think Northstarmom’s meaning, unless I misunderstand her, is that specific weighting is not published or available, because specific e.c.'s are not what it’s all about. (And it isn’t, & that continues to be proven by the admissions statistics & the great diversity of the representative e.c.'s.) She also made the point that it would be counter-productive – IF there were specific “hook” e.c.'s, shall we say – because then some applicants would attempt to conform to a specific profile, which would/could be disingenuous. Why would we want applicants to commit artificially to an activity which did not spring from innate desire? (I, as a parent, would not.) If I were on an admissions committee, I would hope to see integrity within a choice. JMO.</p>
<p>Btw, when I referred earlier to published e.c. criteria, I was referring to linked articles on the CC forums. Some of those illuminated a rationale for choices some upper-tier colleges were inclined to make.</p>
<p>Epiphany,</p>
<p>First, I was stunned at the attititude that making admissions standards public will somehow compromise the applications process - as if admissions committees are so dull they can’t tell if an applicant has manufactured an interest simply to maximize his admission chances. And even if you could fool the admissions committees, so what? My son didn’t take high school courses because he loved them. He took them because they were required and he grew to love some of those subjects. </p>
<p>Colleges should identify the broad range of activities and academics they think are important and lead to successful college students, so then high school (and younger) students can not only prepare for college but also know what colleges view as valuable. A truly motivated and inspired student will take that ball and run with it. The way the current system works, it rewards the student who guesses right or comes from an environment where his parents/school/etc. know the secrets.</p>
<p>Second, college admissions criteria are not publicly available. Your reference to books and articles belies the fact that these are people’s opinions about what the standards are, but no one really knows except the individual admissions committee members at each school. So Harvard doesn’t know what Yale’s criteria are (unless the committee members share info, which they may do), and neither knows what Rice University or UCLA require. In fact, the standards change annually, so last year’s admission committee doesn’t really know what this year’s committee looks at.</p>
<p>The point is, it is counter-productive to society and unfair to have a system where people who read CC and have friends on admissions committees can get a leg up on the rest. The standards should be public, so students know how to prepare themselves for elite colleges - and I’m referring to being prepared for college work as well as for the admissions process. </p>
<p>Finally, why would we want an antequated system where the goal post is always moving? It’s bad public policy to let colleges remain academic fiefdoms when admissions transparency would level the playing field for everyone.</p>
<p>Both sides of this discussion have some merit. It seem to me that if there were true transparency in the admissions selection process, a certain breed of college counselor would be out of business, lol. A student we know felt she was helped by one of these consultants who claimed to have inside knowledge of what was important to each elite school. Some of that information I believe I had seen in print in news articles, but other data supposedly came from having interviewed college admissions counselors about what they were looking for, as well as guidance counselors who reported their observations about the type of student who tends to get in each elite school. (Unfortunately perhaps, my S had already sent in applications to his colleges before seeing this data!) I thought it was interesting that for Harvard, the consultant admitted to having not clue whatsoever.</p>
<p>“Colleges should identify the broad range of activities and academics they think are important and lead to successful college students, so then high school (and younger) students can not only prepare for college but also know what colleges view as valuable…”</p>
<p>DRJ, Shouldn’t it be more important for the <em>college</em>to see what’s valuable to the <em>applicant</em>? Should the colleges not want individuals who have made decisions connected with interior goals & unique personalities? Is that not more genuine than pleasing others?</p>
<p>“The point is, it is counter-productive to society and unfair to have a system where people who read CC and have friends on admissions committees can get a leg up on the rest.”</p>
<p>I read CC before my D applied to colleges, although I didn’t become a “member” (start posting) until after some of her applications were completed. While it gave me some helpful college search ideas, & while it validated some decisions we had already made regarding choices, my D barely read it at all. Reading CC did not give her “a leg up” or insider’s knowledge. She was admitted to the U’s she was admitted to because of her academic record & her outside accomplishments, prior to discovering CC, prior to applying to those colleges. The e.c.'s were started at ages 5 and 6, out of her own personal desires & abilities. (She approached me about both of them.) However, naturally because she started so early, she was able to accomplish much in those 2 areas. Neither she nor I “have friends on admissions committees.” (And given how fairly small admissions committees are, I suspect few admittees have friends there, either.) I will grant you that some high schools have GC’s who are <em>very</em> friendly with certain admissions committes, but I can promise you that would most definitely not include my D’s GC or D’s high school.</p>
<p>“It’s bad public policy to let colleges remain academic fiefdoms when admissions transparency would level the playing field for everyone.”</p>
<p>(1) The playing field will never be level for everyone. Everyone is born with different talents, abilities, personality characteristics which support or compromise those, and intellectual ability (& intellectual “specializations”).
Everyone is born into different economic circumstances, which can affect to some degree (though not in an absolute sense) his or her opportunity to maximize those inborn assets. Everyone is born into different educational environments, which may tend to support or discourage achievement.</p>
<p>(2) Qualifying the above, colleges & U’s have increasingly tended in recent years to reward a large differential between opportunity & achievement. So, recognizing the lack of a level playing field, there is indeed a “more fair” opportunity for those born into disadvantage than their once was. That would extend to those unsophisticated in “how to prepare themselves for elite colleges.” That is, students often get admitted despite unsophisticated or unpolished application packages.</p>
<p>(3) The “elites” are mostly private – with a nod to a few of the public “elites.” The latter are bound indeed by public policy & go to great trouble to publish admissions criteria, including the actual quantitative weighting of particular e.c.'s (& even one’s degree of role in that e.c.!) Other than that, & other than encouraging a socially responsible policy among the private elites, I’m not sure how the privates can be bound to a “public policy.” I do think the private elites have continued to try to be increasingly socially responsible, & as equitable as a meritocracy (it’s still basically that) can be. For example, they have continued to look carefully at economics as a factor in admissions, at regionality as a factor, & even sometimes at gender! Where appropriate, ethnicity can be factored in if there is both underpresentation of that group and impressive achievement by that applicant.</p>
<p>I’ve been doing yoga for the past few hours and missed this continuing discussion. I vote for more information being available. Information is good, period.</p>
<p>More information cannot be bad. Right now, we have plenty of students “manufacturing” themselves and plenty of them get admitted to HYPS. They may luck into the right stuff or have inside information, who knows? I think that it would be in the best interests of society if everyone had access to the same information. I’m not talking a level playing field, just less randomness. </p>
<p>Besides, the information wouldn’t give anyone a proven track into HYPS. In any one year the applicants would vary and the desires would vary. Some parents or kids would turn themselves inside out to “be” what they think would increase their admissions chances and some parents or kids would follow their “inner voice.” IMO, that group will always be a minority. I’m sure there aren’t a whole lot of kids or parents just listening to the “inner voice” right now, anyway.</p>
<p>I think that I always come down on the side of “sunshine.” Helps to cut down on rumors and myths.</p>
<p>I would love to see information like Penn published available at every school, every year.</p>
<p>It is sad to me that kids think they have to publish a book or lead a mission to Africa (that they have planned and/or financed themselves) in order to “stand out”.</p>
<p>I have always believed, and still do, that passion in something, anything, is what is important. Kids should quit trying to read the mind of the Adcoms, or doing something that seems impressive but does’t really interest the kid all that much. They shoudl do what they love, and do it at as high a level as they can. </p>
<p>Trying to impress a committee with a lot of these activities seems phony and obsequeious.</p>
<p>Epiphany,</p>
<p>Your comments prove my point. Your daughter pursues interests she’s had since age 5. Her college application would include that, so the admissions committee would know she did it by choice rather than as a manufactured EC. Of course, parents have a role in this, too. Your 5-year-old’s activities had your approval and support, but her continued interest reflects her passion. What is wrong with knowing whether colleges view that particular EC as valuable or not? And in knowing how valuable it is compared to other choices, such as alternate ECs, academic pursuits, travel, whatever?</p>
<p>If college admissions were more transparent, I think it would improve colleges, too. Colleges could use transparent admissions standards to better recruit students who fit their goals. In your case, wouldn’t it have been easier to match your daughter with a college if you knew which colleges valued her particular interests? We all try to do that now, but if the colleges published their preferences it would be much easier. Similarly, if a college wanted to focus on producing accomplished musicians and artists, the published admissions standards would make it clear that those ECs are given greater weight. The college could hire extra faculty in those areas and it might become a mecca for artistic students because they would know they were valued. </p>
<p>As to whether we will ever truly level the playing field, of course not. I take it from your response that you think we shouldn’t try at all because we can’t reach perfection. There’s a saying that applies here: Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.</p>