<p>Thanks, Atlantamom for the info on Swat.</p>
<p>To comment upon and add to NSM’s posit about what HYPS wants, I can add another anecdote that hooks together HYPS and the top scholarships at top 50 LAC’s (for example). I have talked to two scholarship coordinators at schools my D’s applied to and both times a version of what NSM said came up as the real criteria for these scholarships, the stats are just requirements for entry into the contest. I’m paraphrasing, “Oh, we are not looking for that here (pure intellect). This scholarship is for someone who will be President or Secretary of State or the first woman CEO of Ford . We have other scholarships for the other folks.”</p>
<p>That is why most of those full tuition or better scholarships at those top 50 (top 100?) LAC’s and Uni’s go to kids who are being lured away from the upper most need only schools by special programs, special recognition and favorable FA treatment and cash.</p>
<p>The elite schools are looking for finished products to which they can add value, not raw materials or works in progress. The former choice is like buying stock in a company with a solid established track record of profit, while the latter is a riskier investment in a start-up. </p>
<p>What truly concerns me is the age issue atlantamom brings up when discussing GPA. Read the thread about tracking on the parent forum and you’ll begin to appreciate the problems with assessing a child’s ability in 5th or 6th grade and putting them on a rigid course schedule thereafter. For some children puberty is more traumatic than for others. During the month and a half prior to the onset of mentruation, my daughter’s math test grades dropped from A’s to C-'s and even a D. Unfortunately, one C- was a midterm. The powers-that-be did not care that prior to that time she had always been an A math student in the highest track, nor that right now her grades are back up where they were. That month of bad grades came at an unfortunate time when high school placement decisions were being made and those decisions rely heavily on middle school midterm grades. Because she had 40 days of hormonal turmoil, she would have been barred from the highest level science track were it not for my intervention and prolonged insistence. I’m not trying to be over-dramatic, but that lower placement which would then have played out over all 4 years of HS (because of pre-requisites) could have made the difference between qualifying for an elite school or not.</p>
<p>Oceanview…isn’t it unfair to lump all athletes into the Boulder/Duke category. The reason colleges like athletes is that they have to balance academics with athletics. Having a son who ran x/c, wrestled and then participated in track, I can state that the time factor in a sport is so much greater than the normal EC activity. Just wrestling alone eats up 40+ hours some weeks. It is definitely a time committment. And it always isn’t easy nor enjoyable and so they often learn about perseverance and team camaraderie, certainly some noble traits to take with them to college. Compare the time committment of football or wrestling to NHS (even with community service) and it just isn’t the same. Now if a student has a special talent such as music or acting or xxx, and they pursue it to higher levels than just high school, then that is certainly notable. The bottom line is that colleges want a diverse population but on the same hand need to feel their athletic teams also or decide to drop all sports except Croquet (St. Johns, Annapolis) and just pursue intellectuals. </p>
<p>And the Duke/CO incidents, can happen anywhere.</p>
<p>A Nov. 2005 article in Boston Magazine about Harvard admissions:
<a href=“http://www.bostonmagazine.com/index...a4-3a6812bcff59[/url]”>http://www.bostonmagazine.com/index...a4-3a6812bcff59</a></p>
<p>Some snippets:</p>
<p>“says one former Harvard admissions officer, 80 percent of candidates have the smarts to succeed academically, and 40 percent are premier contenders with superb chances of admission at any other schoolwhich means SAT scores of 750 or higher, top class ranks, and prodigious extracurricular accomplishments ”</p>
<p>"Despite the university’s reputation for braininess, it’s jocks who have the most pull inside Byerly Hall. Every year, the admissions office has to replenish the squads of 41 Division I teams, and reserves up to 10 percent of the entire pool for that purpose.</p>
<p>“The football team usually proposes only 50 to 60 names to get its 30 or so guaranteed acceptances, constituting an admit rate comparable to that of, say, Hampshire College. Half the athletes we rejected at Dartmouth [for weak academics], Harvard took, says Michele Hernandez, a former Dartmouth admissions officer who now runs a private-college counseling firm. Then they beat us academically, and athletically…”</p>
<p>Extracurricular groups are catered to on more of a catch-as-catch-can basis, though an orchestra without an oboist gets awfully cranky if its needs go unattended for too long. As of 2003, four out of 10 children of alumni who applied were admitted, a rate five times as high as that for nonlegacies: A so-called lineage case who’s just a really good kid can often slip through the gauntlet.</p>
<p>Bruce Breimer, director of college relations at the Collegiate School in New York, estimates that the demands of these constituent admissions leave less than half of the available slots for students who don’t have some sort of leg up. If you’re a generalist in the scholar pool, he says, it’s not easy. McGrath Lewis says that just 15 percent of Harvard students are accepted for primarily academic reasonswhich in Harvard-speak means substantial progress toward rewriting the history of Western Europe, not just acing a pre-calc exam. </p>
<p>As for your well-rounded, all-American, strong-B-plus student at a good suburban public school who plays three sports fairly well, serves as class vice president, and helps out at a local soup kitchen? He should get ready to enjoy four frigid winters in Ithaca…</p>
<p>" admissions officers aren’t interested in rewarding past performance…and see themselves not as MVP voters but as talent scouts whose duty is predicting what a prospect will pull off as an undergrad and beyond …"</p>
<p>GFG: I agree with above advice to let your kid <em>not</em> specialize. Starting in 10th grade my daughter would play tennis during the school season only and then she would switch over to music/theatre. We were told she should do year-round tournaments to improve and to boost up her state ranking. We ignored the advice because she <em>wanted</em> to have time for music and theatre too. RESULT: The kids who specialized in tennis, competed year round, excelled, had high rankings-- nearly ALL of them burned out. All but 2 or 3 of ~20 exceptional tennis players in our area in my D’s time did not go on to play in college. My D who had been toward the bottom of that group due to 1/2 time play rather than full time play, still LOVES her sport, was recruited, and is very happy on her team. (BTW: She still stops at the end of her season!!)</p>
<p>kevster: Try the Salvation Army, the Sisters of Charity, Catholic Services, homeless shelters, and maybe the Dept of Social Services in your area to find out about resources for the hungry. There will probably be something. If nothing exists, there would be a GOLDEN opportunity for you.</p>
<p>Re leaders and extroverts: I agree that there is a bias towards doers, leaders, extroverts. HOWEVER I believe that shy or contemplative people CAN be either dull-shy or interesting-shy. The interesting-shy kids ARE valued and will be admitted to great schools. They just have to find a way to SHOW their depth. This is a huge hurdle for a shy kid-- to come across and ‘sell’ themselves a little. The interview will be particularly challenging. I think the kid needs to deal with the shyness and introspection straight-on in the essay, the place where they can choose their words carefully and present themselves in their best light, so the admission officer will see DEPTH. For example, find an oblique way to talk about one’s personality and how it dove-tails with an academic or EC interest. Put it out there: I am shy but I am a thinker, I am quiet but mighty.</p>
<p>There was a boy I know who is extremely, painfully shy who was admitted absolutely everywhere, incl HYPS. Why? He is brilliant and deep, and full of quiet joy, and beloved by everyone. I suspect his teacher recs were incredible. He is NOT dull. He is a leader BY QUIET EXAMPLE, not by forceful personality. This can work too. It is important for the shy person to find their value in life-- to know it, and articulate it somehow. </p>
<p>Maybe the best summary is that it is not introversion or extroversion that is the essential thing but a sense of one’s self and a purpose and path followed with joy and interest.</p>
<p>Similarly, the high-flying extrovert must learn to process failing, not getting a 4.0, etc. I would think the college’s evaluation of an extrovert would also mean looking for evidence that they don’t just barrell through life unthinkingly-- sensitivity to others, resilience when facing setbacks, balance, awareness.</p>
<p>I still agree with the commenters who believe quality ECs are important to gain admission to an elite college but it is possible to get into the Ivy League schools without impressive ECs. My oldest son is a National Merit Finalist, had all A’s through high school in challenging courses, and played a varsity sport. He had no other ECs and he did not plan to continue playing his sport. His best friend had the same resume - they graduated 1-2 in their high school class. They are both bright, fun, and nice kids but neither had a “hook” or anything that set them apart except in the eyes of their loving families. </p>
<p>One was admitted to Princeton and the other to Yale. I don’t think it was the sports that made a difference since neither one is playing sports in college. I think what mattered was their test scores, grades, NMF status, and excellent essays and teacher recommendations. After reading this thread, I’m glad that Princeton and Yale still place some value on those apparently old-fashioned predictors of college success. We need the elite colleges to admit students who have proven academic achievements, rather than relegate students to second tier and public colleges simply because they aren’t outgoing enough. And I don’t say that because students can’t get a good education at second tier and public colleges. They can, and my son is doing that by choice as we speak. I say that because it’s important for the elite colleges to maintain a truly diverse student population and not overdose on a specific type of applicant.</p>
<p>
I sort of agree but would word a similar thought like this … in general our society makes it tougher for introverts at younger ages (like HS) … and fortunately, things seem to usually get better as the kids mature.
(3togo - Meyers-Briggs = ISTP)</p>
<p>DRJ4,
Where one lives also is important.</p>
<p>Students with your son and his friends’ profiles, despite being so outstanding that most colleges would love to accept them, are common in the Ivy applicant pool from large Northeastern cities, for example. </p>
<p>Thus, my guess would be that you live in an area that doesn’t have many Ivy applicants or NM finalists, and the colleges were delighted to accept your son and his friend as that helped the colleges’ geographic diversity. Due to your son and his friend’s academic achievements, the colleges also had no doubt about your son and his friend’s ability to graduate.</p>
<p>Just mentioning this to prevent parents and students with similar profiles from overestimating chances at Ivies.</p>
<p>OK.</p>
<p>Summary time.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>We are talking about what role ECs play in admissions to the top tier colleges.</p></li>
<li><p>All agree that we take recruited athletes off the table. </p></li>
<li><p>All agree that at the top tier colleges non-recruited athletes need to meet a certain bar for test scores/grades to get them in the pool of considered applicants at all.</p></li>
<li><p>Now we are talking about how colleges view activities and levels of activities for these kids whose academics got them in the pool.</p></li>
<li><p>I think the issue of extrovert vs. introvert, leader vs. individual contributor is the key distinguishing factor. Why? Colleges want to admit someone who will make a difference in society. They do. So, for an introvert, since you are accomplishing alone, making your impact alone, the bar is higher for the level of sheer talent and ability. Leaders can have impact by corraling the brilliant and marshalling the efforts of the brilliant towards a common goal. Leaders have leveraged impact. Introverts can only do what they can do. </p></li>
<li><p>Hence, I believe, the higher import of sports as an EC for top colleges because, like it or not, they are one of the most likely ways to develop and identify leadership capabilities. When you lose, you have to keep it together. As captain, you have to keep your team in the game. And, BTW, I am not an athlete and don’t care about sports one whit.</p></li>
<li><p>The extroverts who lead clubs and initiate projects and run newspapers are more highly valued than an introvert WITH EQUIVALENT ACADEMICS.</p></li>
<li><p>To be a valued introvert, you have to excel and you have to be able to communicate your private passions. Now if that’s reading or writing or programming or solving math problems, it’s not too hard to communicate. The problem for introverts is this. The extroverts who run newspapers etc. ARE doing what they love to do. They ARE “greedy” as Cur says, for the challenge and the exposure and the stress. Introverts are greedy for private knowledge. And the problem comes if the private knowledge they hunger for is Worlds of Warcraft, or obscure facts about astrophysics. Because it’s really really hard for introvert high school juniors to get scientific research opportunities. So the astrophysics passion will be mostly reading magazines and Internet websites. And even I do not expect elite universities to value Worlds of Warcraft. If your kid is one of these kinds of introverts, he/she has to be able to write a good essay and connect with a teacher who understands his/her private passions.</p></li>
<li><p>What I have said about introverts also holds for late bloomers. Sometimes they are the same people. So maybe these kids don’t go to HYPS. They either go to UCLA and find their way to a department where they can do obscure research in astrophysics because they have finally matured, or they go to Bowdoin and study marine biology and don’t mind being shy because just by going to class every day you meet a large proportion of the student body. Frankly, the extremely intelligent late blooming introverts who are not off-the-chart math or verbal geniuses probably DON’T WANT TO BE AT HYPS surrounded by extroverts and early-blooming geniuses. They’d rather be the big person at an LAC, or finding their sweet spot in a large research university.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>This is the theory of Alumother.</p>
<p>NorthstarMom wrote: "Often you’ll see students with laundry lists complaining in April that “less qualified” students got accepted. From what i’ve seen, that’s because the “less qualified” students actually were quietly really doing things that they were genuinely interested in. They weren’t running around bragging or comparing their activity lists to others. They weren’t on CC asking strangers to tell them what ECs to do to look good.</p>
<p>Many of their peers probably had no idea what those students were doing. Their activities may have been done outside of school and they may have had strong impacts that were reflected in essays or recommendations, things that their peers had no knowledge of."</p>
<p>I can relate to this statement! I have read CC’s forums for nearly four years. I am constantly amazed at some of the student threads…the “what are my chances” ones and also ones about who got in and why (their analysis) and lots of comparisons as to who is the “better” candidate or what “should” they do to get into X. For one thing, my kids would NEVER have time to participate on CC like I see these kids doing. Further, in million years, I cannot imagine them discussing which colleges are better than others, putting down other colleges (I see this a lot on CC by some kids) and judging who has better stats and better ECs and who deserves to get in and who doesn’t, yadda yadda. They didn’t do ECs to get into colleges. They love their ECs. They started them when they were little. They don’t think they are better or worse than the next kid. THey just do what they want to do to reach their goals. They don’t think their college is better than someone else’s…they simply really like their colleges because their colleges fit the criteria they preferred in a college. They don’t look to others to evaluate their “goods”…they have done whatever they have done both in the classroom and outside because that’s just who they are and that is what they wanted to do…they like challenge, they like to achieve, they have passions they pursue, etc. </p>
<p>SBMom…my older D was like your daughter. She had several areas of interest. She knew to be the “tops” in any of these fields, it would necessitate specializing. For instance, like your D, she is a varsity tennis player (was number one single seed at our HS) BUT only played in spring/summer. She had no chance of rising up beyond the region as she did not play tennis year round, nor enter hardly any tournaments (none out of state) to achieve a tennis ranking. In ski racing, one of her passions, she achieved highly in HS varsity racing and also in our state, but could never be tops because she did not attend a ski academy which is basically essential in her sport if you are going to be competitive beyond the local realm. My D was involved in a myriad of deep lifelong interests and she knew that to be at the very top of any of them, she’d have to specialize in one and she CHOSE not to do so because that wasn’t her…she would not give up dance for the softball team, etc. She achieved quite highly in all her EC passions (ie., All States in band, State championship events in a sport) but could never rise to the top levels in any of her endeavors because she did not wish to specialize (ie., did not do travel soccer but rose highly in Varsity sports). My other kid did specialize though was entirely well rounded up through middle school. One area of passion got so great that she had to start giving up her sports. </p>
<p>AtlantaMom…I realize you were sharing anecdotes of who you noticed got into the top Ivies, and those who did not, of those you know, and you did see more get in with sports on their resumes…but I think that elite admissions can’t be totally analyzed by the results you see because NUMEROUS highly qualified and attractive candidates get rejected from the likes of HYP and not because HYP would not want them. We constantly see kids who got into Harvard but not Princeton, or Brown but not Vassar, or Yale but not Brown. The acceptance rates are so low that I don’t think one can totally analyze those who were rejected as not making the “grade”. Some fit that description but clearly some who were rejected are not due to not having sports on the resume but merely that there is an element of luck involved once someone has what it takes to get in but then doesn’t fit a slot/need in that particular class. So many kids get into some elite schools but not others so it is not always due to rhyme or reason. I think an analysis of someone rejected at ALL the highly selective schools on their list, then perhaps may have something that was lacking, hard to say. I doubt it was the lack of sports though. </p>
<p>Someone else brought up the leadership issue and that has been discussed in the past on CC. Leadership need not be a title like “president” or “captain”. Colleges like those who take initiatives, create something, achieve something…it need not be a title or the typical kind of “leader” that some imagine. Some activities don’t even have titles. I can think of two leadership things off the top of my head from my own kids’ resumes that did not have a title …one had to do with one of my kids who was in the Student Senate but not an elected officer (she ran but was not elected and it is a popularity contest and most do not accomplish anything of signifiance if elected)…but my D led a policy initiative for her school that she chaired, developed and eventually presented to the faculty and eventually the School Board to get passed (it did) over a two year period…was very involving and she led the way…even one year she wasn’t even elected as a Senator but kept doing this initiative out of desire…she led a second policy initiative as well. These were documented and I know her recs mentioned them as standing out as not having seen other students effect change in their school like that before and really DO something. That is an example of leadership but not one where she was selected to lead. My other kid was the first person who has ever at our HS who initiated, created, produced, directed a student run musical production…did it two years in a row, quite successfully raising a lot of money for charity along the way. Colleges are not necessarily looking for titles or those who head this or that club or team. They look for signifcant contributions to an activity. Often that involves a form of leadership but not always in the traditional sense that some think must be on the app (ie., captain, club president, orchestra mistress). They also look favorably on achievements. It is not all about leadership per se. It is about doing something significant in an area of interest and doing it very well and then hopefully contributing to campus life once they get to college. </p>
<p>Susan</p>
<p>About everything that is discussed in this thread seems to be true … for 2006-2007 and the few years to come. However, looking back at the historical data might show a very different pciture of what worked “well” in admissions. </p>
<p>There used to be a time where the ticket was to be exactly a Bright Well-Rounded Kid, the same BWRK who is supposed to have liitle chance today. There also used to be a time where “solitary” accomplishments provided the best avenue to cynically game the admission process. </p>
<p>How many non-athletic no-team-players Suzuki fabricated prodigies and coached-to-death academic stars found their way to the elite schools before the admissions officers got wiser? Check the explosion in admission percentages in the past 30 years among asian students -a group hardly known for athletic or social participation and success. Is the success of the model minority in college admissions anchored in extroversion and giving back to the community?</p>
<p>Definitely, times change and what worked yesterday, doesn’t work today and what works today may not work tomorrow. So true, Xiggi.</p>
<p>Referring to my opinion about the value of sports, I didn’t form this opinion on the basis of my small sample. (Too much of a statitician for that). In fact, I’m the one who questioned the value of anecdotes. I “suspect” that athletic ECs are more valuable than other ECs, given equal local/regional attainment, because of many examples from books, comments by knowledgeable people here, anecdotes from people from various cities that I know, articles etc. Also, the book The Chosen lends support for the reason athletics is considered so valuable. </p>
<p>Alumother, I like your summary.</p>
<p>There are indeed “trends” in college admissions. It used to be that a Bright Well Rounded Kid (BWRK) was highly desired. The trend today has gone more toward the ones who are well lopsided or have one singular passion or area of achievement, and if it is UNIQUE, all the better. I know this is the trend but my kids didn’t pay attention to it, LOL. My oldest is the typical bright well rounded kid. She even wrote an essay about it for her applications. She knows it is not in vogue but doesn’t care…it is just who she is. Also, none of her ECs or even intended major were unique at all. My second kid is the one focused on one major endeavor (though several related activities) and that endeavor is even her college major now. It is also not unique. In my opinion, one can look at what colleges “want” but for my children, this never guided them (other than doing as well as they could in their academics as colleges want strong academics and that never goes out of fashion). </p>
<p>Anyway, I’m not into figuring out what colleges want. I’m into being who you are and being real good at whatever floats your boat, and then when it comes time to applying to college, show the adcoms what you are made of. That may not be in vogue but that’s my approach and what my own kids did. Other than trying to do well in school academically, I can’t think of anything they chose to do with the aim of “will look good to get into college.”</p>
<p>NorthstarMom: It’s nice that Princeton and Yale (and Harvard?) keep spots open for token red state students. Thanks for pointing that out.</p>
<p>Alumother: “Frankly, the extremely intelligent late blooming introverts who are not off-the-chart math or verbal geniuses probably DON’T WANT TO BE AT HYPS surrounded by extroverts and early-blooming geniuses. They’d rather be the big person at an LAC, or finding their sweet spot in a large research university.”</p>
<p>Apart from what is best for the student, do you think this is a good trend for HYPS?</p>
<p>Xiggi @ 12:02: Excellent post.</p>
<p>Joining the party late…</p>
<p>Some things I noticed during my two years in the admissions hole:(we did not do elite/Ivy)</p>
<p>*ECs may be used just to see what you do with your time outside of class, and what ways you may potentially contribute to your college of choice.</p>
<p>*Unique came up more than once in the interviews. (Not that more common activities were discounted, just that the discussion tended to drift towards the more unique ECs)</p>
<p>*It’s easier to be enthusiastic about an EC that you have picked for the pure pleasure and enjoyment of participating.</p>
<p>*Longevity seemed to carry more weight than swapping around each year, or joining everything at the last minute.</p>
<p><em>I agree that some titled positions have less “leadership” to them than others. That’s what the explain box is for. In our case being Debate Captain (training novices, preparing tubs, tournament event chairs etc…) had more duties than being President of the Speech and Debate team (taking roll, reading announcements) although President was *elected</em> and Captain was <em>appointed</em>…sometimes they are looking at elected as how your peers view you.</p>
<p>*There is a difference in level of community service–put in x hours at an event for NHS for example, vs on-going all year committment, vs organizing and running a community service project.</p>
<p>I think it is fairly obvious when ECs are padding or actual pursuits. Now that they have the hours expended boxes on the application, it is very easy to show that participating in band/drama/insert EC here is as time consuming as playing a sport. I don’t think either should be discounted.</p>
<p>DRJ4 - Do I think it is a good trend for HYPS? Well, I guess I figure I’m not the boss of that. And I honestly don’t know. How can a college recognize an extremely talented late bloomer? I don’t hear the kids at HYPS complaining about their peers - in fact the opposite. And as Xiggi points out, the trend will probably trend in another direction eventually.</p>
<p>Hi Alumother,</p>
<p>Thanks for responding. I don’t have any control over admissions either but I think we all have an interest in promoting quality education at every level. And I agree that Xiggi made a good point and that the admissions standards will change again or, as I view it, will evolve and be refined with time. </p>
<p>My point was twofold: First, I asume that all applicants who are seriously considered for admission to elite colleges have superior academic credentials and the “extras” become the focus of admissions committees. Second, shouldn’t elite colleges want at least a few bright kids who have potential but aren’t extroverts or early geniuses? In other words, wouldn’t elite colleges benefit from the diversity of having both introverted and extroverted students?</p>
<p>By the way, I’m sure the current crop of elite college students aren’t complaining. Some people like to be surrounded by people just like themselves.</p>