In every admissions presentation I’ve attended at selective colleges, they all say, do not do something because it looks good on a college app, do it because you like it. The question is of course do you take them at their word for this, as lookingforward say, they definitely are looking for certain things wrt ECs.
A poster on a different thread made a valid point that the goalposts do change over the years. Have your child do what they enjoy! They are kids, high school can be stressful enough without doing a bunch of ECs just because they think it will get them into a certain college.
^ That’s a nice philosophy, Tmonk. And what do you think happens to kids who did only what they like…and it wasn’t what the college likes and looks for? It’s telling kids to be themselves. It is not telling kids that being themselves will get them into a highly competitive college.
Think about the AP example. If a kid really doesn’t want to take any AP, you think he/she gets a bye for a top college, because they didn’t want to?
If it’s too stresful, opt out of the colleges with fiercer competition. So simple.
I believe what they truly mean is, don’t do something just because it looks good because we will be able to tell and it won’t work. However, since in the next breadth they always tell us exactly what they are really looking for–the implicit conclusion is: if what you love isn’t what “they” love, you’ll have to go to college somewhere else.
“-the implicit conclusion is: if what you love isn’t what “they” love, you’ll have to go to college somewhere else.” Agreed! This is the “fit” piece between student and school and that’s OK.
That makes perfect sense to me…
Admission is holistic after all at most highly selective colleges. The criteria beyond qualifying stats are subjective by definition. They vary from college to college, year to year, AO to another AO. Unless an applicant has a special hook or can tell a universally moving, compelling, or at least memorable story, beyond qualifying stats, admission is never assured at any one such college.
Purpletitan the reason I posted the girl that got into UCLA with very mediocre stats (but my sense is it was all about first generation in her case, a very desirable hook) is that the original question was why students “overreach”. The truth is when students compare themselves with fellow students who aren’t as accomplished in grades, EC, scores etc… it makes them feel like it is not an overreach. Yes, when you read the threads you realize that some kids will get moved ahead in line because of something that isn’t about an accomplishment. We read stats on the acceptances of people we don’t know and can say, well they probably didn’t write that they were a recruited athlete or that they were from a school without opportunities. But when our children know how they stack up and they know these students backgrounds, then it makes them feel that they shouldn’t have to “settle” for a school that is a backup choice when they clearly worked harder and were rewarded for it in high school. So when I talk to my daughter about her reaches, safeties and matches, that is the filter that she is seeing it through.
“^ That’s a nice philosophy, Tmonk. And what do you think happens to kids who did only what they like…and it wasn’t what the college likes and looks for? It’s telling kids to be themselves. It is not telling kids that being themselves will get them into a highly competitive college.”
That’s not my philosophy, that’s what the adcoms said, - be yourself and that’s the best chance of getting in. Look, I agree it’s contradictory advice, but that’s what they said, all of them.
@lookingforward I think we need to be honest with our kids to the best of our ability about the consequences of their choices. Students who want to take fewer APs or devote time to school clubs and activities rather then projects that might be more impactful, should know that effect it may have on their chances for an elite school. They should also know that no matter what they do, they can not be garuanteed one of those elite schools. Then the choice is up to them. For a kid with a real drive to attend HYP+, that choice might be easy to make. For those kids, its not a sacrifice as much as a reasoned decision to forgo some current pleasure for the possibility of future reward. On the other hand, many kids might make a different choice. They may be perfectly happy at any one of hundreds of colleges a step down from HYP+. Those kids are not going to be crushed when they don’t get in because that was the choice they made. Both are reasonable options.
I never had that discussion with my daughters because I had no idea those options existed. If I had, its possible we would have made some slightly different choices. D2 wants medical school. She doesn’t really care about the prestige of her undergraduate degree. However, there are BS/MD programs within striking distance. A bit more time devoted to research or participating in some additional science competitions might have been useful. She has done many of those things on her own out of true “passion,” but we could have focused them a bit more. On the other hand, I don’t know if she would have given up her theater, chorus, and sports. So who knows.
@lookingforward We, as a society, have turned EVERYTHING into a competition or a preparation for something “better” or some next step. Not every activity that you devote a significant amount of time too needs to be related to your intended career path.
Of course a student should make some conscious, focused, decisions about where to concentrate their time and efforts and of course the preponderance of their effort should be focused on preparation for college admission (if that is the desired goal). Of course a student needs to be realistic about the consequences of their choices.
You can either live to work or work to live. Anyone who can find the middle ground has mastered the game.
So yeah, come on… it is sad. Period.
@labegg, agreed. The idea that high school kids should be so focused that they can’t explore various extracurricular a/volunteer activities is absurd to me. And of the students I know who got admitted to elite schools this year, many didn’t have any sort of “theme” to their activities or any specific passion or special work experience in their intended field (which, of course, will change for many if not most in college.) Four students were admitted to Stanford at my daughter’s high school this year. Three are recruited athletes (and all truly exceptional ones) and one is the valedictorian. She’s a brilliant student who’s been involved in a lot of different activities, without one singular focus.
Mostly agree, GJ, but I didn’t say you need “projects” rather than school clubs . There’s a balance. You could do school math or sci clubs or teams. Nor do you necessarily “forego pleasure.” If a kid really is fascinated by engineering, she can join robotics or other ways to use her interest in techy opportunities. Or interested in a med future, he can get involved with healthcare in the local community or advocacy. Nor do I say it should be research or competitions. Though I agree many posters say you need national awards, to work on cancer research, author some research findings, etc. (Not.)
There are a number of BS/MD programs, some more competitive. Do you have a sense of what they look for? In the program I know, which is tough to get into, rather than research or an award, it’s much more the hands on. That willingness to work with patient and/or community needs. And that vol work leaves time for theater, chorus, and sports for many of the kids who apply. Of course, there are other avenues.
I don’t get why folks go on about competitive colleges, even mid range, then advocate their or other kids not test the waters. It doesnt make sense to me just as it wouldn’t to say , “Oooh, you want to be an engineer, but rather than physics, you really really want to take a photography class…well, take photography. Don’t let those adcoms tell you how to live your life.” Or that other crazy one, that they’ll think you’re padding. Experiences are experiences.
Nor do I say, “every activity that you devote a significant amount of time too needs to be related to your intended career path.” Of course not.
Or that you need “a singular focus.”
Why the confusion?
If you don’t want to compete, don’t. Pick less competitive colleges. It’s fine.
My kids are all grown and launched. They pay their taxes, they attended “elite” institutions, they appear to be doing very well professionally in “competitive” type jobs.
By FAR the best thing I did for them as a parent was the old fashioned, Norman Rockwell type upbringing (translated somewhat to the modern era).
Write letters to grandma (send pictures before they could hold a pencil, even a crayon scratched drawing means something to the relatives who live far away). Learn to cook a basic meal, shop for groceries, clean the kitchen. Volunteer in the community you live in even if it isn’t Wow or Sexy or Impressive-- you just do it because that’s the price you pay for being born into privilege. Vote. Help an elderly neighbor with something they can’t do on their own.
Each and every bit of “wow, you must have been an amazing parent” feedback I’ve gotten from the professionals in my kids lives (starting with professors, recently at an industry awards dinner) has focused on the Norman Rockwell bits, not the “wow, your kid had high SAT scores”.
Don’t be so busy getting your kid into college that you forget to be a parent. That’s all I’m saying. Some of the posts around “Which is more impressive to Adcom’s- A or B” make me very sad. Sometimes taking your 8 year old neighbor with Autism for a walk around the block to give his mom a break is a valuable thing to do with your time- even though it’s not an EC and won’t go on your college application, and certainly won’t be the factor in you getting in to Stanford or having to slum it at CMU. Cut your kids enough slack in their childhoods so they have time to learn how to do the right thing- in addition to competing for every award and every prize that’s out there.
And yes, write to grandma.
I think the problem is that these kinds of activities don’t seem to be nearly enough for the top schools. The advice floating around on CC is that for an unhooked kid, local and community activities are completely insufficient. The ORM president of the school math club is not getting into Stanford even with a 1580 and 4.0 unweighted GPA, without a great deal more.
I’m not saying that you are suggesting kids have to give up their childhoods, but when the advice and results are aggregated, it seems to follow those lines. When people talk about “useless” ECs and non-meaningful volunteer hours, its hard not to jump to the conclusion that students really do have to choose between building the right resume and engaging in the usual high school pursuits. I saw another thread stating that boy and girl scouting is now “out” as a meaningful EC at most top schools. These are the kinds of comments that lead to frustration and the idea that students need to make some really difficult sacrifices.
Don’t believe everything you read on CC
^ right. Most people speculate. Then others repeat what they said and we get to urban myth. Scouting is not out.
The strongest applicant I ever interviewed for Brown was an Eagle Scout (he was tracking towards Eagle- hadn’t finished it yet) and his project would make you cry (tears of genuine “wow, this is a good, kind person”). I wrote a “you must accept this guy” letter and he was accepted- not because of me, but because every other grown up in his life wrote the same thing (the regional Adcom said that my letter was more of what they’d gotten from the teachers and principal- his school didn’t have a guidance counselor).
Who started the rumor that scouting was “out”?
@blossom I don’t remember the thread where it came up, but I remember being saddened by it.