<p>I don’t believe legacy is anywhere near as important as people believe it to be. Unless the kid is also winning bronze at Sochi, at most colleges, legacy is a minor tip factor IMHO.</p>
<p>Hugs Fall Girl- it gets better.</p>
<p>Whether legacy counts at all can be noted in the college’s common data set or on <a href=“http://www.collegedata.com”>http://www.collegedata.com</a> . At colleges where it does count, the value can certainly differ from college to college.</p>
<p>The same can go for other “hooks”. One college may be recruiting a specific student-athlete, but another does not because it does not even have the sport, for example. At the latter college, the sport then just becomes another good extracurricular (though probably worth somewhat more than typical sports extracurriculars if the student-athlete is good enough to be recruited for it somewhere else).</p>
<p>My point is that these are all things that are reasonably transparent and don’t require the skill of a Kremlinologist to tease out.</p>
<p>I think there there are pockets where it is common - but even then that’s all relative. In our high school which around 650 in a graduating class there are a dozen people every single year doing science research through the official program and probably another handful who have done some research or similar activities. (For example my son wrote a computer program that has been acknowledge in several scientific papers, though he didn’t do any research otherwise.) Anyway they can’t all get into Harvard. (Or UVA.) :)</p>
<p>My younger sons “interesting” EC was making origami earrings and selling them at a local gallery.</p>
<p>I think part of the point of the article was that Olivia was able to talk about her EC in a way that made it clear she was not just filling in the dots. She’d been proactive, she was making connections, she taught herself stuff that no one was making her learn, because she thought it was interesting. She seemed very self directed and enthusiastic. I think after a half hour with her any admissions officer would think I’d like to have this person as a roommate, dinner companion, in my class etc. </p>
<p>@FallGirl - “cookie cutter factory types” means all kids who look and act the same. Pretty much like when one opens a box of chocolate chip cookies, we expect all 50 cookies to be identical.</p>
<p>I am not too sure colleges do not like kids with varied interests. What gets boring are kids who all have the same interests and those interests are clearly manufactured.</p>
<p>“I still don’t get it. I don’t see what’s uninteresting about that. I guess only “quirky” activities need apply. Sigh.”</p>
<p>No one said that they have to be quirky. No one’s talking about learning to juggle cats while riding a unicycle and playing the trumpet. Things can be unique, but not quirky. My kids each had EC’s outside the school that were interesting and made someone take a second look – indeed, the welcome letter to the class of 2015 from D’s college mentioned “we have in our class students who did x, y and z” and her activity was mentioned – but neither of these activities were quirky or weird by a long shot. They were mainstream, just a breath of fresh air.</p>
<p>If she was so mediocre, I’d like to know how she got to the point of a scholarship interview in the first place.</p>
<p>I don’t buy it. The average SAT for the Jefferson Scholars is 2200+. Ironically, they list all of the typical HS things like vals and sals, presidents of clubs, etc, etc, achieved by their winners.</p>
<p>
I agree. But note that schools that used to do admissions interviews no longer do. Often they aren’t going to discover the really interesting kid, because they aren’t going to TALK to them. </p>
<p>Also note that despite the title of the article, Olivia did not in fact get into Harvard. I would argue that H is in fact much more likely to want the val/sal, president of the student council, did some obvious volunteering, did nothing intellectual outside of the HS curriculum but got straight As, played some sports, excellent self-promoter kind of kid. They take the driven leader types from our HS, not the Olivias. (Not even the Olivias with more impressive stats than the author suggests she had.) Perhaps U VA is different.</p>
<p>I would also note that Olivia went to a private school, which means that she had much more carefully done school recommendations that would highlight her interests and activities. I doubt her GC had 200+ kids they barely knew. Her school had to nominate her for the program, also.</p>
<p>I should add that I think it is great to be like Olivia. It is a good way to LIVE. Just don’t bank on many admissions committees discovering what a pearl you are.</p>
<p>President of the student council and admitted to Harvard? Not from my neck of the woods! The Pres of student council types around here go to Lehigh, Denison, and other frat heavy places. The kids who get into Harvard are the opposite of the popularity/leader types (if you mean in-school leadership). They’ve done Intel. They’ve got a patent. The “obvious” volunteering is for things like creating an online platform for the local foodbank/shelter so that restaurants or caterers with leftovers can log on, register what they have, and a truck will come and pick it up for delivery. Nobody in my area is getting into Harvard by occasionally showing up to tutor a third grader. And I would not describe any of the Harvard admits that I know from my own kids classes as self-promoters. One was likely on the spectrum- quiet, underwhelming personally, but quite brilliant.</p>
<p>Interesting how different everyone’s experiences are!</p>
<p>Yup, my S’s good friend at H was exactly that. In-school leader. Pre-med, too. 
Never did any science research, although the opportunity is available at the HS. Another kid I knew who DID do research throughout HS and at a local hospital, was the val, NMF, regional science winner, etc? Rejected from Yale. But she went to Stanford, so that was okay. :)</p>
<p>But again, I think another factor here is how much your school will get behind you and push for you. Olivia’s small private school obviously did. Our HS favors the other type.</p>
<p>I think the thing is that what constitutes a “hook” changes from school to school and from year to year.
What does an applicant offer that the college really, really wants or needs?</p>
<p>I still don’t get it. I don’t see what’s uninteresting about that. I guess only “quirky” activities need apply. Sigh.</p>
<p>Compare two students, one has hit all the traditionally safe activities, Key Club, student government, volunteering at the food bank, one parent is a teacher, the other in business. Summers are spent at camps held @ Brown or Rice, thinking that will give them an "in.</p>
<p>The other student is first gen college, both parents are factory workers. No clubs at school but they had the same volunteer position since middle school and they’ve accumulated over 2000 hrs.
Summers are spent volunteering in same position.</p>
<p>The second student was admitted to all the schools to which they applied, including ultra rigourous.</p>
<p>It isnt that the first student is uninteresting, its that there are thousands of applicants that look the same & they cant be told apart.
You only want so many of your class made up of those " perfect" students.</p>
<p>It might be perceived that that the first student isnt about learning so much as " achieving", whether or not that is true.</p>
<p>Yeah, the Harvard kids from our high school aren’t the leader self promoter types either. My older son got in as a super computer nerd. Very shy, very smart, very self-directed with enthusiastic recommendations from people he did work for. My younger son’s best friend was just an all round nice guy. Smart, did drama, played orchestra (got State level recognition), had a rock band, taught at a music camp, volunteered at his synagogue. A number have been the science research kids, also involved in school stuff like Science Olympiad. I think there’s been at least one of the from the projects first gen types to get in.</p>
<p>My younger son (who BTW did not get into Harvard) wrote about his quirky activity for the Common Application, but if I had to guess, I’d bet it was another essay about feeling like a historian when he was archiving neighborhood association papers from the 1960s that probably was even more effective. It was a project he’d gotten involved in because he didn’t want to take a government class and doing a project and taking a test was the alternative. It really showed his intellect in a way his grades did not always.</p>
<p>EK, your comparison is less about activities than about SES. Of course a first gen child of factory workers is a “hook” in itself (academically all else being equal).</p>
<p>I just don’t necessarily feel that more common activities such as tennis, soccer, Key Club make a child “cookie cutter” and don’t necessarily see why a 14 year old has to have a “passion” (full disclosure one of my kids did/one didn’t). I know kids who attended summer camps at campuses because they were truly interested in the topic being studied. I don’t know why a child exploring multiple interests and then moving on is a negative thing. Maybe that is why I’m not a college admissions officer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It isn’t a negative thing.
Some of those kids are admitted but like I said</p>
<p>*You only want so many of your class made up of those " perfect" students."</p>
<p>It might be perceived that that the first student isnt about learning so much as " achieving", whether or not that is true.*</p>
<p>Being first gen isn’t a “hook”.
It is extenuating circumstances that colleges take into acct when comparing to more privileged students.
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/massachusetts-institute-technology/1475003-is-first-gen-college-student-really-a-hook.html”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/massachusetts-institute-technology/1475003-is-first-gen-college-student-really-a-hook.html</a></p>
<p>If college admissions was transparent then colleges wouldn’t have the prerogative to admit whomever the hell they pleased</p>
<p>GMT- and why can’t they admit whomever the hell they please? As long as they are not systematically rejecting African Americans, or developing admissions processes (like interviews- designed to keep Jews out of Harvard and Princeton) which are used to create and enforce quotas, who the hell can tell them otherwise? There is always outrage in mudville when your own town’s “golden child” gets rejected from the college everyone assumes is a lock. Nobody likes the perspective that your town’s Val, in fact, has the identical application to about 1,000 other kids. And your town’s kid wrote an essay about how much he learned by losing the tri-county soccer match and the enduring lesson in sportsmanship. Which was an essay that 500 other kids wrote about- some of them, more skillfully.</p>
<p>Big country we have. Big world. The Val with the high scores and the well-rounded resume doesn’t always look so golden once you’ve opened up the floodgates.</p>
<p>Nothing is transparent even on CC (or perhaps I should say, especially on CC!) I can’t even count the number of posts I have seen which say things like, “My child has a very unique and interesting EC” but don’t go on to say what it is. Often their kid is long accepted/graduated, yet parents still don’t want to tell. I understand there could be a bit of confidentiality concern in there, but is it really that unique that disclosing it is going to identify the poster? They could at least say, “My D started a charity website” etc. I can’t think of too many unique ECs that one couldn’t identify at least a bit, but perhaps I’m just that clueless.</p>
<p>Since I’m one of those, I just don’t think it’s my place to identify in a public domain exactly what my kids’ ECs were. I’ve given enough identifying information without meaning to. I’ll just say that neither of them were school-based. One was related to work done with a cultural institution in our city and one was related to work done for a local government organization. They were simultaneously unique and mainstream, if that makes sense. They were the kinds of things that stand out as being interesting and requiring initiative, but they weren’t “weird” or “quirky” as in building replicas of the Sears Tower with popsicle sticks or juggling cats while riding a unicycle. </p>
<p>To echo what EK said, I think the most selective colleges are not so much looking for kids with unusual interests, but for kids with unusual achievements. They like kids who have won awards and prizes, who have been accepted into highly selective programs (like TASP), who have created their own successful businesses, etc. That is, they will be interested in a kid who raises sheep, but especially if he raises prize-winning sheep. This is why, I think, there seems to be better results with ECs outside the high school itself–many of them have measurements of achievement that are impressive.</p>
<p>Readytoroll, it doesn’t matter what an EC was that might have tipped the application toward the admit pile.</p>
<p>You have to get away from the mindset that if you do it too, you will have the same result.</p>
<p>The student should be following HER interests and abilities, not trying to accomplish a scavenger hunt list of achievements that will open the golden gates.</p>