This came up recently on a different forum. I haven't put much thought into it simply because we are not near that point yet. However, as I watched the answers come in, I was surprised. Everyone said no, don't list it as EVERYONE at a top school should be mensa, dys etc. Statistically that is obviously not the case (at least with dys because qualifying mensa is easier), and I wonder how many people said "don't list it" simply because they don't have a child who qualifies. There have been sour grapes in that group with people who didn't get in, so that may be the case again. My kids are not DYS yet (and haven't been rejected either), so I don't have any bitterness etc. My thought would be to list it especially if you were active in the group. Discussion anyone?

I don't have a DYS child either (haven't applied & likely won't... not sure my two are at that level), but I've always been confused by why people say don't put mensa on your resume (it's always worked for me).

(lol mensa is all I have - imagine my dismay when I found out it was the easiest high IQ society to get into ;p )

Anyway, I'd include it. Even if it is true that everyone at a top school should be at this level, doesn't it show initiative that your child has applied and participates?

Just my opinion - I could be missing part of the picture.

(Coming from: someone who reads CVs/applications frequently as part of my job, in contexts where it is routine for applicants to be highly intelligent people with high achievement.)

For both MENSA and DYS: I wouldn't recommend listing them, if all the applicant did was to be a member, use the organisation for socialising, use it to give support to parents, etc. Rationale: by college age, high ability ought to be evidenced by the student's achievement. If it is, you don't need these stamps of approval. If it isn't, high IQ isn't actually a plus at all - it just raises red flags as to why this high potential individual isn't achieving their potential.

(By contrast, as a parent filling in a selective school application for a child up to early teens, I would certainly use these things.)

If the applicant has actually done something with the membership - has started and run a special interest group, say - then by all means list it, but emphasise the activity not the exclusive parent organisation.

One might argue that it's sensible to list these things even if they won't help much, on the basis that they won't do any harm. IME the stereotype of people who belong to high IQ organisations is prevalent enough that this is risky. No recruiter is going to act on the basis of that stereotype consciously, of course, but you are wise to avoid setting off unconscious biases against you, too!

This is a good point (i.e. part of the picture I was missing). High ability doesn't always reflect in achievement of course (i.e. lack of study skills due to having never been challenged, for one), but... to succeed in post secondary these skills should be in place, making achievement more important than IQ.

I agree with ColinsMum.

We do intend to list DYS on my daughter's college application this year. However, she did not actually become a DYS until she was a sophomore in high school (after attending THINK at Davidson). The Davidson stuff is all over her college app anyway (four courses of college credit through THINK), so she put it in. It would have been a harder call to make if she had been accepted before high school, I guess. There is a section in the Common App in the Academics section called "Honors", and she listed it there and ticked the 10th grade box. If she had been accepted prior to high school and we had decided to enter it, we probably would have mentioned it in the additional information section.

Somehow Mensa has a different flavor to me (and seem more likely to trigger bias than Davidson). I would be more hesitant to list that unless my kid had somehow been very active in it.

I will say this... if an admissions officer is biased against gifted kids, I am pretty sure my kid doesn't want to attend their college anyway.

It's not bias against gifted people you have to worry about; it's an admissions officer looking at the application and thinking that your daughter wants to be admitted on the basis of intelligence, instead of what she can actually do. I don't really think that DYS admittance is a high school honor even if one is admitted during high school.

On the other hand, it might be pretty harmless to include it, since most admissions officers will never have heard of the program. The only possible danger would be if they looked it up, or asked about it during an interview.

Studies such as

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/Peabody/SMPY/Top1in10000.pdf
Top 1 in 10,000: a 10-year follow-up of the profoundly gifted.
Lubinski D, Webb RM, Morelock MJ, Benbow CP.
Abstract
Adolescents identified before the age of 13 (N = 320) as having exceptional mathematical or verbal reasoning abilities (top 1 in 10,000) were tracked over 10 years. They pursued doctoral degrees at rates over 50 times base-rate expectations, with several participants having created noteworthy literary, scientific, or technical products by their early 20s. Early observed distinctions in intellectual strength (viz., quantitative reasoning ability over verbal reasoning ability, and vice versa) predicted sharp differences in their developmental trajectories and occupational pursuits. This special population strongly preferred educational opportunities tailored to their precocious rate of learning (i.e., appropriate developmental placement), with 95% using some form of acceleration to individualize their education.

suggest that college admissions officers ought to pay attention to academic achievements before age 13, but as a practical matter the others are probably correct that listing such achievements won't help. At a university like Caltech where the SAT is a "low-ceiling" test for its admissions pool, especially in math, it is possible that looking at talent search SAT scores at age 12 or earlier provides additional information about an applicant.

The problem is that by high school, expectations for academic success are even higher. Colleges would want to also see that your child is a National Merit Semi-Finalist on the PSAT, an AP scholar (taking lots of AP classes), going to Nationals in Math or Science Bowl or the Intel Science Fair Competition.

I'm a college professor and have worked on the faculty committee involved with admissions.

The short answer is that I would absolutely include DYS on a college application. It is part of your son/daughter's story.

If you want to finesse it you can place it in context rather than as a stand alone 'bullet point'.

Wow. This seems quite depressing to me. Like our kids have to be workaholics when they're eleven just to get into college.

Well, the PSAT is just automatic because you should be able to hit semi-finalist without effort.

The AP classes are the least boring of the high school classes, which you should be taking as a matter of course. Again, not much effort involved. You can probably sleep through some of them (like calculus and physics). I always slept through calculus. It was the first class in the morning, and I was generally up until 2.

That just leaves the "extra", so you just find a thingy you enjoy.

That just sounds like high school to me.

It sounds a bit doom & gloom to me too, so I did a quick search on our school district's website for the number of National Merit Semi-Finalists. We had 22 semi-finalists in the fall of 2011 - I didn't google further to find out how many of those became finalists, but I know one of them that did. I also don't have time to search for the total # of high school seniors in our district, but fwiw we have 5 large high schools.

I can absolutely reassure everyone here that we had many many *many* more than 22 students get into really great colleges and universities last year, as well as many many *many* great scholarships.

polarbear

I probably depends on your definition of "really great" colleges.

Some people think that the number of such colleges is very small with almost all states having zero such colleges.

The only good definition of "really great college" is one that is a perfect fit for a particular student.
Example: Youngest wants to go to Savannah College of Art & Design. Other Youngest has his eye on Carnegie-Mellon or Simon Fraser. Perfect fit for each of them, crap-tastic if they were switched around. And neither needs to be at Julliard or West Point, no matter how really great each is.

I remember when I was going to college. My main criteria was that it was free.

As a high student, I'm not sure how you have the slightest idea what school would be a "good fit". I know that mine wasn't a "good fit", but then I had no idea why I was in college except that I was supposed to be there after high school. I had no interest in being in college, but I had even *less* interest working at a job.

I expect that the expense of college, and debt loads, will become more and more important going forward.

The prestige of a college does matter to some employers. I know of situations where a manager, faced with thousands of resumes to select from, excludes applicants from all but a few select schools. Carnegie-Mellon would make the cut, but the "Savannah College of Art & Design" might not. I got a PhD but realized I was not cut out to be a scientist. The prestige of my undergraduate degree opened doors to a new career.

I'm not saying prestige is all-important or that fit is unimportant, but there are situations where prestige does matter.

SCAD probably wouldn't make the cut for a science degree, no. If one wants to go into a visual arts field, SCAD is a name readily recognized. As for Carnegie-Mellon...it's a helpful name if you're looking at STEM (or bagpiping). Is it $170K worth of helpful? The jury's still out on that one. We have a few years to look around yet; there are plenty of options.

This is getting more depressing...perhaps I'm the only one who thinks this way, so forgive me. But I see (generally, not just here) an over-emphasis on admissions to and degrees from prestigious colleges for many wrong reasons.

Students overburden themselves with activities and competitions, etc, and the primary purpose seems to be to gain admission to places that will give them the "right" credentials.

It seems wrong to put so much emphasis on doing something to get in and not because the kids just want to do it. I feel like we're creating automatons.

And as for prestige as a route to the right credentials, what happened to learning how to think and pondering important ideas? Technology is great, but when we don't give ourselves space to think about what we're doing, we're at risk for making bad decisions and getting ourselves into trouble (Wall St; the mortgage debacle; etc.).

And for what it's worth, DH has a very good job at a very good company, and he didn't go to an IVY LEAGUE SCHOOL. I know many others with similar backgrounds. Most hiring managers I know, including me, care less about pedigree than about "Do you know you're talking about and can you get stuff done?" It might matter for academic jobs at certain universities and at some VC/Wall St. firms, but that's a tiny slice of the world of work.

Education won't help with willful fraud and massive credit bubbles.

The solution to problems like that have more to do with being honest and not creating massive amounts of credit that shouldn't exist.

Apparently some schools provide magic tickets that enable you to have Careers Worth Having these days.

It's not about education. It's about branding. And it's less than helpful to everybody.

I have to agree with Val. We also didn't attend Ivies, and we've done quite well for ourselves and our child.

I also strongly suspect that at some point, being both extremely bright and NOT having gone to a very high-priced college/uni is going to start looking more promising than having a prestigious (high $$) pedigree. Why? Because it shows pragmatism that pretty much can't be bought at any price.

I also agree with her horror at turning 11 and 12 yo kids into workaholics by applying the lash. It's fine if it is truly the kids doing it. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a 10yo that wants to homeschool to make time for an INTEL project or some other passion.

Where I begin to have a problem with this kind of thing is when it becomes an arms race-- and it has.

My family has spent a lot of time thinking about this-- and we've decided to opt out. As a family, I mean. It's not healthy, and the levels to which we have to push our kids to achieve are frankly horrifying in the current climate. Race to Nowhere. Truly; while that level of achievement used to be reserved for kids who were DYS material, now the PG kids have to differentiate themselves by winning national titles and demonstrating prodigy at ever-younger ages. All in an effort to distinguish themselves from the pack of hothoused/groomed kids that are not actually PG in the first place but have parents that want to make them LOOK like they are. Parents spend thousands of dollars to find an evaluator that will give them the right bits of paper 'certifying' their kids.

Acutally, colleges could care less as long as those kids are paying tuition $$ and not flunking out in droves. That's why even elite colleges are more than happy to provide remedial work for (otherwise bright-enough) kids who have been rushed through material that they had no hope of mastering at that pace.

Our PG kids are getting lost in that shuffle. But the only way to make them stand out against it is to rob them of what childhood they can still have.

We're living this right now with our 13yo DD. We have chosen to step off the fast lane when she chooses to, and let her succeed on HER terms, not those defined by the masses. Is she Ivy League material? You bet she is. But we don't care, and we see little evidence to suggest that it will matter to her, either.

More important to us is the long term development of DD as a whole, mature person with the capacity for contentment and happiness. That isn't to say that the parents of prodigies and Ivy-bound kiddos aren't doing that, as well-- just that kids who are PG and well-rounded, or just more even in their cognitive development, sometimes aren't suited for those kinds of "stand-out" activities on their vitae.

My DD enjoys chess, for example, and she loves science and literature. She's not a kid who is going to win trophies for any of that. Some of that is about disability, and some of it is about deliberately avoiding situations which make the disability's limitations more painful to face. This precludes even most cross-country travel, by the way. She'd rather play D&D (or whatever they're calling it now) than work on an INTEL project that would lead to honors (and national competition/awards) that she could only be bitter about not participating in. We are okay with that, because... she's 13. We want her to have some experiences that are normative, because that is the basis for so much lifelong social interaction.

She's just a top 5% kid in her grade range in many of those kinds of activities. In other words, she does a lot of things very, very well when compared with even high-achieving/GT students 3-4 years her senior-- but not always "extraordinarily" well compared with them.

Would she seem that extraordinary if we hadn't done the multiple accelerations? Probably, at least in a few areas. But there's no way that she'd have come out of that intact while being forced to work so far below ability day after day, so it's a moot point.

Bleh.

Back to the original question here-- would I list DYS (or anything else, for that matter)?

If it seemed truly relevent to something else, or included particular activities. What does it tell the admissions office about the student's suitability for the institution, after all?

Will we list DD's radical accelerations? No, probably not per se; it's obvious in a de facto sense to start with, and that will have to be enough. "I was only 14 when I graduated at the top of my class" isn't going to be there on the application, even if both of those pieces of information are there for someone to see if they look.

This isn't about WHAT a student is or is not. It's about who that student is as a prospective student, and what s/he is likely to do as a student. Note that this is far different than "capacity" for doing well.

DYS is, when you get right down to it, about WHAT a student is (capacity), not about that other stuff. So no, I wouldn't. I agree that either the grades and other accomplishments already say it, or they don't, and if it's the latter, then DYS says "underachiever" to anyone that is in the know.

Not sure about the Ivy League stuff... But having been to Carnegie-Mellon and a state university, there is something to be said for the acceleration and being surrounded by peers, or being a research assistant with someone doing leading edge research. Compared to sitting in a class with people asking "Is that going to be on the test?" Been a few decades, maybe it's changed.

But to the topic: asking the question is playing the game. If the kid filling it out feels it helps define them then include it. Tell your story, not the story you think they want to hear. I can smell it on a resume; I can't imagine it's any different on a college application (barring that whole negative paycheck thing.)

The way things are going, I think it's more likely that being bright and not having gone to a status university will mean that the student in question didn't know enough to attend the "right" university, which shows a lack of social acumen.

That's just my perception.

I didn't attend an Ivy League and I'm not about to dump all of my retirement savings into my kids so that they can attend an Ivy League.

It's probably worse now.

I agree completely with what you've said, but there's another possibility as far as the students are concerned (leading edge researchers can be found at all the big state Unis).

It's this: how many of those hyper-prepped kids at the Ivies behave in essentially the same way (though perhaps they'll phrase the question less crassly)? How many are there to get a Prestige Certification (tm) and care little about the actual education? And what about the sense of entitlement that comes along with all this? From what I've observed around here and read, the current cutthroat system (and their parents in some cases) have conditioned kids to think this way.

Honestly, I even see some of these ideas sneaking in here: Humanities degrees like English or history are relatively unimportant because jobs in those fields aren't as plentiful as jobs in engineering or science. I don't use at work, and therefore it seems less important to study it.. This allows us as a society to ignore critically important ideas that help us make informed decisions, and we do this at our own risk.

FTR, IME academic jobs at top universities are about the least likely places to filter on what university an applicant went to. (There are more effective things to filter on!) There are plenty of big companies in the UK that recruit only from a few universities, though (and not only in the finance industry - many engineering firms do the same, though it isn't necessarily the same universities they target).

Come to think of it, probably the employers most likely to do this are the ones that are very popular but *don't* need much in the way of rare attributes in their employees: they are the ones who might most likely wonder why they should incur the expense of recruiting from a wide range of universities, when they can go to a few good ones and get enough good-enough people.

Winning!

Things that are interesting to study/think about/fun (humanities) don't pay and since they don't pay are provided a lower value, while things that are technical/dry/boring/make you want to gnaw your arm off (engineering) create money so they are provided a higher value.

YES!

Interestingly, my observation has been the exact opposite. Take a look at Harvard Law School's faculty. It seems to consist almost exclusively of Harvard Law and Yale Law grads. A notable exception is "Native American" Elizabeth Warren, who is a Rutgers University grad.

Silly, that's only LawWorld.

In LawWorld, your LawValue is determined primary on the LawSchoolYouAttended.

If you go to HarvardYaleStanford, you get an infinite number of LawPrestigePoints that you can exchange for a legal professorial position at any school of your choosing.

However,if you went to a LesserButStillValuable school like ColumbiaMichiganNYUPennDukeCornellBerkely, then you get a few LawPrestigePoints that you can exchange for a legal professorial position at a LawSchoolWithoutPrestige.

If you went to a LawSchoolWithoutPrestige and you want to become a law professor, then, sorry, you went to the wrong school.

(Yes, the legal profession is this status-obsessed. It also lacks an objective criteria of quality. When you combine these two and couple it with infinite student loans, you get the awesome spectacle of the modern legal academy.)

I have to strongly disagree about this. I genuinely do not think that admissions staff at top colleges are going to be put off in some way by the DYS label. A high IQ is NOT a factor that will be held against a student in admissions. I can't image that it would be a "danger" for them to look it up. Of course, that alone will not get a student into college (my D will also very likely be a National Merit Scholar, for example, and has good grades and tons of extra curricular accomplishments). But I honestly would not dream of leaving it off. D's high school counselor completely agrees with this, by the way (and she used to be an admissions counselor at a top 20 LAC).

JonLaw,

Perhaps LawWorld is the most extreme example, but I don't think it's only LawWorld. For example, MIT faculty is full of MIT, CalTech, and Stanford grads, with sprinklings from other Ivies and Carnegie Mellon grads.

As stated, it's not the high IQ that would possibly be held against a student, but rather presenting high IQ as a reason for admission. I'm basing my opinion on horse sense. If I had two applications in front of me and one emphasized membership in a high IQ society and the other stressed more what a student had actually done and could actually do, I'd go for the latter every time. Pointing to membership in a high IQ society smacks of weakness and a sense of entitlement.

Wow... all I can say is that you must have a pretty poor opinion of Davidson, and their mission and accomplishments for gifted kids. My kid would say that her weeks spent at Davidson THINK was the high point of her high school experience so far, and in fact will say in one of her essays that her fondest hope is to find a similar intensive environment for college. DYS is sort of an aside to that, but no way would she consider leaving it off. She is proud of her DYS status and considers her THINK (and her CTY Cogito experience, where she was a forum moderator) to be critical experiences in her life.

And no one is saying that kids ought to leave off information on what they have done in addition to that. Most of these kids are very accomplished, and this will be just one item in a list of honors, awards, positions held, and other accomplishments. This is our second trip through the college application process, and there is room for as many activities, accomplishments, etc. as you want to list. Honestly, by the time they are seniors, most DYS kids will have enough material for a very robust and excellent application without the DYS reference. But there is NOTHING wrong with listing it.

Wow! I simply don't see it being that big a deal one way or the other. However, it would not be my decision to make. It will be up to DS whether he chooses to include the DYS designation on his college applications.

I would suspect that his decision many years down the road (he is only a 4th grader) would depend on how much involvement he has with the Davidson Institute over the next eight years. If he participates (as we anticipate) in THINK and/or its younger cousin, then it would make sense to mention it on the application. It would not be a brag or necessarily under the "Honors" section but as an organization with which he was involved. I admit that my college application experience is severely limited as I only applied to the Ivies (really too stupid to realize that I should have had a back up school) and those applications (as far as I remember and if they haven't changed) do solicit a sense of the type of organizations with which you are involved.

I don't believe you need an elite school. It's just a nice experience to have. There are also some elite employers who almost never hire anyone at a professional level unless they graduated from top tier schools or once hired, tend to treat those employees lacking the proper pedigree like second class citizens.

I disagree. If I had two applications with all else being equal or nearly so, I'd go for the high IQ. Every time. If I had an application with DYS or 999 or Prometheus written on it, I'd give it and the applicant extra attention.

Yes, being able to get stuff done is hugely important. But so is IQ, and the two are not mutually exclusive. IMO, our society pretty much dismisses the importance of high IQ. IQ is real and has important real-world ramifications.

It's interesting to read your weakness/entitlement opinion. How is stating a fact about yourself elitist? And don't grade schools make that same assumption when we nervously say, "Err...my daughter learns very fast; can you accommodate this?" And don't we all complain about how wrong that attitude is? Is it elitist to say that a ten-year-old kid is very tall or is a naturally very fast runner? Fast or tall kids were just born that way, the same as smart kids.

Say an up-and-coming ice skater was applying to a prestigious skating school for super-talented athletes. Would you hold it against her to note her membership in a club that only admits people who, in a month or two, can improve their skills by an amount normally expected in a year? Is she being an elitist? Or did she just write a reasonable notation showing objective evidence for her claim of being a super-talented skater who is capable of keeping the pace at the school? If noting her membership is reasonable, how could being a DYS be any different when applying to a university that's supposedly composed of very smart people who have to be able to keep a rigorous pace? If it isn't reasonable, should she also keep the skating club membership off her Cornell application? Isn't it enough to say that she can do a triple axel? Somehow, I can't see this happening...which means that when you're applying to a place designed for smart people, you can brag about yourself in 20-point boldface red type, provided you don't actually mention that you're, ahem, kind of a little bit smart.

And finally, why is it okay to say here that a very high IQ means that our kids have different learning needs than most, but it's not okay to say this idea applies to colleges as well, when places like MIT or CalTech may be environments where our kids will thrive because of their IQs?

That's completely illogical, and doesn't follow from anything I've written. Don't take it so personally; we simply disagree about how something could be perceived on an application. I'm not the only one who feels this way. From that perspective, since I really don't think that showing DYS status (again, if an admissions officer even realizes what DYS is) will ever tip the balance in favor of an applicant, I wouldn't risk running into an admissions committee member who feels as I do.

(Actually, now that I think about it, someone could mistake the word "Scholar" in the title to mean that a DYS admittee actually has some sort of proven scholarly ability, i.e. that it is an academic honor like being a Rhodes Scholar. I still would err on the side of caution-- too many people might actually go look it up.)

Not me, for the reasons stated. One can rest on one's laurels based on taking a test or two to demonstrate intelligence, or one can show actual fitness for the sorts of endeavors that take place at a university. The proof is in the pudding, and I'd give priority to applicants who appear to realize that. Go-getters go get. Between SATs and other tests there must be plenty of information already on test-taking ability.

I didn't say it was elitist; I said it showed a sense of entitlement (to entry at a place of higher learning). I don't consider people with high test scores to be the academically elite-- it takes more. If one is actually academically elite, high IQ test scores don't matter. Many brilliant people must have scores that don't accurately reflect their real-world abilities, and many others don't have scores at all.

Advocating for a child's educational needs and competing for university entry aren't at all the same. One demonstrates fitness for top college spots by actual ability and worthiness, not potential ability and educational need. In addition the sorts of things one chooses to put on one's academic resume give context about one's own personal values, a negligible factor when advocating for a young child's access to services.

I would hold it against her if she tried to gain entry to a program for accomplished young adult skaters by showing raw potential instead of developed potential, absolutely. Every time. By the time people are ready for college, I would expect them to demonstrate the sort of work ethic that leads to actual success, and they would naturally then be able to show fruits of their labor which would also show their ability. Trying to gain entry essentially by virtue of one's genes would show the wrong set of values, and potentially point to a weak applicant with something to hide. Aside from the active discounting based on these ideas, though, I could never give an applicant an edge because of DYS entry because a similar applicant might simply never have been in a position to apply to DYS.

The thing that's apparently missing from your viewpoint is the realization that by college age, one doesn't have to rely on best-guess testing from young ages to predict performance; one can show a record of actual performance (together perhaps with the sorts of standardized tests like the SAT that are well-accepted for college entry). That's far better for predicting success than membership in a high IQ society often achieved at the age of five, especially with such wide possible variance in testing conditions and even in controlled testing of a single subject from year to year. At young ages we must do the best with what we have available, and we comply with testing requirements to get into programs we think would work well for our children. We don't IQ test children for college entry, because it's an inappropriate and unreliable tool. When it comes to testing, the SAT test for example is more achievement-focused (though apparently somewhat g-loaded), and allows a direct comparison to performance of other applicants. If an applicant already had SAT scores or the like, IQ-test scores would add nothing useful-- they would seem in the nature of padding at best.

Membership in DYS just doesn't show college fitness. It only shows that a person achieved a certain set of scores on certain tests years before, and possibly needed to put together a portfolio because the test scores weren't completely there, possibly at age five, where a portfolio could consist of speaking about knowledge memorized from popular cable TV science shows and the like. Enhanced fitness for advanced studies at college age? Hardly. And SAT tests already provide enough achievement-test differentiation, of a type seemingly better suited to predicting college aptitude, so that more isn't necessary of a less reliable type-- even if the vast majority of applicants did go off to college with early IQ scores in hand.

My recommendation for anyone who's considering listing DYS status: instead put one's IQ and/or achievement test scores right on the application, and the age at which they were obtained. It's exactly as valid a demonstration of academic fitness for college, and more straightforward.

Correlation, not causation. The thing I was saying doesn't happen IME is filtering applicants out based on what university they attended. Do most successful applicants to good universities in practice come from good universities? Of course.

[I should say, of course, that I have no specific experience of recruitment practice at MIT; I can't rule out that it's different there, but it would astonish me.]

No, in law, it really is causation.

It's extremely credential-driven because that's how law works.

Plus, no one really reads or cares about any of the scholarship from the academy.

It's truly a strange world.

I'm pretty sure that I got into both college (SAT scores) and law school (LSAT scores) because of my innate intelligence. It had virtually nothing to do with my work ethic (by law school, I had no work ethic left at all).

I also got my first job purely through the credential from a T14 school. I simply presented my ticket and a summer clerkship was created specifically for me because of the name of the school I attended. They were literally starving for a T14 student.

I also wanted to point out that in a *law firm* as opposed to a law school, your value depends on your ability to being in business and be productive. Primarily it's a sales position at the partner level. Your value depends on the amount of money you bring in the door every year.

And maybe that is where the difference is in our opinions. In a million years it would not hurt you to put Davidson on an MIT or Caltech application. Those are schools that absolutely recognize the value of a high IQ (as do most of the top 150 or so colleges in the US, I believe). You can teach people a lot of stuff, but it is really hard to teach "IQ". But if my kid were to apply to say, Winona State (apologies to any graduates out there :)), a small, regional school in our state university system, you are right that admissions person would never have heard of Davidson, and might be put off a Mensa reference.

I actually saw a reference to Davidson in a book I read a couple of years ago about getting kids into top colleges. It was talking about how to productively spend your summers to prepare for college apps, and THINK was listed in the book. But it had an asterisk that basically said it is so darned hard to get into because of the scores required that most students shouldn't bother, but if you can do it to go for it. Now again, that is THINK, not DYS. Sorry, can't recall the name of the book.

Just as an aside, how is a high test score (eg, high ACT score, which my D just pulled off -- a 35 out of 36 with NO prep for that test) any different to an admissions counselor than a high IQ? Both are a snapshot in time, a one day test. They show something about your intellectual chops compared to the rest of the applicant pool, and colleges clearly consider that invaluable information (otherwise test scores would not be required!) I actually still keep a scholarship reference on my resume from college (25 years ago) for an ACT score in the top 100 for my state, and I know that employers notice and remember it. I don't know why we should treat an indication of a high IQ as shameful. Now... I wouldn't put the actual IQ on the application. That would be considered wierd.

Maybe

http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10557.aspx
What High Schools Don’t Tell You (And other parents don’t want you to know)
by Wissner-Gross, E.


Yes, but why? Why is it different from listing an ACT or SAT score? (I agree with your post but am just musing.)

Because the two evaluation tools measure different things, perhaps?

Or because one purports to measure achievement and is perceived as gameable and achievable through competitive efforts, whereas the other isn't. And thus IQ is seen as something like height which would never be used as a selection criteria...

Alternatively, I know the word on the street when I was a kid was to never tell a child their IQ as it could damage them for life. So, maybe some of that shhhh.... trickles into the same meme space as the jolly guy in the red suit.

I wrote a rather long response about the changes in the college application process over the past 30 years, and I might post that later, but I think I can relate this to another area of interest to my kids - sports.

My eldest is going into her senior year in HS, and she thinks she might want to play DIII softball. Every college has a recruiting form to fill out for sports, with both sports info and academic info. The form asks for time from Home to 1st. Say your kid is really speedy (and it seems that most of the really speedy kids are born that way, not made through practice). So you put down 2.7 seconds for your time. That's great, but your batting average is only .100 and you make a ton of errors in the field.

I think for the folks that say don't put down DYS (or IQ), they mean that listing something that you are born with (IQ or speed) does not in and of itself add to your application. Maybe if that ballplayer had a batting average of .450 because she can put down a great bunt and use her speed to get on base, that means something. Maybe if you did something with DYS - THINK or used help from DYS to improve programs at your school - then you should list it.

My parents told me my IQ and defined it as mental age divided by chronological age. Once I had a discussion with a guidance counselor where he told me that students who are X years old are not allowed to do Y. I replied that my mental age was X', based on my IQ. He was taken aback and not persuaded. I am still glad my parents told me my IQ.

NotSoGifted, yep. Running from home to first is an objective measure of actual athletic performance in a way that is directly applicable to winning games. DYS status is far from a reliable predictive measure of actual academic performance in college.

Even if it were true that IQ scores were important to know for college entry purposes, DYS admittees are all over the map in terms of their specific DYS admission criteria. What does it really help an admissions officer to know that a person, at age 5 or above, scored 145+ on one or more subtests from a range of tests, and/or submitted a freeform portfolio to convince Davidson that they were working years ahead, many years before applying to college? If someone's still ahead by college, that will be amply and specifically shown by other information.

So, a problem with DYS is that it doesn't necessarily function as a good proxy for your innate intellectual power.

Maybe as potential.... but that isn't necessarily the same thing as "probability of stellar success at Elite U."

Correct, even at age 5, when Davidson begins to cast its intentionally wide net to find the ones it wants to find. What might be much more relevant is actual achievements showing high real-world ability, for example if a music prodigy had composed his first symphony at age 4 or something. There's not really a need for more standardized test scores or evidence of them-- there are already some well-accepted types used for college entry.

In reading through this thread again, I'm still deeply bothered by the college admissions process. The IQ thing is only a small part of it.

Specifically, why all this focus on achievement (past grades and test scores) as a requirement to get into college? Isn't achievement supposed to be what you're shooting for as a grownup, after you've finished college or whatever training you need to get there?

When we expect 17-year-olds to have won prizes, completed hundreds of hours of "volunteer" work, captained a team, and also excelled highly in an additional area, we're forcing them into a role that (IMO) the vast majority aren't ready for. We're also teaching them that you do the volunteer work because it will help you, not because it might actually help others. And of course, because it's required, it's not truly volunteer work. Not to mention summer "experiences" chosen for application essay appeal?

It all seems so...shallow and false. Why is this the message we've chosen to send to our kids?

Bubble economy. The whole college process was not like this 20 years ago, when I got into an Ivy with no volunteer work, no summer experiences (not even a job - I didn't drive), no AP classes, no student government, etc.

Simple competition.

There are only a certain number of slots at prestige institutions.

And getting a prestige institution diploma means that you have a chance for a Meaningful and Successful Life(TM) because you will be on a Success Career Track(TM) instead of working at McDonalds and living a life of Despair and Irrelevance(TM).

Is there a clearly superior alternative? Admitting students to college based on a single exam, as some countries do, concentrates the stress but may not reduce its quantity.

I think the largest factor fueling the college admissions arms race is supply and demand. The class sizes of the top ten universities have not expanded, but the population is growing, and with lower transportation and communication costs (e.g. cell phones), and rising incomes (measured over a long enough time span :)) the college market has become nationalized. In 1970 there probably were not that many California kids aspiring to Harvard or Massachusetts kids aspiring to Stanford (or Illinois kids aspiring to either), but regional preferences have dissipated. Not only that, the college admission market has become international. Very few Chinese or Indians could afford to send their kids abroad in 1990. Now a much larger fraction can (even if the fraction is still small in absolute terms). Need-based financial aid has opened selective schools to the middle class.

Tom Friedman wrote a book called "The World is Flat". The leveling that has occurred in college admissions increases competition. It is stressful for students aspiring to the most selective colleges, but I don't think it is a bad thing overall.

Let's just run the brainwave test, get an approximate IQ and sort that way.

It's easy and objective.

No more testing.

Y'know....

If we could just show people a few problems while they are IN the fMRI...

Or use that new brain hacker tool!

We could get their locker combos!

Yes, basing admissions on exam results is a better system. It judges students on their merits and nothing else. The exams also test what students will face in college/university, as well. Basing things on one set of exam results also avoids teaching the cynicism that comes with doing volunteer work because it looks good on an application or doing a summer internship because it will make good fodder for your essay.

Having two degrees from European universities, I agree that the system is stressful. It's also not perfect. But at least it's honest.

I think that some people missed my point: I know that admissions are more competitive than they used to be. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't sit down and think about the ramifications of teaching kids that so much of what they do should be about themselves.

Or, as I prefer to consider it, not even "about themselves" so much as producing a believable facade for the rest of the world.

That, I think, is the disturbing part for us personally. Volunteer work and the like is always about personal gain, when you get right down to it. People do things for their own reasons. But the objection is about doing them because of how they will probably SEEM to others, rather than because of some inner compass or drive to do them.

Taking twelve years of piano lessons is crazy if the sole motivation is to build a more rounded or competitive vita for that child, who is almost certainly not making such choices for him or herself. Likewise, volunteering and participation in other extracurricular activities.

I personally am of the opinion that if it isn't an actively participatory thing, it probably doesn't belong in a college application packet. That is, my child is blonde and very atttractive-- should I mention that, too? It matters as much as her intellectual capacity does, in its own way; it opens doors and gives her an edge.

I don't think all of this is necessarily crazy. It has gotten extremely competitive to get into good or great colleges. More and more kids are going to college, so the pool is more competitive.
Do I think you should study piano for 12 years to get into college? No, obviously not (I'm not sure that would help anyway). However, I don't have a problem if kids do things that interest them AND that might help them get in.
I do think it's important to look just beyond an IQ number. At some point, either for college or even in the work world, you will have to "produce" whatever product they are seeking- activities on your resume to get into college or doing whatever project you must do at your job. You can't go through life simply saying, "My IQ is 160" or "I am a DYS."

Yes, that is it exactly. I was trying and failing to get at this idea. I've seen the damage this kind of conditioning can do: good friends have spent ten years or more and gone through a lot of pain getting over it as best they can.

The worst part is that people in these situations often think that they're the only ones who aren't happy. Everyone around them is so thrilled with being the way we are --- it must be me, right? There's something wrong with me because I'm so unhappy, and it's all my fault and I don't dare talk about it. (Wrong; many or most of the people around you are acting, too).

I think it is causation. While there is no explicit filter, there is simply a strong bias towards candidates with brand name degrees.

There are simply too many highly intelligent people that did not attend a premier college for numerous reasons. Some were late bloomers, and others had poor parental advice. The smartest person I have ever known was almost pushed into a community college by his average IQ parents. And the technology field, where I worked for some time, is full of highly intelligent and successful people. I worked with a person from the University of Rhode Island who created and sold four successful companies (each one actually built and sold product, not just vaporware).

What a fun philosophical spiral... the sweet breath of anti-conformity... introspection is a particular gift of the gifted that can be nurtured to stave off but barring that and mixed in with a lack of awareness in parents of the need for it you get societies that scream for innovation from the sock puppet on one hand and while beating down and turning away the divergent, creative individuals from colleges and jobs with the other.

In order to get into a good school these days you have to spent all of your time doing things you have no interest in doing and you have to do them very well. Whether they mean anything to the student is completely irrelevant. If you can't win through your own effort, you have to cheat because victory here is critical to archive any kind of meaningful future.

Ideally, you have your parents fully supporting you and fully invested in making sure that no errors are committed because any deviation from the ideal will result in catastrophic failure (e.g. not getting into Harvard). You cannot be allowed to make mistakes or spend any time engaged in activities that are not relevant for the task at hand. If there are "holes" in your performance, you must be enabled by your parents, even if it means your parents are the ones actually completing the task and doing the work. Whether you learn anything or achieve anything using your own skill is not relevant. It's too competitive of an environment to make any mistakes at all. If you do make mistakes, they have to be covered up.

It is "all about you" because you have to prove that you *are* better than everyone else within the specific confines of what the college admissions people are looking for. You simply don't have time for anything other than activities whose sole purpose is to create the ideal college application.

You then repeat this same set of activities for graduate school.

Did I get this right?

Am I missing anything?

Nope. That seems to cover it.

Which means, of course, that those of us who don't play the game via deliberately "opting out" yet still have kids that LOOK like those other kids...

wind up with kids that feel that they are probably just about "average" in every way.

That's an unfortunate thing. But in my mind, it's nowhere near as unfortunate as that kind of enmeshed, nitro-fueled hyper-parenting and the kind of anxiety and ennui that I see it producing in kids.

So if that means that choosing NOT to Tiger-parent means that my kid looks like every other Ivy applicant, rather than her "personal best" under this bizarre new system, I still think that I'm going to choose to allow her a real childhood. She puts plenty of pressure on herself without much help from us in this respect.

She also chooses to do certain kinds of community service all on her own. You know, because it makes her feel good to HELP OTHERS? (Unusual concept these days, I know...)

Yeah, I make her practice the piano. Thirty minutes a day, I mean. I also don't choose what she plays. She likes some pretty odd stuff, honestly. Right now she's into variations-- extemporaneously-- on Billy Joel and Elton John, with Gershwin and Grieg thrown in. That's fine. It's personal expression and it's really who she is.


That's me. Sometimes we doubt ourselves. After all, neither of us has an Ivy league pedigree. What if it really does matter as much as "The Machine" seems to want us to think??

Hmmm. Best not to think too hard about that one.

When you actually look hard at admission rates at elite colleges, they aren't THAT low, either. A lot of them admit fully 20-40% of applicants. It isn't as competitive as parents are sometimes being led to believe. I think a lot of this is parents being whipped into a competitive frenzy.

(As Jon has so brilliantly and playfully noted above.)

I think you summed it up pretty well.

I would also add, "And then after that, you wonder why you're so unhappy."

This looks like a book about this particular problem.

"The Price of Privilege: How Parental Pressure and Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of Disconnected and Unhappy Kids"

http://www.amazon.com/The-Price-Privilege-Generation-Disconnected/dp/0060595841

I guess it really depends on what the college is hoping to achieve isn't it? If all that is important to the college is to turn out the most academically advanced students then using only exams for admissions is fine, however, I think that's not the ultimate goal of most colleges.

I think most colleges are looking to turn out successful individuals who are productive, happy, and strong in mind, body, and spirit. That is more likely to happen when the prospective student has already demonstrated they can achieve that criteria prior to college with college being an expansion and continuation rather than the start of everything but academic success.

Basing college admissions on exam results would certainly be an option, however, then look what we've forced students into doing for college admissions....doing nothing but study to the test in order to be competitive. Is that what we really want? Narrowing it completely down to how well you've studied / ability to meet the demands of one test? Do you think that makes for a well rounded and happy individual? Do we want students to wait until their in college to explore anything else but academics? I certainly don't.

Even if your goals are strictly academic, basing admissions only on exam results is suboptimal, because studies have always found that the best predictor of college grades is a COMBINATION of standardized test scores and high school grades, NOT test scores alone. Based on her previous messages I think Val envisions exams that are different from the SAT or ACT (they would be primarily essay exams), but I don't think these results would change.

Both high school grades and test scores load on intelligence. Grades have a higher loading on persistence and diligence than test scores do, and these qualities certainly matter for college success.

Somehow emotional maturity and stability needs to be taken into account, too.

I had high test scores and high grades, however I completely collapsed in college because of a failure to adapt to the social and academic environment. Essentially, I had no ability or knowledge how to self-regulate.

In hindsight, there was no sense whatsoever in wasting a perfectly good engineering scholarship on me.

While I don't know you, your experience shows my point. Perhaps with a broader range of life experiences prior to college your experience would have been different. That's what colleges are trying to gauge using those other factors (Leadership experience, volunteerism, extracurricular activities, etc.) Does this person have the life skills to not only be able to handle our college academically but do they have the persistence, mental stability, communication skills, social skills, confidence, determination, and disciple needed to be a successful college student at this college?

A college student with the highest of all exam scores has little benefit to a college if they don't have the rest of the skills required to complete a degree for starters. If the student has the ability to not only complete the degree but share what they've learned with others as a leader in a meaningful and charismatic way, better yet. Yes, it's competition, like most competitions more than one skill or characteristic is needed to win.

Nope. I had a extensive set of extracurricular and leadership items.

My resume was flawless.

Truly a work of art.

At the time, I viewed my fellow college students the same way I viewed my fellow high school students. They were existential competitive threats to my success and well-being.

Why would you share and collaborate with people you were trying to crush and defeat?

This is the point I've been trying to make. When you MUST do all these activities, and you MUST excel at them, you aren't doing them for healthy reasons, and you won't get the benefits that would get from doing things just because they interest you or are otherwise important for healthy reasons.

Healthy: I need to save money for college. I'll get a summer job. Hmm. If I pass these swimming classes, I can be a lifeguard and earn decent money and I'll get to be at the pool.

or

Hmm. This internship in marine biology in the Bahamas looks way cool. I'm thinking of studying marine biology and this would be a good way to see if I really like the subject.

Unhealthy: I must do something this summer that will make my application essay competitive!! I am too good for one of those dull jobs that the other kids get, and besides, colleges don't care about those kinds of jobs!! Mom and dad will help me find something to do in a foreign country. I can write about that!

ETA: I don't really understand why exotic has come to mean better in college applications. To me, it really means upper middle class or wealthier. I personally think that someone with a more pedestrian history of summer jobs would be more likely to succeed later, primarily because s/he learned how to go to work every day and do stuff that is not always interesting.

Ah, the "Conan" theory....
"What is the best thing in life?" (Arnold voice) "To crush your enemies and zee zem driven before you!"
Yeah, that rarely pays off unless you plan on working by yourself for the rest of your life and never need any help with anything. It takes some far too long to learn that I'm afraid.

The way I look at it, if the requirements for admissions of a college aren't what you think they should be, then perhaps it's time to start looking at another college. Matching the person with the college is extremely important for success in college as well.

I was thrilled when I got to college that I no longer had to engage in any activities to bolster my resume. I was finally free to do *absolutely nothing at all*.

Plus, I was completely burnt out.

In hindsight, the solution wasn't to withdraw, sleep, eat pizza, and play computer games 20 hours a day. That really just made things worse.

This is why I really dislike competition, even academic competition. Seeing your peers as your enemy really doesn't help with anything.

Nothing wrong with competition as long as it remains healthy competition. By that I mean, knowing when to put it away and focus on more important things. I like to use the example of Rugby, most teams go at it tooth and nail on the field, then when the game is done leave the competition on the field and go have a couple of beers together and become the best of friends. It takes maturity to do that though, or at least an appreciation of what sportsmanship and healthy competition is about.

It's always a trade off, I certainly don't blame you and for your kids it may very well be best. For our family we found that our kids preferred the company of older kids anyway for the sake of maturity, so subject acceleration served the best of both worlds.

But many kids have no concept of even thinking in these terms. They've been conditioned to believe that this is what they're supposed to be doing. Therefore, it is a good match.

They don't even start to figure stuff out until much later. If they figure it out at all. I wonder how many unhappy youngish adults we have who don't even perceive the roots of their problems, much less understand them.

That's what parental guidance is for.

The problem is that this is *caused* by parental guidance.

It seems everyone is looking for the silver bullet here. There isn't one so long as humans aren't perfect in their judgment. If parents don't guide, there can be a problem, if they guide too much, it's a problem, if they guide slightly off base due to lack of experience or not understanding "The system" or their child, it's a problem. If the colleges don't cater to somebody's idea of what is "fair" for college entrance then it's a problem. See why this subject matter is a problem? As I told my kids when they were young, "Everybody poops"

The system isn't perfect, we don't make the system though nor are we likely to change it. So the best way to deal with it is to find out where in the system we fit in best or simply not to play the game and land where we might. It's each person's choice.

Sounds a bit like an excuse to stop thinking about the problem ignore the status quo.

Debate and criticism are healthy and help us see problems. Not to mention the fact that people who aren't wealthy are at a big disadvantage in this game. Our society talks about fixing SES-related problems, but doesn't seem to want to actually find meaningful solutions.

The Ideal Overprogrammed Non-Introspective Young Adult problem is actually only possible when you have enough wealth to run the program at a high level to create the Perfect Shiny Resume(TM)

Kind of counterintuitive, isn't it?

To be honest, I don't think there is a problem. What I think is that many are expecting whatever college they apply to should cater to their thought pattern of fair admissions and if their application wasn't enough, then the college's admissions process if flawed. I don't see it that way, I see it as a poor fit......and that's what the admissions process if for, seeing if the student and college are a good fit. Process successful!

I thought that we were talking about the problem of flooding the world with unhappy Ivy League Automata, meaning those who actually got into the Ivy League (or other elite schools, MIT, etc.).

Hmm... college, SES, and parental guidance... I wish I had guided my parents more relating to college and particularly costs.

This thread made me think there should be a market for a book on preparing for college aimed towards gifted youngsters who need to educate their parents (and themselves) on the subject particularly as 1st generation college bound. Google is my friend...
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rm93201/rm93201.html

Looks like a really cool resource.

Thanks Zen, I'll make sure to pass that link along!

I'm going to take a crack at this Self-Awareness thingy from Zen Scanner's link to see if I can answer it in the style of an Ivy League Automata:

"Before you begin the college planning and preparation process, you will need to gather some basic information about yourself:

What types of subjects, activities, and jobs do you like? Which ones you do not like?

Answer: "I like any subject, activity, or job that will help me get into Harvard. I don't like whatever Harvard doesn't like. My parents make these decisions for me."

Which skills and abilities do you possess?

Answer: "I am very good at doing activities that are important to get me into Harvard."

What do you believe are your strongest areas? Your weakest?

Answer: "I don't have any weaknesses. My parents think that I am awesome!"

What are your values? What is most important to you? Very important? Unimportant?

Answer: "I think that being a successful professional is critical to my success. Succeeding is the most important thing to me. I want to avoid failure at all costs so failure is unimportant."

What are some of your future school and career goals? What you see yourself doing in five or ten years?

Answer: "I see myself pursuing three careers at the same time. I want to be an Investment Banker, an Attorney Who Gets Paid Lots of Money to Help the Poor, and a Dermatologist. This is why I want to get into Harvard because Harvard will help me achieve these goals. I also want to run a big art charity to help people."

What kinds of environment do you prefer? Big cities? Small towns?

Answer: "I want to be where I can be successful."

Interesting link with some good stuff...just note that it was published almost 20 years ago.

I don't like that the college application process has changed over the past 20-30 years, but it is just something that our kids have to deal with. While you can hire the college consultant in 8th grade, and he'll plan all of your HS courses with just the right mix of courses to maintain a high GPA, teach you ways to game standardized tests, carefully pick your sports, arts & community extracurricular activities...most kids do just fine if they follow their interests.

But true, for all that.

That is the problem, bottom line.

It isn't that colleges are using "unfair" screening processes (though that is also a side-effect of this phenonmenon), so much as that they are selecting for things which should be a proxy for high potential, but all-too-often are only a proxy for high SES, and are becoming ever moreso.

That I find objectionable, yes. I find it objectionable because it is disingenuous as a process to select for high SES when you say that you are selecting for "best and brightest" instead.

Guiding a child-- even one with the capacity-- to the levels evidently necessary to be Ivy-league material as a high school student is frankly beyond the means of most lower-middle-class households. Please note that 'means' there signifies much more than financial means. When both parents work full time and the student attends a low SES public school, the resources are simply not there for that child. I was one of those kids. If the climate had been what it is now, there is no way that I'd have racked up the elite college acceptances that I did. I simply had a regular kind of job and band as my extracurriculars, I had no leadership or travel, no volunteer hours, etc. That, coupled with very high SAT scores, was enough. At least it was then.

I agree with Val's assertion that "exotic" has come to mean something in this process that really isn't backed by any kind of research on outcomes.

Today my wife informed me that our daughter, age five, will start taking golf lessons -- in a family where no one has ever golfed. When I asked why, she said "Title IX".

Title IX was supposed to promote "gender equity" , but as a recent NYT article

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/s...k-female-athletes-equal-opportunity.html
Black and White Women Far From Equal Under Title IX
By WILLIAM C. RHODEN
June 10, 2012

describes, the pursuit of one definition of equity can lead to inequity by another definition. The wife has also thought of making little girl row, since female rowers are sought by the Ivies. I agree this is all pretty silly but find it more amusing than disturbing.

The young lady next door to us commited to a small northern college when she was a Freshman in HS. She was awarded a full athletic scholarship......for (wait for it)........Bowling.
Granted, she did bowl a 300 game as a Freshman, certainly skilled no doubt.

My son is doing fencing, mainly b/c it is one of the only sports that u can easily wear a hearing aid. It is definitely unique too

My BIL did that sport, too.

He got into Harvard (didn't attend - no scholarship), so it's definitely Harvard-approved.

Oops, a twenty year old article, though looks like mostly good info. Speaking of college requirements... had ran across a reference to Lockhart's Lament, a biting paper discussing math education from the pov of a mathematician ( http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf ), has this funny quote interlude in it:
“You mean Paint-by-Numbers? We’re seeing much higher enrollments lately. I think it’s mostly coming from parents wanting to make sure their kid gets into a good college. Nothing looks better than Advanced Paint-by-Numbers on a high school transcript.”
“Why do colleges care if you can fill in numbered regions with the corresponding color?”
“Oh, well, you know, it shows clear-headed logical thinking. And of course if a student is planning to major in one of the visual sciences, like fashion or interior decorating, then it’s really a good idea to get your painting requirements out of the way in high school.”

Below is the list of activities and sports that Harvard asks about on its application form http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/forms/supplement_1213.pdf . Fencing, crew, and golf, which have been mentioned in this thread, are all listed. There have probably been many College Confidential threads about how these activities rank in the Harvard hierarchy. I don't think Harvard cares as much about frisbee as football. Sorry Val and HK, this is how the game is played .

01 Arts, Visual Arts
02 Dramatics
03 Vocal Music
04 Band
05 Orchestra
06 Writing / Literary Magazine
07 Journalism
08 Student Government
09 Debate
10 Social Service
11 Ethnic Groups
12 Religious Groups
13 Political Groups
14 Dance
15 Outdoor Activities
16 Baseball
17 Basketball
18 Crew–Heavyweight
19 Crew–Lightweight
20 Fencing
21 Field Hockey
22 Football
23 Golf
24 Hockey
25 Lacrosse
26 Sailing
27 Ski–Alpine
28 Ski–Nordic Racing
29 Soccer
30 Softball
31 Squash
32 Swimming/Diving
33 Tennis
34 Track/Cross-Country
35 Volleyball
36 Water Polo
37 Wrestling
38 Cheerleading
39 Martial Arts
40 MUN
41 LGBT Groups
42 ROTC
43 Badminton
44 Equestrian Sports/Polo
45 Frisbee
46 Rugby
47 Pre-Professional Groups
48 Environmental Groups

There still no way around the fact that an Elite School(TM) would devastate my savings, so I'm not on board for financial reasons.

They are not friendly to relatively low-income (under six figures) hypersavers.

A lot of the posts in this thread have been in reference to Ivy League schools and how difficult it is to gain admission. A great education and a good career can be had outside of those schools, so why bother with a system that drives people nuts? There are lots of other quality choices.

Because the perception is that these schools allow you access to jobs, such as I-banking, wall street finance, and business consulting that allow you to potentially climb the SES ladder and escape the grinding mediocrity and despair of middle class existence without having to go to med school and get one of the ROAD specialties. (I think I have this one right.)

Well, that and they *are* important if you have the insane idea that you want to go do law school because the status of a Good School makes it much easier to get into to a Good Law School. It's kind of entertaining to watch the entire Law School Complex slowly implode, but that has nothing to do with this.

What's interesting here is that the desire to get into such schools because of how the game is played after college is the very reason many people are complaining about getting into that college.....how the game is played. We could take this a step further with, "It's unfair that getting lawyer positions are based off of where one goes to college, it should be based off of the bar exam scores and nothing else!"

If the game wasn't played that way with a specific college determining / helping to determine who gets those high paying jobs, then there wouldn't be such a big deal about getting into Ivy League schools and we wouldn't have to worry about making made to order admissions applications. There's a top down problem for people to solve.

I'm not quite certain that the Ivy League graduates will be happy to fix the system so that their credentials and status are devalued. In part, I'm basing this on what I call the "Amy Chua" archetype. Watching her bail on Duke to climb the Law Status ladder was fun.

I'm more confident that the College Debt Industrial Complex (and Medical Debt Industrial Complex) will implode sometimes within the next 10 to 20 years.

My current hobby is to watch the Law School Complex implode.

... I entirely agree with you, Jon.



Which is why we've opted out of the game, actually. We encourage DD to do things that matter to HER, or seem to provide a chance to mature in healthy ways. I notice that 4-H activities aren't on Harvard's list, nor is any sort of animal training aside from equestrian activities... so in short, being a student leader, a competitive dog trainer and handler in several events, a math tutor, an intermediate jazz pianist, and working with kids in community activities all counts for nothing in the face of another applicant who is, say... an openly transgendered cheerleader with an active interest in pole-dancing. Apparently, I mean.

George Fox or even the local public Uni is looking better and better, tyvm.

What I'm getting from you then is, "If the system is as flawed as we think it is, it will sort itself our within a couple of decades"? I'm not disagreeing with you, just seeing if my perception is clear of what your mindset is. That's pretty much what I've been saying as well. If it's that flawed, then don't play the game. If you're that concerned about the flawed system, you can search for the cure but before you change the world of college admissions, if it is indeed as flawed as you think it is, then it will self correct before you can have any effect on it.

It appears that participating in 4-H and similar activities hurts your chances of getting into competitive private colleges. One is of course free to set different goals or not mention such activities on a college application.

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/07/how_diversity_punishes_asians.html
How Diversity Punishes Asians, Poor Whites and Lots of Others
By Russell K. Nieli
July 12, 2010

...

But what Espenshade and Radford found in regard to what they call "career-oriented activities" was truly shocking even to this hardened veteran of the campus ideological and cultural wars. Participation in such Red State activities as high school ROTC, 4-H clubs, or the Future Farmers of America was found to reduce very substantially a student's chances of gaining admission to the competitive private colleges in the NSCE database on an all-other-things-considered basis. The admissions disadvantage was greatest for those in leadership positions in these activities or those winning honors and awards. "Being an officer or winning awards" for such career-oriented activities as junior ROTC, 4-H, or Future Farmers of America, say Espenshade and Radford, "has a significantly negative association with admission outcomes at highly selective institutions." Excelling in these activities "is associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds of admission."

From an institution's standpoint, this makes perfect sense.

In order to grow your endowment and sustain your position, you want to stock up on potential future wealthy donors.

Activities that show a student having an interest in going into farming are probably not going to become wall street traders. The risk is that they will never be able to make that $2,000,000 donation to Elite U. The same is true for ROTC. There is little money in being a service member.

Also, I think that the *entire* educational system (particularly K-JD) as it is currently configured does very little to help people develop into being better people. It needs to be replaced with a better "system", meaning less bureaucratic and more flexible.

It's current weakness is that it's larding people up with massive non-dischargable debt. That crisis is just beginning obvious, which means that it's not going to become a political problem for years.

I was playing with the hypothesis that the primary selection criteria is "projected size of future endowment" that study seems to support it.

What I find ironic about that, though, is that this may be mostly a matter of where such programs have typically continued to thrive, Bostonian.

My own locale is anomolous there-- the county has probably 10-20% of the state's 4-H leadership positions at any one time, but is one of the bluest places on the west coast (and I think it's obvious that such a statement is really saying something, no?). It also has a very high per capita participation rate in 4-H, and a land-grant institution with both a vet and pharmacy school. Faculty brats abound in our 4-H program here, let's just say.

So these are kids being raised in an extraordinarily left-leaning environment.

SCOUTING, I could see included there, as there is a definite ideological bias implied (scouting is not very big here, as one might imagine). FFA I'd also agree is "career-oriented" in the way that seems to be implied. 4-H, though? Not-so-much. It's a little Norman Rockwell, sure... but the national message about the mission? "Youth development." Period-- not about anything else other than developing kids into conscientious, responsible, and resilient young adults with some ability to act in leadership roles.

It's frankly crazy to me (and I've seen 4-H programs up close and personal for quite some time now) that elite colleges would deliberately shun such students. Kids who keep with the program through their high school years tend to have a truly phenomenal work ethic, which is something sadly lacking in many college-bound students.

I'm guessing that 4-H is included primarily because it is seen as a proxy for kids that haven't had any high dollar opportunities. Which kind of proves my point all over again re: high SES.

Or it's possible that relatively few of those students apply to Ivies in the first place, being rather more pragmatic about higher education. Also possible that the demands of 4-H (which are admittedly high in some project areas like equestrian events or community service clubs) preclude some of those flashier activities, leading to a relative lack of things like crew or golf.

Or-- 4-H is available in places and to kids that don't have those other opportunities. We'd have to drive 78 mi one way to access decent fencing instruction, for example.

I think the point is that this problem is a societal problem, not something at the level of individuals. I'm very concerned that we're creating a nation of young adults who've been taught how to climb a ladder, rather than taught how to make thoughtful decisions. Obviously, the problem is bigger than admissions at competitive colleges, but the admissions process is still a huge problem.

Bostonian's message about his wife taking his five-year-old to golf lessons to improve her chances for getting into college is a case in point. The tiger mom movement is another case in point. We toured a local prep school last year and the parent who spoke to the group spent (I am not making this up) at least 15 minutes talking about admissions to IVY LEAGUE SCHOOLS!!! I could go on. It's completely insane, and IMO, it does serious damage to our kids and young adults.

Education as a whole (there are exceptions of course) seems to have stopped being about creating thoughtful citizens and is now more about, I don't know, shallow stuff.

I think some of the blame lies within the credit bubble. Massive generation of credit that has no reason to exist will cause massive distortions all over the place.

You're giving out free money with no relationship to actual value, like the dot-com instant millionaires and the recent financial fraud. So, the way to the top is status climbing rather than actual work.

Of course, that ended in 2007, so it's going to take a few decades and some sort of massive inflation/default event to really reveal what was going on.

(soberly) Yes, it has. Taking a big step back from mainstream cultural messages is the only way that most parents ever see it for what it has become, I think.

Most parents are fully enmeshed with it, and never question the subliminal messaging re: tiger-parenting.

An enforced step out of the mainstream is, in my own opinion, a terrific blessing and gift in terms of parenting, because it does give one the opportunity to choose more thoughtfully and with greater awareness.

{By the way, for anyone that has ever wondered, this is rather what my signature line means. It's an inside family joke, but it's also a serious allegory. When you can't live in the mainstream even if you wanted to-- be that for 2E, HG+, etc.-- you live with a Howler Monkey loose in the house. Surprise! NOW what seems most important?? Thought so.}

The magical fountain of money may have run out for the time being, but the social climbing is still alive and well. Example; I know people who moved from a blue area where they were contributors to blue causes and politicians, who now live in one of our nation's reddest states and...hang around with/support tea party politicians. Beliefs or what might be right or wrong are irrelevant. It's all about status.

They wised up .

...Except that they go back to being blue when they're with blue types....

They're probably just people with extremely high emotional sensitivity to the extent that they are literally overwhelmed by the emotional response of their peers with respect to their peers redness and blueness.

Have you noticed whether they cry during commercials when one of the actors or actresses look sad?

Do they donate all their time to finding homes for animals at the local animal shelter?

I wish I could say that, but I think they laugh.

I suppose you can look at the bright side.

They're certainly not rigid ideologues, right?

And they're funny! They laugh!

Because they have intuited what was documented by the following paper, which has been much-discussed online:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027656241000065X
Ivies, extracurriculars, and exclusion: Elite employers’ use of educational credentials
Lauren A. Rivera
Abstract
Although a robust literature has demonstrated a positive relationship between education and socio-economic attainment, the processes through which formal schooling yields enhanced economic and social rewards remain less clear. Employers play a crucial role in explaining the returns to formal schooling yet little is known about how employers, particularly elite employers, use and interpret educational credentials. In this article, I analyze how elite professional service employers use and interpret educational credentials in real-life hiring decisions. I find that educational credentials were the most common criteria employers used to solicit and screen resumes. However, it was not the content of education that elite employers valued but rather its prestige. Contrary to common sociological measures of institutional prestige, employers privileged candidates who possessed a super-elite (e.g., top four) rather than selective university affiliation. They restricted competition to students with elite affiliations and attributed superior abilities to candidates who had been admitted to super-elite institutions, regardless of their actual performance once there. However, a super-elite university affiliation was insufficient on its own. Importing the logic of university admissions, firms performed a strong secondary screen on candidates’ extracurricular accomplishments, favoring high status, resource-intensive activities that resonated with white, upper-middle class culture. I discuss these findings in terms of the changing nature of educational credentialism to suggest that (a) extracurricular activities have become credentials of social and moral character that have monetary conversion value in labor markets and (b) the way employers use and interpret educational credentials contributes to a social closure of elite jobs based on socio-economic status.

************************************************

Some other research on whether college prestige affects earnings -- the findings are mixed -- is surveyed at

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/college-prestige-matters.html
College Prestige Lies
By Robin Hanson
March 22, 2009

Earlier there were videos by Davidson Talent Development that I can't find now.  One of them was about "early college".  It went into detail about the ways you can tell and the reasons your kid might need or benefit from early college.   When the video only described how to identify an early college candidate I thought to myself, "they are or they aren't. and they will or they won't.  they're ready whenever they're ready.  isn't that the easy obvious part?"

Then I read this thread on the Well Trained Mind forum:

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/showthread.php?t=419614

Inside this thread uncovers an apparent trend of parents who are planning to rush their children through school to graduate with a bare minimum of credits to go through a college like Phoenix online, not even a community college. Yes, the distinction needs to be made between kids who are educated and competitive at a younger age and kids who are rushed into getting the easiest diploma.  I didn't know until reading that thread that there was a need for a PSA to distinguish between the two.

A good answer to this one is that in many cases, self-worth, meaning people's sense of their own value appears to be dependent on status and elitism.

Did I go to an Ivy League school?

Do I have an Elite Job?

Can I still become a Power-CEO or is it too late?

If not handled right, it results in suicide.

I know of two specific people who blew their brains out, in part, because of catastrophic status failure (for lack of a better word). One a lawyer, the other a specialist doctor.

That's part of what scares me about much of the thread. I'm hearing, "In order to get a job at the elite companies, they base their hiring practices a great deal on if the candidate came from an Ivy League school."

To that I have to ask, "Is that what is going to take to make that person happy? Having a job with an elite company? As for me and mine, we're quite content in jobs we feel passionate about and / or take pride in making a reasonable living and using the time outside of our normal working hours jobs to pursue other passions. In short, work to live, don't live to work. Everyone is different of course, if it takes an elite job to make someone happy, by all means, play the game of the Ivy League schools / Elite companies.

It seems to be a mindless game. When people get too wrapped up in it, it causes severe problems.

My personal problem is that I lack any passion for my job, take no pride in it, and have no passion for anything outside of working hours, ergo I'm bored out of my mind.

Which is why I say that I never figured out what to go to with myself and I couldn't begin to tell you what makes me happy.

On the plus side, since I don't actually have any real status, I'm extremely unlikely to take my own life due to "status failure".

The physician who killed himself was found by his 14 year old daughter. I'm thinking that's going to cause a bit of psychological trauma. It seems to be triggered by severe career path failures.

Clearly many people are in need of Howler Monkeys; that epiphany that comes with stripping away all of the things that do NOT matter in order to distill to those which really do.

To some people, that will indicate the need to pursue an Ivy league education and all that goes with it. For those folks, the status IS the most crucial thing.

To others, however, it will signify an awakening to the realization that life is too short to spend it chasing status rather than other inner needs. That is the path that we have found ourselves upon. It probably won't be right for others, but it feels right for us and our daughter.

I agree that people should think about what will make them happy and what they think is worthwhile. One study portrayed a grim life for entry-level investment bankers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204062704577223623824944472.html
Hazard of the Trade: Bankers' Health
By LESLIE KWOH
Wall Street Journal
February 15, 2012

Add investment banking to the list of things that could be dangerous to your health.

A University of Southern California researcher found insomnia, alcoholism, heart palpitations, eating disorders and an explosive temper in some of the roughly two dozen entry-level investment bankers she shadowed fresh out of business school.

Every individual she observed over a decade developed a stress-related physical or emotional ailment within several years on the job, she says in a study to be published this month.

Investment banking has long been a beacon for ambitious people who crave competition, big money, steak dinners and paid-for town-car service. The 100-hour workweek, these ironmen and ironwomen tell themselves, is just the opening ante in a high-stakes game.

But investment bankers, salespeople and traders are only human. Under the immense stress of their jobs, many suffer personal and emotional problems that escalate into full-blown crises, with some bankers developing conditions that linger long after they have left the industry.

Of course, no one is being drafted into high finance. Aspiring Wall Street stars sign up for the punishing hours with eyes open. What's more, the study's small size and the lack of a control group raise questions about how closely the findings apply to the broader population of roughly 267,000 would-be masters of the universe.

******************************************************

The published study is
Michel, A.A. (2011). Transcending socialization: A nine-year ethnography of the body’s role in organizational control and knowledge worker transformation. Administrative Science Quarterly: 54: 1-44.

As a finance person, I honestly don't understand why anyone who is not a workaholic would want to become an investment banker. The work requirements truly are as bad as described. And if it was all about the money, there are some other finance jobs that pay as well or better but allow close to a normal life.

But returning to the latest topic on this evolving thread: I am quite sure that I was considered for my finance job because of my MIT degree. If I did not attend a top 10 school, I would not have made it in the door.

Students seeking to attend college for status rather than to learn are more likely to cheat. There is a current story about many Harvard students who may have cheated on a take-home final exam in political science. There is a lot of vitriol in the comments at the Harvard Crimson article on this, but the following comment is interesting:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/8/30/academic-dishonesty-ad-board/#comment-635012657
Former TA and resident tutor at Harvard (5 years). I was very surprised to observe how many students studied for exams at Harvard. Instead of trying to master the material individually, many of them would band together in groups (5, 20, sometimes even larger) and create "study guides" by splitting up the material and each contributing a few pages to a small booklet of notes. They would then focus on memorizing the booklet, sometimes with haphazard results. As a TA for several large courses, I noticed that on final exams students would often simply regurgitate anything remotely related to the topic of the question; many of these "essays" had a canned feel because they came straight from the same guide that their classmates were using. The solution? 1) Admissions: stop looking for activity stars, and start looking for students who are intellectually curious and care about learning; 2) Campus culture: needs to change; there are too many students who focus on clubs and CVs, and who don't care enough about learning to think for themselves -- instead they prefer to take the easy way out, shopping for gut classes over house lists and relying on sloppily prepared guides; 3) Professors: need to stand up to the task of education; inspire students to value deep understanding over shallow cleverness, effort and integrity over quick results. There is a culture of ego at Harvard that engulfs students and teachers. It is part of the game to make things easy for everyone and pump one another up. Not enough professors take a stand against grade inflation, etc., because really putting in the time to teach would take away from research. Not enough students take the responsibility of learning seriously -- the comment from the student at the end of the article is indicative of an expectation to be spoonfed "the right answers."

My roomate in law school tried I-banking for a couple of years.

Eventually, he decided to get into BigLaw and then go in-house.

I don't think he really enjoyed those 100 hour workweeks.

This was pretty standard for law school and high school. All cheating, all the time.

I didn't really see much cheating in engineering undergrad.

I do not think everyone who wants to go to an Ivy league school is simply chasing status. I went to Harvard for medical school because I felt, frankly, it was the best in the USA. I found most of the lecturers to be phenomenal, the physical structure of the place (the library, the computers), to be incredible, the resources were spectacular.
My classmates were similarly incredible.
Having some very elite names on my resume has helped me long-term pursue my dreams/goals, which were not to work at elite companies. It has opened lots and lots of doors. We hope our children will also go to Ivy league (or similar) schools since it opens lots of job opportunities and affords unique life/learning experiences.

Uh, this is pretty much "status" and why "status" is pursued.

Although in the legal complex right now, "status" is more linked to "ability to actually pay back your $200,000 loans."

Maybe I'm just naive, but I was not aware of any cheating when I was at Harvard Law School. There definitely were study groups, but not outright cheating.

Open book take home exams were where it occurred, not in the actual proctored exams.

Well, OK, I guess. I lived off-campus, so I took most of those exams sitting in the library. I didn't observe any group work or other obvious cheating based on what I saw, but there could have been some in the dorms that I didn't see. Take-home tests are really just 6-hour tests with no restrictions on where you can work at Harvard - you pick your exam up at 10 AM, write for six hours, and turn it in at 4PM. I can't remember more than maybe one class where I kept a test overnight.

Now, I also tried to take in-class exam classes rather than take-home exams or (god forbid) papers whenever possible. So maybe I was just exposed to less of it.