Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Do you list DYS on a college application?

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.

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."