Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion How to get noticed by college admissions officers?

All I can say is that is what the whole article was about. It's in the Nov/Dec Stanford Alumni Mag. So I have no idea if it's true, or if it's just the party line.

What on earth in a "verbal" for an 8th grade kid? If it's not a written agreement that the coach can choose not to honor, what good it is?

You can't sign a National Letter of Intent (NLI) until your senior year of HS. Before then it isn't really a done deal. Many verbals are honored - my eldest played on a team with a kid who had a verbal with our State Flagship U in 10th grade - she is now in her 2nd year there and playing her sport. And at DIII schools you can't sign an NLI, so DIII recruits are all verbals.

However, even at DIII schools, you can use your sport to help with admissions. Eldest had a coach from a "top" LAC contact her after the application deadline and told her she could still apply - coach would hand carry her application over to admissions. Kid did not want to play an outdoor sport in an area that experiences subzero temperatures, so she did not apply, but sports can help with admissions at many schools.

Q. How to get noticed by college admissions officers?

Exhibit leadership.

http://www.theatlantic.com/educatio...olleges-obsessed-with-leadership/283253/
Why Are American Colleges Obsessed With 'Leadership'?
What's wrong with being a follower? Or a lone wolf?
by TARA ISABELLA BURTON
The Atlantic
January 22 2014, 11:54 AM

Earlier this month, more than 700,000 students submitted the Common Application for college admissions. They sent along academic transcripts and SAT scores, along with attestations of athletic or artistic success and—largely uniform—bodies of evidence speaking to more nebulously-defined characteristics: qualities like—to quote the Harvard admissions website—“maturity, character, leadership, self-confidence, warmth of personality, sense of humor, energy, concern for others and grace under pressure.”

Why are American colleges so interested in leadership? On the Harvard admissions website quoted above, leadership is listed third: just after two more self-evident qualities. So too the Yale website, which quotes former Yale president Kingman Brewster's assessment that “We have to make the hunchy judgment as to whether or not with Yale’s help the candidate is likely to be a leader in whatever he [or she] ends up doing.” Our goals remain the same today” before going on to stress that “We are looking for students we can help to become the leaders of their generation in whatever they wish to pursue.”

The language of Princeton dean Janet Lavin Rapeleye in The New York Times is strikingly similar: “We look for qualities that will help [students] become leaders in their fields and in their communities.” (So too Princeton's admissions website, which lists leadership prominently in its section on extracurriculars: “We look for students who make a difference in their schools and communities, so tell us about your leadership activities, interests, special skills and other extracurricular involvements.”) In his study The Gatekeepers, Jacques Steinberg describes how the admissions officers at Wesleyan scored the “personal” section of an applicant's portfolio: “A 9 [out of 9] at Wesleyan...someone 'sure to “have significant impact on campus in leadership roles”; a 7 or 6 would be assigned to someone who was “likely to be a leader in some areas, contributor to many.”

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

It's not difficult for highly gifted students to demonstrate the academic achievement (SAT scores, AP scores and coursework)
showing that they are ready for college at a young age, but demonstrating "leadership" may be more difficult.

Thanks, as usual, for contributing a great article as food for thought.

Some may say the article's concluding questions, "Do we need a graduating class full of leaders? Or should schools actively seek out diversity in interpersonal approaches—as they do in everything else?" may sidestep the obvious point that the article is focused on highly selective institutions and their preference in screening for leadership attributes; Prospective students which the article describes as followers or lone wolves may attend elsewhere and do quite well. At the same time, not all young leaders will attend highly selective institutions.

Like other soft skills, leadership may come more easily to some students than others, but it can be developed. Interested parents may find the works of Tim Elmore and Cal Newport to be helpful.

Also interesting was the article's link to a related column on the history of admissions.

Thanks again for a great article. I have shared your post.

I think that this also overlooks the (perhaps blindingly) obvious issue of "if they are all '9's then who is DOING all of the activities that these people are 'leading' on campus, anyway?"

I mean, I hate to ask the STUPID question there, but if you are "organizing" community service activities for MLK day, you do need "participants."

There's a reason for the aphorism about "too many Chiefs and not enough Indians." Top-heavy social structures fail because of a plethora of decision-makers and a paucity of people willing to follow others' good ideas. KWIM?

So yes, I find the myopic focus on "leadership" (to the exclusion of other worthy activities in which "active participation" is listed) kind of bizarre.

Some of my DD's less savory classmates playing this game come off as both petulant and sulky-- DEFINITELY as poor sports and not team players-- because they don't DO anything unless they are the titular "president" or "leader" or "organizer." They say "no thanks" to group efforts.

How is that good citizenship?? That's like refusing to vote unless you're anticipating being elected to office.

Here's an interesting look, a professor from the MIT admissions office discussing how Maker's should present their activities on an admissions resume (this thread got me wondering if encouraging DS's taking things apart and repurposing has potential payoffs.) She provides some interest perspective on just what is meaningful:

http://fora.tv/2013/05/19/MITs_Dr_Dawn_Wendell_When_Makers_Apply_to_College

Does anyone else find all of this very depressing? You know, in a way that shouts that admissions committees are looking for lots of stuff while not being terribly concerned about substance?

I wonder how this will all end. I suspect that a lot of these poor kids just burn out and/or get very jaded.

Yes, and I see some very burned out high school kids. And ones who get very depressed when the college acceptances comes in.

Although I have been told that admissions committees are looking more for kids that do a few things that they are committed to and do well. Than those that join a lot of clubs activities to "pad" their college apps.

Thanks. This thread is making me remember something I read about overscheduled kids. Someone's son was good at drawing and a parent (think it was dad) decided that he should be enrolled in a drawing class.

The child got upset and said, "Why does it always have to be a class?!? Why does everything I like always have to involve work? Why can't I just draw because it's FUN??"