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

My little people are far too young for me to be worrying about this but my friend has a daughter who is a freshman in high school. Her daughter is bright, great grades, and is an accomplished ballerina. She is currently planning for two futures. One where she joins a ballet co. right after high school and one where she goes to university.
What are the best ways to get on the radar of college admissions officers? I'd love to advise her on how to get a leg up.

By doing what she loves without thinking about whether others will, too.

It really shows in applications-- even in the cohort of kids who are well-rounded, great students.

It also depends on what she means by "college admissions officers."

WHICH colleges?

She's got that in spades!

I don't think she is thinking ahead to college yet. I sent her a list of the top ballet universities in the country and asked her to pick 5 to focus on. I will see what she chooses!

If she goes to college, will it be for dance? I don't have experience in the arts, but if she goes for dance, there will be auditions in addition to the regular college admission process. If she wants to get into a top school, she needs to be really, really good - not being good on a local/regional level, but being good on a national level.

If she doesn't want to go to school for dance, she should probably have some other ECs. Maybe something academic, like math team, quiz bowl team, Model UN, debate, etc. Being a part of student government is another good EC. Community service is big too - tutor younger kids, help out at a soup kitchen, etc. She needs to choose which ECs appeal to her.

Even if you do all of this, being "well-rounded" doesn't help much at the elite schools. If you can't do something well enough to be recognized at the national level, then best to do something really unusual (but best if you are passionate about it - not just something for college apps).

My eldest is a college freshman and she didn't get into any elite schools (waitlisted at one). She had pretty good grades, good SAT & ACT scores and was well-rounded, but there are tons of applicants like her.

If she lives in an area like ours, there are plenty of college consultants to guide you (for $5K). They start in 8th grade and plan your high school courses, ECs, etc. She should be able to figure out on her own what she needs to do. She can read posts on College Confidential if she wants to find out more about the admissions process. Good luck to her.

Do we think this is still true? I sure hope so.

DD has some unusual interests that she is genuinely passionate about. OTOH, she doesn't play a sport and is unlikely to be a leader in clubs or at school. She is not the type to amass a resume of frenzied extracurricular activities. If past performance holds, she will have exceptional grades and top achievement test scores. She is already a phenomenal writer.

I presented a similar package back in the '90s and got into some very good schools. But I understand that things have changed dramatically.

It depends-- as the previous post indicates, it helps to have an UNUSUAL package of genuine interests.

Like... hosting a tabletop RPG tourney at the local children's hospital... being a competitive fly-tying champ... being a competent recorder soloist who plays early music... someone who built their own full-sized trebuchet for a local museum...

that kind of thing.

I agree with this - you can try to fake a great college app or buy a great college-entry resume, but at the end of the day don't we want our children to be true to themselves?

JMO, but I think that the thing to do is not to look for advice from other parents but for the student to seek the guidance of people such as counselors at school or dance teachers who both know the student well and who also understand what is needed to get into the specific colleges they are looking into. My youngest dd attended a ballet school for a number of years that is a serious ballet school - i.e., their program is put together with the expectation that students who continue with it through high school are on the path for a professional dance career. The teens we knew at the school were all getting very specific guidance from the studio owners, who are professional dancers. So my advice if your friend's dd wants to pursue dance is to start now taking advantage of any dance opportunities she can where she is either working with or studying with talented professional dancers - and look to them for advice on how to put together the college app resume. I'll also add - the places that the good dancers went to college were places that were never on *my* non-dancer background radar

polarbear

I don't really have any additional advice from above. But you might want to suggest to her that her options are not A or B. They could be both. I know a young man who applied for both options as a h.s. senior, entry into a ballet company & university. He was accepted at Harvard in their dance program, but he deferred for a year and worked in a ballet company. He went to university for 4 years, I have no idea what he majored in but he continued to dance. And now in his mid 20's dances for a professional dance company.

I am not really in a position to judge his talent but keep in mind it is easier for men to get an entry into elite ballet because there is simply a smaller pool of male dancers than females at this level. And he had double legacy at Harvard so this might of influence his decision to go there, I have no idea how it's dance program ranks.

Long thread here
http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/166813/1.html

RPG? Procket Propelled Grenade? I can't imagine that being a good idea.

If she really wants dance, a school like Julliard. But Harvard loves dancers. They have program and a dance company. Not the greatest dance program, but then you have Harvard.

Er--

role-play gaming?

You know-- what used to be termed "D&D?"

Okay. I really couldn't figure out what RPG was supposed to stand for.

A great site with tons of information is www.collegeconfidential.com. It can offer a lot of good ideas about what is available.

Gail Post/ www.giftedchallenges.com

nothing wrong with showing a lack of nerdiness...

Speaking of nerdiness, how exciting, another season of King of the Nerds started this week.

Now back to designing my live action rocket propelled grenade miniatures.

Do we think being a top teen birder and bird artist is a weird/unique enough passion?

(I'm not really serious...or am I? It would realllly be convenient if she could continue to focus on this interest, which is DH's passion as well, and with which he is extremely well-connected on the local and state level...)

Has she competed in the Youth America Grand Prix (if she's in the States)? Doing well can lead to scholarships and invitations to join companies as always, but now they have a Dance in Higher Education program where students can be offered college/university admissions and scholarships through auditions at three (this year) of the regional competitions. It's too late for this year, but it's worth considering for next year.

I think birder/artist is a GREAT passion for college admission. It is unusual and a little intellectual. One of my kids was into insects, and she definitely leveraged it on her college apps (she got into U of Chicago, Swarthmore, and Harvey Mudd -- so it worked for her).

It is, though, always good to have some ways to document/show her passion beyond just the time spend watching/drawing/painting birds. Some ideas:

- Join the local Audobon society, and try to be somewhat active (join bird counts, even try to hold an office in it)
- Enter bird art into contests. There are some specific stamp contests for bird art (although that may not be her specialty). But sometimes art teachers at the high school know of local competitions. Or she could enter in the county fair in 4-H or the open categories (has the bonus of possibly getting to show at the state fair).
- Quantifying is good -- one of my kids monitored a bluebird trail for years, and helped hatch over 250 bluebirds into our neighborhood, which she put on her activities section of her college apps.
- Can she get involved with helping others with bird watching or art somehow? Kids or elderly people...
- Volunteer somehow with birds. We live in a bigger city, so there would be opportunities at the raptor center here. Or if there is a professor of ornithology at a nearby college, can she volunteer to help with research?

If your H is involved and "well connected", that is a bonus to helping her find opportunities to get involved in the birding community. I can also see how a trip to see an unusual bird someplace might make a good essay topic (if she can help show her passion and make it about herself as much as it is about the bird).

My kid didn't just "do bugs". She was also in Quiz Bowl and fencing, and had some accomplishments there at the state level (top 5 type accomplishments). With great test scores, and pretty good (but not perfect) grades. But your D could absolutely follow her passion and build a great college app at the same time!

Exactly-- and while my own DD ultimately opted not to apply to elite institutions, preferring to save the $$ and only apply (early round, anyway) to the truly sure thing with a few bells and whistles to make it a good fit, she had a similar resume.

State-level competition in multiple 4-H projects-- small animals, communications, natural resources and expressive arts/home ec-- including some state championships and robust showing at the state level otherwise. This isn't a completely done deal even now, and in her last year, it's possible that she will achieve national recognition in a couple of areas. Given that we live in a state with a VERY robust 4-H program, there is some serious competition.

Community service-- long-term investment in the SAME cause/organization is viewed much more positively than dilletentism. DD has about 1200 hours of community service in high school, but anything that she saw fit to mention to colleges she definitely had spent more than 50 hours annually upon. She didn't even mention the little stuff, because that too often looks like "I did this to check a box for community service."

One thing that others looking at her on paper continuously remarked upon was that there was more DEPTH to her resume than seems typical. That is, she was able to reveal surprises at each step, and that sets her apart from the automata that look more or less "perfect" on paper, but are about what sells well on paper, too, and nothing more. They are kids who are "looking to impress" and DD is a kid who IS impressive precisely because it's clear that she mostly is able to pick and choose exactly WHICH facets to showcase, leaving others to lie unexplored.

1. Her transcripts contain some obvious "I took this because I wanted to" electives that are quirky or seem relatively oblivious to the college selection machine-- and her transcripts AREN'T (quite) perfect.

2. Hobbies/activities that are not typical among cohort or age group somehow... so while riding horses might be common, competing in barrel racing? Not so much (varies regionally). Dog ownership/handling might be (relatively) common, but being a Dog Freestyler is not. Playing the piano? Common. Playing STRIDE and improvisational jazz? Not.

3. Essays that hint at meaningful life experiences not even hinted at in items 1 or 2.

4. Interviews that hint at life experiences, interests, and passions not even hinted at in items 1, 2, or 3.


In other words, those are things that seem to make a person seem more mature and real than any hot-house plant.

From what we've seen, colleges like this about the way cats like catnip-- some more than others, but this IS the secret sauce that all of them like.

She'a already active in local Audubon and has won or placed in a few kids' birding contests. Bird stamp contest is a great idea--I should look into that for her. Research is a great idea for when she is a little older, but we're already active with things like Great Backyard Bird Count, backyard nestwatching, etc. We even had researchers come to our yard and mistnet and band, which was completely awesome. We are definitely doing the kid-oriented bird stuff that is available, and with gusto. All this is very easy for us since DH is really involved in this and enjoys it. But it is a true passion for her.

It would be great if someone sponsored a survey of parents of freshmen, to see a) what college their kids were accepted at, b) what scores c) what extracurriculars d) was legacy involved.

Yes, although as I know a teen with this passion I don't think it's all that unusual or weird. But it's helps to be able to show that you have done something with the passion. Work with the local Audubon society, join in with bird counts, submit her art to contests.

Do you mean a survey here? If you go to College Confidential there is a lot of information on that sight. My school system belongs to Naviance, an online tracking program, and it tell me a) & b) for our school. Although I am not sure how much it gives about extracurriculars.

I have to say, I would not visit College Confidential today. They did a major site upgrade last night, and it is really not too user friendly right now... I think they will be sorting out the issues for a while, particularly some things that make the new version pretty hard to read (formatting stuff that takes a while to fix). I would wait and visit in a couple of months.

Another thing one of my kids did was log data into Nestwatch (Cornell's site). If she had substantial effort invested in that, she could also take about that (and quantify it) on her apps. My kid's Nestwatch efforts were sort of minimal, so she didn't talk about it on her apps. But it would be a good thing for a kid who had made a solid investment of time over a few years.

I think the federal duck stamp art competition has a junior category. For some reason I can't get to the web page now, so I can't check the age ranges. But that could be another option.

I can't speak from a great deal of experience on admissions, however, having recently gone through the process of seeing my eldest DS apply for scholarships, it was really interesting how differently even state colleges within the same state weighted qualities, scores, activities, and other information / facts. The three state colleges where we lived were VERY much different. One focus on diversity, another on a couple of test scores and not much else, and the third was looking for an extremely well rounded student.

And "e) was a major financial donation involved?"

and,

if so, "f) how much money?"

DH mentioned that the head of his fundraising group donated a million in addition to her husband from another class, who donated a few million more and their son still didn't get accepted to Harvard. A few years earlier, he said a classmate that came from huge legacy, building named after an ancestor, had his father donated 10 million but they wouldn't let his daughter in unless she did another year at top boarding school and got better grades.


Curious if 100 million got you a free ride. I know someone who gave 150 million to Yale but have no idea what scores his kids had, but this was at least a decade ago.

Having interviewed for top 10 schools including Ivies for a number of years, my observations for "getting noticed" would be:
1) Have very strong test scores- at least 2250 or 2300 on SAT, 34 average ACT, Commended or national merit for PSAT, lots of 4s and 5s on AP tests.
2) Be in top 10% of competitive high school by GPA, GPA over 4.50 on a 4.0 scale.
3) Have interesting activities- esp. at national level. Founding a nonprofit, competing with robots at national level, etc.
4) Interesting essays.
5) Interesting person to interview.
Many kids have generic sounding activities- captain of tennis team, volunteer reading to kids at local library, etc. I doubt a lot of kids get in with major financial donations. You have to first have the stats (really high test scores and GPA) and second the activities. It's not enough to be a ballerina or fence; if you get in via sports, you have to be good enough to fence for Princeton, or wherever.

Be female and show soccer talent as an 8th-grader, so that you can fill the Title IX quota:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/s...r-a-college-then-starting-9th-grade.html
Committing to Play for a College, Then Starting 9th Grade
By NATHANIEL POPPER
New York Times
JAN. 26, 2014

SANFORD, Fla. — Before Haley Berg was done with middle school, she had the numbers for 16 college soccer coaches programmed into the iPhone she protected with a Justin Bieber case.

She was all of 14, but Hales, as her friends call her, was already weighing offers to attend the University of Colorado, Texas A&M and the University of Texas, free of charge.

Haley is not a once-in-a-generation talent like LeBron James. She just happens to be a very good soccer player, and that is now valuable enough to set off a frenzy among college coaches, even when — or especially when — the athlete in question has not attended a day of high school. For Haley, the process ended last summer, a few weeks before ninth grade began, when she called the coach at Texas to accept her offer of a scholarship four years later.

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

I wish the young woman the best, and the picture of her with her little sister is adorable. But do colleges know she meets their academic standards before she has even started high school?

A 7th grader that I know is already talking to colleges about a women's lacrosse scholarship, so it is possible that early commitment is a lot more widespread than people think. She is planning to "commit" next year.

I was shocked to hear about it, because it is so young to choose a college for the future, but the family has multiple kids to put through college at approximately the same time so a scholarship would probably be very welcomed.

I know a really good male soccer player that got a full ride at Notre Dame in his junior year.

But soccer seems a real commodity. A good girl soccer player from Toronto got a 90% from a school in Texas. Don't know which one.

I quoted on a similar thread from an article in the recent Stanford Magazine about legacy admissions. The claim in the article is that being legacy is just one check box, the admit department has no idea who has donated what and only calls the alumni office to see if the member is active. And that amount of donation is irrelevant. They claim legacy only helps if a student is competitive in all other aspects.

This seems as way to young to select for athletic ability. And seems like a huge pressure to put on a child. I have seen kids who were good at athletics burn out in H.S., or get injured.

I don't think that giving a verbal in 8th grade is really so bad. Sure, you might get hurt, might not keep improving, but there is no written commitment. The kid or the coach can choose not to honor the agreement. Also, there might be a new coach at the school by the time the kid goes off to college - and new coaches don't always take the former coach's picks.

And I don't understand the comment in the NYT article that middle school verbals are somehow against NCAA rules. Prior to 9th grade, kids can talk to college coaches anytime, anywhere. I have told my HS kids to say nothing more than, "Hi" to anyone they think might be a coach in their sport(s).

In any case, high SAT/ACT scores and a high GPA are a better bet to get some great (merit) scholarships.

I think Cal Newport's book "How to Be a High School Superstar: A Revolutionary Plan to Get into College by Standing Out (Without Burning Out)" is interesting. Here is an essay of his.

http://calnewport.com/blog/2010/03/...surprising-psychology-of-impressiveness/
How to Get Into Stanford with B’s on Your Transcript: Failed Simulations & the Surprising Psychology of Impressiveness
March 26th, 2010

[/quote]
similar thread from an article in the recent Stanford Magazine about legacy admissions. The claim in the article is that being legacy is just one check box, the admit department has no idea who has donated what and only calls the alumni office to see if the member is active. And that amount of donation is irrelevant. They claim legacy only helps if a student is competitive in all other aspects. [/quote]

According to DH, when he was calling classmates looking for a donation, they had lists with the wealth of the alumni, what the target was for the donation, all the donations so far. And a big donor is definitely going to brought to the notice of the admit department.

But as my previous stories reported, the scores have to be there.

Really like the article Bostonian. Thanks.

There were stories about Meg Whitman and her son Griff Harsh that were all over the media here in CA when she was a gubernatorial candidate. There were accusations that her $30 million donation to Princeton got her son a lot special treatment (not just in college admissions).

So, it is entirely possible that $100 mil might get you a free ride. Not knowing people so wealthy, I can only base my specualtion on what I read in the media

If you can donate 100 million, you don't need a full ride.

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??"

DD's GIFTED magnet constantly emphasizes that they are grooming "leaders." I find this distasteful, bordering on offensive. Are gifted children automatically more qualified to lead? That's interesting, since they're much more likely to be introverted. Are general education children NOT qualified to lead? Are they the "followers" at the school?

Some of the world's greatest thinkers have NOT been "leaders" in the sense of "those who lead groups of others." Writers, artists, and inventors are rarely "leaders."

Actually, this subject makes me very angry. Intelligence and potential DO NOT necessarily come in a neat package with emotional IQ and ability to charm.

Well, the only relevant people in the modern financial hyper-economy are leaders.

And the masses, who you call "general education children" are certainly not qualified to lead.

If they were so qualified, they would not be "general education children" in the first place and instead would be leaders, and therefore relevant to the future.

Remember, most people fail to become leaders and drift aimlessly through life, bereft of purpose or meaning.

Only a select few, the best and the brightest become true leaders. They are the bright and shiny children that everyone adores because of their magnificent potential for future glory.

I think that the rest land on the industrial scrapheap somewhere in flyover country.

In the United States you can find entire states full of irrelevant non-leaders.

So, in any event, potential leaders automatically get noticed by the right people because their relevance is immediately obvious to the people who are responsible for noticing them.

I think JonLaw is onto something here.

In order to get noticed by admissions officers, you need to have Relevance (tm).

Do they have prep classes for that?

Yes. There is a class called "leadership" at high school. In less glorified words the school council. But it is an official class with a teacher, and grades that goes on students transcripts.

*hides under scrapheap, whimpering*

I don't suppose there's room for another under that scrapheap, by any chance? I'll bring water and a snack.

I'm always amused when student council is considered "leadership." When the primary activity is picking a theme for the senior prom, that word does not mean what they think it means.

Yes, but the student council is the first step toward establishing a lifetime of ever-increasing relevance.

And to think I was being facetious!



ETA: Wait, I was wrong. Wow! Leadership classes are even aligned with the Common Core!!!

Stupendous leadership classes

Too many student council positions, school newspaper positions, and yearbook committee positions, etc, may represent "leadership within tight parameters" or more simply "puppet leadership".

True leadership may be thinking outside the box and breaking the mold, replacing the old model with something new. Leaders acknowledge and prioritize problems, bring an issue to light and attempt to resolve it.

One student created their own extracurricular soccer team, recruiting a coach, assistant, and players. It was a consistently successful team.

Another example is a student drafting and promoting a new district policy.

Each of these examples illustrate being a person of influence within one's community.

Regardless of whether one is showcasing leadership or another talent, it may be wise to be authentic in representing one's self, to help ensure the best possible fit with a college or university.

In my neck of the woods, leadership is measured by how many starups a highschooler started and sold for millions - basically serial enterpreneurship. There is even a private progressive girl's middle school focusing on STEM and startups as part of the curriculum

Related thread from 2010:

http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/81549
Teenage Entrepreneurs (WSJ)

Ashley, you raise an interesting point, regarding serial entrepreneurs. What is de rigueur in one area may be foreign in another area where it may represent thinking outside the box, relative to the local cultural norms.

Of course, starting your own NPO shows a laudable amount of community service as well as "leadership" so there is that. Really a lot of bang for the buck there.

*burrows deeper under scrapheap*

*shares Val's snack*

There is a surfeit of students who can do the academic work at the Ivies. If you accept students entirely according to an academic index derived from high school grades and test scores, applicants will obsess even more over those measures. If you give points for starting a business or an NGO or publishing scientific research, you encourage effort in those areas. Some of the accomplishments will be phony, but some will be real. Overall I think Ivy admissions should be more academically focused, but there are trade-offs to doing so, and the prestige and ever-increasing wealth of Harvard et al. suggest that these institutions know what they are doing.

If you assume that people are self-interested and will try to game any system created, you will not despair and burrow under a scrap heap.

I teach at a highly ranked(top 25) national university. Our admissions office is looking for strong academics AND extra activities that demonstrate deep involvement in one or more areas of real interest. Trying to be "well-rounded" with superficial involvement in a gazillion clubs and activities is less impressive.

Also, keep in mind that most colleges want a mix of talents each year. If we don't admit any violinists, what happens to the orchestra? We have talent scholarships for musicians, debaters, entrepreneurs, dancers, actors, visual artists etc. Depending on the college, students may not need to be planning to major in music, for example, to benefit in admissions by being a musician.

Our school offers a minor in dance (no major) but has a hand full of talent scholarships for dance. Every year we have accomplished dancers (ballet and other forms) performing in the dance company. They enjoy continuing dance in college before heading to Medical School, graduate school, and various careers.
Many other students don't receive talent scholarships, but may have helped their admission with the talents and interests they demonstrated.

Um, actually, this makes me want to burrow even farther under the scrapheap.

Signed, Hopeless Idealist

Yup, that is one of the local schools churning out self made multimillionaire high school grads who are already "leading" the world with their enterpreneurship and are busy maxing SATs and selling their startups for $200 millions.

Here is another story from the local high schools :
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/12/11/teen-whose-first-idea-sold-for-200m.html?

And high schools have "startup incubators" these days:
http://news.harker.org/students-sta...al-already-receiving-fantastic-response/

There's a causality problem here, because going to Harvard or Yale often leads one to riches and/or fame... but those qualities are often necessary to attend in the first place.


Yes, the supremacy of sociopathic greed in our society comforts me like a cup of warm milk.

So how does a genuine polymath who is-- well, a real kid-- demonstrate that they are polymaths with wide (but genuine) interests, and not just a dilettante looking to rack up a bonus score?

This has been something we've actually WORRIED a bit about with a student like my DD. Yes, she plays piano (she's not entering, much less WINNING national competitions), is an academically solid student (but not a "perfect" one), volunteers (but she hasn't actually launched her own NPO or run for city council at ten), etc. She does all of those things not because of what she thinks her resume needs (though that IS the reason we've given her for continuing piano lessons this final year of HS rather than switching instruments)-- she does them because she wants to do them.

We chose to emphasize the things that she has devoted the MOST hours to, and the things that she has wound up being most passionate about. But it is hard to say what the right thing is there. Your statement is precisely what sort of concerns me about DD on paper.

How do admissions committees tease apart which is which there?

I'd think it works just like resume's. There aren't special formula when it gets to the readers. I'd guess they are following gut instinct and figuring out why some stands out. Ideally it tells a story about who the person is... a bit of art on both sides.

If you think of your daughter's story, opening with a scene of a 14 old college application you're already fairly deep into an interesting story. If I were looking at her application, I'd assume she learns quickly with a good chance she plays an instrument well. The next chapter is where is her passion, what is her character like, and where is she going. A consistent long term activity with a single non-profit, a summer internship in a science field (with great refs), and her current level of proficiency in marksmanship (title IX opps and interesting.) That's a pretty good story, why overwrite it?

Amy Chua has written a new book with her husband. It's about success and touches indirectly on college admissions, topics in this thread. The NY Times has an interesting perspective on it:

I'll have to read that article. I can't imagine what ladder Chua is talking about kicking away. To me, she seems like she is clinging white-knuckled to the ladder.


I keep thinking about this. I know I've ranted about this here before. I abhor this narrow definition of success. It's everywhere. BTW, I don't say this because I am not wealthy (true) but consider myself successful (false--various reasons there, but I would say I am an underachiever who is slowly making good...part of this is due to taking time off for young children). HOWEVER, I DO have many very intelligent--gifted--friends who are not wealthy but who ARE, IMO, very successful, if by successful you mean "doing something fulfilling, important, and stimulating." You are not going to find them at a university fundraising event, though. They exist outside of that world, which often strikes me as a self-congratulatory echo chamber.

I quit an odious but well-paid corporate job, years ago. I couldn't believe what they were paying me to do basically nothing important. I MAY eventually make something close to what I made at that job (in my early 20s) again, doing what I actually like to do, in a job that doesn't suck out my lifeblood.

I had one of those jobs for a couple years. Highly paid, yet of no consequence. And it was making my brain ossify. I'm doing meaningful work now, but the pay is not so hot.

The things that our society puts a premium on amaze me.

Did I end up on the NY Times comment board by accident? I guess I am the odd person out. I have always aspired to be a capitalist & entrepreneur, even in college when I wasn't making any money. My heroes were Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

I find that creating new products and services that customers want to be highly fulfilling, and can be very financially rewarding. Two people I know ended up on the Forbes 400 (I was hired into their startup), and I suppose that many of my friends are in the "1%". But by and large, these people have the same lifestyle as they did before they made their money, although obviously they don't worry about day to day expenditures. You would never know what someone is worth based upon how they dressed or what they drove. New England is different that way from other parts of the country.

I didn't create new products and services. I was in marketing, basically. Enough said.

If interviews are involved in admissions (or awarding of scholarships) it can help. Also, as ZenScanner suggests, I do think a polymath will look different on paper than the student with a long list of organization memberships that only demonstrate superficial involvement.

I will say that as a faculty member in an arts/humanities area, my favorite students have been the very intelligent ones with strong and often unique interests beyond my own field. Often this will be a student with a science major, but also a real love for art/literature, or sometimes it is a student engaged in 2 or 3 very distinct areas of the humanities. Can't say these are typical students, but I'm always happy when they turn up!

Thanks for the insight. That really is comforting to hear. I'd hoped that was the case based on the responses that DD has had, but we were nervous because she has so many different EC's.

Some may say the generosity exhibited by many donors deserves our sincere appreciation, and that individuals who have endowed charities/universities/non-profits ought to feel a deep sense of satisfaction for "giving back" or "paying it forward". For many students, opportunities may be provided which would otherwise not exist.

It is interesting to see the broad array of scholarships which have been created to offer assistance to students with varied interests and abilities. The personalized nature of many scholarships brings a sense of affirmation to those awarded with such a scholarship. Admissions may be careful to select students who might be awarded scholarships established by donors.

Doing very well in a MOOC has gotten a few young people from Asia noticed by elite American colleges.

http://news.yahoo.com/colleges-finding-tomorrow-39-prodigies-170000792.html
How colleges are finding tomorrow's prodigies
American universities are using online courses to discover gifted students in math, science, and the arts. Meet three phenoms from the far corners of the world.
Christian Science Monitor
By Laura Pappano
23 hours ago