Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Ivy League Admissions.

I thought this article would fit nicely somewhere in this conversation:
Dear Eighth Grader...

Although from 2012, I believe the advice is still relevant.

Dandy

The article brought up some good points and by the time DD is applying, parents will have strategized an EC path to optimize intellectual curiousity.
Reading the college search,I am glad I am out of the US college insanity. My parents were not even involved in my college search. I did it myself, applied myself, and accepted and then told my father.

There is little evidence for the predictive ability of unstructured interviews (although applicants must deal with the system as it is):

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~danajd/interview.pdf
Belief in the Unstructured Interview: The Persistence of an Illusion
by Jason Dana, Robyn M. Dawes, and Nathanial R. Peterson
Abstract
Unstructured interviews are a ubiquitous tool for making screening decisions
despite vast evidence of their invalidity. In three studies, we investigated the propensity
for "sensemaking" - the ability for interviewers to make sense of virtually anything the
interviewee says – and “dilution” – the tendency for non-diagnostic information to
weaken the predictive value of quality information. In study 1, participants predicted two
fellow students’ semester GPAs from background information and, for one of them, an
unstructured interview. In one condition, the interviewee secretly answered questions
according to a random system. Consistent with sensemaking, random interviews did not
perturb predictions or diminish perceptions of the quality of information that the
interview yielded. Consistent with dilution, participants made better predictions about
students whom they did not interview. Study 2 showed that merely watching a random
interview, rather than conducting it, did little to mitigate sensemaking. Study 3 showed
that participants believe unstructured interviews will help accuracy, so much so that they
would rather have random interviews than no interview. Impressions formed from
unstructured interviews can seem valid and inspire confidence even when interviews are
useless. Our simple recommendation for those making screening decisions is not to use
them.

Parents strategizing to optimize the intellectual curiosity of children sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.

Dandy, I love it and I've printed it out. Thanks.

Because the "lack of experience" is often true, regardless of intelligence.

Some things need to be experienced to be known. And experiences take time.

Interesting study. It gives a name "dilution" to what I've often thought about our company's pre-employment interview process. I never had a study to back up my inkling, but it's comforting to know that I wasn't completely nuts.

Although the study suggests that the interviews might be useless for the decision-maker (school), the interviewee (student) should danged well be prepared and aim for impressing during the meeting. After all, the alum and/or school might not be familiar with the study and still give too much weight to the interview.

Some of the Ivies require the interview, but there is very little weight placed on the interview. Unless you really mess it up, it is just something checked off on the list of application requirements.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...issions-interviews-as-success-slips.html

At some other schools the interview can sway a decision.

That value isn't what I'd call "high" however. My DH and I have both seen campuses where the ranges encompass Greek participation from a low of 0% to a high of 90%+.

It is true that there is a rough-- very rough, as it happens-- correlation between Greek system participation and party culture. However, the highest value was NOT at a party school, and one of the two with the lowest participation was a notorious party school. Our personal cut-line (and we're approaching school selection EXACTLY the way that intparent described) is at about 60-70% Greek. Not because of party culture per se, but for the same reason we're seeking schools with on-campus residency less than 80-90%-- because being PG makes you a singularity already, particularly if you're young-for-college. Why make it worse by choosing two OTHER means of making one's self an outlier?

Kids who are likely to want to be a part of the Greek system (which does, by the way, have many opportunities for leadership if that's your kid's thing) would evaluate those criteria differently.

Similarly, Div1 athletics and academic quality. Just looking at the traditional Pac-10 schools, you have UW, UCLA, and Cal in that grouping; all are very good public universities, ranked in the top 100 in the world for certain disciplines. Duke is a basketball powerhouse and has been for decades. Gonzaga. Boston College. UVA.

Personally, having done undergrad at a place with almost no athletic program to speak of, and then grad school at a Div-1 school, it was both interesting and a lot of FUN to attend big-time football and basketball games-- get your face on ESPN in the crowd, laugh at the antics of the crazy undergrads, cheer with the band, all that jazz. It was just fun. We're thinking a bit differently than some parents about this, however-- DD's attendance at an online high school means that she has NOT had a lot of personal experience with this kind of thing, and therefore it's a facet of the college experience that we would like her to have available. She has enjoyed the Div 1 athletics that she's experienced growing up in a Uni town.



It really just depends on such a complex cocktail of factors, I'm afraid.

This is TERRIFIC as a blueprint for finding a good fit.

It's also what we're finding-- there are a number of "reach" schools (most of which are also solidly out of our league financially), and then the rest are all in the 'safety' category (and so far to that side that they're almost academically unthinkable), though many of them are also out of reach for financial reasons.


Indeed. I wholeheartedly agree.

I mean, I can suggest to DD that some things will "play" better than others in terms of scholarship payoff and prestige with college admissions, but she IS going to do things her own way. I'm actually rather glad of that, because as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread alone, while I can THINK that I know what will play well with college admissions committees, even though I have direct insider knowledge, the bottom line is that it's inherently rather difficult to predict accurately.

Ergo, I would be advising her to quit being herself-- which certainly has a clear cost... and a not-so-clear benefit which is mostly conjecture.