Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Selective colleges and "well-rounded" applicants

Over time, I have seen several people say that highly selective colleges are seeking "well-rounded" applicants, most recently in the "Gifted Girls" thread. What I have heard suggests just the opposite, and thought this would be a useful discussion topic. Specifically, what I have repeatedly heard (from relatives and friends with children that were accepted into these colleges, books on the topic, and college consultants pitching their services), is the following:

Highly selective colleges are NOT looking for well-rounded applicants. They are looking for a well-rounded CLASS composed of individuals that are exceptional in at least one way. To paraphrase what I said another thread, they are ideally looking for a class composed of star athletes, talented musicians, innovative science researchers, highly under-represented groups, kids overcoming considerable adversity, accomplished actors and national math competition winners.

Before going any further, we should make sure we are talking about the same things. What is a "highly selective college"? Here are two useful tests:

1. Its admission rate is below 20%.
2. When JonLaw hears the name of the college, he immediately wants to respond with: "Power! Glory! Awesomeness!" Is the 20% admission rate too high for that, JonLaw?

Note that the 20% admission rate is a very small set of colleges, roughly 40-50 in all, and people can certainly get a fine education outside of them. It is NOT the purpose of this thread to discuss whether or not the competition for admission into these colleges is worthwhile--that is a useful thread topic in itself; feel free to start one.

So with all that, which people think the well-rounded applicant wins consistently over the pointy kid that is exceptional in at least one area, or vice versa?

My impression is that it is actually both--you had better have straight As, superlative SAT scores, the "general package" of expected volunteering/extracurriculars/music/athletics (you don't have to and shouldn't do it ALL), PLUS a "pointy" standout area.

ultramarina,

I agree that exceptional academics is required for almost all applicants, but this too can be relaxed for highly desired applicants, such as D1 athletes.

Honestly, I think that the highly selective colleges want what they want, and they dress that idea up to make it politically palatable while doing what they like behind the scenes. This is my way of saying that I think the whole process is a farce. Following from that idea, I see little value in discussing "what colleges want" without acknowledging that admissions practices may be very different when the wind changes direction in 18 months. Not to mention how toxic they are.

My understanding is admissions are transparent and merit-based in what I'd call a wobbly way (eg accepted applicants from different ethnic groups have different average SAT scores, meaning that the goal posts move for different groups). This kind of thing creates an arms race to overcome the higher hurdles.

A case in point is that admissions committees look for "research scientists" in the applicant pool. There is no such thing as a 17-year-old research scientist unless s/he has already finished a postdoc (in which case, there's no need to apply to Yale undergrad). But we have a fantasy that the Intel science competition turns kids into researchers. It doesn't. It's just a start on a long road.

I'm not saying that teenagers don't dream up amazing ideas. I'm saying that going from there to being a research scientist is a very big leap, and I'm skeptical that a teenager could get there while also amassing credits for 3 years of social studies and PE and English and so on.

The expectations to be "pointy" are just as cruel as the "well-rounded" expectation that has children signing up for 20 weekly activity hours on top of school and study time. And it's just as much a lie: I don't believe that the vast majority of those kids are going to Debate club on MW and Fundraising club on TR while also running track and starting a nonprofit.

I wish more of these college discussions were in the College forum, rather than General Discussion, to aid future readers in finding them.

That said, I agree with several points in the posts on the Gifted Girls thread: that students get accepted into selective colleges to make a well-rounded class, that such students may be well-rounded or pointy, and that stories are anecdotal.

Rather than share more anecdotes, possibly a list of a few of the books with input from selective college admissions and/or based on research, will be helpful:
1) Getting In: Inside College Admissions (1997) Princeton
2) The Gatekeepers: Inside the Admissions Process of a Premier College (2003) Wesleyan
3) What it Really Takes to Get Into Harvard and Other Highly Selective Colleges (2003) Harvard
4) The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (2006)
5) The Price of Admission: How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges--And Who Gets Left Outside the Gates (2007)
6) A is for Admission (2009) Dartmouth
7) The Best Book on Elite Admissions: Uncovered (2011) Stanford (Also see Erinn Andrews' video case studies here)

To add to this list:

Applying Sideways from the MIT Admissions blog
Cal Newport's How to Be a High School Superstar

Excellent! "To thine own self be true!" - Shakespeare

Applying Sideways sums it up nicely, without people spending a boatload of money on books which summarize prior years' decision making as to who gets the thick envelope.

The impression I get from watching my friends who have kids at some of these elite schools. The schools who only pick the 'pointy' students are the top 5-10 schools in the country (less than 5% acceptance) not really the top 40-50. And it depends on the school what type of pointy they are looking for. For example MIT or Cal Tech want students who really stand out in math/science for some reason and win science completions. Stanford is known for accepting you if your an athlete that has prospects to make it to the Olympics.

To get into the top 40-50 schools students need that "EXCELLENT" package with the best GPA's (lots of AP's) and top SAT scores and do "general package" of expected volunteering/extracurriculars/music/athletics. The students I know that have gotten into top school, have chosen 2-3 extracurricular activities , do them all four years, and have leadership roles by the time they are seniors. For example band & Latin club where your the Latin club president & section leader in band your senior year. You don't necessarily need to stand out nationally. But you do need stand out in your own school.

I would like to echo snowgirl's recommendation of Cal Newport's book: "How to Be a High School Superstar". Cal's approach is very similar to that expressed in MIT's Applying Sideways. Both say find one or two things that you really passionate about and pursue it deeply. We are taking this approach, and since our kids are doing what they really enjoy, we don't have that much stress in our house (so far anyway).

For DD, who is a sophomore, her deep interests are in art, which she will happily do for hours each day when there is time, and neuroscience, which fascinates her. She has won some awards for her art and teaches at a senior center but doesn't have much else in the way of community and leadership activities, and we are fine with that.

DS is only in 7th grade, and he has found his deep interests (earlier than I would like, as I would like him to keep dabbling in lots of areas) in both math and chess. Both of these activities take a tremendous amount of time and he is the busiest person in the house, especially after just being elected to student government, but he is happy as well.

Val, as always, has written a thoughtful response. I want to focus on a couple of parts of this:

Yes, it can become toxic. We consciously try to avoid that by having our kids do what they want rather than forcing activities that others think might look good. But this is worthy of its own topic.

This is completely true. However, I think the admissions people are just looking for potential in this area and in other areas. The research that a gifted 17-year old can perform won't be the same as what he/she can do several years later, in the same way that a talented high school athlete won't have the same skills that a 25 year old does. But in both cases, the potential can be seen.