Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

My teachers are very busy. I was thinking that if a teacher says no, would it be appropriate to ask that I write my own and ask them to sign? Thanks for comments.

By Northstarmom (Northstarmom) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 11:33 am: Edit

No. If a teacher says that s/he is too busy to write a recommendation for you, the teacher is tactfully telling you that he or she doesn't feel able to recommend you.

It's also a good idea to ask teachers at least 3 weeks in advance before recommendations are due. That prevents teachers from being genuinely too busy to write your reccs. Even if they are genuinely too busy (because you asked at the last second, for example), virtually no teacher would want to sign their name to a recc that you wrote for yourself.

What you can do to help teachers, however, is to give them a resume, a copy of your college essays, and copies of excellent papers/tests you did for their classes.

By Geoguy (Geoguy) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 04:12 am: Edit

No. You don't want the college noticing similarities between your essay(s) and the recommendation "written by the teacher."

By Justplayin104 (Justplayin104) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 05:29 pm: Edit

I say:

It's all a game and what matters is how you play it.
You think all of those applicants are great students worthy of positive recs? No, but teachers write them anyways because it's just stupid.

You think all those kids with countless volunteer hours and honor societies really care about tutoring that 2nd grader for 100 hours? Not really, but that's the game college have created.
So here's the layout:
Colleges like Volunteer Hours
The player with the most hours gets the most $$$.
(even if it's half-hearted)

Colleges like Honor Societies
The player with the most societies gets the $.
(What the alternative point of Honor Societies is, I don't know).

If you need to write your own go ahead and do it. It doesn't matter. Write it yourself and worry more about that career or the life you want to create for your family. That's not something you mess around with.
But if colleges create the system where they manipulate you into hours of volunteering and studying for 6 APs, 5 of which you don't care about.. then by all means... play them back!

By Editrix (Editrix) on Friday, October 01, 2004 - 06:08 pm: Edit

I can't imagine a teacher who would let you do this--I agree with Northstarmom, that a teacher who says No probably doesn't feel he or she can write a particularly good recommendation, and is trying to let you down gently. Such a teacher is certainly not likely to sign a recommendation you write yourself. And if you're thinking of forging a teacher's signature, don't--just don't. Whether or not you get caught doing this (and you might), you're setting yourself up to keep cheating in various ways until you do find yourself in trouble.

Note to Justplayin104: If you have to take harder courses or get better grades or do more volunteer work to get into a better college, I'm not sure why that's so terrible; you might even learn something or help someone. If you don't want to do it, then don't, and go to a college that's less demanding, especially since the tougher schools will continue to expect a high level of academic performance after you get in.

By Lavka (Lavka) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 11:18 am: Edit

Where are you from? I think you have the right to do it. In many cases, especially in the countries, where it is uncommon, teachers cannot write and even don't want to write such a documents. Then you can compose it by yourself. But look out, vary your styles of writing.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 01:17 pm: Edit

I think I have to agree with lavka here, I think it depends on what culture you're talking about.

My personal take is that obviously teacher-written rec's are ideal, but if you need to write them yourself, then as long as the teacher agrees to sign it, then so be it. It's not ideal, but I don't think that it's crossing the line either. As long as the teacher gets a chance to read it over and has the final decision over whether to sign the document or not, you haven't crossed an ethical line. The reality is that that's the way that many rec letters are done in the real world.

Now, I would address editrix's comment and say that I believe justplayin104 has a point that should be well-taken. The fact is, high-level college admissions is something of a game now, and a lot of candidates are going around doing things they don't really care about just to look good for colleges. You (editrix) say that that's good because it encourages people to get out there and do things, but I'm not so sure if it is really good, because I'm not sure that doing things superficially really is better than doing nothing.

Case in point - I used to manage projects for a charity, and I would often get as volunteers high school kids who clearly didn't care about the project but only cared about getting that "check-mark" on their college application. They didn't really want to do anything, they didn't have good attitudes and they clearly didn't want to be there, but they made damn sure that their name and their contact info were clearly emblazoned on the signup sheet, so if somebody called me later to confirm whether they were there or not, I could confirm that they were. The result was that their volunteer contributions were minimal because they didn't really want to do anything, and their charges (underprivileged children) could often times tell that they didn't really want to be there. It's surprisingly difficult to hide your true feelings to children.

Now, you might argue that that's still better than if they never showed at all. However, if you look at the grand scheme of things, I'm not so sure. Pushing academics is one thing. I know very few people who are truly passionate about, say, trigonometry, but the fact is, trig knowledge is vitally important if you want to study science or engineering. But pushing extracurricular activities, and in particular, pushing charity work is something else. Sure, they might be encouraged to do some extra volunteer work that they might not have done otherwise. On the other hand, the system encourages superficiality and cynicism towards the system, and that's not a good thing. The entire charity experience has been marred by people viewing it as not something you do to help others but rather something you do to help yourself, by getting that checkmark that will help you get into college or graduate school or whatever.

In other words, an ever since college admissions became super-competitive, which has been for about the last 30-40 years or so, an entire generation of people has been taught that charity work is something you use as a competitive weapon to give yourself an edge over other people when you're trying to get admitted to college. Whether the benefits of having extra people do volunteer work, much of which is half-hearted, is sufficient compensation for this change of attitudes about what charity work is all about is, I think, unclear. I'm not sure that society really derives a net benefit from the situation.

And I would also address editrix's last sentence. Sure, colleges will continue to demand a high level of academic performance after you get in. But the key operating word there was "academic". Not EC's. With the exception of scholarship athletes, colleges place no requirements that you will continue to perform EC's. If a person does a massive amount of EC's to get into Harvard, and then doesn't do any EC's while he's there, Harvard is not going to refuse to grant him a degree. Hence, EC's were just a means for that person to get into Harvard.

Finally, I would point out that for most elite schools, by far the hardest part of getting the degree is getting admitted. It's practically impossible to flunk out of Harvard or Stanford. As long as you put in a reasonable effort to do the work, you're going to graduate. Maybe you won't graduate with a 4.0, but you will graduate. And candidates know it. Once again, this means that elite colleges are encouraging superficiality. They encouraging a mindset of "do a bunch of extra activities to win admission, even if you don't care about those activities, because once you get in, you don't have to do them anymore".

Now, let me reiterate and say that I don't like the situation. The college admissions process should not be encouraging superficiality and gamesmanship. But it does. It's the truth. As long as colleges reward superficial charity participation, then that's what people will do. Colleges therefore have to take some of the blame for the perversion of attitudes towards charity work.

By Northstarmom (Northstarmom) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 02:00 pm: Edit

"You think all those kids with countless volunteer hours and honor societies really care about tutoring that 2nd grader for 100 hours? Not really, but that's the game college have created.
So here's the layout:
Colleges like Volunteer Hours
The player with the most hours gets the most $$$.
(even if it's half-hearted) "

Lots of students seem to think the above is true, but the above simply isn't true. When it comes to selective colleges, quality is much more important than is quantity.

What the colleges are looking for are students who started volunteer programs, ran volunteer programs, went way over and above simply piling up hours.

In fact, a student who put down a lot of hours may be regarded with suspicion because the colleges know that there are some students who exaggerate or flat out lie about their volunteer hours because the students are trying to catch adcoms' eyes.

And there really are students who volunteer for the sheer love of volunteering and of helping out other people.

Those are the students whose volunteer work impresses colleges. This is not something that one can fake. It comes through loud and clear in interviews, essays and recommendations.

Meanwhile, colleges are equally interested in students with demonstrated passions and talents in other things: the arts, academic clubs, religious organizations, etc.

"Colleges like Honor Societies

"The player with the most societies gets the $. "

Another myth that isn't true. Colleges aren't looking for students with long lists of memberships. Colleges prefer students with demonstrated longterm interests and contributions to one or two clubs or activities.

"Demonstrated interest" typically means holding an office (and accomplishing something major while holding an office such as starting some new programs or helping the club win some major awards) or chairing a major committee (an example would be chairing the fundraising committee and helping to raise a lot of money), or winning awards through the club.

Colleges aren't looking for serial joiners who do nothing except pay membership fees and show up for the club's yearbook picture.

As for the comment about NHS: The most effective NHS chapters do major community service that is instigated by the members. If your NHS chapter does nothing that's a reflection of the members' apathy.

By Editrix (Editrix) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 03:00 pm: Edit

Northstarmom said it sooner and better than I could. "More hours" and "more societies" don't impressive adcoms nearly as much as many people think. What the colleges are looking for is genuine commitment and/or leadership; they want to know what you actually did as a volunteer or a member of a society. I'm not saying that some kids don't show up simply to accumulate "check-marks" on their applications, but if that's all they do, it won't ultimately have much impact as "a competitive weapon to give yourself an edge over other people when you're trying to get admitted to college."

As for academics, one of the reasons that almost no one ever flunks out of the elite colleges is that those colleges almost never admit anyone who isn't academically prepared to do the work. Taking more advanced courses is better preparation than taking easier courses--even if you're not passionate about every subject. After all, most elite colleges have distribution requirements, which means you may still have to take fairly demanding courses in some subjects "you don't care about." (If you can get into Brown, you may not have this problem .)

I think the college application process is hideously stressful and difficult, and it does have some elements of gamesmanship that I deplore. But since I don't believe colleges really do "reward superficial charity participation" as much as is popularly supposed, I don't believe they're responsible for "the perversion of attitudes towards charity work." If anything, it's the myth that you can win the game by racking up superficial credits that's doing more harm than good. In terms of ECs, it's far better for everyone--society, yourself, and even your chances of college admission--if you put your whole-hearted energy into activities that you really care about.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 05:21 pm: Edit

First off, I'm not sure that it's really a myth that you will get rewarded for piling up huge checkmarks of superficial work. Northstarmom pointed out that your superficiality might show up when you get to the stage where the adcoms review your rec's and conduct interviews and such. But my retort is, hey, at least that superficial stuff managed to get your application to the stage where the adcom is examining your interviews and your rec's carefully. As we all know, many applications are simply thrown away without ever being carefully read, because the applicant didn't meet certain minimum standards, which for many elite schools include a minimum number of EC's. The superficial stuff at least kept you alive in the game.

But second of all, even if it is a myth, it doesn't really matter from the perspective of the charity organizations that I participate in. Even if it is not true that racking up superficial charity work doesn't help you much in getting into college, the fact is, a lot of people believe that it's true, and as a result, you end up with lots of high school students engaging in charity work just to get that checkmark. So the social damage in terms of the perversion of charity work is the same. So if it's really true that it's all a myth, then I still lay the blame on the elite colleges for poor communication of what they want. Hence, they are ultimately still responsible. After all, somebody out there is responsible for this belief that it is beneficial to rack up huge numbers of superficial EC work, whether that belief is correct or not.

And finally, about what you said about elite colleges having extremely low flunkout rates because they select strong students, aw come on. Do you really believe that's the answer, or does it have more to do with the possibility the most elite colleges have simply decided as a conscious policy to make their curricula easy for their students to pass (not necessarily to get all A's in, but at least to pass). Case in point - take Caltech. Caltech is an elite school. Why does a higher percentage of the student body flunk out of Caltech than flunks out of Harvard or Yale? Is it because Caltech accepts low quality students? Hardly. Caltech's admitted class comprise one of the academically strongest classes of any college in the country, perhaps the strongest. So then why is Caltech's flunkout rate so conspicuously high compared to other elite schools? The same could be said for MIT.

I think that simply put, it doesn't have that much to do with the quality of students you admit, and has much more to do with how the schools decide to run their curricula. Some elite schools, like Caltech, have decided that they want their curricula and their grading schemes to be more difficult - difficult enough that a lot of students will flunk out. Other elite schools, like Yale, Harvard, or Stanford, have decided that they want their curricula and their grading to be easy - easy enough that very few students will flunk out. It's simply what the school has decided it wants to do.

By Editrix (Editrix) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 06:08 pm: Edit

Sakky--

"As we all know, many applications are simply thrown away without ever being carefully read, because the applicant didn't meet certain minimum standards, which for many elite schools include a minimum number of EC's."

Actually, we don't all know anything of the kind. While some schools might have cut-offs for grades and/or test scores, I don't know where you get the idea that applicants need "a mininum number of EC's" in order to get serious consideration from elite colleges. As Northstarmom points out, the quantity, as opposed to the quality, of EC's is not going to make any difference at those schools. Since elite admissions officers actually say this quite consistently, they can't reasonably be blamed for the myths that others keep promulgating.

As for your point about the relatively high flunk-out rates at CalTech and MIT, I'm not sure why you seem to regard it as such a virtue. Are you seriously implying that Harvard, Yale, and Stanford admit academically unqualified kids that they then have to coddle with easy courses and grades--all because they're so impressed by the sheer number of shallow, uncommitted EC's those kids list on their applications? As you say, aw come on.

By Ellemenope (Ellemenope) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 06:38 pm: Edit

Sakky--

I'm sure that there are kids who not only write their own recommendations, but sign them too!

The system assumes that applicants are basically honest (except when it comes to test scores and grades). That isn't always the case.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Again, editrix, keep in mind that I'm arguing the point from the perspective of people who believe that such cutoffs indeed occur. I'm not saying that I know that such cutoffs indeed exist. What I'm saying is that it is widely believed that they do exist, and so the real question is why do people believe it?

Ultimately, at the end of the day, there is a strong perception that having lots of superficial EC's are helpful in getting admitted to elite colleges. Whether that perception is justified or not, the perception exists. If the perception is justified, then college adcoms are clearly to blame. Even if the perception is unjustified, college adcoms are still to blame. After all, if the perception is indeed a myth, the myth had to have gotten started somewhere.

Look, at the end of the day, college adcoms are ultimately responsible for what goes on out there, and in particular, the perceptions that people have, whether or not those perceptions are true. That's why adcoms have to be careful in what they say and who they admit. If it was really true that adcoms really were completely consistent in what they say, and also don't go around admitting students who did engage in superficial EC's, then I believe that the myth would die quickly. The fact that the myth has staying power points to a problem.

Now, to your last point, I'm afraid you misread my argument. When did I say that MIT's or Caltech's high(er) flunkout rate was a virtue? Please point to me the quote where I said that. I didn't say it was a virtue, nor did I ever say that it was not a virtue. I said that that is the way it is at MIT or Caltech. MIT and Caltech (especially Caltech) flunks out a significantly higher percentage of students than do HYPS. I didn't say that was good or bad - I never made any value judgment.

Nor did I ever say that the student bodies at Harvard, Yale, or Stanford were subpar. Again, please point to the quote where I said that.

I brought up the point not to make a value judgment but to disprove your previous contention that elite schools have low flunkout rates because they admit highly qualified students. MIT and Caltech also admit highly qualified students, and yet they go around flunking lots of students. In other words, if you believe that admitting a highly qualified student body is a primary explanatory factor for why elite schools have low flunkout rates, then you have a devil of a time explaining what is happening at Caltech. Caltech admits students that are arguably just as bright as the ones at Stanford or Yale, but Caltech flunks out quite a few of them, whereas Stanford and Yale don't.

What seems to be far more of an explanatory factor in determining flunkout rates is the philosophy of the school. The student bodies at HYPSMC are pretty much equivalent in terms of academic quality (do you disagree?). Yet the flunkout rates at MIT and Caltech are significantly higher than at HYPS. Why? Like I said, it can't be the quality of the student, because I am not aware of any significant difference in academic quality between, say, the average Yale student and the average Caltech student. The explanatory factor seems to be the philosophy of the school. Caltech and MIT have decided that they want to be harder. HYPS have decided that they want to be easier.

By Editrix (Editrix) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 08:52 pm: Edit

Sakky says:

"Ultimately, at the end of the day, there is a strong perception that having lots of superficial EC's are helpful in getting admitted to elite colleges. Whether that perception is justified or not, the perception exists. If the perception is justified, then college adcoms are clearly to blame. Even if the perception is unjustified, college adcoms are still to blame. After all, if the perception is indeed a myth, the myth had to have gotten started somewhere."

This point is so absurd that I can't waste any more time arguing with it, other than to point out that a 2-minute search on the Stanford and Yale admissions websites yielded the following:

Stanford:
"In addition to academic excellence, we are interested in students who have made significant contributions to the life of their school or community. We do not favor one type of activity over another; nor is it necessary to participate in a large number of activities. Rather, we look for students who have committed themselves to their chosen activities over a period of time and who have shown energy and enthusiasm in working with others."

Yale (in response to the FAQ that "there's not enough room on the Common Application for me to list all my extracurricular activities. What should I do?"):
"Keep in mind that for purposes of college admissions, 'more' isn't necessarily 'better.'"

And of course I'm not saying that Caltech and MIT students aren't as bright as HYPS students. But there could be many reasons why they flunk more students: For example, an equally plausible hypothesis could be that their adcoms are less successful at matching the right kids to the school. In any case (and this really will be my last post in a thread that has grown increasingly silly), my original point was that I thought that "studying for 6 APs, 5 of which you don't care about" was a not inappropriate preparation for the schoolwork at an elite university. If you're trying to say that HYPS are so ridiculously easy that students don't need that preparation, you're probably thinking back to George W's era.

By Northstarmom (Northstarmom) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 09:50 pm: Edit

"And of course I'm not saying that Caltech and MIT students aren't as bright as HYPS students. But there could be many reasons why they flunk more students:"

My guess is that Caltech and MIT flunk more students (if indeed that is the case) because CalTech and MIT are designed for students who are majoring in math and science, notoriously difficult majors.

If the students were at a place like Harvard or Yale, they might be more apt to simply switch to an easier major if they, for instance, ran into trouble in freshmen chemistry, which tends to be one of the hardest courses on any college campus.

Meanwhile, I am curious as to whether the students flunk out of Caltech or MIT or simply decide they don't want to be physicists or engineers and then transfer to a college more to their suiting. It really may be that's what's happening: the students are simply transferring, possibly even to other universities with equally high rank as the ones they're leaving.

Meanwhile, on the hypothesis that students applying to high level colleges are involved in lots of ECs just to look good, the sincerity of their ECs can easily be proven. Just take a look, for instance, at the variety of student-run activities at places like Harvard and Yale.

Students at places like that don't get course credit for doing volunteer work, publishing daily newspapers, participating in theater activities. Yet, Harvard has something like 60 student theater performances a year, a daily student-run newspaper, a humor magazine, a weekly student newspaper as well as other publications, and a public service organization, Phillips Brooks House, that has hundreds of student members who do major public service activities for the sheer fun of helping other people.

Harvard also has more NCAA teams than does any other college in the country, plus has a variety of intramural teams.

In many cases, students are participating in ECs that have absolutely no connection with their majors or career aspirations. They simply are students who have passions and who like to be busy.

There really is a big difference between people who love being involved and people who force themselves to do ECs in a desperate quest to look good to colleges.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 11:18 pm: Edit

Editrix, let me put it to you this way. There are several major employers in my town, that shall remain unnamed, whose official hiring policy is to hire the "best and the brightest". In fact, I don't know of a single company that doesn't claim that it tries to hire "the best and the brightest". But it's about the worst-kept secret in town that if you want to get hired at these companies, the best way to get hired is not necessarily by being the best and the brightest. No, the best way to get hired is to know somebody on the inside. If you just so happen to be a golfing and drinking buddy of the manager doing the hiring, then you are probably going to get hired. If you're the son of the CEO, you're going to get hired. Sure, the company's official hiring policy is that they want to hire the best and the brightest - the guys with the best education and/or the best experience. But everybody knows that the reality is quite different from the official policy. Please don't tell me that you've only worked for organizations whose political and cultural reality was exactly the same as what official company policy says it is. I don't know a single person who has.

Hence it doesn't matter what the adcoms may have on their websites. What matters is what the adcoms actually do. Everybody knows that there is an "official" way to get admitted to a school, and then there is the "actual" way to get admitted, just like everybody in my town knows about the official and the actual way to get hired at the big companies in town. Harvard will never ever officially say on its website that if you contribute, say, a billion dollars, your son will get admitted, even though I'm sure we all know that it's true. So why are you showing me quotes from adcom websites when we all know that the reality of college admissions is different from what is on the website?

And once again, let me reiterate the point. I never said that HYPS were easy on an absolute scale. Rather, they are easy when compared to MIT or Caltech. I don't think anybody would seriously dispute this notion.

Nor do I think it's a matter of adcom student matching. Even the best-matched MIT students will agree that MIT is difficult. Take this quote:

"Nobody likes M.I.T. People respect it. I respect it. But like it? Does anyone like taking a drink from a fire hose? I am still in awe of the place."

Note that this quote comes from none other than Dr. Andrew Tanenbaum, one of the luminaries in modern computer science, and inventor of MINIX (the precursor to Linux). Nobody can seriously say that Tanenbaum and MIT don't match up well. Yet even he will admit that MIT is no walk in the park. Then there is the infamous MIT gallows humor like the acronym IHTFP. I could come up with story after story about the difficulty of the school, even from students that match up with it well. Let's face it - MIT is simply put a difficult school. So is Caltech.

Now, to northstarmom:

You say that MIT and Caltech are difficult because science and math majors are difficult. But that only begs the question - why are science and math majors so difficult?

However, I agree with you that I too am curious to see where all these people who leave MIT or Caltech go, and really they do just end up transferring to another school of equivalent rank.

I would say that it does seem rather difficult. It's not like you can simply transfer immediately upon arrival. If you arrive at a school like Caltech and decide that you just hate it, you can't leave just "like that". You have to spend at least a year there, usually 2, before you can be a serious transfer candidate. And if you really hate a school to the point that you want to transfer out, then odds are that your grades probably aren't very good (it's pretty damn hard to get A's in Caltech classes that you hate), and if your grades aren't good, then it's going to be difficult for you to get admitted as a transfer student to a school of equal rank. It's extremely difficult for anybody to transfer into HYPS or some other elite school, and if you have mediocre college grades to show, even if those grades came from Caltech, then you're really behind the 8-ball. Happened to a couple of guys I know - they absolutely hated Caltech and got bad grades. Their grades basically disqualified them from being serious transfer candidates to anywhere good, so their only choices were to either drop out completely, transfer to a no-name school, or simply tough it out at a school that they hate. None of them are good options.

Furthermore, even for those students who are able to transfer to a school of equivalent rank, I wonder if it's really because they just wanted to retreat to another (easier) major, or just because they wanted an easier school. I have heard of a couple of guys who were former electrical engineering students at MIT who successfully transferred into Stanford. And what did they study at Stanford? Electrical engineering. So they ended up studying exactly the same thing. The big difference seems to be that Stanford EE is easier than MIT EE. It wasn't the major they were trying to escape, it was the school.

Now, I do agree with you that Harvard students engage in lots of EC's. But again, I would wonder how much of that has to do with career aspirations. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that all Harvard students are engaging in EC's to enhance their careers. But I would posit that quite a few are. It's well known that admission to graduate schools, especially professional schools like med-school, often times hinges upon EC activity. So I would expect the same sort of EC gaming that appears in high school to also appear in college.

I think the real way to look at things is to look at, say, Harvard graduate students and see what sort of activities they are participating in. For example, what EC's are the medical students doing? What EC's are the law students doing? These people truly do have nothing left to gain from EC's, because they already got admitted to graduate school. I would argue that Harvard graduate students probably participate in EC's at a lower rate than Harvard College students do, and that would seem to indicate that some (certainly not all, but some) of the Harvard College students are participating in EC's just to get a checkmark.

By Northstarmom (Northstarmom) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:07 am: Edit

I think it's very well known that Harvard produces relatively few students who become professional entertainers. However, each year, Harvard has an Arts First festival in which students perform. It's not related to any classwork, and is an excellent example of how Harvard students do ECs that have little relationship to their majors.

"The twelfth annual ARTS FIRST festival, sponsored by the Harvard Board of Overseers and initiated by actor John Lithgow '67 to celebrate students and faculty in the arts and galvanize the Harvard arts community, will be held Thursday-Sunday, May 6-9, 2004. ARTS FIRST 2003 involved over 2,000 students in presenting over 200 concerts, theatricals, dance productions, multi-media presentations, exhibitions, and public artworks. Special OFA Grants will be available."

FYI, First Arts is mainly an undergraduate activity. Harvard has about 6,600 undergrads. Probably at least half of them are planning to go to law, business or medical school. I doubt that participating in musical or theater performances is that much of a door opener for those kind of grad schools.

Relatively few Harvard students become journalists or enter the publishing field. Yet, here's a partial list of campus publications: the Crimson, Harvard's daily paper, or the Independent, the campus weekly; literary magazines (The Advocate, Padan Aram, Fifth Floor Journal), political journals (International Review, Perspective, Political Review), and other topical periodicals, such as Lighthouse (women's issues), There and Back (travel/experience abroad), and the Harvard-Radcliffe Yearbook.


Here's a list of club sports: Aikido, Badminton, Boxing, Cuong Nhu, Cricket, Croquet, Classics (Basketball), Cycling, Equestrian, Jiann-Shyong, Kung Fu, Judo, Jujitsu, Kendo, Korean Karate, Polo, Racquetball, Rugby, Shooting, Shotokan Karate, Snowboarding, Table Tennis, Tae Kwon Do, Tenchi Kempo, Ultimate Frisbee, Yoga.

There also are 21 men's and 20 women intercollegiate sports.

There are more than 25 ethnic groups.
2/3 of students at Harvard participate in public service before graduation.

The college's theater department is entirely student run.

FYI: Here's what Harvard students do after graduation. I really don't think that most need to be undergraduate entertainers, publishers or active in sports or ethnic organizations or volunteer work in order to achieve their career aspirations. Of course, in some cases there will be an overlap. That's normal. However, in many cases, students are doing things that have absolutely no relationship to their career interests.

I know that, for instance, it is very hard to get a position on the Harvard Crimson newspaper. That's because even though most Harvard students don't plan to be professional journalists, many enjoy journalism as an EC.


FYI, here's what Harvard students do upon graduation:
Students Going to Law School Upon Graduation: 15%
Students Going to Medical School Upon Graduation: 20%
Students Going to Business School Upon Graduation: 13%
Students Going to Graduate School Upon Graduation: 25%

By Northstarmom (Northstarmom) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:09 am: Edit

One last thing: Typically graduate students-- no matter where they are -- have little time to do anything major except graduate school and things directly related to their graduate school program.

I think it's a rare graduate student who has lots of time to spend in ECs not related to graduate or professional school. One can't judge their commitment to ECs by what they do with their so-called spare time.

By Bookworm (Bookworm) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 08:44 am: Edit

Sakky
Since my S is at Caltech, I have concern there is no grade inflation, and transferring will be hard if he decides its not worth spending all his time studying (tho I don't really expect him to do that.) The average GPA is 3.2. Still, it was his dream to go to an IT school.

I don't think H is easier, but his friends there earn A's as average, rather than B's.

I also work in hospitals and nursing homes, and see lots of 'volunteers' who need to be prodded to do anything. Sometimes, a kid does enjoy the work and it shows. I appreciate that EC credit is given for those in bands who perform at school and community events. This is a natural outgrowth from their interest in music.

By Soozievt (Soozievt) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 10:35 am: Edit

This notion about doing EC activities as a game to get into college is one I had never heard of until I visited these forums. It is a notion foreign to my personal experiences in my own little world. I have two teenagers, one who is a freshman at Brown and one who is applying to college right now. They are involved in many ECs that they have done their entire lives. They NEVER did ECs to get into college, that idea never entered into their choices. They love their EC passions and have done them since very young. In fact, they want to continue to participate in these very same EC passions in college. This came across in their application materials. It came up even in articulating why they wanted to attend X college because of their intentions to continue those activities on those campuses (mentioned very specific things they hoped to do at that school). In fact, they researched the EC opportunities in their interest areas at those colleges in order to make sure they would be happy attending there as they would not want to give up their EC passions. My current college freshman's EC passions have NO connection to any future career or graduate school. The idea of doing her ECs in college to look good for grad school is the furthest thing from her mind. Her colleges could readily tell how she would contribute to campus life as she articulated that in her materials. Indeed, she is participating several hours per day in ECs at college so far and if anything, it is a tad disappointing that she cannot fit each of her EC areas into her busy schedule, and would, if she could, do all of them. An example with my younger kid is in a cover letter to an application she is sending out today in which she talks of why she wants to go to that college and ONE of the specifics she mentioned was learning of all the student run theater productions at their school (on our recent visit) and how she has created/directed two shows in high school and wants to have opportunities to do that in college and so that was one (of several) aspects she got into at that school that she found appealing. Talking of what you will contribute once there, is what they care about, not just that you earned brownie points on the way up.

I believe, as Northstarmom does, that selective colleges can tell who is doing EC to just get brownie points and who is thoroughly committed to their ECs over time and who intends to continue with them in college and they definitely want kids to participate in these campus activities. As Northstarmom explains, tons of kids at Harvard are participating in ECs not remotely related to their career or grad school aspirations. They have strong interests outside of academics, are leaders and such and have continued these while in college because they love it and want to.

If you are a joiner and if you are volunteering or doing an EC because you have to, it will show. A kid who volunteers to tutor is different than a kid who started an entire organization. A kid who was in the play is not the same as a kid who created and directed a student show.

Also, colleges do NOT care the number of volunteer hours. I had not heard of counting hours in volunteer service until I read this forum. My kids do not have an hourly total of volunteer work on their resumes. One has not even done a lot of community service though she has produced two major EC events that raised a great deal of money that she donated to charity. Her EC load seven days per week totals 35 hours and so she does not have time for volunteer work. I am not concerned that she does not have an "hour count" for some volunteering. Quality ECs is what it is about. If that activity is community service, great and if it is something else, also great. To say that kids who volunteer do so because they have to, is a generalization and a sad one at that. I know that my older D was an assistant teacher twice per week senior year at her old elem school and she LOVED it immensely. She would do that again in a heartbeat, not due to some requirement.

Believe me, no kid puts in 20 hours per week, somtimes getting up at 5:30 AM at their sport, in windchills of 25 below zero, so they can get into college. You gotta love it to do it. One of mine did that for years. I have a kid getting home at 11 PM most nights from rehearsals for a show that is 50 miles away. Theater is her passion. No kid in their right mind would be putting in these hours just to look good. Colleges KNOW the difference from kids who are doing ECs because they "must" and do not intend to continue once they matriculate, and ones who love their interest areas and will not give them up upon starting college. I interview many candidates for a very selective college and I can tell the difference.

By Gvtennis55 (Gvtennis55) on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 10:54 pm: Edit

Since this thread was talking about the 'game' of admissions earlier, i was wondering, exactly how much dough would you (or someone close to you) donate to an exclusive university such as harvard to guarantee acceptance? Does it have to be a parent/sibling or could it be someone like an aunt? And if you did have a massive amount of money to blow, wouldnt a high school student that gets b's have a tough time at a top university?

By Sakky (Sakky) on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 11:55 pm: Edit

To Gvtennis's last question - the answer is not really. Like I said before, at certain schools, notably HYPS, it's practically impossible to flunk out. What's hard is getting admitted (obviously), but once you're in, you're in. You might end up with mediocre grades, and you might even have to flee to a 'creampuff' major in order to graduate, but it's a poorly kept secret that at HYPS, as long as you put in some minimum amount of effort, you're going to graduate. Almost nobody ever flunks out, and those that do have to put in an effort to doing so.

And the fact is, a lot of HS students know this full well. They know that if they can just themselves admitted to HYPS, they know that they're set. The same can be said for the elite professional schools - once you're in, it's practically impossible to flunk out. You actually have to put in effort to flunk out of, say, Stanford Business School.

To bookworm: I don't know how you define the word "easier", but to me, if a class gives out higher grades for the same work than some other class, that to me is the definition of "easier". And it's well known that certain schools are easier than others. Again, I would point out that it's far easier to flunk out of physics at Caltech than it is to flunk out of Harvard, even in physics, despite the fact that I'm sure we'd agree that the academic quality of students at Harvard and Caltech are roughly the same.

And to sooziest, I would agree with you that it may be easy to see in an interview if a candidate is only participating in EC's if he doesn't really want to. But I believe you missed the point. The point is, at least that person reached the interview stage. And that's far better than another candidate who got rejected before he even reached the interview. Like I said, the strategy of some candidates is that you gotta keep yourself alive in the game as long as possible in order to maximize your chances of admission. If you keep yourself alive, then something good might happen. Nobody ever got admitted who got rejected during the first screens.

Now again, let me reiterate, I'm not saying that I support this idea of gaming the system. Indeed, I hate it. A lot. But that's not the point. The point is that apparently, for some people, it seems to work. I don't like it, but it's the truth. And candidates have picked up on this fact. Gaming sometimes works. It shouldn't work, but it does. And my point is that as long as it sometimes work, candidates are always going to be tempted to game.

By 3togo (3togo) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 08:33 am: Edit

To repeat advice given before in CC I just read and highly recommend both "The Gatekeepers" and "A is for Admission". Both books look into the world of admissions at top schools. Great reads for kids or parents in this process. For me "The Gatekeepers" was particularly compelling and reassuring ... from the stacks of papers the adcom folks are trying to understand each young adult and how they would fit into their college's culture and society.

Relevant to the topic of this string ... both books describe an admissions officer reading the ECs of a student and trying to put them in context and then applying "a grade" .... my strong impression from reading this is that trying to game ECs is not an effective or efficient strategy ... if an application is well written (see much of InterestedDad's advice on focus) the adcoms will understand fairly well what an applicant would bring to their school (or not).

By Voronwe (Voronwe) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 11:12 am: Edit

The point is, at least that person reached the interview stage. And that's far better than another candidate who got rejected before he even reached the interview.

Sakky, I was an Ivy interviewer for many, many years, and knew many others not only at my own school but other top schools (and I know them and am in contact with them today, as many are close personal friends). I am wondering where you got the idea that you had to compete to get an interview?

We interviewed EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO CALLED TO SET UP AN INTERVIEW. There was no "rejecting" of people BEFORE the interview. My kids chose not to apply to my Ivy, but two applied to top ten schools (and got in) - in BOTH cases they had their interviews BEFORE they even sent in their apps. Other schools also interview after apps are received. But I have never, ever, ever heard of a school turning down someone for an interview because their app wasn't full of ECs - or for any other reason!

Not saying such a scenario couldn't occur -I just never heard of it. And as I said on another thread, though interviews don't have that much influence, they DO if they are negative. Phony "joiners" always got ranked 1,2, or 3 by me (out of a best possible score of 9) - and not one of them over many years was accepted. (I specifically wrote on my report that the ECS were just there to impress, as my interview clearly showed).

By Nedad (Nedad) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 06:14 pm: Edit

Strongly agree with last poster! I also did top ten college interviewing....

By Gvtennis55 (Gvtennis55) on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 10:48 pm: Edit

veronwe and nedad, i am in hs right now and am very lost in how exactly the interview works. How much does it really count in getting you in? is there a point system for the overall interview or is it interview comments? Any insight you could give would be much appreciated.

By Voronwe (Voronwe) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 09:08 am: Edit

Hi Gvtennis55 - as an Ivy interviewer for many years, I would say "don't worry!" I truly believe that interviews do not count for THAT much. Yes, a really bad interview is a bad thing and CAN have an effect --- but most people aren't so brain-dead as to do these kinds of stupid things:

1) Saying your ECs were "to look good on a college app."
2) Having NO knowledge of the school at all (so why are you applying if you don't have a serious interest in a particular program etc).
3) Just as bad: asking questions that are in the guidebooks and viewbooks: "So how many students go to your school?"
4) Saying (and this has happened A LOT) "Wow, what a weird question. I never thought you'd ask me a question like that. I have no answer prepared for that!"

Boring advice I know but "just be yourself." Do a little research into the school - or maybe a lot. If (eg) you want to do music at Yale, research something like their museum of early instruments.

Or search the websites for interesting professors and read some of what they wrote (they may have books or articles available through interlibrary loan). Then if I ask, why do you want to go to School X, you might say, "FOr the past two years my interest in Subject Y has been growing, as shown by my internship, and I see that Professor Joe Blow did a study in the Fiji Islands on that very topic...." or something like that.

Probably it does help to have a good book, movie, and current event that you can speak articulately on just in case the interviewer can't think of anything else to ask!

Also, I liked lively, interesting students. I know some are shy and quiet, but I liked seeing their eyes light up when they talked about something they loved. I couldn't stand the zombie kids, who seemed dead inside, just sat there, had little excitement or interest, didn't ask questions, etc. You know the type. Or the nasty cynics.

Yes, the school I interviewed had a point system, but also plenty of room for comments.

HTH

By 3togo (3togo) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 01:03 pm: Edit

The advice given so far has been good. When I did interviews there were 2 ways kids turned me off ... 1) as mentioned before if the kid did not know anything about the school or was totally stumped by straight forward questions (suggestion ... sit with your best friend and practice your answers to the basic questions .. why do yo want to go to school "x"? What is your favorite subject and why? ... there will not be any trick questions!) ... 2) the kid do not show passion ... show passion for learning, for your ECs, and for school for which you are interviewing!

By Northstarmom (Northstarmom) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 05:20 pm: Edit

I interview for my Ivy alma mater.
Usually students interview very well. This is true whether they are shy or naturally gregarious.

The interview is low key designed to allow students to talk about themselves, their interests, etc. The college wants alum interviewrs to provide a pleasant experience for students. This is true even though 9 of 10 applicants at my alma mater are rejected. Virtually all applicants have the qualifications ot be accepted: There just isn't room for all.

The things that students have done that were aversive. I do want to emphasize that such behavior is rare.

1. A student who arrived 30 minutes early to my house one morning. The student just missed arriving when I was out front sweeping the steps in my bathrobe. Please plan to arrive on time, but not early. If you arrive early, drive around the block or something so that you don't disrupt the interviewer's schedule.

2.Students who seemed to have applied to college on a whim because they didn't know basic info about the college. They seemed to have seen admission to the college as simply a matter of luck, so clearly put no thought into learning about it.

Asked why they applied, such students said vague things like, "It's a prestigious place."

Questions such students asked were things clearly answered on the web page. This included, "How many students go there?" "What extracurriculars are offered?"

3. Don't try to impress the interviewer by mentioning a book that you haven't read. I am fairly certain that that's what happened when a student mentioned having read a book that I was extremely familiar with, even had met the author.

And finally, if your nose starts running and you don't have a tissue, please don't just let it run down your face. That is what happened in one interview. I would gladly have gotten the student a tissue if the student had asked. The student didn't ask, however, and the snot ran into his mouth.

Meanwhile, at my alma mater, all students who complete their applications get interviewed. The exception are students who are in such remote locations that no alum are available. However, every effort is made by the admissions office to find someone to interview each applicant, even the rare ones who are weak.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 09:28 pm: Edit

To Veronwe and Nedad, you gotta read my posts in context. I never said that interviewing was particularly important. I said what I said in response to sooviezt said . Sooveizt said that if you fake your EC's, you will be found out in the interview stage, and my rejoinder was that, hey, at least you got to the interview stage. That's not to say that I thought that the interview stage was particularly important but to make a larger point, which is that it is the justified opinion of some candidates that they gotta do what they gotta do to stay alive in the admissions process as long as possible. By staying alive as long as possible, they give themselves a chance to get admitted. Nobody ever got admitted who couldn't get through a mechanical screening process, whether that screening process was by SAT score, or high school GPA, or a complete lack of EC's, or whatever.

The point is this. Please be clear - I am not defending any of this behavior. Indeed, I find it abhorrent. But as long as people think that the admissions process as a game, whether they are justified in thinking it or not, then they are going to continue to play these games. As long as they is such little trust between adcom and candidate, candidates will always be trying to BS their way through.

And I think that part of the responsibility lies with the adcoms. Let's be perfectly frank - adcoms have not exactly been honest brokers in the whole admissions process. Adcoms have been blatantly caught not telling the whole truth. For example, I rarely meet an adcom officer who is perfectly honest about the role of donation money in the process - if your Daddy donates X amount of money, you are going to get in, no questions asked, as long as X is large enough. We all know it's true, but I rarely meet an adcom officer who will admit it, and in fact, many officers will straight-up lie about it, when we all know what the truth is. The same could be said for other ways to get admitted - for example, I rarely meet an adcom officer of a bigtime football or basketball school who is truly honest about the admissions of a star player. It is precisely this sort of behavior that has poisoned the well. When candidates see adcoms officers telling bald-faced lies, is it really any wonder when they see the process as nothing more than a game? In short, when you see adcoms officers are themselves shading the truth, can you really expect candidates to behave any better?

By Soozievt (Soozievt) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:19 pm: Edit

Sakky, sorry, but I do not buy any of your points. First off, you do not have to pass "go" to get to the interview. At my alma mater, ALL candidates are offered an interview and it has nothing to do with getting past point A first. In fact, just today, one of my kids who is currently applying to college, had an interview for admissions with an admissions officer from one of her propsective colleges who was here in our state and my daughter's application is not even yet submitted. So, getting an interview has nothing to do with first getting by a certain "review". And even IF it did...

I highly advise against lying on an application. I definitely think the lies have a way of being obvious, and I don't just mean in the interview. Your recs would have to support your application and if you have some kid writing down they were in all these plays at school, when they were not, you also will not have anyone else giving the same picture of the student. Like I have a kid in three varsity sports, but she has submitted recs that are from coaches and I have a daughter who has trained her whole life in theater and she has recs from those she has worked with in that field. The guidance counselor and academic teacher recs also mention a great deal about these things my kids do outside the classroom and so every piece of their application is revealing the same profile, which is easy because the info. is TRUE. I don't think you can say you are a star athlete and then have NOBODY mention a thing about it on their paperwork about you.

Then, when you get to the interview, you will be weaving a lie about all this jazz? Good luck. As an interviewer myself, believe me I know the genuine thing when I see it. Your premise to lie on the app so you can first get to the interview (which as I said is not even the normal procedure anyway), will fly in your face because what are you gonna do when you get to that interview? You will have to keep the lie up. And once ya lie, one thing leads to another and well, let's say I would not play that game. You know, if you can't get in on your own merits, what is the point? And if you get into a college beyond your qualifications, good luck making it there.

Susan

By Helicoptermom (Helicoptermom) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:19 pm: Edit

Sakky says:

Sooveizt said that if you fake your EC's, you will be found out in the interview stage, and my rejoinder was that, hey, at least you got to the interview stage. That's not to say that I thought that the interview stage was particularly important but to make a larger point, which is that it is the justified opinion of some candidates that they gotta do what they gotta do to stay alive in the admissions process as long as possible. By staying alive as long as possible, they give themselves a chance to get admitted.

Sakky, how about reading Veronwe's post accurately, as well as in context? Here's what that post said:

Sakky, I was an Ivy interviewer for many, many years, and knew many others not only at my own school but other top schools (and I know them and am in contact with them today, as many are close personal friends). I am wondering where you got the idea that you had to compete to get an interview?

We interviewed EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO CALLED TO SET UP AN INTERVIEW. There was no "rejecting" of people BEFORE the interview.

Sooveizt then added:

Sakky, sorry, but I do not buy any of your points. First off, you do not have to pass "go" to get to the interview.

Veronwe and Sooveizt are correct: Interviews at elite colleges aren't doled out only to applicants who survive an initial screening process; therefore, faking ECs doesn't help you to get an interview and "stay alive as long as possible."

The larger point that's important here is that anyone who wants genuinely useful advice on these issues has "gotta" recognize the difference between those who know what they're talking about and those who don't.

By Soozievt (Soozievt) on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:31 pm: Edit

Sakky, one clarification of my post that I just posted. I made a mistake in thinking we were discussing lying about ECs on an application. I had forgotten the earlier discussion and had only read your more recent post and when you said "faking" ECs, I thought the discussion was one of the threads about lying about your ECs on your resume, so my post above had more to do with that as I did not scroll back to recall the entire thread. And I read "faking" ECs wrong in your latter post out of context. I remember now that the thread was not about lying about ECs on an app but about doing ECs just to join them to look good for colleges without true interest. So, forgive me if my comments in my last post were more directed toward lying about the ECs. Even so, the same premise is relevant. I realize now that our discussion earlier in the thread was not about lying out right but more about doing EC you don't give a care about. But that is also a form of not being genuine as well. And I do think my same points could be made about that too and that adcoms and interviewers can see through genuine ECs and ones done to pad the college application. Example, a lifelong involvement in an EC does not match one that was started in 11th grade.
Susan

By Sakky (Sakky) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:23 am: Edit

Again, people, read my comments again.

First of all, I am not advocating that anybody should lie or otherwise misrepresent themselves on their apps. In fact, I have said several times that I condemn the practice. However, I do understand why people might feel inclined to do such a thing. In particular, some people will feel that, hey, since adcom officers are lying to us (i.e. in the true nature of $ in the admissions process), then what's wrong about lying to them?

And again, to my detractors, particularly helicoptermom, my point is not that lying truly helps you get to the interview stage. My point is that a lot of people believe it to be true. And it really boils down to a larger point - a lot of candidates believe that the best strategy they can use is one where they can stay alive in the admissions process as long as possible, and if that means engaging in EC's that they don't really care or not, well that's the rules of the game. Whether they are correct or not in believing this to be true is not the issue, the issue is that they believe it to be true. Hence, we get the problem of people believing that it is beneficial to them to engage in EC's that they don't care about.

And again, I never said that they were correct or that I condone their actions. In fact, I have said several times that I do not condone their actions. But that's not the point. The point is that they believe they are right. And I would investigate why they think they are right. And I believe that part of the problem is that adcom officers have eroded their own credibility by not being candid about some of the backdoors to getting admitted into college that we all know exist. Adcom officers may indeed be correct in saying that engaging in extraneous EC's may not be helpful, but a lot of candidates don't believe anything that the adcoms have to say, and it's partly the adcoms own fault as to why they aren't believed. That's my point. Again, if adcoms themselves aren't exactly being candid, can you really expect candidates to be?

By Helicoptermom (Helicoptermom) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 01:40 am: Edit

Poor Sakky--the mean old adcoms must have done something awful to make you so sure that they're out to deceive so many people so much of the time. (I myself have found most of them to be remarkably straightforward, but maybe I'm just lucky.) I hope you feel better soon.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 11:04 am: Edit

Here we go again - somebody always ends up accusing me of a hidden agenda. So if I point out a problem anywhere, it is always because it has something to do with me personally, is that right? Rest assured that I am far far beyond the college admissions stage and I have no skin in the game. Is it really so impossible for you to believe that somebody might discover a problem that he/she has no personal stake in the matter. I don't go around accusing you or anybody else of a hidden agenda. Poor old helicoptermom, always assuming that everybody has an ulterior motive.

And who ever said that I said that adcoms are out to deceive so many people so much of the time? I believe that most adcom officers are fine upstanding and honest people. But you know and I know that it only takes a few bad apples to give all of them a bad name.

Finally, again, who said it had anything to do with me? It seems like you just want to shoot the messenger. Even if I had said nothing, the fact remains that there are a lot of candidates out there who don't trust adcoms and think it's beneficial to play games. But I am not the cause of that. I am merely pointing out that a problem exists, but I did not create the problem. The problem already existed, and I am just pointing it out. It seems that some people on this forum are more interested in castigating those people who point out the problem, rather than talking about the problem itself. In other words, shooting the messenger.

By Voronwe (Voronwe) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 12:12 pm: Edit

I just don't see the problem. Running up a lot of phony ECs doesn't either get you in the game or keep you in the game (unless you claim one of the ECS is a Nobel Prize - but then, that will be found out a lot quicker than other things!). No top school admits on the basis of a long laundry list.

But leave that behind. It seemed that you were specifically saying that some people never get to the interview. THAT'S what I was answering. Have you ever heard of anyone not getting to the interview?

By Helicoptermom (Helicoptermom) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 05:26 pm: Edit

How curious, Sakky. If you are "far far beyond the college admissions stage" and have no hidden agendas, it seems quite remarkable for you to be spending so much time on CC. After all, most posters on this forum are engaged in the college application process in one way or another.

And to answer Voronwe's last post, no, I've never heard of anyone not getting to the interview because they didn't have a sufficiently padded application. (Some colleges don't offer interviews at all, and sometimes they run out of interviewers, but if interviews are offered at all, they're almost always on a first-come, first-served basis. Certain graduate and professional schools may have different procedures, but we're talking about college applications here.)

Sakky keeps talking about a game that simply doesn't exist. And if the misguided perception of that game is as big a problem as Sakky thinks it is, he seems to be doing his best to keep that perception alive.

By Sakky (Sakky) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 06:21 pm: Edit

I see, and so helicoptermom, what's your agenda then? Apparently you also seem to have a lot of time invested in the process. How curious and remarkable indeed.

And besides, surely you do not seriously think that I am the one causing the perception? So you're saying that people are engaging in this sort of behavior simply because I am telling them to do that? Thank you for the flattery, but I don't have that kind of power.

Now, to voronwe, again, I have to repeat myself, it's not the point what the real truth to the admissions process is. What matters is what candidates think the truth is. Whether it's actually true that a laundry list of EC's will improve your admissions chances is not the issue - the issue is that a lot of candidates believe it to be true, and that's why you end up with charity organizations filled with "involuntary volunteers" who don't really want to be there at all.

The bottom line is that there a wide gulf between what the real admissions process is and what candidates think that it is. And you would have to be quite a fool to deny that the lack of honesty among some adcoms is a contributory factor to why the gulf exists. For example, When adcoms deny the role of donor money in the admissions process, that reduces their credibility. Shooting the messenger is not going to the make this issue go away.

By Helicoptermom (Helicoptermom) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 06:35 pm: Edit

Yes, Sakky, I am invested, because I have one child who's a freshman in college and another who's still in high school. Oddly enough, I thought that CC was for people like me and their kids. I still don't know what you're doing here, but have a nice life anyway.

By Voronwe (Voronwe) on Saturday, October 09, 2004 - 08:27 pm: Edit

Hi Sakky - OK, I do get it - you are arguing about the candidates' perception of what matters in admissions.

But I was responding to a different issue. I was responding to this sentence of yours:

The point is, at least that person reached the interview stage. And that's far better than another candidate who got rejected before he even reached the interview.

I had never heard of a candidate being "rejected before he even reached the interview." So that is what I was asking about - if you had ever heard of that happening.

Also - in the school I worked for, and the ones my kids go to, no adcom ever denied that donor money was a big help. These are called "development cases" and I believe everyone is pretty much aware of them.....

By Upandover (Upandover) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 06:27 pm: Edit

Sakky,

You seem to be evading this. This point has been raised umpteen times. Time and time again throughout this long thread, posters have mention that this:

The point is, at least that person reached the interview stage. And that's far better than another candidate who got rejected before he even reached the interview.

is simply not true. Yes, there are some misguided applicants who believe that this is true initially, but they are painfully shot down by guidance consoullers immediately...

By Helicoptermom (Helicoptermom) on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 07:53 pm: Edit

Yes, indeed, Upandover--but for some reason Sakky seems more interested in bashing the adcoms for rumors than in setting the record straight:

"Adcom officers may indeed be correct in saying that engaging in extraneous EC's may not be helpful, but a lot of candidates don't believe anything that the adcoms have to say, and it's partly the adcoms own fault as to why they aren't believed....

And again:

"The bottom line is that there a wide gulf between what the real admissions process is and what candidates think that it is. And you would have to be quite a fool to deny that the lack of honesty among some adcoms is a contributory factor to why the gulf exists. For example, When adcoms deny the role of donor money in the admissions process, that reduces their credibility. Shooting the messenger is not going to the make this issue go away."

As Veronwe rightly points out in her most recent post, adcoms don't really "deny the role of donor money in the admissions process" either; there's really no secret that "development cases" (which involve very large donations and are surprisingly rare, as Michele Hernandez points out in A is for Admission) get at least some degree of preference.

Throughout the application process for my daughter, I've been grateful to CC for helping to separate admissions facts from fiction. It's frustrating to see Sakky muddying the waters by repeatedly saying that it doesn't matter whether a myth is true, so long as "a lot of people believe it to be true."

Of course it matters. That's why we're reading CC in the first place, to get a better understanding of how the system really works.