[OutsiderFan]

Given all the talk of Stanford admissions at this time of year, how might Stanford adopt these forthcoming recommendations, and how might doing so impact athlete admissions?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/opinio...sions.html

[OutsiderFan]

Given all the talk of Stanford admissions at this time of year, how might Stanford adopt these forthcoming recommendations, and how might doing so impact athlete admissions?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/opinio...sions.html

[Rally]

Given all the talk of Stanford admissions at this time of year, how might Stanford adopt these forthcoming recommendations, and how might doing so impact athlete admissions?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/opinio...sions.html

Of course I don't know the specifics.  Why clutter my mind with facts?  But to me, this is a fluff article that ends up saying nothing more than oh, gosh, this has got to change.  Waste of bandwidth.

[Rally]

Given all the talk of Stanford admissions at this time of year, how might Stanford adopt these forthcoming recommendations, and how might doing so impact athlete admissions?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/opinio...sions.html

Of course I don't know the specifics.  Why clutter my mind with facts?  But to me, this is a fluff article that ends up saying nothing more than oh, gosh, this has got to change.  Waste of bandwidth.

[81alum]

This op-ed refers to a more substantive report that will be released tomorrow.  I'll look for it and read it.  Too early to say much, but I heartily approve of the idea of reducing the influence of standardized tests, limiting AP classes,  and limiting the number of extracurriculars, increasing the weight of the essays and letters, etc.  I suggested just those things a few months ago on this board.  Hopefully something is done to stop the "manic" behavior of kids applying to elites.  It probably would help athletes too, if the focus is on a smaller number of in-depth extracurriculars (like their sport.)

We will see what the full report actually suggests....

[81alum]

This op-ed refers to a more substantive report that will be released tomorrow.  I'll look for it and read it.  Too early to say much, but I heartily approve of the idea of reducing the influence of standardized tests, limiting AP classes,  and limiting the number of extracurriculars, increasing the weight of the essays and letters, etc.  I suggested just those things a few months ago on this board.  Hopefully something is done to stop the "manic" behavior of kids applying to elites.  It probably would help athletes too, if the focus is on a smaller number of in-depth extracurriculars (like their sport.)

We will see what the full report actually suggests....

[OutsiderFan]

For those interested in the report: http://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/collegeadmissions

[OutsiderFan]

For those interested in the report: http://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/collegeadmissions

[JeffInCorvallis]

I interview high school students who are applying to Stanford.  Stanford doesn't offer alumni interviews in all geographies but it is an option here.  I get a lot of very smart, very dedicated, hard-working students with a lot of AP classes and a lot of extracurriculars on their resumes.  My main job, as I view it, is not to review the laundry list of accomplishments.  That's covered on the application.  My job is to probe.  What makes this kid tick?  What are they passionate about?  Are these activities and classes that they are doing to check a box or is there something more?  And every year I struggle with how to evaluate and weigh these different activities.  From helping to advise a team I know that to really do a robotics team right requires a tremendous time commitment.  So does starring in the school musical or playing on the varsity basketball team or being a really good debater.  Are they just sort of dabbling in a lot of things or are they really serious about something?  How do I value the kid who put in a lot of time volunteering for the hospital or the homeless shelter versus the kid who had a research internship at the local university?  What does it say about their family socio-economic status and how well-connected their parents are?  What about the student that worked a part-time job at McDonald's or Wal-Mart to help the family make ends meet?

I'd rather see one thing done really well with passion than a long list of activities done half-heartedly (but that's just me - others may have an equally valid but different point of view).

All of these questions are difficult to answer.  And this is just for a handful of applicants - I can't imagine what it's like to evaluate 30,000 applications. 

[JeffInCorvallis]

I interview high school students who are applying to Stanford.  Stanford doesn't offer alumni interviews in all geographies but it is an option here.  I get a lot of very smart, very dedicated, hard-working students with a lot of AP classes and a lot of extracurriculars on their resumes.  My main job, as I view it, is not to review the laundry list of accomplishments.  That's covered on the application.  My job is to probe.  What makes this kid tick?  What are they passionate about?  Are these activities and classes that they are doing to check a box or is there something more?  And every year I struggle with how to evaluate and weigh these different activities.  From helping to advise a team I know that to really do a robotics team right requires a tremendous time commitment.  So does starring in the school musical or playing on the varsity basketball team or being a really good debater.  Are they just sort of dabbling in a lot of things or are they really serious about something?  How do I value the kid who put in a lot of time volunteering for the hospital or the homeless shelter versus the kid who had a research internship at the local university?  What does it say about their family socio-economic status and how well-connected their parents are?  What about the student that worked a part-time job at McDonald's or Wal-Mart to help the family make ends meet?

I'd rather see one thing done really well with passion than a long list of activities done half-heartedly (but that's just me - others may have an equally valid but different point of view).

All of these questions are difficult to answer.  And this is just for a handful of applicants - I can't imagine what it's like to evaluate 30,000 applications. 

[larkinforever]

Or 42,000+ applicants like last year (and I'm guessing more this year)...

[larkinforever]

Or 42,000+ applicants like last year (and I'm guessing more this year)...

[winflop]

I interview high school students who are applying to Stanford.  Stanford doesn't offer alumni interviews in all geographies but it is an option here.  I get a lot of very smart, very dedicated, hard-working students with a lot of AP classes and a lot of extracurriculars on their resumes.  My main job, as I view it, is not to review the laundry list of accomplishments.  That's covered on the application.  My job is to probe.  What makes this kid tick?  What are they passionate about?  Are these activities and classes that they are doing to check a box or is there something more?  And every year I struggle with how to evaluate and weigh these different activities.  From helping to advise a team I know that to really do a robotics team right requires a tremendous time commitment.  So does starring in the school musical or playing on the varsity basketball team or being a really good debater.  Are they just sort of dabbling in a lot of things or are they really serious about something?  How do I value the kid who put in a lot of time volunteering for the hospital or the homeless shelter versus the kid who had a research internship at the local university?  What does it say about their family socio-economic status and how well-connected their parents are?  What about the student that worked a part-time job at McDonald's or Wal-Mart to help the family make ends meet?

I'd rather see one thing done really well with passion than a long list of activities done half-heartedly (but that's just me - others may have an equally valid but different point of view).

All of these questions are difficult to answer.  And this is just for a handful of applicants - I can't imagine what it's like to evaluate 30,000 applications.

Right with you but since I live 20 mins from campus I can't do interviews.  It's what I told my kids - find something you really like & stick with it for a long time.  In about 12 months I will be the proud father of two Eagle Scouts (1 down, 1 to go)

[winflop]

I interview high school students who are applying to Stanford.  Stanford doesn't offer alumni interviews in all geographies but it is an option here.  I get a lot of very smart, very dedicated, hard-working students with a lot of AP classes and a lot of extracurriculars on their resumes.  My main job, as I view it, is not to review the laundry list of accomplishments.  That's covered on the application.  My job is to probe.  What makes this kid tick?  What are they passionate about?  Are these activities and classes that they are doing to check a box or is there something more?  And every year I struggle with how to evaluate and weigh these different activities.  From helping to advise a team I know that to really do a robotics team right requires a tremendous time commitment.  So does starring in the school musical or playing on the varsity basketball team or being a really good debater.  Are they just sort of dabbling in a lot of things or are they really serious about something?  How do I value the kid who put in a lot of time volunteering for the hospital or the homeless shelter versus the kid who had a research internship at the local university?  What does it say about their family socio-economic status and how well-connected their parents are?  What about the student that worked a part-time job at McDonald's or Wal-Mart to help the family make ends meet?

I'd rather see one thing done really well with passion than a long list of activities done half-heartedly (but that's just me - others may have an equally valid but different point of view).

All of these questions are difficult to answer.  And this is just for a handful of applicants - I can't imagine what it's like to evaluate 30,000 applications.

Right with you but since I live 20 mins from campus I can't do interviews.  It's what I told my kids - find something you really like & stick with it for a long time.  In about 12 months I will be the proud father of two Eagle Scouts (1 down, 1 to go)

[Rally]

[quote author=JeffInCorvallis link=topic=14436.msg153759#msg153759 date=1453333278]
I interview high school students who are applying to Stanford.  Stanford doesn't offer alumni interviews in all geographies but it is an option here.  I get a lot of very smart, very dedicated, hard-working students with a lot of AP classes and a lot of extracurriculars on their resumes.  My main job, as I view it, is not to review the laundry list of accomplishments.  That's covered on the application.  My job is to probe.  What makes this kid tick?  What are they passionate about?  Are these activities and classes that they are doing to check a box or is there something more?  And every year I struggle with how to evaluate and weigh these different activities.  From helping to advise a team I know that to really do a robotics team right requires a tremendous time commitment.  So does starring in the school musical or playing on the varsity basketball team or being a really good debater.  Are they just sort of dabbling in a lot of things or are they really serious about something?  How do I value the kid who put in a lot of time volunteering for the hospital or the homeless shelter versus the kid who had a research internship at the local university?  What does it say about their family socio-economic status and how well-connected their parents are?  What about the student that worked a part-time job at McDonald's or Wal-Mart to help the family make ends meet?

I'd rather see one thing done really well with passion than a long list of activities done half-heartedly (but that's just me - others may have an equally valid but different point of view).

All of these questions are difficult to answer.  And this is just for a handful of applicants - I can't imagine what it's like to evaluate 30,000 applications.

Right with you but since I live 20 mins from campus I can't do interviews.  It's what I told my kids - find something you really like & stick with it for a long time.  In about 12 months I will be the proud father of two Eagle Scouts (1 down, 1 to go)
[/quote]

It's funny how things turn out.  I hid it at school, because it wasn't "cool," but ever since, when someone has asked and I admit my Eagle rank it always earns respect.  Congrats.  Like everything else it's harder now than it was then.  My three brothers and I were Eagles, and one nephew.  Sadly I attended my nephew's Court of Honor was posthumous.

[Rally]

[quote author=JeffInCorvallis link=topic=14436.msg153759#msg153759 date=1453333278]
I interview high school students who are applying to Stanford.  Stanford doesn't offer alumni interviews in all geographies but it is an option here.  I get a lot of very smart, very dedicated, hard-working students with a lot of AP classes and a lot of extracurriculars on their resumes.  My main job, as I view it, is not to review the laundry list of accomplishments.  That's covered on the application.  My job is to probe.  What makes this kid tick?  What are they passionate about?  Are these activities and classes that they are doing to check a box or is there something more?  And every year I struggle with how to evaluate and weigh these different activities.  From helping to advise a team I know that to really do a robotics team right requires a tremendous time commitment.  So does starring in the school musical or playing on the varsity basketball team or being a really good debater.  Are they just sort of dabbling in a lot of things or are they really serious about something?  How do I value the kid who put in a lot of time volunteering for the hospital or the homeless shelter versus the kid who had a research internship at the local university?  What does it say about their family socio-economic status and how well-connected their parents are?  What about the student that worked a part-time job at McDonald's or Wal-Mart to help the family make ends meet?

I'd rather see one thing done really well with passion than a long list of activities done half-heartedly (but that's just me - others may have an equally valid but different point of view).

All of these questions are difficult to answer.  And this is just for a handful of applicants - I can't imagine what it's like to evaluate 30,000 applications.

Right with you but since I live 20 mins from campus I can't do interviews.  It's what I told my kids - find something you really like & stick with it for a long time.  In about 12 months I will be the proud father of two Eagle Scouts (1 down, 1 to go)
[/quote]

It's funny how things turn out.  I hid it at school, because it wasn't "cool," but ever since, when someone has asked and I admit my Eagle rank it always earns respect.  Congrats.  Like everything else it's harder now than it was then.  My three brothers and I were Eagles, and one nephew.  Sadly I attended my nephew's Court of Honor was posthumous.

[81alum]

I think the report is quite good, so far as it goes.  One of the things I like about it is that it stresses the need to make all aspects of the evaluation process more meaningful and less about checking boxes--numerous subtle and not so subtle reforms to make it about quality and not quantity of achievements.  So JeffInCorvallis should be very happy with the focus of this reform since it appears to tie in quite well with what he looks for.

I also like the report's emphasis on trying to encourage less self-centered behavior by college applicants--which might strike some as a little idealistic but makes sense given the authors of the report.

[81alum]

I think the report is quite good, so far as it goes.  One of the things I like about it is that it stresses the need to make all aspects of the evaluation process more meaningful and less about checking boxes--numerous subtle and not so subtle reforms to make it about quality and not quantity of achievements.  So JeffInCorvallis should be very happy with the focus of this reform since it appears to tie in quite well with what he looks for.

I also like the report's emphasis on trying to encourage less self-centered behavior by college applicants--which might strike some as a little idealistic but makes sense given the authors of the report.

[OutsiderFan]

That 22% of survey participants said caring for others is important, is downright frightening.  What's heartening is study after study shows that people actually get more, better opportunities when offering to help others instead of promoting themselves. 
I'm actually working on a startup that is all about bringing this concept to everyone's life, so I follow this stuff closely.

There are plenty of people who are talented enough thinkers to thrive in elite universities who never get the chance, because they rejected those boxes (AP classes, volunteering, playing this sport or that, an instrument, or whatever, just to satisfy some  false measure of their worth), not because they aren't smart or capable of filling them, but because they think they are arbitrary or otherwise take away from pursing their real passions or necessary obligations.  I have always viewed most who will check those boxes as phony overachievers, kind of like people who wrap themselves in religion to uphold a self-righteous facade for others to see, when they are really rotten people.  The survey results prove most of the kids applying to college are completely selfish and only doing all these things because they see college as a means to more personal glory, not because they necessarily care about or have any passion for what they are doing.

So I applaud the movement to encourage a much more honest assessment of who people are, what they are really good at, and what they can offer in terms of diversity of thought and values on a college campus.

[OutsiderFan]

That 22% of survey participants said caring for others is important, is downright frightening.  What's heartening is study after study shows that people actually get more, better opportunities when offering to help others instead of promoting themselves. 
I'm actually working on a startup that is all about bringing this concept to everyone's life, so I follow this stuff closely.

There are plenty of people who are talented enough thinkers to thrive in elite universities who never get the chance, because they rejected those boxes (AP classes, volunteering, playing this sport or that, an instrument, or whatever, just to satisfy some  false measure of their worth), not because they aren't smart or capable of filling them, but because they think they are arbitrary or otherwise take away from pursing their real passions or necessary obligations.  I have always viewed most who will check those boxes as phony overachievers, kind of like people who wrap themselves in religion to uphold a self-righteous facade for others to see, when they are really rotten people.  The survey results prove most of the kids applying to college are completely selfish and only doing all these things because they see college as a means to more personal glory, not because they necessarily care about or have any passion for what they are doing.

So I applaud the movement to encourage a much more honest assessment of who people are, what they are really good at, and what they can offer in terms of diversity of thought and values on a college campus.

[Stymie]

I've been doing alumni/ae interviews for 5+ years and the admissions department has not varied in that time in telling us that our input accounts for 1-4% of the decision process.  That being said, in the context of the Harvard study, that 1-4% can be massive (aka "of extreme importance" or whatever is the latest in our auto-correct of the inverse of "eguh"....).  I would say that the bell curve of the applicants I have interviewed is a very pointy and narrow one.  90% in the pointy bit are almost indistinguishable from each other, whilst of the 5% at either end of the curve, 2-3% at the top are obviously superstars and 2-3% at the bottom are obviously unadmittable.  But, in that narrow middle and upper bit there are several potential supernovae and even a few of them at the bottom.

I think what the Harvard study is saying, once you strip off the obvious kumbaya BS, is that we elite institutions really need to find those hidden gems in the gene pool, and make more brave decisions as to who we choose to admit.  Bring this back to football, think of Ben Gardner (football wise), and even ponder the fact that Coach H gambled on him might just confirm the possibility that Coach H might just be very high up on the idiot savant spectrum, which is not necessarily a bad thing.  If you strive for and believe in excellence...

[Stymie]

I've been doing alumni/ae interviews for 5+ years and the admissions department has not varied in that time in telling us that our input accounts for 1-4% of the decision process.  That being said, in the context of the Harvard study, that 1-4% can be massive (aka "of extreme importance" or whatever is the latest in our auto-correct of the inverse of "eguh"....).  I would say that the bell curve of the applicants I have interviewed is a very pointy and narrow one.  90% in the pointy bit are almost indistinguishable from each other, whilst of the 5% at either end of the curve, 2-3% at the top are obviously superstars and 2-3% at the bottom are obviously unadmittable.  But, in that narrow middle and upper bit there are several potential supernovae and even a few of them at the bottom.

I think what the Harvard study is saying, once you strip off the obvious kumbaya BS, is that we elite institutions really need to find those hidden gems in the gene pool, and make more brave decisions as to who we choose to admit.  Bring this back to football, think of Ben Gardner (football wise), and even ponder the fact that Coach H gambled on him might just confirm the possibility that Coach H might just be very high up on the idiot savant spectrum, which is not necessarily a bad thing.  If you strive for and believe in excellence...