I went to high school in the Dallas/Fort Worth area and almost all of the top academic students in my class were first or second generation immigrants (mostly Indian) that had no interest in extra-curricular activities like sports, band, choir, or really anything.
It's important that people, especially immigrants, can get into these schools based solely on their test scores and not have to do any of the other trivial stuff that demonstrates that they can participate in the society in which they live.
The notion of a “well rounded student” who does music, art, and extra curricular activities, is a legacy of blue blood WASP culture.
That is not to say that I think only test scores should matter. But the kinds of extracurriculars colleges value—in particular that they don’t value having a job or working in the farm—smacks of old money ideals.
Valuing something like breadth of experience and being a well rounded person might be considered one of the things that makes a western style education as good as it is. Compared to other types of university systems, for example the one in India which is extremely concerned with test scores and performance metrics, many people would consider the western one to be better (including many people in India who try to come to the US for their education if they can). Not saying it's the only thing that makes western education good, but I think it definitely plays a role.
What's this Western education system of which you speak? Among Western nations the US is unique in how much emphasis it puts on extracurriculars and character. We know why that is too. The system arose as a smoke screen around Jewish quotas. The overwhelming majority of universities admit students on the basis of results of blind marked exams and nothing else. I'm by no means an expert but the usual examples given of exceptions, Oxford, Cambridge and ENA are looking for academic brilliance, not aristocratic polish ("well roundedness").
Western systems vary a lot in their degree of specialisation too. By 16, after the GCSEs the UK is done with being a generalist. Pick 3 or 4 A-Levels of your choice and if you feel like doing Math, Further Math and Physics or three sciences and Maths no one will stop you in the name of "well roundedness".
Many of the colleges people are actually attending in the U.S. are the same, and offer automatic admission if you hit some threshold of GPA, class rank or test scores. A couple examples:
These hand-wringing conversations about fair admissions mostly apply only to the elite top X schools. Those places receive tons of applications from academically top-tier students. The are looking for "something else" to make you stand out from the crowd.
Note the whole system would collapse if they only let in academically gifted people. Because only a small fraction of those gifted people would have the connections and wealth that is the core networking value these institutions provide.
Thats why simple systems like a lottery for everyone that's qualified aren't adopted. And the people trying to get in dont want them to be adopted, they dont want the system to be fair or socially useful, they want access for their kids to the exclusive club, with just enough window dressing to make it seem like something else.
Even if this cynical take is 100% true, so what? The ivies are private institutions, and have no obligation to admit people based on whatever criteria you, or I, or the general public consider fair.
Meanwhile, admission to an elite school is neither necessary nor sufficient to a happy, successful life. A couple of the best software engineers I've ever worked with - guys who got 3-4 promotions by age 30 - went to schools I'd never heard of until I met them.
This isn't really true. The ivies are bound by the rules that govern private institutions that receive federal funding. For example, they are not free to disregard Title 9 or Obama's "Dear Colleague" letter without jeopardizing their federal funding. Very recently a bill was introduced with pretty bipartisan support to require all universities that take federal funding to cease favoring legacy admissions. The federal gov't can't force these universities to do this, but they can withhold all federal funding, and that is a very powerful coercive mechanism.
I agree with you strongly that elite schools are not necessary in software engineering, but they make a huge difference in fields like Law.
Well, once you stop trying to get people into exclusive clubs, you start asking crazy questions like "why don't we just educate everybody to a high level rather than place arbitrary cutoffs based on century old social clubs to maintain an artificially restricted elite?"
> Well, once you stop trying to get people into exclusive clubs, you start asking crazy questions like "why don't we just educate everybody to a high level rather than place arbitrary cutoffs based on century old social clubs to maintain an artificially restricted elite?"
Pro tip... if you want to be educated well through instruction, don't go to an elite school. The instruction in most of the classes really sucks (with some notable exceptions that are often available for free or cheap online).
Small liberal arts schools tend to do a much better job of educating through instruction.
Because those institutions produce a disproportionate share of the most powerful people in US society, so the kinds of people they do or don't let in tend to have a strong effect on the kind of society we live in.
I support a lottery type system 100%, it would be a sane way to calm the current pressure. I don't think it would collapse the system at all. It would effectively create a pipeline of smart qualified kids into the existing networks of the schools. The lottery kids would be successful after college, and continue to reinforce the network. The only difference would be the network would look more Asian/Indian.
The Redditors on /r/cambridge routinely tell American applicants that the whole "extra-curriculars" thing is only relevant if whatever you did demonstrates enthusiasm for or ability in your subject, both of which you will need to survive. Ability for the obvious reason, enthusiasm because you will get the shock of it no longer being effortless and meeting peers who are better at it than you.
For me, the "HR interview" was "what would you say to convince me of your enthusiasm for physics?" (as in, I was explicitly asked that very question) not "tell me about how your adventures pogo-sticking up the Khyber on your gap yah made you a well-rounded person" (and the "technical interview" asked you do actually do some physics).
As someone who couldn't have afforded a gap yah and would probably have been too frail to go on one, I'm pretty happy about that.
The thing that I'm told they will do is look at your school and weight things like GCSE results and A level results accordingly (as in, if you are at a bad school, they'll make allowances for that). https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/10/how-cambri... is interesting from that point of view.
> Valuing something like breadth of experience and being a well rounded person might be considered one of the things that makes a western style education as good as it is.
so imagine how good great test scores and being well rounded is!
> The notion of a “well rounded student” who does music, art, and extra curricular activities, is a legacy of blue blood WASP culture.
For what it's worth, several of my old college friends are heavily involved with extra-curricular programs at the middle school and high school level across a few different states.
From what I've observed, your generalization isn't true at all. The extra-curricular programs are actually heavily populated with students who have two parents working long hours who want something productive for their kids to do after school.
Harvard doesn’t care about the extra curricular activities offered in midwestern high schools—sports (unless good enough to be recruited), 4H, playing an instrument, etc.
That's not true. Harvard and similar colleges actively discriminate against 4-H participants, ROTC and similar red-state activities.
> But what Espenshade and Radford found in regard to what they call “career-oriented activities” was truly shocking even to this hardened veteran of the campus ideological and cultural wars. Participation in such Red State activities as high school ROTC, 4-H clubs, or the Future Farmers of America was found to reduce very substantially a student’s chances of gaining admission to the competitive private colleges in the NSCE database on an all-other-things-considered basis. The admissions disadvantage was greatest for those in leadership positions in these activities or those winning honors and awards. “Being an officer or winning awards” for such career-oriented activities as junior ROTC, 4-H, or Future Farmers of America, say Espenshade and Radford, “has a significantly negative association with admission outcomes at highly selective institutions.” Excelling in these activities “is associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds of admission.”
> That’s exactly what I said. My wife went to high school in Iowa and was involved in FFA.
If someone is involved in 4H or FFA in a way that would be compelling for an elite school like Harvard or Stanford, I wonder why they would want to go to that elite school.
To use a simple example in California (where I currently reside), highly competitive / leaders in 4H and FFA people would almost always be much better served going to UC Davis rather than Stanford or Berkeley.
If Stanford or Harvard would be a better fit, I think the onus would be on the applicant to explain why. This is very doable (e.g., a focus on agricultural macroeconomics or investing), but I’m not sure most teenagers who do not have connections to elite schools would naturally think to do that in their application and/or other supporting activities.
You're assuming that someone who grew up in a rural area is destined to be a farmer no matter what and just gave an example of the bias those kids face. The same logic would suggest that a kid who won a music competition in high school shouldn't apply to Berkeley because the other Berklee would be a better fit for them.
> You're assuming that someone who grew up in a rural area is destined to be a farmer no matter what
Not at all.
I live in an area where 4H is big. Many of those people go to Davis and seem to be very happy with their choice, and it seems to be a good fit. Some go to Stanford or Berkeley, and the differences in interests are pretty obvious, even though they are all 4H participants.
If someone is in a club called Future Farmers of America, and they are knocking it out of the ballpark in FFA, then I would expect that there is a high probability that they will have a lot of future prospects in ag. Harvard and Stanford are (usually) pretty bad fits if you want a career in ag, although I can imagine cases when they are actually a good fit. That said, I think the onus is on the applicant (any applicant actually) to show why they are a good fit.
> The same logic would suggest that a kid who won a music competition in high school shouldn't apply to Berkeley because the other Berklee would be a better fit for them
Similarly, if someone has a lot of music accolades but thinks that Berkeley or Stanford or Harvard is a better fit than Berklee, then I think that the onus is on the applicant to explain why. I am definitely not saying it’s impossible or even difficult, rather just that it needs to be done to show that the school is a good fit.
If you spend much time at these elite schools, you see a few people (more than I would prefer) who are completely fish out of water. They are miserable. Sometimes it is because they are not academically prepared (hard to believe, but true), sometimes they have culture shock due to being not from the NE corridor (for Ivies), sometimes they have geographic shock (winters can really suck if you are from SoCal or Hawaii), sometimes they don’t have many peers who share similar interests (e.g., hardcore FFA folks might fall into this category), etc. Many of these students transfer out or drop out. Those are basically failures in fit that admissions officers try to avoid while also maintaining a diverse class (“diverse” here including geographic and SES diversity).
Obviously, a student must sell themselves to the school, but the admissions department should not be assuming what an applicant wants to do beyond what they say in their application. Every college application I've seen has a question asking "Why us over other schools?" and that is the appropriate place to explain why the school would be a good fit. It is not okay to assume that because of someone's extracurricular activities or background that they are not a good fit for your school. It is unlikely that a musician or an athlete would be assumed not to be a good fit despite many of these schools having mediocre music departments and sports programs. The original article shared in this thread cited a study showing that membership in ROTC, 4H, or FFA was negatively correlated with admission. It could be that those types of students are just bad at marketing themselves, or it could be (more likely, in my opinion) that the admissions reviewers have a bias against those activities and the people they imagine do them.
> the admissions department should not be assuming what an applicant wants to do beyond what they say in their application
It almost seems like you may have created a straw man here.
1. I’m not an admissions officer.
2. Of course admissions officers look at what the applicant stated and don’t assume.
3. My question “why would a high performing 4h person want to go to an elite school” is a reasonable one. There are good answers to this question. Sometimes the answer is “I have perfect grades and a high sat score.” That’s not a good answer. As a simple example, I have a friend whose daughter has a lot of potential for an elite school, but she wants to be an animator. Her mom wanted her to apply to Harvard, but after they did some research, they realized that Harvard was not a good fit.
4. The issue with most “research” that claims bias in elite school admissions is that they normalize the data based on grades and scores. The scores and grades at elite schools are heavily condensed at the high end, so they aren’t really the main differentiators (unless you are a recruited athlete). The stuff that the researchers can’t easily quantify often swings the decision between reject and admit.
5. So many people seem to be convinced that elite school admissions officers are actively hostile towards highly qualified applicants. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The admissions decisions may look confusing when folks with similar grades and scores have different admissions results, but that’s probably because a key part of their application is unknown to most people, and/or they were marginal candidates and something seemingly small and not easily quantifiable swayed the decision.
6. The biggest source of discrimination I have seen in elite school admissions is at the local school level. Specifically, I have seen school counselors and some teachers subtly sabotage compelling applicants for reasons that had nothing to do with the quality of the applicant (e.g., counselor preferred someone else, counselor/teacher didn’t like something about the student, etc.). But that’s unfortunately on the student to work around — that is out of the sphere if influence of elite school admissions offices (other than to note potential bias).
7. Lastly, I would love to see the data on the folks who were were active in ROTC, 4H, etc. being negatively correlated. There may be a correlation, but I doubt it’s the cause. I would guess that something that is not easily quantifiable is missing in the application. I will also add that some elite schools have ROTC, so that is especially surprising to me.
> 4. The issue with most “research” that claims bias in elite school admissions is that they normalize the data based on grades and scores. The scores and grades at elite schools are heavily condensed at the high end, so they aren’t really the main differentiators (unless you are a recruited athlete). The stuff that the researchers can’t easily quantify often swings the decision between reject and admit.
How do we square scores being heavily condensed at the high end with still seeing large between-group score differences? We'd expect, surely, to see smaller between-group score differences if one end is cut off.
This part of the thread is about alleged discrimination in elite school admissions against folks in 4H, FFA, and ROTC. These researchers say that they normalize for all other variables other than participation in these activities, and I suggest that their normalization methods are inadequate.
You are asking about a completely different issue.
That said, I think my last sentence still answers your question:
"The stuff that the researchers can’t easily quantify often swings the decision between reject and admit."
Just because you do something well and are outstanding in it doesn't mean it's what you want to do for a career. People fill time with all kinds of things or to pad out a resume. I've been really good at a lot of stuff. I had no intention of making a career out of any of it.
> Harvard doesn’t care about the extra curricular activities offered in midwestern high schools—sports (unless good enough to be recruited), 4H, playing an instrument, etc.
I beg to differ.
Anyone who does any of these things at a regional, national, or international level would probably be very strong candidates, assuming they have competitive grades and scores.
Regional isn't true. National depends on the sport and instrument. International they'd care about even as a bit if it's big enough to get covered in national newspapers. Harvard can afford to be extremely highly selective.
Actual examples I know of people who got into elite schools:
- First chair violin in city youth orchestra
- Winner of regional ice-skating competitions, but not nowhere near Olympic competition-level.
- Winner of regional judo tournaments, again not at Olympic competition-level.
- Winner of regional chess tournaments. Not a national champion. Can’t remember his rank, but he actually didn’t spend much time playing or studying chess as a teenager… he was just a crusher.
- Winner of school-based regional trivia tournaments. Attended nationals but never placed.
- Winner of regional solo sailing competitions. Note that free/cheap access to small racing sail boats was pretty easy in this person’s community.
- Soccer player selected to regional-based national team development squad. Note that, imho, this is not nearly as impressive as it sounds. He also played on a “travel team” (about half of whom also made the development squad) that won many regional tournaments, but never succeeded nationally.
- Many athletes who were not recruited (in that they did not get preferential admissions treatment… see “Academic Index” for more insight), but who were varsity athletes in high school and college in track and field, cross country running, rowing, gymnastics, golf, swimming, diving, etc.
> National depends on the sport and instrument.
Actual examples I know of people who got into elite schools:
- For instrument, see local orchestra above as being adequate.
- Took two years off after high school to tour and perform with a jazz band.
- Starter on nationally ranked football team who was definitely not recruited to any elite schools and had no intentions of playing collegiately.
- Player on nationally ranked ultimate (“frisbee football”) team.
- Several people who were nationally ranked in various niche sports like fencing, squash, etc., but were not Olympic-caliber.
> International they'd care about even as a bit if it's big enough to get covered in national newspapers
Actual examples I know of people who got into elite schools:
- Went to international science fair four years in a row. Got there’s by scoring well enough in locals, regionals, and nationals. Note that this is something that an elite school-bound 4Her could do if they tried.
- Co-authored science research that was published into an international journal.
All of these fall into the “sports, instruments, and 4h” that was originally mentioned. It could easily be expanded if community development examples were included.
Note that most of my examples were regional, so I humbly suggest your concept of what is needed for admission is way off base.
Also note that not all of these folks went to Harvard (not all applied to Harvard), but some did.
> Are these people who are living in the "midwest" like Chicago or midwest like some rural town of 10,000 people that is hours away from any major city?
Off the top of my head, with provincial city being something like Akron, OH and provincial town being something like Bangor, ME:
Provincial cities in DE, IL, MI, TX, MT, IN, FL, OK.
Provincial towns in GA (2... both near military bases), CA (2), TX, HI, WA, WI, PA.
The interesting thing is that being from a provincial area has a lot of merits (and some demerits).
MERITS
- There is often very little competition for slots (depends on state).
- It's relatively easy to have a very high class rank and to be the top 1% of students that a teacher has ever taught.
- It is relatively easy to find ways to stand out in community development, since there are not dozens or hundreds of local kids who are trying to do the same (some for resume padding, some because they are genuine leaders).
- It is relatively easy to get unique learning opportunities like Rotary scholarships to study abroad since most of the people around you lack interest and/or ability.
- It is relatively easy to latch on to some local research initiative because most people around you lack interest and/or ability.
- It can often be easy to be a varsity athlete in some sport just because you are willing to participate. This is true even if you are not particularly athletic, but you are willing to work at it. This may sound trivial and potentially distracting, but note that some elite schools (e.g., Harvard) specifically rate you on athletics.
DEMERITS
- Many/most teachers will not know how to write strong recommendations, even if that is what they want to convey. Short version... provide specific details/examples that describe someone who is actually amazing.
- One or more folks in the process may try to keep you down, especially if they don't like you -- think school counselor, a teacher, etc. It helps a lot to be liked, but a lot of smart kids realize that K-12 schooling (especially in provincial areas) is the farce that it is, so they are often cynical and antagonistic towards teachers and administrators.
- Since school is often very easy, it can be tough to motivate oneself to study tougher topics, many of which have to be studied at a different venue (e.g., junior college, summer studies, self-study, etc.). The smartest kid in school often chooses to coast rather than push themselves, since it is not clear how pushing themselves has the potential to benefit them.
- Unless they are in a good private school or learn from another source, some/many folks from provincial areas are underprepared for an elite education. They often don't have the same foundation of knowledge and study skills that folks who went to better schools have, often times because they rarely or never had to study. Catching up in foundational knowledge and study skills is not impossible to overcome, but it's definitely starting a square or two behind everyone else.
- You probably won't know anyone at your university going in, but some of your dorm mates (e.g., from Stuyvesant) will have quite a few peers with whom they attended high school.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make, but a small midwestern town of 10k in the middle of nowhere doesn’t differ significantly from the “small towns” in my example. There is pretty much nothing in either place.
I’ve spent time in small towns like that (not in the Midwest), and I don’t recall anyone having any ambition to attend an elite academic school (but lots of interest in elite sports schools).
I still stand by my suggestion that someone from a small midwestern town of 10k in the middle of nowhere can get into elite schools. I think the information available in the internet makes this easier than ever before. That said, I wonder how many actually apply.
> You know a lot of people who went to elite schools!
That happens in certain circles.
I will add that the list above easily does not include the 10 most interesting people I know who got into elite schools.
The “dirty little secret” that helicopter parents don’t want to accept is that the vast majority of elite school students are just really damn interesting people (typically with great grades and scores). You can’t coach interesting, although you can cultivate it over time as a good parent.
> The notion of a “well rounded student” who does music, art, and extra curricular activities, is a legacy of blue blood WASP culture.
More precisely it was first invented by Yale to limit the number of Jewish students admitted, and was later repurposed to limit the number of Asian students admitted.
Exactly. If you’re really intellectually bright and committed, all those extracurricular activities, populated by average students, are a total waste of time. Regardless of anything they say, MIT and Cal Tech have prospered precisely by ignoring that crap, and giving preference to people who can do the work.
Extracurriculars like research, robotics competitions, math camp, etc. are absolutely considered heavily by MIT. SATs and grades are way too saturated at the top end of the curve to make reasonable admissions decisions, and performing highly at a particular extracurricular can be an important signal for future success in itself.
I get what you're saying though, being a typical jack of all trades high school overachiever isn't the best strategy for getting into MIT. I don't think that's because they don't consider personality though - heck one of the admissions short answers is "what do you do for fun?". I think it's actually because they are trying to avoid the type that does things just to get into college or just because it's the thing to do at their school. If you're an absolute prodigy then it probably doesn't matter either way, but if you're borderline MIT is definitely the top school that tries the hardest to take the kid that seems more genuinely passionate and not like a social climber.
MIT also does the best job of considering context of all the elite schools. If you went to a great private high school you better have taken full advantage of those opportunities, whereas most other elite schools will just see the better overall resume/prior education. This is pretty clearly reflected in the schools' respective demographics.
Aha! They have extracurricular activities for nerds now! I had forgotten! (I am such an alter cocker this was unknown, absolutely unknown, science fiction unknown, when I was young.)
At least back when I knew people in the admissions office, MIT definitely did not ignore that “crap” though I’d be willing to stipulate it may have weighted it less heavily than a school like Harvard.
Yes you knew what they told you. Yes they looked at for a minute. Yes, out of a class of 950, it made a difference for 20-30. But I bet, privately, they spat on it. They had plenty of experience with total nerds who founded industries or disciplines. Remember, physics, chemistry, EE, material science, that’s 40-50% of the class: physics up to quantum mechanics. Entire undergraduate body: special relativity with 4 weeks of problem sets, and derivation of the magnetic field from this. When you’re 18.
I think you underestimate the number of people that have a perfect gpa and a perfect score on the sat/act. Thousands of kids get a perfect score on the sat or act test every year. MIT is going to have to be looking at more than just that.
Most of the people I’ve known from MIT, and pretty much all of the interesting ones, are technically savvy but pretty much the opposite of total nerds.
Heh heh. Perfect example of why “extracurricular activities” are total bs.
Admissions people need to have intangibles. That way, they can do what they want, when they want to.
Exactly how did they prosper? Caltech seriously mishandled its endowment between 1999-2008 despite getting some of the largest individual donations in history.
First of all, I don't know what "blue blood WASP culture" is. Explain that please.
Second, there's nothing wrong with expecting students to participate in extra-curricular activities like music and art as a basis for admission. MIT is still going to evaluate those things.
Selecting for students whose parents can afford formal music, art and sport lessons is selecting for wealth. Having extra-curriculars you can document costs money and time.
Poor kids are getting 'well rounded' by spending summer break at work, saving enough money to survive the school year.
> Poor kids are getting 'well rounded' by spending summer break at work, saving enough money to survive the school year.
This is an interesting point: why shouldn't work count towards being well-rounded? If anything, work is much more grounded in reality, and a lot of kids who never had to work in high school and college would come off as out of touch (at least to me, as someone who did work thru high school and college). It would be nice if work experience (even if unrelated to a field) was valued as much as being part of a silly club.
It does. I've helped with college applications to Ivy League where the "volunteer opportunities" are "working summers for minimum wage, looking after my younger siblings and/or helping at the family convenience store".
Those kids got in.
I think the point is to show you offer something more than just being good at school. It doesn't have to be volunteer opportunities or something expensive.
Who says it isn't? Being in a silly club hasn't worked as well as people think it does for quite a while now. Admissions see tons of this bullshit and I bet their eyes glaze over.
I recently went through grad school applications and waded through dozens of sample essays and tips for writing a great “statement of purpose essay”.
Based on the admissions decisions the school made (as reported by Reddit) and the changes to content length made over the years, I suspect the school cares about precisely four things.
- Can your write a coherent essay?
- Can you clearly state what your qualifications to pursue the academic program are?
- Can you clearly articulate why you want to complete a 3 year program?
- If there is a problem in your background e.g. a low GPA, can you clearly state why you don’t think this will be a problem going forward?
Graduate admissions processes are very different from undergraduate admissions in exactly that way though. Undergraduate admissions are trying to select on a pretty wide definition of "successful", basically trying to find students likely to graduate then make the university look good. Graduate admissions care about one thing only: how good are you at generating published research in the department you're applying under. It's much more similar to a job application than an undergrad application.
If you get great test scores, and you go to a school that does not send many students to the ivy leagues et al, you will get noticed; this helps a lot of smart low SES urban or rural students gain entry.
> spending summer break at work, saving enough money
is going to count in your favor
if you go to a competitive high school that sends lots of kids to top universities, then you need to stack up your extra-curriculars to stand out wrt all the other kids in a similar position
In the U.S. public schools offer students all kinds of extracurricular activities that cost the families either very little or nothing at all. I attended a low- to middle-income public elementary and middle school where I was able to practice violin for several years, and it didn't cost my family anything.
One thing that might stand out is a complete lack of interest in doing anything besides studying. It seems like it may be a sign of low social intelligence
But elite schools select for (1) students who will enrich the experience for their classmates and (2) who are likely to have an outsized impact on the world as adults and bring prestige to the institution.
There are some people who are so quantitatively intelligent that a lack of social skills/intelligence doesn't matter (geniuses), but these people are so exceptional they can't be really measured by a test like the SAT. It's too easy to get a perfect score.
Instead they'll distinguish themselves by excelling at STEM competitions (eg. Math Olympiad, programming contests, the Putnam).
I’d also like to add an anecdote: while my family wasn’t necessarily poor, I pretty much spent all my extra-curricular time doing things like coding and design, and neither of them were really in a way that was documentable. There was no “coding” club or “graphic design” club and if there was something similar that popped up in high school the physical gathering nature of most clubs was odd when applied to things like internet coding. So the clubs tended to be a waste of time more than anything, and most students participated knowingly just to pad college applications.
WASP is White anglo saxon protosant and is to indicate that a "right" and "proper" person ought to know music and etc, but only in so much depth that it demonstrates there wealth. Which is how extra-curricular creep sometimes shows up when people apply to college and were President of X club and play Y sport, while not really having a deep interest in the activity. When you are treating an activity as a resume builder rather than an activity or experience to invest deeper in to me that shows a lack of intellectual curiousity (but does show a thought process of understanding procedualism and bureaucracy (not the students fault when its what the system values))
Usually if someone has an impressive extracurricular that is tough to document, one of their recommendations will mention it in a compelling way.
As a simple example, a relative of mine was a co-founder and editor of the school newspaper at his high school… and it got banned for uncovering shenanigans within the administration and board of education.
See also: https://www.hbo.com/the-gilded-age. These are the folks who founded Harvard, Yale, etc., and created the ethos of higher education that remains nearly universal in America today.
> Second, there's nothing wrong with expecting students to participate in extra-curricular activities like music and art as a basis for admission. MIT is still going to evaluate those things.
It's a complex issue. On one hand, what differentiates universities from trade schools is teaching students how to learn/do their own research vs. acquire specific skills/knowledge: demonstrating some kind of self-motivated achievement aside from strict academic requirements helps universities select students who are receptive to this. On the other hand, yes, it selects for more well-off students who have the free time, inclination, and means to pursue their interests.
Sorry, to clarify for people who haven’t watched the show. The show is about a Gilded Age new money family in New York City trying to break into the social scene composed of affluent families who traced their ancestry in America back to the 1600s. It’s these sorts of families (who were “old money” back in the Gilded Age) who were intimately involved with the inception of Harvard and Yale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elihu_Yale
So basically this is just a completely fictional account for entertainment with maybe some historical context thrown in for dramatic flavor? What is one supposed to take away from that?
The WASP elite are a completely historical group of people deeply involved with our Ivy League universities. The show is just a pop culture illustration of the point. (Though maybe not as popular as I thought.)
having a sun tan, was associated with field laborers, so rich people of the time did every thing they could to retain the whitest of skin to demonstrate their richness. When you have very pale skin the veins are more easily seen which carry un-oxygenated blood back to the heart, giving a blueish hue.
Of course, now the term blue blood, just means wealth that has established generational history.
Blue Blood and WASP generally refer to people who come from rich/prominent families. Whether it's fair or not, the stereotype is a polo playing, boat shoe wearing type who has a vacation house somewhere fancy and family connections into good jobs etc.
> notion of a “well rounded student” who does music, art, and extra curricular activities, is a legacy of blue blood WASP culture
This concept finds heritage in Greco-Roman tradition moreso than anything Anglo or Saxon. It's also not uncommon for non-European civilizations to have emphasized educating their elites in both aesthetic and practical matters. For good reason. If your job is to lead a civilization, people are your tool of trade.
The tradition in America has racist--specifically, anti-Semitic--roots. But that doesn't mean we have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. If there's something sorely lacking in modern American culture, it's attention to matters in civic, philosophical and possibly even literary.
If these colleges don't value what you bring, why apply to those colleges? For many areas of study, we have amazing and relatively inexpensive access to instruction/training/knowledge - if that is one's goal. If ones goal is simply to get trained for a job/industry - then colleges are probably not a good fit either.
No exposure to other areas of interest, like art and music, indicates ability to work towards one goal for many years. This kind of persistence is a key to success in every discipline.
I'm trying to say that we all here are skillful in hollow rhetorics.
the things to which you allude are actually an imitation of WASP culture, WASPS dont strive by doing the things they do naturally. you study music/art because it helps you be a better person, not because it (these days) might help you get into a school you should be able to get into anyway. you do service work because you believe that it is important to give back.
using this things as credentials to gain entry into schools is a late development.
When they talk about well rounded students: They do value working on a farm. Or going to Guatemala and building wells for people. Or construction work building houses. It's definitely not just about doing ballet and fine arts.
I was the only kid in my class who didn't go to college, but I went to one of the top 3 prep schools in terms of Ivy League placement in the country, and the entire focus for extracurricular activities was doing volunteer work. Sports, music, fine art and theater were all there as a potential route, but the advisers pushed kids who wanted to do those things as a career away from leaning on them as a way to be "well-rounded" in the eyes of the college admission boards.
TL;DR In my experience, a kid who had no creative talent but took a summer to build houses in Ecuador was much more likely, in the 90s, to get into the Ivy League than one who played violin, or football.
> TL;DR In my experience, a kid who had no creative talent but took a summer to build houses in Ecuador was much more likely, in the 90s, to get into the Ivy League than one who played violin, or football.
And how is a lower middle class kid in the Midwest supposed to be able to swing a summer off to build houses in Ecuador?
Or, Kayak shows round trip flights this summer from Cincinnati to Ecuador for $500. So, Set up a table outside the local grocery store for a few weekends with pictures of starving Ecuadorans and beg. Or, gofundme.
I think the key is initiative, which is one of the main traits they’re looking for.
It's not. Being well rounded is the ideal of the nobility in practically every settled culture, ancient or modern. It's the definition of "cultured". Having said that, it is a class marker, so participants of the dominant culture have a leg up.
Your take is very strange, and does not correspond to the Indian immigrant experience from what I have seen. I spent 10 years in the US, and the really weird part is how stridently Indian parents would push their kids to train in Indian culture - particularly classical dance like Bharatanatyam and Carnatic classical. Of course, since Westerners have hardly even heard about these cultural forms, these do not even exist as "extra-curriculars" for standard university admission boards.
I found the emphasis on Indian cultural roots so disturbing that I had to weasel out of conversations by saying "I don't know anything about classical dance, I am mostly interested in science-fiction". It is easier to have your own way as an Indian middle-class student in India than as second generation Indians in the US.
It's because they don't want their children to lose their indian culture, despite raising them in a foreign country. When your in india, you don't have to worry about that.
That was probably accurate "back in the day". My wife owns/runs an after school learning center and I can say that 1st/2nd generation take extra-curricular activities very seriously. That is not to say academic is out the window, but academics is not the only interest.
As a matter of fact - I wrote a letter of recommendation for someone to volunteer at the library. Due to the competitive nature (I live in an area with lots of 1st/2nd generation, especially Indians)...she did not get a position. Imagine competing to work for free!
Cultures that value education also value unpaid internships. It's an excellent trade. Free education in exchange for free labor.
Yes, this has been extremely exploited in America, particularly in tech, where it has:
- Created a sense that some work should be "free", hiding the true cost of labor from employers
- Turned students into an endless pool to be exploited
- Undercut the wages of professionals
That being said, the answer is for the student interns to recognize when it's time for them to be paid and to demand it. A lot of Americans think interning is just about getting your "foot in the door" so you "know the right people" and get a leg up on a cushy job. That's simply not the way immigrant families think. There is a value proposition to interning for free when you're learning a trade. It's how I started. When I came to feel I was being exploited, I asked for money, and got it.
>> Preparing for internship culture
This quote itself implies that you're not willing to put in the effort other people are willing to put in. So now, as an employer, why would I hire someone who didn't feel like putting in the extra work for their resume? I suppose you're owed a job - but then, isn't everyone?
I think you are right. The correct comparison is internship vs. no opportunity at all, not internship vs. job. The actual number of real jobs is driven by revenue.
> It's important that people, especially immigrants, can get into these schools based solely on their test scores
This is very unlikely to happen for East Asians or Indians.
> and not have to do any of the other trivial stuff that demonstrates that they can participate in the society in which they live.
This “trivial” stuff is often not trivial when done well.
- Sports, especially varsity athletics and Olympic sports, has social currency in elite circles. Some folks may not like the fact that this is true, but it’s foolish to deny that it’s true. In some cases, participation in sports actually develops character leadership skills.
- The things some high school students are able to do as “volunteers” can blow your mind. The soft skills that these activities can develop carry over really well to the “real world”. Lots of extracurriculars are BS, but the folks who do the BS ones aren’t getting into elite schools based on those.
- If I understand what you are saying, suggesting that immigrants should not need to have the skills to participate in society is mind boggling to me. Elite schools aren’t just looking to churn out brainiacs (and the real brainiacs are getting in on more brainy stuff than high SAT scores and perfect grades). They are looking to churn out people who will impact society. Honestly, some sort of impressive community involvement in the Indian community (as an example) is something that would be a strong part of an elite school application.
>This “trivial” stuff is often not trivial when done well.
I loathe to say it but you've been got. Reread the OP in a sarcastic tone, you'll see what I mean.
I agree with what you're saying but in the spirit of disagreeing with OP, I would devilishly advocate:
When evaluating extracurriculars, there is a chance that the type of extracurricular may matter as much/more than the degree of participation, which can be problematic.
In theory, colleges are just a place where you go to learn. So it doesn't make much theoretical sense to me that an admissions officer would probably think different things when they hear "rugby captain and president of the debate club" as opposed to "full time brother and avid programmer." That's because traditionally, colleges are also where children of privilege learn what the status quo is and how to fit in with one another. Of course we have to measure something other than SAT scores (i.e. IQ), we have to measure how nice they are/capable of leading/willing to learn (i.e. how white they can act/how much their parents know about and push them towards traditional leadership positions/how much free time their family can afford). To some degree, it isn't in the interest of the college to admit someone who isn't also a cultural fit; but the more important culture is in your selection process, the more problematic that process is.
> and not have to do any of the other trivial stuff that demonstrates that they can participate in the society in which they live
How many DFW public schools have cricket or kabaddi teams? How many bands and choirs play primarily non-European music?
Are you sure that these students are one dimensional boring test-takers with absolutely no interest in being part of their community? Could it possibly be that many are very active members of a vibrant and deeply rooted immigrant community, but that this community involvement doesn't show up because they aren't either playing in a football game or putting on a half time show for a foot ball game?
(I'm also deeply skeptical that participating in band, choir, extra-curricular activities, or sports is actually indicative of much of anything in terms of community participation... playing unorganized pick-up games with friends feels much more participatory than leveraging the well-oiled pre-college apparatus of an upper middle class neighborhood to check the "scholar-athlete" box.)
Playing organized pickup, or participating/organizing activities for your immigrant community are the same as extra curricular activities. They do prove that a student is not just one dimensional test taker
So someone who plays drums in band or throws an egg shaped “ball” (or worse, hits themselves in the head like rams) is contributing to the society than someone who focuses on tests?
I’m not even on the side of the Asian families that force their children to study and study alone, but your comment seems to suggest that somehow they don’t have the right to (or are abusing a system). Sounds a bit prejudiced. In the end families which want their kids to “look successful” will make them do whatever is needed, and merely focusing on studies is just one flavor. Look at the Tiger mom bs about Carnegie Hall or Yale law. But at the least they are fully American in their right to do so, and I’d rather have more of them than broken families with kids not even being taken care of.
I think it was intended to be prejudiced - he was sarcastically saying that the parents don't care about integrating into the culture, they think they can attain success for their children with tests alone.
I'm a child of Jewish immigrants. I had NO planned school/extracurricular activities except for music. I had these requirements from elementary school through high school: (1) Never get less than a B+ on any test or any class, or you're grounded. (2) Read 50 pages of books my father would assign every night, some light fiction, some history, everything in between, and spend 15 minutes reporting what I read to him. (3) No television or video games. A computer was okay as long as I was using it to "work", which could mean writing my own video games. (4) Find a job the day you turn 15, and work every day. Any job you want. Ideally something that deals with the public, like selling shoes. (I went into advertising).
Now, some of my best friends in high school were Korean immigrants. They had a lot more fun than me, but they also studied a lot harder for tests. By no means would I ever think their parents were doing it wrong.
What this sarcastic poster means about the society you live in, is ultimately very shady. The society he lives in is lazy. It doesn't want to study or work. It cries foul when people ask for "welfare handouts", but meanwhile, he is asking for a welfare handout from us the people who work and study harder - by means of claiming it's his culture and we're just here doing all the math right while failing to integrate. That's just not true. It's sour grapes from someone who has been eclipsed in all areas of intellectual and artistic achievement, and is likely to soon be eclipsed in the realm of popular culture as well.
So anyway /rant over. I wouldn't take it too seriously. Just keep doing what you do well.
>What this sarcastic poster means about the society you live in, is ultimately very shady. The society he lives in is lazy. It doesn't want to study or work. It cries foul when people ask for "welfare handouts", but meanwhile, he is asking for a welfare handout from us the people who work and study harder - by means of claiming it's his culture and we're just here doing all the math right while failing to integrate. That's just not true.
Exactly this.
And you know what, maybe these immigrants that can't demonstrate their ability to play rugby have more important things to do, like actual work for some purpose other than virtue signaling or self care/healing from dealing with existential threats.
>It's important that people, especially immigrants, can get into these schools based solely on their test scores and not have to do any of the other trivial stuff that demonstrates that they can participate in the society in which they live.
So you're saying only studying and not doing anything else to eventually become a doctor that serves a community in Dallas doesn't demonstrate enough participation in society as much as being able to play a sport?
And don't get me wrong, extra curriculars are important, but the simplistic reduction of immigrants studying hard equates they don't participate in the society is a bit much.
> So you're saying only studying and not doing anything else to eventually become a doctor that serves a community in Dallas doesn't demonstrate enough participation in society as much as being able to play a sport?
To be fair, it is Texas. Plus, he also mentioned band. Someone needs to play in the halftime show, after all.
I'm a 5th-generation white American with no interest in sports, band, or choir... and many of my Indian and east Asian first-generation high-school friends and I participated in activities like math club, knowledge bowl, science olympiad, etc etc.
Just because they aren't participating in YOUR extra-curricular activities doesn't mean they aren't engaged.
>almost all of the top academic students in my class were first or second generation immigrants (mostly Indian) that had no interest in extra-curricular activities like sports, band, choir, or really anything.
I suspect it's more like their parents prohibit them from having any interest in these extra-curricular activities. Academics > *.
If you recast your civilization as simply the sum total of the economic activity generated by fungible worker-units, that's the sort of thing you get. A giant. somewhat dilapidated luxury shopping mall with a military attached.
There are a lot of negative things that one can imply about America, so I'm surprised that you reached for 'boring'. I don't even know what source to cite, but it seems self-evident that Americans care passionately about causes besides economic efficiency, for better or worse.
Trying to find some objective ground for discussion, I'll take the bait on your specific analogy: Americans are spending progressively less time in shopping malls[1] and the military[2].
>Americans are spending progressively less time in shopping malls[1] and the military[2].
[1] Are Amazon, ebay et al shopping malls?
Given healthcare and college tuition being paid by the state I think you might see [2] drop very, very fast and far. I've heard the argument made that this was why the establishment corrupt of Washington united so cohesively against Bernie.
Now don't smear, it's against house rules around here and @dang will get very cross.
I've heard the argument, I repeat it because I take it seriously and it seems plausible to me. I am not sufficiently expert to know with /certainty/ so I don't claim certainty because that would be silly. Moreover when you point out an argument that appears to have some merit but you have not yet made up your mind about, someone here frequently responds with a well-reasoned perspective that is different and based on evidence. Such things make conversation here worthwhile like this particular one basically isn't. Best.
"Weasel words from which my immediate instinct is to recoil."
Obviously is not engaging with an argument, idea or evidence and isn't much more than abuse. Also completely wrong in every way as I politely outlined.
"Weasel words" is a term and it's correctly used here. I don't understand how you think it's "completely wrong"; it's not. It's also not abuse at all to object like that.
And engaging with an argument requires understanding it, and their post is a pretty good way to get an understanding of your actual argument. Unless you mean they needed to engage with your quote independently of what your argument is, which I would disagree with.
weasel words
noun
words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading.
There is no engagement with the idea expressed at all. There is a statement that you must agree totally, disagree totally or shut up about an idea otherwise it's "weasel words" which is clearly and obviously to me utter nonsense. As I said. That kind of nonsense not encouraged around here because what happens next is flame-war, is my understanding. Is it also yours?
Much the same as if were to say, (which I am emphatically not) that you are just "piling-in" and are trying to distract from a point about possible contributors to Washington corruption and ensuring that anyone who even suggests such a thing about corruption is worth considering and exploring should be condemned as being weasel-like.
If I said that, which again I am not, that would be personal, not helpful, not engaging with an argument. So I am not saying that. I am now saying explicitly I have zero reason to believe that. I am giving you the benefit of of the belief that the argument is in good faith and engaging with it accordingly rather than casting aspersions about you.
We really do need to be able to discuss possibilities before having full, firm and unshakable views as to their unambiguous and evergreen truth. You're allowed to consider a plausible argument before having been awarded your PhD in it.
What do you think? Is it plausible that the corrupt in Washington united so cohesively against Bernie because with health care and tuition covered the numbers volunteering for the armed services would plummet? Do you think there was a different reason and that isn't significant? Or do you think the corrupt in Washington were not against Bernie? Or do you think there isn't meaningful influence of the corrupt in Washington? Or something else? Or do you not have the right to express any ideas about any of it because there must always be something you can't know about it. If you had thoughts and an argument from /evidence/ about it I'd likely update my views at least somewhat. Would I dismiss this idea? Would it become more plausible?
The argument, that I heard expressed, and lack information to fault (acknowledging that such information may exist),
is interesting to me and possibly others. Refraining from stating it as an incontrovertible fact is not at all weasel-like and doesn't seem to me that calling it so is likely to lead to productive discussions between people who are capable of updating their opinions on a topic.
> here is a statement that you must agree totally, disagree totally or shut up about an idea
> The argument, that I heard expressed, and lack information to fault (acknowledging that such information may exist), is interesting to me and possibly others. Refraining from stating it as an incontrovertible fact is not at all weasel-like and doesn't seem to me that calling it so is likely to lead to productive discussions between people who are capable of updating their opinions on a topic.
No, but you have to state a stance at all.
If you don't state a stance at all then you're not engaging with the argument you've quoted!
People should engage with what you're arguing, but much less so something you just toss out as having heard. If you don't say what your opinion is, then don't complain that there isn't engagement.
> We really do need to be able to discuss possibilities before having full, firm and unshakable views as to their unambiguous and evergreen truth.
Okay. But say what your view is. It doesn't have to be firm and unshakable. Be clear about if you believe it and how strongly you believe it.
> otherwise it's "weasel words" which is clearly and obviously to me utter nonsense
The phrase "I've heard the argument made" is one of the clearer examples of weasel words I've seen. Your dictionary definition isn't perfect. From wikipedia: Examples include the phrases "some people say", "most people think", and "researchers believe."
> being weasel-like
It's a term, not calling you a weasel.
> What do you think? Is it plausible
I guess?? I'd need to see a lot more about priorities in washington before I can have more than a ghost of an opinion, personally. Without that I find it a little bit interesting.
> If you had thoughts and an argument from /evidence/ about it I'd likely update my views at least somewhat.
I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm encouraging you to better express your opinion.
But if you only have a vague idea yourself, then you're not going to change mine either. If you were actively looking for evidence instead of just mentioning the idea I might be more interested? Whatever, I'm not here to post about that, I'm here to explain weasel words.
Please go have another look at the definition of "Weasel Words"
Intentionally ambiguous or misleading. Heavy emphasis on the intentionally misleading. When you accuse someone of using weasel words you are accusing them of intent to mislead. You aren't calling them a small furry mammal. You are calling them someone who is, in other words, basically telling lies. That is a smear every damn day of the week. "Weasel" being a word used to describe someone untrustworthy hence "Weasel words." Calling mere ambiguity "weasel words" is unambiguously incorrect usage of that term.
My comment was not intending to mislead. I don't believe it is in any way misleading. How you can think that I'm trying to mislead you is not obvious to me at all. This is not cross-examination under oath. This is not a politician's response as to whether their hand was in the till and the photograph of the nude holding the S&M gear was themselves and they were not in their place of worship at that time. I have stated my view. I have heard the argument. Implicitly by phrasing it like that I have not endorsed it but find it has some merit based on my limited knowledge about it. As I have now spelled out in full a few times.
If you think you or anybody has been misled here, I can't really help you, I did not do that nor did I contribute to it. If you think your post is totally unambiguous and are going to ignore the "intentionally misleading" aspect of "weasel words" I also can't help you.
Just don't deliberately smear people speaking to their intentions when you don't know what those intentions are and are totally, utterly and 100% wrong about them. Seems pretty unambiguous to me, I guess that's why its the rule around here. dang does get cross when you get personal. Like accusing people incorrectly of using weasel words, speaking to their intentions with zero evidence, and making them cross about it, just like I am.
It remains a smear and I continue to call it what it plainly is. Maybe they didn't mean it?
What you say above is ambiguous. Hence by your definition "Weasel words."
I say the pejorative is there in Weasel Words and so does the dictionary and indeed it must be there to describe something as weasel words or we end up with everything being weasel words. Hilariously the work of max plank is weasel words. He intentionally does not express an opinion on whether light is a wave or a particle.
My opinion on your good faith in that post above is now also unstated.
Some people say Jimi Hendrix is a wonderful guitarist and it's a shame he died so young. What weasel words. You should recoil. Some people say using words with their accepted meanings is essential to communication but James Joyce might disagree.
I intended nothing personal, and indeed my point was to elevate the level of discourse. I would call out 'ad hominem', 'no true Scotsman' or 'motte and bailey' as easily as I would 'weasel words'.
I assure you I too have been guilty in the past and I'm sure I will slip in the future.
> I would call out 'ad hominem', 'no true Scotsman' or 'motte and bailey' as easily as I would 'weasel words'.
You doubled down? With no explanation. No justification of claiming it to be weasel words? I guess you can't or chose not to defend your use for which I have called you out. Maybe, in your words guilty in the past, the future and also right here & now then. Consider it.
I've heard the argument made that Louis Armstrong was the most important and influential musician of the past 200 years and yeah whatever edifying conversation were possible it's now very, very dead.
> It's important that people, especially immigrants, can get into these schools based solely on their test scores and not have to do any of the other trivial stuff that demonstrates that they can participate in the society in which they live.
I genuinely thought your comment was serious before reading other comments and realizing you were being sarcastic.
It actually *is* important that these people can get into these schools. If they are studying and working diligently they will contribute to society.
If you need them practicing sports or singing in choir for you to understand that they can participate in society, then that is your failure on assessing students.
Which society? The one that has mass shootings on a regular basis but makes gun ownership a viable identity? Or the one praises love and peace while buying clothes made in sweatshops?
“…based solely on their test scores and not have to do any of the other trivial stuff that demonstrates that they can participate in the society in which they live.”
It's important that people, especially immigrants, can get into these schools based solely on their test scores and not have to do any of the other trivial stuff that demonstrates that they can participate in the society in which they live.