“The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is that little extra.” ~Jimmy Johnson
While searching for a top university summer program to attend next summer, for about a second, I allowed myself to muse on the idea of studying in one these. Being the over achieving student that I am, It’s always been in the back of my head, either consciously or not. But being the pessimistic person I wish I wasn’t, I’ve tried to shove this idea out of my mind to avoid the disappointment I knew it’d eventually lead to. This time I couldn’t. I googled “How to get into an Ivy League college” just because, and clicked on the third option: “How to Get into Harvard and the Ivy League, by Harvard Alum”. Let me start of by saying that no, I do not intend on going to Harvard; it’s never been something I’ve aspired for—not that I’d ever get accepted anyhow. I clicked on this report because of the fact that an alumnus wrote it. Someone who did not only get into a 5.9% admission rate university, but who’s got an inside on the dynamics of college admissions. Turns out Allen Cheng, the author, didn’t only get into Harvard; he got accepted into every single school he applied to, including Princeton, MIT, and Stanford. One could say he’s got this admissions thing down pad. And so can he. Allen claims he wrote “the most comprehensive guide to getting into top schools [that he’s] ever seen.” His guide does not consist of the typical generic and vague advice we’re given by people who’ve never gained admissions to these schools themselves; it explains in detail what it is these colleges are really looking for in our application. Cheng busts the myths of what most people think admission officers want. My main takeaway: We, students, are spending our time on completely the wrong things; we’ve been fed mistaken information of what top colleges are looking for. Colleges search for two types of students: Those who’ll accomplish world-changing things and those who’ll contribute positively to the community while in college. How is it they determine if we’re one of these two types of students? By following the golden rule: “The best predictor of future achievement is past achievement.” In the school’s eyes, deep attainment while in high school is an indicator of our capability of achievement for the future. The purpose of our application is to convince the admission officers that based on our accomplishments so far, we’re going to continue succeeding and thriving while in and after college. The most repeated mistake we, students aiming for top colleges, continue to make, is trying to be “well-rounded”—trying to prove competency in every skill. We’ll play a varsity sport, aim for straight A’s and top test scores, volunteer for hours of community and service, while forming part of some clubs. By doing all of this, we’re demonstrating how we can do everything we set our minds to pretty well and therefore indicating future success right? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Colleges like Yale and MIT don’t see it this way; they see it as students who do nothing particularly well. Well-rounded students are not team captains of a national ranking soccer team, or heads of a statewide club, nor nationally published writers. We are jack-of-all-trades, master of none. Simply “mediocre at everything” and colleges know mediocre people won’t end up changing the world. The real question is what does it really take to make a difference in the world? It takes focus. Relentless focus. Think of it this way, if your head is not 100% in the game, don’t expect to accomplish anywhere nearly as much as someone who’s head is. We must remember schools appreciate commitment above anything. What they genuinely care about is our capacity for success; not necessarily what particular field we achieve success in. Princeton’s admission office divulged, "We are interested in the talents and interests you would bring to Princeton outside the classroom. We don't value one type of activity over another. Rather, we appreciate sustained commitment to the interests you have chosen to pursue.” We must prove that we’re capable of deep accomplishment in our field of choice; we must demonstrate we are world class in something we care deeply about. Allen Cheng talked to admission officers himself and witnessed Harvard discussions. He found it incredibly shocking how random admissions for a marginal acceptance could be; how admission officers often go “by gut”. Something in your application can either pique their interest or give them a bad taste. Forget well rounded, we must seek to develop a huge spike—what sets us apart from other applicants. It’ll take time, effort, discipline and passion. Ideally, our spike is what can make us world-class. We must not let the fear of our own limitations hold us back into complacency. When developing our spike, it’s okay to be unbalanced. Colleges care most about whether we achieve something great in our lifetime, by proving that we can do so in our area of interest, colleges care less if we fall short elsewhere. Now, we can’t totally fail in the rest of our application, we also need generally strong academics—colleges want to make sure we can survive smoothly without much trouble. Our application’s job is to support the story around our spike. Every piece of our application should be consistent with this story. If we’re passionate but have not shown achievement, Stanford will take a person who is similarly as passionate and has shown deep achievement. Every. Single. Time. The deeper we dive into our spike, the more we compensate for our weak links. The shallower we go, the more we have to compensate by being well rounded and the more well rounded we are, the deeper we fall into the crapshoot.
3 Comments
Why not? They grade us, why can’t we grade them?
Grades are a reflection of a student’s work, progress and achievement-- they’re a way of providing students guidance about future course work— a form of feedback to “motivate” students. If grading is as efficient as they claim it is and makes us, students, “better”, lets reciprocate; lets return teachers their own favor and give them grades to make them better as well! After all, one never stops learning right? Teachers classify students among themselves, as being either “good”, “bad” or “mediocre”— they’re not the only ones. we classify you teachers too, and some of you are not meeting our expectations. Policy makers on both sides of the aisle haven’t yet emboldened enough to state the obvious; they remain oblivious to the truth: there are some bad teachers in our school. I’ve actually had about five I can list from the top of my head . Last year, this one teacher’s class I’d actually call “free period”— it was that inefficient. No one learned, yet still no one complained. After all, you could walk up to him, have him “check” your work again, without having made any corrections after the last time he’d given you feedback, insist, no, not even that, just plainly say you made the changes and BOOM, grade raised. Those of you who were in this teacher’s class, you know who I’m talking about. A study by Stanford University economist, Eric Hanushek, found that the difference between a child being assigned to one teacher or another can make a difference of as much as a grade level’s worth of learning during the school year. This idea of giving your teacher a grade, is majorly for feedback; to ensure students are getting a high quality education. This new system could start out as an online anonymous survey at the middle of the school year, where students rate their professors from 1 to 5 in the categories of clarity, helpfulness, popularity, and easiness— a comment box could be added. All responses should be accessible to the principal (not the teachers) including the person who took the survey’s name. This would prevent nasty and disrespectful comments, students grading their teacher higher with hopes of getting a better grade and students that graded poorly being treated differently. Leila Campbell, a humanities teacher at Charter High School in Oakland, California, had received her results from a recent survey. She discovered her difficulty connecting with students. Since then, Ms. Campbell adjusted her classroom manner, resulting in an evident improvement. “The surveys have been transformational in how I operate, I’ve grown tremendously from this data”, she claimed. It’s a revolutionary idea, like Ronal Ferguson, an economist at Harvard, claimed. No one is more qualified to evaluate teachers’ work, than the people who see them every day—their students. |
Daniela Ontaneda16 year old Junior at Colegio Franklin Delano Roosevelt who's taking the IB diploma program. Archives
August 2017
Categories
All
Future Blog Posts:
-Free to Learn by Peter Gray reflection
- If you could change someone's life - If you could change one thing about yourself - Should students be allowed to grade their teacher - What happens after death? - Are precognitions and deja vu different? - Mysteries of the mind - Mentalism - The positive of experiencing pain - What is existentialism -Impact of media on society |