2 ms·

Christ almighty, I wish I could share the actual source, but I can't find it. There was a study a decade(?) ago that took a look at 'Top Schools' and instead o

by Balgair 10y ago

Christ almighty, I wish I could share the actual source, but I can't find it. There was a study a decade(?) ago that took a look at 'Top Schools' and instead of looking at the best students, they took a look at the worst students. They took out the legacy children, the athletes, etc, and only looked at the kids that got in on their 'merits'. Typically, the schools will have a ranking system that combines GPA, ACT, SAT, etc. The researchers (out of Michigan, maybe?) then looked at the bottom people in that ranking order that accepted into the schools. I read the popular press article about it (Wired?) where they focused on a kid from Arizona that got into Stanford. He was super passionate about this park near his house that he hiked in. His grades and whatnot were average at best. When budget cuts closed the park, the guy fundraised and solicited the state house until the park re-opened. He applied to Stanford on a lark, and got in mostly based on the essay about the park closure. The researchers concluded that the 'bottom' kids that got into super elite schools were are very unique, but similar in one way: They were super passionate about one specific thing. These kids were really spiky, not well-rounded. Effectively, Stanford et al. were actually asking the kids to come to their schools. These kids really didn't need the schools to begin with, they were going to continue doing their thing anyways. But those schools wanted those kids because of that passion. So maybe then we should be trying to go for that approach when it comes to education for our children. Maybe we should be trying to make them super passionate about one specific thing and not trying to be well rounded; a 'T' shaped mind where they have a little bit of know-how about a lot of stuff and a lot of know-how about one thing instead of a '---' shaped mind where they know a little bit about a whole ton of things. If anyone knows where the original paper is, PLEASE link it!

wolfgke 10y ago
Only because there exist a few kids who are very passionate about a specific thing and thus admitted to a top school this does not imply, that the "typical" kid with this property will be admitted. I would rather conjecture that many well-rounded pupils will get admitted plus a few (but not more) "special characters". Thus it would be a bad strategy if you want to go to Stanford to become passionate in only one thing.
- Balgair 10y ago
  From the research, what I took away was that you should just 'be awesome' at whatever you want to be 'awesome' at, work on those things, and not really care who 'wants' you. Like, all those students that did get in would have still gone and done the things that they wanted to do. They were that passionate. That, I think, is the 'better life' path. And since the original article that stated this HN thread was focused on people that are trying to have a better life, I think it has a lot to say. Instead of trying to kill your personality and passion and trying to be yet another perfect little gingerbread-man so you have a chance at the slot-machine that is college admissions, encourage your passions and grit and personality and live a life you want to live, have that better life now and do what you want to be doing. The 'typical' kid should go be passionate and love something and not give a damn about getting into Stanford. How to find that passion or that thing? I have no idea and am still searching myself. But I'd think that path of searching is a lot better than being yet another perfect applicant.

by Balgair 10y ago

wolfgke 10y ago

Only because there exist a few kids who are very passionate about a specific thing and thus admitted to a top school this does not imply, that the "typical" kid with this property will be admitted. I would rather conjecture that many well-rounded pupils will get admitted plus a few (but not more) "special characters". Thus it would be a bad strategy if you want to go to Stanford to become passionate in only one thing.

Balgair 10y ago
From the research, what I took away was that you should just 'be awesome' at whatever you want to be 'awesome' at, work on those things, and not really care who 'wants' you. Like, all those students that did get in would have still gone and done the things that they wanted to do. They were that passionate. That, I think, is the 'better life' path. And since the original article that stated this HN thread was focused on people that are trying to have a better life, I think it has a lot to say. Instead of trying to kill your personality and passion and trying to be yet another perfect little gingerbread-man so you have a chance at the slot-machine that is college admissions, encourage your passions and grit and personality and live a life you want to live, have that better life now and do what you want to be doing. The 'typical' kid should go be passionate and love something and not give a damn about getting into Stanford. How to find that passion or that thing? I have no idea and am still searching myself. But I'd think that path of searching is a lot better than being yet another perfect applicant.