Food for Thought: Giving girls "hooks" and who got into the top colleges

[melissel]

It seems that this article:

 

Who Got Into the Country’s Top Colleges?

 

spawned this blog post:

 

Give a Girl a ‘Hook,’ Get Her Into College

 

which spawned a FB post by SWB, which is currently spawning some interesting discussion (featuring Rivka and maybe a few other WTMers). I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on it. I have one DD who has no real interests that could turn into "hooks," and it stresses me out greatly (from a college-application perspective and from a richness-of-life sort of perspective).

 

What do you do with a kid who has no hooks and who desires no hooks?

 

Anyway, I thought the FB discussion was interesting enough to bring it here (and I hate FB, so I'd rather read it here :D).

 

Thanks for linking, SWB!

[gingersmom]

My very wealthy, straight A niece ( who went to fancy private school), perfect SATs would have just been a dime a dozen without a hook. My brother began planning well in advance of high school how to get her to stand out from the crowd.

 

She just finished her sophomore year at Yale.

[melissel]

My very wealthy, straight A niece ( who went to fancy private school), perfect SATs would have just been a dime a dozen without a hook. My brother began planning well in advance of high school how to get her to stand out from the crowd.

 

She just finished her sophomore year at Yale.

 

What was her hook, if you don't mind my asking? DD9 just said if she had to pick something, it would be horseback riding--which still makes her a dime a dozen here in central NJ! I have some ideas, but implementing them is a whole other story. She's a wonderful artist, and we've managed to link up with a local museum that I think will be a great resource for us, but she doesn't really like her art to be "managed."

 

Can you tell I've been thinking about this a LOT lately? :tongue_smilie:

[regentrude]

The message to parents then is clear: don’t let them fritter away their free time on whatever is fun, what they like or what they are interested in at the moment.

 

I find it awful. Yes, my DD does ride horses too - but she is white, not a champion, and this is most likely not giving her the edge for college admissions. But you know what? I refuse to look at the childhood and highschool years as merely a preparation period in which one grooms for college admission. I see these years as her LIFE. And she should spend her life doing things that are fun, that she likes, that she is interested in. If the interest gives her an edge in admissions, that is an added bonus. But I refuse to play the game. I want her to explore interests, and to enjoy her high school years while they happen.

She does have the academics for a selective school, but if Ivy does not happen, it is not the end of the world. We consider living more important.

[i.love.lucy]

I have one DD who has no real interests that could turn into "hooks," and it stresses me out greatly (from a college-application perspective and from a richness-of-life sort of perspective).

 

What do you do with a kid who has no hooks and who desires no hooks?

:bigear:

I have no idea what to do with this type of kid. My dd is almost 12 and still no "hooks". She's quite shy and introverted. And immature. But I see friends kids who are fabulous ballet dancers, competitive swimmers, violinists, etc, and I wonder what will happen to my dd in a sea of these super talented extroverted competitive kids? I can't make her who she is not meant to be. :confused:

[wapiti]

LOL, dd11 has been asking me to help figure out a hook for this very reason.

[melissel]

I find it awful. Yes, my DD does ride horses too - but she is white, not a champion, and this is most likely not giving her the edge for college admissions. But you know what? I refuse to look at the childhood and highschool years as merely a preparation period in which one grooms for college admission. I see these years as her LIFE. And she should spend her life doing things that are fun, that she likes, that she is interested in. If the interest gives her an edge in admissions, that is an added bonus. But I refuse to play the game. I want her to explore interests, and to enjoy her high school years while they happen.

She does have the academics for a selective school, but if Ivy does not happen, it is not the end of the world. We consider living more important.

 

These were the points Rivka was making, and I don't disagree. But I'm also viewing it through my own lens, and I feel like I personally have no "thing" of my own. My parents were not the kind of people who encouraged extra stuff (in fact, they were much happier not being burdened with driving me places and dealing with schedules, performances, what have you). So now I'm an adult who has no hobbies or passions, and I really don't like that. I see my oldest shaping up the same way, and it concerns me. So I view it from that angle as well as the "specialization" angle. Does that make any sense?

 

And right now I have two kids who would rather sit and stare at their iPads than do anything else. That's a whole other post :banghead:

 

(Sorry, I realize I'm personalizing this issue quite a bit, but it hammers on some concerns I've been having for awhile now :()

[bettyandbob]

I've always thought kids should have a "hook". All kids. By the time they are middle school age.

 

Kids who do not have something that they focus on tend to get in more trouble. They don't have reason to set goals. They don't see a direction. Mastering a sonata, a flip on a balance beam, building a robot may or may not lead to future careers, but the focus and goal setting skills the child develops as they master these things will be lifelong skills they will always use.

 

Additionally, without the anchor kids drift. Drifting can lead to trouble. I work with kids in an "alternative" setting. I see it all the time. Even kids from "good homes". Even kids whose parents pay attention.

[AK_Mom4]

DD18 is headed to college in the fall to study Music with a nearly-full ride.

 

Grades were good, ACT score good but not amazing. She is a good solid player and creative, but not amazing.

 

What made her stand out and won her the scholarship was that for all four years of high school, she had volunteered in the music classes at the local elementary and jr. high, giving free lessons to beginning band students, 2-3 days a week.

[melissel]

I've always thought kids should have a "hook". All kids. By the time they are middle school age.

 

Kids who do not have something that they focus on tend to get in more trouble. They don't have reason to set goals. They don't see a direction. Mastering a sonata, a flip on a balance beam, building a robot may or may not lead to future careers, but the focus and goal setting skills the child develops as they master these things will be lifelong skills they will always use.

 

Additionally, without the anchor kids drift. Drifting can lead to trouble. I work with kids in an "alternative" setting. I see it all the time. Even kids from "good homes". Even kids whose parents pay attention.

 

:iagree: And I'm sorry, I meant to say in my OP that, while the blog post was about girls specifically, I think it really applies to all kids.

[FaithManor]

I find it awful. Yes, my DD does ride horses too - but she is white, not a champion, and this is most likely not giving her the edge for college admissions. But you know what? I refuse to look at the childhood and highschool years as merely a preparation period in which one grooms for college admission. I see these years as her LIFE. And she should spend her life doing things that are fun, that she likes, that she is interested in. If the interest gives her an edge in admissions, that is an added bonus. But I refuse to play the game. I want her to explore interests, and to enjoy her high school years while they happen.

She does have the academics for a selective school, but if Ivy does not happen, it is not the end of the world. We consider living more important.

 

 

I agree! We won't sacrifice living for the sake of an IVY or near IVY school.

 

That said we are actually pretty lucky with the boys. They are interested in the sciences and they are science geeks by nature so they enjoy the "hooks" they will have...Lego Robotics competitions, Competitive Rocketry including TARC and NAR junior competitions, 4-H science pursuits, Intel Science competitions, and Popular Science Young Inventors. I know we are blessed that they enjoy the extras that will help them get scholarships.

 

Now I will say that recently they've been really glued to screens and we are having a hard time removing them to work on their next projects. But, I think it's down time....TARC really took a round out of them and they are needing to have a little down time before embracing the next challenge. I'll let this ride for another week or two and then we'll be back at it.

 

Faith

[ocelotmom]

I find the idea of making a preteen decide what their one extracurricular focus will be for the rest of their childhood rather abhorrent. Especially since a lot of preteens don't have a good idea of what is out there, or their own strengths, weaknesses, and competitiveness in a particular field. Focusing on one thing you liked when you were 10 means potentially missing out on something that turns into a lifelong passion.

 

I also think that any global advice should be taken with a grain of salt. The key is that you want the application to *stand out*. If everyone follows this advice and has one single extracurricular to which they're really super dedicated, they're not going to stand out, just like the people doing a whole bunch of different things to show their well-roundedness don't stand out anymore.

 

That said, sending my kids to an Ivy League school is not actually my goal.

 

(I would definitely support a child who WANTED to focus heavily on one particular thing, though.)

Edited May 29, 2012 by ocelotmom

[regentrude]

But I'm also viewing it through my own lens, and I feel like I personally have no "thing" of my own. My parents were not the kind of people who encouraged extra stuff (in fact, they were much happier not being burdened with driving me places and dealing with schedules, performances, what have you). So now I'm an adult who has no hobbies or passions, and I really don't like that. I see my oldest shaping up the same way, and it concerns me. So I view it from that angle as well as the "specialization" angle. Does that make any sense? )

 

I consider this a completely different issue than grooming for admission.

I want my kids to have interests and passions - but those do NOT guarantee college admission. As I stated before, DD rides horses almost daily, but she also sings in choir, writes fiction, reads passionately, rock climbs, hikes. All these activities and interest enrich her life - but she is not specialized, and in none she stands out sufficiently to make it the "hook".

I am the same way. I have always had many interests, actively pursue several hobbies, and find that this greatly enriches my life. I am not a specialist. But they make me happy.

 

So, for my kids, I encourage them to explore a variety of things and I support them pursuing multiple interests - without the expectation that they become experts at one single thing and get good enough so that it gets them into college.

[Snickerdoodle]

 

I've always thought kids should have a "hook". All kids. By the time they are middle school age.

Yes, there is something to be said about entering puberty with the feeling that one already is (relatively) good at something. I think it gives kids a sense of pride about themselves during those difficult hormonal years.

[Bluegoat]

I find it awful. Yes, my DD does ride horses too - but she is white, not a champion, and this is most likely not giving her the edge for college admissions. But you know what? I refuse to look at the childhood and highschool years as merely a preparation period in which one grooms for college admission. I see these years as her LIFE. And she should spend her life doing things that are fun, that she likes, that she is interested in. If the interest gives her an edge in admissions, that is an added bonus. But I refuse to play the game. I want her to explore interests, and to enjoy her high school years while they happen.

She does have the academics for a selective school, but if Ivy does not happen, it is not the end of the world. We consider living more important.

:iagree:

 

It actually kind of sickens me. I do want my kids to have some interests that will serve them well in life but there is no way I am going to put pressure on them to choose ones that will look good to admissions offices or make them turn a happy activity into an achievement test.

 

And free time spent on fun is not, IMO, frittered away.

[regentrude]

I've always thought kids should have a "hook". All kids. By the time they are middle school age.

 

Kids who do not have something that they focus on tend to get in more trouble. They don't have reason to set goals. They don't see a direction. Mastering a sonata, a flip on a balance beam, building a robot may or may not lead to future careers, but the focus and goal setting skills the child develops as they master these things will be lifelong skills they will always use.

 

Additionally, without the anchor kids drift. Drifting can lead to trouble. I work with kids in an "alternative" setting. I see it all the time. Even kids from "good homes". Even kids whose parents pay attention.

 

Not having a hook does not mean they are drifting. It can mean that, rather than choosing to specialize in ONE single field, they choose to generalize and become reasonably good in several, without being outstanding in a single one.

I would not think that a kid who likes to make music in an amateur ensemble (but not a specialized orchestra) AND play a recreational sport (but not on Olympic level) AND draw a bit (but not exhibit) AND write poetry (but not publish) as "drifting". I am actually very glad that I am able to pursue many different activities that give me pleasure, and I would feel poorer had my parents forced me to chose one activity only, to the exclusion of all the other lovely things one could be doing.

[Snickerdoodle]

I would not think that a kid who likes to make music in an amateur ensemble (but not a specialized orchestra) AND play a recreational sport (but not on Olympic level) AND draw a bit (but not exhibit) AND write poetry (but not publish) as "drifting".

So true, because as we know, not every kid can be the junior olympic champion in their hook. You have to do it because you love it, and it teaches you something about yourself and about life in general along the way.

[Snickerdoodle]

I think those articles are written to give already neurotic NYC parents an extra push towards an aneurysm.

[Bluegoat]

I also agree with the first comment on the page after the article: move to Canada to get into university. Universities here really aren't terribly interested in your extra-curricular interests.

[bettyandbob]

On picking something. I wouldn't pick for my kids. The amount of activities my kids did was extreme. It started as part of therapy for my oldest. He had a lot of motor problems and social skills issues. So, when were homeschooling early elementary in addition to OT, ds was told he must do a sport every season (in addition to swim year round -- lessons in winter, swim team summer). It was physical therapy for him. He also needed social skills work so we did scouts and 4H and I coached him on behavior for meetings as well as before practice for his team sports.

 

Along came his sister who saw all the stuff ds was doing and of course she wanted to do it all. One year I let her do it all. It was awful driving her to everything. Scouts, swimming, field hockey, lacrosse, and more. At some point she tried guitar and scouts too. But she learned it was too much. And she began selecting out of stuff. She started in ballet and focused seriously on that going to classes 5 days a week and getting on pointe. Recently, she took some time off dance (that frightened me, because I am a believer in "hooks"). However, she's chosen to go back to dance. She missed it.

 

She has another less defined "hook". She has many activities related to animals--pet sitting, helping with a guinea pig rescue, 4H.

 

Oldest ds never developed an obvious hook. He started an instrument in 8th grade. One of his music teachers had a rehearsal space next to a club that had stand up comedy. ds is a senior in high school now and he does stand up comedy at clubs that will permit minors. Pretty unusual. He'll never support himself doing this, but it is pretty confidence building. He's different.

 

Anyway, my approach was to keep letting my kids try new stuff until they found their own hook. Amy Chua would not approve. They have learned over time that they cannot try everything and cannot keep doing everything at the same time. They had to learn to make a choice on their own.

[melissel]

And free time spent on fun is not, IMO, frittered away.

 

I think it depends on the kind of fun. My kids would happily sit in front of a screen all day every day. No, that's not an exaggeration. I once did an experiment in which I let them manage their own screen time. It didn't work. IMO, that is time frittered away.

 

Not having a hook does not mean they are drifting. It can mean that, rather than choosing to specialize in ONE single field, they choose to generalize and become reasonably good in several, without being outstanding in a single one.

I would not think that a kid who likes to make music in an amateur ensemble (but not a specialized orchestra) AND play a recreational sport (but not on Olympic level) AND draw a bit (but not exhibit) AND write poetry (but not publish) as "drifting". I am actually very glad that I am able to pursue many different activities that give me pleasure, and I would feel poorer had my parents forced me to chose one activity only, to the exclusion of all the other lovely things one could be doing.

 

On the flip side, having a hook doesn't automatically mean that one's childhood is devoid of fun and freedom. I don't think anyone's going to say, "No, sorry, you can't take that art class or sleep over at your friend's house because you have to put ALL your focus on soccer!" I do think there's something to be said for holding a kid's feet to the fire a little bit if their hook is something they truly enjoy doing.

 

DD6 is currently upset with me because I took her out of dance class this past year because she was arguing with me about getting up on time every Saturday morning. She really loves dancing and sees it as her future. In retrospect...I should have held her feet to the fire. I regret not doing it now, and next year will be different, and she knows it. But I still expect to provide with a rich, enjoyable childhood. And I don't think of her plans for dance (and singing, actually) as a college hook, actually, though they may turn out to be. I actually view them as more a life-shaping experience, one that I expect to have to enforce occasionally!

[Amy in TX]

We won't sacrifice living for the sake of an IVY or near IVY school.

 

Bingo.

[Bluegoat]

I think it depends on the kind of fun. My kids would happily sit in front of a screen all day every day. No, that's not an exaggeration. I once did an experiment in which I let them manage their own screen time. It didn't work. IMO, that is time frittered away.

 

Too much time on these things is obviously not good and parents need to help kids manage that according to their ages. But I actually don't think spending time choosing to watch some tv is frittering it away, and I'm not a very tv positive person. Giving them down time is important, and letting them do their own thing is important too.

[melissel]

I think those articles are written to give already neurotic NYC parents an extra push towards an aneurysm.

 

:lol: Think how many spaces that will open up for the kids of the rest of us!

 

I also agree with the first comment on the page after the article: move to Canada to get into university. Universities here really aren't terribly interested in your extra-curricular interests.

 

That would be lovely. Someone here once talked a bit about the European model of education and how it related to university applications. It made so much more sense than the "be good at everything!" US model.

 

They had to learn to make a choice on their own.

 

Did you require them to pick something, or did they naturally find something they wanted to actively engage in? We've been doing the "lots of activities" thing for awhile now, and it IS wearing. For my oldest, the only thing she really wants is one that we really can't afford. And she's not shown a whole lot of personal drive toward that anyway.

[Belacqua]

And then to complicate matters, you have the people who would get testy with us for referring to these activities as "hooks." There are some purists (mostly on that confidential site about college) who insist that a hook is almost always something you can't change: underrepresented minority, first gen, development case (ie. super-rich parents likely to donate to the school). The only exceptions I've seen are recruited athlete and being a famous actor.

 

But whether we call it a hook, a passion, or something else, do we think this is a trend that will pass? When we were college age, it seemed like it was all about being Well Rounded. Now, being a Bright, Well-Rounded Kid (BWRK) is seen as a disadvantage. You have to be pointy or lopsided. Will the pendulum swing back? Or will there always be a place for the kid deeply passionate about organic chemistry or slacklining or Renaissance poetry?

[ocelotmom]

A quote from one of the comments on the blog:

 

As a horse lover myself (I train and do "therapy" on horses with issues) I think it would be the height of irony, and would serve this mom right, if her daughter turned out to love horses and riding SO much that she abandoned plans for college and the office cubicle career, ran away to Wyoming or Salinas and apprenticed herself to Buck Brannaman or Monty Roberts or Linda Tellington-Jones, and became a Horse Whisperer (and part time barrel racer and roping champion) without ever seeing the inside of a college. She could have a wonderful life that way, too. But somehow, I don't think it's what mommy had in mind!

 

I think this brings up a good point (though my spin-off thought isn't exactly the same as the original comment)...

 

There needs to be relevance.

 

If someone has spent their childhood dedicating themselves to horseback riding, and applying as an English major, pre-med, or something like that, I'm going to question their true dedication to one or the other unless they demonstrate relevance (volunteering in horse physiotherapy, being an amateur Marguerite Henry).

 

And most childhood extracurriculars are probably not what parents whose goal is to get their kids into highly selective colleges really want their kids doing for a career.

[SKL]

Ick. Who wants their kids to spend their young adulthood in an environment that is so unrealistic? In the real world, most people aren't champion anythings, but they still have value. I wouldn't even mind it if these kids just naturally gravitated to cool stuff and did great at it; but a roomful of young people who have cultivated a "hook" just to serve a material purpose (being able to say "I went to Yale")? No thanks.

 

My philosophy is very different based on my life experience. My barely-working-class parents didn't "have us in" anything other than a decent elementary school. I had 100% responsibility for my homework, did lots of chores, earned my own spending money, and spent the rest of my time doing whatever I wanted. Sure, I had artistic interests, but they never went beyond what I could teach myself for free. Somehow with that background, I grew to be intelligent and capable. I applied to exactly 1 university - the one (state school) I could drive to from home at age 16. I applied to exactly 1 grad school, an hour away from my parents' home (this one was expensive, but I really should have gone to the state university for law/MBA and graduated with less debt). Then at 25 I entered "the rest of my life" with enough competence to succeed. I have no regrets whatsoever! I do not hang with people who would feel more comfortable with a Yale graduate anyway.

 

So no, I will not teach my kids that they will be nothing if they don't have a "hook." I'll encourage them to do their best and follow their dreams. If that includes pursuing a talent that doubles as a "hook," that will be serendipity, I guess. If my kids even want to go to school with a bunch of people who think they're superior for having done the same.

 

That was one thing I hated about the grad school I went to (which wasn't even ivy league). People thinking that they were superior because they happened to be born to parents who could give them more. One of my favorite comments was, "I don't care what your dad is/was. If you don't have something to say for yourself, independent of your privilege, then I'm not impressed."

[melissel]

There needs to be relevance.

 

Does there? Or are they mainly looking at the fact that the student is able to dedicate themselves to something that matters to them, set goals, manage time and balance responsibilities, follow through, work their way through a progression of skills toward mastery, etc? (I don't know, I'm sincerely asking.)

 

Are you an admissions counselor, or something similar? Is this inside info you're giving us? :D:lol:

[Carrie75]

If my son could choose right now, what his hook would be, he would choose Lego SW Wii. yikes. We really need to figure out what his other talents are! He is already six.

[melissel]

And then to complicate matters, you have the people who would get testy with us for referring to these activities as "hooks." There are some purists (mostly on that confidential site about college) who insist that a hook is almost always something you can't change: underrepresented minority, first gen, development case (ie. super-rich parents likely to donate to the school). The only exceptions I've seen are recruited athlete and being a famous actor.

 

But whether we call it a hook, a passion, or something else, do we think this is a trend that will pass? When we were college age, it seemed like it was all about being Well Rounded. Now, being a Bright, Well-Rounded Kid (BWRK) is seen as a disadvantage. You have to be pointy or lopsided. Will the pendulum swing back? Or will there always be a place for the kid deeply passionate about organic chemistry or slacklining or Renaissance poetry?

 

I have no idea. Looking back now, I don't even know how the heck I got into college. My advantage was that I told my high school to take a flying leap and left a year early. I was accepted into a good university on decent grades and a purported desire to push through into graduate education in marine biology (ha!!!).

 

I can't even imagine what the next trend will be in college admissions.

[melissel]

If my son could choose right now, what his hook would be, he would choose Lego SW Wii. yikes. We really need to figure out what his other talents are! He is already six.

 

:lol: Mine are currently specializing in Tiny Zoo management and pop music playlist design.

[ocelotmom]

Does there? Or are they mainly looking at the fact that the student is able to dedicate themselves to something that matters to them, set goals, manage time and balance responsibilities, follow through, work their way through a progression of skills toward mastery, etc? (I don't know, I'm sincerely asking.)

 

Are you an admissions counselor, or something similar? Is this inside info you're giving us? :D:lol:

 

I actually had something in there about not being an admissions counselor, but it looks like I took that out :)

 

Of course showing dedication, time management, leadership, and so forth are good things in themselves. However, we're talking about making an application stand out from the masses of similarly high achieving applicants, and I, as someone who is not actually an admissions counselor, would choose someone whose interests were congruent over someone whose current dedicated passion was totally incongruent with their stated college/career goals.

 

(The ideal, I imagine, would be to find a way to demonstrate relevance of seemingly unrelated things or to choose a major that was relevant. Most colleges allow you to change majors, after all :))

Edited May 29, 2012 by ocelotmom

[melissel]

I actually had something in there about not being an admissions counselor, but it looks like I took that out :)

 

Of course showing dedication, time management, leadership, and so forth are good things in themselves. However, I, as someone who is not actually an admissions counselor, would choose someone whose interests were congruent over someone whose current dedicated passion was totally incongruent with their stated college/career goals.

 

Ah, gotcha. Of course that makes total sense, but I wonder if that's actually the way admissions counselors view it? I imagine it varies quite a bit by institution.

[SKL]

I, as someone who is not actually an admissions counselor, would choose someone whose interests were congruent over someone whose current dedicated passion was totally incongruent with their stated college/career goals.

 

Considering that these "hooks" would have to be embarked upon well before puberty, isn't it highly likely that their "college/career goals" will change a lot as they pursue their "hook"? Even college students frequently change their majors to an entirely different field.

 

And also, I would think it would make more sense to have a sort of "balancing" interest that is different from the academic/career focus. I mean, it would be nice to be able to hold a conversation with other adults who have different interests. That's one thing about hookless me: there is almost nothing I don't have an opinion on, with the exception of basketball. (Too bad basketball was the only thing people in my last job ever wanted to talk about, LOL.)

[bettyandbob]

Did you require them to pick something, or did they naturally find something they wanted to actively engage in? We've been doing the "lots of activities" thing for awhile now, and it IS wearing. For my oldest, the only thing she really wants is one that we really can't afford. And she's not shown a whole lot of personal drive toward that anyway.

 

 

It was sort of a combination. There was a point where I said we had to limit driving which meant cutting down on activities. So, they had to start figuring out what was important to them. There were activities we never tried because I refused based on the financial, distance and time cost. There was still a lot to choose from since we live in a densely populated suburb of a major city. So, they never did fencing or horseback riding, but they did not "miss out", plenty of other stuff was available to try.

 

My kids are stubborn. If I had tried to push them into a box saying "you must be a swimmer" or "you must play the clarinet" , they would never ever do the thing I chose. Mass hostility would result. It would be ugly. In fact I wish they were swimmers, but they know I love swimming. My kids had to swim because I'm big on water safety, but as soon as I let them choose not to swim oldest dropped it entirely. dd pursues it only as a very casual summer activity. dd has a natural ability that I firmly believe would have served her well as a swimmer, but she didn't want it. Because the swimming was not something she wanted it would have provided her the goal setting and focus skills she developed pursuing dance. Having a "hook" she chose helped her develop some internal drive. Pursuing something I chose like swimming would just have led to multiple arguments.

[Dmmetler]

How many "Hooks" are truly unusual enough to stand out, anyway? I mean, there are a LOT of girls who take horseback riding. Or dance. Or whatever. I'd think that what would make the college applicant stand out would have to be something novel, exclusive to the student and not typically seen, and that's not going to be any sort of common extracurricular.

 

Although if my DD actually achieves her goal of getting an ELE/NLE medal every year until high school graduation, maybe that would show something...or not. (we'll see what happens once she actually TAKES the ELE this year :) ).

Edited May 29, 2012 by dmmetler

[Trilliums]

I don't think anyone's going to say, "No, sorry, you can't take that art class or sleep over at your friend's house because you have to put ALL your focus on soccer!"!

 

If I recall correctly, this was pretty much the case for Tiger Mom's daughter. I read a few comments from the daughter and she mentioned no sleep overs were allowed and music camps were her only summer options.

[Parrothead]

Bingo.

:iagree: Our state school has a really good dance dept. No need for an Ivy here. And if she doesn't get into a uni there is always community college and on line schools. My introvert will do just fine with our local options. I think her childhood should last as long as she wants it to.

[FaithManor]

I'd also like to point out that admission's departments are notoriously FICKLE!

 

Seriously, your freshman can pick the "in" thing, the thing that is just so attractive to admission's departments today, become the leading expert, and have the 4.0 and have the 34 on the ACT and have letters of recommendation, and volunteer, and....... be passed over by Ivy and top 20 schools in the tier 1 uni's and LAC's four years latter when their is a new "in" thing that admin's are looking for. Sometimes half the "crap shoot" is your zip code! Plenty of good schools out there without making oneself completely nuts and reducing the last four years prior to college to nothing more than hoop jumping.

 

Hey, come to Michigan for college. U of M, MSU, and MTU are really great schools and they'd love to have the students that the Ivies and Ivy wannabes have passed over.

 

When I was in school, well-rounded, lots of interests was the thing. Volunteering got you no where and my top tier LAC really didn't care much about test scores...they wanted a student with broad interests but with just enough specialization to have a pretty good idea what they wanted to do as a grown up! The exception was music and art...those, well, they expected that you began being an artistic, tortured soul by age FOUR! :D

[Matryoshka]

I have one DD who has no real interests that could turn into "hooks," and it stresses me out greatly (from a college-application perspective and from a richness-of-life sort of perspective).

 

What do you do with a kid who has no hooks and who desires no hooks?

 

Yeah, I've got one of those too. Maybe two.

 

One of my twins is passionate about a few things. She's not going to be a superstar in the ones she's been doing the longest, but she loves them and sticks to them tenaciously. Do the hooks count if they're not getting awards and excelling to the top of the heap?

 

The other twin is introverted. She's tried lots, but hasn't been passionate about any of it. She has stuck with skating lessons over the past few years, but group skating once a week isn't a hook. She doesn't have the drive, talent, or interest to be a competitive skater. She likes it okay. She likes or is indifferent to most things. No passions. She's been showing some interest in programming and robotics. I'm going to try to get her interested in the robotics team.

 

And my youngest is just a dilettante. She gets really excited about something for, oh, 6 months, then gets bored with it and wants to move on. She has been showing much increased interest of late in math, science, and programming - I'm hoping that will blossom into something. Sigh.

 

I'm pretty sure all of my girls would have loved horseback riding. Three girls? Waaay too expensive. And not uncommon around here.

[melissel]

If I recall correctly, this was pretty much the case for Tiger Mom's daughter. I read a few comments from the daughter and she mentioned no sleep overs were allowed and music camps were her only summer options.

 

I have no real desire to emulate Tiger Mom, though I did enjoy her book. That's not at all how I envision encouraging a specialization in my kids.

 

The author of the blog post mentioned this:

 

"If she complains it’s too hot to ride? Strap on that helmet, my wee one. She wants to stay after school and play with her friends? Tie on those riding boots, little missy. Grumbles about the subway and train ride to get there? Get. On. That. Horse."

 

This is exactly what I think my youngest needs to excel in something she wants to do. I mentioned upthread about her arguing with me about getting up for dance on Saturdays. Now she's upset with me for letting her drop that class. In retrospect, my attitude should have been more like the author's, IMO.

 

But no, I don't advocate a Tiger Mom-like mentality at all. I can definitely see more of the other side of the discussion.

[melissel]

Do the hooks count if they're not getting awards and excelling to the top of the heap?

 

I would like to think so! Maybe I'm not getting the true point of the article? I'm thinking more along the lines of what AK_Mom4 said about her daughter:

 

DD18 is headed to college in the fall to study Music with a nearly-full ride.

 

Grades were good, ACT score good but not amazing. She is a good solid player and creative, but not amazing.

 

What made her stand out and won her the scholarship was that for all four years of high school, she had volunteered in the music classes at the local elementary and jr. high, giving free lessons to beginning band students, 2-3 days a week.

 

The way I'm envisioning it, they don't need to go to Carnegie Hall or the Olympics or the Little League World Series. They just need to have a passion that they followed through on, something they cared enough about to actively excel at and make a part of their lives.

 

One of my teenaged cousins just got excellent scholarships to a few unis in California based on her musical passions and abilities. She's never played any major venues. Another teenaged cousin got near-full-tuition scholarships to several unis in Texas because of her background in softball and bowling. She did well, but she wasn't at the top of the heap.

 

Anyway, that's how I'm viewing the whole thing. My girls aren't internally motivated enough to get into Ivies. I'm just looking for admission to good schools and some scholarship money. I'm also hoping I can help them find themselves a niche--something I've never had, and something I think is really valuable on a personal level.

 

(ETA: I'm hoping I didn't just kill the thread, but I wanted to say thanks for the discussion thus far. I can't have these discussions with most of the people we hang out with in real life.)

Edited May 29, 2012 by melissel

[wapiti]

FWIW, the general idea reminds me of something mentioned in the Rusczyk lecture on problem solving (p. 16):

 

But, it’s a specialists’ world now. The world is not looking for someone who’s good at 17 things but not great at anything. I’m looking for people who are great at three things. I don’t care what those three things are. I want them to find something they’re passionate about and get really, really good at it. Then you’ll be happy, especially if we can tack some math skills and programming skills on top of that, because then you can do anything.

(as an aside, I remember a school psych in an IEP meeting years ago who said, didn't I want my ds to be well-rounded? All I could think at the time was, well, no, not if you're going to round off his strengths!)

[amsunshine]

So, what I don't get is this: why is the article focused on girls? For boys it doesn't matter?

[kewb]

I understand the hook obsession. Getting into a choice and even some not so choice colleges/university with scholarship money becomes more and more difficult with each passing year. I won't lie and say I have not pushed my 14 year old into a couple of volunteer opportunities because they will one day look good on his college application. If I didn't push him he certainly would be content to sit on his computer/ipod/in front of the tv during his down time. I have 2 motivations. 1. It will look good when he says he volunteered at the library and the animal shelter during his teen years. 2. He is doing something worthwhile with some of his free time.

 

As another poster mentioned swim team and the volunteering give him anchors. Something that grounds him and helps him realize he is part of the greater universe and not the center (and this is important since I am the center ;-) ) I think anchors are important. To me it is not about sticking with the anchor. If he wants to dabble in something else I will support him. How do we know if will like something if we never get the chance to try because we are stubbornly clinging to an old anchor that does not fit anymore in the pursuit of getting into college.

 

I want my kids to be well rounded individuals. If that means we skip the Ivy Leagues, so be it.

[Jugglin'5]

So, what I don't get is this: why is the article focused on girls? For boys it doesn't matter?

 

Especially since the male to female undergrad ratio is approaching 40:60.

[Carrie12345]

I'm still going for General, Well-Rounded Kids over here. If they happen to acquire a hook (or take on extra work in a subject area - I'm not keen on specializing academics, either!), that's great. But I'm raising people, not applicants.

[Trilliums]

I'd also like to point out that admission's departments are notoriously FICKLE!

 

 

 

I also remember reading somewhere that some ivies focus on choosing students with a particular attribute each year. Then they follow that student body through graduation and beyond to see how that particular attribute may have affected the student body in general.

 

So, if the student happens to have those qualities during that round of admissions, great! But if they have those qualities during a different round of admissions, too bad for them.

[melissel]

Especially since the male to female undergrad ratio is approaching 40:60.

 

I wonder why that is? Are application numbers skewed the same way? Test scores? I have girls, so I've not read too much about raising boys/getting boys into colleges. Are there ideas about why the ratio is what it is?

[wapiti]

So, what I don't get is this: why is the article focused on girls? For boys it doesn't matter?

 

Especially since the male to female undergrad ratio is approaching 40:60.

 

It's been several weeks since I read the article, but if I recall correctly, more girls apply than boys, so the girls need more to make themselves stand out. That doesn't mean boys don't need any hook to apply to highly selective schools, just that girls need one even more. FWIW, while I haven't looked at the latest statistics, these are schools where most of the applicants will have SATs in the top few percentiles.