The catch is that it is harder to brute force being truly exceptional in one thing. That often requires talent and predisposition.
Grinding 15 hours a day is a more realistic option for most children and parents.
Grinding 15 hours a day is a more realistic option for most children and parents.
That’s true for sports, music, and academics, but I think “grinding” exceptional leadership can be a thing. It’s very learnable, and effort often times makes the difference.
Some simple examples I’ve seen in various forms:
- starting a meaningful business or non-profit
- starting a meaningful arts or sports experience (literary magazine, regional film festival, regional sports event/tournament, etc.)
- many/most substantial Eagle Scout projects (not all are substantial enough)
The heuristic I tell people to use is this — the reader of the application will go “no kidding… I’d really like to talk to this person and learn more about this” (aka “have a beer with them” type of sentiment)
> Grinding 15 hours a day is a more realistic option for most children and parents.
See above… grind at the right thing. Full-time grinding academics is a fools errand unless the applicant can demonstrate their competence at a regional level, if not national or international level.
What is the chance that a mediocre or talentless student can grind Regional success? What is the chance that mediocre and talentless parents can support that?
Grinding grades and academics is absolutely a path the top tier universities like Berkeley or UCLA, even if you won't get in the S tier private schools.
I've seen several ESL immigrant parents simply lock their kids up and make them study their way to Berkeley, despite having never graduated high school themselves.
Yeah. We are talking about different types of schools.
For one, Cal and UCLA both admit a lot of students. It’s just not as competitive. Additionally, it’s fairly easy for a decent grinder student to go to a feeder JuCo and transfer to either of these schools (which would be a fine outcome for the “ESL immigrant parents” you gave as an example).
Second, while Cal and UCLA are top-tier public schools (along with schools like UMich, UVa, and UTexas), I don’t consider them elite in terms of undergrad programs [1]. Any resident of California who gets into Stanford or an Ivy would be able to get into either of those (excepting anomalies like unusually high departmental requirements at some UC schools like Cal).
So sure, if the goal (esp. for California residents) is to get into a UC school, going the grinder route is fine — overkill in most cases, but fine. This will be less than ideal if they are also considering elite schools like Stanford or Ivies.
[1] What makes an undergrad program elite? The short answer is drive and the ability to get things done.
If you take the top 1000 admits from Stanford and compare them to the top 1000 admits at Cal, you may not see much difference in terms of raw intellect — plenty of super smart people in both groups. But the Stanford students will be more ambitious, they will push each other much harder (and in most cases learn more), and they will achieve more than the Cal students. Note that this isn’t a knock on Cal students — it’s just a different way of approaching school and life that is quite apparent when you interact with enough folks from each group.
Stanford, an elite school, can and does select for these traits. Cal just can’t be as picky due to the large number of admits and certain state policies.
I just don't think every student has what it takes to be a good fit at Stanford.
For this reason and the low admission, I don't think betting the farm on an academic strategy tailored for Stanford is a good idea for most students or parents.