LGBTQ+ in College Admission

这篇谈一个敏感度、争议度和超流行都很高的话题，即美国大学申请中的非传统性认同的身份问题。为迎合中文互联网的简称习惯，这篇里用一个四字简化名词代用这个长名词，即非同身份。请读者不要把这篇里的“非同身份”顾名思义地当成非同性恋身份的意思。

（1）Terminology 和 Recent Trend

首先，明确一个Terminology的问题。在英文语境，LGBTQ+就是非同身份的一个缩写，代表Lesbian、Gay、Bisexual、Transgender、Queer及其他非生物学性别和异性恋的认同者。非生物学性别和异性恋，就是Non-binary，所以LGBTQ+与Non-binary也是同义。另外还有一个词，Genderqueer或者Queer，也是LGBTQ+的同义词，这来自queer本义odd/strange。本来这个词带有贬义，但随着LGBTQ+社会地位的提高，大家对于自我的认知就更加有自信，queer一词就从不吝自嘲中带出了自豪的意味。现在用这个词，会显得你在这个问题的认识上更educated。

另外，在LGBTQ+的这个命名方向上，大家都知道它的更旧式的说法LGBT。但比较少的人还知道它的两个更新式的说法，LGBTQIA+（Intersex和Asexual）和LGBTQIA2S+（Two Spirit，专指非同北美印第安人，注意spirit一词不能加s）。

明确了名词问题，我们再来明确一下非同身份在美本录取的趋势。奥巴马执政时期是美国国内政治转向的一个标志性时段。美本录取的价值观也在这段时间里发生了大幅度的向左转。非裔身份、非富身份、非移身份和非同身份等（中文读者可以称为四非，但英文里不行，因为非裔的非是African，和其他的三个非的Non/Un的意思不同），都在URM大树之下，收到更大的包容、融合，有时候是更优待。2011年的，Elmhurst College（注意不是Amherst College）成为第一家在申请表格中询问非同身份的美本学院。当年哈佛也曾传出考虑这么做来着，但后来哈、耶、史取得了一致，并未把关于非同身份的问题加进申请表。

对于小体量、低知名度的美本来说，以非同身份为切入点来扩大招生，这跟大家对取消标化政策的使用是一个道理。Elmhurst还把自己原有的校园女生援助（Women Center）扩大到Women和LGBTQIA+ 两个Center。在奥巴马第二政期中，陆续有其他一些美本加入到Elmhurst行列中，在申请中加入一个optional（少数required）问题，请学生申明自己的gender identity和sexual orientation。

截止目前，在申请中询问非同身份问题的美本院校有(列举不全)：

Connecticut College: optional，“If you identify as Trans*, Queer, Cis, or another gender, please indicate that here.”

Dartmouth College: lists， “gender identity” and “LGBT community” among 20+ personal interests.

Duke University: optional，essay supplemental: “Duke’s commitment to diversity and inclusion includes sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. If you’d like to share with us more about your identity in this context, feel free to do so here.”

Elmhurst College: optional，gender identity (choices: agender, androgyne, demigender, genderqueer, man, questioning, trans woman, trans man, woman, and an identity not listed) and sexual orientation (choices: asexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, pansexual, queer, questioning or unsure, same-gender loving, straight [heterosexual] and an identity not listed).

Elon University: optional, “Do you consider yourself part of the LGBTQIA community?”

MIT: optional, “How would you describe your sexual orientation/gender identity? (choices of lesbian, gay, straight/heterosexual, unsure, bisexual, transgender, another identity, and prefer not to answer).

Ohio State University: optional, “Do you identify as a part of the LGBTQ community?”

State University of New York (SUNY) system: required, gender identity (choices: man, woman, trans man, trans woman, genderqueer/gender-fluid, questioning, and unsure or write in) and sexual orientation (choices: straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, queer, and questioning, and unsure or write in).

University of California system: required, “How do you describe yourself? (mark one answer): Male, Female, Trans Male/Trans Man, Trans Female/Trans Woman, Genderqueer/Gender Non-Conforming, Different Identity” and “Do you consider yourself to be (mark one answer): Heterosexual or straight, Gay or lesbian, Bisexual, Not listed above (please specify) __________.”

University of Delaware: optional, gender identity (choices: agender, androgyne, demigender, genderqueer or gender fluid, man, questioning or unsure, trans man, trans woman, woman, prefer not to disclose, identity not listed).

University of Iowa: optional, “Do you identify with the LGBTQ community?”

University of Kentucky: optional, gender (choices: male, female, or writing in a response); optional, essay on “gender identity, sexual orientation, and cultural background.”

University of Maryland: sends admitted undergraduate students a survey where they have the option of identifying their sexual identity (choices: heterosexual or straight, gay or lesbian, bisexual, and prefer not to answer) and can indicate whether or not they are transgender.

University of Massachusetts, Amherst: optional, gender identity (choices: agender, androgyne, demigender, genderqueer, man, questioning, trans woman, trans man, and woman) and sexual orientation (choices: asexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, pansexual, queer, questioning or unsure, same-gender loving, and straight [heterosexual]).

University of Pennsylvania: optional, if applicants have an LGBTQIA identity, they may choose to specify in a provided field on the form.

University of Wisconsin system: optional, gender identity (choices: woman, man, trans or transgender, a gender identity not listed here, prefer not to answer).

Warren Wilson College: optional, “gender identity: ___________”.

Washington 2-year colleges: optional，sexual orientation and gender identity.

你肯定会注意到DUKE，Dartmouth、UPenn和MIT的名字。潮流之下，不可能没有名校、藤校。其实在八藤中，宾大和普林是对非同最友好的。在美本非同主题网站College Pride的排名上，宾大和普林就排得很高。普林虽然没有在招生中直接加上一个非同身份问题，但它的College Pride 上位，主要是因为在校园文化和非同融合方面做的很棒。普林的学生中心里专设了个Gender+ Center（https://www.gsrc.princeton.edu/）来帮助非同学生解决校园生活中的各种问题。

（2）申请中的问题：非同身份？

提到非同身份和美本录取，你肯定会马上举出一些实例来。比如，某校某年招了某某位非传统性认同的申请者。这类案例近年来屡见不鲜，但在整体招生中优先对待非同的情况，整体来看还属于极少数。从目前可以找的数据看，大部分美本，都不会在招生中考虑这一因素的，包括哈、耶、普、斯，这是政治安全性的考虑。即使是对非同学生超级友好的藤校宾大，也只是在申请中加入了一个Optional的问题，请学生自主声明LGBTQIA。只能说，目前明确表示录取考虑这一因素的美本，大多是受宗教价值观所限、不欢迎非同申请者的学校。咱就不在这个方向上耽误更多时间了。

但是，关于美本申请中非同身份的问题，本篇的目的还是给出一个确定性的命题。即，在美本申请时明确自己的非同身份，虽有一定暴露隐私风险，但整体上可以获得更大的录取优势。时间有限的读者，不论你选择信或者不信，读完这一段就可以关窗走人了。

有闲情或者有特别兴趣的朋友，可以继续看完全文。目前，美国已有明确法律支持给非同身份因素的录取加分。这与种族因素的考量一样。种族因素明确地有AA政策法律管辖。种族因素加分与否，各校都只要顺着本地适用的AA法律即可。

在非同身份上，AA法令（包括反AA法令）原本的界定是模糊的。AA所列的gender因素，传统上说只明确包括男、女两性，没有明确包括各种非同身份（即gender identity和sexual orientation）。但是，2020年六月，SCOTUS在Bostock vs Clayton County等三个EEOC（的案例上，明确支持了Lesbian/Gay的诉讼方，将AA中的Title VII的雇工保护条件扩展到了非同身份上。一年以后，拜登政府教育部也出台政策以顺应一年前的SCOTUS判例，即将Title IX的教育保护条件也扩展到了非同身份上。

所以，出于扩大校园多样性目的，多数美本大校即使不对非同有特殊优待，也至少都在大力促进对非同的包容性了。在申请中表明你的非同身份，对你的录取肯定不会有坏处，甚至（越来越）是有好处的。

请注意，这里说的是“你”的申请，而不是泛泛地表明自己的非同身份。本文的后面会具体的讲如何申请才能对“你”有利。

谈美本必谈哈佛。我们先来看看哈佛的情况。招生中直接考虑LGBTQ+的操作可能还非常有限，但已经可以确定地说Yes。过去十年间，哈佛新生中的非同身份人数增加很多。2011年，89.9%的新生是传统的Heterosexual；而十年后的2021，这个比例减少的71.1%。除答案不明的受调查者外，明确非同身份的新生比例，从十年前6.2%增加到21.6%。再跟2021年的盖勒普调查数据来比较，美国Z世代的非同身份比例15.6%。现实中存在哈佛非同学生比例高于其人口比例的情况，这基本上可以确定哈佛招生中存在系统性地非同身份优势。这个优势，至少客观上是这样的。

那么，主观上呢？也就是说，哈佛招生官是否会对非同身份的申请者有明确的偏好呢？我没有也不可能有这要的调查数据。但这问题的答案，我还是可以给出肯定性的答案。尽管哈佛申请中没有专门的非同身份问题，但有1.8%的哈佛申请者会自主表明自己的非同身份。这个数字在十年以前的2011-12年，大概只有0.7%。这就是说，在去年61220份申请中，大概有1200人是申明了非同身份的申请者。这一年录取1954人中，有1700人入读哈佛，成了当年的新生。根据当年哈佛的新生调查，360-370人具有非同身份。

我们虽然不能确定这360人都是从那1200个申明非同的申请者中录取来的，但却可以用30%（=360/1200）来定性地判断在申请中申明非同身份的优势。以哈佛的3-7%的录取率对比一下既可以判断：哈佛非同申请者的录取概率肯定远远高于普通申请者录取概率（3-7%），是普通的5-10x倍。我们还可以再对比一下亚裔申请者的情况。哈佛的亚裔申请者比例一直以来高达30-40%，而当前录取学生中的亚裔比例是21-27%，以往长期在18-20%之间。作为亚裔，即使你在哈佛申请这中处于学术的Top 10%，即属于去年61220人中的顶尖610人，你被录取的概率也比平均录取概率低。低多少呢？取RD录取概率为3.7%的话，顶尖亚裔申请者的录取概率却只有2.4%了。而RD非同身份申请者的录取概率则是15%，甚至可能到20-30%。两个概率一比，可见天壤之别了。

以上的判断，是基于我个人对现有数据的分析。耶鲁和哈佛相似度最高，两校的招生政策也是联动的。在非同身份的问题上，哈佛和耶鲁基本上也是联动的。耶鲁曾在2018年九月与公布了Freshmen Survey的结果。当时，耶鲁新生中非同身份的比例从2014年的13%增长到2018年的23%，而哈佛同级新生的非同身份比例是18.3%。即使后来再没有相关数据，也可以判断出当前耶鲁非同学生比例比哈佛要低，大概在18-21%之间。那么，以每年RD阶段哈耶同申的普遍性，基本上可以认定，耶鲁录取中非同身份优势至少与哈佛的5-10x优势相当。

对普林斯顿、斯坦福的的判断过程是类似的。根据最近的Princeton Frosh Survey数据，近两年来普林新生中明确非同身份的比例近25-27%，比哈佛的21.6%和耶鲁的23%也是稍高。而斯坦福的在校生非同身份比例已经高达35%，考虑新生非同数量近年所呈上升趋势，斯坦福的新生录取的非同数量一定不低于35%，比东岸的哈、耶、普要高出很多。虽然斯坦福和普林在招生中没有设置非同问题，但是以其校园对对非同的包容程度来看，申请斯、普时明确非同身份的数量要高于哈、耶。这些因素比较下来，普林录取中给非同的优势比哈佛稍微偏低（因为计算概率的分母较高）3-8x倍，而斯坦福则可能与哈、耶相当或者更高（分母和分子都较高）5-10x倍。

对于哈、耶、普、斯的5-10x倍增的判断，是基于一个现实的。即，申请表中没有Q问题，学校也只是官宣一视同仁不歧视。作为非同申请者，肯定会减少暴露非同身份的概率。这造成的现实是，声明非同的申请数量很少（哈佛的非同申请比例为

对于MIT和宾大，这个判断就要重新考虑了。MIT从2012年开始在申请中设置Optional的非同身份问题。宾大不仅在2008年起设置非同问题，还主动出击寻找非同身份的高中生来申请。从2008年后，宾大发动其非同校友和社团成员主动联系那些对外明确非同身份的高中生，劝说他们来申请宾大。在麻、宾的积极动作之下，两校的非同录取数量也开始倍增。

根据MIT的Freshmen Survey数据，该校2012-2022年的12年间，非同新生比例从7.2%增长到了15%，而在全校学生的2019年Survey里，非同比例也是18%。可以这么判断，MIT的非同录取比例稳定在15-16%之间，与美国Z世代人口中的非同比例15.6%基本吻合。另有2-3%的MIT学生，是在入校后才明确自己的非同身份，这个人数并不影响我们对非同录取概率的估算。

宾大的非同学生数量也在上升趋势。但由于宾大的Freshmen Survey不对外公布，我只能从其每年的Senior Survey中判断其非同录取趋势。该校2013年毕业班中，明确非同身份的学生比例为7%，这就是2008年录取的非同数量。2014年招生（2019年毕业班）中的非同录取比例就已经翻番，达到14%。所以，我可以判断，目前在宾大的非同高录取已经达到了美国Z世代人口中的非同比例了。

根据以上麻、宾两校的情况，一个合理的判断就是，在录取中对非同身份更加公开、积极的美本，其非同录取的概率其实比哈耶普斯会低，因为分母（即在申请中明确非同身份的数量）更大了，这就会让非同身份的优势降低。我判断，非同身份在申请宾、麻时的优势大概是普通申请者的3-8x倍。比起哈、耶、普的表面文字公平、实际操作不明的录取做法来说，麻、宾的公开鼓励非同申请的做法，在客观上是一种更趋向于公平的录取安排。

（3）非同身份申请案例

以上对于非同身份在美本申请中的明显优势的判断，是一个普遍性的判断。请不要以此为据，简单地在自己的申请中表明身份。那么，作为一个非同身份申请者，你应该怎样申请才最有利呢？通过下面这个具体案例，斯坦福的Chaidie Petris的申请案例，来说明一下朽石君对这个问题上的看法。像这样的案例，个人愿意公布得出来的很少，像Petris这样能全面公布

Chaidie Petris, Greek American, Greater Seattle Area, Washington

Stanford’24

https://www.chaidiepetris.com/

成绩: SAT1350 R740 M610 Essay19; ACT29 E34 M25 R35 S22 Writing11; GPA3.99UW，Class Rank 1/64

活动: Listen to Your Art (Community service); West Sound Globe (Journalism/publications); Philosophy Club (Academic); Writers group (Other); Mud Pie (Journalism/publication); QSA (Queer-Straight Alliance)

选课: IB Biology SL, IB French HL, IB History HL, IB Language & Literature HL, IB Maths SL, IB Art HL, IB TOK (S2 11th, S1 12th), Advanced Music (S2)

学术兴趣: Classics, Creative Writing, Slavic Languages & Literatures

其他: Info about family’s economic situation; Family’s cultural/linguistic background (Greek, as mentioned in my essays); Educational background (homeschooled before high school); IB essay topic (gender roles in Homeric epic)

斯坦福AO Review: 据Petris披露，招生官对他的评估中，突出了两个themes。第一个是mature qualities和examining world around you, 比如”intellectual curiosity and an active thirst for knowledge, seeking out information in the world around you”。第二个是 interdisciplinary connections，及他的curiosity 和pen-mindedness。关于跨学科关联，Chaidie说明是指的文书中提到的读书。但注意这个connections并非文书故事里的情节，而是由文书中提到的读书来引起AO的兴趣，进一步翻看Chaidie个人的网站信息，就可以找到他写的那些跨历史、哲学、艺术的思考文字。这就是巧妙地给出一个AO发现自己长处的路径，又不用直接BSO自己的这个长处。

主文书（648Words）

Some students have a background, identity, interest, or talent that is so meaningful they believe their application would be incomplete without it. If this sounds like you, then please share your story.

Petris的这篇主文书一共投给了16家大学，其中Harvard-RD rejected，Northwestern-RD rejected，Pomona-ED deferred/RD rejected， Oxford-rejected，Princeton-RD rejected，Yale-RD rejected，Williams-RD rejected，Princeton-RD rejected，Colombia-RD WL，Reed-RD WL/Accepted, Stanford-RD Accepted

When I was younger, I aspired to be rich so I could own an enormous library. I imagined the sense of self-worth and pride that would accompany gazing at floor-to-ceiling sturdy, oak shelves almost bursting under the weight of beautiful volumes in various languages. As a child, complete success and ownership of what you love feels completely plausible, a dream only kept from you by the restrictions of time.

The only difference I saw at that time between poor and rich was the public library users and the library owners. The only thing keeping me from the latter was the barrier of age and motivation, which I was sure I could overcome by harnessing knowledge under my fist and using it to attain anything I wanted. I continued to hold this view while I was homeschooled, but when I began to attend a private high school, I realized that the difference between basic economic security and the lack thereof was much more complex.

In the past three years I have come to see that not only are my peers unlike myself, but they do not know that there is a difference between us. No one understands the concept of economic insecurity if they have never had to give up their summers and afternoons after school to work to help with bills, if they have never had to pay for their own expenses and textbooks, if they complain about having dinner with their parents, never having experienced a time when their parents were at work before breakfast and back after their bedtimes. The only other people my age I have encountered who truly understood this were those whose knowledge was also founded on personal experience.

But the worst part about this lack of awareness is the fact that I consider myself to be very privileged. Certainly, I have to work, but I also go to a private school. I can’t afford the to get my driver’s license like the others in my class, but I own a smartphone. The issue is not that most of the people at my high school don’t see me, it’s that they don’t see anyone who is worse off — those who can’t afford to go to school, who have to work longer hours than me, who are separated from their parents at the border — they don’t see any of those people, not really. Even amongst the most politically liberal, there seems to be an underlying current of fear and denial that prevents the most basic empathy. This has led me to the question: Why?

All my life, the process of buying books has been inherently thoughtful. It involves exploring used bookstores, carefully considering and handling every book before buying it. I choose the books that I own carefully because I have to. Even after I buy the book, I read it with appreciation, and then retire it to a shelf which is not a symbol of my money, but a road map of my true thoughts and interests. I value my books more than anything else because of the thought they provoke.

From this, I have learned what the people who can stock their shelves full of new, leather-bound books don’t: thoughtful awareness. That’s what separates me from my schoolmates. No matter their political identity, people don’t often think about issues that seem distant from them, if for no other reason than they don’t have to. Because of the perspective my economic circumstances have given me, I actively engage with new ideas and perspectives in order to avoid making the same mistakes as those around me which might cause someone’s knowledge or needs to be overlooked due to their personal circumstances. I think and I act.

I have come to understand that the rich people I envied as a child might have enormous libraries, but they certainly don’t have them to read the books.

Stanford-specific short questions

Most significant challenge society faces

There is a loss of imagination resulting in the lessening of both individuality and empathy. People rarely take the time to introspect and consider what makes them distinct and why they ought to own that, and at the same time they fail to consider how others also have unique value.

Last two summers

Working half-time (2018) and full-time (2019) at the Dry Eye Company (my mum’s business) to fund school and save for college; Taking two classes (English Composition, English Literature) at Olympic College (local community college); Taking Driver’s Ed; Reading books (particularly Classics, Russian Literature); Writing (prose, poetry, and social commentary)

Historical moment or event

Yiannis Ritsos writing poetry from inside the Greek prison camp. I want to understand whether he did it for himself to get through the experience or to rebel against lack of free speech.

What five words best describe you?

Intellectual, genuine, self-actualized, determined, stalwart

What do you read, listen to, or watch?

Books: Gogol’s The Overcoat, George Macdonald’s Phantastes, Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita, Yiannis Ritsos’s poetry

Music: Yiannis Kotsiras’s To Agriolouloutho, Vladimir Vysotsky’s Fastidious Hourses.

The Great Courses Plus Lectures: Topics — Russian Literature, Ancient History/Archaeology, Greek Literature, Logic, Philosophy

Operas: Eugene Onegin, The Pearl Fishers

Movies: Doctor Zhivago

One thing you are looking forward to at Stanford

Having interesting conversations (academic and non-academic) with a new diverse group of people. I come from a little town with little diversity of perspectives, so getting to know how others see the world is very important to me. I think this is part of what makes a rich learning environment.

Extra hour in the day

I would write a poem about how time is becoming commoditized and how little the world appreciates it until it is gone (all the while sipping mint tea).

Stanford-specific short essays

Reflect on an idea or experience that makes you excited about learning

The classroom thrummed with energy and anticipation. It seemed counterintuitive, what could elevate Thomas Hobbes to the exciting? But in the history classroom, somehow the energy of my history teacher’s animated face lit the room and caused minds to ponder new depths.

We had split into little groups of three and four, and I was seated with people I had spoken probably two words to outside of class. But, such is the power of conversation, we all poured out our ideas. It was that collaborative sense of hearing different perspectives and piecing together fragments to create the mosaic of history.

It is that height of academic conversation that excites me to learn. Learning transcends all backgrounds, having elements that go beyond subjective experience. At the same time, it unites different perspectives, because the more perspectives there are the more complete of any idea we find of the truth. I went from a little frightened at the prospect of shedding the comfort of my friend group to growing exuberance as I heard ideas I would never have thought of about Hobbes according to different people’s interest. People who naturally think about context took a structuralist approach, one economically inclined person saw the reading through a Marxist lens, another a feminist critique — far more than would ever have been thought up by one individual.

This little history discussion about a seemingly dense and objective text brought the life to learning for me by showing me the power of perspectives and conversation.

Note to future roommate

Most Esteemed Future Roommate,

If you walk in at 2:00AM to find me lying on the floor listening to depressing music by Vysotsky and clutching a volume by Homer or Dostoevsky like a teddy bear, please do not be alarmed. As an only child, I have never had to share my room except with a parent, and so the transition might be a little rocky (although I by all means invite you to my carpeted book and anguish club). Further, books have always brought me comfort, whether to escape from loneliness or the crowd (usually the latter, I’m rather introverted), and I alternate between daring to socialize and retreating upon a few beloved volumes to which I give equal or greater affection than people. In that line — I desire to know all of your favorite books — or the ones you detest — in order to know you better! Whenever I meet people, I think of what their story would be like, what author’s voice it might be written in, what the title would be. Needless to say, hit me up if you every want to borrow a book. Or a pen.

Yours bookishly,

Chaidie

Something meaningful to you and why

The novel Phantastes by George Macdonald was my childhood favorite book and crops up again in my mind with new meaning every passing year. As a child, my mum read it to me, and I loved it so much that it was one of the first full books I read on my own. Its meaning to me then was in the story; I admired the artful crafting of characters, artistic faerie lands and realistic houses which mingled reality, metaphor, and the grotesque with beautiful language. It played a large role in my early attempts at writing fantasy fiction and short stories. In middle school I reread it again, and found new meaning in the complexities of the characters and the changes in mindset and belief that Anodos, the main character, experienced throughout his trials. Several years later, after having developed an interest in Classics and having studied my own Greek heritage more in depth, I loved Macdonald’s incorporation of aspects of the Classical Greek world, from allusions to mythology and philosophy in the descriptions and characters to the Greek etymology of many of the character names (Anodos meaning ‘to progress upward’). Still an enthusiast for Classics and an aspiring writer, my current self still finds meaning in this childhood favorite. I revel in Macdonald’s brilliant use of language and mobilization of the metaphors of all time; it is his application of the Classics that inspire me to pursue that subject along with others to enrich my own writing and communication.

读完这套斯坦福文书，你有什么感觉？

朽石君读完的感觉是，作者确实语言丰富，但他的每一篇文书都没有好到出彩的程度。就拿主文书来说，这篇落在读书的经历和贫富分化的思考上的故事，这里多的是纯自我的思考，少有Action类情节，把这篇文书的故事性降到很低。读到这一篇时的AO，就要恰好有极好的耐心才能读下来。但，在坚持读下来之后呢？我感觉仿佛刚刚读完了一页《Jane Eyre》。

仔细再看过的时候，我明白了这个感觉的源头。它来自作者的一个叙述习惯，就是在一个肯定的判断之后，往往接着一个相关性极高的转折或者让步。这正是《简爱》给我在潜意识上留下过的刺激。比如，第一段的判断和第二段的让步（the only）。还有，第三段前两句长长的判断后，也跟着一句让步（the only）。第四段，干脆一句段首的判断句后紧接着一个让步（certainly）。甚至他的单句结尾段，也是一个判断加一个转折的复合句式。这些判断、转折和让步之间的搭配，当然还有干练词句，就使得读者在潜意识上觉得作者还真是个成熟质量的intellect。

那么在接下来的shorts and essays，他都在加强主文书里所接入的读书和思考这个主诉价值。这里面有自己平时的书单，有夏校的写作课，有给未来室友读书建议，也有自己读过的两个作者Thomas Hobbes和George McDonald具体文字。各部分的内容都相互加强，最后让读到申请的AO对他形成了一个成熟、思考、开放的整体形象。

Chaidie个人给读到他故事的后来者的申请建议，有一点很重要的就是Spike比Well-round重要。更重要的，是你如何选择哪个属于自己的Spike。听得出来，Chaidie在给自己选择读书作为整套申请资料里的Spike时，还是有过一些犹豫的。读书这个长处，并不想大赛、大奖或者发明创造那样可以量化。而且读书也属于一个相对传统的Hobby，很多美国人都是喜欢读书了。而选择了读书的Chaidie，其实是用读书做引线，把自己的思考、成长和价值观串起来了。

最后，我们回到非同身份这个主题。Chaidie在明确了自己身份的同时，并没有以这个身份去做文章。而是用一个虽常见、很真实自我的读书主题，来形成自己的申请故事。除了通过读书的故事，把自己塑造成（他来就是）一个善于思考、开放、包容、成熟的申请人，再以故事携带处自己的非同价值观，这就是一个很好的strategy。换句话说，很多身份因素可以对申请有利，但你不要以这些因素当做自己申请的主诉价值，因为这样做显得肤浅和幼稚。

最后，总结一下。在申请哈、耶、普、斯、麻、宾（甚至包括多数的顶尖院校）时，你应该明确自己的非同身份，并且结合这一身份去讲述一个具有明确主诉价值的申请故事。

• 以后大家申请都写LGBT，把它玩儿烂。 - icando2 - ♀ (0 bytes) (14 reads) 03/07/2023 12:31:11 (2)