<p>@sally305 - “The spoiled kids who understand neither history nor statistics—and then blame others for their disappointments—are unlikely to rise to the top no matter where they go to college.”</p>
<p>HECK yes! People who go through life with a sense of entitlement rather than gratitude are only going to find lots of reasons and excuses WHY they are oppressed and will never succeed. </p>
<p>I also don’t think athletes should be admitted who don’t meet the same admissions criteria as other applicants, and especially those who the school knows have zero intention of actually being a real student or staying for more than a year. I already stated earlier in the thread that going below a certain academic threshold for athletes or whomever is not good policy for the school or the student. It’s a calculated risk schools take because the kid is star or is specially hooked, but I don’t think it’s right. It’s hard to transfer with low grades, even if you attended an elite school, so the student’s academic future may be jeopardized. </p>
<p>There is a genetic component to being a super-star in sports, but kids without optimal genetics can and do become excellent players. (See Gladwell for a discussion of how average ability in art, music, and athletics combined with directed practice is sufficient for excellence)… Furthermore, no matter what your genetics, becoming the sort of athlete who can compete at Stanford requires hours upon hours upon hours of practice and training. The same applies to talented musicians, artists, and math stars, or general smart kids. Hard work and motivation are required to become the sort of accomplished student the elite schools desire. Being born dark-skinned or of a certain ethnicity required no effort on the part of the child.</p>
<p>@calmom: I hear what you are saying. I won’t respond directly for fear of going into moderation territory. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see anyone denying that there are a multitude of “hooks.” What some of us are responding to is the tendency of rejected kids and their parents to single out one hook over all the others and blame kids who had said hook for their (mostly predictable) disappointment. </p>
<p>@TheGFG - They are private institutions. If you don’t like the criteria they use, if I were you, I would boycott them and let them know why. </p>
<p>I personally see why they choose to accept athletes who aren’t top students. Most of us understand how much athletics can do to create community in a college. But that doesn’t mean you have to choose a school that has this philosophy! Lots of smaller colleges don’t have the same level of sports and thus don’t have exceptions for athletes. Do not support them, if that is your choice! </p>
<p>As far as culture, people’s experiences vary so much… you don’t know until you have experienced their life. Stop judging them, really. But at the end of the day, VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET. Don’t send your kids to those schools who have this philosophy. Stand for your ethics! Stand up for your beliefs. Let them know WHY you are boycotting them, if that is what you want to do. </p>
<p>In the meantime… I celebrate universities who use criteria above and beyond pure test scores. I celebrate schools who want to have a diverse student body. That is my choice. </p>
<p>The other day I had a ticket on an Amtrak train. I arrived at the station more than an hour early, and I went to see if I could switch to an earlier train. Yes–for $88. I think this is a stupid policy–and I only focused on it because it affected me directly. Now, Amtrak can set its pricing policies however it wants–but I can have an opinion about whether it makes sense or not. Same for Harvard.</p>
<p>Just because this thread has turned to race of late, does not mean parents are singling out race. There have been hundreds of CC posts and some right on this thread criticizing athletic recruitment and legacy admission too. Disappointed or worried parents do say things like, “Too bad my kid isn’t an athlete or he would have/would have had a chance at x school.”</p>
<p>My D chose a school which valued academics and athletics both, where she would not be made to take an easier major and easier courses like she would have at several top 30 schools. </p>
<p>
Coping with the pervasive and continuing prejudices in our society because of skin color does require that effort.And depending on where they live and go to school that effort can be considerable. </p>
<p>@Hunt - That is a fair point. With Amtrak you don’t have a lot of other choices, but in college you do. </p>
<p>Also in college, many will argue that the reason why a Harvard is a great environment is BECAUSE of that policy of creating a diverse student base. Not many people will say the same about Amtrak’s policy. :)</p>
<p>So it’s slightly different IMO.</p>
<p>“ave no illusions about the culture of resentment this is creating, and the way that this can affect the formation of these future leaders’ views on many downstream social justice issues.”</p>
<p>If our hypothetical future leader can’t lead at Vanderbilt or Rice or Tufts the way she planned to lead at Harvard, then she’s not really a leader after all. Leaders <em>find</em> their own opportunities. </p>
<p>Come on. You’re acting as though kids who don’t get into Ivies are bound for community college and stuck in classes where everyone else is still figuring out 2+2=4. </p>
<p>The ironic thing is, the distinctions that are being made here are mostly nonsensical ones. Was it this thread or the otehr one where a kid was “shut out” - but made it into Vandy, a top 20 school. Or the other thread where the kid was “shut out” - but made it into U of Chicago, another top 20 school. These are distinctions without differences. Just like a 2290 and a 2310. </p>
<p>Some of the student and parent disgruntlement IS just sour grapes and strangely misplaced blame, though. I give you the example of my neighbor kid who I will call “Bob”. His mom is one of my BFFs. Bob is a NMF with a 4.0, full AP schedule, very nearly 2400 SAT and 800 on several subject tests. His dream was to go to Cornell and major in engineering. They hired a private consultant. Consultant steered Bob towards summer programs that he said would increase his chances at Cornell. Consultant even pressured Bob to continue a sport which he didn’t love in order to increase his chances. Bob became co-pres of NHS even though it is not actually and interest. He did a summer business program at Cornell to “get a foot in the door”. I can’t claim to have read his essays or recommendations but I do know that the teacher for an elective class that he loved and took for two years approached Bob and wanted to write him a letter because she thought Bob was such a great kid (and he is) that she wanted to give him a “best kid I have ever encountered in 25 years” type boost. Consultant nixed that letter as it had noting to do with hard academics (gee, it only showed a glimpse into his personality).</p>
<p>Fast forward to Ivy Day. Bob is rejected by Cornell and devastated. Consultant and parents made it sound like if he shaped his life in just the right way for 2 years he would be Cornell material and they would accept him. Meanwhile NHS co-pres who Bob’s mom describes as kind of a tool gets into Dartmouth. Mom goes on at length, really bitterly, about kid #2 who got into Dartmouth but is unworthy and probably just started that charity as a front and just did NHS to put on apps (cause any kid does it for fun?) She does not actually know this kid. I’m thinking, “Wait! Your kid didn’t even apply to Dartmouth! How does kid #2’s acceptance impact Bob at all? Didn’t you guys have your kid package himself artificially to get into Cornell?” I have spent 2 weeks of dog walks listening to this story so I know that it happens as illogical as it is. (kid #2 is not URM by the way). She has calmed down and is moving on now, but for a solid week you would have thought that spot #579 was earmarked for her kid and this kid stole it right out from under him. Yeah . . . I know . . . Cornell/Dartmouth. 8-| </p>
<p>Just one big AS IF. As if it weren’t for that kid or those 200, all of us high school stars, all our snowflakes, would have fit into Harvard. </p>
<p>@saintfan - That story makes me so sad… that’s why I really believe we are making a BIG mistake of having our kids teach to the test… i.e., design their ECs around getting into an Ivy. It’s more than sad, actually… I think it’s bad parenting. This kid spent a year plus of his life doing things he didn’t want to do, just to get into a particular school… what a waste!! The poor kid! LET THEM CHOOSE, let them live their lives!</p>
<p>That sad story is in itself a good argument against letting scores and ECs rule over more holistic measures. One of the local kids who only got into Chicago was studying for the SAT in 7th grade. The packaging of kids to meet imagined criteria is a version of coloring in the lines. Kids need to develop friendships, imagination, real interests. . .</p>
<p>Lousy consultant. Wrong advice. Not that he should have hung out at the lake or whatever. But that advice seems a few years off. </p>
<p>I don’t mind if kids do some activities for their apps- think about it. If a wannabe engineer fits robotics in, super. That poli sci kid works on a campaign- good. If kids lean into community service for the effect, well, the right projects can do good, they experience it, put in the hours and, we hope, learn something. Far better than founding the pie club because you really like pie.</p>
<p>@TheGFG
</p>
<p>But you are looking at the ceiling and the colleges are looking at the floor. You are looking at the academic qualifications of the student with the highest GPA’s and test scores – the colleges are looking at the scores they feel are minimally acceptable for their school, and considering that to be the pool that they will use based to select on other differentiating qualities. </p>
<p>We can extrapolate from the survey results I posted early that for Harvard, that floor is is an academic index calculated based on a minimum high school GPA of about 3.3 (B+) and minimum SAT scores of around 1700. It’s a formula based on both – and I don’t have the math smarts to use the scattergram to calculate whatever formula lies behind the curve – and it clearly is weighted toward GPA, as kids with a 4.0 clearly had a better chance of admission no matter what their test scores, but it took a very high test score indeed for the kids with lower GPA’s to be admitted. </p>
<p>It is to the advantage of the college to have a big pool of qualified candidates to select from-- and then from there select students for whatever qualities appeal to them. </p>
<p>Any student applicant has the opportunity to make themselves stand out in some way. Obviously many have no clue that they need to do that or what they might do in order to make it happen. But if their parents or advisors persist in an overly-simplistic view of college admissions, that isn’t going to help them get in.</p>
<p>“The issue is that colleges are selecting a subset of the population for special consideration in admissions or student recruitment for reasons that have zero relationship to intellectual ability and academic qualifications and which in some cases are physically/genetically determined.”</p>
<p>GFG- my point on the gay discussion was to YOUR point about how inherently unfair it was for colleges to “open up” diversity to events to gays. Do you have ANY evidence that being gay is considered a hook or a tip, and do you have ANY evidence that gay students are being admitted with lower statistics than hetero students?</p>
<p>That’s my point. There is ample evidence that athletes (especially helmet sports, but all the others as well) get “special consideration”, including lower stats. I’m just wondering if the ire towards gay students is predicated on the same “lowering of the bar”. As far as I can tell, the diversity events invite gay students so they can check out the campus with enough of a critical mass of other gay kids so they can see that college won’t be HS 2.0, i.e. them feeling marginalized, ridiculed or bullied.</p>
<p>I’m not sure athletes go through HS being marginalized until they get to Duke or Stanford or Penn State where they can be with “their people”.</p>
<p>
What world do you live in? My lily white son has friends of both races, he’s observed how he’s treated by the local police when he’s hanging with African American friends vs. just white friends. Anyone who thinks we live in a post-racial society is deluded. His experiences have really opened my eyes. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lousy is an understatement. The student has more than enough regarding his/her academics from transcripts, SATs, and more. The LOR is supposed to add something to put them into context along with saying something about a student’s personality. </p>
<p>It’s no different than students redundantly regurgitating their academic/EC accomplishments when those are already covered in transcripts and other parts of the application. </p>
<p>@TheGFG - why would your daughter have been “made to” take easier courses or majors at other top 30 schools? </p>
<p>I don’t know why I keep following this thread. I guess it’s to see if it finally gets so far off the rails that it gets closed. I guess I’m glad it hasn’t been. ;)</p>
<p>I have to admit I don’t really understand the feelings of unfairness. We all have our “strengths” and “weaknesses”. I won’t resent the fact that your kid’s ancestor was a founder at Harvard if you don’t resent that my kid is a nationally ranked athlete (he’s not, but you get my point). I just have never spent a lot of time worrying about others; I worry about me and mine. </p>