<p> systematically field athletes for their sports teams with applicants that are substantially less qualified academically </p>
<p><a href=“The New York Times > Sports > A Series: The Athlete's Edge”>The New York Times > Sports > A Series: The Athlete's Edge; for free access to NYT articles</p>
<p>I reviewed my post # times and am not sure which part seemed hostile as that was not my intention. As a busy professional with a social life, I have enough things on my to do list than to pick fights with high school students interested in HC. My main purpose was to encourage prospective and current HC students to think outside the box in terms of their definitions of merit and ability. </p>
<p>1) The term systematically can be implied to mean regularity and consistency with sports teams at HC. Part of my reply was to say that there are many very bright people active in sports at Haverford, so systematically isnt an accurate depiction as unqualified students in my opinion are an exception. One of the NYT articles reviewed an internal analysis done at HC which showed that varsity athletes did not statistically differ in GPA or academic major from non athletes.</p>
<p>2) Its not appropriate to discuss admissions standards/preferences for athletes, legacies and URM in the same breath because the underlying reasons for those policies are significantly different for each group even though the outcomes to white affluent kids may be the same. As I wrote, a successful athlete may demonstrate many valuable life skills (teamwork, leadership, determination ) attractive to admissions committees once a level of academic proficiency is established. By comparison, SES (socio-economic status) preferences have to do with elite colleges being interested in establishing fairness over equality when society itself isnt equal.</p>
<p>3) I spent 3 minutes looking up acceptance rates + Haverford +athletes/ Asian/Black and its all there. I dont have the time and I dont find the results that important to annotate, but basically, HC is somewhere in the middle of the pack when it comes to admissions preferences for certain target groups. In particular, Williams, Amherst and Middlebury all have slots for athletic recruitment while HC does not (one of the NTY articles). Also, the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education states that Harvard, Amherst and Haverford have the highest graduation rates for Black/AA students at approx 88-89%, which is comparable to white students.</p>
<p>I have no interest to put anybody into any boxes. My biggest regret with my time at HC is that, for the 1st 3 years, I limited my social interactions and esteem of other students based on superficial/ traditional measures of merit, leadership, originality and involvement and I do not want future students to make the same mistake. At this level of admissions selectivity, you will find many students that will surprise and impress you if you take the time to engage them and not dismiss people, such as with dumb jock. When students leave HC, they will realize that they probably have more in common with each other than with many of the people that they later meet.</p>