<p>Really can’t write this a.m.
<em>Columbia</em> people, not Columbian people, I meant. Oy vey.</p>
<p>Michael Phelps may have taken a few courses at UMich but he was not a full time, degree seeking student, and he would have difficulties stating his case for being able to do the academics there. </p>
<p>I think it is safe to say that an Olympian who has the academic credentials to be admitted is very likely to be admitted to most colleges. I know a number of Olympians who are Stanford, Columbia, other ivy students. Every one of them have the resume to be a viable candidate, but the Olympic credentials was the trump card for them. That is an EC that does make an impact. Talk about a hook! THAT is a hook.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me stop you right there, because the example we are talking about (Princeton) is not rigorous. In fact, few of the elite private schools are. They’re very difficult to get into, but once you’re in, it’s relatively easy to graduate. Again, consider Bush and Kerry. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hey, I’m simply saying that some people, not necessarily including me, still consider Shields’s Princeton admission to be controversial, due to rumors that her parents exerted undue influence on the admissions process. </p>
<p>Now, to be fair, that’s still probably better than some of the more egregious examples of undue influence on the admissions process. {For example, let’s be honest, how did GW Bush really get admitted to Yale? How did Al Gore get admitted to Harvard despite only having graduated 25th out of a high school class of 51? In both cases, they were the scions of powerful political families.} Nevertheless, at the end of the day, potential shenanigans of the admissions process will inevitably raise questions of whether the process was truly deserving of being admitted. Think about the person who wasn’t admitted who may have actually been more qualified, but didn’t have any influence pull.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really, Sakky, whoever these folks are, they need to just let it go, given that she graduated 20 years ago, ROFL. </p>
<p>By all accounts, she appears to be one of the more intelligent actresses out there – more like a Natalie Portman or Jodie Foster type. You’d have a better sense of outrage if Princeton were admitting Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton (or whoever their equivalents were 20 years ago) on the basis of their celebrity. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I were to spend my time being outraged over “people who don’t deserve to go to the Ivies,” I think I’d be more outraged over those who were admitted because of influence AND didn’t do that well (e.g., GWB), rather than those who might have been admitted because of celebrity, but were up to the challenge.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe so. But considering how George Bush’s admission to Yale and then HBS (as is Al Gore’s admission to Harvard) is still a matter of controversy, I don’t think any dispute over Shields is much different. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But was she really up to the challenge? The fact is, we don’t know what Shield’s Princeton grades were. Maybe they were just as bad as Bush’s.</p>
<p>Yale took Sarah Hughes. Don’t know about her academic background but probably wasn’t too shabby. Gold metal probably = Westinghouse, without the almost 100% certainty that you’ll have the SAT/GPA to back up the rest of your app. But if you do, I’d say you’re essentially a guaranteed admit.</p>
<p>Yes, we do, Sakky. Did you read Jerseyshoremom’s post and/or the article she referenced? Her transcript was made available and it was all A’s and B’s. So yes, I still believe that there’s a difference between admitting someone due to influential family/celebrity who is up to the challenge academically and does reputably, and admitting someone due to influential family/celebrity who isn’t up to the challenge. </p>
<p>I would also submit that Ms. Shields’ accomplishments at the time of her application to Princeton would fall under the realm of “highly involving and unique EC’s.” Whatever one might think of her acting talent one way or the other, she at least DID the acting herself and presumably worked hard on the set and could point to accomplishments, which to me is a bit more akin to the Olympic medialist, and less akin to the GWB/Kerry/Gore-admitted-due-to-prominent-family.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I’m afraid that proves nothing for precisely the point I mentioned previously…Princeton is grade inflated (or at least it was during her time). Frankly, most of the top-tier private schools are grade-inflated, especially in the humanities, such that it really isn’t that hard to get decent grades. In fact, that is precisely why Princeton recently passed a new policy to actually try to deflate its grades. Why would it do that, if grades weren’t inflated before? </p>
<p>[Princeton</a> sparks grade inflation debate - News](<a href=“http://media.www.theloquitur.com/media/storage/paper226/news/2005/10/21/News/Princeton.Sparks.Grade.Inflation.Debate-1037010.shtml]Princeton”>http://media.www.theloquitur.com/media/storage/paper226/news/2005/10/21/News/Princeton.Sparks.Grade.Inflation.Debate-1037010.shtml)</p>
<p>Now to be fair, I agree with you that she did have some sort of merit, which does make her case somewhat different from the Bush/Kerry/Gore cases. But that’s neither here nor there for what we are talking about is a matter of perception - that some people did (and still do) get into top schools for reasons having little to do with academics. In Shields’s case, there still is lingering suspicion that she also used influence to get her admitted, which means that she can be included in the same breath as those political ‘fortunate sons’. The difference is that she also had some merit which made her different from those ‘fortunate sons’, but nevertheless, she is perceived to have had influence on her side also. All of that simply fuels the suspicion that people get in to schools like that only because they have the right connections rather than purely due to merit, or, put another way, perhaps somebody even more deserving than her didn’t get in because he didn’t have the proper connections.</p>
<p>“(or at least it was during her time)”</p>
<p>You need to get your facts straight. Princeton was not grade-inflated in 2005. Official grade <em>de</em>flation started then.</p>
<p>i.e., ^^ my comment refers to the 2005 references.</p>
<p>And in any case, anyone who believes that overall, the work at P is easy, absolutely does not know what he or she is talking about. It is so not easy. </p>
<p>The fact that now & then children of celebs and/or big donors and/or legacies (formerly) have both been admitted & have graduated without severe exertion is not relevant either to today’s admissions standards for a non-celebrity, or for today’s completion standards for graduation, or for gpa’s of graduating Princeton students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At what level of GPA, sakky, would you have said “Ah, well, regardless of whether she technically deserved admission, she clearly could do the work and hold her own academically?” 3.2? 3.4? 3.6? 3.8? I’m just curious how you believe that you “know” that someone receiving all A’s and B’s wasn’t able to handle the work. </p>
<p>Again, you’d have more of a point if you were citing the mediocre academic record of a GWB type and you’d have more of a point if you were talking about admission not for one’s achievements but one’s family connections and status. </p>
<p>Are you bothered by Joey Cheek going to Princeton?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, DUH. Athletics get people into schools all the time. That hopefully wasn’t a newsflash to anyone!</p>
<p>In the book’ Fat envelope frenzy’ follows rhythmic gymnast Lisa Wang, straight A student and national champion. Got in Yale with supplement, Stanford no supplement, waitlisted at Harvard, says “I can’t believe it” meaning how dare they!? After visit liked Yale better but was gonna defer to train do Beijing before quitting for good but she didn’t make it to Olympics.
Sarah Hughes got in Yale, her sister Emily is at Harvard both were already good students long before.
These three attended public school with altered schedule so they can train long hours and meet all academic requirements.
I guess attitude matters if not only brain. Medals help but not necessary it seems, it all depends.
My question is, how could they do that without killing themselves. Get up before dawn leave school at lunch train until late night go home to do homework, travel internationally and compete in between.</p>
<p>@sybbie Princeton is better than Harvard</p>
<p>Brooke had pretty much straight As from a competitive high school; she didn’t take honors courses except for French, which she did very well at, partly because she was fortunate enough to spend quite a lot of time there! I was surprised at the news report posted here about her SATs because I think she originally got 400s M/V then worked really hard with a tutor to bring them up to 600s. So with straight As, mid 600s (old SAT) and extraordinary ECs (she was also a football cheerleader in hs) she deserved the admissions letter. And worked very hard at Princeton.</p>