<p>But you must remember that even an athlete must maintain a passing average in order to play their sport. So I really don’t believe that schools are scrapping the bottom of the academic barrel to admit athletes because it would defeat the purpose to recruit an athlete who can’t play because of academics.</p>
<p>Sybbie719: Maybe you should head over to the Harvard board and check out the story about the Texas linebacker they recently recruited. As someone on that board pointed out, he sounds like a really nice kid. No doubt. Only time will tell if he makes it through. The point is, though, for every great linebacker out there who would never meet Harvard’s standards without his football expertise, there’s another great linebacker out there who would meet those standards—I guarantee it. So why not recruit him instead? Does it take that much more work? Also, everybody knows that the star football player, or basketball player, or baseball player is often allowed to ‘slide’ through because of his star athletic status. Why, that’s the stuff University athletic dept scandels are made of…</p>
<p>jack, </p>
<p>If the college has the choice between two equally stellar linebackers, and one is highly academic, the academic one will get picked every time. Same with two great violinists; the better academic profile wins. This is already the case. Nobody is turning away any brilliant sports/music stars for similar stars with rotten academic credentials.</p>
<p>Athletes are easy targets because at some powerhouse D1 schools they still take “dumb jocks” but not at most of the Ivy/ top LAC schools being targeted by CC posters. And lots of students are given some stat leniency, not just athletes. In order to get an array of skills & talents, plus racial, economic, & geographical diversity, some applicants with lower-than median stats are admitted. (Children of generous alumni can benefit from this too.) By definition, half the school is at or lower than median.</p>
<p>If my D is admitted to one of her “reach” schools I know her athletic ability will have been a big part of it. But so will her SATS (roughly median for the reach schools she’s targeting), her essays, her recommendations, & her other ECs. If her GPA is a little lower than a 4.0, she was also able to get this GPA while spending 25 hours a week on her sport & ECs.</p>
<p>"The point is, though, for every great linebacker out there who would never meet Harvard’s standards without his football expertise, there’s another great linebacker out there who would meet those standards—I guarantee it. "</p>
<p>That may be true, but that great linebacker with Harvard stats is likely to prefer going to a powerhouse football college where he could launch a professional career.</p>
<p>I know someone who was a stellar ball player who went to Harvard after being the target of major recruiting including by some top politicians. The guy did wonderfully on Harvard’s team and decades later still holds some records there. He was drafted pro after Harvard and was the last drafted person the pro team cut. </p>
<p>Decades later he is still so bitter about Harvard, feeling that his going there wrecked his chances of going pro. He feels that way despite being in a visible, high paying career.</p>
<p>SBMom: I’m not really talking about median scores and less than 4.0 GPAs here…I was really talking about stats that are so far below what some highly selective schools would demand (of their other applicants), that it begins to look ludicrous. I wasn’t just talking about less than “perfect” academics. Also, you imply that those with 4.0s, etc., don’t have any ECs or sports…that they don’t spend 25 hours a week on other interests, whether that be sports, community service, political activism, whatever. But there are those students out there who are at the top academically, who are also spending 25 hours a week on EC’s. I’m sure you must know some yourself. But my points were really not about the less than perfect SAT/GPA student who is ‘roughly median’ for reach schools, but who also have additional outstanding talents. It was more for the type of student whose academics would be questionable, at best, in a setting that is known for high-powered academics.</p>
<p>Northstarmom: I doubt the fact that he went to Harvard was the reason your ‘great linebacker’ was subsequently cut from the pro team. True, he would have had greater experience on the football field had he gone to a big school that spits out pro footbal players… and perhaps more pro football recruiters would have taken him more seriously–who will ever know. But for this man, who still holds sports records at Harvard, and who received a Harvard degree (probably a full ride) to continue to hold so much bitterness, decades later…well, I don’t know. My guess is he has other issues. Perhaps if he’d gone on to the big powerhouse football school, gone pro, been a star in a few games…he would now be a bitter (probably overweight) ex-pro football player, doubly bitter about the arthritis in his knees, and despite the fact that he got to play great football, he now realizes the powerhouse school he attended, never really cared about his academics…so he’s ultimately not in a “visible, high paying career,” and isn’t making as much money as he could… well, you get the picture. All kinds of various scenarios could be played out here. He just sounds like the type of person who would be bitter about something no matter which direction he’d pursued.</p>
<p>Unless he is dirt poor, I would doubt that he got a full rride because harvard is need based financial aid even for athletes. But who’s to say maybe the new recruit is looking not to place all of his eggs in the football bakset and is just using football as a means of getting a good education (seems to have worked for him because apparently he will attend Harvard). He knows that attending Harvard, he does have a good chance of obtaining a degree (remember if he has a 2.0 or a 4.0 if he has fulfilled all of his requirements he will still be a Harvard grad). I am sure he is also well aware and has been repeatedly told about hte great opportunity that he has been given in attending Harvard and to take advantage of that opportunity to its fullest.</p>
<p>Sybbie719. I’m sure all you say is true. I suppose in the end, it makes no difference at all–given the much bigger picture (the shape the world is in, for instance)… and, well, you know the answer to this one, I’m sure…‘what do they call someone who graduates at the very bottom of their medical school, etc? … Doctor.’ Not sure, but I think there’s a connection in there somewhere…</p>
<p>Jack,
I thoroughly agree with you about the prosports wannabe who’s still bitter about Harvard for allegedly ruining his chances to play pro. His Harvard classmates shake their heads in puzzlement over his attitude. While he didn’t make pro, he had a wonderful education and is doing very well in his highly visible, lucrative career including working some jobs that would be dream jobs for many. No one, no matter how talented, is assured of playing professional sports. IMO it’s ridiculous for him to blame Harvard for his not going pro.</p>
<p>Jack:</p>
<p>I don’t see the issue as being one of qualified versus unqualified but of choosing among highly qualified students those who will add something to the community.
Personally, if I were to grade the papers of two students, I might have difficulty guessing which of the two got 1500 and which got 1600 on the SAT. I might even have difficulty guessing which of the two got 1400 and which got 1600.
So from my point of view as the hypothetical grader, both are equally qualified, though the 1600 scorer would be mightily miffed to be passed over for someone who scored “only 1400.” So why would adcoms pass up on the 1600 scorer? Because the 1400 scorer has an edge in the non-academic department. Ideally, of course, colleges want students who shine both in academics and in ECs. In fact, some of my S’s present and former schoolmates fill the bill (and some are URMs, to boot!).
I am not saying that high-achieving kids do only well in academics (even my nerdy S has some non-nerdy interests!), but that adcoms know what the college needs that particular year; it may be another cellist; it may be another student to crew; it may be that, like Princeton, the college has decided to put added emphasis on the arts; it may be that the classics department has been complaining that there are not enough students coming into the department. The list of desiderata and complaints will change from year to year.<br>
I strongly suspect that HYPS could fill their entire freshman class with either pre-meds and economics majors. And I am confident that they try to avoid just that. Still, visit HYPSM and you’ll see there are plenty of BWRKs there, as well as a few “stars.” By their very nature, stars are highly visible, but also rare.</p>
<p>marite,
I respect your point but do not entirely agree with it. (re 1600 vs. 1500)
A top school would accept a 1500 over a 1600 for reasons other than E.C.‘s. If these students’ e.c.'s were equal or comparable, there would be other ways to discern possible differences in the quality of the student. I believe that the least understood area of college admissions is that of the applicant’s personal qualities. These can be more imp. than we all sometimes realize. I have seen the 1600-types crank out great papers, score highest in classroom tests, but maintain a self-centered focus academically. I have seen 1450-1500 types not only outperform the 1600’s in <em>quality</em> of classroom discussion, etc., but much more so in generosity of spirit when it comes to sharing their own intellectual wealth. I.m.o. colleges are very much looking for the latter. The dog-eat-dog or “I’ve-got-mine” mentality doesn’t fly when it comes to the building-a-class factor that seems to be the operative goal these days. Academic leadership is an under-acknowledged factor in admissions, I believe; I definitely believe colleges will choose that over a 1600 unless that student has also consistently shown an impulse to share & collaborate. The way to estimate that factor is through teacher recs.</p>
<p>Excellent points, epiphany. It takes a careful reading of a full app package to seek out the qualities you describe. Many schools pride themselves on how adcomms do, in fact, look “holistically” at every app. That is the very best part of this whole college admissions process, imho.</p>
<p>epiphany:</p>
<p>Yes, I put too much emphasis on ECs as providing an alternative to scores and GPAs because that tends to be what people mean when they talk about qualified vs. unqualified. I certainly would prefer a student with a great personality ahead of someone who appeared to be a grade grubber.
While I used to be concerned about the emphasis on cooperative projects (which tended to result in my S doing 3/4 of the work while two other kids did precious little and learned nothing), I have seen how important study groups are for math and science at places like Harvard and MIT where my S has friends. And, of course, in the humanities and social sciences, discussion is an important part of the learning experience. So the willingness to collaborate–and the personality to do so–must be a consideration.
What this all adds up to, then, is that outsiders have no real way of second guessing adcoms. All we know of applicants often are their dry stats.</p>
<p>Epiphany: Yes…excellent points, especially about the recommendation letters. This is where I also think an interview [should be] really useful for a school. The smart, perceptive interviewer will know how to carry on a dialogue, too, to ‘see’ some of those personal qualities …
I’ll add, too, those who are at the top of their classes are not all ‘grade grubbers.’ Academics just comes so easily to some of those kids, no matter how challenging the school…but I’ve seen a lot of them reach out every day, in very kind and generous ways, to help those who might find math or physics, for instance, just plain difficult. So, yes, that easy collaboration with [and ‘tutoring’ of] peers should hopefully be a consideration.</p>
<p>Jack, this thread has touched on the kindness aspect in a couple of places, but it’s such a long thread that it would be easy to miss. One of the spots is on page 2–check out Garland’s post 25 and Cangel’s 34, if you might have missed those. They’re good posts. </p>
<p>Also, I remember Marite saying that her child is multifaceted but also sort of a regular guy. (Regular guy makes me think: unpretentious and nice, or along those lines.) I like Epiphany’s take on this, though it can co-exist with the post above it, I think! Surely kids can have brains, talents, and also be good and generous people. Hey actually, BWRKs can be quite the homerun admit; so many good qualities for a school, all in one person!</p>
<p>Cricket: Thanks; I’ll go back and look at those posts. But, yes… “… kids can have brains, talents, and also be good and generous people.” Absolutely.</p>
<p>Cricket:</p>
<p>Thanks for summarizing my kid that way. He is not so much multifaceted as totally lopsided. Unpretentious? Yes. Nice? Well, he’s a teenager; he has his days.
When I look at his friends who got into HYPM (few ever apply to S) this year and the last couple of years, some do have star quality and some are extremely bright, nice and well-rounded but not stars that would outshine all competition. None strikes me as grade grubber. They are BRK (I don’t use BWRK because some of them aren’t white).</p>
<p>Sorry. The word you used was “multidimensional”. Meaning a person can have areas of academic lopsidedness, and other dimensions as well, I think?</p>
<p>marite - I think the W in BWRK stands for “well” as in “bright well rounded kids”, not “white”. BWRK’s can be from any racial background!</p>
<p>Cricket: He is definitely lopsided, but, yes, he has other dimensions as well (thank goodness!)
MotherOfTwo: Of course, you’re right. I’ve had a long day. More important, some of the stars (nationally recognized) I was thinking about among S’s friends happen to be URMs.</p>
<p>jack, cricket, others,
Oh, I definitely didn’t mean to imply that brains & character/virtue cannot co-exist. Surely they often do. I just know that this aspect is not discussed enough – by colleges, by GCs, in books, & on the CC Chances forum! (Not that indiv. students would objectively know where they stand in this regard.) To be horrified that a 1590 did not get into a partic. Ivy, but a 1490 did, misses the point that colleges are seeking aspects of a student body that cannot be statistically measured – even IF all the “representation” hooks are taken into account for 2 side-by-side applicants, & grades & e.c.'s are comparable.</p>
<p>My D’s class is quite accomplished. But it seems that the recognitions go especially to the #2 and one other student who’s about #4 or 5. (Minor differences between the top about 6 students.) There’s nothing particularly wrong with student #1 – just that no special amount of effort is shown to extend to others; in the academic dept. student #1 does very little sharing. The 2 oft-rewarded students were Early acceptees to two extremely top schools. Bank on the assumption that teacher recognition of personal qualities were on those recommendations (probably GC’s, too – because those are usually based on school reputation & administrative blessing). </p>
<p>marite,
I know where you’re coming from with the “collaboration” complaints. Been there, done that, infinitely it seems – but luckily only in middle school which was one injustice after another when it came to team projects. (Our family’s experience duplicated yours: 2 industrious & accomplished daughters doing all the work for opportunistic classmates who exploited my Ds’ sense of responsiblity on under-supervised projects. But this has not happened in their h.s., where explicit or assigned teamwork is rare anyway. That was not the collaboration I was referring to, more the instinctive sense of inclusion & generosity (& yes, tutoring & mentoring where called for or asked for). A “pure” student truly wants to share, & is as interested in receiving knowledge & insight as in giving it. That is a primary reason that such students seek high-level schools: they seek not just opportunities for scholarship, but a community of scholars.</p>