<p>" Thus, elite universities do not attract the best students and students are ‘behind’. "</p>
<p>So if the elite universities are no longer attracting the best students in their pursuit of URMs / legacies / soft ECs, where are “those best students” who are turned away winding up? They have to go SOMEWHERE. They are attending what colleges?</p>
<p>Epiphany: you left out this statement: "varsity cheerleader does not carry the kind of value the other e.c.'s do (at least for private colleges) which require high levels of discipline and persistence over time.
"
I would need to argue that with you. I think my first post noted the discipline and persistence over time required of my daughter to achieve varsity cheerleader status. Like 14 years of discipline and persistence. I would put those 14 years up any day for comparison to a Debate club member who may have started formal practice in what, JR high?? Cheer not only requires intelligence but also the kind of innate athletic ability and specific body type one must be born with. I do think there is an undercurrent of envy of cheerleaders and many athletes for this reason. They have beautiful lean bodies, the kind many people strive for.</p>
<p>Intellectualism isn’t only owned by chess players, mock trial members, or pianists. Surprisingly, intellect is necessary to choreograph complex routines, be able to pick up 12 8 counts of a dance within one audition period. Or let’s try executing a full twisting layout without acute knowledge of spatial relations and body mechanics. The majority of the varsity cheerleaders are on the honor roll. In fact I can only think of one who isn’t because of dyslexia and a learning disability.</p>
<p>You say you are aware of the rigors of a Cheerleading competition but I find that suspect. So you are aware that most girls must have amazing time management skills and discipline to balance a 3 hour practice followed by a 45 min drive to attend a 2 hour dance rehearsal (by the way, they are in 10 different competition routines including a solo) or gymnastics practice, then come home at around 9 or 10 and do homework…and maintain a 4.0. That is what my varsity cheerleader has done throughout highschool. And let’s not forget the endless hours of dance and acro training starting ay age 3. Or being able to perorm a dance solo at age 6 in front of a panel of judges.</p>
<p>According to you this doesn’t require intelligence, persistence and dedication. It isn’t even on the same level as more intellectual pursuits. Well, the admissions counselor at Kenyon College, a private and elite LAC was very interested in my daughters experience and ability and how unique her tap dancing/ ballet/Cheerleading pursuits were. I think when you have 10 pianists and debate club members up against a Cheerleader who has proven her talents and abilities developed over years of practice, and scores, gpa are similar - private colleges just may be a little more curious of the unique subset of talent he or she would bring to the school…but then again I am just going by what an admissions counselor told me and my daughter at Kenyon.</p>
<p>I don’t want to fight with you but I think your views of cheerleaders are corrupted by societal cliches. And it really isn’t your fault as there is a pervasive misunderstanding of the world of the dancer/cheerleader/gymnast that combine to produce that silly little, preppy bouncy, intellectually decrepit varsity cheerleader who at any time is never able to compete against a prep school pianist.</p>
<p>Right? 
</p>
<p>But I am just a former varsity cheerleader so what would I know of complex academic institutions.</p>
<p>I respect competition cheerleaders, not the standard football/basketball/whatever cheerleaders, and yes they are different at my school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is because the normal math sequence for high school students reaches precalculus only in senior year; such students taking Math II will not have completed precalculus by the time they take it for the purpose of showing university admissions committees.</p>
<p>However, the high achieving high school students are more likely to be a year ahead (or two years ahead, as seems to be common by posts on these forums), meaning that they completed precalculus in junior (or sophomore) year. Such students should be fully capable of doing well on the Math II test after completing precalculus, in time to show the scores to university admissions committees, without needing any test-specific preparation.</p>
<p>Of course, this means that a university admissions committee, seeing a bunch of applicants with Math II scores of 800, won’t be able to tell the difference between those good at math and those great at math, if they want to look for that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, if the school does not teach its math courses properly, then that is a problem for the students unlucky enough to go to that school. Then again, isn’t that part of the purpose of the SAT Subject tests – to measure expected high school levels of academic achievement on a common measure? Needing test-specific preparation beyond the normal high school course may indicate a problem in the course curriculum at the high school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When did I mention: </p>
<p>prep school pianists
Debate club members
chess players
Mock Trial Members
societal cliches
Starting e.c.s in Junior High
Cheerleading doesnt require intelligence, persistence and dedication
Preppy bouncy, intellectually decrepit varsity cheerleaders?</p>
<p>Answer: Never. Thats the entire point. You dont know me, and you couldn’t have made a single of the above assumptions by a single post I have written on this or any other thread.</p>
<p>Heres what you assumed I am ignorant of: that I have any assumptions about the time put into any of the above e.c.s you mention none of which I mentioned nor were even thinking of at the time.</p>
<p>You are over-reacting to, and stereotyping, a mother whose children performed, and were awarded, in high level competitive dance, – locally, nationally, and internationally, for a combined 20 years, since one of them is still doing it, and did it at an Ivy and is doing it in grad school. Many times a week, long commutes, extremely long practices, often more hours per week than a varsity athlete, and 100s of awards. I dont need a ranting lecture about the practices and the discipline, since that discipline was instrumental on their part in their college admissions.</p>
<p>The only mistake I made was that I forgot to remind debaters who are reactive and refuse to read where a post was being responded to, that they should remember that the context of my original reply was to a poster named sorghum, on this thread, that was discussing the Chinese style of admissions, with the possible implication of rigorous science programs relative to demanding academic admissions. (Since that poster tends to write more about those programs than other programs, I assumed that was his context.) That was all. I was arguing with him, and the kinds of e.c.s he assumes are important for all academic programs, as opposed to e.c.s that are well-received among broader groups of colleges, including well-respected LACs such as Kenyon, and many other private & public colleges. The part you quoted was deliberately brief on my part, because I well, silly me take it for granted (apparently too often) that people will read the context of a reply. The frequent detractors of college admissions policies in this country, at least as they represent themselves on CC, often assume broad generalities about whats important for all colleges, not whats important for merely a few colleges, called, without unanimity, elite. Their favorite tactic is to trivialize and ridicule the holistic process for supposedly admitting underprepared students, and they do so by making broad generalizations that actually cannot be applied broadly whatsoever.</p>
<p>The truth is that admissions officers often say, “It doesn’t really matter what you do (activity-wise), as long as you do something. We want to see that you are involved beyond academics. It doesn’t have to be in a particular category (etc.).”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously you do. Your combined rants prove that you do, and youve also proven that you have immense stereotypes about others, and assume that no one else but yourself could know a bleepin thing about the dance, gymnastics, cheerleading, skating world.</p>
<p>But hey, Im just a stupid, arrogant, ignorant, person, reliant on societal cliches with pervasive misunderstanding about dance. Yep. That’s why we spent up to 30 hours a week on it over 20 years (not including competition weekends) and traveled thousands of miles, entered about 120 competitions and participated in dozens of paid and unpaid performances. Because I’m ignorant and stupid. </p>
<p>You have also dismissed twice now my statement that unless I saw the academic record of any particular cheerleader, I would not be able to ascertain, pro or con, whether there was sufficient preparation for a rigorous academic program. Thus, there were dancers of my children’s ages who were capable and prepared for “elite”-level universities (or certainly, very demanding universities), and others who were not, who were fabulous dancers but had spent so much time dedicated to their dance, which they preferred to academics, that their admissions results reflected that. There were only about 3-5 of the top competitors in my children’s age groups who were admitted to top-ranked institutions.</p>
<p>Several posts back the first time I responded to sorghum you had a friend. You, only you, have succeeded supremely in creating an enemy. Congratulations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ucbalumnus, you don’t seem to be terribly familiar with the enormous variations in the quality of high school math programs in the 50 states. I don’t know how to say it in any other way. Xiggi gets it. Some other posters on CC over the years are also clear on it. It is a huge problem in this country, and worse in some states than others. I don’t want to keep repeating myself, but it is a combination of a non-standardized, non-professionally-integrated teaching approaches, curriculum which is forever experimental and reinventing itself, the product of fads, and a significant dearth of expert teachers as opposed to mathematicians.</p>
<p>Ok epiphany, you win. You are right I am prone to rants and stereotyping. I also had no idea about your background in dance because you never mentioned it that I saw at least. But I still heard and felt that subtle breath of elitist musings when you commented on varsity cheerleader e.c. And I only assumed you were not completely aware of the dedication and commitment required from cheerleaders because of the comment I saw about varsity cheer as an e.c. not taken seriously at certain schools and not counted the same as other e.c. that require more dedication. Perhaps I did misunderstand. But that is what I heard. </p>
<p>Look, I totally apologize if I upset you. The last thing I need is an enemy. And please forgive my ranting, as I have had to battle stereotypes all my life regarding cheer and dance. My daughter has also been recognized nationally for dancing and while she is not as heavy into it now, from about age 6-15 our world was dance. So yes, I am acutely aware of the sacrifices and commitments necessary to be an award winning dancer. And I don’t think I called you stupid. And I don’t think you are stupid.</p>
<p>Straddling the worlds of dance and cheer has given me some unique perspective. In the competition dancing world cheerleaders have a tendency to be looked down upon as not serious dancers etc… which, honestly they aren’t going to juliard for ballet or to dance to Fosse. </p>
<p>But anyway. I guess I overreacted so I am sorry. Not that this is an excuse, well it kind of may be, but I put my exchange daughter who lived at my house and called me mom on a plane back to China today. I have been crying for hours, the only exception is sleep. I need to lower my sensitivity threshold. Your daughter sounds lovely and amazing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you don’t play the game, you don’t get to go to college, there is no job after that. I certainly am not going to support them indefinitely.
Same for D1. D2 is just as capable as her older sister, has better grades and higher SAT I scores, is not going to the same high school as D1. The reason for self study is because material coverd in class is different. At D1’s high school, no one takes Bio SAT II because they don’t cover the material. If a kid is interested in majoring in biology or wants to be a pre-med, then he/she would need to self study for the subject test.</p>
<p>This is stretching it a bit:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It reminds me of the complex mathematics that need to be ‘solved’ in several sports as you run to intersect with and catch a ball.</p>
<p>Actually, I was not trying to specifically diss cheerleaders.</p>
<p>My point was that ‘varsity’ level was too low to have any impact on Chinese admissions - they do adjust standardized scores for exceptional achievement, but not at the best in your high school level. The use of ‘cheerleader’ was generic for all not intrinsically academic pursuits, including all other sports.</p>
<p>Of course some Harvard graduates may go into public relations, but they may have little advantage over other graduates in a field like that. That could be part of the reason why Harvard is not such an automatic meal ticket.</p>
<p>In America, no university is set up to be “an automatic meal ticket” to anything. That’s part of our cultural heritage and values.</p>
<p>Well, I don’t agree, HYP pretty much were automatic meal tickets not so long ago, when the right people attended.</p>
<p>In looking at unemployment rate, it is a lot higher for people without a college degree. Even though D1 didn’t go to HYPS, it was still a top 20 school, and this year all of her friends who wanted a job have one upon graduation, I don’t think that’s the case at our IS school. There is nothing automatic in life, even outside of the States, but education and type of education do play a role in filtering.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that had nothing to do with academics – that was a self-perpetuating societal elite!</p>
<p>^^^Ok, that quote is not from me.</p>
<p>A fair amount of what’s in this thread has been hashed out a lot of times, but there’s one thing I’d like to respond to, which is the idea that standardized testing in the US isn’t rigorous enough to winnow out the really top students. I’m not convinced of this. How many people are there, really, who get 800 on the SAT math section, 800 on the Level II Math SAT Subject Test, and a 5 on the BC Calc AP Test, and who also have perfect grades in all their high school math/science classes? Are there really more of such people than you would need to fill up the math/science “slots” at the most selective schools (assuming that was all you looked at)?</p>
<p>At Caltech, the middle 50% of SAT I Math is 770-800. That means, I think, that even Caltech couldn’t (or at least didn’t) fill its class with people who scored 800 in math on the SAT I.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorghum,
How long ago are you talking about, and who were these “right people” who attended and how do you see them as different from today’s HYP students?</p>
<p>Hunt, I totally agree … it seems to me the current testing methodology loses precision in the top 1% (maybe 2%) … it also seems some people believe finer calibrated tests so we could sort the 99.2% kids from the 99.6% kids would be a good thing … however I think these folks are missing the forest from the trees; colleges on the hole are not interested in that level of precision in test scores. At the top of the scale darn high is good enough without the precision; what they are looking for instead of an extra .5% on a test score is how have those smarts (which both students have in spades) been applied in interesting ways … and value that use of the smarts above any minute difference in test rankings.</p>
<p>^That’s so true. This is off topic;Why is Math 2 so different? In Lit SAT, 800 is 99% as it should be.</p>
<p>
As xiggi indicated, there is much more self-selection in terms of who takes the Math 2 test–most of those who take it are already very well prepared. My point is that I’m not sure there’s any college that has the problem of distinguishing among people who scored 800 on that test–there aren’t that many of them in the first place, and I doubt if there are that many who aren’t otherwise distinguishable, even if you are looking strictly at math abilities.</p>
<p>Do you mean there’s no self-selection in other subject tests? Doesn’t Lit have a reputation for its difficulty to score well?</p>
<p>I am guessing colleges consider anything over 750 or even 700 equally qualifying. I happen to agree with that assessment.</p>