<p>Concerning URM’s, recruited athletes, and people with other non-academic hooks… </p>
<p>If they are subjected to more lenient standards for admission (from what I read, standards are often lowered significantly) , but the same standards as everyone else is in the classroom… won’t they always be in the bottom of their class?</p>
<p>Sure I understand why schools like HYP give an artificial advantage to URM’s in the admissions process to promote diversity, but what good is this if the support is removed once they get in? Is it a blessing or is it a curse to have these hooks just so that you can flounder in an environment where nearly everyone around you is your intellectual superior?</p>
<p>actually i believe someone a bit of a while ago posted a study that showed that urms were not really in the bottom of their class at top schools but performing just as well as their white and asian counterparts</p>
<p>URMs not performing well is one reason UCs got rid of quotas. Many would be accepted and matriculate but either drop out or transfer to less demanding majors like, area studies majors. These are the same students who might do just fine in the Cal State system, but were underprepared for the rigor of UCs. Athletes often major in easier majors, and VIPs often do not do well (who was that Hollywood type’s kid who “failed” out of what is nearly impossible to fail out of Brown, and Amy Carter never finished Brown, though she did evenually receive a maters’s from Tulane.</p>
<p>Beefs I heard that too, and by my observation its my opinion that’s true. Does anyone know about that study, and if so can they point a link to it?</p>
<p>Take a student in the top 10% of their HS class, with 700s on all SAT I sections and 700s on three SAT IIs. Any kid like that would probably do fine in an elite school.</p>
<p>Unhooked, a kid with those stats probably won’t get in. Hooked, they probably will. And I think they’ll do fine academically.</p>
<p>On the other hand, students who are clearly underqualified are going to have a tougher time.</p>
<p>When we’re talking about class ranks, and GPA’s given out on a curve, it does not matter what level the students’ competency is at. What matters is that students’ abilities when compared to the abilities of their peers. True accepted URM’s and athletes must demonstrate a reasonable level of intelligence to be considered hooked at a top school, and thus can “do Harvard work”; but wouldn’t the nonhooked students, who had to achieve beyond the hooked students in every aspect of the application, be able to “do Harvard work” better?</p>
<p>Given that there is a significant discrepancy between academic qualifications of hooked and nonhooked acceptees, the ones who are hooked should suffer academically unless there is a lurking variable like tendencies to choose easier majors or preferential treatment by professors.</p>
<p>But these don’t exist unless you’re being terribly cynical. Apparently, you can’t grasp the fact that URM’s with slightly lower SAT scores can do just as well their counterparts; we’re not talking about tests here, we’re talking about coursework, where it all comes down to how hard someone is willing to push themselves.</p>
<p>Unless college work defies predictors in every aspect of the college admissions process besides race, sports, and socioeconomic status, then how are these hooks able to perform just as well as their counterparts in college when they did not do so in high school?</p>
<p>This only applies, obviously, to admittees who would not have been competitive in the application process if not for their hook.</p>
<p>The hardest part is getting in the door, just because a URM person missed a couple more multiple choice questions on an arbitrary test than an ‘unhooked’ person, doesn’t mean that the URM won’t/ can’t be equally as successful as the unhooked white kid.</p>
<p>Better resources, better teachers, maturity, study tables, etc, are some the elements in place to ensure those that apply themselves succeed academically, and either close perceived discrepancies or even surpass the standard set by the status quo.</p>
<p>Even if this wasn’t the case, they are graduating and becoming productive citizens for the most part when presented with the opportunity. How does that affect you in any tangible way one way or the other?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That comment reeks of elitism and other “isms” I choose not to specify. Among elite schools the grad rates are similar, so obviously those hooked individuals are getting it done. History is filled with significant contributors to society, who some such as you and of your ilk, may have considered surrounded by others of “intellectual superiority.”</p>
<p>At the very selective colleges, there is so much competition for a few spots that many of the students they turn down are quite capable of being fullly successful at that school. Do you honestly believe there is any significant difference between a person with a 4.0 gpa and 2300 SAT and another person who has a 3.8 gpa and a 2100 SAT? Add to it, that the second one brings dfferent talents and life experiences which may also enhance their own performance and their contribution to the community.</p>
<p>Success (at college and beyond) hinges on a lot more than these numbers that seem so important right now. There was a very good article in the New Yorker a few months ago about Harvard admissions and athletes. It turns out that they do very well in business and other professions and maybe bring something to the table (from the college’s point of view) that 2300+ crowd lacks and can benefit from.</p>
<p>madville: Why so defensive? It doesn’t affect me, but I’m just curious. I’m not trying to imply anything nasty; I just want to know why a phenomenon works against my basic suspicions.</p>
<p>The structural differences of their new environment is not a valid case for all hooked applicants, and graduation rates are a little vague because it doesn’t reveal the actual academic standings of those graduates. But that’s irrelevant because I think hooks are doing just fine or else colleges would not continue these policies. I just want to know why this is the case.</p>
<p>Oh and I know even sacrosanct items like GPA, academic awards, and activities can be easily defied when you’re out in the real world; but we’re still talking about a standardized learning classroom here, college. Unless college GPA is so different from high school GPA that the above high school qualifiers would not apply at all, then there should be a reason.</p>
<p>stryker: Sure there may not be much difference if you compare one 4.0/2300 kid and one 3.8/2100 kid, but if you take that variation and compound it through thousands of subjects, I think you’ll find a significant difference. It may not be large quantitatively, but neither are the differences in college GPA’s.</p>
<p>The sports players and business major theory is a very good one, and that’s the sort of info I’m looking for.</p>
<p>Many if not the majority of athletes are usually are at the level of the standard profile for the school. I think that the myth is they are all given a huge break. For non-revenue sports the profiles are basically indistinguishable from non athletic student. In the end, they do have to perform in classes, and some don’t make it, but most do quite well.</p>
<p>I have another theory about Athletes in collee, based on nothing but my own experience and observations of my high school junior and her friends. </p>
<p>For some kids, going off to college is their first experience of being on their own and having to structure their own time and lives. Athletes have a lot of that through their sport, and are less likely to do dumb stuff like try to live on nothing but cold cereal and beer, or whatever. They have a coach to answer to, and have developed incredibly good habits in many instances (not all).</p>
<p>This added structure and discipline probably more than makes up for slight to moderate differences in innate ability.</p>