<p>Some stats to support PG’s point about regionality. DD goes to a highly selective residential HS in suburban Chicago; average ACT > 31. Rank of colleges by number of apps submitted, Class of 2011:</p>
<p>1 - UIUC
2 - Northwestern
3 - WashU
4 - UChicago
5 - Stanford
9 - MIT
17 - Princeton
19 - Harvard
Yale - not in top 25</p>
<p>Right - and the school being referred to is a VERY highly selective and rigorous high school - one of the best in the state. (Annasdad – my D considered going there, actually.)</p>
<p>Most achievement in our society does not occur at the undergraduate level but rather after graduate or professional school completion. Undergrads from the top 50 and beyond can attain acceptance into the tip top grad, law and med schools if their undergrad performance and test scores are sufficient. Even if one could argue the Ivy schools were superior (which I would not concede), at the undergrad level, the difference is inconsequential, certainly at least among the top 25 universities and LACs. So this obsessed pecking order on the undergrad level makes no sense at all. Kids should be taught that the race begins once they set foot on campus, wherever it may be. They have a chance to excel and go as far as their talents and work will take them, regardless of the number of undergrad rejections. Many of the parents are to blame, often seeking ivy admittance for their children because of the perceived prestige and the joy of “bragging rights.” These same parents express disappointment when their children only receive a top ten or twenty acceptance and demand an explanation for their bad fortune. Clearly, that is an unhealthy and counterproductive attitude and should be actively discouraged.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hear, hear!</p>
<p>(Regarding the grad school destinations vs. undergrad, I also posted some recent examples about that on the “undergrad ivy” thread.)</p>
<p>A few people have made the point that there are not enough spots at top ten schools to meet the expectations of high achieving academic kids. If you add all the NMSF kids going to IVYs plus Stanford and MIT that equals only about 10% of all NMSF students. In addition it represents only about 10% of the population of those schools in total. </p>
<p>I know many of ya’ll feel this is all about Ivy envy but the question that has been raised is Mr. Steele’s statement about merit in Ivy admissions and I do believe that there are plenty of facts to support his statement. The mere fact that some schools like Chicago and Texas A&M actively go after NMSF students and offer scholarships and Ivys do not is a clear statement about a schools approach to merit.</p>
<p>^ Where did you get that impression about Chicago? Their NMF Scholarship is not a particularly large scholarship. From their website:</p>
<p>“National Merit Finalists are granted awards from one of three sources: the National Merit Corporation, a sponsoring corporation, or from the University of Chicago. If you are a finalist in this competition, simply report to the National Merit Scholarship Corporation that the University of Chicago is your first-choice school. If your award is sponsored by the University of Chicago, it will be in the amount of $1,000 (for students with no financial need) or $2,000 (for students with financial need) and is renewable for four years.”</p>
<p>Steele’s point is larger than that. His point is that there are certain values that made this culture exceptional and that we no longer reward these values. He then uses (current) Ivy League admissions practices as support for this statement that there has been a change in our values and reward structure. </p>
<p>But as has been pointed out, Ivy League admissions practices do not support his claim. Prior to the 1970s, no matter how hard working and accomplished you were, if you were a woman, you would not be accepted to the Ivy League. A less accomplished man would take the place of a more accomplished woman, who would not apply. </p>
<p>In terms of academic merit, you state that since Chicago goes after NMSF but Harvard does not, this difference shows that Harvard does not reward merit. So for you, standardized test scores are a significant component of academic merit. So let’s take your view about the relative importance of test scores.</p>
<p>Now, if you look at the test scores that the school actually uses for admissions purposes, which would be the SAT and/or ACT, and not the PSAT, which is what is used in part for NMS status, Harvard is no different from Chicago, and is slightly ahead:</p>
<p>Harvard ACT middle 50 percentile: 31-34
Chicago: 30-34</p>
<p>Harvard SAT CR: 690-800
Chicago SAT CR: 700-780</p>
<p>Harvard SAT Math: 700-790
Chicago SAT Math: 700-780</p>
<p>Harvard SAT Writing: 710-800
Chicago SAT Writing: 690-770</p>
<p>So even if you adopt a numbers based approach, I can’t see how Harvard is somehow currently rewarding merit less than Chicago.</p>
<p>So he’s wrong on both counts. I can’t see how one would argue that an important part of Ivy League admissions isn’t academic merit (as evidenced by SAT/ACT scores), when 75% of the students attending are in the top 5% of all test takers.</p>
<p>
If this is true, then Texas A&M had better up its game, because the middle 50 percentiles there are
SAT Critical Reading: 530 - 650
SAT Math: 570 - 680
SAT Writing: 510 - 620
Not bad, but compare that to what skrlvr just posted.
I am pleased that this thread has gotten back around to beating up on Shelby Steele’s dumb comment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, so what? Maybe 90% of all NMSF students don’t want to go to Ivies plus Stanford and MIT. Good grief - TONS of smart kids in Texas want to go to UT. TONS of smart kids in the midwest want to go to their Big 10 state flagship. Your assumption that NMSF finalists “should” all want to go to Ivies plus S and M, and that if they aren’t there, it’s because they’ve been wrongly and sadly turned down, is odd. Maybe they didn’t want to go there. </p>
<p>This assumption that Ivies/S/M are “dream schools” for everybody is strange. I don’t get how some of you make that assumption.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>SM74, you have NEVER addressed the fact that there was no supposed “golden age of merit” at the Ivies that they have moved away from. Do you or do you not dispute that as recently as 40-50 years ago, Ivy admissions was greatly based on handshakes-from-the-headmasters at elite boarding / private schools, and merit had very little to do with it in this first place? Because until you acknowledge that truth, there’s little point in the discussion of whether Ivies are “no longer” merit based.</p>
<p>Psst, if they aren’t “merit based,” then how DO the Ivies get those awesome freshman class statistics (in terms of SAT’s, etc.)?</p>
<p>It would be interesting to know how the performance of Ivy grads today on things like the LSAT, MCAT, GREs compare to those of previous decades. I’ll bet they do pretty well in comparison.</p>
<p>Steele’s whole point is based on a silly logical fallacy–to him, because the Ivies don’t consider only merit (narrowly defined), they now scoff at the whole idea of merit, and that there are candidates admitted who don’t show any merit. Leaving aside the possibility of candidates who may have a meritorious amount of money, this just isn’t so.</p>
<p>Additionally, this is a free market capitalist system - results speak for themselves. If, indeed, the Ivies were letting in meaningful numbers of vastly underqualified people, then the value of a diploma from those schools would erode in the real world as employers couldn’t be sure that they were getting the bright ones or the slow ones. It hasn’t. If, indeed, the Ivies were letting in meaningful numbers of vastly underqualified people, then the overqualified-but-not-admitted would be dominating other schools and those schools’ reputations would grow. No one EVER answers “where do these over-qualified-but-not-admitted kids go,” partly because they don’t want to hear the answer - to other schools that are basically in the same ballpark, so no great societal harm or loss comes from their lack of admission to the Ivies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To truly believe that, one must be naive or have a NMSF in the household. Nah, the correct answer is that colleges offers NM scholarship to benefit themselves. They want to raise their own test scores in the competitive marketplace. USC and WashU have been doing this for many years (and have rocketed up the rankings), and other colleges need to play this game to maintain pace.</p>
<p>For the ad nauseum time, NM is decided by ONE ~2.5 hour test taken on a ONE morning ONE fall day. Is that truly your definition of “merit”? And, don’t forget, such so-called merit is based on state and US residence – internationals (and undocumented/illegals), need non apply. A ‘meritorious’ student from Arkansas is a ho-hum test-taker on the coasts. (No disrespect to Arkansas, but even Bill Clinton has said that his Rhodes would not have happened if he grew up in other states.)</p>
<p>NM also rewards those with wealth, which is why publics are dropping out of the program. NM distracts from attracting economic diversity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And/or maybe the students and their families are far more bottom-line conscious than many people assume. You will find all kinds of private and public high school students whose first priority is not “prestige name” (or, highest “ranked,” most “recognized” college), but out-of-pocket net cost. A student who mostly wants “the degree” – recognizes that it is an essential for most people seeking a skilled career – is relatively unfussy about where he/she gets that degree as long as it involves little or no debt. </p>
<p>A typical example (I’ve seen this played out dozens of times) is a classmate of D2, who found herself suddenly fatherless at age 16.5. Fancy elite private high school on financial aid. Not a star student but a strong B student, whose application could have been worked to gain admission to a higher-level college than what she chose, but the local 4-year college she chose offered her maximum merit aid (“Presidential scholarship”). She has two siblings; mother has low-paying job. They literally hunted for price, not for name. </p>
<p>When a family can “collect” various scholarship opportunities within one college choice, they will often do so. (NM + separate institutional + private scholarship)</p>
<p>Pizza, first the majority of IVy admissions still come from private schools and selective magnet schools.
I will acknowledge that no different than 40 years ago many athletes and wealthy alumni kids get in that are undeserving.
The difference is that it is my belief that 30-40 years ago admissions went to private schools and said I want well rounded kids who are in the top 10% of your class academically. I think they now say show me kids in the top 40% of your class academically who are interesting/diverse/etc.</p>
<p>
How can you look at the stats for the admittees at these schools and think this? It’s nonsense, really.</p>
<p>And I’d like to see some proof that the majority of Ivy admissions come from private schools and selective magnet schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Source, please. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your belief is mistaken. It was far more likely than 30-40 years ago it was the handshake from the headmaster that got a kid in regardless of his academic credentials. </p>
<p>And I note that you haven’t addressed the fact that in the “golden age of merit for Ivy admissions,” meritorious Jews were discriminated against, Asians and Afr Americans weren’t on the radar screen, and of course everyone with two X chromosomes was out of luck (except for Cornell)</p>
<p>I wonder if all these men huffing and puffing about merit would be happy if Harvard (and all the other Ivies) suddenly became about 60% female?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Not at Dartmouth:
Public 56%
Private 31%
Parochial 6%
Other 7%</p>
<p>[Class</a> Profile](<a href=“http://www.dartmouth.edu/admissions/facts/class.html]Class”>http://www.dartmouth.edu/admissions/facts/class.html)</p>
<p>coureur, although I doubt the claim as well, it is possible that a large percentage of Ivy admits come from selective magnet public schools. That’s probably true for localities where such magnets exist–because the most accomplished public school kids typically go to them.</p>