<p>Objectively speaking, and putting “public school students” aside, looking only at graduates of elite private high schools, such graduates are objectively and quantifiably, today, far more qualified than their prestige-graduate counterparts prior to, say, 1970. Better grades, better scores, far more scores submitted, more academic awards (optional national exams, optional supplemental academic contests entered), **plus<a href=“not%20instead%20of”>/b</a> objective measurements of extracurriculars (sports, performing arts, other quantifiably measurable activites). Far more data is being submitted with college applications (to elite colleges) than was true a generation ago (and more), so that a high quotient of achievement data is now virtually demanded for consideration of admission in such a competitive contest.</p>
<p>Admissions are not based on purely objective valuations. But, here is the other side of that coin: it should not be! And that is because the “objective” data needs to be measured in their appropriate context and, it is this added relevance that makes the holistic review the success it is today.</p>
<p>Fwiw, rest assured that the primary forces in admission remain the combination of standardized test scores and academic performance in K-12. Actually, schools also rely on elements that SHOULD NEVER be used for admission purposes. Scores of the AP fall in such category, as the College Board has steadfastly claimed the test was never designed for the purpose of making admission decisions. The fact that scores earned in one’s senior year are released well after admission decision are made seems to support that. The same could be said about the IB programme. One could question why the mere PARTICIPATION in a class or program should influence the admission officers, but that, of course, would attack the main objective of the advanced classes boondoggle. </p>
<p>When people clamor for an over-encompassing objective system, they really want a paint-by-the-number process and a punch-list. We should be thankful that our elite schools do NOT have to lower their criteria (yet) to satisfy such ill-defined and uni-dimensional mousetrap.</p>
<p>Probably the most critical factor for any applicant is where their application falls in the period of the pendulum when they apply. I remember the 80’s when affirmative action more or less threw out the standardized scores in favor of making up for lost time giving disadvantaged kids a break. I really think it’s time for the pendulum to swing to the side of heavily weighing in on standardized test scores again. Wealth, and race should be set aside and let those who find a way to flex his or her cortex gain the seats that will give academia a run for its money. The so-called quotas again on Asian kids has got to go.</p>
<p>The reason you no longer see t-shirts that say that Duke is the “Harvard of the South” is that now Duke really IS the Harvard of the South. That is, Duke is one of a number of schools that have national prestige that is really quite comparable to that of the Ivy League schools. Duke, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Rice, and several others are much less thought of as merely regional schools than they were back when I was in high school. The poster child for this effect is Wash U, I think. I like to say that there are now 30 or maybe 40 schools in the top 10. Not to mention all the selective LACs, and a number of top-notch publics.</p>
<p>So, I would agree that it doesn’t make a lot of sense to be obsessed with “the Ivies.” It might make sense, though, to be really interested in highly-selective schools with extremely accomplished student bodies–a group that includes, but is not limited to, the Ivies.</p>
<p>The best way to eliminate the “so-called” quotas is to demonstrate they exist in the first place, and then make a case that the “so-called” quotas do result in skewed admission results. When looking at facts, that seems to represent an impossible hurdle. </p>
<p>It is, however, quite understandable when considering how overrepresented the quote-afflicted have become, and on the other hand, how ineffective the measures to “artificially” increase the representation of the disavantaged have remained. </p>
<p>Perhaps, it would be simpler to create and impose quotas. A good start might to use the census distributions of race and wealth as reasonable guidelines.</p>
<p>I have a question about AA- If AA is REALLY about “making up for historical misdeeds”, why is it that Irishmen, Catholics, Jews, and Japanese don’t benefit? Irishmen and Catholics faced huge prejudice in the 1800s, as have Jews and the Japanese during ww2. Clearly they too “deserve” AA. But apparently certain suffering is more important than other suffering. Hail, the victorious hypocrites!!</p>
<p>While I completely agree with your sentiment, I’m not <em>really</em> sure that ALL the Ivy League schools had the national prestige you think. I think to some extent, some of them were regional in nature too. It’s just that that region was the northeast, which was / still is the historic seat of power in this country and home of the Establishment.</p>
<p>Gosh, is Sewanee the Williams of the south? My daughter is interested in their equestrian program and seems willing to leave sunny California to try it out.</p>
<p>If I had to liken it to another school, I’d consider Duke to be more the USC of the South. I sort of view the Duke/UNC rivalry to be the Southern or east coast version of the USC/UCLA rivalry - with Duke in the USC role. In both cases you have two schools, one public and one private, that are located only a few miles up the road from each other. And both schools in each pair are very strong in both athletics and academics. They compete with each other over everything - and they hate each others’ guts.</p>
Sure, why not? It does seem to me that there are also LACs that have grown in national reputation over the years–places like Pomona, Grinnell, Oberlin, and others. Sewanee is still pretty darn Southern, though.</p>
<p>pizza(1671) and Hunt(1666) I think we have found some common ground. In high school - even good private schools - the strong academic kids are often still a minority of the class. With the best colleges its nice to find yourself in an environment where most of the kids are intellectually curious. And I think maybe in the past those kids were concentrated in a few colleges I now think they are found throughout the Country in a wide variety of institutions.</p>
<p>I think there would be less heartburn about this if kids on CC said “chance me for top schools” instead of “chance me for Ivies.” Half the time, when they refer to Ivies, their list already includes other top schools anyway.</p>
<p>I completely agree that it’s nice to find yourself in an atmosphere where most kids are intellectually curious, and I would add, it’s “cool to be smart.” I myself thrived in such an environment, and it’s a strong part of what I wanted for my kids. </p>
<p>However, I think it’s goofy to suggest that “in the past, they were concentrated in just a few institutions.” I think you’re not hearing what some of us are saying - in the past, the smart Chicago area kids historically went to Northwestern, the smart St. Louis kids to WashU, the smart Nashville kids to Vandy, the smart Texas kids to Rice, etc. - and the smart Boston kids to Harvard, the smart Philly kids to Penn, etc. (with a lot more “mixing” in the northeast, simply because the distance in between schools isn’t as great as it is in the midwest / south). Nowadays, precisely BECAUSE it’s no longer about handshakes-from-the-headmaster, the smart kids are mixing and matching all over the country. So it’s not as though “years ago they were concentrated in a handful of schools.” <em>All</em> the same suspects had smart kids in them.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I was just recalling that when I was at Northwestern (class of 82) kids on my floor in my freshman dorm hailed from all over: New york, NJ, Texas, Canada and Connecticut, I recall not one that was from the midwest in that particular hall. My apartment mates junior and senior year were from Florida and Georgia (I’m from the Boston area). I’m sure the same was true of my sister’s dorm-mates at Harvard; many were probably from lots of areas beyond the east, just as they are today.</p>
<p>I have to say, that I was a good student but not of the caliber of my sister, and to suggest that back then, there was no discernible difference in the overall strength of the student body between a Northwestern level school and Harvard is being disingenuous.</p>
<p>Of course we know that NU had its share of geniuses then, and Harvard had its share of legacy/athlete lightweights, but I believe there has been a tightening of quality standards at all the top schools which has affected those lower on the ladder to a greater degree.</p>
<p>I would argue that, while the difference is much smaller, still today Harvard has a higher concentration of geniuses–if you consider that 800 on any section of the SAT is a ceiling (and for many, a pretty low ceiling), you can extrapolate that some proportion of the 25% of scorers who hit that at Harvard have an intellectual capacity that goes far beyond that.</p>
<p>Is having a greater proportion of these types a good thing? Let everyone decide for themselves, but I don’t buy into the claim that the student bodies at these schools are indistinguishable. (I also know kids from my daughters’ school who are attending NU and who would not have fit in intellectually at Harvard). I am not trying to dis my alma mater, but realistically while the difference in student body caliber is subtle, it is there.</p>