<p>Schools always report their middle 50% scores, so i am wondering who are the kids that are in the bottom 25%? </p>
<p>Are they amazing athletes, have a ton of ec’s, or no need for financial aid?</p>
<p>A common answer to many CC questions: it depends on the school. Generally, the ultra selectives by and large have deep pockets and don’t need to admit full payer kids so that’s not likely for them.</p>
<p>Probably a smattering of development admits, athletes, and other specialty admits (maybe a piano prodigy with terrible CR and V scores). Maybe a legacy or two.</p>
<p>Don’t forget URMs! There are def. URMs in there too.</p>
<p>what’s a development admit?</p>
<p>Depending on the school, they could be students who got in off the waitlist. They also could be students who fill some kind of diversity need, a need that would depend on what kind of student body the college is trying to create. This could range from tuba players (or whatever kinds of talent the school needs to fulfill its needs) to students from rural areas to students who have very strong ability in an academic area that the colege has a hard time attracting majors in. They also could be students who are faulty kids (or had other connections), or had outstanding essays or interviews.</p>
<p>what’s it supposed to mean, though? what type of student is considered a “development admit”?</p>
<p>Their ‘tuition’ are developing various buildings/programs in the school.</p>
<p>As I understand it, a development admit is a student admitted to the university because they (or family or whatever connection) are seen as someone from whom the university has received or can expect large donations from.</p>
<p>I believe the majority of the bottom 25% are URM’s/diversity kids, with a few legacies, athletes, and development cases in there.</p>
<p>
Take Duke as an example, because I know it best. The SAT averages for recruited athletes aren’t exactly stirling.</p>
<p>Baseball- 1206
Football- 1063
Basketball- 997
Other- 1258</p>
<p>Quite frankly, I find that it strains the imagination to claim that URMs would be included with this lot, especially when you consider that these are only averages. Since many teams have a couple people that raise the teams’ average scores and GPAs, you can safely assume that many had scores below those listed. In fact, a few had trouble meeting NCAA eligibility.</p>
<p>This is old data, but it gives you an idea:
<a href=“Cardinal 247 - Stanford Cardinal Football Recruiting”>Cardinal 247 - Stanford Cardinal Football Recruiting;
<p>By bottom 25%, do you mean in standardized test score or high school ramkings? Don’t forget, you can be in one category and not the other, which is our case. I’m just hoping they will see that my son doesn’t do well on standardized tests. He has the grades, the ranking, the ec’s, and the money. We’ll see if it’s enough. </p>
<p>I kind of wonder about the kids in the top 25%. Did they receive scholarships? Did they pick a school close to home? Did they just do exceptionally well on the SAT?</p>
<p>They did exceptionally well academically, the top 25% kids that is.</p>
<p>I must say that some of you are terribly wrong. In Princeton most URM’s are near the top of the class and are usually some of the smartest people there. Legacies are mostly at the bottom of the class.</p>
<p>Warblersrule – I have no doubt that a majority of athletes in the “money sports” fall in the bottom 25%. How many people would that be, however? Duke enrolls approximately 1,400 freshmen each year. If you take into consideration the freshmen basketball, football, lacrosse and baseball (M+F) you are looking at maybe 150 kids? I’m sure some of the athletic scholarship admits have tests scores within the middle 50%, particularly among the female athletes. </p>
<p>By my calculations athletes might account for 30% of the bottom 25%. URMs, developmental admits account for ?%. But then there is an unknown percentage of kids who just got lucky.</p>
<p>Bessie has it right.</p>
<p>“Development” is the offical term for the fundraising arm of not-for-profits…</p>
<p>Most are probably atheletes and URMs. Of course, many athletes in the money sports (football and basketball) are URMs as well.</p>
<p>“Quite frankly, I find that it strains the imagination to claim that URMs would be included with this lot, especially when you consider that these are only averages. Since many teams have a couple people that raise the teams’ average scores and GPAs, you can safely assume that many had scores below those listed. In fact, a few had trouble meeting NCAA eligibility.”</p>
<p>Disagree! Definitely not so at publics, but at privates it is an unfair advantage that is often used.</p>
<p>A white guy with a 2200 and a 3.8 has about the same chance at a top school as a black guy with a 3.5 and a 2050.</p>
<p>At many LACs, the bottom 25 is going to be disproportionately male – including lots of white males – because it’s very hard to attract males to LACs, particularly LACs without football teams, so being a male of any race is an advantage.</p>
<p>and don’t forget lopsided students … when I applied I was in the top 25% of the Math SAT scores at almost every school to which I applied … and in the bottom 25% of the Verbal SAT score … and my grades were near the median? So which quartile was I (as a whole)?</p>
<p>We discuss the quartile as though a whole applicant falls into that quartile … and I believe we are typically discussing one attribute/score at a time … and I would guess the number of applicants all of whose academic qualifitions are in the bottom 25% at a top school are few and far between.</p>
<p>A book I am still reading: </p>
<p>[Color</a> and Money: How Rich White Kids Are Winning the War over College Affirmative Action](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Color-Money-Winning-College-Affirmative/dp/1403976015/]Color”>http://www.amazon.com/Color-Money-Winning-College-Affirmative/dp/1403976015/) by Peter Schmidt. </p>
<p>I still need to look up the original paper outlining a research study that is mentioned a lot in the book. Then I’ll know what to think about the book.</p>