<br>
<br>
<p>So true. I have been wondering whether HYPSXX are making a mistake by focussing too much on the most "amazing"and “accomplished” kids instead of the most intellectually curious kids.</p>
<p>IMO, the true measure of an educational institution is not the composition of the entering class but the composition of the graduating class (relative to the entering class).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I grew up with very little sports involvement, not even much watching of sports. But I’ve learned in my adult life that, yes, in many occupations having had team sports experience can be very helpful for social adaptation to that occupation and for general “character” development. I admit this reluctantly because I don’t have that experience myself. My children, fortunately, take a more balanced approach, being actively involved in “travel” soccer (our family’s only competitive sport), and also reading widely and drawing and pursuing other activities. I don’t disparage “jocks” anymore–I know that the companies that hire athletically inclined workers do so with an eye on the bottom line, and because workers with athletic experience can contribute well to the whole organization.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now it’s time for the Malcolm Gladwell article link. </p>
<p>[gladwell</a> dot com - getting in](<a href=“http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html]gladwell”>http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Sorry, I don’t see the dichotomy between "amazing "and “accomplished” on the one hand and “intellectually curious” on the other. Where does that lave Intel and Siemens winners? Olympiad gold medalists? Rickoids and TASP attendees and other participants in academic pursuits?</p>
<p>Marite, I think their pool goes much deeper than just those schools and is probably similar to the schools listed in CC Top Universities and CC Top Liberal Arts Colleges. The surprise was that the intern from the public school (which is on CC Top Universities) was the best she’s ever had, and she’s had many over the years from your HYSPMC-ASWP list. My point was that the academically serious and talented kids find a way to succeed even if they don’t fit the ivy mold.</p>
<p>CRD:</p>
<p>That is my point, too! I am not in the least surprised by your wife’s experience.</p>
<p>
Not to mention the potential saving on company’s health insurance cost!</p>
<p>I find myself in agreement with marite again in post 118. It’s not at all “a separate discussion.” (That also bothered me about the earlier post.) It’s directly relevant to admissions, which is why there’s even a consciousness of this by the colleges, when it comes to recognition of potential.</p>
<p>Colleges are not particularly interested in quality of high schools apart from the quality of any particular student at those schools. You (student) are not particularly given an artificial “boost” just because you live in, and are schooled in, the most rotten part of town/state. That is not to say that Outreach programs are not in place, both from public & private higher institutions; they are indeed active, but with application, yield, enrollment numbers as they are in the most selective public & private colleges, these institutions are hardly looking for warm bodies in order to fill some social dictate.</p>
<p>What they are looking for, in addition to Deerfield & public high school grads, is the exceptionally motivated & accomplished student who has triumphed over negative circumstances – not specifically to reward that student on moral grounds necessarily, but to extend opportunity to those with demonstrated mettle.</p>
<p>With accomplished students in numbers quadruple the available seats in the freshman classes of “the top 20,” the following groups/classes are discriminated against:</p>
<p>Affluent whites from privates
Affluent whites from publics
Middle class whites from publics & privates
Low socioeconomic whites from publics & privates – with the small exception of the few privates with stated commitment to those admissions (such as Princeton, Columbia, a few others)
Affluent & middle class East Asians & Indians from well-performing publics & privates</p>
<p>And in smaller numbers, but increasingly so as economic mobility begins to materialize for Latinos, Blacks, Southeast Asians – some well-qualified & articulate URM’s with UW 3.8’s, 2150+ SAT’s who also are passed over for students (of color or non-color!) with a slightly higher “amazing” quotient.</p>
<p>The simple statistical reality is that with qualification numbers so high, colleges must be “disriminating,” as opposed to discriminatory, about whom they select. If they stayed with obvious pools of candidates, they’d have a uniform looking campus. (They’d also have much less geographical diversity, which is what they had for absolutely decades.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again I will say, pace whatever the colleges say about the matter, the actual facts on the ground show that highly selective colleges are highly selective of affluent students, even among pools of students with equal qualifications for college study. I have already provided links to research and commentary on this subject from multiple data sets in a post a few posts of mine upthread.</p>
<p>tokenadult, I’m not disagreeing with you. (Did you think I was?) What I’m saying is that many people equate selectivity with discrimination. I also agree that selectivity is operative at the highest levels of affluence & education (whether from selective high schools or from selective undergrad institutions). It’s not a given that a degree from HYPSMC will land graduate admissions at a similarly illustrious place.</p>
<p>There is no such thing as “being qualified” for selective college admission, as a stand-alone concept. If you weren’t admitted, you were not “qualified but discriminated against.” You were perceived as less qualified and/or less valuable than a student from a similar demographic & geographic & ethnic, etc. pool.</p>
<p>This is somewhat tangential to the original topic, but it has to do with ECs.</p>
<p>S1, who graduated from a top LAC went on to grad school and recently got a job. The grad degree was essential to his landing the job; where he got his college degree had not been relevant to getting into grad school or getting the job. He was one of several people with similar qualifications for the job. So why did he get it and not they? He could show, that, since high school, he had been interested in two activities that were directly relevant to the job he was being considered for. At the time, he and we were not thinking about jobs, or even college. We just wanted him off the couch or the piano bench and into the community.</p>
<p>Hi, epiphany, </p>
<p>I’ll make a statement here and see whether or not you agree with it. (I think, based on previous threads, that we ought to have a compatible view of what the facts are, but you are addressing somewhat different issues from what I’m addressing, so let’s be sure.) </p>
<p>STATEMENT: </p>
<p>At a given level of test scores (or, in the alternative, at a given level of high school grades in challenging courses) a student from a high-income family will be much likely to attend college than a student from a low-income family, especially in the most selective echelon of colleges. </p>
<p>I believe that the statement above represents the facts of the college admission scene in the United States as they now exist. I read some earlier statements in the thread as being contrary to that statement. I have already linked to my sources in an earlier post.</p>
<p>I think it’s obvious that high income kid are more likely to ATTEND elite colleges that equally qualified low income kids. That’s not because these colleges discriminate, but because finances, family situations & responsibilities, even family value systems & cultural norms are so different.</p>
<p>In agreement with post 132 (and 133).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that’s what is so amazing about the data. The colleges think they are giving a leg up to students from low-income families, but when a research looks at a longitudinal data set </p>
<p>[Amazon.com:</a> America’s Untapped Resource: Low-Income Students in Higher Education: Books: Richard D. Kahlenberg](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Untapped-Resource-Low-Income-Education/dp/0870784854/]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Untapped-Resource-Low-Income-Education/dp/0870784854/) </p>
<p>the researcher always finds that colleges not only don’t give a leg up to low-income students, but don’t even set up a level playing field.</p>
<p>I haven’t read the book, but doing the research on this would have to control for legacy and recruited athlete admits, both of which tend to be high income. Also, at least in my mind, there are only maybe 20 or so schools which have both the endowments and the motivation to actually prefer lower income students and to put their money where their mouths are. And 10 or 15 of those are very recent “converts” that wouldn’t be captured in retrospective data.
Again, haven’t read the book, but picking it up, these are issues I would wonder about.
Checking the publication date on the book, it was January 2004, at least for the paperback, with the articles of course written some time before that.</p>
<p>I saw the Wissner-Gross book in the bookstore today and flipped through but did not buy it, as intrigued as I am by this thread, I think I’ll get it at the library. According to the book flap, she has been an educational strategist for ten years, but I can’t figure out how she set herself up that way. She hasn’t been a guidance counselor or worked in an admissions office, although she has journalistic experience so may be a good researcher. The big credit seemed to be that she had two sons who were named to some list of top twenty hs students in America.</p>
<p>Recruited athlete admits high income??? That is incorrect in a number of sports.</p>
<p>I agree with much of what tokenadult says in above posts. A very interesting book on this subject is Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites by Mitchell L. Stevens. Very eye opening.</p>
<p>MoWC, I suspect that it’s true at Ivy League schools in terms of gross numbers of students on athletic teams. While the stars of the major sports teams will be recruited from all economic strata (and some with sub-par academic qualifications), the goal for the rest of the roster may simply be to raise the average academic level of the team with benchwarmers who meet the specified academic standards while being adequate athletes. (The overall academic qualifications of each team cannot drop below a certain point, per Ivy League regulations.) That combination of adequate athletics and acceptable academics is more likely to be found among the students whose parents had the wherewithal to pay for the pre-college training (academic and athletic) that can help kids reach the “adequate” zone, and who did so with an eye on college admissions. And then there are sports which lower income kids are not likely to have had an opportunity to develop skills in: Sailing, skiing, fencing, golf, squash, etc. So I wouldn’t be surprised if the overall average family income level of athletes at Ivy League schools was higher than that of the student body as a whole.</p>