A look at Middlebury admissions

Parents Forum
1

<p>A reporter from the Burlington (VT) Free Press sat in on an admissions committee discussion at Middlebury, and wrote this article:
<a href="http://burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060312/NEWS01/603120309&theme=%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060312/NEWS01/603120309&theme=&lt;/a>
(I don't think Free Press articles stay up indefinitely, so this link may not work after awhile.)</p>

<p>To me, the most depressing part of the article was the reporter's impression that extracurriculars don't seem to count. The admissions officers seemed most interested in grades and SAT scores. </p>

<p>Some excerpts:</p>

<p>"Applicants the committee tended to endorse quickly were mostly academic titans. They were often in the top 5 percent of their class, with all or almost all A's in the most difficult courses available at their schools, and near perfect SAT or ACT scores. The admitted applicants often listed numerous extracurricular activities, although the impact these had on the decision-making process was unclear to this reporter."</p>

<p>And:</p>

<p>"The committee grew excited about one applicant's internship with a public health organization and the recommendation that she received from a scientist there. This -- coupled with the student's interest in majoring in science at a time when Middlebury is trying harder to recruit future scientists -- seemed to help erase a few B's from the applicant's transcript in the eyes of the committee. They recommended her for February admission.</p>

<p>In other cases, extracurriculars did not help. A student's four years on the school newspaper did not cancel out the C he received in pre-calculus or the drop in his GPA after the first semester of his senior year. He was rejected.</p>

<p>Another applicant had an 800 on the SAT critical reading, 700s on the SAT math and writing, and captainship of the varsity soccer team to her credit; but she, too, had a C on her transcript, and her GPA was only in the high 3's, raising suspicions of slacking.</p>

<p>Someone with such great SATs should be closer to a 4.0 GPA, one committee member suggested. As for her soccer playing? It was viewed as ho-hum -- there was no indication she'd taken the initiative to contact coaches at the school, nor was she a recruited athlete. The committee recommended that she be rejected, and then went on to waitlist a 3.97 GPA cello player who had not sent a recording of her cello playing to the music department."</p>

<p>Yet this student was accepted:</p>

<p>"The committee's longest discussion was about a math genius with weak social skills. The young man's tests scores were impressive -- a perfect 800 on the math SAT II and scores nearly as high on verbals. He'd earned straight A's in his school's most challenging math and science courses and dominated math competitions with outstandingly good computation skills.</p>

<p>However, there were problems in his file. The boy had flunked at least one class and consistently drew low ratings on PQs -- personal qualities. A school recommendation suggested that the student might need support, socially. An alumni interviewer noted that the boy came across as unenthusiastic during their meeting. "</p>

2

<p>Hmm, I didn't take from the article that extracurriculars don't count. For one thing, I agree with the committee that a strong extracurricular is not going to cancel out some weak thing in the academic part of the record. Where extracurriculars might count at a very selective college is when you have many students who HAVE the requisite strong academics and stats that go with those, then things like ECs and personal qualities set them apart. They would count in that discussion. In fact, even at Middlebury, in that article, they were discussing a kid's cello playing and that she did not send a tape as if they truly cared about that. As well, with a soccer player, they were commenting that the student had not made any attempts to contact the soccer coaches on campus. Strong academics are needed but these other factors come into play once the student has the first thing. However, strong ECs cannot compensate for a less than stellar academic record.</p>

<p>I'll add, too, that the discussion in that article brings up the importance of a student showing interest in a college and not just mailing off a bunch of common apps to a bunch of places and hoping for the best. If a student had expressed in a letter that he/she hoped to continue with soccer on campus, contacted the team, hoped to play cello with their orchestra, met with them on campus, sent a tape, etc., it reflects on interest, some effort, and also that the student hopes to contribute to the campus life once there.</p>

<p>I also think it is interesting to note, that with elite college admissions, first you must make the cut of the committee and be "admittable". But even if you get that far, it is going to come down to a final cut of when they go to the big committee and build the final conglomeration of the class that they wish to balance in many different ways....gender, geography, area of focus, activity areas, diversity, etc. And so some kids are candidates that a selective college would be happy to take but in the end, may get cut because they don't fit an available slot in the class or there are too many with that profile, etc. </p>

<p>Susan</p>

<p>PS...I am baffled by the acceptance of the math kid given the profile, however.</p>

3

<p>I don't find the excerpts depressing at all. Let's remember that college is first and foremost about education not extra-curriculars. Sure, having non-academic interests make the community livelier, but first, the applicant must be deemed to be able to do well at the college where s/he is applying, </p>

<p>
[quote]
In other cases, extracurriculars did not help. A student's four years on the school newspaper did not cancel out the C he received in pre-calculus or the drop in his GPA after the first semester of his senior year. He was rejected.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'd have the exact same reaction: I would reject.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Another applicant had an 800 on the SAT critical reading, 700s on the SAT math and writing, and captainship of the varsity soccer team to her credit; but she, too, had a C on her transcript, and her GPA was only in the high 3's, raising suspicions of slacking.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I overheard some adcoms rejecting a perfect 1600 with similar GPA on the grounds that this was likely a bright slacker with not enough self discipline to handle college-level courseload.</p>

<p>
[quote]
"The committee grew excited about one applicant's internship with a public health organization and the recommendation that she received from a scientist there. This -- coupled with the student's interest in majoring in science at a time when Middlebury is trying harder to recruit future scientists -- seemed to help erase a few B's from the applicant's transcript in the eyes of the committee. They recommended her for February admission.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This seems like an EC that speaks to the applicant's passion. I'd be impressed, too.</p>

<p>et this student was accepted:</p>

<p>
[quote]
"The committee's longest discussion was about a math genius with weak social skills. The young man's tests scores were impressive -- a perfect 800 on the math SAT II and scores nearly as high on verbals. He'd earned straight A's in his school's most challenging math and science courses and dominated math competitions with outstandingly good computation skills.</p>

<p>However, there were problems in his file. The boy had flunked at least one class and consistently drew low ratings on PQs -- personal qualities. A school recommendation suggested that the student might need support, socially. An alumni interviewer noted that the boy came across as unenthusiastic during their meeting. "

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It would depend on the class. As for social skills, geniuses don't tend to be the life of the party. </p>

<p>I really don't see anything to be depressed about Middlebury's admission process.</p>

4

<p>Marite brings up that other example, and I concur...I forgot...the person who interned at a public health organization showed passion and exploration of her field of interest, and that indeed is an extracurricular. Again, it would not compensate, however, if her academic stats were weak in some respect. </p>

<p>I also agree that a math genius is not neccessarily going to be social whirl or life of a party. I think all types of kids are needed on a campus. It was just the way they were describing some negative comments or ratings on some recs or guidance reports and then in the interview, and knowing they have umpteen other great math whizs on the pile, that I thought perhaps this kid might not have seemed as appealing of a candidate. But on the other hand, the kid had lots going for him and was very accomplished in math events and so forth and had a passion and talent in an area, and particularly for a college that often is thought of well in humanities.</p>

5

<p>Each school's approach to admissions differs. It is up to the student to find out what is important to the admissions committee. But many colleges cloud the admissions process with glossy brochures, emails, pursuit of those kids who score high enough on the PSAT to get a school letter of interest but not really high enough to gain admission. All of these factors contribute to their self designed selectivity and even higher numbers in rankings. It's really a very whorish thing to do and you can name the worst college culprits from reading CC. </p>

<p>Why apply to these schools is what I ask? Is it really that important to apply to Middlebury or Amherst and get sniffed at because one has earned a "C" in one class but has distinguished oneself in another area? It is if you want prestige and, let's face it, that's America and what many American parents want. They want bragging rights. I know I do and I'm just being honest.</p>

<p>But I am urging next kid applying next year to not apply to WUSTL or other similar like school that hypocritically plays the game.</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
The Asian-American applicant's ethnic background was viewed by committee members as a plus and he was admitted, too.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Diversity means different things in different contexts. At Middlebury, being Asian-American is viewed as a plus.</p>

<p>In fact, I found the whole article reassuring about Middlebury's priorities, including how it views athletes and development prospects or legacies: they have to be able to handle the work.</p>

7

<p>"Another applicant had an 800 on the SAT critical reading, 700s on the SAT math and writing, and captainship of the varsity soccer team to her credit; but she, too, had a C on her transcript, and her GPA was only in the high 3's, raising suspicions of slacking."</p>

<p>"I overheard some adcoms rejecting a perfect 1600 with similar GPA on the grounds that this was likely a bright slacker with not enough self discipline to handle college-level courseload."</p>

<p>Students with gpas in the high 3s and high SAT scores can handle college level course work.</p>

<p>I would look at adcoms that said things like this with suspicion.</p>

8

<p>We just received a letter to parents of freshmen giving advice on how to deal with students who get Bs and Cs (or worse, Ds and Fs) for the first time in their life.
Tales of freshmen who slack their way through the first semester of college or who find the level of course work far more challenging than anything in high school (and with far less handholding) is a staple of college discussions (including on CC).</p>

9

<p>I am not sure if this article is hilarious or pathetic. </p>

<p>If Middlebury was not in Vermont, I would think that the writer culled her examples from a different school.</p>

<p>Isn't Middlebury SAT optional, or is that only for USNews window dressing? Doesn't this admission committee know that the overwhelming majority of captains of high school varsity soccer are FAR from being college players? Have they ever heard of musicians playing for ... fun? Or is it that the applicants erroneously believed NOT to send extra material -as it is widely recommended by most "experts." Aren't they blaming students who may have assessed their level correctly?</p>

<p>If there is one thing to learn about this it is that everyone should truly analyze the quirks of EACH school where an application is sent, as well as to keep it timely. Admission officers have a high turnover, and philosophies change accordingly. </p>

<p>PS Regarding the SAT 'window-dressing" ... it should not surprise anyone that I STRONGLY believe that the good folks at Midd are indeed focused on working the USNews for all they might be worth and maximizing their selctivity/expected graduation rates. After all, who could blame them to compare Wellesley's and Harvey Mudd's treatment and play the game accordingly.</p>

<p>PPS As an unpaid advisor to my sister, I'm elated to be able to scratch one more school from her possible pool. Middlebury has moved in the large pile of most definite NO's, and with flying colors to boot. As far as I am concerned, they can load their boat up with social quasi-misfits and students with internships that may be legit ... or built by well-meaning family members or friends.</p>

10

<p>To my knowledge, according to the Fair Test list of SAT optional schools, Middlebury makes SATs or ACT scores optional only if SAT2 Subject Tests are submitted. Perhaps they were discussing a students' SAT scores if that student had not submitted SAT2 scores. I'm assuming that is the case. </p>

<p>While I agree that for many college soccer teams, a student would have to be beyond Varsity High School teams and play on elite travel teams and standout. However, I do know kids who have played a sport on the high school level and still been on college teams. Perhaps it is less likely, I know. I have worked with a standout soccer player who did not do elite travel teams but was accomplished in high school sports in his state and several coaches were talking to him on the Div.3 level. </p>

<p>While this is not the same, but my own kid is not an elite soccer player and did not do travel teams (she did not focus on one sport year round and played three different varsity sports), she did talk to colleges about soccer, even club teams. Smith's varsity coach seemed to imply she could even play for that team. She expressed interest in continuing in college and is now on the club soccer team at Brown which competes against other schools. This is nothing like recruited athletes but simply commenting that she mentioned her interest in continuing to play on campus and is doing so. She is also on the Varsity ski team at her college but was not a recruited athlete. She did meet with a coach and she expressed interest in her application materials of a strong desire to continue in college. </p>

<p>I would agree that the cello player should not feel compelled to send in a tape, particularly if any colleges discourage doing so. However, there are ways to meet with those who head those activities on campus and to express interest in participation once there. </p>

<p>My comments about the soccer and cello players in my earlier post were meant to say that ECs do count and enter into discussions as evidenced by the committee's discussion of these ECs. In these instances, however, the ECs could not cancel out weaknesses in the academic profile. As well, there are many many high school soccer players and cello players applying to these selective colleges and so unfortunately unless there are some strong accomplishments in the EC endeavors, these may not stand out. I'd have to hear if the cello player had won awards or other achievements and at what level, for instance. Same with the soccer player.</p>

11

<p>To a question above: Middlebury requires either the ACT OR the SAT OR any combination of 3 SAT II's, AP's, or IB's. The one part I liked is about the math genius with personal quality problems. There is the revealing comment about what the Middlebury self-righteous pontificates thought not just about this problematic student but about another school: "Would the student be better off at a place like MIT?"</p>

12

<p>Susan, please realize that I did not really address your post, but was reacting to the original article.</p>

<p>Regarding the soccer issue, I believe that we have had a few conversations about this. Gross generalization such as mine are bound to be unjust for many individuals. </p>

<p>First, the situation regarding select/traveling teams versus varsity teams is not universal as it varies in different areas of the US. In some parts of the country, the action is at the club level, but in others high schools dominate the debate. Further, there is an obvious overlap among players and teams. Many players have a stellar career in either venue ... or in both. </p>

<p>My main point was that there is a huge chasm between the number of players who play a HS varsity sport and those who have intercollegiate ambitions. You probably could fill every NCAA, NAIA, or NJCCA roster with the players from a single medium size US city. </p>

<p>As I said, I find it rather cavalier for the Midd admission people to penalize a student for having decided to play HS soccer, but not wanting to step up to the next level. Maybe, just maybe, the athlete was told that it was time to CONCENTRATE on studies and boost that GPA to the level of her SATs. Did the admission people inquire about the time commitments of the sport and how it may have affected her GPA? </p>

<p>Obviously, selective schools are forced to make hard decisions and they have the right to establish their own criteria. I just felt that there is a difference to discount EC if not really relevant and ... holding the presence of certain EC AGAINST a student. In this case, the student would have been better off to omit the sport. </p>

<p>So much for holistic reviews!</p>

13

<p>Actually after reading the article I was impressed by the care Mid puts into its selection process. I do wonder why they took the math kid, considering the problems he's already shown. But as for the soccer player, what they seemed to be saying is that its an EC for her but not a driving passion (which it would have been if she was trying to play at the next level). Had she had better grades the article implies she would have made the cut, but given her stats she needed to come on stronger with the EC to swing their vote. My 2 cents anyway, others I'm sure differ.</p>

14

<p>I agree about the soccer levels and so forth, Xiggi.</p>

<p>As far as the part on the admissions thing, I don't think the student would have been better off having omitted the sport. I think it is part of who he is. I think in this instance, they were thinking about whether that activity translated to any contributions to campus life...was the kid interested in continuing in some capacity on campus? Colleges want ECs not as entrance tickets to college but also as interests that will continue with participation once they arrive. I realize this kid might not have been good enough for varsity. Also, we don't know if this kid had significant accomplishments in his activity area. Just another soccer player is not such a big deal. Colleges at this level are also looking for achievements in these areas of passion. But I think in this instance, it was more that the comments had to do with soccer not overriding weaknesses in the academic profile. By the way, I think colleges are well aware of the time commitments of these sports. When I interview applicants, I am impressed by the students who are VERY strong academically AND manage to be involved in these activities that are heavy duty time committments. I do take notice. With very selective college admissions, I have to say, you'll find kids with both a strong academic record AND a strong EC record. It is that competitive. It is not enough to be good in just one of those respects, unless applying to a less competitive college. I also think admissions look favorably to kids involved in varsity sports but these won't compensate for less than stellar academics. As well, when SO many candidates have something like varsity soccer on their record, while it is strong, it doesn't necessarily stand out unless there are some achievements and things like that to go with it, sorry to say. While soccer did not help this student get in, I don't see it as working against him. I'd rather see a kid who was active in something outside the classroom and devoted to it over time, than to have not done anything. However, this EC did not enhance the app beyond that as there were some weak academic things. Also, choosing ECs should not be with "will it help me get into college" in mind. A person should devote their time to areas they have a strong interest in for its own sake. And a person with that strong interest often does not wish to give it up once they get to college and wants to continue in some capacity once there. I know on both those counts, that is how my kids felt....their EC endeavors were things they began when very little, and they continued with them as they loved them, but not with college admissions in mind. Neither was interested in giving these interests up when they got to college. This came across on applications and on visits with various people on campus.</p>

15

<p>My opinion of Middlebury has improved after reading the article. Out of the NO pile (because of concern that SAT optional resulted in deceiving statistics about the quality of the student body) and into the pile of schools that resist lowering academic standards for BS "leadership" qualities or dime-a-dozen ECs.</p>

16

<p>Well, did the soccer player not have a 1500/2200 SAT and a GPA in the HIGH 3s. The comment that such a student should have a 4.00 GPA is utterly ridiculous. In some schools, it is virtually impossible to get a 4.00.</p>

<p>Also all C's are NOT the same. Obviously, we don't have the additional data, but I also think that this article sends the wrong message. Almost every school in the country has one or more teacher from hell who loves to "hook" a few students. This is especially true for a few teachers who detest the "preferences" given to athletes -or still resent their own ineptitude in sports- and make a point to grade them according to a suspect scale. </p>

<p>Oh well, as I said Midd can do whatever they feel is right by them. However, this article surely fails to paint THAT office in a very positive light. After reading the full article again, it only confirms my first impressions that were based on their dubious tactics to boost rankings. </p>

<p>Clarity and transparency at Midd are, alas, as thick as their famous state syrup.</p>

17

<p>"I would agree that the cello player should not feel compelled to send in a tape, particularly if any colleges discourage doing so."</p>

<p>Whether to submit a tape can be a perplexing question. For example, the Stanford application instructions say, </p>

<p>"If you have an extraordinary talent in the fine or performing arts –art, dance, drama, and music only – you may submit supplementary materials for consideration by our faculty."</p>

<p>If asked, the admissions office says don't send a tape unless it is going to make the day of the faculty member who listens to it.</p>

18

<p>It sounds to me like they are needing more math and science majors at Midd.</p>

19

<p>"Well, did the soccer player not have a 1500/2200 SAT and a GPA in the HIGH 3s. The comment that such a student should have a 4.00 GPA is utterly ridiculous. In some schools, it is virtually impossible to get a 4.00."</p>

<p>Right. That's what I found preposterous: the notion that a GPA "only" in the high 3s shows you are a slacker because your SAT happened to be 1500 (or better). News flash: some kids are just really good at taking standardized tests. Would it be better to have a measly 1400 SAT to go with your 3.9 GPA because that shows you aren't a slacker. Give me a break.</p>

<p>Either the high 3's remark really means not-so-high 3s or, as xiggi says, Middlebury is just being silly -- unless there was some other evidence to support the slacker conclusion (teacher comments,etc.)</p>

20

<p>Let's keep in mind that the point is not so much whether a student is admissible (i.e., will be able to do the work) as whether the student is more desirable than another applicant.
We need to put this slacker comment in context--and we do not have that.
Middlebury gets plenty of applications from prep schools which are very stingy with As. It knows how to interpret GPAs from those schools. I have to assume that the GPA in question was interpreted in the context of that particular school profile.</p>

<p>If the student is good at taking standardized tests but is otherwise a high B student, is that student more desirable (slacker or not) than an A student? Presumably not. Presumably, too, the school sent in a profile so that the GPA can be put in some sort of context. </p>

<p>Finally, a high B is very vague. It is not the same as 3.9 (especially with a C on the transcript).</p>

<p>I don't think the article provides enough reason to slam Middlebury admissions.</p>

<p>But I still think the OP was not right to lament that Middlebury puts more weight on academic criteria than on ECs.</p>