<p>Generally, a high SAT with a mediocre GPA can come across as an underachiever. However, I surely would hope that a GPA between 3.7-3.9 in the most demanding courses would never spell "slacker"! An A- average may not be the best in the class but it is an excellent average! I don't know the details in this case, however.</p>
<p>Middlebury, like every other elite college and university, needs more male applicants. Interestingly, they would take on counseling problems rather than lower their USNews stats.</p>
<p>My take? </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Girls, the college app process is stacked against you. Competition among girls is much much tougher. Can you imagine Midd adcom even discussing a girl with known social problems? No way....</p></li>
<li><p>Be careful who you date at elite colleges.....you might be better off looking for love in a second tier univeristy....</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Marite, I did not see your post as we cross posted but you said it far better. We don't have the details here, and it is vague. Also, we don't know the context of the school profile or courses. Also a C on a record is not as good as those without C's. I would like to think that a GPA around 3.8 is still considered very good. However, I do agree with you that while such high marks make the "grade" (sorry for the pun), they are still picking candidates from a very strong applicant pool and may have a more attractive candidate who has a 4.0 and a very good SAT score AND strong extracurricular achievements. That is the nature of selective college admissions. A candidate with 1500 and a 3.7 (just an example) is a strong candidate but not a shoo in at an elite school. Surely such a candidate should be able to get into a very good school overall. I interview very strong students all the time for my alma mater. I sometimes have to shudder at what is a very good record may not be enough because there are kids with an even better record and after a while a merely "strong" record does not stand out to me, unfortunately (I even feel badly sometimes because it ain't like they are bad candidates!). There simply are kids in the pool who are stronger still.</p>
<p>I don't necessarily agree with your take, Cheers. The math applicant, though male, was likely attractive as Middlebury is known more for its humanities and likely wants more math/science students. I don't know that the kid was a counseling prospect or troubled but merely not a social butterfly and not attractive in his personal qualities as much. As far as implying that the male students at an elite college may be subpar to the female ones, I do not see it that way. The males my D seems to know at a selective college all seem really bright and accomplished.</p>
<p>"Girls, the college app process is stacked against you. Competition among girls is much much tougher." </p>
<p>Go a little further down the totem pole and this gets more true, especially at LACs without good science programs.</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>"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>These statements are BS. Period.</p>
<p>Kids like this are able to do college level work. </p>
<p>Whether they are the most attractive applicants for a school is a different issue.</p>
<p>But to imply that these students can't do college level work is arrogant, elitist and nonsense.</p>
<p>There are MILLIONS of students doing college level work with grades and test scores much lower than these. There are tons of students at elite schools that are doing college level work with grades and test scores no better than the above mentioned students.</p>
<p>I'm tired of reading such dribble. </p>
<p>The lecture by the Stanford professor that is mentioned in another thread (The one about stressed out students) is so much better.</p>
<p>Dstark:</p>
<p>Well, the whole selective college admissions process is elitist. We're not talking 3rd -tier state U here, but Middlebury. </p>
<p>And a student who shows signs of slaclking in high school (and we don't know all the particulars of that case) may well be able to do college-level work. But will s/he? And given that Middlebury will admit only 20% of an already self-selected pool of applicant, is there a case to be made for a likely slacker?</p>
<p>I'd agree with you sooze, if I thought for one minute that a comparable girl would be accepted.</p>
<p>Agree with dstark too. There are plenty of brilliant university students who were NOT academic titans when they were 14, 15 ,16 and 17. Less academically mature students (many of whom are boys) might have a wobbly semester or two, but if they have the natural intelligence and ambition, they will give those academic titans a thorough challenge. </p>
<p>marite, are you saying that you have never had a brilliant student who matured into that brilliance before your very eyes? Surely not all of your students are comparable to your (extraordinary) youngest son? Surely you would not argue that his final academic success is absolutely determined by his early achievements?</p>
<p>And a student who shows signs of slaclking in high school (and we don't know all the particulars of that case) may well be able to do college-level work. But will s/he? And given that Middlebury will admit only 20% of an already self-selected pool of applicant, is there a case to be made for a likely slacker?</p>
<p>"Likely slacker"? Because of what an adcom said? A person with those grades and test scores doesn't look like a likely slacker to me.</p>
<p>I would love to take every student with the above stats in this country and place a bet with the adcom. I would bet that the students do well in college and graduate. She can have the other side.</p>
<p>Do you really think students with the above characteristics are slackers and won't do well in college? Really?</p>
<p>Sometimes adcoms are just full of it.</p>
<p>also, was the high 3s GPA weighted or unweighted. A 3.7 at my high school would be decent, but not middlebury material (without of course amazing ecs). If someone got 1500s on the SAT and had a 3.7, they were definately slacking off, or atleast not challenging themselves enough in highschool</p>
<p>"the C he received in pre-calculus or the drop in his GPA after the first semester of his senior year" - They looked at the 2nd semester senior grades?</p>
<p>I didn't go to the link to read the article....but I wonder if the writer's own concerns may have helped to frame what they overheard, what they were listening for etc etc.....what if the author is driving their kids around all the time with soccer? and all of a sudden hears this stuff at an admissions session and realizes HS soccer isn't enough??? </p>
<p>We all know that C's (especially in a class like pre-calc) are not a selling point.... that downward trends in grade for SENIOR year?? please, these are not good things..... the officers may have had other info not evident to the author that backed up their comments about the kid not having the bandwidth for strong college workloads. </p>
<p>Middlebury has a large applicant pool.....and a small class size... they definitely value smarts and demonstrated intellectual curiosity......I think they always have.....is it the case where family funds may make for more opportunities to be intellectually curious? yes... but, some kids just want to learn....and they retain what they learn. You can't really fake that!! </p>
<p>IMHO.....</p>
<p>Cheers, of course students mature at different rates and some do hit their stride later than 18--and some burn out early, too. The problem is that the admission process happens at a certain stage of their life. Adcoms don't have crystal balls. They cannot guess which student will suddenly mature and which will not. There is nothing to indicate that a 1600 with so-so GPA will blossom in his/her sophomore or junior year. However, college profs and admission committees have plenty of experience with students who partied their way through freshman year (that's why they send out the kind of letter we received recently, after first semester grades came out). </p>
<p>Also remember that not all Cs or Bs are equal. A C in 9th grade is going to look very different from a C in second semester of junior year, or first semester of senior year. Princeton does no take freshman grades into account and many other colleges heavily discount these grades, too. We just don't know enough about that particular case to bash the Middlebury adcom.</p>
<p>Colleges such as Middlebury can be very conservative in their admission strategies. Where they take risks is in admitting students who have attended subpar schools and yet managed to do well (including on standardized tests). To admission committees, this suggests that, while the student, through no fault of his/her own, may not be as well prepared as a a graduate of say, Exeter or Andover, s/he has the ability AND the discipline to do well in college. To adcoms, such a student is worth taking a risk on. A student from a good suburban high school, however, will not be looked at the same way. </p>
<p>I think adcoms are wary of coasting. This is why they want students to be taking the most challenging courses.</p>
<p>Agree completely. Agree there is a point of judgement and agree that elite institutions are free to make up the criteria for that judgement.</p>
<p>Still, their criteria should not be applied to a judgement about the likely success of ALL academically immature 17 year olds. That would be arrogant and naive. I was one such student. Anyone who underestimated me is eating their rue now.</p>
<p>In fact, the most disturbing part of that article was the part about accepting a known counseling problem. What would possess a school with an 'enormous' applicant pool to discuss and accept such a student? </p>
<ol>
<li><p>The pool for male 17 year old academic titans isn't that enormous. </p></li>
<li><p>The US News stats are more valuable than a so-called 'diverse' and presumably healthy student body. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Nevermind a loner, this kid had been a serious and RECOGNIZED problem for his former schools. Forget the mere "C"! He FAILED a course due to emotional instability. Unabomber? Accepted. </p>
<p>This is a revelation about the underbelly of elite student bodies. As the deed was done in a matter-of-fact manner, this suggests it is not an isolated case.</p>
<p>Adcoms are not infallible. See below about one that Princeton rejected:</p>
<p>TRANSCRIPT OF AN EVENING WITH ROBERT RUBIN
(ORIGINALLY TAPED ON MONDAY, MAY 10TH, 2004
AT STORR AUDITORIUM ON THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI CAMPUS</p>
<p>***TRANSCRIPTION NOTE: Robert Rubin was the Secretary of the Treasury under former President Bill Clinton from January 1995 through July 1999. Tom Fiedler, Executive Editor and Vice President of the Miami Herald, conducted the interview. This text begins with a short introduction by current President of the University of Miami Donna Shalala, who also served on President Clintons cabinet as the Secretary of Health and Human Services.</p>
<p>TOM FIEDLER: You tell a delightful story about when you, I guess in your senior year at Beach High, you had applied to Princeton and were rejected. When you graduated from Harvard you thought that it might be interesting to write to the Dean of Admissions at Princeton and let him know I assume it was a him that, and Ill quote here, I thought you might be interested to know what happened to one of the people you rejected. (crowd laughs) I just wanted to tell you that I graduated from Harvard Summa Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa. The book goes on, The Dean wrote me back, Thank you for your note. Every year, we at Princeton feel it is our duty to reject a certain number of highly qualified people so that Harvard can have some good students too! (crowd laughs & applauds)</p>
<p>I want to clarify that I have a LOT fewer problems with the results of the admission than with the ... comments. Unless the writer misunderstood the nature of the comments, I cannot help but find them questionable. </p>
<p>We all approach the statements with a bit of bias: I admit to have a small weakness for the soccer player and absolutely zero compasssion for the socially autistic math genius. Others will undoubtly have the opposite reaction. We all base our subjective opinions on past experience and we cannot a similar experiences. </p>
<p>I frankly do NOT understand why Midd would be reaching for a candidate who raised SO MANY flags. While rhey seem quite happy to forget a FAILING class for the math genius, they do not seem to show the same mercy for others. Forget to send a tape or contact a coach, and you are outta here! On the other hand, presenting himself like a bore during your interview and writing hollow essays is OK? Inasmuch as Midd SAYS they seek leadership, they look down at the captain of a team but favor someone who visibly does not seems to be socially fit, let alone offer leadership. </p>
<p>I am also wondering who will be the lucky student who draws him as a roommate! </p>
<p>Also, when it comes to the students discussed in the article, they came from the SAME high schools, namely a small highly regarded private in the South and the other a large midwestern public high school. My guess would be that the soccer player attended the large public school, but what if she did attend the small prestigious prep school? </p>
<p>In the end, what annoys me the most is what the adcoms are saying; I have very little doubt they REALLY mean what they say.</p>
<p>PS I would also love to take a wager on the math genius's final decision to attend Middlebury. Is there someone else who does not see a real fit here?</p>
<p>Inasmuch as he would not be accepted at MIT or even CMU (schools which DO draw sufficient numbers of male academic titans), I'd say he would be a likely admit to Midd--unless the same conversation happened at a whole slew of elite institutions.</p>
<p><em>shudders</em></p>
<p>btw...the soccer labelling is a bit unfair. I happen to know TWO female soccer players who were offered admission to H in October--because of their soccer skills. It does happen-- at the tippy tippy top of the sport.</p>
<p>"their soccer skills. It does happen-- at the tippy tippy top of the sport."</p>
<p>The tougher question is how much credit (if any) to give to a HS varsity athlete who is not good enough (or doesn't intend) to participate in college.</p>
<p>The section of the article that irked me most was this:</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.
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.
The low PQs prompted numerous questions from the application readers and admissions officers. They wondered: Would the student be better off at a place like MIT? Would a little extra hand-holding -- a carefully matched roommate, say -- be enough to help the student adjust at Middlebury?
And while the applicant won admiration for what the committee agreed was an extraordinary math talent, they seemed to worry that he was academically lopsided. One of the readers was disappointed that both his essays were about math.
In the end, the applicant made the cut. The committee recommended admission."</p>
<p>It seems that Middlebury adcoms are willing to perpetuate the stereotype of MIT. Kids with perfect SAT scores are a dime a dozen in the MIT applicant pool. MIT goes through great lengths to admit socially adept students, and I'll bet this applicant would have been tossed in the first round. The adcoms at Middlebury should know better. Kind of arrogant of Middlebury to think that a school of MIT's stature would want one of their rejects. It would be like Community College thinking that maybe a particular applicant would be better off at Harvard.</p>
<p>Kind of arrogant of you to compare the difference between MIT and Middlebury to the difference between Harvard and community college.</p>
<p>I saw the comment about MIT as a genuine consideration of the student's interests - perhaps someone with such strong interest in math and science would want more than Middlebury, a liberal arts college, could offer - to be somewhere where he could be more free to pursue a completely math-based curriculum.</p>
<p>Though if I were on the committee...I wouldn't have admitted that student.</p>