Advantage / Disadvantage ?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Haverford College
1

<p>Common wisdom, as I've heard it, has it that it helps your application chances to be a legacy, a recruited athlete, a disadvantaged minority, and a great student with great grades, SATs, recommendations and essays. How much do the non-academic factors help at Haverford? Are they the right factors? Are there others? What do people think?</p>

<p>And, what if you're a great student who happens to be Asian or Jewish, not a legacy, and not an athlete? Does this hurt your chances? Are there any stats on this for Haverford or elsewhere - i.e. acceptance rates for such kids applying to top LACs with outstanding academic credentials? Do your academic stats have to be much better? Do schools have quotas? What do people think about this? Is it a taboo subject? Has this come up on CC in other forums or written about elsewhere?</p>

2

<p>While there are no strict quotas, it is certainly harder to be a white or asian applicant than a URM, the academic expectations are higher. Students from affluent backgrounds or an overrepresented ethnic group really have to distinguish themselves academically, as low grades and scores will mean almost certain rejection to a white or asian student, but URM's get a little wiggle room. This is due to the economic assumption that they have not had the same privileged backgrounds and access to tutors. In addition, the demand for diversity allows colleges to lower their academic standards slightly for minority students. Quotas on the basis of race are forbidden by law, thanks to a supreme court decision.</p>

3

<p>Sorry for duality of this thread. On one level, I’m asking for advice, and on another level I’m reacting to an admissions decision tree that I don’t fully understand but that I pretty sure has some underlying value structures that I don’t agree with. Since I’m probably not going to change college evaluation criteria, I’ll focus on asking for the advice.</p>

<p>Which are the best LACs for someone who is intellectually motivated, has excelled at the academics, participates but doesn’t excel at sports, and doesn’t have URM or legacy advantage? I wonder about Haverford’s mission when I read in the New York Times about how they systematically field athletes for their sports teams with applicants that are substantially less qualified academically. Are there LACs that put more of their emphasis on academic qualification and less on the non-academic criteria of legacy, sports, and race? </p>

<p>I’d like to find colleges that keep the academic bar high for all. I would rather it be a diverse student body, but I could live it being overrepresented by Asians, Jews and preppy white kids as long as they deserved academically to be their. I’d MUCH rather go to a school with mediocre sports teams made up of kids academically similar to me, than a school with strong sports teams made up of kids that I didn’t think belonged there academically.</p>

4

<p>My reading of the articles in the NYTimes was not that Haverford admitted athletes who did not belong there academically. They all had to have very strong academic qualifications. There are many aspects to college admissions beyond GPA and SAT scores. LACs are creating an intentional community that has many dimensions of diversity as a goal. Some put more emphasis on athletics as a dimension of diversity they want to include in their intentional community (Williams is an example). Others do not (Reed maybe?).</p>

<p>If possible, you could always visit Haverford to see if it is the type of community where you would like to spend your college years.</p>

5

<p>"I’d MUCH rather go to a school with mediocre sports teams made up of kids academically similar to me, than a school with strong sports teams made up of kids that I didn’t think belonged there academically."</p>

<p>I'd like to challenge you to think "outside the box" in terms of your definitions of "merit" and "ability". Before that, I'd like to say that other than Track, Hc's other sports teams are "mediocre". </p>

<p>1) I believe HC is attracted to students rich in experiences and potential. I imagine you are referring to the TX student with lower GPA/SATs who was accepted over the Mass student. I just know what was written in the article, but I have to say that I am very impressed with the TX student. He probably has duel fluency both culturally and linguistically, has demonstrated determination and maturity by working odd jobs to achieve his goals, has done very well despite not having the resources available to students with college educated parents, and has the confidence to allow the NYT to publish his name with his obviously lower GPA/SATs from the known norms of HC. </p>

<p>2) I wouldn't be too quick to assume that better athletes are lesser academically. In my class, I can think of at least 9 people who participated/led sports who also were accepted into Harvard, MIT, Princeton and Brown... not to mention the top LACs. This was also when Hc's admission rate was 40% and not the 26% that it is currently. Two students who were key players on the basketball team from my year are currently in residency for orthopedics and neurosurgery at Harvard-Combined and Emory, respectively... and from what I remember, they didn't graduate with honors from HC... which brings me to another point...</p>

<p>3) Book smarts and academics will help you only so much. From my experience, determination, social skills, discipline and common sense are what really drive eventual success... once a basic level of academic ability is reached. Sometimes these attributes can be measured by how well one does in class/on tests and many times it can be better demonstrated elsewhere.</p>

<p>4) Finally, this wasn't implied anywhere in the posts but I think it's worth stating when we discuss "diversity" with admissions. Minority students and students on full finanical aid are not at these top colleges to be "resources" or to "educate" white or affluent students. they are there for themselves. That being said, people can always learn and grow from interacting with people with different life experiences as it helps you see outside of your own experiences and allows you to maybe... think "outside your box".</p>

6

<p>correction to my post:</p>

<p>1) duel-->dual
2) neurosurgery is at Mass General/Harvard not Emory</p>

7

<p>HC Alum, I said I wonder about Haverford’s mission when I read the NYT articles. I did not say I know what HC is all about – I know I do not know. During my visit, I felt a strong attraction to HC. But when I read the articles, I “wondered” if today’s tendency for parent driven overemphasis on their kid’s sports development (my opinion) has replicated itself in even HC’s admissions culture. </p>

<p>I’m not sure which “box” you’ve put me in (or would like to put me in – pine?), but maybe I should describe my utopian college admissions student body aim so that your advice can be helpful. Surprise, surprise, I do put academics ahead of athletics, chorus, having students from each of 50 states, etc.. Obviously, so do these top LACs, even Williams with its athletic leaning (thank you dadx3 for you advice here). </p>

<p>I think it’s a matter of the degree the college is willing to bend on its academic criteria in order to create the non-academic diversity. I’d disagree with a decision to reject an articulate, involved 1450 and 3.9 Wasp/Asian/Jewish kid in order to extend an offer to an articulate, involved 1300 and 3.4 Hispanic/Nigerian/Native American kid from Arkansas who happened to be a really good baseball player. Yet I’d choose the Arkansas kid over the W.A.J kid if the differences were halved. I’d also encourage limited diversifying wiggle room for music, art, writing, true community service, and probably some other areas. Certainly, if the academic achievements are the same (or close), then diversity should rule. It just feels like many colleges are putting more emphasis than I think they should on athletics and diversity at the expense of academic achievement. </p>

<p>A respectful comment to HC Alum: You inferred that I assume all good athletes are lesser academically. Actually, I think that would be a fool’s assumption. I’m sure there are plenty of brilliant driven students that find a physical outlet in sports, to which their drive often translates to outstanding athletic performance. I wish I were one of these scholar athletes, but no such luck.</p>

<p>I’d still like any advice on which colleges seek to maximize diversity within a more tightly defined academically merit based framework (read allow less academic wiggle room for their diversity aims). Again, dadx3, thanks for the Reed suggestion.</p>

<p>HC Alum: It sounds like you think I’ve overreacted to the NYT articles. As I assume you are an alumni, your strong response says a lot for HC. Please don’t give up on those you think are in the wrong box. There’s the possibility of imprecise box identification on your part and box adaptability on my part.</p>

8

<p>Which athletic NYTimes article are we talking about?</p>

9

<p>When I visited Haverford, I spoke with a freshman in the admissions office. He said that he felt that there were far too many "dumb jocks" there. The boy was supposed be "selling" the school to me. </p>

<p>Outofthebox, I'd suggest looking at colleges such as Bowdoin, Swathmore, Bates, Colby, Williams, Amherst, Wesleyan, and Conn. College.</p>

10

<p>nylorac87 - I googled NYT Haverford 2005 and saw references to the series of articles I referred to covering Haverford's athletic recruiting efforts. The articles were dated from 9/11/05, 10/6/05, 12/4/05, and 12/25/05. I didn’t realize there were so many articles. I only read 2 of them but the message I got was that sports could make a big difference to getting into a college like Haverford. I do not think the article quantified it, but I keep hearing that things like sports can be worth a hundred or two hundred points off your standardized test scores and or a bite off your GPA. I believe that giving that kind of preference to athletics is inappropriate if the essence of the institution is academics.</p>

11

<p>Outofthebox:
If you are looking for a top Liberal Arts College that only considers academics for admission you will have to look far and wide. Perhaps they exist, but I am not familiar with any. As I mentioned in an earlier post, these schools are trying to create an intentional community which has many dimensions, and some of those dimensions do not correlate directly with the ability to get a good GPA or do well on standardized tests. </p>

<p>Although I was not a high school athlete my kids have pursued athletics in high school, and I now have a much greater respect for the time commitment required. When I was in high school I thought the things the coaches said about "building character," etc. were mostly bunk. But at a minimum an ability to juggle 3 hours or more of athletic practice per day on top of 5 hours per night of homework and the regular school schedule shows superior time management skills. This is one factor that colleges might look for in applicants. In addition high levels of athletic achievement demonstrate a commitment and perservance towards achieving a goal. This is another quality that colleges might be looking for. Of course the same time management skills demonstrated by major athletic participation could be developed or exhibited by putting in 15-20 hours of work a week at a job. And many of these colleges also look very favorably on that type of time commitment.</p>

<p>While one might wish the world were different than it is, I think you are far better off in this case by dealing with the world of college admissions as it is, rather than wishing that colleges only looked at things you are good at and did not consider things you are not good at or don't enjoy.</p>

12

<p>“…systematically field athletes for their sports teams with applicants that are substantially less qualified academically…”</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/ref/sports/2005_RECRUIT_SERIES.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/ref/sports/2005_RECRUIT_SERIES.html&lt;/a> for free access to NYT articles</p>

<p>I reviewed my post # times and am not sure which part seemed hostile as that was not my intention. As a busy professional with a social life, I have enough things on my “to do” list than to pick fights with high school students interested in HC. My main purpose was to encourage prospective and current HC students to “think outside the box” in terms of their definitions of “merit” and “ability”. </p>

<p>1) The term “systematically” can be implied to mean “regularity” and “consistency” with sports teams at HC. Part of my reply was to say that there are many very bright people active in sports at Haverford, so “systematically” isn’t an accurate depiction as “unqualified” students in my opinion are an exception. One of the NYT articles reviewed an internal analysis done at HC which showed that varsity athletes did not statistically differ in GPA or academic major from non athletes.</p>

<p>2) It’s not appropriate to discuss admissions standards/preferences for athletes, legacies and URM in the same breath because the underlying reasons for those policies are significantly different for each group even though the outcomes to white affluent kids may be the same. As I wrote, a successful athlete may demonstrate many valuable life skills (teamwork, leadership, determination…) attractive to admissions committees once a level of academic proficiency is established. By comparison, SES (socio-economic status) preferences have to do with elite colleges being interested in establishing “fairness” over “equality” when society itself isn’t “equal”.</p>

<p>3) I spent 3 minutes looking up “acceptance rates” + “Haverford” +“athletes”/ “Asian”/”Black” and it’s all there. I don’t have the time and I don’t find the results that important to annotate, but basically, HC is somewhere in the middle of the pack when it comes to admissions preferences for certain target groups. In particular, Williams, Amherst and Middlebury all have slots for athletic recruitment while HC does not (one of the NTY articles). Also, the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education states that Harvard, Amherst and Haverford have the highest graduation rates for Black/AA students at approx 88-89%, which is comparable to white students.</p>

<p>I have no interest to put anybody into any boxes. My biggest regret with my time at HC is that, for the 1st 3 years, I limited my social interactions and esteem of other students based on superficial/ traditional measures of “merit”, “leadership”, “originality” and “involvement” and I do not want future students to make the same mistake. At this level of admissions selectivity, you will find many students that will surprise and impress you if you take the time to engage them and not dismiss people, such as with “dumb jock”. When students leave HC, they will realize that they probably have more in common with each other than with many of the people that they later meet.</p>