<p>
[quote]
So what is the "average" cumulative GPA at Williams, ID?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The average grade at Williams in 1999 was a 3.34. That's pretty consistent with many comparable private colleges and universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Something like a dozen varsity men's ice hockey players were honored at the 2006 scholar-athlete dinner at Williams, out of 202 total honorees. This is only open to sophomores, juniors, and seniors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Those numbers would be more impressive if Williams had not dumbed down its standards to make B students into "scholar-athletes." The NESCAC standard for designating athletes who perform well academically is a 3.35 GPA. Williams reduced that standard to 3.2, thereby ballooning the number of qualified men's hockey players from 4 to 12.</p>
<p>Williams honored 46 All-NESCAC student-athlete in the spring season alone...and 150 All-NESCAC scholar-athletes for the year...all with a GPA of 3.34 or greater.</p>
<p>Williams ALSO chooses to host a banquet to honor their key student-athletes (those starters/key players with a GPA of 3.2 or higher). Many Williams athletes spend a lot of time dedicated to their sport...and I think it is nice that Williams has "cast a wider net" in order to say thanks to a greater number of their athletes.</p>
<p>Going back to the original post where the person says he/she is part Asian.
In view of all the opinions posted so far, couldn't/shouldn't he/she just indicate on the application forms that he/she is "Multiracial" or maybe even leave it blank?</p>
<p>Interesteddad: "My own personal opinion is that Asian Americans are not given a preference at any of the super-selective schools, except for certain groups of first generation Southeast Asian Americans. The differences in percentages result from the number of applicants and how well the applicants fit the desired school "profile"." </p>
<p>Which certain groups?</p>
<p>to debunk a few myths ... Yes, Williams has the most success of any liberal arts college in athletics, and that is no doubt part of the campus culture. But it also has the most success of any liberal arts college (outside of those with a conservatory or a specific arts focus) in the arts, when you look at combined campus level of activity and interest and alumni success in art history, studio art, dance, music, and theater. Same goes with science, as Williams has produced (outside of a place like Harvey Mudd or perhaps Swarthmore which has an engineering) the most or near the most successful math/science alums of any liberal arts school, measured by things like NSF grants, admission to top grad programs, and Apker awards for graduates over the last decade or so. So Williams' culture of success includes athletics, but is not single-mindedly focused on athletics as often portrayed by certain posters. Yet you don't see those who post here focusing on athletics say, beware, if you are interested in Williams, you better well had love a cappella music, theater and dance due to the prevalance and popularity for participation and attendance of those events on campus (and by the way, except for games against Amherst, NCAA games, or homecoming games, attendance at a cappella concerts and major theater concerts on campus generally is equal to or greater than attendance at athletic events). I don't know what percentage of Williams students in total participate in one of the numerous campus theater, music, dance, or art groups, major in the fine arts, or have performed in a campus production of some sort, but I would be willing to bet it is right around the same percentage of students who are varsity athletes. And the percentage of students involved in community service or campus leadership is likewise right at the same level, or higher. </p>
<p>There are more men on the men's cross country and track team than on the football team -- and I don't think anyone is claiming that participation in these sports is associated with a particular culture or academic problems or whatnot. The percentage of Williams students involved in football, hockey, baseball, basketball is basically the same or less than every other NESCAC school. It is the relatively huge rosters in track, swimming, cross country, crew, and tennis, particularly on the men's side, that account for the difference in varsity percentage between Williams and, say, Amherst. And very, very few of the athletes in any of those sports are "tips", meaning their academic credentials are basically in line with the rest of campus. On a percentage basis, Amherst has far more low-band tip admits than Williams (as Amherst has the same or bigger roster in football, hockey, basketball, the primary tip sports). And Amherst is just as, or more, successful as Williams in these sports. That is the point loss in acting like Williams has this total jock-culture. The most consistently successful and largest programs are generally the ones with top student-athletes who probably wouldn't ever be called a "jock" by their peers -- cross country, track, tennis, swimming, crew, etc. </p>
<p>IN terms of the football team, the average SAT of the tipped football playes this year was supposedly around 1400. Williams, along with Amherst, has the most qualified football athletes of any NESCAC school, and the football rosters are more or less the same size at each NESCAC school (many of which are substantially smaller than Williams in overall student body size).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know what percentage of Williams students in total participate in one of the numerous campus theater, music, dance, or art groups, major in the fine arts, or have performed in a campus production of some sort, but I would be willing to bet it is right around the same percentage of students who are varsity athletes. And the percentage of students involved in community service or campus leadership is likewise right at the same level, or higher.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not based on the "attributes" the admissions office tags. Not even close.</p>
<p>In Lindsey Taylor's senior thesis, she details the admissions flags for three entering freshman classes -- Class of 00, 01, 02.</p>
<p>26% were flagged for "the arts", a category that includes music, theater, dance, studio art, and writing. </p>
<p>About 10% was flagged for "community service".</p>
<p>About 2% was flagged for "political involvement".</p>
<p>3.2% indicated an interest in a research science career.</p>
<p>3.4% indicated an interest in being a college professor.</p>
<p>7.2% received an academic flag</p>
<p>0.7% received a "scientific" flag.</p>
<p>8.3% received a non-science PhD flag</p>
<p>12.4% received a "research" flag -- the majority of these were pre-med candidates.</p>
<p>73% of male freshmen were flagged as high school varsity athletes</p>
<p>57% of women freshmen were flagged as high school varsity athletes</p>
<p>From other sources, we know that about 28% of incoming freshmen are listed on athletic department recruiting lists as "likely 4-year varsity athletes".</p>
<p>you selectively use and misuse statistics. I was talking about the percentage of students who seriously participate in the arts and service / leadership on campus. As for the arts, here is a list of campus arts groups:</p>
<p>that excludes, of course, departmental theater and dance productions, the Berkshire symphony, and informal campus bands. </p>
<p>And here is community service:</p>
<p>A hell of lot more than 26 percent of the campus is seriously involved in the arts between majors and these activities, and a hell of lot more than 10 percent devote a material chunk of time to community service (let alone campus leadership like junior advisers and college council). </p>
<p>So either these flags are not intended, and do not, measure anticipated participation in various areas of campus life, or Williams has such an anti-athletic, pro-arts and service culture that it transforms the overwhelming majority of obsessive jocks who decide to attend the school intending solely to play sports and barely scrape by academically into guitar strumming hippy-dorks who manage to top or equal every other liberal arts college in terms of winning national science and humanities fellowships. I'll go with the former as the reality. </p>
<p>(And 28 percent serious, 4 year starter athlete figure is right in line with the art tag -- I am sure that is the relevant comparison. 75 percent of kids may have been varsity athletes in high school, just like 75 percent likely played an instrument or sang were otherwise heavily engaged in the arts. Williams and other Nescac applicants tend to be like that. You are conflating two different measures when you try to juxtapose the 75 percent "participation" figure for athletes against the 26 percent "attributes" figure for artists. So even your own flawed statistics support what I was saying).</p>
<p>You make sense to me, EPHMAN.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A hell of lot more than 26 percent of the campus is seriously involved in the arts between majors and these activities, and a hell of lot more than 10 percent devote a material chunk of time to community service (let alone campus leadership like junior advisers and college council).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe. Maybe not.</p>