<p>Inasmuch as my objectivity might be questioned, I found this article to be very interesting, as it opens a small window into the typically secretive ivory tower where admissions' decisions are made. Some of the issues dsicussed in the article might give an insight about the growing challenges of a small LAC. </p>
<p>Obviously, this behind-the-scenes story will never stop the misguided and uneducated to prefer hurling epithets such "pompous professorial jackasses" than recognizing the depth of the difficulty to build a class of freshmen. </p>
<p>Here's the introduction and a link to full PDF file: </p>
<p>With increasing interest in the process of applying to college, from soaring SATsnow including a required essayto the newly competitive arena of double-digit applications and specialized entrant coaches, we thought we'd take a look inside the process at CMC.</p>
<p>From suitcase time in the fall, with counselors fanning out across the globe, to long nights of application file reading, to shaping the class, the process counts on a dedicated cadre of admission professionals and alumni volunteers, led by Vice President and Dean of Admission and Financial Aid Richard Vos.</p>
<p>wow. I knew the percentage was high, but I'm surprised to see that 98% of the admitted students were varsity athletes in hs according to the graph. Even if you cut it in half ( according to the footnote, 2-sport athletes could be counted twice) the percentage is still much higher than any of the other acitvities, such as student government or music.
I would expect that male athletes would be especially attractive, as they won't be getting any Scripps students to fill their football/men's basketball slots, hmm? :)</p>
<p>I found that interesting as well. Who woulda thunk it? The other thing I found most interesting is that all of their main competitors changed between 1970 and 2006 except one - Occidental.</p>
<p>Wouldn't some of you like to be a fly on the wall to listen in on the conversation the committee has about your own kid? Only the schools where he/she was accepted, though, right? ;)</p>
<p>"Wouldn't some of you like to be a fly on the wall to listen in on the conversation the committee has about your own kid? Only the schools where he/she was accepted, though, right?"</p>
<p>Except for the part when the committee starts talking about the successes of an applicant and how well he has done <strong>in spite</strong> of his parents. :)</p>
<p>Our school has us do an exercise where we, the parents, get to pretend we are the admissions officer of a fictional school and are given four fictional applicants to choose from. It's supposed to put us in the shoes of the adcoms and help us see how hard their job is. I hope it will answer that "how could they reject so-and-so" when we finally realize that they can't accept all the qualified students. And maybe cut down a little on the epithet hurling.</p>
<p>I hope the information on the high percentage of HS varsity athletes at a highly selective LAC is a revelation to many on this site. CMC clearly values the hard work it takes to be both a varsity athlete and a top student. One of my biggest disappointments when viewing this site is the constant attacks on the athletes. As the father of a two-sport varsity athlete who carries a heavy honors course load and still maintains a top 10% GPA, this is very good news.</p>
<p>Claremont needs more male athletes than most other LACs, as they are a combined team with Scripps and Harvey Mudd.<br>
I would expect that much of the imbalance of varsity athletes to non/athletes at this particular school is due to that fact. </p>
<p>That said, most LACs admissions policies have always looked favorably upon student athletes. I think the knowledge that there is a clear advantage for them may explain what you consider "constant attacks on athletes." These schools are small, but they still need to field a lot of teams - of course they're going to look very closely at good athletes who can also succeed academically.</p>
<p>Claremont has an even bigger need because Scripps has no men. </p>
<p>If you think this site, especially the parent's board, is "down on athletes", you haven't been here long enough! Quite the opposite,imo.</p>
<p>(I have a D who was a 2-sport athlete, too. :) welcome!)</p>
<p>Only a very small percentage of high school athletes play in college at the NCAA level. Even a DIII like CMC must recruit the top athletes they can attract, which is a whole different deal from the attractiveness of a candidate who was a high school athlete who probably will not play DIII in college.
There actually have been a lot of attacks on athletes on CC- usually with respect to helmet athletes with perceived (or actual) lower academics being admitted to highly selective schools. I can see where someone observing this forum would get the idea that athletes are not a beloved group here. It has turned out that many of us are the parents of student-athletes and have shown that many of these athletic recruits have the academic credentials for admission besides their status as a recruit. I know we sure appreciated the help being a recruit gave our son!</p>
<p>I believe that most of the resentment towards student-athletes relate to the Ivy League and other very selective schools that have very strong national sports team and are able to offer juicy scholarships. </p>
<p>Stories about dumb jocks always attract attention. The counterpoint of athletes who happen to be academically gifted simply get less attention. On a personal level, I always get a kick to see a no-neck 300 pounder football player volunteering to expose to the class the subtle differences between Kierkegaard and Hegel. :)</p>
<p>For 2005, the U of C football team's average GPA was higher than the entire student body's average GPA. Nothing dumb about those jocks, and the won their conference I believe.</p>