<p>I am a white southerm blue state republicn and having read 'minis'website I suspect he isnt ---yet i agree on the need and reasons for QUALITY state Univ.</p>
<p>SEcond-though also I should be in bed-Mr. B comments.</p>
<p>I live in Houston (suburb actually) and I am very proud of our helping victims of KAtrina. But I see that giving everyone --hope--is good even for selfish reasons . I dont want have nots to just come take my 'stuff' ..I am being somewhat sarcastic, but you get the point.</p>
<p>Everyone derserves not just food and shelter .. but legitimate hope of a decent living, education ....I frankly dont much care who is at HYPS ...maybe one of my sons will /maybe not .... I know I will encourage them to use the opportunities they have and move ahead.</p>
<p>"Amherst has pretty much proven (if Smith and Berkeley hadn't already) that they could do otherwise, and that the so-called "disadvantaged" kids could succeed just fine, thank you, if given the opportunity."</p>
<p>What is the point proven by Amherst that has been proven at Smith or Berkeley? I have a hard time to see the implied parallel that we are supposed to see. Disadvantaged student may do very well at a local junior college, but that does not exactly make the junior college Amherst. </p>
<p>There is absolutely no evidence that the qualifications and statistics of Pell grantees -the uniquitous common denominator behind the dubious theory of equality- at Amherst are the same that at Smith. </p>
<p>Since disadvantaged students do extremely well at Harvard -if we can use the graduation numbers, what is there exactly to learn from students doing well at "other" schools that are supposedly doing better at admitting a different socio-economic group? The veiled implication that the same disadvantaged Smith student would do equally "well" at Harvard is nothing more than a tired and unsupported argument. It would be extremely hard to find much conclusive evidence since there is hardly any overlap for the overwhelming majority of the students at both schools as the students are simply not interchangeable as far as admissions goes.</p>
<p>If you don't like Smith, just do the numbers at Berkeley (which most folks will tell is more academically "challenging" than HYP, or Amherst, with average stats virtually the same as at HYP. The argument isn't about Smith (I think their Fulbright numbers can stand on their own merits); the Smith example (exactly like the Amherst one) was that one could make a conscious decision to recruit, admit, and support students from economic backgrounds (and academic records reflecting those backgrounds) below those of students who otherwise would be attending, and they would do just fine. The fact is that the "disadvantaged" students at any of these schools (and I could name a dozen others) do just fine, as do the football players or developmental admits with 1150 SATs at HYP. The reality is that, with some notable exceptions (engineering students; theoretical math majors, etc.), doing well at the private institutions (provided other supports are in place) just isn't that difficult. </p>
<p>You are right, though - there is virtually no overlap between the disadvantaged students at Amherst and those at Harvard. That is it's own commentary. The simplest explanation of admissions at the nation's very top schools is that they get whom they want, and more power to them.</p>