<p>Thank you too, Claudeturpin … </p>
<p>Your the first adult to finally have the courage to tell it like it is to me, and give the underlying facts. </p>
<p>Other counselors warned me back in Nov about my 740 SATs being too low, but wouldn’t tell me why. Now I know. </p>
<p>Its another glass celing.</p>
<p>This process has been eye opening, to say the least. amfreborg, your 740s SATS too low? Can you believe it? I don’t have all the facts, but I consider myself an informed parent, and I am disgusted by the methods that Admissions officials employ to fill their classes. I am not issuing a blanket indictment of every athlete admitted to an LAC, but from what I see on CC (probably not a representative sample), a lot of the athletes have subpar statistics. And this also applies to the “non-helmut” sports such as track and field, etc. I don’t look forward having to go through this again in 3 years with my younger child. Thankfully he’s into computers and such, and isn’t at all interested in LACs. </p>
<p>And another gripe I have is the essay. Admits cite their fantastic essays as the reason they’ve been accepted. How many of those essays have gone through countless rounds of editing by teachers, paid consultants, parents, etc.? How can an admissions decision hang on a single CA essay and maybe a supplemental essay of 300 words? I feel better now that I’ve said it. The process is so flawed it has to change in the years ahead.</p>
<p>Thank you TOO Eleanor! I wish I haden’t let my emotion get so strong early on, and like I said listened to counselors who tried to warn me first. I was so excited that my scores had opened a chance that I never dreamt I’d ever get. </p>
<p>I am not an athlete. My initial SATs submitted to Amherst were 740-720-740. I’ve studied an Asian language since 7th grade, and studied for one full summer in an Asian country as an exchange student (students go to school in summer there). Feeling from teachers and counselor who lookied at my essays (did not help me write them) was they were very good. My class rank is 2/457. I am white, and a male. </p>
<p>When I wqas defered in Dec., my counselor called Amherst and talked to an admissions person. That person told my counselor I needed to “retake my SATs to be competitive.” They (Amherst) specifically told him my scores were marginally too low. </p>
<p>Like a lot of others REALLY wanting to get in, I read the posts on the admissions threads. That’s what prompted my questions. </p>
<p>I guess I’m the “nothing special” … “like everyone else” … we’ll see though 
</p>
<p>Still waiting to see on RD … though I’ve got apps in at other schools and will be happy with those possible choices as well. </p>
<p>Parents, schools, counselors and COLLEGES … BE HONEST WITH US!</p>
<p>20s - 740s</p>
<p>^At a time when everyone calls for transparency, you are just not going to get it with just about any college admissions process. Admissions holds all of the cards, and people still belly up to the table, to get dealt in.</p>
<p>Minoafrau: No sweeping generalizations at all. The fact is that schools like Amherst reserve far more spots in the entering class for helmet sports (including baseball and basketball) than they do for sports like cross-country and track and field, where the average SAT almost approaches the school median. As for the fact that the Ivies also give preferences to athletes and legacies, that’s true and I’m not defending it, but as I said in an earlier post their entering classes are larger, which means that the distorting effect of the preference given to low scoring hockey, football and basketball recruits is significantly diminished. The reality is that every hockey, football or basketball player admitted to Amherst with a combined SAT of 1700 reduces the chances of an unhooked applicant with a combined SAT of 2200 to be admitted. That’s shameful. The only top LAC I know of that doesn’t significantly reduce their standards for recruited athletes is Swarthmore. If you dispute my facts, here’s a simple proposal to resolve the issue: send an e-mail to Tom Parker, Amherst’s director of admissions, and ask him what the average SAT is for recruited football, baseball, hockey and basketball players compared to unhooked (i.e., non-athlete, non-legacy, non-URM) applicants. Assuming he’s willing to give out that information (and I’m sure he has it), I suspect you’ll find there’s at least a 100-150 point differential, which means, again, that the school’s publicized median scores are both meaningless and misleading because the unhooked applicant needs to score significantly higher than the median in order to compensate for the subpar athlete or legacy.</p>
<p>I was questioning the ED process too when I applied in November because when I went to the information session, the dean seemed to discouraged those of us who aren’t athletic recruits/legacies from applying early. I’m not an athletic person but I applied anyways and hoped for the best. I was an unhooked applicant, non-athlete, non-legacy, non-urm, nothing too special with 740/750 sat scores across the board but I was accepted. I didn’t have a 2400 or win crazy science competitions or anything like that. Yes, there are brilliant, extremely accomplished and remarkable students who were accepted and I can see many athletes and prep school students (just as impressive) accepted as well when I scroll down the list of admits on facebook. Yes, there are students like me who are just average and true to Amherst’s median range. I guess what I’m trying to say is that even though it may seem like they favor athletes in the early round, there is still hope out there for the rest of us! I’d give Amherst some credit. Good luck amfreborg!</p>
<p>hmmm … Well, trying to understand and predict is maddening … </p>
<p>Parablue … you had to have some kind of hook … music participation? Quirky eassy topic? From an esspecially interesting part of the US? </p>
<p>Anyone else thoughts …</p>
<p>I have been thinking about what my hook might be but all I can think of is that maybe my essays were good and I guess my gpa must have had something to do with it-- but then again I don’t see that as a hook since most people applying to Amherst have that as a foundation. </p>
<p>I don’t play any instruments and I am from New York…not exactly in the middle of nowhere.</p>
<p>Trust me, amfreborg, I hear ya. It is impossible to try and understand what goes on in the admissions office and even though it’s easier to blame the system, it wouldn’t be fair to. Maybe to some extent we can say that it’s a flawed process but we can’t sit here and say it’s “shameful” or that Amherst’s stats are “meaningless and misleading” because somehow, I did get in and others have too. I hope I don’t come off as boastful because I’m not saying I’m better than anybody. Really. If anything, I am just average. Just in case future prospective students happen to browse this thread, I don’t want them to lose hope and not apply because I know that if I had seen this thread before November, I would have lost all hope as a non-athlete, nothing too special girl from New York of all places. I really, truly wish you the best of luck, amfreborg, and I also hope that all of you prospectives stay strong and give Amherst a shot if you think it just may be “the one”.</p>
<p>I agree with parablue. Don’t be discouraged! Just because you don’t have a hook or don’t necessarily stack up to the statistics of admitted students does not mean there is no hope for you. I think I’m pretty average and I applied ED and got accepted into the class of 2016. I doubted my chances of getting in up until I got my acceptance letter. I don’t play sports–never have. I don’t have any musical talent of any kind. I’m not valedictorian. I’m just a girl from southastern north carolina who has good grades and good test scores and has a passion for social activism. Nothing spectacular haha. I’m just me To anyone who loves Amherst, apply!!! You have NO idea what admissions officers are looking for, it might be someone like you! 
Think of it this way: if they don’t want you, chances are you weren’t a good fit for the school anyway haha.</p>
<p>Congrats on getting in, but the fact that some unhooked applicants with median range SAT scores are admitted doesn’t change the fact that recruited athletes generally have significantly lower SAT scores (i.e., a 100-150 point differential) than unhooked admits. Here’s a link to the Parker interview: </p>
<p>[Online</a> Extra: Amherst’s “A” List: Affluence, Achievement, Athletics](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>
<p>With all due respect, generalizing from personal experience isn’t a great idea. Despite your experience, the reality is that unhooked applicants generally need to score significantly higher than the median in order to get in. The reason I say that’s shameful is that Amherst doesn’t disclose to the applicant pool (except in Business Week interviews that no applicant is likely to read) the clear advantage that athletes and legacies have. If they did, I’d have no problem with it.</p>
<p>You really need to stop disseminating misinformation. Yes–some athletes have lower scores, but not most. Look at the Class of 2015 profile. Look at the athletics pages on the Amherst website and read about the many student athletes receiving accolades for their academic success. The article you posted is 6 years old. For something more current, which paints a pretty clear picture of the holistic nature of the admissions process, check this out. Grades and test scores are only on part of the picture.</p>
<p>[Behind</a> The Scenes: How Do You Get Into Amherst? : NPR](<a href=“Behind The Scenes: How Do You Get Into Amherst? : NPR”>Behind The Scenes: How Do You Get Into Amherst? : NPR)</p>
<p>What exactly was I generalizing? </p>
<p>They don’t have to advertise that athletes and legacies have the upper hand-- it’s just something that everybody knows about the early admission process. It’s really not the best kept secret. Yeah, it drove me insane when I was waiting on my decision and thought about how athletes would get in with lower scores. But to be honest, those who get into Amherst as recruits are the ones who juggle academics on top of their dedication to the sport. What’s so wrong about their being admitted? I don’t think that any one of us can say that he or she deserves an admission spot more than somebody else just because they have a 100 or so more SAT points on the other. Maybe instead of complaining about athletes, Tom Parker, and a 100-150 point difference, we should focus on our own strengths and flaws. When we are admitted, we don’t think “oh I must have gotten in because there are fewer recruited athletes”. There are other factors, like our own grades, efforts, extracurriculars, essays, and that je ne sais quoi. So maybe the same holds true when you aren’t admitted-- it’s not because there are too many recruited athletes or legacies; there are other things that can make or break a decision. If you have a problem with the system, try looking at the greater whole instead of just bashing one part of it.</p>
<p>If you really think I’m disseminating misinformation, here’s a simple solution. Instead of relying on NPR stories and athletic webpages that speak in generalities and don’t address the issue, send an e-mail to the admissions office and ask them if athletes in sports like football and hockey have average SAT scores 100 or more points below the average SAT scores of unhooked applicants, as Tom Parker clearly acknowledged they do just six years ago. If you’re not willing to do this, then it’s hard to take your suggestion that things have changed for the better in those six years seriously. I think it’s fine to take athletic ability into account in the admissions process, in the same way that musical ability is taken into account. But to deliberately lower your academic standards for athletes is, in my humble opinion, the height of hypocrisy, especially for a school that cultivates a public image that academics come first. I’m sorry that I seem to have touched a nerve in those of you who care about Amherst, but by lowering its admissions standards for athletes, Amherst colludes, in its own small way, in a culture that overvalues athletic achievement at the expense of other, more important, things. And, yes, Amherst is not alone in this. If you want to read an excellent commentary by a Notre Dame professor about the pernicious effects of giving special preferences to athletes, here’s a link to a column in this morning’s NY Times. Although the author is addressing the role of athletics at D-1 schools, I think his point about the message that we send by overvaluing athletic achievement is equally, if not more, applicable to schools like Amherst.</p>
<p>[The</a> Myth of the ‘Student-Athlete’ - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/the-myth-of-the-student-athlete/]The”>The Myth of the 'Student-Athlete' - The New York Times)</p>
<p>Claudeturpin, you have so eloquently and articulately put into words my exact feelings on the subject of the overblown importance of athletics at schools such as Amherst, Williams, et al. You and I, and I am sure many, many others out there, share our views on this very controversial subject. But how will I console my poor child next week and the following week that four years of perfect grades and a very respectable ACT score weren’t enough to get into a top-ranked LAC? There’s something wrong with our society when sports figures are paid millions of dollars and idolized by kids and adults alike for their physical achievements but teachers and other academic types are underpaid and are given very little recognition for their accomplishments. I guess that’s the subject of another debate, one that does not belong on Amherst’s CC page.</p>
<p>Yawn… A philsophy professor doesn’t like college athletics. </p>
<p>Comparing football at his school or similar D 1 with a NESCAC or an Ivy is laughable. Harvard, the school your daughter attends, offers likely letters - absolutely guaranteed spots - and has a huge interest in sports. Their basketball team played in the Tournament last night. Harvard is a rising star – are you posting these comments on the Harvard board? Here is a fellow who is at Harvard with a 1,300 SAT:
[North</a> Cross RB to play for Harvard](<a href=“http://www.roanoke.com/sports/highschool/wb/224588]North”>http://www.roanoke.com/sports/highschool/wb/224588)
Are you going to call Dean Fitzsimmons and complain?</p>
<p>Your comments generalizing athletes as sub academic achievers are hurtful to athletes and their parents. I have seen similar comments about URM admits and amazed how insensitive some posters are.</p>
<p>I know many privileged students who spend several years with private tutors preparing for the SAT and ACT. Are their scores, 100 points or more higher than the super busy athletes a fair predictor of academic success?</p>
<p>My son is a dedicated athlete and his ACT score is 35 – you will find that this is not uncommon at these schools. The average ACT on one team where he has been admitted is 34</p>
<p>Thanks for your kind words, Eleanor. And I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed for your daughter. The only thing I disagree with in your post is that this debate does not belong on Amherst’s CC pages. Amherst, Williams, Harvard, etc. are all tremendously influential institutions. Their pioneering efforts to make high quality education available and affordable to economically disadvantaged students have have had a trickle down effect on colleges throughout the country. And, in this respect, people like Tom Parker and Harvard Admissions Director William Fitzsimmons deserve enormous kudos. But, to the extent that these institutions continue to adhere to a process that systematically advantages athletic achievement (or genetic luck) in a way that other kinds of achievement (like musical ability) aren’t advantaged, they deserve our criticism, in my opinion. I’m sure other posters will respond that musical ability is taken into account in the admissions process, but my point is that’s it’s not taken into account in the systematic way that athletic ability is, with lower academic standards that are by now institutionalized. So, to bring this back to the beginning, if the parents of highly qualified students like your daughter want to use this column to complain about the advantage that a hockey play with a cumulative SAT of 1800 has in the admissions process I think that’s an entirely fair and legitimate use of this forum.</p>
<p>Violao: If you’ll read my post below, you’ll see that I’m equally critical of Harvard. And it’s hard to take you seriously when you cavalierly dismiss a substantive argument like Professor Gutting’s based on what he does for a living. How about engaging in a real debate rather than relying on personal attacks?</p>
<p>As for the “hurtful” nature of my comments, I’m sorry, but this isn’t a personal attack on your son either, anymore than it would be a personal attack on A-Rod to suggest that his $200 million salary sends the wrong kind of message about where we place our values as a society.</p>
<p>Finally, it borders on the ridiculous to compare an athlete like your son to an under-recruited minority. The preference given to URMs is based on a mountain of data showing that SAT scores among economically-disadvantaged students are not a true indicator of academic ability. I know of no data suggesting that the ability to score a hat trick is correlated to academic achievement.</p>
<p>Agree with parablue08 and violao wholeheartedly - and yes, maybe that’s because I have 2 Ds who are both student athletes and I’ve seen just how many hours they put into their sport, over many years, and don’t spend every waking minute in the library and still have excellent grades and SATs. And in my opinion, a student is so much more than just an SAT test. I wouldn’t want my daughters going to a college that only evaluated them on numbers.</p>
<p>claudeturpin and Eleanor2328 - yes, you’ve hit a nerve when you generalize almost all athletes as being sub-par academically which couldn’t be further from the truth. What I have seen is that these athletes have wonderful focus and time management. And is 30-50 points/SAT section really that big of a difference when you consider that they might not have as much time to spend with a tutor or practice tests? </p>
<p>College Admissions look to bring in a diverse group of students that all add to their community - when I say diverse, I mean everything from athletes to URM to internationals to that elusive tuba player. And I emphasize the word community, especially at the LACs.</p>
<p>konathedog: With all due respect, you’ve mischaracterized what I said. I never said that all athletes are subpar academically, merely that football and hockey admits as a group average significantly less on the SAT than unhooked applicants. According to Tom Parker’s interview with Business Week six years ago, the differential is at least 100 points, not the 30-40 points you cite in your post. This comes from the Admissions Director himself, not my imagination. And it means two things, both of which are logically inescapable: (1) that Amherst has institutionalized lower academic standards for a significant portion of their athletic admits and (2) that an unhooked applicant must score significantly higher than the median in order to compensate for these lower scores. That’s why when students who’ve been deferred and have SATs in the 730-750 range call the Admissions Office and ask what they can do to improve their chances they’re urged to consider taking the SATs again. It’s fine to argue that there’s nothing the matter with having lower standards for athletes and legacies (although I disagree), but please don’t mischaracterize the viewpoints of people who disagree with you. I never said that all athletes are subpar academically. And if you disagree with my facts, as some others have done, shoot an e-mail to the Admissions Director and ask if things have changed significantly in the last six years. But don’t just blithely assert that my facts are wrong because you want them to be.</p>
<p>I join with parablue and violao; the admission preference at Amherst for athletes (and others) is no secret. We can debate whether sports is overemphasized at Amherst, but there’s no question that there is more balance at Amherst than at D-1 schools. And there are excellent colleges without any football: Reed, Swathmore and Whitman, just to name a few.</p>