<p>I've heard that Harvard's standards are lower for non-East Coast students.Is this true as far as anyone knows?</p>
<p>I don't think so, no. If what you're getting at is that Harvard lowers its standards to attract students from states/areas that rarely send applicants to schools like the Ivies--ie N. and S. Dakota, Arkansas, etc. etc.--then, no. Because Harvard attracts the best of the best from all areas. Harvard doesn't need to lower the bar for a less-qualified Midwesterner for the sake of saying they accepted that Midwesterner. Nor does Yale, nor Princeton. The other six might, though. We'll never know.</p>
<p>well, being from one of these areas is a significant advantage. kind of like being a URM, but much much less.</p>
<p>i dont know if its an advantage, its just that your competition isnt as tough. harvard doesnt go out of its way to admit underqualified students from the midwest, its just that there are less truly qualified students there tobegin with (less population, crappier schools...)</p>
<p>"(less population, crappier schools...)"</p>
<p>Ha. I'll be the first to vouch for that. Our Oklahoma Public School system is disgustingly inefficient. Some of the classes I'm taking for AP credit are just downright easy, as compared to the others on the spectrum that I can barely make an A in without stressing out for 3 weeks in advance.</p>
<p>In one class I spent a whole day playing geo f-cking safari.</p>
<p>In another class I can barely keep up with the assignments. Of course, this is a specialized math and science program that is near EXTERNAL from the public system, getting tons of private donations, and is only reserved for us "special gifted" students (in fact, it's on a totally different campus). </p>
<p>...As if "we" deserved better education than "everyone else" in Oklahoma.</p>
<p>The hardness of a class is 100% dependent on the teacher's motivation. Some love their job, most don't. Heck, I wouldn't care much either if my pay sucked and my only incentive within the infastructure was to not get fired. It's about time somebody did something about it, and the answer starts with a V and ends with an Oucher. The liberal-elitist bastards in our government could care less about certain districts, insisting instead to demand more stolen money (via taxes) to be thrown at the system. </p>
<p>Hahaha.</p>
<p>As if solving the inherent problems of the schools could be hidden by mitigating their external inefficiencies with some "higher funding". Hell, our school isn't even that bad. I can't imagine living in the urban area ghettos where you have a higher percent chance of being victimized by a criminal encounter than graduating from high school with basic efficiency.</p>
<p>Oh well, I guess it gives me more time to spend on my E.C. debate (which, by the way, my school can only afford three local contests a year). Otherwise, my "delicious" #1 rank will mean sh-t in the Harvard Application process as a result.</p>
<p>GG Oklahoma School System, Good f-cking game.</p>
<p>I agree with GeorgeS. I have also fallen victim to a ****ty rural Oklahoma public school. The public school system is a joke.</p>
<p>Any system in which a lazy good-for-nothing tech ed teacher that sits in the corner and looks at pornography during class has the same salary as an AP History teacher who loves his job and has 83% of his students acquire 5s.... </p>
<p>IS A JOKE!</p>
<p>There are obvious reasons why teachers aren't paid differently. Hell they work for the F'ing state, and the state doesn't measure how hard someone worked. I worked in our local library, doing my homework and nothing else, and my hourly pay is about the same as an elementry teacher who holds a four year degree. Most librarians will be fired within 10 years because the necessity for librarians are almost gone with the technology avaliable. That's where the beauty of capitalism comes in, holding positions in private enterprise that are earned instead of inherited.</p>
<p>That's why if you're a good for nothing lazy bastard with nothing to do but have a community college degree, you take one profession known as, a high school teacher, and I'm not talking about the quality AP instructors out there.</p>
<p>"worked in our local library, doing my homework and nothing else, and my hourly pay is about the same as an elementry teacher who holds a four year degree."</p>
<p>That makes me want to cringe, but the problem is obvious (as you quote it):</p>
<p>"they work for the F'ing state"</p>
<p>I too am a misplaced child in the backwoods Oklahoman idealogies. Throughout my high school career I have seen many a student, many with great potential, just give up on learning because they were mislead by sacks of useless meat that called themselves the teachers of Oklahoma. By the way, what is Oklahoma ranked now in education....something like 50 or so.</p>
<p>And to keep with the topic, I don't believe that the top Ivies would have any reason to lower their standards just to allow some misguided Oklahoman a chance with the big boys. If someone really wanted in, they would have put out the effort a long time ago to get there.</p>
<p>I would be upset if they did lower their standards for applicants from other regions, that's not fair...</p>
<p>Actually, Harvard Yale and Princeton do indeed lower their standards for people from underrepresented regions. That's why they have students from all 50 states in the Union. Princeton, which only has 600 students in the freshman class, still makes room to accept one kid from each state. They must lower their admissions standards or else none of that would be possible.</p>
<p>The only top school I know of that DOES NOT lower its admissions standards for people from underrepresented geographic regions is Stanford. But this comes at a price. For the past 4 or 5 years in a row Stanford has never had all 50 states represented in its freshman class. I think out of all the people from North Dakota who applied to Stanford last year not a single one was admitted. Harvard, Princeton, and Yale do lower their standards for people from states like North Dakota, hence they can have all 50 states represented. Quite frankly, I think Harvard and Yale are doing the right thing adjusting their standards to accept students in underrepresented areas. Having the same admission standards for everyone without taking other factors into consideration is not very savvy. It's honorable, but not savvy.</p>
<p>Not to quibble, but Princeton has more like 1,175 than 600 students in the freshman class.</p>
<p>And even with their "dishonorable" approach to geographic diversity, they still end up with freshman classes with a higher SAT median than Stanford's.</p>
<p>The reason, I suspect, is what some may deem Stanford's "dishonorable" approach to athletic recruiting; they do not utilize anything like the Ivy "Academic Index", and last year paid out nearly $12,000,000 in salaries (otherwise known as "athletic scholarships") to these recruits.</p>
<p>Every college does athletic recruiting. I know a person from my high school last year who got recruited by Harvard with a 3.2 GPA and a 1080 SAT score to play tennis. I think they gave him the equivalent of a full ride by tinkering with his aid package to the point that he didn't have to pay much for anything.</p>
<p>I can see why Princeton and Yale would need to ever-so-slightly lower their admissions standards to attract talented applicants from underrepresented regions. But I never would have thought that Harvard also lowered its standards too. I also never would have thought that Stanford would suffer so much from not lowering its standards. They are like the two big name schools everyone wants to go to.</p>
<p>At all the Ivies, the academics (SAT, GPA) for recruited athletes must closely approximate the academics of each class as a whole. This is the "AI".</p>
<p>Thiis is not true at Stanford, which is bound only by NCAA rules. Of course recruits at Stanford are held to an internal standars higher that - say - Oklahoima State, but the standards are nevertheless lower than an "AI" formula would decree.</p>
<p>I think it's probably harder to be recruited by Stanford than say for Harvard or Yale. Stanford athletics are far superior to any of the ivies, and so in order to be recruited by Stanford you have to be near-Olympic material. To be recruited by Harvard you just have to be really good. So Stanford's athletic admits are almost superstars in their own right, and could probably get into any ivy they want to if they are so inclined. I don't think you'll find too many Stanford recruits that Harvard wouldn't love to take. The only problem is that those athletes don't want to be at Harvard.</p>
<p>Originally posted on another thread:</p>
<p>A friend of mine got a recruiting letter from Harvard Department of Athletics. </p>
<p>It encouraged him to apply and mentioned that the "typical Harvard team member" has a combined SAT I of 1250.</p>
<p>Would that work with the Harvard's AI?</p>
<p>Harvard has it's share of underqualified athletes. The only difference is that Havard athletes aren't as good as Stanford athletes.</p>
<p>Apparently the Harvard football players were better this year, which is remarkable, considering that the Stanford players are salaried!</p>
<p>As you confessed on another thread:</p>
<p>"Dude, academics are the only thing we can competitively argue about. Our football team sucks, and our school spirit isn't that great."</p>