<p>Interesting. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/education/27grad.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/education/27grad.html</a> </p>
<p>"Then Anthony Abraham Jack, a junior from Miami, asked pointedly, 'Has anyone here ever actually seen a food stamp?'"</p>
<p>My d's school has had this commitment to economic diversity for 30 years (and, percentagewise, most of the schools cited in the "story" still aren't even close in that regard.)</p>
<p>Amherst is doing a great job. But most of the schools cited in the story are actually less economically diverse than they were 25 years ago.</p>
<p>It's a great thing these schools are trying to attain more socioeconomic diversity, but I never understand why schools eliminate loans for low-income students while keeping them for other students. After a college education, most students should be on equal footing with each other. While their parents can't afford to pay, all students should have the ability to pay a portion of their education after graduation through loans. If a college gives a low-income student 2-3000 in Federal Loans instead a grant, it could use the same money for other students' financial aid.</p>
<p>A+ in college calculus and A- in Organic Chem II (people don't realize how dry and difficult OCII is)... Mr. Jack is pretty smart :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mr. Jack’s high grades and test scores — a respectable 1200 on the SAT — won him a full scholarship to the University of Florida. But the median score for his Amherst class was 1422, and he would have been excluded had the admissions office not considered his socioeconomic class
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How is this fair? He was 222 points away from Amherst's median score, using the 1600-point scale. That's huge.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How is this fair?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fair to whom?</p>
<p>To the better-qualified applicant he displaced?</p>
<p>Better qualified? An A+ in Calculus? I wish my daughter were that qualified! I wish I had had been that qualified! </p>
<p>Maybe it's not Jack who is displacing anyone at Amherst. Maybe it's the 100 years of wealthy white male prepsters getting gentleman's Cs at Amherst who were displacing the Jacks of the world?</p>
<p>If an applicant were "better qualified" than Jack, then the applicant would have been accepted.</p>
<p>Be that as it may, it's a free market. I don't think Amherst makes any effort to conceal its admissions priorities and policies. I certainly know that Amherst makes a major effort to increase diversity and I don't even follow the school that closely. If that kind of admissions policy doesn't float your boat, don't apply there. Apply somewhere that doesn't work to increase diversity. Different strokes for different folks. Be an informed consumer and vote with your wallet.</p>
<p>"After a college education, most students should be on equal footing with each other."</p>
<p>Should be on an equal footing? If we had a fair world, yes. But this is not a fair world. Students from wealthy families have many advantages that continue after college graduation, including having connections that help them get their foot in the door with certain employers or the ability to have taken prestigious unpaid internships in the summer.</p>
<p>I am poor, i intern with a bunch of rich kids.</p>
<p>I sit in a room of kids, who talk about travelling all over Europe in the summer post graduation, who look at swanky apartments with marble counterotops and hardwood floors, who do not understand the value of a dollar, who will live in nice areas, see the world, and never face true financial hardship.</p>
<p>Poor kids, who grow up on welfare and food stamps , need those advantages because majority of them will never spend their summers in Europe, majority of them will not be looking at those type of apartments post graduation because their parents are not rich.</p>
<p>A person with wealthy parents who graduates with 20k in student loans is still not as disadvantaged as the kid who graduated with 5k in student loans and dirt poor parents.
Trust me , i know.</p>
<p>A lot of you dont realize what it means to be wealthy, to have connections like someone metioned. Having wealthy parents, means having parents that can provide for you more than just money.</p>
<p>Having parents that have no money here , and no connections meaning you are absolutley on your own for making your life, majority of people, even general middle class kids, have no idea what that is like. </p>
<p>The majority of college students do not wonder how they will make ends meet, how they will pay their bills, and if they have enough money for diner next week, worst case scenario they can call their parents, the poor kids have no one to call, so if you think graduting with a less debt and getting the opportunity to go to the school you deserve to go to because of your mental ability gives you THAT much of an advantage your very wrong, you still end up working significantly harder in the long run.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Better qualified? An A+ in Calculus?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, once he got there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wish I had had been that qualified!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wish Mr. Jack had been, too, but he definitely wasn't at the time of his application.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe it's not Jack who is displacing anyone at Amherst. Maybe it's the 100 years of wealthy white male prepsters getting gentleman's Cs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How is it any better for a black kid with a 1200 to get in on the basis of his socioeconomic status than it is for a white kid with a 1200 to get in because he's a good old boy? I never championed legacy favoritism; I hope you weren't implying otherwise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...who were displacing the Jacks of the world?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure they only displaced themselves with their own SAT scores. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If an applicant were "better qualified" than Jack, then the applicant would have been accepted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You know, this would be true, if Amherst hadn't admitted (nay, loudly trumpeted!) their preference for poorer students. I'm all for increasing diversity on-campus, but not if it means making 222-point score allowances.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Be that as it may, it's a free market.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's the opposite of a "free market." A "free market" would be a meritocracy, where students would be rewarded on the basis of their objectively measurable accomplishments (like, say, on the basis of their SAT scores). Amherst's policy is more closely analogous to socialistic -- rather than capitalistic -- economic policy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think Amherst makes any effort to conceal its admissions priorities and policies. I certainly know that Amherst makes a major effort to increase diversity and I don't even follow the school that closely.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...which is exactly why some of your previous assertions were misguided. A better-qualified applicant would not necessarily take Jack's spot, precisely because "Amherst makes a major effort to increase diversity." </p>
<p>
[quote]
If that kind of admissions policy doesn't float your boat, don't apply there. Apply somewhere that doesn't work to increase diversity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The issue isn't black and white (no pun intended). I'll say again: I'm not against efforts to increase diversity on-campus. I'm against affording <em>huge</em> breaks to applicants (like ignoring a 222-point SAT deficit on the 1600-point scale) just because they are financially disadvantaged or non-white.</p>
<p><em>edit</em></p>
<p>For the record, I'm lower-middle class and will graduate from college with $40k in debt.</p>
<p>i think your missing a huge point, for a poor kid to study all the time to get those say impeccable test scores is not always an option.</p>
<p>do you tink its fair that a lot of wealthy kids can take prep courses, might not have to hold part time jobs to help suppor thte family, and have more time on their hands for those things than Jack? </p>
<p>What your implying is not fair to the person that might have responsabilities outside of high school but be just as smart.</p>
<p>edit: I am that person and your implication is just wrong. I accomplished a lot in high school that was more relavant to real life , maybe i wasnt president of some club and maybe i didnt study for my SATs but i helped suport my family and myself. I gained invaluable expereince that can not be taught in high school that has helped me more in my college life than being an officer in the Key club would. Especially considering the fact that even now , when i am in college i am on my own, and learning how to do that now, would have had devastating results palgued in faliure. You dont learn how to be self sufficient in a span of a month, it takes time and practice and poor kids benefit more from learning that than doing some other things that may not help them in the long run</p>
<p>I wasn't "president of some club;" I didn't "study all the time" (or at all) for my SATs. I'm relatively poor, but if I got a 1200/1600, I wouldn't expect Amherst to accept me. Why should you, or anybody else?</p>
<p><em>edit</em></p>
<p>I hate to take a cheap shot, but sentence structure and spelling are "relavant" to real life too.</p>
<p>What does the idea of a free market mean in college admissions? It most certainly does not mean that colleges promote merit as defined by SAT scores. </p>
<p>Under the free market analogy, elite colleges are consumers who choose to acquire certain students. Just as no consumer must choose based on merit as others define it, nor must colleges. (At the same time, both have to act within legal limits on their choices.)</p>
<p>Ooo i type poorly on a message board, its not like i dont admit it or freely acknowledge it, i just dont care enough to go and spell check it. As long as you can read it, its fine by me, this is not a thesis or essay. </p>
<p>And i would expect them to admit me. I think Sat score + Gpa + EC are in no way a better indicator than family hardship+ employment</p>
<p>There is more to a student than being able to have ECs and to score well on a test. There is more to real life as well. </p>
<p>I got into my school because i showed considerable employment and adverse family circumstances and managed to actaully go to school all through that and to maintain good grades. </p>
<p>legitmate employment and having to actaully help your family financially is MORE difficult than any average EC and any test score.</p>
<p>Your measure of a good student is very narrow, you think test score + gpa + ec, but there is much much more that a student can be. By your standards a person who is 30 with a child should not expect admission to amherst either. .. even though they are probably a thousand times more capable than the 4.0 1600SAT freshman.</p>
<p>*What does the idea of a free market mean in college admissions? It most certainly does not mean that colleges promote merit as defined by SAT scores. </p>
<p>Under the free market analogy, elite colleges are consumers who choose to acquire certain students. Just as no consumer must choose based on merit as others define it, nor must colleges. (At the same time, both have to act within legal limits on their choices.)*</p>
<p>The concept isn't really open to broad philosophical interpretation. I think we can all agree that, in an academic "free market," all students, regardless of race, creed, color, or means, should be afforded equal opportunities for acceptance into their college of choice, based on their previous achievements. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Under the free market analogy, elite colleges are consumers who choose to acquire certain students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...what? Under the free market analogy, every student is a regular person who has a fair shot at the Big Time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just as no consumer must choose based on merit as others define it, nor must colleges. (At the same time, both have to act within legal limits on their choices.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is a really broken analogy. I don't know where to start.</p>
<p>Why do you consider a previous achievement to ONLY be in the view of a SAT score. </p>
<p>Mr. Jack DESERVED that spot. You do not agree with it because you do not understand the circumstances behind his acceptance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think we can all agree that, in an academic "free market," all students, regardless of race, creed, color, or means, should be afforded equal opportunities for acceptance into their college of choice, based on their previous achievements.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. You are the consumer. You can shop wherever you want. There are colleges that emphasize all kinds of things in admissions. For example, if you want a college that gives affirmative action to white evangelical Christians, you can find one. If want a college that gives admissions preferences to wealthy white applicants, I can point you to several. Or, if you want a college that gives preferences to athletes, you can find them. Or, if you want a college that gives preference to students who add economic or ethnic diversity, you have options, including Amherst. </p>
<p>It's up to you to be a good consumer, find out what types of students a college gives preferences to, and apply according to your own beliefs about which students a college should favor. You sound like you prefer colleges that go strictly by the numbers (SAT scores). There are plenty of those to choose from.</p>
<p>That article was inspiring. Kudos to Jack. I'm in an identical situation(besides being thinner). I plan to attend a pretty selective LAC too(Mac) and I was worried that the test score gap(not much higher than Jack's, if at all) would automatically result in low grades. Maybe not. When I get to Mac, I'll do my best to be like Jack.</p>
<p>It also makes me wish I would have applied to Amherst. I might have gotten in. =P</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ooo i type poorly on a message board, its not like i dont admit it or freely acknowledge it, i just dont care enough to go and spell check it. As long as you can read it, its fine by me, this is not a thesis or essay.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Spell check can't remedy incoherence.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And i would expect them to admit me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You don't think it's hugely presumptuous to feel so entitled?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think Sat score + Gpa + EC are in no way a better indicator than family hardship+ employment
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Neither do I. I don't think UCLA's approach -- to choose which students it will accept based on a formula -- is any better than Amherst's. Applicants should be evaluated holistically, and if economic hardship adversely affected their academic performance, I believe those hardships should be considered -- but not weighted so heavily as to make up for a 222 point difference on the 1600-point scale. I'm not sure if you realize how huge that difference is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is more to a student than being able to have ECs and to score well on a test. There is more to real life as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't disagree with you; that's why I believe that students' applications should be evaluated holistically. My SAT math score was comparatively low, but I wrote my essays lucidly and convincingly enough to sway the adcoms (at least, I think that's what happened). Learning to communicate effectively is a hugely important "real life" skill; not having mastered algebra shouldn't necessarily disqualify a prospective applicant. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I got into my school because i showed considerable employment and adverse family circumstances and managed to actaully go to school all through that and to maintain good grades.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm glad. But I think your "adverse family circumstances" would have to have been pretty severe to account for a 222-point gap between your SAT score and Amherst's median. </p>
<p>
[quote]
legitmate employment and having to actaully help your family financially is MORE difficult than any average EC and any test score.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would agree, since SATs most closely measure your natural scholastic aptitude -- not your ability to study. If you didn't score well on the CR + Writing sections even after re-taking the test, it probably isn't because you didn't study enough.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your measure of a good student is very narrow, you think test score + gpa + ec, but there is much much more that a student can be. By your standards a person who is 30 with a child should not expect admission to amherst either. .. even though they are probably a thousand times more capable than the 4.0 1600SAT freshman.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Extrapolations and generalizations; none of them are accurate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why do you consider a previous achievement to ONLY be in the view of a SAT score.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mr. Jack DESERVED that spot.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You do not agree with it because you do not understand the circumstances behind his acceptance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I understand fully. Amherst had -- figuratively speaking -- a quota to meet.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's up to you to be a good consumer, find out what types of students a college gives preferences to, and apply according to your own beliefs about which students a college should favor...There are plenty of those to choose from
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Students are increasingly choosing historically "elite" colleges. </p>
<p>
[quote]
if you want a college that gives preference to students who add economic or ethnic diversity, you have options, including Amherst.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As if Amherst's only defining characteristic was its admissions office's emphasis on diversity. Amherst is one of the "elite" -- you know it and I know it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You sound like you prefer colleges that go strictly by the numbers (SAT scores).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I don't.</p>