<p>^^
What are you talking about? Another thread?</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s correct to say that so many slots or a certain percentage of slots in an incoming class at highly-selective colleges are “reserved” for hooked candidates any more than saying slots are “reserved” for kids with high grades or great SATs. </p>
<p>A better way to look at the process is that every applicant puts together the best package of academics, ECs, hooks, etc. they can and school gets to pick the students that are the most advantageous <em>for the school</em>. It’s up to the school to decide what they value and weigh the applicants accordingly. If you are a student who didn’t get into the Ivy you hoped to, some athlete didn’t steal “your” slot. The reality was that about 2000 other applicants put together a combination of achievements and attributes that the school wanted a little bit more than it wanted yours.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon: Yes, there IS serious grade inflaction, as well as serious grade compression at our local private HS. Lowest gpa is just under a 3.0 and the highest is usually around a 3.8.</p>
<p>I don’t know what happened with the 3.2/1800 SAT athlete that went to Williams a few years back. He may be an honor student there or he may have transferred or flunked out… I personally don’t begrudge him the educational opportunities available at Williams. </p>
<p>However, it is stories like these that have really clued me in to the real process of college admissions. My high stat unhooked daughter knows she needs those stats to even be considered at top schools. However, and this is what bothers me, not all students and families are aware of what they are up against in top schools admissions. We know of many students without stellar stats and no hooks who are optimistically applying to ivies and top LACs. While I am hopeful and wish the best for them, I fear great disappointment for many of these kids.</p>
<p>camathmom: Both my kids did really well at schools at which they were the perfect fit – admitted with really generous FA packages. Both of these were their top choice schools, and honestly, we did craft the applications to demonstrating they were the poster children for these schools.</p>
<p>They were actually WL and outright rejected at schools with significantly lower stats.</p>
<p>If you want more information about how we did this, PM me.</p>
<p>Both were extremely happy with their choices, and both choices have had significant consequences for shape and direction their lives took.</p>
<p>Neither was hooked in any way, and both are from Long Island, doom for many kids.</p>
<p>They were accepted above some kids with better stats as well.</p>
<p>Now it is different for the unis, but LAC’s really do have a somewhat institutional personality and a way they conceive their student body. Although I found this true for the Ivies as well, though no where near as predictable.</p>
<p>I had really good success at matching up their friends as well.</p>
<p>“However, and this is what bothers me, not all students and families are aware of what they are up against in top schools admissions” Camathmom</p>
<p>Agree. On college confidential it is interesting too see the reason why a family (or student) then rationalizes why they were not accepted or won’t be accepted to HYP,etc. Blame the URM is popular, with I’m Asian perhaps a close second, Legacy & Athletes moving up quickly, and one vote because from Long Island. lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No stellar stats or hooks but think they have a shot? Why would they think that? They are woefully naive.</p>
<p>I suspect that most students who end up in the Ivy League didn’t plan for it or expect it. They are kids who succeeded in academics and athletics or other because that is the type of person they are, not because they were grooming themselves for the Ivies. I think that is the type of student the Ivies are looking for, anyway.</p>
<p>Thanks for the offer Mythmom. I sent you a PM.</p>
<p>Full disclosure: My daughter is not applying to any LACs solely due to lack of interest on her part (although she is applying to some of the ivies and other top schools). So, my information about Williams admissions has no personal bearing on my family, but instead is an admissions story that was insightful to me.</p>
<p>camathmom, Williams is actually “known” to be aggresive in its pursuit of excellent athletic teams. It’s a part of thier culture. FWIW.</p>
<p>Good luck to your daughter. I’m sure she will find herself with excellent choices in the spring.</p>
<p>All the NESCAC schools are. In fact, Amherst has the same number of slots with a smaller population and is even more aggressive in that way. Not sure why Williams has been especially tagged that way.</p>
<p>Let me go back again to the article’s language–I didn’t notice just how cagey it is:
Note that it says *some *are known as coaches picks, and apparently it is they who have these substantially lower scores–not even all of those “recruited” for high-profile sports. As is often the case with this kind of hysterical article, there is less here than meets the eye. Again, the bottom line is that except for a few students who get cut a significant break so the Ivies can have (relatively) decent football and basketball teams, athletics are a really good EC that can help in admission–like a lot of others.</p>
<p>The more I think about this, the more I think it’s totally overblown. The reality is most kids with far from perfect GPAs and SAT scores will do just fine at top schools. Universities know this. And anyone who has taught students knows this- I can not tell a 700/3.5 kid from an 800/4.0 kid. </p>
<p>So beyond a certain point of numbers, they can take who they want to round out the class. Could be musicians, fund raisers, published poets, athletes, students with particular ethnic backgrounds etc. etc. It doesn’t lower the intellectual quality and it adds to the overall diversity which is good for a college. </p>
<p>I think what gets people’s goat is they believe it is not fair because you can’t just ‘work hard’ to get into the URM category, the ‘rich parent’ category or the ‘top athlete’ category. However, that is true for bright kids as well. Hard work will only take you so far along the SAT/GPA continuum. The reality is our kids’ school performance has a lot to do with luck of the draw (family environment, genes, quality of education your parents could afford you, even inherited personality traits). Oh and don’t get me started about the educational backgrounds of the parents of kids who win science awards. On and on. </p>
<p>When you step back, none of it is “fair” </p>
<p>Full disclosure: I have smart kids that have connections to great university research opps, but suck at sports :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no proof of this. Not on the Ivy/LAC athletic level. In fact, the author of the Huffpost article also refutes it.</p>
<p>Bottom line for me about this article and others on the same topic is that it once again illuminates the myth of meritocracy in the USA. There is no such thing, whether it’s college admissions or anything else. Malcom Gladwell’s book “Outliers” really blows up this myth. But elements of American (conservative) society keep yapping about it each time they launch into still another diatribe against affirmative action. Their mantra: “If it wasn’t for advantages given undeserving “folk” we’d have a meritocracy in this country.” What b.s.!</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong. I’m actually uncomfortable with the idea of AA in school admissions for URMs, but as long as other “hooks” or advantages exist for other groups, including the George W. Bushes of the world, whose parents can just pick up the phone and call a number in their rolodex to get junior in, why not URMs? Why not athletes? Or the first ever applicant from Greenland or Micronesia? Meritocracy is a myth anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This tells me more about what you consider meritricious than it does about meritocracies, which clearly, based on thier policies, include athletes, musicians, artists, as well as skilled standardized test-takers and those who are good at traditional academic measurements of knowledge.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seem to be arguing with yourself on this particular issue. I haven’t heard one person argue against the value of URM’s on a campus. </p>
<p>Carry on.</p>
<p>S2’s friend is being recruited (or whatever we are calling it) to play ice hockey for one of the HYPSM’s. (GPA in high 3’s and ACT was either 29 or 30) </p>
<p>Here is what the mother told me. The coaches send priority rankings to admissions and they have an agreement with admissions that they will roster x# of kids who score ACT 30-36, x# 25-30 and x# 20-25. (not sure of exact ranges, but you get the idea) So these freshman admits have to fit into the ACT/SAT scores ranges of the entire team. I found it interesting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not universally true for every sport. There are many very serious and talented Canadian hockey players who have attended/are attending Ivy League schools. Same with women’s soccer and tennis.</p>
<p>[NCAA.com</a> ? The Official Website of NCAA Championships - Women’s Soccer](<a href=“http://www.ncaa.com/sports/w-soccer/division_i1.html]NCAA.com”>http://www.ncaa.com/sports/w-soccer/division_i1.html)</p>
<p>There’s not one Ivy League school on this list, though Stanford, as I mentioned earlier, is.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ncaa.com/sports/m-hockey/division_i1.html[/url]”>http://www.ncaa.com/sports/m-hockey/division_i1.html</a></p>
<p>Again, no Ivy league teams even get a vote. And, this is particularly depressing for Ivy Hockey fans, given that the very best hockey players go to the juniors, not college.</p>
<p>As I mentioned in that post, the kids who go to the Ivy’s to play sports are students first. They do so because of academic and not athletic ambitions. Not one thing “wrong” with that. But most of them are qualified as students to be at those schools. This is my only point.</p>
<p>^^Well, if we talk about “academic admissible”, I think > 50% of Ivy applicants are, which means they could all do fine and graduate with no problem if admitted, yet they only accept a small portion of them. Preferential treatment is the key term here. And it does seem that they give too much of it to atheletes than to students academically stronger and with other extracurricular activities or talents.</p>
<p>This thread does make me despair for my son, with his 4.0/Val./36/2360/10AP resume. It seems like he is competing for the 20% of the slots that are unhooked, once the URMs, athletes, legacies, and developmental admits get theirs.</p>
<p>Benley, I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this.</p>
<p>I don’t have anyone interested in going to an Ivy for undergrad in my house, anyway, I just thought it might be important to note that it’s not as if they are accepting unqualified athletes. Clearly the schools have their own opinion as to who adds what to the culture. </p>
<p>Reasonable people can probably disagree on this one, though.</p>
<p>ETA: I was wrong about hockey. Yale is in the top, and Dartmouth did recieve a few votes. My mistake.</p>
<p>As for women’s soccer, last year, in the final results, the best any Ivy finised was at 105, Yale. </p>
<p>This is particularly interesting since Yale is the one school which really doesn’t recruit, AT ALL…I mean, they are known for this. So, those athletes must be excellent students, as well. Twice blessed.</p>
<p>Haha yall act like URMs are applying in overabundance</p>