<p>
</p>
<p>Correct. This also explains the systemic preference given to students from affluent families in general, regardless of legacy status.</p>
<p>I think mini will agree.</p>
<p>@performers mom–</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.mka.org/uploaded/college_counseling/Publications/AI_Guidelines_Worksheet.pdf[/url]”>http://www.mka.org/uploaded/college_counseling/Publications/AI_Guidelines_Worksheet.pdf</a></p>
<p>from the link:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As for Yale:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/jan/27/recruitment-caps-strain-teams/[/url]”>http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/jan/27/recruitment-caps-strain-teams/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Ivy coaches each select and recruit say 4 applicants a year for their team.
I have no idea how all these AI numbers are maintained- sounds very complicated.
My guess is that the coaches are given the AI for the last entering class and work with that. Have no idea whether the coaches are then given the AI minimum for ED recruits, or if they do what they want, causing the AdComm has to admit RD athletes of a certain AI so as to adjust upwards to maintain the minimum AI for each team.</p>
<p>Anyway, why all this special treatment to fill a few athletic spots?</p>
<p>The core difference between the athletic discussion and the legacy discussion that started this is that there are no explicit “legacy spots” to be filled. There wind up being a decent # of legacies at these schools due to satisfied alums’ children applying and a high acceptance rate because these students are typically at or above the academic standards, but that’s very different from an explicit set of spots.</p>
<p>IOW, I wouldn’t have a problem with Hunt’s hypothetical “If you’re a legacy of 2250 / 3.8, you’re in.” I would have more of a problem with a hypothetical “We have explicitly set aside x% of our class spots to be legacies, and achieving that x% is important enough that we’ll drop down in quality if need be to fill it.”</p>
<p>In all these conversations on CC over the years (I’ve been here nine years! :eek:), whether it is about legacies, URM, or athletes, I sense a number of people who are very bothered by this and come across as feeling it is all so unfair, and poor me or my child who is white, middle or upper middle class, non-athlete, non-legacy, non-hooked. To take it further, I’ll see posts on CC that so and so got into this college who had lower stats than me and I did not get in, “not fair!” (elite college admissions is not about who has the highest stats)</p>
<p>I have to say that my kids, nor I, ever thought of it this way. They knew they were applying to extremely competitive colleges or programs, and that even though they were truly qualified, they may not get in due to acceptance rates or any other reason. They never bemoaned it or thought it was unfair that Johnny got in but not Susie. They were realistic about the odds and just knew it was life.</p>
<p>(not to mention when they get out in the real world, someone who has a connection might get a job over someone just as qualified who has no connection)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rich and famous is an important measure of success. I bet the university, any university, follows their graduates closely, for decades, and refines their model predicting who to admit. Unfortunately, they don’t share that kind of data with us or USNWR.</p>
<p>S- No. I am not saying it is unfair. If you read my first post about athletic recruits, and the one comparing methods for recruiting athletes to recruiting artists, it was to ask questions about WHY things are done the way they are, in keeping with the Legacy questions, about “controversial practices”. There are different methods of selection in place for certain segments of the app pool, so it is interesting to compare them to see how these work, and why they exist. Do they accomplish what they set out to do? What do they set out to do? How did they come about? The thread is NOT a rant, that is what is so great about it!</p>
<p>Carry on.</p>
<p>Athletic alums (irony- now there are separate factions within the alumni!!) are actually quite upset about the trend in recruiting athletes at Yale. They also found the admissions video on YouTube created by Yale theater students to be very offensive because it did not mentions sports at all!</p>
<p>Who knows why the recruited percent is down. The same teams are still getting filled. Are their sports results (wins v losses) getting worse?</p>
<p>I think the root of the problem is that people expect a “fair” admissions process.</p>
<p>The admissions committee of a private college is not trying to be “fair”. It is just trying to select a class that will best allow the college to fulfill its overall mission. The mission includes goals that are not educational but are nevertheless important to that college. These goals can include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Doing well in athletics (hence the athletic preferences).</li>
<li>Effecting positive social change (hence the preference to kids from underrepresented minorities, and the preference to kids from poor families, kids of parents without a college education, etc).</li>
<li>Promoting alumni loyalty (hence legacy preferences).</li>
<li>Staying solvent (hence the systematic preference to kids from affluent families and developmental admits).</li>
</ul>
<p>So what is wrong with this???</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>performersmom, I wasn’t in any way aiming my post 245 toward you. I was reflecting about not only this entire thread, but many threads on these topics over the years on CC. I’m sorry my post landed on the thread so soon after you posted but I wasn’t thinking about YOUR posts when I wrote it. :D</p>
<p>PS…like you, I have children who do sports and performing arts.</p>
<p>vicariousparent…re post #248…I agree…this is what colleges attempt to do and I don’t see anything wrong with it. It fulfills their mission. It is not unfair at all, IMO.</p>
<p>Respectfully, VP, I think that most on this thread are not debating what is fair, but analyzing how the system works and and to what purposes, and whether it is effective as such. There is acceptance that these systems exist, and need to exist.</p>
<p>Nothing’s wrong with this, IMO. I personally have zero problem with these elite schools attempting to serve as agents of positive social change by admitting a kid from an underrepresented minority and / or poor family. Even if it means that my upper middle class kid loses out. I’m being totally serious here. Admission to an elite school is going to be far more life-changing for that kid than for my kid, who will just go on to another good school or even a state flagship and do just fine.</p>
<p>As for the athletes-with-lower-standards thing (which is certainly not to say that all athletes are below academically!), I don’t like it because I think societal priorities on sports are misplaced, but I don’t complain that it’s “unfair” in the sense that my kid should have gotten in over the athlete with lower scores or that his rightful spot was “stolen.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, tell that to the numerous whiny threads and posters on CC who complain that an athlete / legacy / URM / first-gen student who was “less qualified” (as measured solely by GPA and SAT) than their own kid “stole” their kid’s rightful place. If I had a nickel for every post that is a variant on that, I’d be wealthy enough to really buy my kid’s way into Harvard.</p>
<p>I think all these "“hooks” have their purpose. soem social and some econimical. legacy and athletes hooks are mostly due to economical reasons.</p>
<p>I noticed a slight mention made of musician applicants. If you are interested about this, read on. Skip otherwise.
Wow, this is a complicated subject I appreciate (try seeing how much activity year after year on CC Music Major forum!!), but I will try to give some sense of how challenging it is for Music applicants.
I don’t have Ivy experience, specifically, and won’t focus directly on them but describe near Ivy/major UNIVERSITIES with top undergrad music schools/profs (as opposed to music conservatories, a different type of competitive institution not addressed here and where some applicants are home-schooled), I can say it is tough for a top musician to get in.
Maybe being a “regular” academic applicant one can use music as a hook - but that is different from the experience I am describing – the music applicant (or double-major including music)
Incidentally, some university schools of music are VERY highly ranked (though rankings are hard to do and open to discussion) just like certain music conservatories.
Example - Top music schools ranking in 2010/us college rankings:
- U of Rochester/Eastman School of Music
- Indiana University-Bloomington
- University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
- Juilliard School
- Curtis Institute of Music
- New England Conservatory of Music
- Northwestern University
- Oberlin College Conservatory
- U of Cincinnati
- U of Illinois- Urbana-Champaign
- Yale U
- Florida State U
- Manhattan School of Music
- U. of Southern California
- JHU/Peabody
etc…</p>
<p>Student must be accepted by undergrad admissions.
Student must be accepted by school of music.
Student must be accepted into a particular studio by a particular studio professor (an instrument may have 1 or more studios; opening slots are typically very limited each year).</p>
<p>You need to study with a top prof who is accomplished and is a good teacher… and who has an opening and is compatible. Student needs to be sure on these counts – it’s like a reverse interviewing.
There are limited slots owing to the facts of life of the music school. How about 2…or 4…on a competitive instrument???
Plus musician must meet top academic standards.</p>
<p>Time…the time spent on music and academics in such circumstances can be truly staggering. This is why one usually plans years in advance for music admissions.</p>
<p>It can seem like doing “double” apps. Some music admissions requires letters of recommendations from music professionals with good credentials, a music resume, substantive list of music rep, and pre-screening (sending in a high-quality CD or DVD with required repertoire for that admissions year which may be very challenging – does vary). IF invited to audition in person, additional preparation/rep is likely required. Auditions are high stakes. All while taking regular academics back at one’s HS and meeting requirements like 2 SAT subject tests etc. required by the university.</p>
<p>Example: There are a million stories.
I heard number of music applicants on a particular instrument one recent year at a major university were approx. 100. 25 then invited to audition in person, scheduled for a very particular date/time; typically with these things, one must fly in during winter weather. If 100 applicants doesn’t sound like many, realize self-selection (of those who bother to apply in the first place) already took place as the rep was VERY difficult and timeconsuming to record, too; making it into the 25 is notable. I think 4 were accepted in the end; believe this number included freshmen as well as master’s level.
Waitlisting is common; there is a shaking out period between these various schools.</p>
<p>At some universities, musicians are turned down midstream in the admissions process by undergrad admissions before the selection process whereby offers go out for in-person auditions; from what I hear the music studio prof who really wants a particular musician and feels this student is special can give a try to argue the case, but it is unlikely s/he can persuade regular undergrad admissions to bend slightly for a student. Others may wish to comment on this. Hard to know for certain.</p>
<p>This appears to be much HARDER process than for athletes. Plus we hear about academic suspensions – I live near Stanford, while I know little about college sports we are barraged with info about Stanford athletes in our local news. I understand a basketball player there was on academic suspension (not 1st time) and he has opted to go into the draft rather than sit out a period of time and then try to resume as an active bball player. This kind of coddling/option doesn’t exist for musicians! There also were recent news reports of easy courses for Stanford athletes, with silly course names.</p>
<p>There are a TON of very, very high level high school musicians applying to universities in this country.
What’s more, some will change to academic majors or double major at the university; the ones I know who did this were academically prepared, which is fortunate. Maybe we should thank the university adcomms for doing a good job.</p>
<p>performersmom, my post was in response to soozievt’s comment about the posts she has read over the years on C.C. I generally agree with what you are saying- it is in the interests of the colleges themselves to review their admissions practices regularly to see if admissions are helping them further the mission of the college.</p>
<p>However, I think, as Pizzagirl states, there are just too many posts on C.C. where people “whine” about unfair admission advantages enjoyed by various groups of applicants.</p>
<p>lateparty, I know absolutely nothing about music, but I would also surmise that someone has got to be upper middle class to be able to afford the kind of music teachers (and instruments) that we’re talking about. So in a sense that’s “unfair” too (if one cares about that kind of thing). It wouldn’t surprise me if applicants to high-end music programs such as those you listed come from more affluent-than-usual families. They can afford the teachers, instruments and most importantly the time (insofar as mom can chauffeur junior to lessons, and junior doesn’t have to work to help the family put food on the table).</p>
<p>Are there just way more top musicians who are qualified and competing to get into tippy tops than there are top athletes???</p>
<p>I wasn’t claiming the process was “unfair,” especially with regard to my own kids–I was trying to point out that I think it’s kind of silly to object to the debatably quite minor effect of legacy on admission while blithely accepting the larger effect of sports recruitment. </p>
<p>And, of course, I’m not a sports fan, so I can’t fathom why fielding a winning team is important enough to warrant choosing athletes over other applicants, on a structured basis (not “George is an excellent student and-bonus!-can play football,” but “George is a great football player! And his scores are fine, too!”) I guess I don’t get the concept that having “a third-rate sports team” that loses every game will thus–and rightfully–lose the college’s loyalty and attendance. I thought the point of <em>amateur</em> sports was good-natured competition, and that only in professional sports was the goal to win at all costs. I will happily watch a third-rate team lose, when that team is made up of my friends and classmates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you for this post, Pizzagirl. It is a breath of fresh air on CC!</p>
<p>lateparty, thanks for your post (254). Most people without a child in performing arts admissions have no clue what that process is like. The odds are WORSE than Ivy League admissions. Not to mention the subjective factor involved. I also have a child in the field of performing arts. Her primary field is musical theater. All of her schools were BFA programs where one must audition to be admitted. The acceptance rates to all of them are in the single digits, averaging about 5%. This process, in my case, was for D2, making D1’s elite college admissions process look tame in comparison. I also advise many performing arts students in their college admissions process and a huge part of the early stages of the college selection process is reiterating over and over the very very long odds of admissions, no matter how talented they are. Also, beyond talent, there are factors that can’t be controlled, such as “type” and a college musical theater program wanting a variety of types of actors and looks. If you are a blond ingenue soprano and they already have a few of that type, tough luck.</p>