<p>11.3% black (african american) sounds great to me. currently–systemwide-- the numbers aren’t close to that. i’d like to see higher numbers of black people on the campuses. even 2.7% native american is better than what we have now. so…yeah… i like those numbers. </p>
<p>i think that harvard’s 11.3% probably includes several non-american black people though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But MIT doesn’t lower the academic standards to let the sports person get in and that’s why participation at MIT is so high. Anyone can walk in and join the teams if they have the passion for the game.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m no one, it’s the accepted definition of an University.</p>
<p>[University</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University]University”>University - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, if Harvard admissions are fair and the pool of increased application of one ethnicity is capable then the admissions statistics should change.</p>
<p>If the statistics are not changing despite the increased application pool of capable asian applicants then there is a false ceiling (quota).</p>
<p>But the reality is admissions is not just about test scores and GPAs.This has been discussed ad nauseum on threads here.</p>
<p>
Data to support the first sentence? It seems that the second sentence explains the first-- that anyone can walk on to a team. Ergo, the participation would likely be higher if there is 100% chance of playing. Academic standard is irrelevant if there is a 100% walk- on acceptance to any club or intercollegiate team.</p>
<p>^ there is no data to support the claim … google MIT’s basketball program and see if that matches one person’s perception that the teams that have turned the program around are made up “anyone with passion” players who happened to walk on. When I applied to MIT a million years ago I believe MIT recruited in the sense many are advocating … atheltes might get a TIP … that does not appear to the case anymore.</p>
<p>My interest in this subject started as a parent of very bright national merit kid who was turned down at an elite school. To me the more you look at elite admissions the more bewildering it gets. Just looking at national merit kids while I am sure there are some exceptions at my kid’s private school there were 9 National merit kids and they were clearly the very brightest kids in the class. Many were accomplished musicians and many were accomplished athletes more in sports like swimming and cross country.</p>
<p>Now there are 15,000 national merit kids so if HYPS wanted to accept the most gifted academic kids they could easily have 100% national merit students. My expectation was that after accounting for diversity, athletics, and legacies that the number of percentage of national merit kids would be around 70% at these schools. The actual percentage shocked me-less than 15% of admissions to HYPS are national merit. </p>
<p>The other thing I have come to realize is that these schools over time have generated new classes of targeted admits. And each time a new target group is formed it seems to further reduce the number of unhooked white kids admitted. By my calculation there are so few spots left for unhooked white kids that they have less than a 1% chance of admittance while probably representing 2/3rds of the applicants. </p>
<p>Why this is important is that there are countless kids out there who do everything right, work their butts off, and believe that if they work their butts off and demonstrate that they are among the very brightest that they should get into the very best colleges in America. What they don’t know and need to know is they never had a shot-there is a quota system in place that allocates very few spots to unhooked middle class white kids.</p>
<p>The University of Chicago, at least, DOES recruit athletes, and so does MIT I believe. As a Division III school, it doesn’t offer athletic scholarships (nor do the Ivies), and it isn’t in the running for top D-I prospects (whom the Ivies sometimes can nab, and whom Stanford and Duke get on a regular basis). Its lack of strong spectator sports culture may turn some prospects off, and its lack of any easy path to a degree definitely does. But I know more than a couple student athletes who surprised their parents by saying, in essence “I know I’m not going to be a pro, and I’d like to go to college somewhere where I am going to get whipped into shape academically, and where academics come first for everyone.” These kids were not, by the way, strong candidates for admission without their athletic skill.</p>
<p>ParentofIvyHopeful:</p>
<p>Harvard’s mission is stated on their financial and tax documents filed with the IRS and Massachusetts Secretary of State. A wikipedia definition just ain’t gonna cut it.</p>
<p>But in any event, I note that the definition you liked is not EXclusive. In can easily be read to INclude scholars who happen to be athletes.</p>
<p>In any event, HYP chooses to admit legacies. HYP chooses to recruit athletes. UVa reviews OOS legacy brats with the instate pool. Many colleges offer no such preferences. If you don’t like HYP’s policies, which is part of their culture, why would you even be an IvyHopefulParent? Look elsewhere for your kids.</p>
<p>I just see more and more angst and complaints that the poor white middle class kid isn’t getting a fair shake because there are all these hooked groups of applicants. I have two white middle class kids who were unhooked and I don’t feel this way at all. My kids wanted to go to colleges that were diverse. These colleges are not taking the top SATs off the pile and forming a class. They are trying to build a mixed group of students (some play sports, some do newspaper, some play in the orchestra) from many geographical areas, from many races and socio-economic classes, and so on. Colleges want that as part of their mission. My kids, as students, wanted that too. At Ivies, in particular, as this is the topic here on this thread (Harvard), I really don’t believe that legacies or athletes were less qualified than the unhooked kids. </p>
<p>Some are also talking about athletes here and simplifying it as being mostly about healthy bodies, etc. Being on a college varsity sports team is much more than physical health!! My kid (who was NOT a recruited athlete but was on an Ivy varsity team for four years and also played on another sport’s club team for two years), gained so much more out of her participation than merely staying in shape. There are a lot easier ways to stay in shape with a much smaller commitment (such as going to a gym once/day for an hour). The teamwork, collaboration, leadership, friendships around a common interest, and so much more were significant aspects of it, not to mention devotion past graduation to the goals of the team (my D has made numerous calls and emails in behalf of the team in recent weeks, including the president of the university, and she graduated three years ago!). I know for a fact that grad schools also told my D that they looked favorably upon her four years on a varsity team on her resume. These were top grad schools in fact (including POIH’s beloved MIT where my D enrolled). It was much more than just a healthy physical activity. Not to mention, D and her teammates had to time manage grueling schedules while keeping up with academics (many, including her, becoming Academic All Americans), and applying to grad schools (many of her teammates, including her, went onto graduate degree programs very successfully afterward). My D was also a TA for two courses at her Ivy, all while playing on a varsity team. Many of her teammates were engaged in many other aspects of the college besides schoolwork…such as a capella, community service, internships, research, student government, tour guide, etc. They were more than “merely” athletes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not to put too fine a point on it, but coaches at the University of Chicago and MIT recruit athletes. To the extent that an applicant is already in the pool of “admissible” applicants, being an athletic recruit may then put him at the front of the line.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>bingo!!!</p>
<p>JYM626 -Please check post 358. We are not discussing test scores or GPAs. There are certain percentage allocations for different groups under the holistic process irrespective of number of applications increasing each year. I am suggesting that statistically it is not possible to arrive at those specific target percentages without trying to allocate those levels upfront.</p>
<p>@sm74</p>
<p>As the parent of one national merit semifinalist and one soon to be (HS class of 2012) I don’t think this contest provides an accurate measure of the nations brightest students.</p>
<p>
I don’t understand this statistic. It doesn’t fit with the SAT spreads and GPAs at these schools. Are you talking about the number of students receiving actual National Merit scholarships?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who cares if they do? I don’t! I’m glad that they are building a mixed class of all these groups and types. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. Some on these forums seem to wish that these colleges took the highest SAT scorers’ folders off the application pile and admit them. They get incensed when someone with a lower SAT got in over them or their kid who had a higher SATs. Ivies just want kids with SATs over a certain threshhold and after that, everything else matters. They don’t seem to think that getting a 2200 kid is something “less” than accepting a 2350 kid. Both can do the work at the Ivy and become successful. It is the other qualities that set people apart. And even then, it is about building a mixed group of students. Part of what makes an education great at these schools is that very mixed student body. That was something my kids really liked about elite schools in fact.</p>
<p>(PS…re: National Merit…my younger D never got to take the PSATs in 11th grade due to family emergency and so wasn’t even eligible fo NM and so I’m glad National Merit is not such an important factor in admissions, as she obviously had the academics and very good SAT and SAT Subject Test scores, which she took only in 10th grade in fact…And my older D never prepped for PSATs and so would not have qualified and we never cared about NM…didn’t even cross our radar…but she prepped for the real SATs and did well enough (scored way higher than on the PSATs) to get into top colleges, and so I’m glad NM is not a pre-requisite for getting in…she obviously had the “goods”)</p>
<p>Remember that the P in PSAT is “Preliminary.”</p>
<p>There are some schools that recognize and consider national merit as a measure for admissions and provide scholarships. Ivies are definitely not part of that group. The numbers given are attending students in 2010 (Brown 78, Columbia 63, Cornell 53, Dartmouth 84, Harvard 261, Princeton 192, Penn 125, and Yale 224). All of these people are attending the schools with no financial incentive specific to national merit given out by the schools.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nationalmerit.org/annual_report.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nationalmerit.org/annual_report.pdf</a> (page 38).</p>
<p>Soozievt - I dont care either. I am pointing out that it is politically correct to talk about this great holistic process the schools follow but the reality is based on quotas for different groups. For people to be coming here and arguing the benefits of legacy and talk down athletics, or lament non-recognition of national merit or those mysterious Pell Grant recipients who get no recognition whatsoever in the evil ivy league, or why something should exist or not is total BS. </p>
<p>The schools can do whatever they damn well please. There is a specific method they are following that says we take a certain number of people that fit specific roles in our schools (10% foreigners, almost 50:50 split between male and female, make sure our athletic teams are competitive, make sure we take certain number of people for legacy (12%), URM (40+?), first gen at 12%, and the list goes on). Your D got in with no hooks and so will other kids but there is a specific pool of seats every kid is aiming for irrespective of how holistic the process is claimed to be.</p>