<p>The diversity factor is a touchy subject, so I am not specifying what constitutes a deiversity factor, but I am sure all of you who have been following the trends in elite college/high school admissions have some ideas what they are.</p>
<p>Assuming the schools consider themselves rigorously academic institutions first and foremost, then when they turn down applicants with a straight A trascript plus 99% SSAT coupled with respectable EC's while accepting some B students with 65% SSAT even without spectacular talents (atheletics or otherwise), it's hard to make the case that this is just to build a well balanced community. Are the schools over-streching to pursue diversity? Is it so important to have a student body representing 42 states instead of 40, with a certain ethenity rep of 10% instead of 8%, 50% boys and 50% of girls instead of 54% of boys and 46% of girls...?The schools would say that they only admit academically admissible applicants, but does it make it a fair competition as the admission process is? While life is never a fair game, are the schools trying to be fair to the motivated hard working students who have been pursuing excellence as they promote? Even though meritocracy seems an outdated concept, where is this trend going eventually, and where is the line drawn?</p>
<p>Depends on what you’re after, I suppose. If the point of the school is to attract and train up the absolute top-of-the line student worker bees and test takers, then yes, I suppose the current system is unfair. If the school has other aims than that, however–if it, for example, sees value in bringing together kids with diverse voices and experiences because it expects students to learn as much from one another as they do from a teacher or a textbook, then I think a more flexible and broader method of evaluating candidates is called for. </p>
<p>That said, I do think it’s important that all of the students share a certain level of competence–that they are all, as Andover puts it–academically admissable–but it seems to me to be both possible and desirable to have universal competence and broad diversity in one student body. </p>
<p>Of course we all know about the dark side of this vision–when Ivy League colleges, for example, started excluding Jewish students who were clearly more qualified than their WASP counterparts in the name of a well-rounded student body. The difference, I think, is in whether one’s aim is true–that is, is the school’s practice truly reflective of its mission, or a mask for bigotry?</p>
<p>GemmaV, I didn’t point out one particular kind of diversity to “blame”, but I am glad there’s an AO responding to my - “puzzlement”. So, in your experience, why do these schools admit students with a “B transcript” and SSAT’s in 60’s or 70’s, much lower than their published average/median stats. Understand it’s not a stats game but want to get your perspectives on <em>why and how</em> such a student could get in the door while other significantly <em>qualified</em> academically and extracurricular wise get rejected. Exactly what do you AO’s see that we don’t see other than the diversity factors?</p>
<p>Note: I know this is a sensitive topic. Feel free to express your opinions. Just please don’t label others “racists” or question their motivation. Express your opinions.</p>
<p>It’s not just about the score, race or income. They look at the whole student. In their community there will be future Doctors, nurses, Judges, lawyers, business owners, inventors, clergy, teachers and so on. Students will share each-others cultures and backgrounds. It should not be formed from a cookie cutter mold.
A student w/ 99% score can look less interesting than a student w/70% depending on what the student chose to do outside of the class room. I don’t know about the rest of you but I want well rounded students in my kids environment not just bright test takers.</p>
<p>Why could not you lable your thread “how far (down) would a top school go for an athlete?” Or how about “how far (down) would a top school go for a legacy/developmental admit?” </p>
<p>A hook is a hook is a hook.</p>
<p>Edit: Just because a school may admit somebody with “lesser” scores than another applicant doesn’t mean they are not academically qualified for the school. simply means the school has a want for a different applicant for that slot.</p>
<p>I saw another post from GemmaV but for some reason she decided to remove it…</p>
<p>@muf123: you made “bright test takers” sound like a dirty word. So your point is that these “bright test takers” must be boring and cookie cut uniform robots? And since when “less interesting” is such an important criterion to predict one’s success in a highly academic and demanding environment? Well rounded is good but not that hard to be. Students with excellent grades and test scores can be well rounded too, believe or not.</p>
<p>I’m honestly confused, DAndrew. What are you hoping will come out of this thread? </p>
<p>Also, isn’t the diversity of backgrounds and talents supposed to be part of the appeal of these boarding schools? I would think people would be more likely to find a homogeneous environment in local schools (private day, religious, or the local public), if that is what they’re looking for.</p>
<p>DAndrew, your premise is not accurate. You posit,
. That’s your assumption. I think it’s false. I do not think the schools place academics over character. I would think the schools carry the grave responsibility to educate the elite of the country 20 years hence. Academic prowess is only one criterion among many.</p>
<p>The admissions teams assemble classes of students who help to educate each other in the classroom, on the playing field, and in service to their community. The strongest schools have diverse student bodies. A non-diverse school filled with purely scholarly students would not attract the amazing students the top schools attract.</p>
<p>Andover’s median SSAT score is 94 percent this year. Unless I’ve completely forgotten the meaning of the word median, that would suggest that the lowest percentile SSAT of any admittied applicant was 89 percent. That would suggest that one HADES school at least doesn’t go very low at all when it comes to admitting a diverse group of students. </p>
<p>Other than that, do we have solid data enough to even have a discussion like this?</p>
<p>Actually, median just means middle. So you could have 50, 94, and 99 and the median is 94. Averages, get weighted by outliers, not medians.
But, it still says a lot…1/2 of their SSAT scores are 94 or above!</p>
<p>Median, I think, means the number in the middle of a set of data, “middle value of an ordered set of values.” So, the numbers could be 45, 54, 66, 94, 99, 99 and 99 and the 94 is in the middle. But I find the idea that “the schools consider themselves rigorously academic institutions first and foremost” really laughable. If you have had your child go through the college admissions process you know that’s not true! I would say that a good number of them are actually sports institutions, particularly in the Ivy League. And yes, I do know one very (very!) low scoring hockey player at Harvard. Family friend. Parents were astonished the kid was recruited.</p>
<p>I always get mean and median mixed up. So I’m glad to have cross posted with two others! Honestly, I’m a big fan of all of these schools (except that having read the forum today, I think the Andover package/no package/where’s the package? thing seems a little cruel) but I’m guessing that like every other institution, they present their numbers in the most favorable light possible. That’s why colleges superscore the SAT.</p>
<p>I think having a school full of 99% SSAT students could lack any type of diversity. </p>
<p>First, not all students test well. Exams alone are not and should not be the measure of a students potential or worth. (Think about it–many asian countries “track” students from grammar school, thus only particular ones get tracked to college).</p>
<p>Leaving race out of it as a factor. A school with students from big cities have a very different views from students who grow up not locking car doors. What about kids who were raised by single parents, verses 2 parent households or 2 parent same-sex. Money, is an interesting factor. Parent involvement is a factor. Remember, they need tuba players, soccer stars, writers, and math lovers. </p>
<p>Many 99% kids have had advanced courses. It doesnt make them smarter, just better educated. Some kids have had tutors to help them prep, some kids have parents that have prepped them since birth for bs.</p>
<p>In our “global society” kids that have a desire to study chinese and japanese are rare, and remember the school needs to be able to fill up those classes if they are to keep them going.</p>
<p>As a interesting side note. My d did not have a 99% but a 90%, but she is maintaining a strong A average. She is an extremely hard worker yet doesnt study all the time. Her background is extremely diverse in her own community. She is surely not the type of inner city, divorced working mom, philosophy-loving, ballet dancing only child that most people would imagine when they see her. I feel she brings a wealth of diversity to her bs community. The fact that she is African-American is really besides the point.</p>
<p>Is a 90% SSAT, going too far down for a tier one bs??</p>
<p>Actually I have to admit that I’ve been a little shocked by some of the “diversity” questions on the board lately- as far as I know, all of the big New England schools these days are very open, diverse and welcoming, some of you would even say “liberal.” If you’re not open minded, you probably wouldn’t be happy at the schools. Just saying.</p>
<p>I knew I’d get into trouble reporting a math fact! That’s right. I knew it was the middle, but was obviously muddling it with average/mean. Consider a red-faced emoticon added here (another one of my embarrassing limitations is my inability to do any text manipulation on CC)</p>
<p>You should see me try to help my seventh grader with his math homework…</p>