Legacy Admissions Strike Again

Parents Forum
141

<p>Gorillaglue,</p>

<p>If you get the opportunity, I would recommend that you read The Overachievers by Alexandra Robbins.</p>

<p>from p202</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think that you have a myopic view as what elite college admissions should be. Keep in mind that Harvard is not at a loss of students applying who have perfect SAT scores, extremely high GPAs, number one class rank and unbelievably great extra-curricular activities (this could be subjective because at what you and your school may see as unbelievaly great Harvard could consider to be nothing special). </p>

<p>Since this same topic comes up every year, this time of year ith repeat performances in the spring, I am going to recommend a few threads for you to reveiw so that you will see that there is nothing new under the sun. </p>

<p>**My Dinner With An Admissions Officer **</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/118616-my-dinner-admissions-officer.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/118616-my-dinner-admissions-officer.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>He believes way too many people are overly preoccupied with GPA’s and standardized test scores. He believes these are almost always bright line tests, rarely anything more. Exceed the threshhold and the REAL review begins.</p>

<p>Most colleges today are concerned about putting together a well-rounded community and are not necessarily looking for well-rounded individual students. The elite colleges truly want “superstars” in many of the niche fields and EC’s. Having said this, students who are well-rounded at a VERY HIGH LEVEL never go out of vogue. </p>

<p>**Just How Hard Admission Can Be **</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/116204-just-how-hard-admission-can.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/116204-just-how-hard-admission-can.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Admissions stats provide a reality check - even very high-scoring students have a low probability of admission at some schools. </p>

<p>**“Whoever has the most APs wins” **</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/97255-whoever-has-most-aps-wins.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/97255-whoever-has-most-aps-wins.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Post # 49 by Ben Jones, College Rep for MIT is definitely worth a read:</p>

<p>

</p>

142

<p>Sybbie, I appreciate your long post, but really, who has not heard all of this a thousand times? You are completely missing my point. I am not suggesting that my neighbor be admitted just because she has great stats, I think ALL students should go through the same admissions process and be judged by the SAME criteria. “200 to 300 excelling in dance, drama, or athletics, whose achievements” - oh come on, Harvard has over 300 admissions slots just for athletes - each sport has predetermined slots, the quantity dependent upon the particular sport, so within a sport there is perhaps, competition, but there is not competition among the entire applicant pool. As long as a coach wants a particular athlete - and this is terribly subjective - and the athlete meets a certain “bar” academically, they are IN. It’s an incredibly stupid process - and you better believe that admissions committees HATE it. They would love to see EVERYONE go through the normal admissions channels. Legacies, URMS, ORMs all go through admissions. Only developmentals and athletes don’t, and there are so few development cases that it doesn’t really impact much.</p>

143

<p>you wrote:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This statement in and of itself means that the athlete is capable of doing the work. It does not benefit Harvard or any othe school to admit an athlete who will not be academically eligible to play. (note: My D has graduated college, was not a legacy or athlete so no horse in this race).</p>

144

<p>The moderators should change the title of this thread because it has nothing to do with the original premise. Since the OP never returned to the thread, I doubt they would care.</p>

145

<p>Then don’t send your kid to Harvard then. It’s hardly as though it’s necessary.</p>

146

<p>

They play lacrosse well. What’s more, if they play it really well, they will be offered athletic scholarships at other schools, and this happens early. If Harvard didn’t use likely letters and special attention, it wouldn’t be able to get these athletes.</p>

<p>Also, people who play sports well enough to be recruited by Harvard and who have academics strong enough to satisfy the Academic Index aren’t that numerous–so top schools are competing to get them.</p>

147

<p>@GorillaGlue: Did you read the article I cited in post #102? I think it makes the situation fairly clear.</p>

148

<p>Will probably return to this thread later, but just wanted to note two points:</p>

<p>1) Re post 141 by sybbie719: Ah, Ben Jones, my old semi-nemesis. Second only to Marilee Jones (no relation). I hope that paragraph 2 of the quotation from Jones can be recognized as the rather pernicious stereotyping that it is. I do not actually know anyone who fits the “passionless grind” image that he is peddling, but I think it had a strong hold on MIT admissions for quite a while. </p>

<p>(Incidentally, I was admitted as an undergrad ages ago, and neither my spouse nor QMP applied there; but friends of QMP did.)</p>

<p>2) Re the discussion in general: bovertine has found an old commentary by Harvard admissions. It provides analysis only through about 1971. However, it contains two real gems, which help to explain admissions outcomes that might otherwise seem inexplicable. One is the “happy bottom quarter” theory that has been bruited about; perhaps this paper was its origin. The other is the “bridge student” idea–classist in its presentation in the Harvard analysis, but probably still operational today in a modified form.</p>

<p>If you look in the Parents Forum for threads started by bovertine in the past month or so, you should find the link to the Harvard admissions office paper.</p>

149

<p>^Right, until athletic recruiting stops at other colleges, I’m afraid we’re stuck with the likely letter phenomena. Interestingly, in the last few years I’ve started hearing of cases where Harvard extends a handful likely letters to non-athletes as well. Since hearing of this, I have to admit that the athletic likely letters are bothering me less. :)</p>

150

<p>I just have to note that the Ivies have tied their own hands tremendously in terms of athletic recruiting with both the Academic Index and the absence of athletic scholarships. They are some of the least bad offenders in terms of enrolling athletes who are academically inferior.</p>

151

<p>Pizzagirl, the majority of colleges do this to one degree or another, so there is no escaping it. Do you think that I not send my children to college simply to avoid them being exposed to athletic recruitment? Rather a silly suggestion, but from other threads, I know it’s your mantra.</p>

<p>Nonimagination - I don’t think the supposed correlation between athletics and income is evidence to justify recruiting. There is a stronger correlation between major and income or race and income, yada yada. Many of these students would still attend the more prestigious school, if they were actually admitted.</p>

<p>Sybbie - That term, “doing the work” just slays me. Our standards are pretty low, huh?</p>

<p>You all seem to want to keep things the way there are, however flawed, and you consider questioning clearly unfair policies outrageous or ill-informed. </p>

<p>I hope that colleges reconsider the process admitting and the number of slots available to athletes at the expense of more qualified students. In the meantime, I have to run and sign up my 10 year old for fencing lessons.</p>

152

<p>Do you REALLY think smart students don’t wind up at “good” colleges? So pumpkin has to study at Tufts instead of Harvard, oh boo hoo.</p>

153

<p>I think that we need to be clear about the precise magnitude of the “advantage” given in the admissions process for sports like fencing. While I wasn’t able to find the numbers for that specific sport, I assume that the advantage is no greater than that for golfers, who are not recruitable at Harvard unless they have an unweighted 3.8 average and 700+ on the SAT I sections and the SAT II’s.</p>

<p>The academic requirements for the helmet sports and basketball are, of course, substantially less stringent.</p>

154

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think it’s “outrageous or ill-informed,” just a waste of energy. These schools aren’t going to change their admission policies because parents of rejected or unhooked kids complain about it.</p>

155

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree. Just anecdotal evidence, but every Ivy athlete I know (probably 10 at most) were absolutely qualified academically.</p>

156

<p>There’s a lot of ground between “Everything Harvard does is right” and “Harvard’s error in this one area is so great that I have to go elsewhere.”</p>

<p>The ground I occupy is “I think my alma mater is a great institution that has a few flaws, and I want to convince them to fix those flaws.” Admissions policies change from year to year; what’s going on this year doesn’t reflect any objective truth about what’s best for the university. It’s just this year’s compromise among the different constituencies. The field hockey alumni have their priorities, and I have mine. We’re all entitled to lobby for the balance of admissions criteria we think best. (Did they ever hear from me when they suspended taking transfers!)</p>

157

<p>I should also note that the website clearly states that the grade point average must be achieved by taking the most challenging courses.</p>

<p>[Harvard</a> Men’s Golf Frequently Asked Questions: Harvard Athletics - GoCrimson.com](<a href=“http://www.gocrimson.com/sports/mgolf/faq]Harvard”>http://www.gocrimson.com/sports/mgolf/faq)</p>

158

<p>GorillaGlue, I think what we are trying to convey to you is that there is nothing “unfair” about colleges valuing athletic prowess. There is no cosmic requirement that colleges must primarily consider academic achievement in order to be “fair.” You may think that it’s a bad idea (or even a stupid idea) for them to value a lacrosse player over a kid with higher stats, but there is nothing “unfair” about it, any more than it’s unfair for them to want to have some Classics majors as well as math majors.</p>

159

<p>Brown has announced that it will reduce the number of athletic recruits from 225 to 205 - only twenty slots, but a step in the right direction. These 20 roster positions will now be filled by athletes who go through the normal admission process, just like everyone else. Athletics will be considered along with other qualifications and in comparison to the entire applicant pool.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.brown.edu/web/athletics-review/documents/RJS-athletic-response.pdf[/url]”>http://www.brown.edu/web/athletics-review/documents/RJS-athletic-response.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

160

<p>As I have said numerous times, athletes should go through the normal admissions process and be compared to the entire applicant pool. They should not be given a back door route to admissions. Athletic ability should be considered, along with other important skills and attributes. I know adcoms would LOVE to get a look-see at these folks. For example, why does fencing get four spots EVERY year? There are four great fencers EVERY year? Probably not. Some years, all of them may be great and other years none of may be particularly impressive. But you better believe the fencing coach is going to take his/her four every year, no matter what the quality - the coach’s priority is to protect the team’s admissions slots and not give them up. Adcoms are mandated to construct the best possible class given their institutional constraints. I’d rather trust admissions select the best admits, not a coach.</p>