<p>Mini alas you are all along right that admission is not merit based. I was just talking to my kid. She told me about the records of kids who are admitted to elite schools form an elite prep school. Most of the kids who were admitted into elite colleges (HYPMS and other ivys) are either B grade students with legacies (lot of money and connections) or An A grade average with very light schedules. Family assets more than seven or eight figures. In addition, many kids who are posses athletics power were admitted even with B grade averages (or with an A average with lighter schedules). The Colleges have given very low (2 as compare to 30 others) preference in admitting the kids with extremely challenging courses and scoring better grade averages. Thus, the number of pure academic kids who were admitted is very low as compared to kids with legacies and athletic hooks.</p>
<p>Stockmarket, would your story attempt to confirm the Avery studies that the students applying ED/EA form a lower level group than the RD group? FWIW, Avery's findings have always been vehemently disputed on CC. </p>
<p>Now, should we check the reports of Andover, Deerfield or Exeter and see if they agree that the majority of their successful applicants were academic subpars who were saved by their athletic ability or wallet size? </p>
<p>PS A and B grades mean absolutely nothing outside an appropriate context. An A could be the result of 50% grade inflation or be extremely rare at other schools. </p>
<p>PPS On a side note, do we know how many of those students with a "Family assets more than seven or eight figures" helped lesser fortunate but "pure academic" students attending the private school? Where is Chinaman when we need him? :)</p>
<p>stockmarket, don't forget affirmative action!</p>
<p>Either way, the plural of anecdote is not evidence. ;)</p>
<p>Xiggi </p>
<p>Like chinaman my kid got full aid too to attend the prep school. Yes kid made the cut too but only two of them have this opportunity to go in SCEA/EA/ED round. School is one of the schools in (Deerfield, Choate, Andover, Exeter, SPS, Groton, Milton and similar other elite schools). </p>
<p>One thing which I should have mentioned that most of the legacy kids have ECs like school newspaper, debate, music, atheletics or similar Ecs that are very time consuimg going for them. These kids were involved in big time.</p>
<p>Yes AA has seens its share of kids too. BUt agian these kids are not the one who are from Bronx but rather from affluent AA families or have atheletics or simply ECs that are amazing. </p>
<p>I am not trying to dispute anything. I am just saying the facts as we see it. Since RD round is still way to go but this is the fact as of now. </p>
<p>My better option should have been academics alone are nothing. One has better chnace with amazing ECs. But other way it may be hard to get in with high grades and no ECs.</p>
<p>stockmarket,</p>
<p>(1) How did your daughter obtain the information about the family assets of parents within the school? Unless someone is on the Forbes list of richest Americans (or unless you manager the family's portfolio), how would you have any clue, even within a factor of ten, of someone's assets?</p>
<p>(2) There seems to be another issue of anger toward students being accepted at Ivy league schools with A's in "very light schedules" rather than taking "extremely challenging courses." Unless a student is a somewhat accomplished athlete or has some other significant hook, I would be surprised if he could get accepted to an Ivy without predominantly A's in challenging courses.</p>
<p>How about hard statistics. Last year's Pton class, for example, had an average SAT of 730 and 730. I don't know how they pulled that average if they only admit B students, weak performing minorities, legacies and development prospects. The class is mostly very bright kids taking a rough courseload (after a ton of APs in high school). Stockmarket, sounds like you have a bad case of sour grapes.</p>
<p>Paftaher:</p>
<p>Last name and google can tell you a lot. Their home adresses can tell you a lot. When HYP building are in their relatives name it can tell you a lot. When their grandafthers are ambassdors or busieness world executives it can tell you a lot. </p>
<p>However, Your second assumption is 100% true kids have something unique to bring to school. BUt academics is not one of them. As mere academic kids have no such luck in admisson decisions. </p>
<p>Yes we are very thankful to these families to give us money otherwise my kid would have never attended a prep school.</p>
<p>Wsox: Please do not get personal as my kid made the cut but I am just saying that please do not just try to get in on academics. I am not talking about some ordinary legacies. I am talking about legacies which are sometime 4 to 5 generations connections.</p>
<p>One more thing I am comparing kids who went beyond Linear Algebra and mutivariable calculus and Scince research (did not get admiited and deffred as they took AP scinces and AP Math in 10th grade) vs kids who are taking AP BC calculus in 12th grade and getting B averages. Math and scince kids lost more than kids who are into humanities. </p>
<p>Disclaimer: I may bew rong in my obervations but I am just telling you the way it appears.</p>
<p>Stockmarket - I don't want to get personal but your comments border on the outrageous. The integrated science program at Pton is loaded with super bright multivariable calculus kids (they better know it as the first problem set requires it). Small sample sizes are never significant for such a broad statement. However, with a 90% reject rate, I am sure some super bright kids were rejected. Part of the deal is even they need french horn players and if you are one, you may be picked over someone with 30 more SAT points. Elite colleges have never claimed to be a statistical meritocracy. Life, like college admissions, isn't always fair.</p>
<p>Stockmarket, because you were not around during Chinaman's time, allow me to add that he earned my utmost respect and gratitude for his contributions -I hope I do not sound condescending even saying that! </p>
<p>Please do not read anything personal in my posts. I realize that the value and weight colleges place upon non-academic elements might surprise parents and students who have pursued academic excellence with passion. </p>
<p>This said, it is well beyond our capabilities to know why some are rejected, let alone know why some are accepted. We are simply left with mostly idle speculation.</p>
<p>WSox:</p>
<p>I am no expert in admission but I am just saying the message I am seeing unfolding and I amy be wrong</p>
<p>"Do not owrry about hard classes, take care of ECs as the lack of those Ecs may keep you out"</p>
<p>Yes these legacies have provides us with a fin aid worth $120,000 in prep school and hopefully it will be same in the Boston or princton which ever provides better financaila id too. Without these kids help, my poor kid would not have been there.</p>
<p>I am not calling the present admission scene wrong, All I am saying that academics alone will not take you anywhere in HYP, one need to bring better ECs.</p>
<p>Stockmarket,</p>
<p>keep in mind that each year in the admission process it is the goal of the college to build a well rounded class that aligns with the institutional mission of the college. In building this class, they are going to talk people from all walks of life, legacies, developmental admits, URMs, atheletes, artists, musicians, rocket scientists, good deed doers, rich kids, poor kids,elite prep school kids, low performing urban public school kids, etc. because they are interested in **building a community of learners. ** remember that there are multiple intelligences and even those are taken into consideration because learnering take place both inside and out side of the classroom and is not just limited to grades and scores.</p>
<p>I think there is a disconnect as some people have a very myopic view of he admissions process and believe that admissions is solely based on grades and scores while at the same time colleges are looking at students using multiple lenses. </p>
<p>while grades and scores are important colleges also look to admit real life flesh and blood people who they would like to see on campus, engage in conversations etc. So does this mean that a student with perfect scores will be rejected, waitlisted, deferred, over some one with "lesser stats"? Yes, in each and every class, because the person with lesser stats, may be bringing something really unique to the school.</p>
<p>Some years a school may be looking to build up math and science departments, other years it could be humanities. Some years the school may really focus on reaching out students from a particular geographic area, filling out their defensive line, or seeking an oboe player. If a student fits a niche the school is trying to fill, yes, they will be admitted over the a 10,256 applicant who is heavy into math and science.</p>
<p>The fact that college is for academic education makes be believe that the priority for admissions should be an excellent academic record, just as music talent should be the priority for conservatory admission or art ability for art program admission. Should the best artist or musician be rejected in favor of a less talented student who has won science awards? That would provide variety, but it's not fair. If my academically superior student was rejected from an academic college in favor of admitting a less academically qualified athlete, urm or oboe player, I would be angry. Why should my better qualified student be rejected in order to provide the window dressing of variety? That's not fair either. Admissions is very fickle.</p>
<p>PS - This never actually happened to us, it's just MHO.</p>
<p>" If my academically superior student was rejected from an academic college in favor of admitting a less academically qualified athlete, urm or oboe player, I would be angry."</p>
<p>Happens all the time. Private schools are not supposed to be fair to the applicants, just fair to their institution. In other words, they take who they feel they need in order to have a well-rounded class. Sometimes this means taking the less qualified athlete instead of the super-star mathlete. I don't see why people find this either surprising or unfair in general, although I do understand that it is very upsetting when it's your kid who is being bumped.
Sybbie is right. Most colleges don't want to just be filled with top scoring, academic stars. They want students with a variety of talents.
One thing does seem to hold true: if you can't do the work (benefit from being there) you won't be admitted.</p>
<p>I think the gray area is in exactly what consitutes the "better qualified student"? Should it be soley based on an excellent academic record especially when there are so many disparties in the educational system in this country. The "best educated person" may not always be the most intelligent person and vice versa.</p>
<p>Education is for improving the lives of others and for leaving your community and world better than you found it.
Marian Wright Edelman</p>
<p>Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.
Nelson Mandela</p>
<p>You also get different answers whether you view education as something that the students receive or something they participate in. Someone who brings something different and interesting to the discussion table may very easily be worth more to the campus community than someone who has SAT's 150 points higher and a GPA .2 higher.</p>
<p>But you NEVER hear of this controversy from music auditions or art portfolio reviews. There, the best person gets in, making the best use of resources. You stand on your own merits. Period. There is no effort to provide diversity via adding athletes or ethnic groups or mathematicians. I know I'm swimming upstream here, but I really question the value of "diversity" to the extent it is apparently desired. Do the theater majors really interact much with the computer science majors? Does the premed student really socialize with the football team? Or is the diversity mostly on paper?</p>
<p>If you want a college dedicated to just the very best and the very brightest students with the top stats and who cares about the ECs ... start your own school. The HYPs of the world didn't spring full grown from the head of Medusa -- someone had to start the school somewhere. Why not you? (And if you don't need to build athletic facilities and band rooms and theaters, just classrooms, dorms, and science labs -- it shouldn't be too cost prohibitive)</p>
<p>lkf-- but universities aren't music conservatories. They've got departments ranging from linguistics to archaeology to chemistry to Russian Literature.... all of which have professors, who need students to fill the seats of the classes they teach, and who need inquisitive minds to help edit articles or fact-check an index of their latest book. How do you fill these seats if you just arbitrarily admit the highest scoring kids on a multiple choice test? And who in heaven's name would want to attend that university if it was filled with the grade-grubbers and grinds who would inevitably find a way to game the system to get to the top of the heap?</p>
<p>The current process is flawed for sure.... but as I walk down the corridors of my kid's school and see the flyers for the Gilbert and Sullivan performances, the group creating inexpensive prosthetic devices for victims of landmines, the Poetry readings, the lectures on Bio-Terrorism and emerging threats, or the volunteer group designing and building tsunami-proof homes to be sent to Thailand, I'm glad that he's someplace that valued building a diverse class. If his school just admitted all the high scoring computer geeks in America, it wouldn't be a University-- just a trade school with a lot of under-employed professors.</p>