<p>Stockmarket's concern was for the others in his/her school that were "passed over" for gifted athletes. I think he/she may be forgetting that there are many other schools out there where Harvard may want to pluck gifted academics, like his daughter, from.
He's annoyed that Harvard (not sure it's Harvard, but i think so) also wants to field its athletic teams, and has taken some athletes with somewhat lower grades than the kids with all As.</p>
<p>Blossom:</p>
<p>Sorry for my limited English. I am not annoyed at any college. I need MS word help and it may still not come out right. I was just telling that future applicants and parents should not go for academic achievements alone. Instead, pursue other interest outside. Because what I have noticed, that academic achievements alone may not give you college admissions. Thus, I was trying to say that athletics (if one has qualities to pursue it) and legacies have upper edge. To counter it one must work hard in academics but do not let slip the ECs that college so much desires. If parents and kids fail to see it then you got problems and face scenarios which one may not be happy.</p>
<p>When I said to mini I should have said work on ECs, do not focus alone on academics. Without ECs one may not get in. Thus avoid math/science work and see if you like anything in humanities, because for admission purposes humanities are the more important characteristics than academics alone. Pursuing humanities, you may find careers opportunities other than science and math. Do not think academics alone are gurantees to Ivy league including performing n math/science activities.</p>
<p>And mere interst in humanities is not laone one has to work in those subjects and win awrds and pove they like it. It should not be a statement but rather a full throtttle drive into writing/debate/music,volunteer work etc. etc. I am still learning but that is what I believe it</p>
<p>That makes sense, ASAP. All I can say to that is, Welcome to the United States. Yes, we do things differently here. In the end, though, those stellar students that got passed over in the ED round in favor of athletes will find homes in the RD round at some excellent colleges and universities -- possibly even Harvard.</p>
<p>I wnat to say just putting in applicantion that I love economics/history may not work. One has to take these subjects and work well in it. Then if they like pursue interest in it. meet intellegent people who can give outside knowledge in it. Who can share views. If you have some question follow on it. It is a passion and not just 5 minute skimming. If you can show that and bring academics than that is what gives you some edge over other students who are doing similar level things too.</p>
<p>Stockmarket, you're right about advising future students to pursue more than grades and test scores. </p>
<p>But I disagree about humanities vs. math/science--or any other strategy to increase chances with admissions. That's missing the whole point of the "pursue your passion" advice that these colleges give over and over again, year after year. </p>
<p>If your passion is humanities, pursue humanities. If your passion is math, pursue math. Don't try to figure out what the colleges are going to want in 3 years or 5 years or next year. Follow your heart, but put your whole self into it, devote time, roll up your sleeves and dig in. </p>
<p>Yes, these schools need athletes, musicians, etc. They will always need them and the best ones in these categories who also demonstrate that they can manage the academic side of things will have an edge -- but not necessarily at one particular school or another. If you are an '07 setter on a volleyball team, you have to find the schools that are looking for setters in the '07 class. If Harvard just brought in two setters from the '06 class, you will not have any advantage with admissions as an '06 setter. Maybe Princeton will need a setter that year, maybe not. Maybe Harvard needs middle blockers and outside hitters that year. And the advantage diminishes after the ED round when most top recruits have already been picked and committed. My point is that it is not so simple as to just try to figure out what colleges are going to want down the road and then pursue that. </p>
<p>As far EC's go -- outside of filling sports teams and orchestras and such, I am telling you that these colleges don't care so much what you do, as how you do it. </p>
<p>If your passion is collecting carpet lint and you pursue it passionately, thoroughly, and over a long period of time, I will bet that you will have accumulated some impressive knowledge and skills and you will probably have some interesting stories to tell about your escapades into people's homes offices in your pursuit of the most diverse and complete collection of carpet fibers. I can envision knowledge of chemistry, textiles, durability, industry fashions, even forensics. I can envision a great college application essay that brings this whole thing to life and into focus. I can imagine a kid who can talk knowledgeably and interestingly about his/her world's most thorough and complete carpet lint collection as someone who might contribute to the campus environment in some unique way. I can imagine taking that kid over another Model UN kid. </p>
<p>Sorry for going on so long, but I think that we should just believe these admissions people when they say take challenging courses and do well and pursue some EC's with passion--and not try to second-guess them and strategize and spend 4-6 years trying to look good to a small subset of universities. Students who take challenging courses and do well and pursue some EC's with passion get into good colleges. If not Harvard, if not Ivy, then one of our other great universities or colleges.</p>
<p>1down you said better than I did. I should use MS word more often to catch my mistakes.</p>
<p>For asians math/scince not good too many of them with these Ecs. That is why they need to diversify. How many asians a college one can take with math/scince not many? Thus asian need to move in humanities. And other to math/scine. Howvere if one has achived like a math international olypiad then it is a diiferent matter.</p>
<p>stockmarket, I only wish I could communicate in another language as well as you communicate in English. I only know English and I've been writing in that same language for almost 50 years, so I would hope that I've got a bit of it down by now! ;)</p>
<p>On the subject of Asians and math/science...yeah, okay, I will concede that US colleges probably aren't out hunting for more Asian math students. Or Asian violinists either. But that was sort of what I was implying with my comment about a college potentially taking a carpet lint collector over another Model UN kid. You are right that applicants should try to avoid looking like cookie-cutter copies of each other. Since Asians and whites comprise the vast majority of applicants to elite schools, they have a greater challenge to distinguish themselves from their own kind. But that shouldn't mean giving up a true passion--just find a less conventional way to pursue that passion. </p>
<p>I would submit to you that the world's most diverse and thorough carpet lint collection could, with enough actual science behind it and with supporting evidence from other areas, be one way to pursue a passion for science. (I'm not seriously suggesting this as an EC -- I am being silly to make a point.) If every white boy in town is doing Model UN, and you are a white boy, you should maybe try to find some other way to pursue your passion for government/political science, but you shouldn't have to give up your interest in govt/polysci in favor of carpet lint collecting just because carpet lint collecting is unique and Model UN is not. </p>
<p>If you're Asian and your passion is math/science, you should not feel compelled to force yourself into humanities just to please university admissions. But you should do something else besides be very, very good at math and science. But outside of a few very under-represented minorities (Native American, for example), everyone applying to elite colleges needs to do something else. That, I think, is the point. The only one-dimensional applicants who have a hope of success with elite admissions are the "outliers" mentioned earlier -- the "astounding" academic students that I mentioned, the math international olympiad winners that you mentioned. The only sure thing with elite US admissions is that there is no formula and if anyone manages to come up with one, it will not last two application cycles.</p>
<p>I have an analysis of what is happening here. From my experience, it has been the tradition in many Chinese families (only Asian culture with which I am familiar) for the parents to guide their children towards math and science. Of course, there are also lots of kids with that bent themselves. But, because of the belief (and the reality in emerging economies) that science and technology is the best route to economic success, Chinese parents guided more children in that direction than a set of equivalent Western parents might have guided a set of equivalent Western children.</p>
<p>I think stockmarket is saying to other people in his situation - I have learned from an elite prep school - do not believe that the best way to get your kids into Harvard is to go the math/science route we have always trusted. Athletes, legacies, will beat your math/science kid if that's all he/she does. So, better to find the humanities, the arts, beat the stereotypes, do something else. Because if your kid isn't an athlete you can't do anything about it, and it's too late to be a legacy.</p>
<p>Alu</p>
<p>I'd also like to point out that in the US there are more than two or three -- or even 8! ;) -- excellent universities in the US. It is possible to do very, very well in life with a degree from Whatsamatta U, and future success is not guaranteed by an Ivy diploma. I think a lot of the outrage and angst over the uncertainties and perceived inequities of elite admissions would be dissipated if people understood that in the real world, there's no such thing as a #1 University.</p>
<p>As a student at one of the top boarding schools mentioned in the thread, I would say that most of the students admitted early were either legacies, athletes, or both. Out of the 10 or so admitted early to Harvard, at least 8 were "connected" in this sense...I would say that these factors play a smaller role in the regular round though...</p>
<p>Just my $ .02</p>
<p>With legacies and recruited athletes, there is a good deal of self-selection going on; they are more likely to apply ED as a result. Legacies have been exposed to a wealth of information about the alma mater school from an early age, and they will have a pretty good sense of their likelihood of admission. Longshots tend to err on the side of caution and maximize their potential elsewhere. Athletes--especially non-scholarship Ivy and top DIII recruits--have been researching and scouting out schools for years. Foregoing an athletic scholarship at a DI school isn't taken lightly. If a top student-athlete decides to put all his/her eggs in one non-scholy basket, it's usually not on a whim. Coaches want to nail down their '06 recruiting class so they can focus on '07 and '08 and athletes want to know where they're going to study and play. </p>
<p>I bring this up because I think sometimes the impression is that athletes and legacies are given more "preference" than they really are given. It's not that these schools are taking all legacy and athletic comers. It's that the applicants themselves have done a lot of homework first and aren't just shooting out apps and crossing their fingers. Even so, they still get rejected.</p>
<p>I have to agree with Pessimist. My son also goes to a top boarding school. Most of the kids who got in early to ivies were recruited athletes or heavy leagacies (ie - big donors). I was amazed at some of the students who got deferred - some with truly incredible credentials.</p>
<p>Legacies represent only a small minority of students at the Ivies. There are more athletes, but still on the order of 20%. Even if you assume that there are no legacies who are athletes (an extreme assumption), the great majority of students at each ivy are neither legacies nor recruited athletes. Thus claims that admitted students are mainly legacies and athletes just do not add up. </p>
<p>In case someone brings it up, there are also far too few under represented minorities to bring the totals of legacies, athletes, and URM's anywhere near 50%. Most students are none of the above. Ivy admissions are simply tough, but it is not because everyone has one of these hooks.</p>
<p>However, restricting the discussion to ED, the colleges do tend to favor their legacies in ED. Penn is up front that legacy status counts for a lot, but only ED. They use it as a recruiting tool. If you are a legacy and considering Penn, they want you to commit by applying ED. </p>
<p>For D1 athletes who might be offered athletic scholarships, the Ivy ED notification date is after the fall national signing date. The Ivies like to tie up as much of their athletic recruiting as possible during ED, that way the coaches know they are getting the kids. </p>
<p>So observations that the ED pool is particularly rich in legacies and atheletes could be valid. But this means that the RD admissions do not tilt as heavily toward these groups.</p>
<p>I agree with most of afan's post. However, the palmed card is that the <em>percentage</em> of non-hooked applicants who are admitted is much lower than the <em>percentage</em> of athletes/legacies/qualified URM's.</p>
<p>You play the cards you're dealt. However, it's nice to know the rules of the game.</p>
<p>"Even if you assume that there are no legacies who are athletes (an extreme assumption)..."</p>
<p>A child on our street, who is a freshman at Harvard this year, was a recruited athlete and double Harvard legacy, so obviously this does happen. He was also a minority and graduated from The Governors school with amazing stats. The elite schools have lots to chose from.</p>
<p>My son is a legacy and recruited athlete! He also had stats within the range for an unhooked applicant. He certainly played all his cards in the ED round, and it worked.</p>
<p>No question that these three hooks are worth something. Being recruited for sports is worth a lot. Reclaiming the game says that being a recuited athlete is worth about a 50% boost in admissions prospects, after controlling for SAT scores. On average athletes have much lower SAT scores and underperform academically. </p>
<p>Legacy status and URM are about tied at 25% admissions boost after controlling for SAT scores. Legacies have about the same SAT scores as students at large, and do not underperform academically. </p>
<p>URMS get the same admisisons boost, but arrive with lower SAT scores and get somewhat lower grades in college.</p>
<p>Neither the legacy nor the URM advantage even approaches that of athletics.</p>
<p>Most students at Ivies are none of the above.</p>
<p>You cannot make a blanket statement such as "athletes underperform academically." That is certainly true of some athletes, but it is not true of all of them and you know that.</p>
<p>Read "Reclaim the Game" coauthored by Bowen, a former president of Pton. The authors had full access to all the Ivy league data. The book showed that a)athletes have a significant advantage in admissions and b)athletes underperform once admitted (do less well than non athlete students with same SATs). This underperformance is primarily in the helmet sports (football, hockey). Some sports (like women x-c) do very well upon admission. Therefore, underperformance of athletes at elite schools is a fact well documented.</p>
<p>I have read the book. They lump all athletes together. Some of the sports that "do very well upon admission" were destined to do very well because they use those sports to counterbalance to helmet sports to maintain overall stats and therefore hold the recruits to higher standards. It is easier to find 12 female volleyball players with SAT scores over 1400 than one 280-pound linebacker with a 1400. If you took football and men's basketball out of the picture, athletes would not get anywhere near the bum rap that they get. Then again, golf an tennis and women's volleyball don't exactly engender the kind of school spirit that we think of when we think of fall football or hoops.</p>