<p>plenty of kids don't get in with 1500's anyway. who's to say who took whose spot? it's not possible. if the school decides that it will take 5 fewer kids with 1500's and five more with 1380's, that's their decision. that's what they want. that's what they see as best for their school. so that's the kind of kid they want to accept. the misunderstanding comes in when someone thinks they are entitled to get into Amherst when they get a 1500 on the SAT. the misunderstanding comes when someone thinks they are entitled to ANYTHING because of a 1500 on the SAT. it's just one of many factors. amherst may decide they want to admit more socioeconomically disadvantaged kids, because that's what they see as keeping with their mission. end of story.</p>
<p>Yep, finish of the argument like that, Their Mission, nice justification, nice..... its like arguing that bible is right because it says it in there,, pure tautology. only their mission became "their mission" since Dr. Marx took over.</p>
<p>btw, read Burke for an other possible justification of Marx's "mission" then moral obligation....in case we assume it's sinous to do what other on-par institutions are doing withadmissions.</p>
<p>that's one of the poorer analogoies i've seen. </p>
<p>they have no obligation to hold their admissions to YOUR standards of excellence. they have their own opinion regarding which students they should be accepting in order to promote the type of academic services they see fit. that's completely within their hands. just because you think one person should get in and another shouldn't, doesn't mean they have to agree with you. it's the same old story. they are going to make a decision regarding their admissions policies, because they are THEIR admissions policies. it's like applying for a job. it's not who you think is more qualified; it's who the employer thinks is more qualified.</p>
<p>"In reviewing your application, we consider grades, standardized test scores, essays, recommendations, independent work, the quality of your secondary school program and your achievements outside the classroom. No one aspect will determine our decision; instead, we look at the sum total of your experiences."</p>
<p>Now let us see...."we consider grades, standardized test scores, essays, recommendations, independent work, the quality of your secondary school program and your achievements outside the classroom" now take a 1500 kid with 4.0, 500 hours of volunteer work and a finalist for presidential scholars, and tell it to his face that a kid with 1300's 3.5 at a public school deserves the spot more than him because he has "hidden, undiscovered potential"....this kid is gonna go back to the website and ask ...wait, i did everything that you wrote you require,....all the "objective" stuff is perfect....and you base your decision on some made-up subjective argument that the other kid has potential that I don't. he would say "I have realized my potential with sweat and blood if my parents worked their asses of to offer me help, do they have to be penalized? for hard work? i think not. Otherwise, Amherst should say: We are looking for random kids...don't care bout' sat, gpa and extracurricular, but we are looking 4 that miracle kid with potential...have fun applyin'</p>
<p>btw, if someone dares say that i'm bitter and angry cuz I didn't get into amherst, I did, and was one of the low-income applicants too</p>
<p>Dendankin, you have a valid point about Amherst's reputation, and as a prospective (or current) student, you certainly have a right to feel indignant. However, you're blowing this way out of proportion. Amherst has gotten nothing but good publicity lately, and this years admissions rate was lower and its yield was higher. If anything, Amherst seems to be well on its way to establishing itself as a household name.</p>
<p>Besides, you realize that there are students who cannot adjust at any college or university - it has nothing to do with test scores. You have to keep in mind that admissions at Amherst is exceptionally holistic, SAT scores and your high school GPA are certainly not indicative of any student's potential or capabilities.</p>
<p>I think you'll come to realize that constructing a diverse and egalitarian school is in the best interests of everyone. Elite schools such as Amherst approach their admissions with not only the desire to admit those who will succeed, but also those who will help others succeed. Students should learn just as much from their peers as their professors - a goal that is simply not attainable without striving for diversity.</p>
<p>If you can show me proof that wealthy students succeed at Amherst more than low-income students, I will agree that you are correct. However, there is simply no statistical proof of that. Look at the trustee elections; one is the second person in his family to attend college and the other two are minorities, which considering the time of their attendance, it can be conjectured that they too were economically disadvantaged (yes I know I'm stereotyping, just raising a thought). Now look at what they do and where they are in life. One is the COO of Morgan Stanley's Mergers and Acquisitions division, one is a prominent member of the continued civil rights movement and the other is a managing director at Lazard Freres. They certainly aren't good old boys.</p>
<p>I fully support Amherst's decision to find talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Obviously such students may need some bridging courses and programs in order to take full advantage of Amherst, and Mr. Jack took many of them. What Amherst can't give, and what may be missing from other students who may have better "stats" for lack of a better term, is character and motivation, particularly a desire to learn. From the article, it seems that Mr. Jack is an insatiable learner. He worked hard in his science courses and ended up majoring in religion with honors. I like the continual upward trend in his academic performance, too. </p>
<p>I would like to contrast Mr. Jack with our President who also reportedly received 1200 on his SATs although that was before re-centering. This is 1200 with the advantage of attending Andover! When he received an honorary degree at Yale, he quipped that he was proof that a "C student could become President." I think the statement belied a sense of anti-intellectualism and the faulty realization that yes, a C student can become President IF he has legacy advantages throughout life and a father who was President. He was not a self-made man but father-made. From hearing Mr. Bush's speeches and looking at his policy decisions and the lack of analysis involved in many of them, I believe that he is a good example of a legacy who can attend a top flight university and "earn" a degree without actually receiving an education. Although he earned an history degree at an Ivy League school, I am constantly amazed at his lack of understanding or recall of history. Obviously many legacies at top schools are qualified and hold their own in terms of academic and later professional achievement. However, there are some privileged legacies like Mr. Bush who did not take full advantage of their college educations. I remember reading an editorial written by Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich about his experience teaching such students at Harvard when Bush ran for President in 2000, and the issue of his poor academic performance came up. Although Reich obviously had a political agenda in the editorial, he said that such students "sat in the back of the class" and had very little intellectual curiousity. Their entry into the highest strata of our society was essentially assured, even if they did not graduate, so they had an attitude of why bother with learning? I find it ironic that President Bush is against affirmative action but overlooks legacy admissions. Unlike Jack, he and some other legacies did not appreciate or take full advantage of their educational opportunities at an elite college.</p>
<p>First off, you can't become a Presidential Scholar finalist with a 1500. You have to have a perfect or near-perfect score to be in the running.</p>
<p>Secondly, that scenario is extremely unlikely. Clearly someone that distinguished would most likely be accepted, barring unforseen circumstances. And that candidate would certainly not LOSE his/her spot just because another person was poor. In all cases, when comparing a white, upper class presidential scholar with a 1590 and XYZ credentials to a socioeconomically disadvantaged kid with a 1390 and a good story, they'll take that academic superstar. However, when asked between a 1440 from an upper/middle-class neghborhood and a 1390 who comes from a disadvantged background, then the 1390 may get the nod. Keep in mind that at most, you may get 10-20 kids this way. And really, they probably wouldn't keep accepting the same number of kids and just shifting acceptances from wealthy candidates to poor ones, but instead accepting 10-20 more kids. It's a fraction of a percent difference. And it doesn't affect anyone else's chances in any meaningful way. You're just blowing things out of proportion.</p>
<p>Actually, the rationale behind increasing the class size is to create more admission seats for economically-disadvantaged students WITHOUT jeopardizing the admissions of the other students-academic superstars, special talents, athletes, URMs, and legacies that typically comprise an Amherst freshman class. The admission of an economically-disadvantaged student may not be at the expense of the academic superstar. You cannot compare apples with oranges especially when the college desires to create a tasty mixed fruit salad.</p>
<p>dendankin, I don't understand your rant. Don't you know that there are many students with PERFECT SAT scores and are top students who are denied admissions to the top institutions. Did you read that article in the NYTimes a couple of weeks ago written by the guy who interviewed these incredible students who were denied admissions?? I get SO TIRED of people like you talking about test scores as the be all to admissions decisions. They aren't. It's one of MANY factors. Give this a rest. Wonderful that you're a low-income student at Amherst. You'll be in good company with students of similar backgrounds.</p>
<p>Impw, Im not talking about the test scores only, Im talking about admissions with lower credentials overall, not just test scores.
About Bush,...well the poster's argument loses credence because he bases it on a very special, peculiear example of Mr. Bush, and already assumes that he's uneducated and a bad president. I would not go into politics, but about half the country will disagree with you on his "analytical skills" and decision making. Yes, he is a horrible speaker, and every day he wakes up he wretles with english language, but this says nothing about his analytical skills.</p>
<p>What are you trying to say - Bush is actually a smart guy with well-concealed analytical skills who would have been admitted to Yale on his own merits??? I doubt it . . </p>
<p>If you are going to attack Amherst's decision to seek out lower-income kids and perhaps to give them a break on SAT scores (due to the limits of their educational backgound) for reasons of equity and fairness, then you really should be a whole lot more concerned about legacy admissions or the admission of URM from high-income backgrounds or the admission of athletes as there probably is a lot more unfairness and inequity in those admissions decisions than there will be in the admission of a handful kids from low-income backgrounds with good grades and ECs but bottom-quartile SAT scores.</p>
<p>I agree I picked on our President because he is such an obvious example of legacy and privilege trumping merit, particularly during his educational phase of life. I hope I did not offend any Republicans on this thread. I read a Wall Street Journal article a number of years ago on Bush's educational background, and it is informative that his teachers and classmates remember very little about him as a student. He apparently did not say much in class either in high school or college. He also did not distinguish himself academically based on his transcript-there should be no quibbling there. Moreover, I think most people would agree that he did not earn his place at Andover, Yale, Harvard Business School based on merit (at least when comparing his credentials with the median GPAs and test scores of the latter two institutions) but due to the fact he happened to be born to a wealthy and influential family, and was the son of a Congressman who later became U.N. Ambassador (when he applied to HBS). To a lesser degree, perhaps, Parker has made the same point that many kids from affluent backgrounds benefit from a lot of advantages-special programs, family trips abroad, books at home, SAT prep, etc. which enable them to appear to be much stronger candidates, at least on paper EVEN without the benefit of legacy or celebrity. Parker has said that if Jack grew up in Greenwich, CT he probably would have had a 1500 SAT and look indistiguishable from many of the other top candidates. </p>
<p>I think the key is for the admission staff to figure out ways to discover the "diamonds in the rough." There will be some kids from disadavantaged backgrounds who will score well on standardized test in spite of a poor high school program. Those are the obvious admits. Where the difficulty lies is discovering students who may not have scored as well but have potential. I think character and motivation are important criteria but are subjective and difficult to quantify. </p>
<p>I served on the admissions committee at a top medical school previously. Although by that stage, most students, even those from disadvantaged backgrounds, will have had to prove themselves academically, there still was some room to weigh academic background and opportunities of the applicants and to make some holistic assessments about them. In particular,there were some students who applied from schools which did not have strong academic reputations. Doing well on the MCATs certainly helped these students' applications; however, that may not always have been the case. They may have scored at the 85th percentile but not at the 98th percentile. Should they not be considered? One question we always asked ourselves, was given the particular educational environment of the student, how well did he/she take advantage of the opportunities at his/her school or community? The answer will be different for candidates from an Ivy League school or top LAC like Amherst which have tremondous resources versus some lower-ranked state unis or private colleges. They also will be very different for affluent students who can "volunteer" working in a prestigious research lab versus an economically-disadvantaged student who may need to earn money in a supermarket during the summer to cover tuition or books, or just to help his/her family. On surface, they took a job that may not look as good on paper. The admissions officers at Amherst are asking the same type of questions about its applicants-only at an earlier phase of education.</p>
<p>sorry I posted twice.</p>
<p>First of all, I did not say that Bush was admitted to all those places based on his credentials. Probably not, but even if he did, no one will ever know since he HAD THE ADVANTAGE in da first place. Certainly, the propaganda today about Bush's iq being about the average temperature in chicago in January, and all other claims undermining Bush's background would say that he didn't deserve to be in HBS, otherwise, it would put harvard's reputation ander fire. In fact, the system actually works against the ppl admitted under "special circumstances". a URM in say, Amherst, who really deserves to be there, but who will actually never receive full credit for getting admitted fairly. I am against all prejudiced admissions, including legacies, urm's and athletes.
Pmyen,
An interesting post, but i would disagree that after going through an accredited state school a person is somewhat disatvantaged, even when compared to someone who went to a school like amherst. State schools have plenty of resources and the faculty there is brilliant, so the student has all opportunity to develop his abilities. The differences between it and amherst would really not be the availible resources, but the feeling of that cliquish intellectual community, and the competition and support that you face and gain from your intellectual peers.</p>
<p>Dendarkin,
There are many outstanding state universities and also middle-ranked state schools with very strong honors programs. I was referring to state schools that are either located in poor states which receive limited financial investment from the state or schools that may not be the flagship university and thus receive relatively limited support from the state. Many of the students attending these schools are economically- and academically- disadvantaged starting out; moreover, they will not have the same educational resources during their college years that you will have at Amherst. Having said that, there are some excellent state schools and private colleges that do not necessarily attract many top students but focus and succeed in their mission of preparing students for graduate school or work after college. In my state, one such state school has helped many students who definitely would have had trouble academically at a place like Amherst be able to attend well-regarded graduate and professional programs. The school has provided a supportive environment for students who are motivated but may not have had a strong academic experience before college. This school is exceptional in the "value-added" education it provides to its students.</p>
<p>I read an interesting article by Thomas Sowell once who made the proposition that some URMs, and I would add by extension some economically-disadvantaged students, with high academic potential but limited preparation, may be better off attending a less competitive university/college and succeeding from the beginning rather than starting off at the bottom 10% of an elite college. It certainly is possible that some students may become discouraged or even fail in the latter environment whereas students succeeding in the former may be able to handle a more rigorous program later in graduate/professional school. On the other hand, there are students like Jack who rise to the challenge when given the opportunity and support. I think elite universities and colleges which decide to admit promising students who come from disadvantaged economic and educational backgrounds will need to address the issue of helping these students to make the transition to an academically rigorous program. Although I don't have any data or first-hand knowledge, I would presume that a small college like Amherst which makes a commitment to help such students catch up will likely will enable many such students to achieve their full potential while they are in college.</p>
<p>I also do not want to generalize about the lack of preparation of all students who may have come from a poor educational background as there certainly will be some brilliant students that will have found a way to prepare themselves IN SPITE of poor resources and circumstances. Speaking of Presidents again, Abraham Lincoln had virtually no formal education but was self-taught and self-educated. I don't think anyone would dispute the eloquence and brilliance of his writings and speeches.</p>