<p>Who decides what merit is? I would think that the fact that universities accept people not solely based on the general idea of “academics” shows in and of itself that people are not admitted only for this general idea, and that it doesn’t have to be that way, anyway. </p>
<p>Universities are places and they can accept whoever they want based on whatever they want, not just who they think the best students are.</p>
<p>2210 is not too low. apply if that’s what you want! :)</p>
<p>The obsession people have with stats on this board is unrealistic, as a freshman I can tell you that a lot of people here did not have perfect scores or perfect GPAs. The biggest determinant is extracurriculars more than anything. I took the SAT once got 2070, and still got in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. Merit is not a concept that is exclusively grounded in academics. Personal qualities and contributory promise (among others) are merit-based attributes as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That position is far too extreme. Fundamentally, college admission is an evaluative and semi-methodical process. This includes recognition of not only demonstrated abilities but also factors that are disadvantageous towards attaining merit. But there are currently many situations in which applicants are selected due to traits that are based on social influences or pre-established stereotypes rather than the demonstration of meritocratic qualities. The belief that colleges can select whomever they please is irrational and, if true, would hold many negative consequences for the future quality of the American workforce and our competiveness as a nation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which, of course, can rightfully be seen as a form of merit.</p>
<p>That is true. The scale at top schools (from the people I know) works like this, the better your ECs the less your stats matter the worse your ECs the more your stats matter. In essence, everyone here is equal just not all statistically. For example my roommate was number 2 in his class with like a 2360 and barely had any ECs, but another of my friends was number 3 in the country for extemp and got only a 2180 and was number 11 in his class. So SATs (and numbers in general) are not what people should be obsessing about, unless their ECs are weak.</p>
<p>Though admissions has drastically changed since, I found this to be rather intriguing (and, I know it does not contain data on Yale, only HPM): </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.infogoaround.org/CollegesChinese/RevealRanking.pdf[/url]”>http://www.infogoaround.org/CollegesChinese/RevealRanking.pdf</a> - look at the graphs on page 8.</p>
<p>I agree with the basic principle that Dbate mentions.</p>
<p>@motion12345: That appears to be an interesting document. I will have to read over that later.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ahhhhh… only on CC would those stats be considered sub par!!! ONLY a 2180!!!</p>
<p>Thanks everyone. I don’t think I’ll bother retaking because of the time and money needed. I’ll probably spend time on the subject tests instead. =)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How so, exactly? That statement only seems to make sense to me if you subscribe to the notion that there are clear academic superiorities and inferiorities among colleges, which I am certainly not about to admit.</p>
<p>But the weight of a Yale degree holds far more glamor and weight than a degree from a university that does not have the same reputation. It is a fact that the top universities in the nation are far more successful at placing their students into better graduate and professional schools and into more prestigious positions after graduation than other institutions.</p>
<p>Mifune you are wrong. People from Yale go to successful grad programs and really bad grad programs. It is entirely up to the individual, the school matters little. I have encountered some mediocre (and when I say mediocre I really mean mediocre) alums, but the vast majority are successful people solely because they work hard. A Yale degree with a 2.0 won’t get you very far.</p>
<p>mifune just got owned</p>
<p>What do you mean by a better graduate and professional school? And by prestigious position, what exactly do you mean? The bottom line to me is that one would be more “successful” based 99.9% on hard work and 00.1% at most on where you went for undergraduate studies. </p>
<p>Plus I would be very wary when trying to say how much an undergraduate institution helps getting into a “good” graduate school.</p>
<p>No, actually I’m not. It is a well-observed fact that the nation’s most reputable universities are far more effective at placing their undergraduates into selective graduate and professional programs than those typically ranked lower. Cherry-picking specific cases of HYP graduates that do not resemble the prototype of success or providing anecdotal evidence exposes nothing of the collective success of the nation’s most prestigious universities. Read this:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf[/url]”>http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf</a></p>
<p>The above link ranks schools by the percentage of their undergraduates that place into the 15 most selective programs in the nation. </p>
<p>Also, I am not quite sure what purpose your argument holds that there are “mediocre” alumni and that some undergraduates are placed into lower-quality programs than others. Of course - that’s true of all schools. But frankly, that is irrelevant when considering the post-graduation placement success of the collective student body. </p>
<p>Starbuck11: I understand your rationale that hard work is a major determinant of success. But the discussion involves the fact that schools such as Harvard and Yale and their peer institutions disproportionately send their alumni into positions of greater prestige (i.e. high political and government positions, medical leaders, and so forth).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please view the above link.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although many challenge the validity and methodology regarding college rankings, it is not logical to debate that some programs do not exceed the quality of others. It is also well-noted that some occupations hold greater prestige than others.</p>
<p>The burden of proof lies on the three of you to somehow demonstrate that Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and their peer institutions are no more successful at producing successful individuals than the average American university.</p>
<p>Why is it not logical? Instead of circling my question, just answer it—especially if it’s so easy. </p>
<p>I didn’t deny that a prestigious degree can help. I’m just saying it doesn’t help enough to where it’s really going to make a huge difference in someone’s life. If someone works enough for whatever position then he or she will do fine. And going back to the original topic… allowing someone into a school with a lower, “undeserving” SAT score will not produce any significant ripple effect. Someone who gets rejected at more prestigious colleges because of factors that you think are unfair will most likely end up at places that are almost as prestigious if not equally prestigious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because the quality of many schools, programs, and careers does exceed the quality of others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I agree with that assessment. Work ethic is one of the greatest American virtues.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But the point is that placing individuals into prestigious positions based on irrelevant factors does change a power structure. To use a Yale example (it’s appropriate since we are in the Yale forum), George W. Bush arguably would have not attained his presidency if his father had not been president or attended Yale. Although he was elected into his position (controversially, of course), his political ascension was accomplished largely due to circumstances he attained by virtue of birth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I forgot to address this. Yes, I agree. Being relegated to WUSTL, for example, rather than HYP despite the academic qualifications for admission is hardly a terrible fate. * But * - many given schools, as demonstrated by the link below, are more successful at placing their undergraduates into more prestigious graduate and professional programs, which in turn provides better connections and greater opportunities when it comes to future job selection. Also, these rankings are partly attributed to the cumulative abilities of the overall student bodies at each of these universities. But the placement discrepancies between individual schools are not proportional to the lower academic merit demonstrated by students from schools ranked lower, which directly denotes that the name atop one’s undergraduate degree does indeed have some impact on one’s future prospects. If this were not the case, there would be little motivation to apply to these top universities and I strongly doubt that individuals such as you and I would be having this discussion currently.</p>
<p>mifune, George HW Bush wasn’t the President of the United States when George W bush was admitted to Yale. I’m certain that his father’s influence did give him a significant boost, but he was not necessarily incompetent. Indeed, he had a higher Yale GPA and a higher SAT than John Kerry did. Generally I’m in agreement with you, although I wonder how much it is the institution that boosts the students in post college achievement. Certainly some of the difference is just because the quality of attendees is so much higher. The question is, how much?</p>