<p>
[quote]
Reed has 80% valedictorians?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. According to its most recent 2005/06 Common Data Set, 57% of its enrolled freshmen graduated in the top 10% of their high school classes. That's not a particulary high number. Yale is 95%. The top LACs are 80% to 90%.</p>
<p>I don't think any school in the country has 80% valedictorians.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Or if so, I assume that schools one rung down are admitting even more numbers of "mediocre" students who apply ED, because those places need the money more than HYP. You know, slacker schools like Swat, Williams, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In terms of accepting mediocre academics to stock the athletic pond, the Ivy League schools will typically dip a little lower than the LACs. They'll take a football or hockey player the LACs won't touch academically.</p>
<p>Why? Because with larger enrollments and even more high-stat kids, they can bury a few without reaching your "appreciable" threshhold. Really low stat kids impact the medians (and the classroom) too much at the LACs.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I think the impact on the LACs is higher. At many small LACs, a full 10% of the entire male student body is admitted, in part, based on their expected contribution to the football team.</p>
<p>Here's what Amherst's Admissions Dean, Tom Parker, told Business Week:</p>
<p>
[quote]
** What kind of preference do you give athletes? **
We now have 66 or 67 "athletic admits" each year [out of class of 425]. That's down from 96 in 1999, which we felt was excessive. </p>
<p>** How do the athletes stack up academically?**
On average, they rank about a 3.5 [combined SATs of 1350 to 1400]. By national standards, that's still pretty high. But we go down to 5's [SATs of 1250 to 1300] to recruit some football and hockey players. </p>
<p>** Doesn't that compromise your academic standards?**
We have to do that to be competitive. If we were to say we would no longer take any more 5s for football, the team would turn into a travesty. And with ice hockey, we would be talking about not having a team at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As far as "needing the money" from full-pay students, there doesn't seem to be any clear distinction between the top-ranked universities and the top-ranked LACs. There are schools from both groups with higher percentages of full-fare customers and with lower percentages of full-fare customers. Harvard and Swarthmore are at the top end (for schools with very high median SATs -- say above 1500 75th percentile) in terms of high percentages of financial aid students, high percentages of public school kids, etc. Yale and Williams at the lower end. </p>
<p>I agree with Mini that these percentages result from intentional admissions priorities. I don't think that the presence or absence of early decision will change those priorities. The seasoned pros in the admissions office will get the class they are told to get, one way or another. I think this whole early decision debate is largely a smokescreen to deflect PR attention away from that reality...much in the same way that politicians throw up "principled" initiatives to obscure the reality that their decision making is largely driven by special interest contributors and campaign finances.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Reed has 80% valedictorians?
[/quote]
interesteddad:
[quote]
No. According to its most recent 2005/06 Common Data Set, 57% of its enrolled freshmen graduated in the top 10% of their high school classes. That's not a particulary high number. Yale is 95%. The top LACs are 80% to 90%
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thanks for that clarification, interesteddad--I had wondered if mini was smoking something with his initial remark. Reed didn't seem like the sort of place that would especially appeal to valedictorians. </p>
<p>I had always imagined Reed to be the sort of place that attracted brilliant students who didn't care so much about their grades as I would imagine the typical valedictorian does.</p>
<p>I have no clue how many valedictorians there are at Reed, and meant the comment to be flip, for which I apologize. What is evident from what I have witnessed firsthand is how "married" Reedies are to their books and, in doing so, often "foresake all others", almost as if part of their vows. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that for the student who chooses it, and know many students who love it. </p>
<p>But the class at Reed looks virtually nothing like the class at, say, Williams, and so, if you have a youth who is interested in one, it would be worthwhile to kick the tires on the other before serious consideration.</p>
<p>"What kind of preference do you give athletes?
We now have 66 or 67 "athletic admits" each year [out of class of 425]. That's down from 96 in 1999, which we felt was excessive."</p>
<p>But even that is not the full picture. They may have between 66-96 "athletic admits" (i.e. those - who can do the work of course - but who are chosen for their athletic prowess). But the number of varsity athletes necessary to field all their teams is substantially larger than that. And if they don't have that number of varsity athletes, it's that simple, they can't play. (Much as the orchestra can't play the March from Aida without a trumpeter.)</p>
<p>And I can't see why that's should be a problem. There are plenty of schools with fewer varsity athletes and fine academic programs. Differences between schools is a GOOD thing, provided consumers are informed.</p>
<p>One of the most important stats for getting into Reed is class rank, so I can see where the misconception comes from.</p>
<p>Anyway, yeah, a lot of people get into Ivy Leagues because they have powerful and/or filthy rich parents. My dad's favorite story was at a term at Princeton. One of the friends he made in the program was the son of an absolutely LOADED Saudi family. Multi-millionaires. It was the late 70s, my dad was wearing cut-off jeans at the time. This guy asks my dad (a small-town North Dakota guy), "Where did you get them?" My dad: "Uh... I made them. I cut the legs off of jeans." It blew this kid's mind that a person would use scissors to create their own closes.</p>
<p>I will just say, that in my class at Princeton, probably the most successful person now was one of those "lower stat" athletes. So, perhaps the adcoms know something. And I mean success on both fulfillment axes - he loves his work and he gets paid fabulously. And while he isn't actually saving the world - the third axis - he isn't harming it either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It blew this kid's mind that a person would use scissors to create their own closes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He wasn't dumb, he was prescient. Nowadays, you need to pay top dollars to buy destroyed jeans. It would be cheaper to buy intact ones and take your scissors to them, but nah, that's is so unchic and uncool.</p>
<p>"One of the most important stats for getting into Reed is class rank"</p>
<p>Reed says: </p>
<p>Very important: High school record, essay. </p>
<p>Important: Class rank, recommendations, test scores, interview.</p>
<p>Notre Dame says they will retain their open Early Action program. Note that their EA program is similar to UChicago, MIT and a number of others. No single choice, no binding commitment. However, they say that they may reconsider in the future.</p>