Suddenly Many Colleges are Elite-Boston Globe article

Parents Forum
61

<p>I have been reading CC for sometime. I have read the admissions, financial aid, specific college and generalized threads. A couple of salient points:</p>

<p>I find a lot of people on these threads are somewhat narcissistic and self obsessed, if not neurotic about "elitism" and what this or that college does.</p>

<p>Nonsense! Yes, most of the big name schools are wonderful and have superb faculty, the same can be said about lesser known schools...including the seven sisters or formerly women only colleges in the south.</p>

<p>I went to a non prestigious Jesuit college undergrad. I had four fabulous years (30 years ago...they felt pity on me being a Vietnam era vet) and eventually onto a prestigious law school. </p>

<p>There are HUGE differences in the college "experience", but not necessarily in the college "education" one gets at one school or the other, depending on its "culture", "size", "elitism", private or public, emphasis on Liberal Arts or Math/Science, or sports. Vanderbilt is a superb southern school, but its better known for girls with pearls it seems to me than producing CEO's. Most American corporate CEO's in fact come from state schools. Fact.</p>

<p>Going to Michigan or Ohio State is not the same as Swarthmore or Williams on any level, though the education one receives may actually be surprisingly similar in quality. Part of what the "elite" colleges do, like their feeder school "elite prep" schools do is push an image of superiority, which frankly is more smoke and mirrors than anything. The only thing truly elitist about them is the money bags their students bring (and that of their parents).</p>

<p>We all know that SAT scores do not necessarily provide a measure of success or even a measure of native intelligence. Its a VERY blunt object. True, a 1200 is not a 1500 or 1600, but I would have to say, I would much rather fill a classroom with 1250-1350 kids, than a bunch of geeks with 1600's and who cant walk and chew gum at the same time, get along with their roomates or navigate common sense. That is my bias. Elitist people nauseate me.</p>

<p>My D is VERY bright, VERY gifted. She did NOT apply to the Northeastern elitist colleges or Ivy's because she knew instinctively that she "did not fit" and did not want to hang with those people or in her parlance, "date any of those prepsters". </p>

<p>I congratulate anyone and everyone on being admitted anywhere. I wish them all the very best and tell them to work hard and stay focused upon their goals and objectives.</p>

<p>My D chose a college that fit her personality, exemplified her social and religious values and would be a strong challenge to her academically, but not beat her up and spit her out socially, academically, financially.</p>

<p>She had several choices and included some weighty scholarships. She was wait listed at three schools that were "reach" schools, but only one of them is seriously still in the offing (meaning she will go if she is called.)</p>

<p>Employers are just as apt to hire a kid from NCState or Florida State or Georgia Tech as they are from UVa, Duke, Washington and Lee, Davidson, Emory. Ditto from Northeastern, BU as they are from Harvard or Yale. What matters is the character (integrity) of the applicant, the ability to get along with others and the ability to be creative and productive.</p>

<p>If you got into or attended an Ivy or elite school: congratulations! But I also congratulate the Michigan State kids, the Iowa State kids, the UMissouri kids.</p>

<p>My daughter is going to a school that had 22,500 applications for approximately 1,600 seats. Its a great "fit" on all accounts, with deep programs, SUPERB faculty (we met and spoke with several of them, they were warm, endearing, inquisitive, and EXCITED that my daughter is coming!).</p>

<p>But we really need to get away from this nonsense that the only thing that matters is getting into an elite school: no matter who you think that might be.</p>

<p>Best of luck to all.</p>

<p>n.b. I know, work with, and am friends with people from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Williams, BC, Emory, Vanderbilt, Duke, Wake Forest, UNC, Davidson, Stanford, Northwestern, on and on. I measure the person FIRST by their integrity, NOT by their credentials. I dont care if you went to Arkansas State. Its all about CHARACTER, NOT CREDENTIALS.</p>

<p>bye bye...gone fishin.....</p>

62

<p>^^^^^ phenomenal post!</p>

63

<p>Thank you. I just said what needed to be said. I have been on these boards for months...watching with amazement. I completely understand the "stress" that kids feel. I openly acknowledge that getting into college today is 10 times harder than it was for me 30 years ago. Its demographics and a lot of gamesmanship by college admissions offices and their compatriots in college presidents offices and boardrooms. Its a very unfair and frankly unethical process. I have seen people on these boards have virtual nervous breakdowns about not getting into Notre Dame, or UVa, or Duke, or Harvard. I saw one kid cussing a blue storm on another website about not getting into Harvard, though he was admitted to Duke, UNC, and UVa. I mean, "GET A FRIGGIN LIFE, BOY!" If that is who you REALLY are, then I wouldnt hire you for a million dollars.</p>

<p>I think colleges should do AWAY with GPA and SAT scores as the PRIMARY measure of who gets in and who doesnt. For that matter, they should ABOLISH all legacy factors as well. They should simply publish a TRUTHFUL measure saying, "we are very sorry, but our board of directors does not want us to admit anyone with a score below (e.g.) 1400 and gpa of 3.8 unweighted. If you are below those numbers, please save yourself time, angst, and money. Good luck in your future endeavors." But they wont.</p>

<p>So let the games begin. The stories I could tell would curl your hair if its ironed straight in the morning. Incredulous stories of those who got admitted (who I think are undeserving) and those who got dumped who were eminently qualified and would have been superb students, not just academically, but socially and otherwise.</p>

<p>So we are happy to be where we are with my D. She is ecstatic about being admitted and going where she is going, though it was a "match" and not a "reach" school. When we visited, it was like the clouds covering the doors to Heaven had parted. It was almost immediate, "this is it!" "This is ME!" And it is. </p>

<p>She will be challenged. Looking around the orientation room with her fellow admitted students, it was a very impressive group of kids. Talking with current student ambassadors was a breath of fresh air. Boys calling me "sir!" (Being exmilitary, I appreciate that!). Young ladies being respectful and forthright. Firm handshakes. </p>

<p>This particular school RESTRICTS overseas study ONLY for those kids who have at least a 3.0 gpa, have to wait until Junior Year and require the permission of the Dean for Students. Why? Not elitism....but CHARACTER. They dont want kids going overseas who do not represent their best and brightest. Its a privilege to study overseas, not a right.</p>

<p>But without gushing further about this one particular school, there are a myriad of EXCELLENT schools out there that are off the beaten path of the elitists.</p>

<p>If I were in charge of the world, ( a joke, mind you) I would require all college applicants to disclose the schools they have applied to, and restrict it to no more than 6 schools: two reach, two match, two safety. That would cut down on the common applications that besiege a lot of schools, inflating their applicant pools (and their selectivity ratings!).</p>

<p>I could list 15 schools right here and right now which dont qualify as "elitist" northeastern schools, but whose programs and graduates I would stack up against the Ivy's and Swarthmores with ANYONE. Not to beat up on kids who are admitted to Harvard, Smith, Williams, Swarthmore etc. I say to them, "congratulations!" But there are many, many schools out there who do a superb job of educating kids, and not just with facts and figures..with CHARACTER! DRIVE, AMBITION, CREATIVITY, SERVICE TO OTHERS, etc.</p>

<p>Its unconscionable how much college educations cost and how that is causing an increase in applications and thus selectivity ratings. But THEIR LOSS is the gain of some smaller school, whether its Willamette in Portland, Gonzaga or Seattle U, or Creighton, or Truman State, or Elon, Furman, Xavier, Lawrence University in Wisconsin etc etc. The Barrons College Guide is full of HUNDREDS of outstanding colleges. There is a college or two or three out there for EVERY person in the United States who wants an education. I have NOTHING against international students, but I find it repugnant that elitists are going overseas to find the top students and denying admission to American students who fall below 1450 SAT's or 3.8unweighted GPA's. (or worse, admit kids with lower scores but who are not applying for financial aid like Vanderbilt (i.e. moneybags with legacy), who is dishonest in saying they are needs blind admission.)</p>

<p>I admit that the job of college admissions officers is a difficult task. Its almost thankless. They are despised as much as used car salesmen. But a little honesty in their processes would help and full disclosure about what they TRULY are doing, instead of lying about it would make it easier.</p>

<p>My D did not want a big state school. That is her. For some other kids that is the perfect choice, be it Ohio State, Michigan, or Georgia. I pat them on the back and say, "best of luck to you! Go get em!"</p>

<p>I was happy as an PEI oyster (the PUREST water in the world and the BEST tasting oysters by the way!) at my undergrad college. I was challenged, I LIKED MY CLASSMATES, I fit in, I was HIGHLY motivated by my incredible professors (some are now dead, some still alive, and some still teaching!). They served me very, very well in my life. And there are no flies on that school whatsoever, which has also moved up the ranks considerably in the last 10 years. (No, its not Georgetown). I would stack my education with anyone.</p>

<p>Thanks for your applause.</p>

64

<p>Sound of hands clapping loudly. :)</p>

<p>I share your conviction that there are excellent schools and excellent students throughout our country. If enough people explain this and reinforce this, then maybe those high school applicants will catch on and begin to consider a wider range of great choices. </p>

<p>Welcome to CC and thanks for making your posts. I hope you won't wait months before making more contributions.</p>

65

<p>I'm not clapping! Are you a troll?

[quote]
My D is VERY bright, VERY gifted. She did NOT apply to the Northeastern elitist colleges or Ivy's because she knew instinctively that she "did not fit" and did not want to hang with those people or in her parlance, "date any of those prepsters".

[/quote]
Many of the elite schools have a very diverse group of students, including low-income students
[quote]
I would much rather fill a classroom with 1250-1350 kids, than a bunch of geeks with 1600's and who cant walk and chew gum at the same time, get along with their roomates or navigate common sense. That is my bias. Elitist people nauseate me.

[/quote]
It sounds like you are an elitist yourself - you only want to associate with the non-elite students...who are who???
[quote]
I have NOTHING against international students, but I find it repugnant that elitists are going overseas to find the top students and denying admission to American students who fall below 1450 SAT's or 3.8unweighted GPA's. (or worse, admit kids with lower scores but who are not applying for financial aid like Vanderbilt (i.e. moneybags with legacy)

[/quote]
Like I said, I'm not clapping :(</p>

66

<p>I, too, was wondering about those geeky prepsters moneybags with legacy. </p>

<p>But, hey, I'm a former international student. So no clapping for me, either, despite some excellent points. There's no need to be insulting while singing the not very original song that there are many, many excellent schools beyond the brand name ones. Many CC posters have been singing it for the last few years.</p>

67

<p>Hmmm. the correlation between high SAT scores and being unable to chew gum while walking is something I was previously unaware of. :)</p>

68

<p>"Its a great "fit" on all accounts, with deep programs, SUPERB faculty (we met and spoke with several of them, they were warm, endearing, inquisitive, and EXCITED that my daughter is coming!)."</p>

<p>Gee, sounds like my D's choice, precisely.</p>

<p>I think the OP paints with a very broad brush, both positively & negatively. Not only, as someone pointed out, are not all or even most students who attend NE "elite" schools elitists or prepsters, it may surprise the OP to learn that students attending State schools or Jesuit schools have no monopoly on character, goodness, compassion, drive, ambition, creativity, service to others.</p>

69

<p>from friedokra:

[quote]
I would much rather fill a classroom with 1250-1350 kids, than a bunch of geeks with 1600's and who cant walk and chew gum at the same time, get along with their roomates or navigate common sense.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What a coincidence. I'd rather fill a classroom with a bunch of geeks with 1500-1600s than a bunch of 1250-1350 kids who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, get along with their roomates or use common sense.</p>

<p>The most amazing thing I've discovered in the time I've been reading cc posts is that there are so many people who actually believe that scoring well on standardized tests implies that one is also socially challenged. I find that to be a ridiculous stereotype, completely inaccurate.</p>

70

<p>After the comment about internationals, I expected a similar remark about URMs. Tolerance of others--their beliefs, strengths, & originality--is an attribute that can grow in time with exposure.</p>

<p>I enjoy reading posts about colleges that I don't know, and passing on the information. I'm pleased that Friedokra's D has found a good fit, & that she intends to travel abroad. So much of the college experience is learning about other people's culture & living with people of diverse backgrounds.</p>

71

<p>I am agreeing with marite(#66) for the second time in two days!!! Yes miricles do happen.</p>

<p>As most know I am a proud Buckeye and have benefited tremendously from the wonderful education received there. But friedokra's post, while having some meritorious points, errs with stereotypical gereralizations which themselves are come across as anti-elitist poppycock.</p>

72

<p>originaloog:</p>

<p>We actually agree far more often than we disagree!</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
The BC admissions spokesman noted that SAT scores increased by 20-30 points over the past 10 years.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In other words, SAT scores of enrolled students are the same, but the huge number of applications has created an effectively endless middle 50 percent from which BC can now also fill the bottom of its class. This raises SAT's by the listed amount or slightly more, which conveniently masks the ongoing expansion of BC's athletics by admission of better (and thus lower-scoring) athletes.</p>

<p>BC's numbers are driven by sports marketing, a captive market of Catholics, an increasingly desirable location, and expansion on the heels of their national championship in football. This does not provide much leverage in getting students with high SAT's, but it does allow eliminating some of the weak non-athletic bottom of their enrolled pool.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I find it amazing that admissions offices are able to predict freshman enrollment accurately in such a dynamic admissions atmosphere.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>More applications makes yield control easier, by reducing variability in the pool of acceptances (not applications).</p>

74

<p>siserune,</p>

<p>
[quote]

BC's numbers are driven by sports marketing, a captive market of Catholics, an increasingly desirable location, and expansion on the heels of their national championship in football.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not sure this is correct for a number of reasons. While BC has changed athletic conferences it was done not just for athletic reasons. One is that the ACC schools share research dollars. Another is that BC believes that demographically they will get better exposure in the south than they have in the past thus increasing their pool outside the norhteast.</p>

<p>I guess that I did not realize that BC has a captive market of Catholics. There is a large number of Catholic colleges within the US such as Georgetown, Notre Dame, Holy Cross, Villanova, Providence College, Santa Clara Univeristy, Marquette, etc. Further, Catholics go to many schools, not just Catholic colleges.</p>

<p>Finally, it has been a long time since BC won a national title in football, like 65 years.</p>

<p>What I believe is really happening at many schools is 3 fold:</p>

<ul>
<li>An increase in the number of high schools students, the echo-boom.</li>
<li>An increase in the percentage of these students that go on to college.</li>
<li>An increase in the recruitment of international students along with overseas study.</li>
</ul>

<p>When you add in that the Common Application makes it easier to apply to more schools there is a perfect storm for increased competitiveness across the board.</p>

<p>One last note, a larger athletic program does not presume a less intelligent class of students. Harvard has the largest athletic program in the NCAA. A program that includes many sports that are not included in their Sears Cup point rating. I don't sense that they are having a problem keeping their reputation in tact.</p>

<p>For BC I would put them in the class of schools that provide athletic scholarships while maintaining a high academic standard. Other schools that I would put in this group are Duke, Stanford, Notre Dame, Wake Forest, etc.</p>

75

<p>No applause here either.</p>

76

<p>Sorry about my goof (post 68). I did not mean "the OP." I meant the author of post 61.</p>

77

<p>
[quote]
I guess that I did not realize that BC has a captive market of Catholics. There is a large number of Catholic colleges within the US

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There is an increased number of HS graduates with a specific desire to attend a Catholic institution, and a small fixed number of Catholic universities to accomodate them. In that sense it is a "captive market".</p>

<p>
[quote]
Finally, it has been a long time since BC won a national title in football, like 65 years.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The Doug Flutie Hail Mary Pass was for some national-level championship bowl in the late 1980's. BC application figures doubled immediately after and this was parlayed into an expansion of the school. They are also using football and basketball now to acquire a broader national appeal, as you described. This I referred to as sports marketing, i.e. using weekend television sports to advertise the school.</p>

<p>
[quote]
- An increase in the number of high schools students, the echo-boom.
- An increase in the percentage of these students that go on to college.
- An increase in the recruitment of international students along with overseas study.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But these trends, operating for over 10 years, have only marginally affected the SAT scores (and the SAT results themselves may be going up, making the effect even smaller). As explained above, a flood of applicants should do that much just by narrowing the bottom of the enrolled pool, so it appears that BC has not become much more attractive to the stronger students than it was 10 years ago. Higher application numbers aren't translating into more "competitiveness" of the student body unless it means that more sports, community service etc are used to distinguish the applicants.</p>

<p>
[quote]
One last note, a larger athletic program does not presume a less intelligent class of students. Harvard has the largest athletic program in the NCAA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It absolutely makes for a statistically weaker class of students, that is just as true at Harvard, Duke and Stanford as at BC or any other place that uses athletics in admission.</p>

<p>Any admission of a large fraction of candidates based on non-cognitive criteria (i.e. on academics alone they wouldn't get in but athletics, community service, etc tip the balance) leads to a statistically, and one supposes cognitively, weaker student body than would otherwise have been the case. Harvard's academic reputation remains good, but it would be even better (think Caltech or MIT) if the admissions policies were different.</p>

78

<p>Dear Anxious Mom:</p>

<p>No I am not a troll. Are you something unmentionable here? What was so offensive about my post to you? I was simply trying to suggest that being neurotic and "anxious" about elite school admissions is a fools game. Its all about the fit. Let me tell you, if fit wasnt important, then why are there so many (and increasing number) of transfers each year? Its not all kids reaching for elite school admissions, either.</p>

<p>My own bias, which I freely admitted, about a 1250 -1350 SAT range for a classroom, was not meant to slander or slime or humiliate anyone, if your son or daughter is below those figures, or even above them. It was simply saying I would prefer kids from a range of backgrounds, experience and scores than to fill it with kids all above 1550. I am most certainly not elitist. I am properly proud of my daughter and offered that information not to brag, but to give credence to my position, meat on the bone so to speak.</p>

<p>I dont know where your son or daughter applied and what happened (as the admissions season is now over), but I certainly wish them the best of luck and that THEY MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE ABOUT FIT. </p>

<p>No school wants an unhappy or failing student. And no parent or student wants that either.</p>

<p>Society has become too credentialist in my opinion. Professions, particularly my own, are absolutely over the top on this stuff and it annoys me to no end. I do my best to hunt down the well rounded, grounded, ETHICAL, hard working and BALANCED graduates. Not necessarily the ones with perfect grades and from elitist schools who cop an attitude. If that bothers you, well then, we just dont agree.</p>

<p>Picking a college has a lot more to do with a particular student's interests, instead of its "status" or ranking. Dont tell me an education at Bucknell is worth less than an education at Swarthmore because the SAT's at Swarthmore are 100 points higher. Baloney. Swarthmore is an excellent school that produces outstanding graduates. But its not for everyone. Bucknell is a superb school. But its not for everyone.</p>

<p>My D has worked very hard and has unique interests and qualities. Of course I want the best for her, but the "best" is measured less by "status" than by "fit." And what fits her may not (likely will not) be what fits your son or daughter.</p>

<p>If you were "anxious" about getting your son or daughter into an Ivy, or some other elitist school, well.....I guess I would have to ask if you were anxious because you thought they were a fit for that school, or whether you are more concerned about the status?</p>

<p>If you put "status" over "character", then I have nothing further to say. (I am not saying you do, only pondering.)</p>

<p>Have a nice day and I hope your son or daughter got in where they wanted and ITS A GREAT FIT for them.</p>

79

<p>friedokra...
If you were around here longer you would realise that there aren't many people who would argue status over fit.
I think some people objected to other statements of yours.</p>

80

<p>friedokra,
Very few people on CC seem to go for status over fit. Remarks like this: </p>

<p>"It was simply saying I would prefer kids from a range of backgrounds, experience and scores than to fill it with kids all above 1550."</p>

<p>give me pause to think that you have an attitude towards some difficult to enter schools. There is NO college that has students all above 1550. Many posts discuss how kids with perfect stats are rejected. Character, personality, motivation, all seem to factor into colleges' decisions about whom to accept.</p>