<p>Some of them may not be minorities, either. Those stats could tell very little. Some of those 600 Verbal kids may be English as a Second Language students, with all of their other scores 800 800 800 800. Some of the low math scoring kids may be highly gifted verbally with little intention of studying math ever again (yay open curriculum!) People are making an awful lot of assumptions here without knowing the specifics well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some of them may not be minorities, either. Those stats could tell very little.
[/quote]
They tell us all we need to know - there are a goodly number of Amherst students with subpar SAT scores, which means that Amherst admission standards are not as hard and fast as has been represented on this board.</p>
<p>Oh, and I remember the Y boards when D was applying, with kids with lesser stats and EC's (and they were shocked themselves) being admitted. And I was asked to write a letter of rec to H for an athlete who I did not think belonged there, but was accepted and is going there (not a stellar student, either, and her sister didn't get in after her). What you are complaining about is all college admissions. This whole holistic approach allows for this: the balancing of classes and filling slots. The difference is, that Amherst has taken a lead in being outspoken about this issue, whereas others hide behind "fit." And they are NOT looking for kids to come and fail. They are looking for those bright kids that had they been in idfferent circumstances, could have been admitted to Amherst in the first place.</p>
<p>And I have to say, when I heard of this master plan, I was concerned about it, too, as was my D. I was concerned about the school's reputation. D went to the meetings with Dr. Marx; I read, and researched and we are both quite comfortable with it.</p>
<p>ejr1, I agree with #63.</p>
<p>Lurking and reading here with interest, as an Amherst parent whose S graduated a few years ago. Some thoughts: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Prestige is in the follow-through. The parent who referred to a $200,000 investment for name prestige might be reassured to research what graduates do after the finishing line, rather than fear them solely by what the bring to the starting gate.
Following an Amherst education, assuming that every admitted student embraces opportunities provided during their four years, every graduate is able to personify the school's prestige in the workforce and institutes of higher education. But to believe that, one must trust that education is a process with an outcome, and not a product for sale only to those buyers with entitlement.
Following graduation, it's not only the jobs they get, but the way they approach their jobs that distinguishes them for years to come. The student speaker at 2005 summed it up (context: Enron scandal). I quote imprecisely here, but it made the crowd roar with laughter: Sitting among us are the future CEO's along with the future prosecutors of those CEO's.</p></li>
<li><p>Amherst "could" admit a perfect class but chooses not to. If all spots were given out only to those with the triple 800's and no flaws or hooks, the college might become a tedious place full of arrogant prigs. Those who come with hooks and statistical flaws are admitted because, I presume, the AdCom's careful reading of their applications indicated some significant potential to contribute to campus community, at the same time the school is confident they can help remediate whatever flaw was evident on the transcript. The flaw can even be huge, such as a deficient high school. But the experience of the AdComs is that students who take maximum advantage of their h.s.'s thin resources, by taking the "hardest courseload offered" will have an engrained habit of seeking maximum good from any college's educational menu. It's a "character" thing.<br>
Part of the campus appeal to prospective students, including triple-800's, is the happy/productive norm because there's no dearth of things to do outside of classes. When I asked students, "What are you doing this [weeknight] evening?" I often heard them rattle off 3 activities, one starting at 8 p.m., another at l0 p.m., followed by a gathering of friends at midnight. Some were rehearsing for, or else attending; faculty-sponsored or student-generated theatrical performances, literary readings, concert choirs. On weekends, Div-III sports was a focus. If it takes a "hook" to provide this menu, I'd be ready to overlook a h.s. transcript "flaw." The quality of these performances and games is of such high quality that I suspect somebody sacrificed a h.s.
grade or two to achieve in the arts or sports, and I don't mind their "B-" in
11th grade Chem or, more significantly, sub-650 SAT in CR when they break hearts with their soaring violin or bring people cheering to their feet with athletic prowess. Given what it takes to train in h.s. for these activities, you might not see that level of "play" from Triple 800's who took some clarinet lessons, too. I'd also be happy to endure weaker EC's from Triple 800's, knowing how the latter raises the level of class discussion to a much higher bar academically. That is just my way of trying to describe "Amherst community." </p></li>
<li><p>Wake Up and Smell the Coffee. Our nation is diverse. Anyone who has no intimate friends who represent poverty or middle-class backgrounds cannot possibly relate to a future workforce, even if s/he's the boss/manager. To be oblivious, in today's economy, of the concerns of everybody else whose desk is smaller than yours must be a crippling disadvantage. There's no AA program in place to cure the problems of clueless bosses.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Paying3tuitions, I feel I have to defend the "arrogant prigs" with "triple 800s." There's only 238 students a year with triple 800s, not enough to even fill Caltech. Amherst cannot admit a perfect class of candidates. No school can, unless it's size is super small and offers full scholarships to all accepted students, and offers great facilities and opportunities to boot.</p>
<p>But I agree with the rest of your assessment. </p>
<p>However, I have many poor friends, and am middle class myself. However, most of the people I've seen who've gotten into prestigious places with sub 650s were rich and seemingly lacked the powerful ECs you mentioned. My poor friends who got into places like Yale and Princeton, even as minorities, needed scores of over 700+. </p>
<p>I agree with AA, but oftentimes I see that the people who're ostensibly the targets of AA don't really benefit from it as much as children of already affluent families who afforded their kids every available luxury...</p>
<p>Please read the Daniel Golden book, The Price of Admissions to see who REALLY gets the advantage in admissions in elite institutions - it's underperforming wealthy WHITE students.</p>
<p>any word on the waitlist?</p>
<p>read the thread... amherst overenrolled</p>
<p>I agree with lmpw. It is hard to know who the sub 600s SATs are. Besides recruited athletes, URMs, foreign students, I would not be surprised to see a number of development cases or high donor legacies. As an example, President Bush's S.A.T. scores reportedly were in the 1200 range (although it was pre-calibration) and he was a C student at Andover. He had the benefit of multi-generational legacy and a father who was an influential congressman at the time. I would not be surprised to still see students with similar profiles admitted to elite colleges. Life is not always fair.</p>
<p>Moreover, it is unwise to think that URMs or economically-disadvantageds may make up the majority of low scorers. Certainly that type of stereotype cannot be applied at an individual level. As I discovered at Amherst, some of the most academically capable students came from both those backgrounds and fluorished at Amherst. </p>
<p>One more point on legacy. I am an alumnus who has had three children apply to Amherst who were in the middle 50% statistical range of applicants to Amherst but none were accepted. Admission to Amherst is exceedingly difficult, no matter what type of tips one may have (whether it be legacy,athletics, or URM). As described in a very nice recent New York Times article by their education editor who went to Harvard (thread in Parent's forum), despite a parent's secret wish that his/her children will enjoy a similar educational experience at their alma mater, it often does not happen. There are so many tremondously talented students out there, many of whom DO come from disadvantaged backgrounds. As the word gets out that colleges are seeking students from this latter group (as Amherst tries to do), many more are applying but certainly a lot of such students still fall through the cracks and do not apply to places like Amherst. Another point,in the current admissions climate, legacy is only a minor tipping point and potentially counts signficantly only if the alumnus has made very major financial or service contributions to the college. Different schools will have different policies on this matter and V.I.P./development admissions. I know that historically Amherst has tried to have a fair admissions policy as far as these subjecive decisions go. I was part of an admissions minority recruitment workshop for Amherst alumni a number of years ago (pre-Tom Parker), and the adcoms mentioned the difficulty of whether to consider the daughter of a foreign V.I.P. for admission, and respectfully advised her counselor not to have her apply as there were questions as to whether she would succeed academically at Amherst. Last, Amherst actually provides exceptional college advising to children of alumni as a courtesy. It was invaluable for helping us plan their college application/selection process. Although my children were not accepted at Amherst, I have found the process fair and responsive, and it has not changed my support or enthusiasm for the College.</p>
<p>We're up to 484 confirmed kids in the freshman class...</p>