<p>I'll add one more point regarding "branding". </p>
<p>As noted earlier in this thread, there's growing concern among colleges about gender imbalance: at most top schools, more women apply than men, and the trend seems to be growing. And this issue affects Midd more than most northeastern LACs, probably because of its strong language and writing programs. Last year, there were 35 % more female applicants than male applicants.</p>
<p>Schools are dealing with this issue in different ways, but probably the ideal solution is to attract more male applicants. Athletic success is one way to do this. It may sound superficial, but the suspicion is that male applicants do tend to favor schools with strong athletic reputations, and are less likely to consider schools with wimpy reputations. </p>
<p>Let's consider Williams and Swarthmore as two extremes for athletic emphasis among top LACs. Last year, the number of female applicants to Williams exceeded the number of male applicants, but only by 6.9 %. The corresponding value for Swat was 46.2 %. </p>
<p>I would speculate that the lack of athletic emphasis at Swat, including the abandonment of football, has contributed to the growing gender imbalance in applications there. I would further suggest that the exact same thing would happen at Midd, if Midd walked away from its current reputation as a hockey, lacrosse, and all-around sports powerhouse. I'm sure that Midd would still attract plenty of poetesses, but I'm not sure that it would have the same appeal to guys.</p>
<p>I'm a Midd grad, I love the school, but I really think the school's fixation on admitting athletes is bad for the school. I won't try to rehash my arguments, but I will point out that the sports that Midd is strongest in (ice hockey and lacrosse) are the sports in which admissions standards have to lowered the most to field top teams. Is this worth it? I don't think so, but some do.</p>
<p>"Midd currently ranks #5 on the US News academic ranking of LACs."</p>
<p>Not exactly. Midd ranks 5th in the <em>overall</em> score, which USNews&WR manipulates annually.....There are eight colleges ranked higher using the peer assessment score. i.e. academic ranking. Williams, Amherst, Swath, Wellesley, Carleton, Bowdoin, Grinnell and Smith. Four are tied--Pomona, Davidson, Wesleyan and Oberlin.</p>
<p>Having said that, the numbers are so close it would be disingenuous to assume any one college is superior to another.</p>
<p>ncram65 - thanks for telling it like it is. Anyone who thinks that there are equivalent tips for musicians, debaters, or basically ANY other activity than sports is seriously misinformed. There is no equality at all in the way athletes are treated vs other talented and disciplined students.</p>
<p>I look at a group of top kids in my kid's class: the successful athlete is being invited for overnights at elite LACs and called by coaches from elite universities. The kids who have outperformed this student in the classroom AND on standardized tests--AND who have been 3-season athletes AND pursued other very time-consuming ECs requiring personal discipline such as music to a high level, while he does precisely nothing other than sports-- are left begging that one of those schools will condescend to take them.</p>
<p>Successful athletes with decent grades and decent scores get in with lesser stats, and they get in over much more highly-statted kids who have spent equally significant time on athletics, and even more time in other worthy, disciplined endeavors. It's the cold reality.</p>
<p>I was waitlisted by Middlebury, Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore, rejected by the University of Chicago, but accepted by Dartmouth. Of course, I was an international (by technicality, not residency) financial aid applicant, so my application process was atypical.</p>
<p>For the record, I am a female Dartmouth student and have never felt uncomfortable here.</p>
<p>Yes, that is correct. I was surprised to get into Dartmouth for that reason, but they actually offered me a very competitive need-based package as well as a "need-based endowed scholarship" (an additional $500 based on merit).</p>
<p>Not that this explains cameliasinensis' experience, but in this day of kids applying to 10+ schools, the admissions offices at the most selective schools try to assess how likely an applicant is to accept an offer of admission. If they have reason to believe that a really strong candidate is not likely to attend, they will often defer or reject them outright. </p>
<p>So if someone hasn't visited the school, or it is clear from the application that the applicant has very strong ties at another school, that person may not be offered admission even with very strong credentials.</p>
<p>Some schools reject candidates they think are so strong that they won't matriculate. I have friends who got into Harvard and Stanford but got rejected or waitlisted at Colby and Middlebury.</p>
<p>It is a fact of life that schools want to compete on the playing field as well as academically. My friend who interviews for Harvard says that Harvard needs to field a football team, so obviously kids with good stats and who are good at football get in sometimes over kids who have fabulous stats. My daughter applied early decision to Williams and was deferred then eventually wait listed. She had a 4.3, took 7 AP classes as well as classes at our local state university. She scored 2250 on her SATs and got 800, 780, and 760 on three subject tests. She also got all 5s on her AP tests. She had extensive community service with leadership roles, and lettered in two sports, was captain of the swim team, but was not quite fast enough to be recruited at williams for swimming. A boy at her school played football and baseball and was academically much weaker, but he got in. It was clearly and obviously sports related. But my daughter did get into Middlebury and could not be happier.</p>
<p>^ riverrunner, the stereotypical view towards athletes is out there, you gotta admit it: not the sharpest tool in the toolbox, dumb, uninterested in academics and education, the list goes on. We all know that it's not an absolute truth, though it is easy to believe in absolutes. Sure, it applies to many college/highschool athletes out there, but there are some who stand out.</p>
<p>After saying all that, my point is: the world's not going to treat you fair.</p>
<p>It's just like academically bright students getting their profile ruined by their naturally-poor test taking skills. I hope that analogy made sense. You really can't help it. You're a good student, but you fail at the world's filter system.</p>