<p>I wasn't arguing with the numbers. I'm just saying that if you apply to a school with a tradition of reasonably solid athletics, it shouldn't be a surprise they want to admit some reasonably solid athletes -- and there aren't enough 3.99/34 players to fill the roster.</p>
<p>I can see how it's frustrating, but it's a given going in. Pomona, Swarthmore, Reed (I'm sure there are lots of other schools) give much less, or no, consideration to athletics. If an athlete applied with less-than-tip-top academic stats, was rejected, and then complained that their athletic ability was ignored in the admissions process it would be the same thing. They would be wanting that school to be different than it is, than it's always been, and blame the school for it.</p>
<p>It's just misdirected energy to get too invested in that kind of thinking.</p>
<p>I am asking on behalf of my friend whose transcript did not reached the school on time and was rejected initially. He did however, had his school send his transcripts in mid to late April and wrote a couple of emails to Amherst. Amherst wrote a single email telling him that they would keep his email in a file. He's an intel with need of FA so my question is would Amherst bother to send an email to let him no its a no or just ignore him completely? Calling did not seem to be such a good idea for one of the previous posters here and he doesn't want to irk them.</p>
<p>I was just providing some facts to counter unregistered's assertion that Amherst doesn't lower standards for athletes. It does. I am not resentful, bitter, nor is any of my energy misdirected. I know about Amherst's traditon of athletics - it should not be dismantled. Each school is entitled to formulate its class any way it wants to. It is never based only on the numbers alone. Interestingly, Amherst has dismantled its previous image of educating mostly boarding school grads from New England. This is an area that has never been made clear - schools that accept federal money have admissions policies that aren't strictly based on merit. This is true of all schools not just Amherst. Several weeks ago I drove my son up to Amherst so he could make personal contact with an admissions dean. While there, I overheard one of the associate deans tell two young women from India that they needed to have at least two SAT II scores and that since they were from India, "which has alot of people and a lot of smart people" that their scores had to be at least 750. She also told my son that they were taking more women off the waitlist because fewer had applied this year. None of this is fair - it is the way it has become, the way it is. Each school has a concept of what each entering class should be like. Athletics, race, gender, location within the US, international,etc, etc are each categories that have different thresholds for admission. Amherst also takes money from a foundation to help increase the number of community college students accepted at 4 year institutions and this is also another preferred group. My son is not an athlete. Why did he choose Amherst? He just fell in love with the place! It's not logical or calculating - it just happened. He has already come to closure and this post is my way of moving on as well.</p>
<p>IMO, Amherst is more likely to admit a student with certain standout talent (sports, arts etc). Students with only super SAT/GPA but ordinary ECs are likely to be waitlisted or rejected because they are not really special! </p>
<p>Amherst needs a diverse and talented student body!
Amherst is Amherst!</p>
<p>I said they don't "really lower admissions standards" so perhaps my wording is what is unclear. Of course Amherst, like most schools, will accept a student with lower SATs if that student has a talent that Amherst wants represented at the school. Athletes bring a lot to the table, and I don't personally care about their SAT scores as long as they add to the classroom and overall school environment (apparently the football team's average SAT scores are above 1400, but who cares?!) When I said that, as a division 3 school, Amherst doesn't "really" lower admissions standards for athletes, I was comparing it to some elite division one schools, who do (and I have no problem with that, either).</p>
<p>Amherst isn't in the business of accepting students based solely on their SAT scores and class rank, thank God, so you won't win me over with these anecdotes. It blows, but if someone is going to complain and whine about our atmosphere not being intellectual enough for them, I'm glad they're heading to Chicago instead.</p>
<p>I don't know why people seem to think that admission to certain schools is a "right". I LIKE that Amherst doesn't put sole emphasis on SAT scores and class rank. I LIKE that it emphasizes these less than many other elite schools. I think I am obtaining a better education because of it. And yes, I really like that Amherst is reaching out to high achieving community college students and low-income people. Amherst is not in the business of accepting everyone with certain SAT scores; they are in the business of providing the best damn environment that they can. Why don't you trust the students that they are doing a good job at that, athletic tips and all?</p>
<p>I agree with ttyy, amherst's goal is to great a diverse student body and not a school where everyone is 3.9 GPA and 2200 SAT. </p>
<p>Plus you guys are only talking about athlets here, but schools in general also accept students based on money, legacy, and minority status...those things affect admission just as much as sports</p>
<p>drdorn, private institutions (as well as others) put together a class based on a variety of criteria. I'm sure all of us on this website understands this. Admissions is not based solely on grades, scores, etc. There are many, many books that discuss this. I'm a professor and I can assure you that once students are admitted, it is not apparent whose SAT scores or grades were higher than the others. As someone else pointed out, Amherst has an extremely high graduation rate so the admissions committee isn't letting in students who cannot do the work. I know it's disappointing when one thinks that their child had all of the necessary qualifications to be admitted (as is the case with most students who are rejected), but this just isn't the way college admissions works. So, one can post the statistics of someone who got in, who, on paper appears less "qualified" that other students, but in the end, everyone who was admitted was "qualified". Elite schools don't admit students that they think will flunk out. So, test scores and grades notwithstanding, the admissions people are professionals and know what they're doing when they admit students. While you may not perceive this as "fair", in essence, it is. Colleges aren't simply admitting those with the top scores and grades, if there were the case, this could be done through a computer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Chicago's more of an intellectual environment and doesn't fill half of its class with subpar athletes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>17 percent. 75 is 17 percent of 440. Not 50 percent.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have taken quite a few classes with athletes and many are quite brilliant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>True. In many peoples' minds the perception of "athlete" coincides directly with the "dumb jock" stereotype. The athletes at my high school are enrolling at colleges like Harvard, Princeton, Williams, Wesleyan, Georgetown, JHU, BC, NYU, etc. They are all very intelligent and talented people whom I deeply respect. Not all of them have exceptional GPAs and SAT scores, but I damn well know that they were admitted to their colleges because they were exceptional and special people who deserved it--not just because they knew how to play some sport well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Amherst and most other schools have different admission criteria based on athletics, race, geographic location, community college applicants, gender, etc, etc. Its NOT fair but it is the way it is. I accept it because I have to but I don't kid myself about the admissions process.
<p>i am gonna friggin sue the goddarn schools, not just Amherst, for Affirmative Action. After talking with a bunch of folks who got into Ivies, anecdotally, if we were simply to isolate the race factor, seems like affirmative action played a decisive role in knocking out superior applicants with greater athletic prowess, artistic talent, leadership experience, and academic aptitude in favour of lesser folks with simply a different shade of skin.</p>
<p>sf606508: How can you be so darn sure that you were discriminated on both bases?
Amherst College is a highly selective LACs, and their standards are, therefore, relatively high in all aspects. So unless you can provide credible statistics and proofs, I am afraid that your statement is groundless.
As for ddrom: I am sorry about your son. The admission officers should have acted more courteously.</p>
<p>sf606508, I'd save whatever you'd spend on your mission to "friggin sue the goddarn schools" because others have gone before you and the Supreme Court has weighed in already.</p>
<p>"Themoonofdeath, let just say, hypothetically for a moment, I was indeed discriminated on both bases."</p>
<p>But you weren't. They don't go, oh look, this kid looks good, but then there's this other kid who's not so good but lets take him cause he's a URM!
No. Just, no.</p>
<p>Are you upset because "people of color" are being offered admission over you, or because you assume that these individuals are somehow less qualified than you are?</p>
<p>It amuses me greatly that HP and Columbia screwed me with their AA policies, but I ended up at an excellent and arguably superior college in the end: ironically due to AA, as an Asian American male.</p>
<p>Wesleyan is great consolation prize, sf606508.
I'll warn you in advance that their left-wing, liberal, diverse student body won't want to hear about your complaints, though.</p>
<p>sf606508 has been taken aside several times for similar remarks. I was actually kind of hoping Amherst would take him. OTOH, you guys have middsmith to contend with. :D</p>