<p>Thanks for post # 79, adofficer. I don't recall what the application forms for my two Ss looked like; nor do I know whether they checked the race/ethnicity boxes (I suspect not).</p>
<p>Ad Officer do you think that the number of "difference makers" or 'blue chip" caliber athletes in the admission pool as opposed to high achieving academic students, is significantly smaller, and as a result, is the reason the admit percentages may be larger?</p>
<p>Adofficer - You are being disingenuous. The student may self-identify as anything he wants, including Klingon - but for that Hamilton adofficer seeking "diversity in the classroom", and requiring the numbers to support its realization, ONLY race and ethnicity will count. Defining diversity in racial terms is indeed narrow, but, for the purpose of college enrollment, that is exactly how it is defined.</p>
<p>drb,
no, i'm not being disingenuous...perhaps when schools report their enrollment numbers they only break it down by race, but race is not the only way we define diversity and not the only kind of diversity that is important on college campuses. and i do enjoy reading about how a student identifies racially, ethnically, or culturally - it is interesting to me to understand how young people today identify themselves and why. </p>
<p>madville,
to answer your question, yes, there are far more - let me be clear on this - exponentially more high academic achievers in the applicant pools at most selective schools than there are "impact players" or "blue chip athletes." of course, this is all relative and i'm not saying that there aren't high academic achievers who are also impact players, but they are pretty rare in many most selective schools' applicant pools. these kids (high academic achievers with great athletic talent) get in relatively easy as compared to others in the applicant pool, but most recruited athletes who are impact players - at least in my experience - have been less academically compelling than most others who are admitted. however, these students are contributing to campus in a way that others are not (or cannot) :)</p>
<p>My son specified Ashkenazi and Norwegian as well as American. His Dad's Jewish heritage and my totally Norwegian roots have had an influence on who he is.</p>
<p>I see what you're saying marite, but even very privileged black people can experience a lot of discrimination--taxis that won't pick them up, etc. that can lead to a very different life experience.</p>
<p>What bunk (not you,bethie). Since the reported enrollment numbers are the only objective and accessible measure of diversity, your internal definition of diversity (which, in fact can be fulfilled by anyone- the true Brahmin St. Somewhere-schooled summers-on-Nantucket polo player is probably a minority these days) is ultimately trumped by the objective of having "multicultural" - that is, non-white - faces in the classroom and on the webpages, and non-Anglo names on the roster.</p>
<p>I don't fault this. Racial and ethnic diversity is a good thing. Just stop piously pretending it is a level playing field.</p>
<p>
[quote]
madville,
to answer your question, yes, there are far more - let me be clear on this - exponentially more high academic achievers in the applicant pools at most selective schools than there are "impact players" or "blue chip athletes."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thanks for the reply. I've had many a debate over this issue when there are those who believe athletics are overemphasized in college admissions. It's simply economic supply and demand.</p>
<p>madville, </p>
<p>i haven't done my own research on the topic, but i would suggest you read "the game of life" if you have the time...there's definitely an "advantage" to being a recruited athlete in the admissions process - and at some schools (like smaller d3 schools), they can make up a big chunk of the incoming class (like 25%). the impact players may only be a tiny portion of the applicant pool, but they are getting in at very high rates - sometimes triple or quadruple the regular admission rate at most selective schools. </p>
<p>drb,</p>
<p>i'm not going to argue with you about this. i gave you my perspective - you can choose to accuse me of waxing on piously if you'd like. you are right, though, in asserting that the playing field isn't level - the second part of bethie's post points this out pretty well.</p>
<p>Against the background of AdOfficer's posts, I want to reiterate what I said before from the snail's-eye perspective: I see lots of great Eastern European (and Asian) immigrants with great admissions results, and financial aid, too. That doesn't mean the bar isn't higher for them than for "official" URMs, but I would be shocked if, in absolute numbers, there weren't at least as many or more of them in the halls of Ivy as there are URMs. Probably a lot more. As far as I can see, colleges clearly respond to the kids with compelling stories to tell, whether it shows up in their common data set statistics or not.</p>
<p>I'll add that I think it's a common CC fantasy that selective college admissions offices are managed to maximize CDS reported statistics. I strongly doubt that.</p>
<p>I don't know whether it is a fantasy... but it is exactly what was described in the book under discussion as a common practice in Hamilton. In no uncertain terms...</p>
<p>BTW, about the recent asian immigrants... in many colleges they are treated as overrepresented minorities so all the talk about them getting a tip (or whatever positive input) from their clearly diverse background sounds like a fantasy to me.</p>
<p>Without question, being a recruited athlete is a huge advantage in the admissions process at highly selective schools. However, the higher admission percentage is largely a process of self-selection. If an athlete is not recruited or if the coach tells him he won't be accepted, in most cases he simply won't apply.</p>
<p>Before picking up The Game of Life, be prepared for the authors' open hostility toward recruited athletes. I can't resist commenting on the sequel, Reclaiming the Game. The book jacket proudly proclaims that Bowen's co-author, Sarah Levin was an "All American athlete" at Harvard. It doesn't tell you that her sport was SAILING, where I'm sure that she bested many young women from the 'hood. Levin is the daughter of the President of Yale University--I'm sure that she hasn't gained any advantage from that status. It was just a coincidence that a recent college graduate who did well (but not spectacularly got a chance to coauthor a book with the former President of Princeton. But those athletes--now they get unfair advantages (except sailors, of course).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Before picking up The Game of Life, be prepared for the authors' open hostility toward recruited athletes. I can't resist commenting on the sequel, Reclaiming the Game. The book jacket proudly proclaims that Bowen's co-author, Sarah Levin was an "All American athlete" at Harvard. It doesn't tell you that her sport was SAILING, where I'm sure that she bested many young women from the 'hood.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Classic! lol! (Still laughing) Quips like these and the tons of perspectives and info on college is the reason that this site is among my favorites.</p>
<p>EMM1...
i would agree...the tone of "the game of life" is biased. nevertheless, it is one of the most thorough studies of admissions and athletics out there. reading past the bias is important in evaluating any educational research! </p>
<p>marmat103...
i completely disagree with you. newer asian american immigrants to this country are not viewed as over-represented. in particular, students coming from or who have parents who immigrated from places like vietnam, cambodia, laos, thailand, the philippines, indonesia, and myanmar are completely under-represented on american campuses and are viewed as urm students. those asian american students who are of korean, japanese, or chinese decent are certainly not as under-represented as students of other asian decents on many american campuses, but we very much pay attention to when these students (or their families) may have arrived in the united states, similar to how we pay attention to when a white, latino, or black student who may be (or families may be) new to the united states arrived.</p>
<p>I fail to see why athletes - who have spent hundreds or even thousands of hours in perfecting their skills - don't deserve as good an education as someone who wakes up on the right side of the bed and, much because of good conversation (read: relative wealth) in his household, happens to do well in his fourth coached performance on a standardized test. (and they're going to get a decent education wherever they go anyway, as their advantages likely mean they'll require less is the way of "scaffolding".)</p>
<p>My understanding is that while a coach may "recruit" many athletes, very few of them are at a clear admissions advantage, especially at top schools.</p>
<p>Well, the case I know of a young woman friend of D's was actively recruited by Cornell, Colgate and Brown. The coach at Brown was practically sending her candy and flowers to get her and stretched and configured her numbers to meet their basic minimum standards.</p>
<p>She is an absolutely lovely, intelligent young woman who is also a superb athlete. I have no problem with her being accepted at Brown (My that sounds pompous), but she was told in September, or the latest Oct., before she'd even had a chance to apply, that she was in.</p>
<p>"My understanding is that while a coach may "recruit" many athletes, very few of them are at a clear admissions advantage, especially at top schools."</p>
<p>My understanding is precisely the opposite.</p>
<p>Mythmom:</p>
<p>My understanding of the way that the academic index works is that admission is based on a mathematical formula for athletes. So the coach can simply run the numbers and tell the athlete whether or not she can be admitted based on that formula.</p>
<p>Mini,</p>
<p>My experience is admittedly limited, but hear me out.</p>
<p>In my kids' non-helmet sport, I'm guessing that anywhere from 30-50 candidates are offered "official" campus recruiting visits at the top-tier, academics-first schools. Probably more for sports that are higher up the food chain and probably many more at larger universities.</p>
<p>There's just no way that all 30, and certainly not all 50 of these candidates are offered admission. The coaches with whom we've spoken are very clear in their statements that they cannot guarantee admission to anyone. My understanding of the coach/admissions alchemy remains hazy, but I believe that coaches present to the admissions office a very short list -- maybe 6, maybe 8, maybe 4? -- athletes who they really, really, really want. The remaining candidates are no doubt encouraged to apply, but the coach cannot provide that same support in admissions.</p>
<p>Case in point: a friend's son was "recruited" by an Ivy for a different non-helmet sport than our kids. This family assumed that their son was "in" because of the visit and the coach's kind words. They were shocked and dismayed when the thin envelope arrived, and to this day, they blame the school and the coach for "deceiving" them. The real problem was not deception; it was communication. The conversation never occurred in which the coach was specifically what kind of support he could offer in Admissions and where their son ranked on his "list". </p>
<p>I would prefer to think that your perception is the reality, as our younger S is currently going through the recruiting process and will be making "official" visits to several schools. We certainly hope that he has a felicitous outcome, but by no means do we assume it. </p>
<p>Bottom line: many are called, but few are chosen. The real difference between our situation and that of non-athletes is simply that it is more complicated. If S falls in love with a school and applies ED and is not accepted, it is much, much trickier going back to the other coaches with hat in hand.</p>