<p>Kind of funny, this $40,000/yr. initiative. My mom couldn't get into these schools with that background back in the day...no allowances made for her sub-par high school, despite her achievement. So she worked her tail off, went to a top b-school, struggled to buy her kids into a "feeder" suburb and guess what?! Ironic,huh?</p>
<p>I got into harvard early action.
sat 1120
gpa 3.3
rank 184/540</p>
<p>i had a really really great interview so that was my in. the interviewer was hot and i used my A game.</p>
<p>Cruncha22: Hi; thanks for the post. Yes, Byerly's link about the all-state from Texas kind of supports my post from over a week ago, huh? And as saxfreq1128 said, this kid (from TX) does sound "like a nice guy." I'm sure. But I do grow oh so weary of schools claiming they want scholars and then 'rewarding' those who clearly are not, but who just happen to offer something they need in any given year. A true scholar AND an outstanding athlete (world-class musician, artist, writer, whatever) would, I suppose, be the ideal. But then again, we're only talking about 17 year-olds. Sadly, true scholars seem to be less sought after (in many places) than those athletic stars, or... (well, you name it). I personally think this is just part and parcel of the general dumbing down of America. On a related note...and I guess I'm naive not to have known this before...but someone recently told me of a private school her own child attends (with a class size of about 70) that had 7 kids apply early to Harvard, and all 7 were accepted (again, early), half of whom were "very mediocre" students-- by her estimation. Interestingly, the counselor at this particular private school--who places personal phone calls to the adcom-- used to be on the Harvard admissions committee. Now I don't know. Maybe that's just mere coincidence. Anyway...I do think there are some schools out there that recognize real scholars when they see them and would love to have them. Well..I'm hoping that's still true.</p>
<p>Don't go overboard, Jack. I think Harvard still admits a scholar or two ... or even three .... to complement the all-state linebackers!</p>
<p>Hi Byerly...I was waiting for your reply. Yes, definitely.. Harvard "still admits a scholar or two"...but nonetheless discouraging to see how much one is up against... that it's not only sheer numbers...but also the all-state linebackers, the legacies (just look at the Yale legacy who now leads our country--need I say more?), the private school counselors who used to be former Harvard adcom pushing for their "medocre" students, those who appear on reality TV, or whatever, and...and.. ah, well...you name it..all that and more. Kind of wears me out. And by the way...I love your CC postings..</p>
<p>Cruncha22.. I re-read your posting, and I forgot to comment on your last sentence, that playing the sorts of admissions 'games' some of these schools play..that it "lessens their credibility"..I couldn't agree more. Most certainly may not lessen their overall credibility and the world view/perception of a place (like Harvard), but the more stories you read and hear like the above, the less interest and value I certainly have in it. I suppose all schools do this to some extent, but it still comes as a rude awakening.</p>
<p>Cruncha22...and by the way, if you haven't read James Finney Boylan's 'Getting In,' rush out and buy it today. It's a few years old & in paperback....definitely worth reading...a 'fictional' account of a father taking his kid and a couple of others up and down the East Coast, interviewing at well known schools. Very very funny... I read it a few years ago, and now I suspect it's not so fictional.</p>
<p>I think the thing about athletes that people sometimes forget is that Harvard looks for students that are dedicated to and very good at what they do.</p>
<p>Well; aren't recruited athletes dedicated to and very good at what they do, just like Intel finalists and world-class opera singers are good at what THEY do? As long as the SAT scores aren't sub-1200, I don't see what the problem is. </p>
<p>Let's not forget that to be recruited by a college, these days, you've got to be darn good. I mean, could you even count the number of Athens Olympic athletes who were Stanford students/alumni on one hand?</p>
<p>well, what if the test scores were sub-1200? I know a kid who got into Harvard with an 1180 on the SAT I and something like a 430-500 on the Writing SAT II. Granted, he's a great athlete, and I'm happy for him, but were academics even a factor there? And he also knows someone attending Harvard to play a sport who had a 1040 (I think -- somewhere in the 1000 range) on the SAT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As long as the SAT scores aren't sub-1200, I don't see what the problem is.
[/quote]
In fact, why not let everyone in....why stop at 1200? Open admissions ato harvard. I say.</p>
<p>the fact is there are plenty of athletes who are academically qualified. true, it may seem unfair that I got into Harvard over someone else because of athletic recruiting, but ultimately it's just another hook.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it may seem unfair that I got into Harvard over someone else because of athletic recruiting, but ultimately it's just another hook.
[/quote]
The problem is that you seem not to understand the difference between your "hook" and the "hook" sometimes referred to as "being smart."</p>
<p>You should not assume someone is not smart because he/she is a recruited athlete. I am #1 in my class, scored a 1550 SAT, I'm a nat'l merit semifinalist, etc. Being an athlete doesn't have to mean being a slouch in other areas.</p>
<p>Sunglasses: Maybe that's the point. I have no problem with any school recruiting star athletes, opera singers, actors, etc., but whatever school is doing the recruiting, why not hold these 'stars' to the same academic standards as those who don't happen to be world class athletes, opera singers....? No doubt plenty of great athletes are out there who are academically 'competitive'...so why not recruit them instead?</p>
<p>Yes, jack, I agree.</p>
<p>Maybe they do. Maybe they find the kinds of academically competitive athletes that they are looking for--and then some. </p>
<p>Maybe they know that the academically competitive athletes they recruit are probably going to go to a school that is better, athletically; so, they take athletes that aren't as qualified, academically, because they KNOW these athletes are very aware that they were VERY LUCKY to have gotten in, and are thus more likely to enroll.</p>
<p>Who can really say?</p>
<p>And don't forget. SAT scores aren't considered in a vacuum. Is it really fair to hold an inner city basketball player to the same SAT standard as an affluent fencer?</p>
<p>Saxfreq1128: Yes, I agree.. 'who can really say.' But I think you're making some assumptions here (applying a stereotype, perhaps?) about 'inner city basketball players,' aren't you?</p>
<p>A friend of mine got a recruiting letter from Harvard Department of Athletics. </p>
<p>It encouraged him to apply and mentioned that the "typical Harvard team member" has a combined SAT I of 1250.</p>
<p>Pretty depressing when you consider that the TYPICAL Ivy League athlete couldn't be waterboy/watergirl in the Big Ten. And they're lousy students too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"typical Harvard team member" has a combined SAT I of 1250.
[/quote]
No wonder they can't remember the play numbers.</p>
<p>It would be an interesting to know the distribution of athletes in a given graduating class. Most in bottom quarter? Worse? Better?</p>