WSJ: A Desperate Need for Acceptance

Parents Forum
81

<p>Hi mpmom,</p>

<p>A couple of years ago the Dartmouth ran a series of articles titled In admissions, many get 'special' attention. I think the 40 percent comes can go back to this...</p>

<p>In the article it states:</p>

<p>
[quote]
But acceptance rates are not high only for these groups. Athletes and students with 800 SAT scores also gain admission at a disproportionately high rate, Dean of Admissions Karl Furstenberg said. Rates are also higher for students with exceptional essays and above-4.0 GPAs. With so many people applying for admission at one of the top 10 schools in the country, it takes a combination of many factors to get that thick envelope come April. </p>

<p>On the other hand, roughly 40 percent of applicants are given some sort of extra attention — minorities, legacies or athletes. This year, 24 percent of applicants were students of color, 3 percent legacies, and roughly 13 to 17 percent were athletes, based on estimates. This 40 percent of the applicants has a combined admit rate nearly double the overall level. </p>

<p>Athletic admissions statistics are not released by the admissions office. Some speculate that athletes — particularly those for big sports — are given the highest preference of all. This does not appear to be the case at Dartmouth, although athletes do benefit from having a lobbyist in their coach. Coaches submit ranked lists of their recruited athletes to the admissions office. The admissions office then reviews the applications, taking into account the applicant's athletic talent and coach's recommendation. </p>

<p>"Athletic talent works in the same way other kinds of talent do. The only difference is it's a much more organized and structured recruiting process and that's a function of the NCAA and the Ivy League rules," Furstenberg said. "They tell us who they want, but there are no guaranteed number of slots." </p>

<p>Washington</a> Week . Student Voices | PBS

[/quote]

.</p>

82

<p>I have not had a chance to read the entire (very interesting) thread but would like to respond to a few points:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Muffy....your kid actually picks up dirty laundry from the floor? Without being asked? You are fortunate indeed!</p></li>
<li><p>I hear what people are saying about not 'dumping' your friends during the summer to go away to camps, but that totally ignores the fact that kids can form a lot of new and lasting friendships during summer camp. What is more, the friends you make at camp are usually from all over the country or world, and that is truly a very enriching experience. We were so glad that DD got to meet other kids with similar passions at music camp last summer, and from places other than the NYC suburb we live in! She is also in touch with the kids via facebook and other means. What is more, she was also able to stay in touch with her friends back home. They had written so many sweet letters (snail mail) to each other! You know what they say, absence makes the heart grow fonder.</p></li>
<li><p>Much of the advice in those books (What colleges/schools don't tell you...) is <em>way</em> over the top (and yes, stomach curdling), but doesn't every "how-to"author exaggerate things? Doesn't mean there isn't a kernel of truth in there. It is just like those diet books- Atkins was way over the top about avoiding carbs but he did call attention to the fact that carb control is important. Similarly it is possible to glean some useful pieces of information from such books if you are able to disregard the hype. Call it "critical reading".</p></li>
</ol>

83

<p>And where would a very angular scholar type apply to be with other exceptional minds and not have almost half the classroom taken up by athletes and legacies? Caltech? Fine, but what if you're more of a social sciences type?</p>

84

<p>Mammall:</p>

<p>I can tell you that in none of my S's humanities & socials sciences classes did athletes and legacies dominate. Furthermore, legacies and athletes are not incompatible with academic excellence. This has always been my beef with the classification of applicants, as if they could only fit into one category but not another.</p>

<p>My S had multiple hooks at Harvard and got admitted there. He had none at Stanford and also got admitted there. Why? because, hooks and all or none, he was also an excellent applicant anywhere.</p>

85

<p>UChicago, Swarthmore. Swarthmore makes a point of not leaning toward legacies as part of its Quaker heritage. Very strong in social science and not athletics. Ditto UChicago which really does lean strongly on the essays. My S was accepted and received a personal note about how much his area rep liked his essay. Guy quoted from it.</p>

86

<p>A word about legacies: At DS school there are legacy kids whose names are all over the campus for building donations. One said, "Last night my dad was talking to Putin." This was an eye-opener for S and invited him into a world he had never really imagined, though he knew existed. I think that it was very educating.</p>

<p>The athletes add to the ambiance of the school as well, and when College Day was broadcast from his school, the first time a DIII was chose, S was jumping all over trying to get into the frame of the video. I missed him.</p>

<p>DD is at Barnard which probably doesn't care much about athletes. However, every year they announce their legacy candidates. I don't think the implication is that they have lesser stats. I think the idea is generations of feminist or quasi-feminist women committed to women's education. I find that heartwarming.</p>

<p>I am the extremely academic type; hence a PhD. Neither of my kids is, although each is just a bright and committed. A mandarin strict meritocracy would not be a suitable environment for them because each is a more well-rounded person than I. </p>

<p>I still can't imagine anything more fun than staying up all night trying to master Schroedinger's quantum theory for a point in my novel or because I'm teaching a humanities approach to relativity theory. This is not my kids. Work done, they have other interests.</p>

<p>So, although neither is a legacy or athlete, I have no problem with them attending schools where these are somewhat courted. Part of the scene they are enjoyed.</p>

<p>I am also gratified that URM's with perhaps slightly lesser stats are invited into the mix. And economically disadvantaged kids, and internationals and internationals with economic need, at least at S's school. This is closer to the world than an entire school of just those kids with 2400 straight A+ scores.</p>

<p>However, should that be the environment one's child thrives in there are schools who take more of that approach.</p>

<p>And there is always Oxford and Cambridge. I do know kids who have elected to go to the UK for college.</p>

87

<p>S has two Ph.D. parents; hence the legacy status. But the Ph.D. parents made it possible for him to have stellar stats. That's what I'm trying to suggest.</p>

<p>I, too, know of kids who can boast that their parents (or grandparents) have met world leaders but are also stellar students. The one does not cancel out the other.
My S deliberately chose to attend a school where there would be a huge diversity of interests instead of one where everybody would be a nerd like himself. As a result, he has become involved in non-nerdy activities. High time!</p>

<p>About Oxford and Cambridge: When I lived in the UK, a collection of memories of undergraduate days at Oxford by well-known figures came out, soon followed by one about Cambridge. The gist of these memoirs was that these well-known figures spent most of their time not studying. Cambridge is well known for turning out actors such as Hugh Laurie and Emma Thompson and earlier, members of the Goon Show. Members of Monty Python met at Oxford and Cambridge respectively. They were not spending all their time there soaking up knowledge.</p>

88

<p>
[quote]
And where would a very angular scholar type apply to be with other exceptional minds and not have almost half the classroom taken up by athletes and legacies? Caltech? Fine, but what if you're more of a social sciences type?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Our local h.s. had 12 Ivy-league and 6 Stanford admits. 4 were legacies, the other 14 were recruited athletes. Every single one of them had a 4.0+ GPA (I know because I headed the committee that recognized them for it), and the group included our Val and Sal (both also recruited athletes). Mammall, your bias is showing. :)</p>

89

<p>Just to elaborate on the points Bay and I have been trying to make, let me offer the profiles of some Yale and Harvard students I know (I know it's not statistical evidence so please don't jump on me). These are all Harvard and Yale legacies, and in some cases, legacies at both.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>legacy; famous parent; recruited athlete (received a likely letter from Yale); URM; NMF; currently doing spectacularly well at Yale.</p></li>
<li><p>legacy; URM; NMF; graduated at 16; doing very well at Yale.</p></li>
<li><p>legacy; NMF; sal; participated in prestigious academic summer program. Currently in grad school after attending Yale.</p></li>
<li><p>legacy; NMF; graduated early; SAT score of 1550 in 7th grade. In grad school after a stint as a Rhodes scholar.</p></li>
<li><p>legacy; NMF; sal; nationally recognized musician. Currently doing well in college and continuing participation in musical activities on campus at Harvard.</p></li>
<li><p>legacy; NMF; graduated at 16; URM; just finished freshman year at Harvard.</p></li>
<li><p>legacy; NMF; val;captain of swim team; senior at Yale.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Would I want my kid in the same classes as any of these URMs/legacies/athletes? Yes, of course. Come to think of it, he was in classes with these kids--in middle school and high school.</p>

90

<p>Classicsgek wrote:</p>

<p>"The trend has been to take a LOT fewer from schools like Deerfield, Hotchkiss and the elite prep schools which is why if you look at the admission RATES from those schools (not that they make those public), you'll find they are LOWER than the admit rates from top public schools."</p>

<p>For what its worth, these are the actual matriculation numbers from Deerfield from 2002-2006 out of a total of about 750</p>

<p>Brown<br>
45
Harvard
41
UPenn<br>
38
Georgetown<br>
34
Middlebury<br>
33
Cornell
32
Yale<br>
32
Princeton<br>
27
Columbia<br>
22
Williams<br>
19</p>

<p>I can't imagine any public school coming close to those numbers.</p>

<p>In addition, he suggests that athletic recruits are not admitted on "merit." We've had this discussion ad nauseum. Nobody hands recruited athletes anything; they earn their way in through performance--just not the kind of performance that he thinks is important.</p>

91

<p>" S has two Ph.D. parents; hence the legacy status. But the Ph.D. parents made it possible for him to have stellar stats. That's what I'm trying to suggest. "</p>

<p>Not wanting to rain on the parade but we do not live in a country that particularly values PhD's. Among the lowest paid groups relative to education. There is an executive branch, a legislative branch, and judicial branch of the government, but no "smart people" branch. No one cares how smart actors, or athletes, or artists, or talk show hosts, or just about anyone is. I don't think any college cares about the education of the parents; in fact it is better if you are a first generation college student for admission. In order to get your kids a bump then they are either a development candidate or a legacy, not the child of smart ("credentialed") parents.</p>

92

<p>
[quote]
But the Ph.D. parents made it possible for him to have stellar stats.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>windy, I do not believe marite was saying her kids got an "admissions bump" simply because she and her husband have PhDs. Her point is that the children of highly educated parents tend to spend a lot of time, money and effort on education-related activities. Hence, the children of highly educated parents are more likely to have amassed an impressive academic resume through high school than the children of parents with less formal schooling.</p>

93

<p>I also don't know why there seems to be an "either/or" assumption (re: legacies). Legacies often have excellent gene pools with high cognitive quotients. (Hence, Ph.D's, etc.)</p>

<p>Certainly I've met/heard of "low-cognition" legacies (of both private high schools & private colleges), but generally those brought something else of premium value to a college, such as cash.</p>

<p>It's the students with no athletic ability to speak of, nor heightened cognitive or artistic quotients, nor highly liquid monetary assets, that are passed over by selective privates.</p>

94

<p>Windy:</p>

<p>You misunderstood what I tried to say. Why do people want their kids to attend top schools? Because of the prestige perhaps but also because these top schools have a reputation for providing a good education. So legacies have, by definition, parents who received a good education at those self-same top schools. My kids benefited enormously from having two Ph.D. parents: one who could discuss Pascal the humanist thinker and the other Pascal the mathematician. Our Ph.D.s in themselves did not get the kids into their schools (one was totally unhooked anywhere he applied, the other was admitted into a school where he was not hooked). Having parents who are Ph.D.s and care enormously about education is not antithetical to being a legacy. </p>

<p>One aspect of the profiles of the Yale and Harvard legacies I posted earlier which I did not mention: All the students have parents who have post-graduate degrees: Ph.D.s, J.D.s, M.ED, MDs. All have been closely involved in the education of their children and in the schools their children attended.</p>

<p>You are actually wrong that colleges don't care about the education of parents. They believe, rightly, that children are advantaged by having highly educated parents. They try to level the playing field by giving a tip to first generation college-goers. That is why they ask about parents' educational achievements.</p>

<p>EDIT: cross-posted with midmo who expressed my statement more succinctly than I did!</p>

95

<p>We simply disagree and that's ok. My wife and I have post grad degree's, she has 2 of them I have 3, but from top 100 schools not top 20. Also very well-off. The kids go to Williams and UVA Honors. But, I don't think our education helped them in admission, in fact I believe it hurt them. At the orientation at Williams the President said congrats, you did good helping them get here, now go away and don't come back, we will do the rest. They didn't care at all about how educated we were. It was assumed that they were far smarter and more capable of educating. The most discriminated against class, in terms of college admission, is white kids from affluent families. Hence they also need to be athletes along with all the rest, just to level the playing field. Now I do understand it would be far worse to be poor and attend a crap high school and such, but that's a separate discussion, any child at any American school is far better off that hundreds of millions of kids worldwide. I think in the not too distant future it will be almost impossible for an affluent smart white kid from a public school to ever get into a top 20 college, unless they are athletes or hooked in some other way.</p>

96

<p>I can just tell my experience at a strong, affluent suburban school. The recruited athletes were all qualified who got into top schools. 2 near the 75% I would think at least. Others at least at 25% and bright and articulate. You would not pick them out in a Harvard classroom.</p>

<p>Legacies were higher stat than the athletes. All top of class. Some were rejected or deferred, especially at Stanford, who everyone thought would get in. I think most ivies reject 70% or more of legacies.</p>

<p>I also saw when the athletes were negotiating with colleges in the fall, some dropped down level of college when coach examined stats.</p>

<p>Most interesting though, every kid accepted ED/EA at my son's school seems to be athlete or legacy.</p>

97

<p>I am not suggesting that having educated parents is an automatic ticket to admission to top schools. But having educated parents does benefit children. Did you ever discuss math problems or an English assignment with your kids? Consider the parents whose schooling never went past 8th grade or who are not English speakers. </p>

<p>The white kids from affluent families presumably have well educated parents. Is that being discriminated against? Would they want to trade?</p>

<p>And yes, colleges do expect parents to bug off. We have done our part. It's time for our kids to be on their own. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I think in the not too distant future it will be almost impossible for an affluent smart white kid from a public school to ever get into a top 20 college, unless they are athletes or hooked in some other way.

[/quote]

My kids who fit the profile got admitted to schools where they were not hooked. Both top 20. So, apparently was your own kid. As for some of the hooked kids, see the profiles I posted. Being hooked and being smart are not incompatible.</p>

98

<p>Windy:
The "top 20," because of their stature/visibility (& consequent mission) tend to be interested in expanding opportunities. As economically disadvantaged students become increasingly more represented at "top" colleges, the perceived need to bump up their enrollment will decline. So I hardly think that the current state of affairs is permanent. </p>

<p>I do agree that seriously advantaged students have a greater admissions hurdle among high-profile privates (unless otherwise hooked), but I also do not see freshman classes in the top 20 composed of 100% disadvantaged, non-white students. (Do you?) The colleges want a balance, not 100% of anything.</p>

<p>"It was assumed that they were far smarter and more capable of educating."</p>

<p>^^Not really. It's assumed that they choose to educate in a particular way, with a particular curriculum of their choosing, which is their privilege & why they get to charge tuition to those who volunteer to part with money. They by no means "assume" they have superior brainpower. If they did, they wouldn't require students to study the geniuses who wrote the books in the curriculum.</p>

99

<p>"The "top 20," because of their stature/visibility (& consequent mission) tend to be interested in expanding opportunities." </p>

<p>Interesting topic. As a nation of laws what the elite privates do in terms of admission policies might be deemed, and in many cases, have been determined to be unlawful at a public institution, the University of Michigan for example, using race as a factor. In most cases, most of us rail against private institutions that discriminate, the women's boycott against Augusta National, the Boy Scouts excluding gays, etc. I guess "good" discrimination is OK.</p>

100

<p>Yes Windy, Asians understand this well!</p>