<p>@Mammakin: How did your visit go?</p>
<p>@MrMom62: I agree. For the majority of selective colleges it appears that there’s a substantial advantage to ED1. Hamilton’s ED1 advantage, though perhaps limited by various considerations, and perhaps to a lesser extent than at some other schools, still seems significant for the typical, academically qualified applicant. If absolutely nothing else, it shows demonstrated interest, a factor in admissions.</p>
<p>The topic has been well studied. One of several consistent conclusions from a study out of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, as reported in The Atlantic:</p>
<p>“An early [ED] student scoring 1200 to 1290 [out of 1600 on the SAT] was MORE likely to be accepted [at the selective colleges they studied] than a regular [RD] student scoring 1300 to 1390.”</p>
<p>Hi Merc81! I think I needed one last dose of reassurance before submitting. Sounds like ED is worth it, thanks for posting that study. My son’s interview went well (he thought) and we got to catch up with a few hometown friends who go to and are happy at Hamilton. Still his first choice, cross your fingers for him!</p>
<p>@Mammakin Goodluck to him! (: Hopefully he gets in!</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A significantly important detail of the Harvard study.
[quote]
The Avery [Harvard] study’s findings were the more striking because what admissions officers refer to as “hooked” applicants were excluded from the study. These are students given special consideration, and therefore likely to be admitted despite lower scores, because of “legacy” factors (alumni parents or other relatives, plus past or potential donations from the family), specific athletic recruiting, or affirmative action.</p>
<p>“The . . . findings were the more striking because . . . “hooked” applicants were excluded from the study.” Therefore even further supporting the admissions advantage of ED for the unhooked applicants studied, as compared to RD unhooked applicants.</p>
<p>Either you have come around and now agree with me, or you have misinterpreted the quote you provided.</p>
<p>It’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. I had forgotten about the Harvard study. Appreciate the reference. Although the statistics are from at least 15 to 20 years ago, I felt that it was important to note that “hooked” applicants were excluded from the study, thus making the 90-100 point spread that much more meaningful. I assumed Mammakin would appreciate the additional information (if still correct), as it benefits her son. And I never said that applying ED doesn’t increase the chance of admission. My point up-thread was that after adjusting for recruited athletes, etc., ‘the ED admission advantage is not as significant as most believe.’</p>
<p>As long as I have your attention, your assertion that abstractions are more elegant than using examples is all well and good… unless the majority of your audience doesn’t understand the abstraction. </p>
<p>“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” Leonardo da Vinci ;)</p>
<p>@CrewDad: We both worked a little to further our understanding of the topic. So that’s effort well spent. </p>
<p>As for my abstraction, lol, it was somewhat out-of-place. But it related to a principle that I felt was relevant: if one really wants the truth, then they should to be willing to keep working toward it.</p>
<p>Btw, I agree that the study should be cited with the caveat that the data is a bit old, and may not completely reflect the admissions environment of today, and may also not apply to the practices of any particular college.</p>
<p>“We may never be able to uncover the truth. But we have to try. The truth is out there, and we, in principle, can find it.”</p>
<pre><code> – Errol Morris
</code></pre>
<p>Yeah yeah yeah, and the truth will set you free. Instead of exchanging pithy words of wisdom, I believe I’ll move on to a more enjoyable and, if I’m fortunate, fruitful activity…sipping Glenmorangie whilst flirting with the Mrs.</p>
<p>@CrewDad: Please give my regards to Mrs. CrewDad.</p>
<p>You’re too kind. Done. It’s not a big deal, but in the future, it’s Mrs. CrewMom.
No doubt that you’re aware of how contrary a Smith alumna can be. She would prefer her own identity of sorts.</p>
<p>Go Pioneers!</p>
<p>A friend of mine was commissioned to design the new mascot. The initial drafts of the ‘new spirit mark’ were impressive in my opinion. However, the mascot committee thought the new design was 'too feminin.'Go figger! So after a year of the Smith administration and committee meddling having to appease various factions forcing countless redesigns, the end result is hideous. There were and still are far more ‘colorful’ descriptions of the new mascot, but I’ll refrain. </p>
<p>Warning, not suitable for children or anyone with a modicum of artistic taste. View webapge at your own risk.
<a href=“https://www.google.com/search?q=smith+mascot+pictures&biw=1093&bih=508&tbm=isch&imgil=zVuxoFqmJXcCKM%253A%253B_Oo14O6ZmxS9hM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.smith.edu%25252Fspirit%25252Fabout.php&source=iu&pf=m&fir=zVuxoFqmJXcCKM%253A%252C_Oo14O6ZmxS9hM%252C_&usg=__wePL4B9onpXWlEUZbj3qJ9pA3kE%3D&ved=0CDsQyjc&ei=iUVlVOnGCunksASnuYEg#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=zVuxoFqmJXcCKM%253A%3B_Oo14O6ZmxS9hM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.smith.edu%252Fspirit%252Fimages%252Fcallout2.gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.smith.edu%252Fspirit%252Fabout.php%3B200%3B243”>https://www.google.com/search?q=smith+mascot+pictures&biw=1093&bih=508&tbm=isch&imgil=zVuxoFqmJXcCKM%253A%253B_Oo14O6ZmxS9hM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.smith.edu%25252Fspirit%25252Fabout.php&source=iu&pf=m&fir=zVuxoFqmJXcCKM%253A%252C_Oo14O6ZmxS9hM%252C_&usg=__wePL4B9onpXWlEUZbj3qJ9pA3kE%3D&ved=0CDsQyjc&ei=iUVlVOnGCunksASnuYEg#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=zVuxoFqmJXcCKM%253A%3B_Oo14O6ZmxS9hM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.smith.edu%252Fspirit%252Fimages%252Fcallout2.gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.smith.edu%252Fspirit%252Fabout.php%3B200%3B243</a></p>
<p>The design would be appropriate as cover art on an Ayn Rand novel. For legal reasons, let’s hope it wasn’t. </p>
<p>The design takes a bit of a chance. I like it for that reason. Plus the lines and shadows are really clean.</p>
<p>10 char</p>
<p>I view it differently. The design committee took a needless chance and failed miserably. I dislike it for that reason. The original design(s) were fabulous. There was no need for risk-taking. Heck, the Smith bookstore can’t give away car decals, etc, that include the mascot. However, I have found a useful purpose for the unwanted decals. I purchased a significant number and have enjoyed putting them on MHC and Wellesley students’ cars. </p>
<p>Ha! Wellesley and MHC cars . . . You need a camera for when they come out and see the new sticker. Btw, I’m not surprised we disagree on the art, that’s our pattern. I understand that you dislike it because they “failed miserably” . . . I can’t think of a better reason to dislike anything.</p>
