"Not a Meritocracy"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:College is not a reward for good little boys and girls?

College is a community. College is also educating a society.

Colleges choose students based on who can make their community more full (big names/athletes/artists). They also choose people they think can contribute to society in some way (like the parkland kids, or the smartest kid in some unknown town whose gpa/Sat might be less than yours but it’s the highest there )

It is a meritocracy you just don’t like the measuring stick they use.

You are delusional. There a few of these admits, but most of them are going to rich and richer kids. It's a money and power thing, not a merit thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last week, the Head of School for our Big3 DC private reminded parents that college admissions is "not a meritocracy." He was not glib about this but seemed to be acknowledging it. He also said that the "college admissions system is broken.'

In the senior class this year, the kids of families with considerable money, privelege, and notoriety (as in nationally-known companies and public figures as well as 'old money') are doing really well in admissions. Really well. It's eye-opening and rather disgusting, considering what I know about the relative achievements of the kids (admittedly, I don't know all). But the overall results for the school is not good -- but for these kids, it's starkly good.

Are many schools seeing similar results -- along Wisconsin Avenue?

Sounds like this counselor is bemoaning the loss of a special advantageous relationship than "meritocracy. " All the kids these colleges consider merit entry. There are way way more top achievers than spots. This counselor is used to entitlements. If the point of a private school is to create a pathway to best colleges for majority of students, that has little to do with merit, and much to do with money and connection. I would rathee colleges choose students who offer diversity in addition to their merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“College athlete” is a broad term. For D2, many of the schools are weak academically & athletically, with small teams and student bodies. MANY D3 colleges which are generally small liberal arts colleges, openly use sports as a way to keep their doors open nowadays. Their selling point for kids is the opportunity to keep playing for another four years, athletic or academic ability be damned. They use “sports recruiting” as a way to bring in warm bodies so the school can have enough students to keep its doors open. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to NESCAC schools, but absolutely applies to one’s below T40 ish in the LAC rankings.

Some of those — mostly more towards the West and in better locations — are increasingly popular because you get a LAC environment in a good location without the insanity required for the T30s. I know multiple kids (some athletes and not, all good students) who did ED to western/midwestern LACs in the T40-T100 range. They all got in with excellent merit aid, they generally seem happier than a lot of their peers, and it seems like a great decision.

I’ve read a few articles about the coming demographic cliff for colleges and how many small eastern LACs won’t survive but the ones towards the west will be okay. I was skeptical, but I’ve now seen that trend play out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:College is not a reward for good little boys and girls?

College is a community. College is also educating a society.

Colleges choose students based on who can make their community more full (big names/athletes/artists). They also choose people they think can contribute to society in some way (like the parkland kids, or the smartest kid in some unknown town whose gpa/Sat might be less than yours but it’s the highest there )

It is a meritocracy you just don’t like the measuring stick they use.

You are delusional. There a few of these admits, but most of them are going to rich and richer kids. It's a money and power thing, not a merit thing.

It's a merit thing for the 99%ers only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“College athlete” is a broad term. For D2, many of the schools are weak academically & athletically, with small teams and student bodies. MANY D3 colleges which are generally small liberal arts colleges, openly use sports as a way to keep their doors open nowadays. Their selling point for kids is the opportunity to keep playing for another four years, athletic or academic ability be damned. They use “sports recruiting” as a way to bring in warm bodies so the school can have enough students to keep its doors open. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to NESCAC schools, but absolutely applies to one’s below T40 ish in the LAC rankings.

Who cares? Athletes make up under 10% of all college students. The only people complaining are the ones in the bottom 10% of the class. If they did away with all the college athletes you are still not getting in.

32% at Amherst, with nearly all of them being rich white kids.

Which the school needs to subsidize everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“College athlete” is a broad term. For D2, many of the schools are weak academically & athletically, with small teams and student bodies. MANY D3 colleges which are generally small liberal arts colleges, openly use sports as a way to keep their doors open nowadays. Their selling point for kids is the opportunity to keep playing for another four years, athletic or academic ability be damned. They use “sports recruiting” as a way to bring in warm bodies so the school can have enough students to keep its doors open. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to NESCAC schools, but absolutely applies to one’s below T40 ish in the LAC rankings.

Who cares? Athletes make up under 10% of all college students. The only people complaining are the ones in the bottom 10% of the class. If they did away with all the college athletes you are still not getting in.

32% at Amherst, with nearly all of them being rich white kids.

Which the school needs to subsidize everyone else.

Amherst has a $3.75 billion endowment, $1.9 million per student. They would be fine if every student was on financial aid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“College athlete” is a broad term. For D2, many of the schools are weak academically & athletically, with small teams and student bodies. MANY D3 colleges which are generally small liberal arts colleges, openly use sports as a way to keep their doors open nowadays. Their selling point for kids is the opportunity to keep playing for another four years, athletic or academic ability be damned. They use “sports recruiting” as a way to bring in warm bodies so the school can have enough students to keep its doors open. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to NESCAC schools, but absolutely applies to one’s below T40 ish in the LAC rankings.

Who cares? Athletes make up under 10% of all college students. The only people complaining are the ones in the bottom 10% of the class. If they did away with all the college athletes you are still not getting in.

32% at Amherst, with nearly all of them being rich white kids.

Which the school needs to subsidize everyone else.

Amherst has a $3.75 billion endowment, $1.9 million per student. They would be fine if every student was on financial aid

They eliminated legacy admissions, so they seem to be doing fine.

[Anonymous]

Who ever thought it was?!

Life in general is not a meritocracy. Get used to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who ever thought it was?!

Life in general is not a meritocracy. Get used to it.

And OP’s child is on the advantageous side of the oligarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“College athlete” is a broad term. For D2, many of the schools are weak academically & athletically, with small teams and student bodies. MANY D3 colleges which are generally small liberal arts colleges, openly use sports as a way to keep their doors open nowadays. Their selling point for kids is the opportunity to keep playing for another four years, athletic or academic ability be damned. They use “sports recruiting” as a way to bring in warm bodies so the school can have enough students to keep its doors open. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to NESCAC schools, but absolutely applies to one’s below T40 ish in the LAC rankings.

Who cares? Athletes make up under 10% of all college students. The only people complaining are the ones in the bottom 10% of the class. If they did away with all the college athletes you are still not getting in.

32% at Amherst, with nearly all of them being rich white kids.

Which the school needs to subsidize everyone else.

Amherst has a $3.75 billion endowment, $1.9 million per student. They would be fine if every student was on financial aid

You are very generous with other people's money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“College athlete” is a broad term. For D2, many of the schools are weak academically & athletically, with small teams and student bodies. MANY D3 colleges which are generally small liberal arts colleges, openly use sports as a way to keep their doors open nowadays. Their selling point for kids is the opportunity to keep playing for another four years, athletic or academic ability be damned. They use “sports recruiting” as a way to bring in warm bodies so the school can have enough students to keep its doors open. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to NESCAC schools, but absolutely applies to one’s below T40 ish in the LAC rankings.

Who cares? Athletes make up under 10% of all college students. The only people complaining are the ones in the bottom 10% of the class. If they did away with all the college athletes you are still not getting in.

32% at Amherst, with nearly all of them being rich white kids.

Which the school needs to subsidize everyone else.

Amherst has a $3.75 billion endowment, $1.9 million per student. They would be fine if every student was on financial aid

You are very generous with other people's money.

It's an endowment. It's entire purpose is to educate other people's children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your child attends a $50,000/year private high school.

Yeah and for that kind of money I'd damn well expect a leg up on college admission compared to public school kids.

But then would you be upset that college isn't a meritocracy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“College athlete” is a broad term. For D2, many of the schools are weak academically & athletically, with small teams and student bodies. MANY D3 colleges which are generally small liberal arts colleges, openly use sports as a way to keep their doors open nowadays. Their selling point for kids is the opportunity to keep playing for another four years, athletic or academic ability be damned. They use “sports recruiting” as a way to bring in warm bodies so the school can have enough students to keep its doors open. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to NESCAC schools, but absolutely applies to one’s below T40 ish in the LAC rankings.

Who cares? Athletes make up under 10% of all college students. The only people complaining are the ones in the bottom 10% of the class. If they did away with all the college athletes you are still not getting in.

32% at Amherst, with nearly all of them being rich white kids.

Amherst is about 2,000 students, is a d3 school and has 618 athletes. So if Amherst did away with athletics it would free up roughly 154 spaces. Amherst has an 8-9% acceptance rate. The school could easily fill the 154 spots per class and still reject kids with very high gpa and test scores. The problem is not the “athletes”. The problem is there are many kids coming from “elite” high schools with very good grades and test scores who all apply multiple elite schools. There are more qualified kids vs spots.

Another thing is Amherst is not getting the top athletes. So sure a few many have low scores but most do not.

Percentage of athletes at other schools
Ohio State 2%
Harvard 15%
Cornell 9%
Yale. 16%
Michigan 2%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“College athlete” is a broad term. For D2, many of the schools are weak academically & athletically, with small teams and student bodies. MANY D3 colleges which are generally small liberal arts colleges, openly use sports as a way to keep their doors open nowadays. Their selling point for kids is the opportunity to keep playing for another four years, athletic or academic ability be damned. They use “sports recruiting” as a way to bring in warm bodies so the school can have enough students to keep its doors open. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to NESCAC schools, but absolutely applies to one’s below T40 ish in the LAC rankings.

Who cares? Athletes make up under 10% of all college students. The only people complaining are the ones in the bottom 10% of the class. If they did away with all the college athletes you are still not getting in.

32% at Amherst, with nearly all of them being rich white kids.

Which the school needs to subsidize everyone else.

Amherst has a $3.75 billion endowment, $1.9 million per student. They would be fine if every student was on financial aid

They eliminated legacy admissions, so they seem to be doing fine.

“Eliminated.”

The coaches in particular don’t seem to have gotten the memo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“College athlete” is a broad term. For D2, many of the schools are weak academically & athletically, with small teams and student bodies. MANY D3 colleges which are generally small liberal arts colleges, openly use sports as a way to keep their doors open nowadays. Their selling point for kids is the opportunity to keep playing for another four years, athletic or academic ability be damned. They use “sports recruiting” as a way to bring in warm bodies so the school can have enough students to keep its doors open. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to NESCAC schools, but absolutely applies to one’s below T40 ish in the LAC rankings.

Who cares? Athletes make up under 10% of all college students. The only people complaining are the ones in the bottom 10% of the class. If they did away with all the college athletes you are still not getting in.

32% at Amherst, with nearly all of them being rich white kids.

Which the school needs to subsidize everyone else.

Amherst has a $3.75 billion endowment, $1.9 million per student. They would be fine if every student was on financial aid

They eliminated legacy admissions, so they seem to be doing fine.

“Eliminated.”

The coaches in particular don’t seem to have gotten the memo.

I wouldn’t be shocked if coaches at selective schools are taking bribes. I mean, the prospective athletes’ parents, especially in “country club sports,” probably make more in a month than the coach makes in a year.