"Not a Meritocracy"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So who are we talking about here, without actually mentioning them, especially if this is all publicly disclosed info now? Sidwell, STA, NCA, GDay???

GDay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. Look, I'm a nerd. I'm not into athletics or defending athletics, and my jam is scoring very well on tests. That being said ...

Nothing where humans depend on interacting with one another on a regular basis goes well as just a "meritocracy" (in the sense used here -- doing well on tests). I absolutely do not believe you want your children taught only by teachers and professors who won the prize of the position by testing well, and no other things at play. Do you know how hard it is to get many top scientists to speak in articulate English, to care about things that are not relevant to their research (e.g., your child's emotional and mental struggles after the death of a sibling), and so on, and so forth?

Teachers are not best selected as the highest performers on tests alone. Neither are your co-workers -- don't you think hiring managers take other things into account, such as how easy someone will be to work with, whether they fill a gap in a team without certain interpersonal skills, etc? If nobody likes your team, your team is not going to be as effective. You have to have BOTH the tested skills and the ability to use them effectively in a group environment.

Class groups at schools an in higher ed are to some extent teams. They tend to move together through the process, and problems tend to spread, too. (Suicide and depression are contagious. low morale is contagious. Things spread along fault lines.) Wanting to balance out a class is a reasonable goal, same as for a work team.

I think it's fine to criticize the criteria, and there is a lot to criticize. The fact that it's not just based on test scores isn't really a valid criticism, though. Nothing in life is, when the context is people having to work together.

Amen to this. People - our country would be worse off if only those with the very highest GPAs and test scores all went to the same colleges. Instead of obsessing why your little snowflake can’t get into Harvard even though you’ve spent $200k on a private education that you thought would enable them to do so, look at all the other amazing collages in the country. Many, many kids who are brighter than your kid have thrived there.

There are roughly the same number of elite spots in colleges, and not only has the population grown, there has been a lot of make selective colleges more accessible (financial aid, outreach/communication/ awareness) and generally a realization that only having rich kids from certain schools or kids who have been coached to excel in 1-2 read like grades and test scores aren’t the best way to build the college community they want.

If your kids can make good grades in a rigorous high school environment and have a good head on their shoulders, they will be fine regardless of where they go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Look, I'm a nerd. I'm not into athletics or defending athletics, and my jam is scoring very well on tests. That being said ...

Nothing where humans depend on interacting with one another on a regular basis goes well as just a "meritocracy" (in the sense used here -- doing well on tests). I absolutely do not believe you want your children taught only by teachers and professors who won the prize of the position by testing well, and no other things at play. Do you know how hard it is to get many top scientists to speak in articulate English, to care about things that are not relevant to their research (e.g., your child's emotional and mental struggles after the death of a sibling), and so on, and so forth?

Teachers are not best selected as the highest performers on tests alone. Neither are your co-workers -- don't you think hiring managers take other things into account, such as how easy someone will be to work with, whether they fill a gap in a team without certain interpersonal skills, etc? If nobody likes your team, your team is not going to be as effective. You have to have BOTH the tested skills and the ability to use them effectively in a group environment.

Class groups at schools an in higher ed are to some extent teams. They tend to move together through the process, and problems tend to spread, too. (Suicide and depression are contagious. low morale is contagious. Things spread along fault lines.) Wanting to balance out a class is a reasonable goal, same as for a work team.

I think it's fine to criticize the criteria, and there is a lot to criticize. The fact that it's not just based on test scores isn't really a valid criticism, though. Nothing in life is, when the context is people having to work together.

Amen to this. People - our country would be worse off if only those with the very highest GPAs and test scores all went to the same colleges. Instead of obsessing why your little snowflake can’t get into Harvard even though you’ve spent $200k on a private education that you thought would enable them to do so, look at all the other amazing collages in the country. Many, many kids who are brighter than your kid have thrived there.

There are roughly the same number of elite spots in colleges, and not only has the population grown, there has been a lot of make selective colleges more accessible (financial aid, outreach/communication/ awareness) and generally a realization that only having rich kids from certain schools or kids who have been coached to excel in 1-2 read like grades and test scores aren’t the best way to build the college community they want.

If your kids can make good grades in a rigorous high school environment and have a good head on their shoulders, they will be fine regardless of where they go.

That's not what they pay their $50k/yr for. They expect better ROI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And questioning the contribution of student athletes to the quality of our higher education is legitimate. You think athletics is important to higher education and others do not. Not giving so many sports to tennis players means more spots available to students with higher level academic interests.

You set up a false dichotomy here. The tennis player might be a student with high academic interests.

My DS was a recruited athlete - and NMF and valedictorian. Three of the six recruits in his class are now in med school (and if you know anything about med school admissions, you recognize that’s a huge academic achievement). Athletes can be academically ambitious as well.

And those slots would have been taken by students who also could have gone to med school. Instead your kid and the other recruits had a sure fire admission when, no matter their stats, it would have been a crap shoot. That’s the hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how admissions really works at a highly selective school that is need-blind. First, athletes who committed as Sophomores / Juniors are taken. For those saying "not at Ivies", Ivy schools are D1. 15% of Harvard's undergrads are athletes. So 210 slots are now taken. Those coaches recruit! Next, ED gets a big bump. This is a little less than half the admits, but athletes have to be subtracted... so that's, say, another 700 admits. They now have a 900 person class. There are only 500 slots to go, now. Of those EDs, you're going to see almost all of the large-donor legacies apply in that tranche, so assume they're out of the way. Those are going to be kids of parents who have (1) consistently given >$2500 per year, and kids who are 1500+ SAT and 4.1+ GPA. There are also going to be a lot minority filling quotas in there for Af-Am and Hispanic. Those kids are going to need 1420+ / 3.9+ GPA. What's missing at this point? The super high achieving Asian kids, some of whom may have gotten in early... but not many. Now you have 40K kids competing for 1000 slots (yielding another 500). This is where the unfairness really hits; it's basically impossible to get in now unless you're so special it hurts to look at you. So yes--college admissions is absurd. But knowing all this--in all honesty--why would you want to send your kid to a place that is this screwed up?

What is unfair about letting in the most outstanding applicants after they are done with athletes and legacy, etc. That is who they are supposed to choose.

Right. Let the rich white kids in first and THEN worry about qualifications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And questioning the contribution of student athletes to the quality of our higher education is legitimate. You think athletics is important to higher education and others do not. Not giving so many sports to tennis players means more spots available to students with higher level academic interests.

You set up a false dichotomy here. The tennis player might be a student with high academic interests.

My DS was a recruited athlete - and NMF and valedictorian. Three of the six recruits in his class are now in med school (and if you know anything about med school admissions, you recognize that’s a huge academic achievement). Athletes can be academically ambitious as well.

And those slots would have been taken by students who also could have gone to med school. Instead your kid and the other recruits had a sure fire admission when, no matter their stats, it would have been a crap shoot. That’s the hook.

NP here - at least the athlete has accomplished something special on top of their great academic record. This is not true of the legacy/VIPs that get this sort of leg up. (but both need to admit that the hook helped - it's crazy that these people argue their kid "had the stats anyway"....so do thousands of others and yours was given a leg up...just own it).

[Anonymous]

And those slots would have been taken by students who also could have gone to med school. Instead your kid and the other recruits had a sure fire admission when, no matter their stats, it would have been a crap shoot. That’s the hook.

If by hook you mean something in addition to meeting the academic standards, you are partially correct. But if Kid A has X and Kid B has X+Y, then they are not equivalent applicants anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And those slots would have been taken by students who also could have gone to med school. Instead your kid and the other recruits had a sure fire admission when, no matter their stats, it would have been a crap shoot. That’s the hook.

If by hook you mean something in addition to meeting the academic standards, you are partially correct. But if Kid A has X and Kid B has X+Y, then they are not equivalent applicants anyway.

I'm the pp who thinks athlete accomplished something to get their hook - but as the parent of an athlete, please remember that many many other kids have a non-sports +Y that took significant dedication (or even a sports +Y that did but not the talent to get recruited at that caliber of school)....so your child is still being given a hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And questioning the contribution of student athletes to the quality of our higher education is legitimate. You think athletics is important to higher education and others do not. Not giving so many sports to tennis players means more spots available to students with higher level academic interests.

You set up a false dichotomy here. The tennis player might be a student with high academic interests.

My DS was a recruited athlete - and NMF and valedictorian. Three of the six recruits in his class are now in med school (and if you know anything about med school admissions, you recognize that’s a huge academic achievement). Athletes can be academically ambitious as well.

And those slots would have been taken by students who also could have gone to med school. Instead your kid and the other recruits had a sure fire admission when, no matter their stats, it would have been a crap shoot. That’s the hook.

NP here - at least the athlete has accomplished something special on top of their great academic record. This is not true of the legacy/VIPs that get this sort of leg up. (but both need to admit that the hook helped - it's crazy that these people argue their kid "had the stats anyway"....so do thousands of others and yours was given a leg up...just own it).

In your opinion. College athletes are no more special than many other extra curricular pursuits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And those slots would have been taken by students who also could have gone to med school. Instead your kid and the other recruits had a sure fire admission when, no matter their stats, it would have been a crap shoot. That’s the hook.

If by hook you mean something in addition to meeting the academic standards, you are partially correct. But if Kid A has X and Kid B has X+Y, then they are not equivalent applicants anyway.

Good grief. It’s a hook. Just admit it.

[Anonymous]

I'm the pp who thinks athlete accomplished something to get their hook - but as the parent of an athlete, please remember that many many other kids have a non-sports +Y that took significant dedication (or even a sports +Y that did but not the talent to get recruited at that caliber of school)....so your child is still being given a hoo

I’m the PP you quoted, and I agree and said it was a hook. The Y factor obviously has to be one prioritized by the school - but for many many students it is still a +Y, not a substitution for also having X.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And questioning the contribution of student athletes to the quality of our higher education is legitimate. You think athletics is important to higher education and others do not. Not giving so many sports to tennis players means more spots available to students with higher level academic interests.

You set up a false dichotomy here. The tennis player might be a student with high academic interests.

My DS was a recruited athlete - and NMF and valedictorian. Three of the six recruits in his class are now in med school (and if you know anything about med school admissions, you recognize that’s a huge academic achievement). Athletes can be academically ambitious as well.

And those slots would have been taken by students who also could have gone to med school. Instead your kid and the other recruits had a sure fire admission when, no matter their stats, it would have been a crap shoot. That’s the hook.

NP here - at least the athlete has accomplished something special on top of their great academic record. This is not true of the legacy/VIPs that get this sort of leg up. (but both need to admit that the hook helped - it's crazy that these people argue their kid "had the stats anyway"....so do thousands of others and yours was given a leg up...just own it).

In your opinion. College athletes are no more special than many other extra curricular pursuits.

Seems that colleges like Amherst and Williams don't agree with you. They aren't filling 30% of their class with robotics team kids.

[Anonymous]

The flippant comments of the HOS are all the more infuriating when the fact is that most of the Big3 parents I know are not wringing their hands because their kid isn't getting into Harvard or Duke or Stanford. They are worried because their child, who has good grades, test scores, ECs, recs, etc., and who is busted their butt in school for the last four years, is getting deferred from Wisconsin, Tufts, Emory and Georgia. These are all good schools and 2-3 years ago, a strong (but not superstar) student at a Big 3 would have been an auto admit. But now these kids are being deferred. We'll see what happens in the next few weeks, but many families are really questioning whether the slog of a Big 3 high school is worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And questioning the contribution of student athletes to the quality of our higher education is legitimate. You think athletics is important to higher education and others do not. Not giving so many sports to tennis players means more spots available to students with higher level academic interests.

You set up a false dichotomy here. The tennis player might be a student with high academic interests.

My DS was a recruited athlete - and NMF and valedictorian. Three of the six recruits in his class are now in med school (and if you know anything about med school admissions, you recognize that’s a huge academic achievement). Athletes can be academically ambitious as well.

And those slots would have been taken by students who also could have gone to med school. Instead your kid and the other recruits had a sure fire admission when, no matter their stats, it would have been a crap shoot. That’s the hook.

NP here - at least the athlete has accomplished something special on top of their great academic record. This is not true of the legacy/VIPs that get this sort of leg up. (but both need to admit that the hook helped - it's crazy that these people argue their kid "had the stats anyway"....so do thousands of others and yours was given a leg up...just own it).

In your opinion. College athletes are no more special than many other extra curricular pursuits.

Seems that colleges like Amherst and Williams don't agree with you. They aren't filling 30% of their class with robotics team kids.

Rich sports kids don't agree either. Not a surprise. Anyway. The robotics stars will move on and take their skills elsewhere and the rich sports kids will head off to nescac and do that. Is what it is. Change is slow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The flippant comments of the HOS are all the more infuriating when the fact is that most of the Big3 parents I know are not wringing their hands because their kid isn't getting into Harvard or Duke or Stanford. They are worried because their child, who has good grades, test scores, ECs, recs, etc., and who is busted their butt in school for the last four years, is getting deferred from Wisconsin, Tufts, Emory and Georgia. These are all good schools and 2-3 years ago, a strong (but not superstar) student at a Big 3 would have been an auto admit. But now these kids are being deferred. We'll see what happens in the next few weeks, but many families are really questioning whether the slog of a Big 3 high school is worth it.

It’s not groundbreaking to think that spending almost $300k on high school tuition is a risky and questionable choice.