Athletes have such an edge

[Anonymous]

I'm laughing at the weirdos who are convinced that a difference of less than 97 points on the SAT averages has any meaning in terms of outcome whatsoever. Where on earth where you educated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I know those percentiles. At a top school like Harvard, if you're in the 93rd percentile, it's pretty apparent. Like you're taking different classes (which is what happens). I mean do you really think 93rd percentile academic ability is reasonable at Harvard?

Yes, I absolutely do.

As an example- 99th % in the NYC marathon is 2:49. 93% is 3:20.
These people are running different races. While the 93% finisher is a great runner, they cannot even see the 99% finisher.
Same in academics.

Do you have any data showing that some in the 93rd percentile either can't handle work at Harvard or will end up being less successful than someone in the 99th percentile?

The 93 percenter finishes the marathon..heck do does the 99th percentile one that comes crawling in. The 99 percentile is elite and is a better marathoner than the slower finishers.

ok, that makes great sense in your analogy. Do you have an data showing that a 93rd percentile high school student performs measurably worse in college than a 99th percentile highschool student

It is ok for there to be places for the top students to study. Relax.

To boil it down, jocks who are in the 93rd percentile don't belong at certain schools with 99th percentile students, but you have zero outcome data to validate that view?

Your view is just as easy to pick apart. There are way more applicants than spots at these top elite institutions. At that level small percentage differences come into play. In your sports analogy...if they recruit one 100 meter sprinter....the difference between the times of the candidates could be minuscule...but one has to be chosen. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I know those percentiles. At a top school like Harvard, if you're in the 93rd percentile, it's pretty apparent. Like you're taking different classes (which is what happens). I mean do you really think 93rd percentile academic ability is reasonable at Harvard?

Yes, I absolutely do.

As an example- 99th % in the NYC marathon is 2:49. 93% is 3:20.
These people are running different races. While the 93% finisher is a great runner, they cannot even see the 99% finisher.
Same in academics.

Do you have any data showing that some in the 93rd percentile either can't handle work at Harvard or will end up being less successful than someone in the 99th percentile?

The 93 percenter finishes the marathon..heck do does the 99th percentile one that comes crawling in. The 99 percentile is elite and is a better marathoner than the slower finishers.

ok, that makes great sense in your analogy. Do you have an data showing that a 93rd percentile high school student performs measurably worse in college than a 99th percentile highschool student

It is ok for there to be places for the top students to study. Relax.

Agree, and to the question, there's an abundance of data connecting SATs and various measures of outcomes. As I'm sure you know, studies focus on differences across the entire spectrum, rather than within the top decile of scores. That said, I'm pretty intimately aware of the massive delta in ability across Harvard students. I'd certainly rather hire at one end of that than the other (and I do).

As far as success, that's an interesting question. It's pretty uncontroversial that the Harvard brand is going to boost career prospects to the point where perhaps these differences become harder to measure. That said, if Harvard takes the attitude that they can admit whoever because they're going to be successful anyway, well that's going to ultimately dilute the brand.

Newsflash: Harvard has always taken the position that they can admit whomever they please because those people will be successful anyhow, and it doesn't seem to have diluted their brand yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I know those percentiles. At a top school like Harvard, if you're in the 93rd percentile, it's pretty apparent. Like you're taking different classes (which is what happens). I mean do you really think 93rd percentile academic ability is reasonable at Harvard?

Yes, I absolutely do.

As an example- 99th % in the NYC marathon is 2:49. 93% is 3:20.
These people are running different races. While the 93% finisher is a great runner, they cannot even see the 99% finisher.
Same in academics.

Do you have any data showing that some in the 93rd percentile either can't handle work at Harvard or will end up being less successful than someone in the 99th percentile?

The 93 percenter finishes the marathon..heck do does the 99th percentile one that comes crawling in. The 99 percentile is elite and is a better marathoner than the slower finishers.

ok, that makes great sense in your analogy. Do you have an data showing that a 93rd percentile high school student performs measurably worse in college than a 99th percentile highschool student

It is ok for there to be places for the top students to study. Relax.

To boil it down, jocks who are in the 93rd percentile don't belong at certain schools with 99th percentile students, but you have zero outcome data to validate that view?

Your view is just as easy to pick apart. There are way more applicants than spots at these top elite institutions. At that level small percentage differences come into play. In your sports analogy...if they recruit one 100 meter sprinter....the difference between the times of the candidates could be minuscule...but one has to be chosen. Oh well.

My view is that the athletes fill a roll and that admission isn't owed to anyone. As long as they meet standards that imply they'll be able to handle the course work (and Ivy and NESAC athletes all have to meet admission standards), I don't see any reason for a school not to choose them over a marginally better high school student.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like many of you haven’t even walked onto a live-in college campus. It is not all about high achieving academics. There is a mind body soul aspect to it as well. There are sports, clubs, singing groups, a newspaper, a radio station, theatrical performances, gyms, climbing walls, chapels, gardens, farms, you name it. It’s about educating the well rounded kid and introducing them to life beyond high school and the world and different perspectives. No one wants a whole school of singleminded academically focused students who do nothing but study. That’s not what it’s about. If that’s the only qualification the school wanted they would get rid of all of their amazing facilities and save a lot of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm laughing at the weirdos who are convinced that a difference of less than 97 points on the SAT averages has any meaning in terms of outcome whatsoever. Where on earth where you educated?

I'm laughing at the people who think that 100 points means the same thing at different parts of the SAT distribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I know those percentiles. At a top school like Harvard, if you're in the 93rd percentile, it's pretty apparent. Like you're taking different classes (which is what happens). I mean do you really think 93rd percentile academic ability is reasonable at Harvard?

Yes, I absolutely do.

As an example- 99th % in the NYC marathon is 2:49. 93% is 3:20.
These people are running different races. While the 93% finisher is a great runner, they cannot even see the 99% finisher.
Same in academics.

Do you have any data showing that some in the 93rd percentile either can't handle work at Harvard or will end up being less successful than someone in the 99th percentile?

The 93 percenter finishes the marathon..heck do does the 99th percentile one that comes crawling in. The 99 percentile is elite and is a better marathoner than the slower finishers.

ok, that makes great sense in your analogy. Do you have an data showing that a 93rd percentile high school student performs measurably worse in college than a 99th percentile highschool student

It is ok for there to be places for the top students to study. Relax.

Agree, and to the question, there's an abundance of data connecting SATs and various measures of outcomes. As I'm sure you know, studies focus on differences across the entire spectrum, rather than within the top decile of scores. That said, I'm pretty intimately aware of the massive delta in ability across Harvard students. I'd certainly rather hire at one end of that than the other (and I do).

As far as success, that's an interesting question. It's pretty uncontroversial that the Harvard brand is going to boost career prospects to the point where perhaps these differences become harder to measure. That said, if Harvard takes the attitude that they can admit whoever because they're going to be successful anyway, well that's going to ultimately dilute the brand.

Newsflash: Harvard has always taken the position that they can admit whomever they please because those people will be successful anyhow, and it doesn't seem to have diluted their brand yet.

That's not even close to true. I grant you that Harvard is arrogant, but they're quite careful about who they admit and the implications for their brand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I know those percentiles. At a top school like Harvard, if you're in the 93rd percentile, it's pretty apparent. Like you're taking different classes (which is what happens). I mean do you really think 93rd percentile academic ability is reasonable at Harvard?

Yes, I absolutely do.

Not only that, you're assuming that the SAT acts like a scalpel as opposed to an ax when it comes to assessing academic ability. If you really think that the scores are that precise and predictive you've got another thing coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I know those percentiles. At a top school like Harvard, if you're in the 93rd percentile, it's pretty apparent. Like you're taking different classes (which is what happens). I mean do you really think 93rd percentile academic ability is reasonable at Harvard?

Yes, I absolutely do.

Not only that, you're assuming that the SAT acts like a scalpel as opposed to an ax when it comes to assessing academic ability. If you really think that the scores are that precise and predictive you've got another thing coming.

Yeah because 93rd percentile people accidentally score at the 99th all the time. Totally a blunt instrument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I know those percentiles. At a top school like Harvard, if you're in the 93rd percentile, it's pretty apparent. Like you're taking different classes (which is what happens). I mean do you really think 93rd percentile academic ability is reasonable at Harvard?

Yes, I absolutely do.

As an example- 99th % in the NYC marathon is 2:49. 93% is 3:20.
These people are running different races. While the 93% finisher is a great runner, they cannot even see the 99% finisher.
Same in academics.

Do you have any data showing that some in the 93rd percentile either can't handle work at Harvard or will end up being less successful than someone in the 99th percentile?

The 93 percenter finishes the marathon..heck do does the 99th percentile one that comes crawling in. The 99 percentile is elite and is a better marathoner than the slower finishers.

ok, that makes great sense in your analogy. Do you have an data showing that a 93rd percentile high school student performs measurably worse in college than a 99th percentile highschool student

It is ok for there to be places for the top students to study. Relax.

To boil it down, jocks who are in the 93rd percentile don't belong at certain schools with 99th percentile students, but you have zero outcome data to validate that view?

Your view is just as easy to pick apart. There are way more applicants than spots at these top elite institutions. At that level small percentage differences come into play. In your sports analogy...if they recruit one 100 meter sprinter....the difference between the times of the candidates could be minuscule...but one has to be chosen. Oh well.

My view is that the athletes fill a roll and that admission isn't owed to anyone. As long as they meet standards that imply they'll be able to handle the course work (and Ivy and NESAC athletes all have to meet admission standards), I don't see any reason for a school not to choose them over a marginally better high school student.

Well neither do they apparently so score one for all those recruited athletes. Especially from the families that have the nice bank accounts to finance all that travel in the pursuit of lax and soccer and hockey and sailing and crew and tennis and so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I know those percentiles. At a top school like Harvard, if you're in the 93rd percentile, it's pretty apparent. Like you're taking different classes (which is what happens). I mean do you really think 93rd percentile academic ability is reasonable at Harvard?

Yes, I absolutely do.

As an example- 99th % in the NYC marathon is 2:49. 93% is 3:20.
These people are running different races. While the 93% finisher is a great runner, they cannot even see the 99% finisher.
Same in academics.

Do you have any data showing that some in the 93rd percentile either can't handle work at Harvard or will end up being less successful than someone in the 99th percentile?

The 93 percenter finishes the marathon..heck do does the 99th percentile one that comes crawling in. The 99 percentile is elite and is a better marathoner than the slower finishers.

ok, that makes great sense in your analogy. Do you have an data showing that a 93rd percentile high school student performs measurably worse in college than a 99th percentile highschool student

It is ok for there to be places for the top students to study. Relax.

Agree, and to the question, there's an abundance of data connecting SATs and various measures of outcomes. As I'm sure you know, studies focus on differences across the entire spectrum, rather than within the top decile of scores. That said, I'm pretty intimately aware of the massive delta in ability across Harvard students. I'd certainly rather hire at one end of that than the other (and I do).

As far as success, that's an interesting question. It's pretty uncontroversial that the Harvard brand is going to boost career prospects to the point where perhaps these differences become harder to measure. That said, if Harvard takes the attitude that they can admit whoever because they're going to be successful anyway, well that's going to ultimately dilute the brand.

Newsflash: Harvard has always taken the position that they can admit whomever they please because those people will be successful anyhow, and it doesn't seem to have diluted their brand yet.

+1 Harvard's brand has never been "we only educate the 99th percentile on standardized test" or genius IQs. Historically, Harvard was not a place "for the top students to study." And it clearly isn't now based on Harvard's admissions goals, such as athletes, first-gen/URM, legacy and development cases.

I wonder when the public perception of Harvard changed that people insist that admissions should be based on merit or that Harvard's elite status = academic merit instead of financial/social capital?

[Anonymous]

The amount of incorrect information in this thread about the mechanics of college athletics is just silly.

The eight member schools that make up the Ivy League athletic conference sponsor more varsity teams than any other conference, including the SEC. None of those Ivy teams make money for the school. The admins clearly want more of the types of kids who tend to be student athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I know those percentiles. At a top school like Harvard, if you're in the 93rd percentile, it's pretty apparent. Like you're taking different classes (which is what happens). I mean do you really think 93rd percentile academic ability is reasonable at Harvard?

Yes, I absolutely do.

Not only that, you're assuming that the SAT acts like a scalpel as opposed to an ax when it comes to assessing academic ability. If you really think that the scores are that precise and predictive you've got another thing coming.

Yeah because 93rd percentile people accidentally score at the 99th all the time. Totally a blunt instrument.

Oh please. If the scores were as precise as you claim they are, then why does virtually no student who takes the SAT more than once get the same exact score the second time around?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes I know those percentiles. At a top school like Harvard, if you're in the 93rd percentile, it's pretty apparent. Like you're taking different classes (which is what happens). I mean do you really think 93rd percentile academic ability is reasonable at Harvard?

Yes, I absolutely do.

As an example- 99th % in the NYC marathon is 2:49. 93% is 3:20.
These people are running different races. While the 93% finisher is a great runner, they cannot even see the 99% finisher.
Same in academics.

Do you have any data showing that some in the 93rd percentile either can't handle work at Harvard or will end up being less successful than someone in the 99th percentile?

The 93 percenter finishes the marathon..heck do does the 99th percentile one that comes crawling in. The 99 percentile is elite and is a better marathoner than the slower finishers.

ok, that makes great sense in your analogy. Do you have an data showing that a 93rd percentile high school student performs measurably worse in college than a 99th percentile highschool student

It is ok for there to be places for the top students to study. Relax.

Agree, and to the question, there's an abundance of data connecting SATs and various measures of outcomes. As I'm sure you know, studies focus on differences across the entire spectrum, rather than within the top decile of scores. That said, I'm pretty intimately aware of the massive delta in ability across Harvard students. I'd certainly rather hire at one end of that than the other (and I do).

As far as success, that's an interesting question. It's pretty uncontroversial that the Harvard brand is going to boost career prospects to the point where perhaps these differences become harder to measure. That said, if Harvard takes the attitude that they can admit whoever because they're going to be successful anyway, well that's going to ultimately dilute the brand.

Newsflash: Harvard has always taken the position that they can admit whomever they please because those people will be successful anyhow, and it doesn't seem to have diluted their brand yet.

+1 Harvard's brand has never been "we only educate the 99th percentile on standardized test" or genius IQs. Historically, Harvard was not a place "for the top students to study." And it clearly isn't now based on Harvard's admissions goals, such as athletes, first-gen/URM, legacy and development cases.

I wonder when the public perception of Harvard changed that people insist that admissions should be based on merit or that Harvard's elite status = academic merit instead of financial/social capital?

Sit and eavstrop on a bunch of recruited ivy athletes.discussing academics and it will quickly become clear that admission is not about academic merit for some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like many of you haven’t even walked onto a live-in college campus. It is not all about high achieving academics. There is a mind body soul aspect to it as well. There are sports, clubs, singing groups, a newspaper, a radio station, theatrical performances, gyms, climbing walls, chapels, gardens, farms, you name it. It’s about educating the well rounded kid and introducing them to life beyond high school and the world and different perspectives. No one wants a whole school of singleminded academically focused students who do nothing but study. That’s not what it’s about. If that’s the only qualification the school wanted they would get rid of all of their amazing facilities and save a lot of money.

I agree with you completely, but threads like these show that there are plenty of DCUM posters who would be thrilled if elite schools were populated only by the students described in your bolded sentence, aka known the students who most resemble those posters’ kids. It has always struck me as shortsighted. You don’t care about sports in general and certainly not the sports predominantly played by rich, mostly white kids? Well lots of rich power brokers out in the real world do. I am very happy for my kids to be making friends with kids with all kinds of interests and backgrounds in college, including the many nice kids who had a more privileged upbringing, and have many more connections, than mine.