Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"My advice to high schoolers is to attend a good but not great high school and try to place in the top 10 places. Going to a Bronx Science or Stuyvesant or mine (Mission San Jose) will hurt you."
I disagree with this stance. My advice is to go to the best school possible. Why? Because you'll get the best education possible-if you put in the effort. Students who are self driven and fully engaged in their schools and communities will always rise to the top. If so, you may argue, why the need for a top school. The answer is that top schools have large groups of talented students also fully engaged. Together, the synergistic impact can knock your socks off. I know you are referring to the Big fish small pond (and vice versa) effect that has some support. However the answer is not to go to a less good school-it is to go for everything you can in areas you are hungry to conquer. Interested in sailing? Go interview a sailer who has recently built his/her own vessel and sailed it across the ocean. Write up your interview and submit it to a journal/venue. The idea of fairness does not add a whole lot to the college discussions. The most competitive colleges are looking for the people they think will be household names in a decade. That could be a kid from a horrid impoverished neighborhood with terrible schools who rose above it to graduate with very strong academic skills (if she/he can do that what do you think will happen when he/she is given access to resources and support). It could be a kids in a school with no clubs that started a First Lego chapter and went far. That could be a kid from Bronx who won a significant award or published a paper about a sailboat built by someone who designed it himself and sailed it across the world. It could be a kid who already has been a major tv star-because she/he is that talented and accomplished already.
Not completely true. Athletes are considered "hooked" applicants and there is money available to get a desirable candidate to attend. I was told by the parent of one such athlete that a "scholarship" at Harvard could be arranged if his daughter decided to attend.
Not completely true. Athletes are considered "hooked" applicants and there is money available to get a desirable candidate to attend. I was told by the parent of one such athlete that a "scholarship" at Harvard could be arranged if his daughter decided to attend.
There are still no "athletic" scholarships at the Ivies, whether an Ivy or other school will "find" the money to help an athlete attend is beside the point...
It still isn't an "athletic" scholarship.
That isn't a bad thing, using "merit" monies or other grants in aid to help a desired athlete attend an Ivy or Division III college which also do not provide athletic scholarships is a good thing...
Athletic scholarships at DI and DII schools are NOT 4 year scholarships, they are renewable year to year and can be pulled at any time for any reason and the student has no recourse.
Merit scholarships or other grants in aid, typically are four year deals as long as a minimum GPA is maintained.
Athletic scholarships at DI and DII schools are NOT 4 year scholarships, they are renewable year to year and can be pulled at any time for any reason and the student has no recourse.
You mean at DII and DIII schools, right?
At DI schools, an athlete on scholarship can blow out his knee on the first day of practice freshman year, never take the court again, and his 4 years of college is still paid for.
There are probably 30,000 kids applying for 2,000 spots or less at these universities. I would imagine most every student who applies has a GPA above 4.0, have tons of activities and volunteering, and are all, essentially the same.
There are probably 30,000 kids applying for 2,000 spots or less at these universities. I would imagine most every student who applies has a GPA above 4.0, have tons of activities and volunteering, and are all, essentially the same.
See http://0.tqn.com/d/collegeapps/1/0/r/M/-/-/Harvard.png It's scatter plot of who gets into Harvard. As you see, they are not "essentially the same" students. Thousands of students fall well below your assumptions.
See http://0.tqn.com/d/collegeapps/1/0/r/M/-/-/Harvard.png It's scatter plot of who gets into Harvard. As you see, they are not "essentially the same" students. Thousands of students fall well below your assumptions.
Actually, given the concentration of dots in the above 3.5 GPA/1710 SAT range (actually, the plot looks like the concentration starts around 3.7 or so, with the SATs starting to bunch sometime after 1750), I think it's kind of proving his point. LOL. Most of the students applying fit a very specific high-achiever profile, and most still don't get in.
Actually, given the concentration of dots in the above 3.5 GPA/1710 SAT range (actually, the plot looks like the concentration starts around 3.7 or so, with the SATs starting to bunch sometime after 1750), I think it's kind of proving his point. LOL. Most of the students applying fit a very specific high-achiever profile, and most still don't get in.
A 3.5 GPA (several B's) is a bit lower than 3.9 (almost all A's). That said, a 4.0 in an easy HS or taking easy classes won't show on that scatter plot. So I am very sure that these students don't look the same (that was his assumption).
If his point was the the next few thousand kids that didn't get selected look the same then I am in agreement. But IMHO,at least 1/2 of the 30,000 are not in the same league as the top upper right hand corner of the plot.
There are still no "athletic" scholarships at the Ivies, whether an Ivy or other school will "find" the money to help an athlete attend is beside the point...
It still isn't an "athletic" scholarship.
That isn't a bad thing, using "merit" monies or other grants in aid to help a desired athlete attend an Ivy or Division III college which also do not provide athletic scholarships is a good thing...
Athletic scholarships at DI and DII schools are NOT 4 year scholarships, they are renewable year to year and can be pulled at any time for any reason and the student has no recourse.
Merit scholarships or other grants in aid, typically are four year deals as long as a minimum GPA is maintained.
Understand. Just wanted to point out that the blanket assumption that an athlete has no financial recourse beyond need-based aid is not true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
