hoopsmccan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,420
|
Post by hoopsmccan on May 20, 2014 9:51:07 GMT -5
I've only served on an admissions committee a couple of times some years ago (as a faculty rep; each admissions committee is required to have a faculty member). The language of "giving preference" to children of alums might be misleading (as if it's some clear factor). What struck me while on the committee is just how arbitrary the differences between one candidate and another is. We get so many great applicants; it's almost impossible to make choices to prefer one over the other; I was constantly second-guessing myself. I tell children of friends of mine applying to Georgetown that's it's a crap shoot, and not to take it personally if they don't get in (and I can say that truthfully having seen the decision process from the inside). This guy is great, but he seems more about a pre-law degree than really investing in an undergraduate program. Do we need people with broader interests even if academically less stellar? This guy is brilliant but he has no extra curriculars. This young woman came from a struggling background but seems to be full of herself. This guy seems so creative, but he doesn't seem motivated to do standard coursework. I found myself looking for ANYTHING to help me to score person "X" higher than person "Y". Of course, the committees which the faculty serve on are looking at the middle bunch of applicants. Some other group has rejected the obvious "no's" and accepted the obvious "yes's". I don't know what role alumni preferences played in those decisions. In my own committee it was one consideration in a confusing, complex array of issues and judgments. I found the amount of consideration given appropriate: respecting the appropriate significance of bonds and community without compromising on the excellence we seek in the next generation of Hoyas. My main goal while serving on the committees was to try and get as many people from Texas accepted as possible. I can think of no better way of making Georgetown great. Out of curiosity, do interview reports factor in at all? hm
|
|
CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on May 20, 2014 13:15:15 GMT -5
I've only served on an admissions committee a couple of times some years ago (as a faculty rep; each admissions committee is required to have a faculty member). The language of "giving preference" to children of alums might be misleading (as if it's some clear factor). What struck me while on the committee is just how arbitrary the differences between one candidate and another is. We get so many great applicants; it's almost impossible to make choices to prefer one over the other; I was constantly second-guessing myself. I tell children of friends of mine applying to Georgetown that's it's a crap shoot, and not to take it personally if they don't get in (and I can say that truthfully having seen the decision process from the inside). This guy is great, but he seems more about a pre-law degree than really investing in an undergraduate program. Do we need people with broader interests even if academically less stellar? This guy is brilliant but he has no extra curriculars. This young woman came from a struggling background but seems to be full of herself. This guy seems so creative, but he doesn't seem motivated to do standard coursework. I found myself looking for ANYTHING to help me to score person "X" higher than person "Y". Of course, the committees which the faculty serve on are looking at the middle bunch of applicants. Some other group has rejected the obvious "no's" and accepted the obvious "yes's". I don't know what role alumni preferences played in those decisions. In my own committee it was one consideration in a confusing, complex array of issues and judgments. I found the amount of consideration given appropriate: respecting the appropriate significance of bonds and community without compromising on the excellence we seek in the next generation of Hoyas. My main goal while serving on the committees was to try and get as many people from Texas accepted as possible. I can think of no better way of making Georgetown great. Out of curiosity, do interview reports factor in at all? hm When I served, yes, it was part of the material that was available for review. Generally, I found them more helpful than the counselor recommendations (perhaps because there was more candor).
|
|
Just Cos
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Eat 'em up Hoyas
Posts: 1,506
|
Post by Just Cos on May 20, 2014 16:21:13 GMT -5
Do they factor positively or only negatively?
|
|
CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on May 21, 2014 5:34:35 GMT -5
Do they factor positively or only negatively? Any piece in the packet of material could push the applicant's scoring by committee members in either direction, up or down (positively or negatively), depending on its content.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,603
|
Post by RusskyHoya on May 21, 2014 9:00:20 GMT -5
I also think Russky that you've ignored the academic cost of a legacy admissions -most people would assume that there is some marginal dilution of the academic quality of the student body. People - especially Georgetown-educated people - should know better than to make assumptions based on limited information. As CWS describes, the margin and differentiation between so many competitive applicants is extremely thin. There is simply no 'objective' way to choose between many of them. Giving a slight legacy preference to one over another may be decisive, but it in no way constitutes a "dilution of the academic quality of the student body." That's not to say that there is not some (rather small) number of legacy admits who would be totally non-competitive otherwise, as well as some legacy admits who are marginal athletic talents and are admitted through that channel. Having said that... For Gtwn I think there is also an effect on the academic rigor of the undergrad curriculum. I was involved a number of years ago in some curriculum reform efforts that were met with resistance by admin in part because of fear that legacy admits, recruited athletes, and diversity admits could not hack a truly rigorous undergrad curriculum.(I did not agree with this and I doubt that those groups would agree with that either, but that was the admin's view-fear of a prominent dean who I greatly respect). I guess the tradeoff of extra money for a dilution of academic quality + a less egalitarian process can be outweighed if the fundraising is significant enough. I strongly question the notion of egalitarianism as applies to college admissions practices. Are purely academic/merit-based admissions egalitarian? Certainly not, not when educational outcomes track more closely with income and what zip code you grew up in than any other factor. If you eliminated all legacy admits and replaced them with purely meritocratic admits, you would in most cases be replacing one group of privileged youths (with Georgetown ties) with another group of privileged youths (without Georgetown ties). Pure meritocracy is impossible, and from a "vibrant community" perspective I think it is undesirable. We want a diverse community, including those who may be academically less accomplished (though not always weaker!) but contribute to the University in countless other ways. That includes the continuity, institutional ties, loyalty, and - yes - philanthropy that comes from legacy and donor admissions. One more point: donations can play a role, but other forms of service to the University are counted as well. You might have dedicated your life to the Jesuit Volunteer Corps or be a Cristo Rey teacher and unable to donate to the University, but that can absolutely play a role as well. Serving as an alumni interviewer doesn't cost much, nor does being active in local alumni groups or various other forms of involvement. I think the whole multigenerational gestalt that you are pedaling has some validity maybe, but is a lot less tangible than both the other costs and benefits. It also makes Gtwn less diverse in a number of ways which I generally think are not good. If "the other costs and benefits" are more tangible, then could you provide some tangible evidence in support? One key thing to keep in mind, especially as regards the diversity concern, is that legacy admissions does not take place in a vacuum, but within a larger framework that involves many 'non-meritocratic' considerations, including those targeted specifically toward increasing socioeconomic forms of diversity. Without these other forms, legacy admissions could well be a major negative. As part of a holistic system, though, I think it creates - or tries to create, anyway - a desirable balance. I agree with you that universities should be "broad-based, multi-generational communities" and "strong communities." I disagree that building strong communities has anything to do with giving preferential treatment to people who share DNA with others who are already members of such communities. If one buys the argument that we can only build a strong Georgetown by leveraging already-existing communities with strong bonds, one could argue just as easily that admissions preferences should be given to supporters of Man United. As you point out, some universities are created to serve specific communities, and I don't have any problem with Georgetown admitting more Catholics than Methodists or the University of Washington admitting mostly residents of the state of Washington. I just don't see much of a connection between Georgetown's mission or identity and existing "Georgetown families." Being a fan of ManU has nothing to do with Georgetown - it is a totally separate community. Having close relations already be a part of the Georgetown community absolutely does have something to do with Georgetown. Most successful communities have familial bonds, from residential communities (neighborhoods, towns) to religious communities all the way down the list. Those that don't - the Shakers, anyone? - tend not to be very successful. You said yourself that you agree universities should be "multi-generational communities." Well, having some continuity among University families is what multi-generational means! Then that's a problem of alumni ignorance of the workings of the admissions process, one that can be fairly easily rectified through some due diligence by said alumni.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on May 21, 2014 15:16:29 GMT -5
I also think Russky that you've ignored the academic cost of a legacy admissions -most people would assume that there is some marginal dilution of the academic quality of the student body. People - especially Georgetown-educated people - should know better than to make assumptions based on limited information. As CWS describes, the margin and differentiation between so many competitive applicants is extremely thin. There is simply no 'objective' way to choose between many of them. Giving a slight legacy preference to one over another may be decisive, but it in no way constitutes a "dilution of the academic quality of the student body." That's not to say that there is not some (rather small) number of legacy admits who would be totally non-competitive otherwise, as well as some legacy admits who are marginal athletic talents and are admitted through that channel. Having said that... For Gtwn I think there is also an effect on the academic rigor of the undergrad curriculum. I was involved a number of years ago in some curriculum reform efforts that were met with resistance by admin in part because of fear that legacy admits, recruited athletes, and diversity admits could not hack a truly rigorous undergrad curriculum.(I did not agree with this and I doubt that those groups would agree with that either, but that was the admin's view-fear of a prominent dean who I greatly respect). I guess the tradeoff of extra money for a dilution of academic quality + a less egalitarian process can be outweighed if the fundraising is significant enough. I strongly question the notion of egalitarianism as applies to college admissions practices. Are purely academic/merit-based admissions egalitarian? Certainly not, not when educational outcomes track more closely with income and what zip code you grew up in than any other factor. If you eliminated all legacy admits and replaced them with purely meritocratic admits, you would in most cases be replacing one group of privileged youths (with Georgetown ties) with another group of privileged youths (without Georgetown ties). Pure meritocracy is impossible, and from a "vibrant community" perspective I think it is undesirable. We want a diverse community, including those who may be academically less accomplished (though not always weaker!) but contribute to the University in countless other ways. That includes the continuity, institutional ties, loyalty, and - yes - philanthropy that comes from legacy and donor admissions. One more point: donations can play a role, but other forms of service to the University are counted as well. You might have dedicated your life to the Jesuit Volunteer Corps or be a Cristo Rey teacher and unable to donate to the University, but that can absolutely play a role as well. Serving as an alumni interviewer doesn't cost much, nor does being active in local alumni groups or various other forms of involvement. I think the whole multigenerational gestalt that you are pedaling has some validity maybe, but is a lot less tangible than both the other costs and benefits. It also makes Gtwn less diverse in a number of ways which I generally think are not good. If "the other costs and benefits" are more tangible, then could you provide some tangible evidence in support? One key thing to keep in mind, especially as regards the diversity concern, is that legacy admissions does not take place in a vacuum, but within a larger framework that involves many 'non-meritocratic' considerations, including those targeted specifically toward increasing socioeconomic forms of diversity. Without these other forms, legacy admissions could well be a major negative. As part of a holistic system, though, I think it creates - or tries to create, anyway - a desirable balance. I agree with you that universities should be "broad-based, multi-generational communities" and "strong communities." I disagree that building strong communities has anything to do with giving preferential treatment to people who share DNA with others who are already members of such communities. If one buys the argument that we can only build a strong Georgetown by leveraging already-existing communities with strong bonds, one could argue just as easily that admissions preferences should be given to supporters of Man United. As you point out, some universities are created to serve specific communities, and I don't have any problem with Georgetown admitting more Catholics than Methodists or the University of Washington admitting mostly residents of the state of Washington. I just don't see much of a connection between Georgetown's mission or identity and existing "Georgetown families." Being a fan of ManU has nothing to do with Georgetown - it is a totally separate community. Having close relations already be a part of the Georgetown community absolutely does have something to do with Georgetown. Most successful communities have familial bonds, from residential communities (neighborhoods, towns) to religious communities all the way down the list. Those that don't - the Shakers, anyone? - tend not to be very successful. You said yourself that you agree universities should be "multi-generational communities." Well, having some continuity among University families is what multi-generational means! Then that's a problem of alumni ignorance of the workings of the admissions process, one that can be fairly easily rectified through some due diligence by said alumni. Being part of a family, by itself, has as much to do with Georgetown as being a Man U supporter does: nothing. A group's connection to Georgetown University, whether it is a "family group" or an "other group," is purely coincidental. If I am an active member of a group called "Georgetown fans and alumni for Manchester United," I may have a connection to Georgetown through many people but receive zero advantage in the admissions process. If my mom graduated from Georgetown, I have a connection to Georgetown through a single person and I may receive a slight advantage in the admissions process. We agree that Georgetown certainly has a right to "leverage" its connections to certain groups. The question is whether there is any legitimate basis to leverage family connections to Georgetown. So far the arguments have been: 1) this policy increases donations to Georgetown; 2) this policy will help my kids get in; and 3) families have strong bonds and great societal importance. I'm not sure #1 and #2 are even true statements. At the very least, they aren't supported by data. I certainly think #3 is a true statement, but I'm still not sure that a parent's or sibling's connection to Georgetown should count for anything in the admissions process. In my opinion individual achievements, rather than involuntary connection to a certain group, should form the basis for admission. ________________________________________________________________________________ In my opinion the term "multi-generational" has nothing to do with heredity. A 22 year old doing a job search should feel free to contact older Georgetown graduates for advice because the GU alumni community is multi-generational. ________________________________________________________________________________ I would be willing to bet that a survey of Georgetown alumni would reveal widespread confusion regarding the admissions process, even among those of us who conduct AAP interviews. The admissions process is not exactly transparent or well-explained, and I think there's a very good argument that it shouldn't be at a private university. The problem is that "everyone knows" that legacies have some sort of advantage in the admissions process. Many people (yes, even Georgetown alumni!) simply decide for themselves what they think that means. Or perhaps they do some research and find out that it doesn't mean what they think it should mean (for example, see Nevada's post about the children of alumni who played sports at GU).
|
|
|
Post by reformation on May 21, 2014 20:18:41 GMT -5
Russky-it doesn't matter if "I" don't have all the data because the academic deans + many of profs at Gtwn(people who actually matter in this debate) actually perceive(rightly or wrongly) that Gtwn's undergrad population is diluted by a number of admissions preferences including legacy and generally set the academic rigor of the curriculum lower than it would otherwise be. I can see the same effect at my kids elementary school versus their peers at elementary schools that have legacy/sibling preference in nyc--there is a pretty wide gap in the early years curriculum until the underperforming legacies are weaned from the schools that place a big emphasis on legacy/ sibling admits for money + community reasons--I'm not saying that the policy is terrible or should necessarily should be abandoned, but pointing out that there is a real academic cost to the policy.
The most tangible benefit from the legacy admit is money, which is easy to measure if you track it and the cost is academics-real but hard though probably not impossible to quantify. The benefits of a multigenerational community are hard to quantify versus the costs of a less economically diverse student population--I do accept your point however that the diversity make up of the student pool is addressed in more holistic manner than checking the legacy box and that other allowances can be made to offset the economic diversity issues by admitting legacy donors kids.
|
|
CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on May 22, 2014 8:14:07 GMT -5
Russky-it doesn't matter if "I" don't have all the data because the academic deans + many of profs at Gtwn(people who actually matter in this debate) actually perceive(rightly or wrongly) that Gtwn's undergrad population is diluted by a number of admissions preferences including legacy and generally set the academic rigor of the curriculum lower than it would otherwise be. I don't know of any faculty for whom legacy preferences is a significant issue (or who feel that it hurts the quality of our undergrads). I could understand that argument if the ONLY thing that we looked at in the admission process was academic brilliance -- in which case consideration of any other factor would indeed threaten the singular ideal of intellectual promise, narrowly understood. But we look at so many factors (leadership, perseverance in overcoming hurdles, integrity, disposition to service, intellectual curiosity, motivation, diversity of interests [especially those under represented like art, theatre, etc.], socio-economic diversity, regional diversity, international diversity, extracurricular interests, love of Georgetown traditions/ethos, personal character, etc.). Obviously, academic promise is a distinctively preeminent consideration, but it is not the only one. Complicating the process is this: it's hard to interpret the "data." SAT scores, as I think we all know by now, are as much an indicator of socio-economic status as academic promise. How many people helped the applicant write their essay? O.k. "Mary" spent her last summer in Kenya raising money for a water irrigation project; is she part of the leisure class that has the luxury of international travel during the summer? If so, do we still count this as a significant indicator of her character? Bob seems to be from an underperforming school; how do we compare his grades to someone from Choate? Alex started his own club for children of divorced parents; was that a resume stuffing project or does it really indicate his initiative? Joe said that "he wants to go to Georgetown because he knows it will prepare him for a great law school"; is that a good statement or is it off-putting? April has poor math scores, but she wants to do theatre and has shown evidence that she is singularly talented in the performing arts; do we discount her math scores? Again, we get GREAT applicants, and we're splitting hairs in order to decide between them. I don't think legacy considerations have any significant impact on the quality of our undergraduate population. There might be other reasons to support or discourage legacy considerations, but I don't think the overall quality of the student body is one of them. If you were to ask faculty what they would recommend doing to improve the quality of our undergraduate student body, I suspect the first two issues would be: 1) greater scrutiny of athletes, and 2) greater emphasis on recruiting students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Regarding the first, I'm not too sympathetic; my experience of athletes in the classroom is that they are very motivated. That makes a big difference. I've spoken to a number of them, and they know they have been given a rare opportunity and are eager to take advantage of it. Regarding the second, I get frustrated sometime, like many faculty, with the entitlement attitude of some of our students from privileged backgrounds. I don't want to make sweeping generalizations, but when you have students from elite educational backgrounds who come to Georgetown just to slide through, well, you have negative thoughts... I'd like to see Georgetown become a place which provides transformative opportunities for a greater number of kids from lower socio-economic backgrounds. [See Bruni's op-ed for more on this issue: Class, Cost, and College
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,548
|
Post by DanMcQ on May 22, 2014 8:41:08 GMT -5
Great discussion. As the parent of one legacy admission and one who was offered the opportunity of conditional admission second year with a good year elsewhere, I can tell you from a parent's perspective it isn't a simple as writing a big check. Consistent giving, regardless of amount, matters. My wife (a classmate) and I have given a little annually since we graduated. But that alone, aside for a very select few, doesn't count for much. Engagement does - the concept of a Georgetown family is very apt. My wife has been an alumni interviewer and region Chair in two states. We've both helped with the recent capital campaigns. Our daughter who was admitted did not have the best board scores but had unique extracurricular experiences in high school, presented herself exceptionally well, and excelled at Georgetown, where she really wanted to go but never thought she would get in. Georgetown was not the right fit for our other daughter, who excelled at the school she attended.
I think Georgetown could fill their class with legacy admits; they obviously do not. I think it has a place, in a carefully considered way, as part of assembling a diverse student body.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on May 22, 2014 9:01:46 GMT -5
As far as the question of whether legacy preference increases donations to Georgetown, I certainly experienced anecdotal examples of how this works. And although there were a few disappointed donors I encountered who decided to stop supporting Georgetown when their child was not admitted, much more notable were the cases where a family who had been consistent and significant donors prior to their child enrolling became real leaders in the alumni community once the child was on campus. Just one example is the Georgetown Scholarship Program, probably the leading force for bringing socio-economic diversity to campus, which simply could not exist without the committed work and significant contributions of alumni parents over the past decade. If those alumni had not had their connection to Georgetown affirmed and strengthened by their children's connection to Georgetown, I am certain they would not have been so motivated to try to improve the experience for all current and future undergraduates through their efforts.
|
|
CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on May 24, 2014 8:57:34 GMT -5
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,603
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 25, 2014 19:57:31 GMT -5
Being part of a family, by itself, has as much to do with Georgetown as being a Man U supporter does: nothing. A group's connection to Georgetown University, whether it is a "family group" or an "other group," is purely coincidental. Education - especially education of young people - has long been considered an enterprise in which families are deeply involved (not least of which because of the significant fiduciary duties and responsibilities involved, as well as the de facto in loco parentis role that colleges have often played). I simply do not agree that being a member of an alumni family has "nothing" "to do with Georgetown." I think families and education are deeply connected. We disagree. That's fine. We agree that Georgetown certainly has a right to "leverage" its connections to certain groups. The question is whether there is any legitimate basis to leverage family connections to Georgetown. So far the arguments have been: 1) this policy increases donations to Georgetown; 2) this policy will help my kids get in; and 3) families have strong bonds and great societal importance. I'm not sure #1 and #2 are even true statements. At the very least, they aren't supported by data. #1 makes logical sense, but it is impossible to prove using data because there's no way to do a controlled experiment. #2 is true in some cases, not true in others, and irrelevant in many others. It's also not really an argument from the institution's perspective, but from a personal, purely self-interested one, so I'm not concerned with it. I certainly think #3 is a true statement, but I'm still not sure that a parent's or sibling's connection to Georgetown should count for anything in the admissions process. In my opinion individual achievements, rather than involuntary connection to a certain group, should form the basis for admission. If this is your opinion, then I gather you are opposed to all forms of affirmative action? In my opinion the term "multi-generational" has nothing to do with heredity. I think that this is not an opinion that is shared by most people. Or, for that matter, Oxford and Merriam-Webster. Certainly there is a meaning of multi-generational that does not necessarily encompass direct heredity, but I think it's incontrovertible that people have thought of colleges as 'family affairs' for a very long time. I would be willing to bet that a survey of Georgetown alumni would reveal widespread confusion regarding the admissions process, even among those of us who conduct AAP interviews. The admissions process is not exactly transparent or well-explained, and I think there's a very good argument that it shouldn't be at a private university. The problem is that "everyone knows" that legacies have some sort of advantage in the admissions process. Many people (yes, even Georgetown alumni!) simply decide for themselves what they think that means. Or perhaps they do some research and find out that it doesn't mean what they think it should mean (for example, see Nevada's post about the children of alumni who played sports at GU). This is the part that is most confounding to me. Literally anyone can pick up the phone, call the Office of Undergraduate Admissions, and ask to speak to the Admissions Officer on duty. They will give the most direct and honest answer possible without discussing a specific case: that legacy status is taken into account, that it is one of many variables, and that it is a spectrum, differentiated by number of ties and level of involvement in the University (which can be, but does not have to be, philanthropic). I would argue that any such confusion is largely self-inflicted. Especially when half the college counseling offices in the country (particularly the ones at the kinds of schools that are typically attended by the children of Georgetown alumni) are staffed by former college admissions officers.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,321
|
Post by tashoya on Jun 26, 2014 21:53:22 GMT -5
I don't see a compelling reason to end the practice of legacy admissions. It's not as though the percentage is all that high. And do we classify legacies and big donors in the same way? Not all donors that have kids get in are alums themselves. One of my good friends was one of those kids. And one of my roommates for three years was a legacy (but may have been able to get admitted on his own). Two great guys that added a lot to my time in school. I think the interviews in those cases, as in the case of normal prospective students, are extremely important. The legacy roommate allowed me the chance to get to know his family and I heard some great stories about being a Hoya in the late 1960's. It's very cool to get that perspective and to have that connection to previous generations. It makes it feel more familial and I really liked that. As for the guy that got in due to large donations (according to him), he was the hardest working student, bar none, that I knew and he did really well all the while dealing with being quite dyslexic. Obviously, I'm really biased because, without those two, my Georgetown experience would have been missing quite a bit that I really valued then and still do. Is it preferential? Yes. But what isn't really? I don't mind the legacies especially. But the donations are important. Maybe a percentage of those donations can be set aside to aid in searching for more kids like Rashema Melson.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Jun 27, 2014 19:55:23 GMT -5
I don't see a compelling reason to end the practice of legacy admissions. It's not as though the percentage is all that high. Yeah, without any data about how many legacy admission there are, how many got in only because of legacy, and how well those legacies do in class, its really hard to know of any negative impact. There will always be qualified candidates who dont get in because they fall just outside the range or there are too many applicants in any year or some other reason. Ending Legacy wont end that.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,321
|
Post by tashoya on Jun 27, 2014 21:20:14 GMT -5
I don't see a compelling reason to end the practice of legacy admissions. It's not as though the percentage is all that high. Yeah, without any data about how many legacy admission there are, how many got in only because of legacy, and how well those legacies do in class, its really hard to know of any negative impact. There will always be qualified candidates who dont get in because they fall just outside the range or there are too many applicants in any year or some other reason. Ending Legacy wont end that. Agreed. And that's not information that will every be publicly available. We also don't even know that the legacies wouldn't have been admitted without the connection to the University. For my roommate, he took pride in the fact that his dad went to Georgetown and wanted to do well because his dad did attend. I can say that, from a preparedness perspective, he was much better off than I was.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jun 30, 2014 14:09:46 GMT -5
This is an interesting discussion, and a lot of people have presented a lot of interesting issues. Unfortunately, with an admissions process at any college like Georgetown, there are a lot of difficult issues to deal with, and you cannot use black and white rules.
Closely linked, but different from legacy admissions, is the question of how other factors are considered when dealing with admissions. For example, it's my understanding that schools like Choate, Hotchkiss, etc. generally get a much higher percentage of their classes into schools like Georgetown and the Ivy League schools. Granted, part of this is because these high schools are high quality academically, but it's hard to say that admissions officers look the same at Choate than they do of an average middle class Catholic high school in suburbia.
When I was a student, I knew people who came from these elite high schools, and I can tell you anecdotally that some of those students probably got into Georgetown from those elite high schools, but similarly situated kids at lesser known high schools (but with similarly situated academic profiles) would not have gotten in.
I am not saying this to cast judgment on such admissions practices. To some degree, these elite high schools do better on admissions because their students are of very high quality, but to the degree Georgetown provides some preference to such schools, it's not all that different from legacy admissions (not to mention that if your family can afford to send you to these elite high schools, you are probably already better situated than a significant part of the admissions pool already).
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Jun 30, 2014 15:52:15 GMT -5
This is an interesting discussion, and a lot of people have presented a lot of interesting issues. Unfortunately, with an admissions process at any college like Georgetown, there are a lot of difficult issues to deal with, and you cannot use black and white rules. Closely linked, but different from legacy admissions, is the question of how other factors are considered when dealing with admissions. For example, it's my understanding that schools like Choate, Hotchkiss, etc. generally get a much higher percentage of their classes into schools like Georgetown and the Ivy League schools. Granted, part of this is because these high schools are high quality academically, but it's hard to say that admissions officers look the same at Choate than they do of an average middle class Catholic high school in suburbia. When I was a student, I knew people who came from these elite high schools, and I can tell you anecdotally that some of those students probably got into Georgetown from those elite high schools, but similarly situated kids at lesser known high schools (but with similarly situated academic profiles) would not have gotten in. I am not saying this to cast judgment on such admissions practices. To some degree, these elite high schools do better on admissions because their students are of very high quality, but to the degree Georgetown provides some preference to such schools, it's not all that different from legacy admissions (not to mention that if your family can afford to send you to these elite high schools, you are probably already better situated than a significant part of the admissions pool already). There are undoubtedly legacies and "development" cases at the elite prep schools, too, and some of them make their way to Georgetown. But it needs to be said that the best of those schools (which are the ones who send the most kids to GU) do a phenomenal job of recruiting, admitting, and funding extremely talented and ambitious students from all over the country and around the world, many of whom are on significant financial aid. To the extent a school like Georgetown values diversity in its student body, schools like Andover, Exeter, Choate, and Lawrenceville provide what amounts to "one-stop shopping" for everything you are looking for: first-generation college-bound families from inner cities, worldly international students, athletes with solid academic foundations, even students from states like North Dakota that can otherwise be hard to find. All of those students survived a highly competitive admissions process to go to those schools, they received the best preparation possible, and they have the maturity that comes from living semi-independently from the age of 14. The view that prep schools merely serve privileged WASPs is completely outdated, and any experience interviewing several kids at one of these schools will disabuse you of that notion quickly.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Jun 30, 2014 16:31:36 GMT -5
To the extent a school like Georgetown values diversity in its student body, schools like Andover, Exeter, Choate, and Lawrenceville provide what amounts to "one-stop shopping" for everything you are looking for: first-generation college-bound families from inner cities, worldly international students, athletes with solid academic foundations, even students from states like North Dakota that can otherwise be hard to find. All of those students survived a highly competitive admissions process to go to those schools, they received the best preparation possible, and they have the maturity that comes from living semi-independently from the age of 14. The view that prep schools merely serve privileged WASPs is completely outdated, and any experience interviewing several kids at one of these schools will disabuse you of that notion quickly. First, I do not have the view that "prep schools merely serve privileged WASPs." I do wonder whether such schools are comprised of a significant percentage of folks from advantaged socio-economic backgrounds though. These schools have very expensive tuition (especially if you are paying for such schools from K-12). While I have no doubt those elite prep schools admit people who receive scholarships and/or financial aid, I wonder what percentage of the student body falls into that category? If it's a significant percentage (for example, similar to the number of people at Georgetown who receive some sort of aid), then I stand corrected, but I have a feeling that's not true. I think my main point is still there - I think that the admissions thresholds from elite schools like that are probably a little bit different than other places. But, as you said, those schools are great institutions and provide great educations, so it makes sense to a large degree.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,603
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 30, 2014 21:04:06 GMT -5
I think the interviews in those cases, as in the case of normal prospective students, are extremely important. I hate to burst anyone's bubble here, but I cannot think of any instance where the interview could be truthfully described as "extremely important" from an admissions decision perspective. They're a nice to have, and they *can* make a difference at the margins, but by far the greater value of the Alumni Admissions Program is in the personal contact it provides to applicants, as well as its status as a robust nationwide alumni network/Charlie Deacon's personal fundraising machine. First, I do not have the view that "prep schools merely serve privileged WASPs." I do wonder whether such schools are comprised of a significant percentage of folks from advantaged socio-economic backgrounds though. These schools have very expensive tuition (especially if you are paying for such schools from K-12). While I have no doubt those elite prep schools admit people who receive scholarships and/or financial aid, I wonder what percentage of the student body falls into that category? If it's a significant percentage (for example, similar to the number of people at Georgetown who receive some sort of aid), then I stand corrected, but I have a feeling that's not true. I think my main point is still there - I think that the admissions thresholds from elite schools like that are probably a little bit different than other places. But, as you said, those schools are great institutions and provide great educations, so it makes sense to a large degree. There was actually an article about this topic in The Hoya this year: www.thehoya.com/feeder-schools-deliver-diversity/The reality is that these schools are now far MORE socioeconomically diverse than Georgetown: Founded in 1778 in Western Massachusetts, Andover has served as an Ivy League pipeline for much of its existence, and the school sent 15 students to Georgetown last year — the most of any institution. Yet, with 48 percent of students on financial aid and 41.5 percent of students identifying as students of color, Andover is moving away from its stereotype as a boarding school for the elite.
“Andover is far more diverse as a population than say the 60 applicants from Kansas or the 60 applicants from Delaware,” Deacon aid. “Now that’s different today than it might have been 30 years ago when it was a much more homogenous population.”
Andover Director of College Counseling Sean Logan cited increasing diversity as a priority of the boarding school.
“I think it’s an issue that all schools are trying to deal with, how we recruit … high-achieving middle- and low-income kids when the national numbers just aren’t there. Andover does a pretty good job of that, especially in terms of the boarding school world,” Logan said. It is certainly true that the preparation that kind of experience offers gives its students a huge leg up (not least because they have a stable of college admissions counselors who write detailed, individualized recommendations that describe each student in a way that an overworked public HS guidance counselor never could). At the same time, I have always found it interesting to peruse through the commencement book each year and note how many kids from Andover, Exeter, Choate, St. Paul's, Hotchkiss, Hopkins, Deerfield, Northfield Mount Hermon, etc. fail to earn so much as Cum Laude honors. If you're coming from literally among the top 10 or 20 high schools in the country, shouldn't you at least finish in the top half of your class (that's roughly where a 3.5 lands you these days) That almost never happens with kids from top public schools like TJ or IA Bloomfield Hills.
|
|