May 21, 2010
Volume 107, Issue 3
The Students Speak Reaccreditation By Kelly McNeil Editor-In-Chief
The Holy Trinity, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, reign as the “crème de la crème” around the world
The Big Three: Why? [INSERT TEXT HERE] By Zoey Erdenebileg
field hockey photo by charles garrettson; football photo by ryan erenstein/staff; textbook photo by ryan erenstein/staff
Executive Editor In days gone by, Hill was an especially W.A.S.P-y (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) school. Hill students came from the top social class and, generally, from families of means, usually old means. Boys aiming to become business leaders and continue their families’ legacies came here and easily carried on to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton: it was just the next step. For them, it was a question of “Which one should I pick?” Usually, it was the one where Father went. These days, the question for Hill students has changed. Now, it’s “Why didn’t I get in?” Hill has all the opportunities for its students; therefore it is an enduring mystery why Harvard, Yale, and Princeton don’t seem particularly interested in us. An interview with a former Yale admissions officer could hold the answer. Trivia Fact: According to the Dial, the Sixth Form class of 1910 had 2 students matriculate to Harvard, 22 to Yale and 12 to Princeton. The ne’er do wells attended Williams, Amherst, Cornell, M.I.T and Dartmouth. Fast forward to 1986, with again, 2 students to Harvard, 1 to Yale and none to Princeton. In 2010 there was one acceptance from Harvard and one acceptance from Princeton – and it happened to be the same guy. No love from Yale, fourth year in a row. This small success for Hill with the Big Three has a lot of the concerned underformers, parents, and members
of the Board of Trustees posing the question: “Why not?” The answer is complicated, multilayered and has as much to do with the various nuances of social change as much as anything else. In 1910, there were far fewer people applying to colleges. College was a luxury for the select few who were either smart enough or rich enough or both. Before World War II, about 10 percent of U.S. high school graduates went to college. That changed after the war with the G.I. Bill, and then the women’s movement and then the Civil Rights movement. A small, insular pool of candidates evolved into a large, multicultural amorphous group. In the 2010 job market, a college degree is a necessity for most occupations. With the specialization of occupations, and the skills needed to succeed in a technology-driven world, education is essential for a comfortable life. Moreover, the Baby Boomers of the post World War II-era dramatically increased the competition, driving acceptance rates at colleges down to abysmal percentages. Every year colleges report an increase in the qualifications among their applicants. Grade point averages
edge closer to 4.0 and the S.A.T. (a test supposed to equalize millions of high school seniors) becomes ever more futile. With the so-called “inflation” of grades and test scores, colleges have begun to look more closely at other parts of the application to differentiate among applicants. The Harvard website says: “There is no formula for gaining admission….Students with vastly different credentials come from thousands of secondary schools across the country and around the world. What unifies our students are the talents they bring to Harvard and the passion to explore its vast resources.” An obscure “talent” or an extraordinary “passion,” they claim, is the key. This, said the retired Yale University admissions officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, is an important qualification now that almost all Yale applicants have stratospheric grades and tests scores. It’s those passions and talents now that set applicants apart. “For me, what always made a candidate stand out were his or her extracurricular activities,” he said. “We got many students with 4.0 GPAs and fantastic SAT and AP scores, but in a sea of kids like that, it’s what else they do that makes them interesting.” See College on page 3
Comparing Numbers 1910 Harvard Yale Princeton
2 22 12
2010 0 0 1
Reaccreditation descended upon Hill in a flurry of emails, visitors, and harmless bemusement on the part of most students. Once students were more informed about some of the issues the school had tried to improve upon in the past and were trying to improve on now, students couldn’t stop talking. Reaccreditation topics were the subject of dorm and lunch table discussion, and the students the Hill News interviewed expressed some very strong opinions on what they think about the topics, past and present, and what they think could be done to improve. So, in simplified terms, here’s what select members of the student body (all anonymous, due to some rather scathing criticism) think about “plans for growth and improvement.” Point One: Improved Academic Achievement “I mean, you’re always going to have slackers in the classroom, but in the push to improve I think the smart kids seem to be getting the brunt of the pressure, not the people who need it,” says one 5th form boy in honors English. “I feel like saying ‘we want our students to get better grades’ is almost a cop out. It takes attention away from other more important improvements that could be made.” Another 5th former agreed with his sentiment: “I think a lot of things are wrong with this school, but none of the things they said they want to improve are the things that are really wrong. ‘Academic achievement?’ Really? I’m actually kinda disappointed.” “Academic performance?” spouts an even more disgruntled 6th former. “Something has been done to improve that? People seem to have more work and less free time, and in turn a lot more stress. More of my friends (both upperclassmen and lowerclassmen) have been mentally breaking down this year than I can remember. They don’t seem to be helping us except for giving us more work.” See CAmpus on page 3