<p>TellE: I was wondering why your statistics separated Hispanics, Mexicans, and Puerto ricans? I know this has been discussed before, but it all seems very obscure. For example, my father was born in Brazil, but his parents immigrated from Portugal to Brazil. I put Portuguese, rather than Brazilian or Hispanic on my application, because, really, being Portuguese means being European. But descendants of Spaniards in Mexico can be labeled as either Hispanic, or Mexican? But back to the original question, why are these ambiguous ethnicities separated in your analysis of URMs?</p>
<p>I think it's mainly because of...discrimination? Possibly. This is my uneducated guess...but from what I have seen living in Texas, you are more discriminated against if you are Mexican than if you are Guatemalan, Honduran, Venezuelan, Bolivian, etc. I'm not sure why that is, and it's kind of horrible. My dad is Mexican and I tried to ask him if I shuold just check Hispanic or Mexican and he went off a twenty-minute tangent about how he disagrees with everyone being lumped together under a Latino umbrella and how I should put Mexican because that is different than being Chilean or whatever.</p>
<p>"White, Non-Legacy, Non-Recruited Athlete, non-award winning (in RSI, Siemens, etc) New Englander"</p>
<p>I'm not technically a New Englander, but close enough...That's me. ^</p>
<p>"Asian, non-legacy, non-recruited, non-huge-award winning, downstate New Yorker"
wonderful.</p>
<p>In admissions though, does it matter what kind of URM you are, I mean are chileans or peruvians less URM's than Mexican or Salvadorians? I did not think about it when I wrote the name of my country next to the 'hispanic' box.</p>
<p>re: alumni spirit, I know many, many alumni who were turned off to the university and the "alumni community" precisely because of the large numbers of athletes and non-academic admits. As one of them
put it after discovering the number of these, "so that's why it was impossible to have a conversation freshman year --- every fourth person doesn't care."
Perhaps an exaggeration, but many of these people (some of them hedge fund giants) aren't showing up at the alumni meetings. They don't care in the least whether their children will be legacies and have no interest in funding business as usual at the university. Larry Summers was a breath of fresh air with his emphasis on academics, but he's gone, so business will remain as usual. </p>
<p>Stanford and MIT will have massive geek donations for years to come, though.</p>
<p>Music Nut, I was just listing the breakdown that is displayed on the H website (<a href="http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/counselors/stats/index.html)%5B/url%5D">http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/counselors/stats/index.html)</a>. But I think the reason was pretty well covered by j07. I'm White so im not the biggest authority on this but from what I've read, mexicans and puerto ricans are more historically disadvantaged. Think of the large mexican and puerto rican barrios. You never really picture spaniards or brazilians living in the same type of mass poverty.</p>
<p>URM = underrepresented minority, such as latino, african american, etc</p>
<p>correction, purest: legacies do get in with 1900s</p>
<p>yes definitely Knightmair. </p>
<p>this is from an article i read about legacies. All of the following were written on legacies' folders.</p>
<p>*."Lineage is main thing."</p>
<p>*"Not quite strong enough to get the clean tip."</p>
<p>*."Classical case that would be hard to explain to dad."</p>
<p>*"Double lineage but lots of problems."</p>
<p>*."Not a great profile, but just strong enough's and grades to get the tip from lineage."</p>
<p>*"Without lineage, there would be little case. With it, we'll keep looking."</p>
<p>In every one of these cases, the applicant was admitted.</p>
<p>...
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I really hope you are kidding... this guy I know... total em.... not brilliant... is applying to yale and he has over 7 legacies in his family... plus a family member on staff... does this mean he's gonna get IN???? (faints in dispair) There is no justice in the world...</p>
<p>You should be glad that there is no justice in this world</p>
<p>You know why? If every person on this planet had the same opportunity to apply to top-notch colleges as you, I can ASSURE you that the acceptance rate would drop to hundredths of a percent. Had they been born in a different country, there would be tens of thousands of people that would be smarter and more qualified than most Harvard students now...
In other words, no one should feel like they "deserve" to get in more than someone else because that's just plain wrong. </p>
<p>Besides, Ivies are private institutions. They couldn't care less about justice..they can admit whoever they want and that's the end of the story.</p>
<p>wow rageoholic. that's an interesting perspective-thanks.</p>
<p>How about internationals, what percent of the admitted students do they make? Also, could they count as URM?</p>
<p>You guys dont like legacies, huh? Haha =)</p>
<p>I think I'd still have a good application without the fact that my parents went to Harvard, but I am glad that they did all the same. Harvard is not my first choice though, so it wont bother me much if I dont get in. </p>
<p>Good luck to anyone that has applied for Fall 07. March 29th is a big day =P</p>
<p>Why can't lineage be an indicator of future success?</p>
<p>does submitting an Intel project matter or do u have to win for it to be significant?</p>
<p>The thing i've wondered about is how the committee addresses URM, athlete, and legacy applicants. From what i previously posted in this thread, clearly legacies get some type of preference, but when it hits the 35 member committee how do you think they address it? It seems kind of silly for the regional rep. to go up in front of the 35 people and say ''kinda weak grades but hey he's a legacy'' or ''terrible SAT but we're low on native american students.''</p>
<p>i'm pretty sure legacies are brought directly to the dean to be reviewed. not positive though.</p>
<p>I am curious about how legacies, development cases, recruited atheltes are handled in the admission process. I know that from these threads the majority of us unconnected applicants, ie. not in one of these categories has a regional admission officer read our applications and then someone else in the regional commitee read them and then we are hopefully advoctaed by a regional admission officer at the regional committee and all other members vote. But what happens to these other categories where the Dean of Admissions personally reviews the application? I am guessing they are not part of the process. I can imagine that the names of the coaches top picks are given to the the Dean of Admissions and he personally decides who makes the cut. What happens with the other categories I wonder? ie. development cases or where the applicant is a legacy whose family has given substantial funds in the past? Does the Dean of Admissions with other admission officers make the decisions separate from the admissions committee meeting? Or Does the Dean of Admissions make them with the development office or does he sit at the admissions table and advocate for the development cases, connected legacies ect. I wonder how it works. There is so much mystery surrounding the process</p>
<p>Does the legacy have to be undergrad? My mother went there for grad school</p>