A Tale of Two Admission Policies and Three Sets of Ivies

Parents Forum
81

<p>"Xiggi - Your argument disappears almost in its entirety when you put Amherst into the picture. And, yes, it is percentages that matter. Don't like to look at Amherst? Try Berkeley. But other than that, we agree - Harvard gets who it wants; it has virtually no commercial pressure, and if their percentage of low-income students is low, it is because they intend it that way."</p>

<p>Mini, I added the last paragraph ... in anticipation of your rebuttal. I also agree that Harvard gets the candidates they want. One thing we cannot forget is that for every accepted candidate who present the double whammy of lower scores or financial need, they HAVE to deny a candidate with either higher scores, no financial need, or a combination of the two. We also should recognize that Harvard gets MUCH MORE criticism for denying candidates with apparent "perfect" backgrounds than for denying candidates with bigger needs. I think that deciding whom gets the 1 in 16 slot is a very hard process. I also think that where we disagree is in the degree of "income" discrimination. I happen to believe that the richest and most prestigious schools do as much as they have to do to correct some our social and economic injustices. They may see the vivid need to reach for Maria Guadalupe Santos who needs full aid, but it must be hard to explain to Wellington H. Astor IV why his grandson cannot get one of the coveted 1650 spots at at school he helped develop. </p>

<p>Mini, I applaud your resilience in bringing the same arguments to the forefront of CC. I hope you can see that the mere fact of trying to formulate a rebuttal forces me to understand your viewpoint. So, even if you cannot count me as a converted, you won!</p>

<p>PS I do not think that we can use Berkeley -or any state school that has a numerical system of "automatic" admission- in the comparison with private schools.</p>

82

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=680340&posted=1%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=680340&posted=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>This thread answers some of the questions I asked about actual number of applicants versus number of applications.</p>

83

<p>"I happen to believe that the richest and most prestigious schools do as much as they have to correct some our social and economic injustices. They may see the vivid need to reach for Maria Guadalupe Santos who needs full aid, but it must be hard to explain to Wellington H. Astor IV why his grandson cannot get one of the coveted 1650 spots at at school he helped develop."</p>

<p>As you know from what I've previously written, I do not believe it is imperative for prestige universities to correct social and economic injustices. It's nice if they would help, but certainly that burden doesn't fall to them (but rather upon the state, and Berkeley does an amazing job, with many, many low-income students who would do just fine at Harvard)....except as they are producing future decisionmakers and opinion makers (mostly from high-income brackets.) I think they should admit more low-income students because it INCREASES the academic and non-academic quality and experience for high-income students. </p>

<p>More students over longer periods of time means more pressure from legacies and more developmental admits. While "face" diversity may have increased, I doubt that socio-economic diversity has increased at Harvard since the early 1970s. I am pretty sure it hasn't at my alma mater. </p>

<p>(What makes a candidate "perfect" is purely a matter of opinion; the schools who don't accept the "perfect" candidate obviously don't think they are perfect, do they?)</p>

84

<p>Citygirlsmom, I do not really understand the nature of the confusion between applications and applicants. </p>

<p>Everyboby knows that the 150,000 applicants to the Ivy schools are NOT unique applicants. The only unique applicants are represented in the ED pool. That said, this does not have an impact on selectivity ratios. All applicants to ONE school are unique since nobody can send multiple applications to the same school. </p>

<p>Did I miss something?</p>

85

<p>"(What makes a candidate "perfect" is purely a matter of opinion; the schools who don't accept the "perfect" candidate obviously don't think they are perfect, do they?)"</p>

<p>Agreed. I wrote "apparent 'perfect'" to reflect that the "perfection" is viewed by the applicants and their families, not the schools.</p>

86

<p>"In overall terms, the total number of applications for the eight Ivies almost reached the historical mark of 150,000, representing an increase of about 10% from 2007. Obviously, the increase of more than 13,000 applications was not matched by a proportional increase in admissions: admissions increased by only a couple of hundreds to reach close to 23,000." </p>

<p>If you note it says APPLICATIONS, not total number of students applying. There is a difference.</p>

<p>For instance if you have 1000 applicants at school A, 1000 at school B, that does not necessarily mean 2000 students. It can mean 1000 students, 1500 students or 2000 students. If you have 1500 students in the pool, that is very different than 2000 students.</p>

<p>My point was that there are not necessarily more STUDENTS in the general pool, but could be those students are sending in more APPPLICATIONS.</p>

<p>From Carolyn on another thread:</p>

<p>Just read part of the NACAC's recently released "State of College Admissions." Some interesting factoids:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>The number of students applying to college has actually showed a slight decrease, not increase over the past few years. Yes, applications are up at many schools, but mainly because students are applying to more schools, not because more students are applying in the first place. And, they are mainly adding applications to the most selective schools, not building in a safety net of less selective - but still great quality - colleges.</p></li>
<li><p>The AVERAGE selectivity rate for ALL colleges in the U.S. is 71%. Only a small percentage of the 3000 plus 4 year schools in the US accept less than 50% of students. Those schools saw the largest increase in applications again this year.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>Direct quote: "The popular perception of college admissions in the U.S., fueled by the media, guidebooks, policy makers, and colleges themselves, is that of highly selective institutions similiar to the Ivy League. However,a closer look at selectivity data shows that the 4-year college landscape is much broader and more accessible than the popular vision."</p>

<p>This information is very telling, but you don't hear it as much. What we do hear is what the colleges that are very selective want us to hear. This feeds in to the frenzy and fear out there, and that leads to increased applications by same students, and the cycle continues.</p>

87

<p>CGM, again, the total of 150,000 should only be a comparison point from previous years. As you say, it illustrates more applications not applicants. However, data that shows individual schools shows unique applicants to THAT school. If someone is interested in applying to Harvard or Cornell only, the global data for the Ivies is not significant. The difference between unique and non-unique applicants means nothing compared to the growth at the school they look at. </p>

<p>The purpose of my post was to illustrate the differences among the schools. In this regard, the following numbers are telling. To an applicant to Harvard, the only number that matters is a 9.10% admit rate. Knowing that the national admit rate is 71% or that the Ivy League is 15% is not relevant. That has nothing to do with a frenzy fueled by schools. In fact, if there is misinformation, it is in the opposite direction: trying to convince more applicants that they have a REAL shot in gaining admission. </p>

<p>Harvard
1991 13,029 applicants
1995 18,190 applicants
2001 19,605 applicants
2002 20,987 applicants
2004 22,717 applicants
2005 22,796 - 2,074 applicants - 9.10% Accepted </p>

<p>Cornell
1991 20,328 6,240 30.7%
1995 20,603 7,050 34.2%
2001 21,519 5,861 27.2%
2002 21,502 6,133 28.5%
2004 20,822 6,130 29.4%
2005 24,444 6,384 26.12%</p>

88

<p>Well said, IDad. If we care about the future of the underprivileged in the US, URM and white, we should transfer some of our indignation to the state schools, many of which are becoming privileged territory.</p>

89

<p>Correct, but when one looks at the overall pool, it is less applicants doing more applications. But if you note, that wasn't noted in the original article. So, when people read "applications are up 10%, they think, well I better apply to more schools. Gee again appications are up, I better apply to more schools." This is very misleading by the colleges, and creates a frenzy of people making a dozen applications to a small pool of schools, which then gives the colleges a more selective standing. Thus the cycle continues. </p>

<p>Sure Harvard has more applicants, but that can mean that people that in the past that might have only applied to four ivies are now applying to six. Colleges love feeding into the frenzy, it feeds the coffers and the alumni pride. With fewer students in the overall pool applying, the overall acceptance rate must be higher. The fact that it is not in the Ivies can mean everyone is putting their eggs in all the baskets, not just a few. And again, colleges love that.</p>

90

<p>Idad and Jamimom, agree with both of you.</p>

<p>The argument about affirmative action is somewhat fallacious, since even Harvard admits that a high percentage of its "black" students are first generation African immigrants and kids from the Caribbean.... regardless of their skin color, and regardless of what you call them, the majority come from environments which look like that of other first generation Americans, and not from Bed/Stuy and the South Bronx. (although there are some.)</p>

<p>Mini, if your prescription for ending the ills of public schools were correct, surely there wouldn't be hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on teenage pregnancy prevention, fathering programs for incarcerated young men, etc. We'd just spend the money on schools, and the social problems would solve themselves, right? Go ask Bill Cosby how he feels about your solution.</p>

91

<p>mini - pick any three generation from catholic parochial schools and you will have three generations who were educated for a fraction of what was spent on their public school counter-parts. Pick any three generation from South Dakata public schools and you will also have three generations educated for a fraction of what is spent in California or Conneticut. There simply is not a strong correlation between money spent and results. The Distric of Columbis spends more and always has spent more per student than the suburban school but the results are terrible. Why? Because the problems that affect educational outcomes there cannot be fixed in the schools. They need to be fixed in the homes and the community. And frankly prison reform isn't apt to improve the situation any.</p>

92

<p>I am not so sure about that three generation rule, but it sure is working for welfare families. Now that much of welfare has been eliminated, the shift has gone comfortably to other subsidies, some pick up work and illegal activities to get by in some of these terribly underpriviliged areas.</p>

<p>I started volunteering at this high school with high hopes of making a difference, expecting to at least get most of the class into some form of higher education whether it was technical, voacational or junior college. I was not so naive that that I thought that we would be starting a shuttle up to the 5 College Consortium. But the reality is that most of this kids can't even cut to join the armed forces as much as we need more volunteers their. The criminal records, not getting their highschool diploma and drug screening sinks them. That is where we are with these kids who finish school. Many already have a number of kids. Don't even know where to place the money if it were handed to me.</p>

93

<p>

</p>

<p>Look at Columbia!</p>

94

<p>^^^
Geez. They let just anybody in back then. :)</p>