Funny, Brown and Tufts were tied for my D’s first choice. Denied at Brown though, and then Penn came through, too hard to turn down.
As for the 300 points variable, I did some digging. Seems it stems from an article posted in “The American Conservative,” based on very limited data and not peer reviewed. This is also likely where Tanner got his “meritocracy” idea.
Suchwow, I am a lot closer to all this than those who are just so sure they know how things work. At a highly competitive, every student seriously considered needs to have certain strengths and proofs. Of course that includes legacies and URMs. What you don’t realize is that a) stats are just a starting point; the bar is lower than most think. b) a lot of kids, thousands of them in the pool, are leaving others in the dust, showing smarts, energy, commitment, perspective and accomplishment. The competition is fierce and nothing says being big dawg in your one hs is all it takes to get- and keep- an adcoms’ attention, have him/her go to bat for you.
Pick, i don’t know what TAC mentions, but the original 300 biz came from an Ivy prof, a look-see at a few colleges, not meant to draw any conclusions.
@picktails I believe it comes from a study done by a professor at Princeton.
Link: <a href=“Ending affirmative action would devastate most minority college enrollment”>Ending affirmative action would devastate most minority college enrollment;
I think the 300 points variable is in his actual research, this is just a summary done by Princeton itself. Anyways, it supports the main idea that URMs do get a substantial boost, enough so that if affirmative action were discontinued, Asians would take a sizable chunk of URM spots.
Tufts and Brown are both favorites of my daughter, too. I’m seeing a pattern emerge. 
Yes, Espenshade. Now you know the name, now go look for his comments on the study. It is absurd to make more of it than he did. It is not a fixed rule, not even a full and accurate study.
@lookingforward
“Suchwow, I am a lot closer to all this than those who are just so sure they know how things work.”
They call that ad hominem. Supposedly you, a person with an anonymous account on the internet is more credible than me, another person with an anonymous account on the internet. Apparently that makes your un-backed evidence more valid. Anyway, moving on.
I don’t really understand what you’re saying in the second part of that paragraph. Did I mention stats? I was talking about the important need to “stand out” in Ivy admissions to gain acceptance. I am saying that URMs and legacies don’t really have that “wow factor” that those of other accepted have. The “wow factor” being things like International Olympiads, some sort of impactful volunteering, etc. When I read the results threads, that’s what sticks out to me. That’s qualitative evidence, flawed to be sure, but it’s impossible to quantify the “wow factor”. Just lurk the results threads a little and try to tell me I’m wrong.
@lookingfoward
What do you make of this quote from the press release?
“Espenshade noted that when one group loses ground, another has to gain – in this case it would be Asian applicants. Asian students would fill nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not taken by African-American and Hispanic students, with an acceptance rate rising from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent.”
It’s amazing how one small section of a 550 page book dealing with very complex social issues develops a life of its own. I just asked for a copy through inter-library loan to see what else it has to say. It actually sounds like a somewhat dated (based on data from 1980s and 90s) but interesting analysis.
@RenaissanceMom I agree with you. In a lot of ways, I feel bad for URM kids that are really accomplished and could have been accepted anyway to an elite school regardless of their race. But let’s not kid ourselves that “some” URM are not helped by the virtue of being an URM. The acronymn was coined for a reason.
Espenshade, in an interview, not in some PR release by another person or team: “People may read this and want to say, “Oh, because I’m Asian American, my SAT scores have been downgraded.” That is not really the way to interpret these data. Many times people will ask me, “Do your results prove that there is discrimination against Asian applicants?” And I say, “No, they don’t.” Even though in our data we have much information about the students and what they present in their application folders, most of what we have are quantifiable data. We don’t have the “softer” variables – the personal statements that the students wrote, their teacher recommendations, a full list of extracurricular activities. Because we don’t have access to all of the information that the admission office has access to, it is possible that the influence of one applicant characteristic or another might appear in a different light if we had the full range of materials.”
And, the full package IS what counts, in holistic. You can find more on the web, re: what he says.
What is this? I am saying that URMs and legacies don’t really have that “wow factor” that those of other accepted have. How in the world would you know that- and write it?
Some hooked applicants would have gotten in had they not been hooked. On the other side of the coin, some hooked applicants would not have gotten in had they not been hooked. It is the nature of the preferential treatment they receive, which is explicitly stated to be a policy at all the Ivies. Nothing in the lines I have written above is incorrect. So why is this even a debate? Standards are indeed lower for hooked applicants.
What preferential treatment? You read apps? You know kids and high schools across the country, to see what their apps convey- or not? You need to be on the Race in College admissions thread, where some truly believe adcoms are preferring one ethnicity or race over another. Let loose there.
My impression is that you are in hs- is that right?
@lookingforward His study is flawed because it doesn’t consider the soft variables. But would you agree with me that high test scores do correlate with better soft variables? It is no accident that kiss with 2400 SAT scores get into Harvard at a 50% clip. It isn’t that their perfect score carries such a significant weight; it’s that their soft variables are typically better than those who don’t get perfect scores. For that reason I find that his study does give us a meaningful part of the picture of preferential treatment that goes beyond the statistics.
My evidence of this “wow factor” difference between non-hooked and hooked applicants is in the results threads for the Ivies. How about this: we both go through the results thread for 2018 SCEA Yale. For each accepted person, note the person’s demographics (gender, race) and what you think probably got them in. Post your results on this thread and we can compare.
NO. A resounding no. Absolutely nothing about scores tells that a kid has the attributes the highly selective colleges seek. Not that they can write reasonable college app essays, not that they have had local impact, not that they have any sort of perspective. Only that they are top scorers. Holistic means the whole picture matters. No CC thread can replace the actual application review.
There are reasons a substantial percent of top scorers do not get into Ivies. Look at this, which is one of the most open sources for this info: <a href=“Undergraduate Admission | Brown University”>Undergraduate Admission | Brown University;
Princeton used to quote similar details- equally surprising.
I don’t know what it is, but there does seem to be an inability on the part of some people to understand that an individual is more than the composite of his or her SAT scores. Conversely, I see a similar approach among some when it comes to seeing beyond the “rankings” or admit rates when assessing the merits of an institution. Apparently, such people lack the ability to understand more subtle decision criteria that are not easily measurable on a numeric scale.
Stop the racism. End Affirmative Action.
■■■■■.
@EllieMom @LookingFoward
I understand that the SAT score isn’t everything. Honestly, please read my post. I do not ever say that the scores are what get people in. I said that higher scores will >>>>correlate<<<<< with higher overall strength in the application. Notice that I don’t say “cause”, and notice that I don’t say that scores are everything. It feels like you guys are just rehashing old talking points without reading my post. However, ellie, if your post wasn’t directed at me, I apologize for tagging you.
Look, lookingfoward. Harvard states that 50% of 2400 SAT scores get rejected. Therefore, 50% get accepted. This is a higher percentage than the normal acceptance rate, which is some abysmally low number (I would believe that the % of 2400 SAT scores accepted at other schools would be slightly higher or similar to Harvard).
50%>~5% by a lot. You and I know that scores are just a small part of an application, so therefore scores can’t be the only reason behind that massive jump. The only explanation is that these 2400 scorers >>>TEND<<< to have better applications overall (notice I don’t say CAUSE) by the holistic standards that you talk about. That is why I believe Espenshade’s study does tell us that URMs do operate at a lower standards level.
lookingforward, I understand that CC threads are not perfect. But aren’t those posts typically pretty darn in-depth? I mean, I’m surprised kids that post on there aren’t worried about their privacy. They are that comprehensive. If we did this exercise, why wouldn’t it tell us a good amount about the merits of each applicant?
@lookingforward Look, I’m getting a little frustrated. Affirmative action is an official policy at a lot of schools, including all of the Ivies. URMs get a boost. There is no debate about this.
“You read apps?”
Again, another fallacy. According to this line of reasoning, I don’t know I have a brain because I have never been able to observe it. I don’t know that dinosaurs existed because I have never seen them. I don’t know that George Washington existed because I never met him. Up your game, man.
“some truly believe”
You imply that this is somehow a false belief. If affirmative action is an official policy, how is it not the truth?
LOL Affirmative Action is racist. It is what it is.