Accepted to Stanford Early

Applying to College
81

<p>I've read a lot of the posts on here, and it's become clear to me that many of you really do not understand affirmative action and how it works in college admissions or why we even have it in the first place. It really is not used in the way many of you think it is and as often as many of you think it is. This being said, it saddens me, really, to read some of the accusations/assumptions in some of these postings. I say this as someone who has worked at several "most selective" institutions. </p>

<p>In admissions committee and in reading files, we don't really "lower the bar" for "hooked" students - even legacies and athletes. Every student is evaluated based on the context within which they have achieved inside AND outside the classroom. That's what affirmative action protects - the right of different social institutions to include people who have been disadvantaged in different ways or who have achieved in different ways that could benefit the institution. Keep in mind that NO ONE is admitted to highly selective colleges if they can't do the work. Also keep in mind that, academically, the vast majority of students applying to highly selective institutions CAN DO THE WORK. Indeed, your 1450/2200+ SATs and 4.0+ GPAs are not that special in a national applicant pool at highly selective schools. And even if they were, it doesn't mean you'll add anything to the life of the particular campuses you're applying to in the eyes of the institution. We in the admissions office know what we're doing - trust us to make the right decisions!</p>

<p>Also, keep in mind that not all elementary and high schools are created equal! If we all went to the same high school and received the exact same education and had the exact same access to extracurricular activities, SAT prep courses, etc..., it would be easy for me and my colleagues to admit those that "deserve" to be admitted...But we don't live in that world! Many students face prejudice, racism, and classism in their schools, a lack of a stable family life, a lack of good teachers or role models, etc..., and still share the same desire to learn as those who have not faced any of these things. Thus, we have to be as objective as possible in evaluating each student and their achievements. To do this, we have to consider the opportunities each student has - or has not - had and the obstacles they have faced in achieving what they have (or have not) achieved. To deny students access to elite institutions because they don't "measure up" in quantifiable ways like others who have been privileged is, well, unethical in my opinion and perpetuates the inequalities that exist in our culture. </p>

<p>A word about athletes...Keep in mind that the time and devotion it takes to be an athlete talented enough to compete at the collegiate level is huge - even in Division III. Why is it okay to put down a student who has this kind of talent and devotion but not one with, say, musical talent? Or artistic talent? Or a huge committment to community service? I'm not sure I understand how many of you can say with certainly (because many of you do) that college athletes are "weaker" than the average student at highly selective colleges. Perhaps they may have lower testing ON AVERAGE, or even lower GPAs, but considering they are able to achieve academically at places like the Ivies and still commit over 30 hours/week to practices, travel, and competitions is impressive. Many of you are underestimating these students - many of whom have extremely high SAT scores and grades (I've seen several recruited athletes this year with SATs over 1500/2250 and 4.0 GPAs) and other extracurricular involvements. Don't underestimate these students! Sure, there are exceptions to what I've just said, but in general, athletes need to make the grade or they aren't admitted or graduated. Same thing applies to legacies nowadays, too, although there are some institutions that will bend over backwards for these kids. </p>

<p>A final point - there are hundreds of good colleges and universities out there! Those of you who are bitter because you aren't admitted to Stanford or Harvard or Amherst or Brown or Hopkins but who view yourselves as "competitive" for admission to these schools should know that you can still probably get into over 95% of the 4-year colleges and universities in this country. If you truly can't find the right fit for you outside of the US News top 20, then you aren't doing your homework and are severely limiting yourself. What matters most is where you will be happiest academically, socially, activity-wise, etc..., not what sticker is on the back of your parents' car or what your peers think of the college you are attending. If you're happy there and can get all the opportunities you want, then that's all that should matter!</p>

<p>Congrats WeCareALot! Do the most with the opportunities you'll have there!</p>

82

<p>no offense, but you didn't mention specifically how race/gender comes into play (or I couldn't comprehend)</p>

<p>Would you mind elaborating/explaining how that comes into process?</p>

<p>b/c your first line says many of CCers got Affirmative action wrong, yet started to defend for Affirmative action without actually explaining when and how it affects. </p>

<p>I'm sure you know what you're saying, and didn't mean to dodge this part, right?</p>

83

<p>Wow, I haven't looked at this thread for three days...</p>

<p>Well first of all, thanks to everyone for their congratulations; I truly appreciate them. To the poster who said that I created this thread "just to boast": I've already mentioned before that I started this thread only because I had read a similar post done by a guy who got into Stanford (He even posted his essay). I thought it was pretty helpful to people who wanted to gauge their chances against his. I wasn't trying to be arrogant or boa****l.</p>

84

<p>Also, I'm not sure why that last word was censored. I said "boa****l," which is not a swear word by any means.</p>

85

<p>AdOfficer - Thanks for that. </p>

<p>Although your last paragraph is completely logical, it's difficult to internalize that going to a school outside the top 20 is really alright. For some reason that I can't explain and wish I could obliterate, I feel a sense of entitlement to attend such top schools. Of course, no such entitlement exists and the truth is most all other applicants to these top schools have just as much reason to feel entitled as I do. Nonetheless, it's difficult to forget after four years of working my butt off that I'm not entitled to an environment with the best and the brightest. Certainly I'll find patches of the 'best and the brightest' no matter where I end up – so I guess that doesn't really matter. </p>

<p>kennyk616 - He/She does in fact address it. Personally, I can't stand talk of URMs, and the kind of benefits they get, especially when I have a friend who's one, but doesn't fit any other characteristic of 'URM' except that he's black. That really bothers me. </p>

<p>HOWEVER</p>

<p>As AdOfficer explained, those who have grown up with fewer resources available deserve a little more slack. For instance, how do you expect a student with little access to quality lab equipment and resources to excel in national science fairs? [It may be possible, but I know little about science, and this was the first example I thought of.] It is this part of aff. action that I really support. Contrary to what AdOfficer said, I think colleges should bend over backwards, not too much (b/c it's really not necessary) though, to allow those who haven't grown up with everything be with those who have. We can't condemn students because of their socioeconomic background in the college admissions process! [Keep in mind, I am a white male from an middle class background.]</p>

86

<p>
[quote]
Also, I'm not sure why that last word was censored. I said "boa****l," which is not a swear word by any means.

[/quote]

On CC it could be. :p It's censored because it contains s-t-f-u (shut the f up).</p>

87

<p>AdOfficer, excellent post! I have to say that your comments did change my mind a bit. I totally agree with you that those w/o opportunities deserve whatever bump you see fit, but the injustice we are talking about is how ethnicity plays such a large factor. I understand that there is still some racism in parts of the country, but it is frustrating that the non-URM college applicants are the ones held responsible for this. </p>

<p>Thanks again for such a well thought out post though.</p>

88

<p>ok, some people are still missing my point, probably because I did not articulate well enough, so i will try again from a different perspective. Adofficer writes: "we have to consider the opportunities each student has - or has not - had and the obstacles they have faced in achieving what they have." The question that really angers me in regard to AA is that it simply assumes that if you are black, you are disadvantaged. There are rich black people you know and poor whites, asians, etc. So, why is it fair that a rich black student should get this advantage (because of his "disadvantaged" upbringing) over a poor white student who is more interesting and who has worked harder? Hmmm....no supporter of AA has directly addressed this. Maybe that's because it's not fair. If we want to have college admissions give an extra boost to disadvantaged students why base it on their race? Doesn't one's income convey more about how many opportunities he or she has had rather than the color of his or her skin? Last time I checked, private schools won't exclude a student from entering because he or she is black. BUT, they often do so if they can't afford it. Same with SAT prep. They will give you service regardless of the color of your skin as long as you can pay for it. Also, some people have stated that I only think stats are important in admissions. I am in full agreement that stats are simply one aspect of an applicant. Yet again, I ask what about those who not only have better stats BUT ALSO better recs, ec's, essays, etc. who get rejected over someone who benefits from AA? I don't care how much you try to make it seem like it makes sense, the practice is simply not ethical.</p>

89

<p>I don't think Adofficer said that a person is considered favorably simply because he/she is a URM. However, URMs do tend to be, on average, socio-economically disadvantaged, so there is a greater likelihood that a URM candidate comes from a background where he/she didn't have the same opportunities as non-URM candidates. So even if only the underprivileged URMs are given extra consideration, it would seem, if you look only at average numbers, that all URMs are getting extra consideration. Take an example. Suppose 70% of URMs are underprivileged, and only 30% of non-URMs are underprivileged. Let's also suppose that the acceptance rate of the underprivileged is 40%, and that of the rest is 20%, irrespective of URM status. The overall acceptance among URMs would then be 34%, while that among the non-URMs would be 26%. It would seem then that the URMs are getting a preference, whereas it is, in this case, an artifact of other factors. That's the point, I think, that Adofficer is making. I too think that it is wrong to give a person special consideration simply because he/she has certain ethnicity and I hope that is not what goes on but we should be careful before jumping to conclusions too.</p>

90

<p>fhimas u missed my point.</p>

<p>I'm not arguing about social-economically disadvantage. I'm trying to find anything directly related to "race"</p>

<p>I totally agree with socialeconomic background stuff.
but what does that have to do with race?
even if most urms have disadvantaged background, if everyone is considered base of socialeconomic background, wouldn't it cover it anyway?
it's saying someone who is tall must be strong.
so u look at one's height to determine how strong he is. it's completely irrevelant and illogical and ignorant. 100 years ago it may be true, but definitely not modern days. </p>

<p>the conclusion is illogical people like to make illogical arguements about the link between race and socialeconomical background.
Even if there is such a link existing, why dont we JUST look at socialeconomical background? </p>

<p>please, I hate it when people put something together that has no direct causation/correlation!</p>

91

<p>BTW - I am really happy to see that you guys are thinking about things like affirmative action and social justice!!!!</p>

<p>Sorry if I was a bit vague about the URM "hook" and affirmative action. Just for the record, I hate the term "hook" - you are all individuals - that's your hook! </p>

<p>With respect to race, it is important to understand that everyone - whether they are Caucasian-American/white, African-American/black, Latino, Asian-American, Native-American, whatever-American - has their own perspective on everything. These perspectives are really what admissions folks at highly selective places where all the applicants are smart are interested in: what about your perspective is unique and how will you share that in our classrooms and communities? Race clearly flavors one's perspective, which is part of why racial diversity on college campuses is important. It's also why different socioeconomic perspectives are important, why having athletes, musicians, artists, scientists, poets, and anyone else is important!</p>

<p>Think about it this way: if you went to college and everyone had the same opportunities, privileges, perspectives, and opinions as you, do you really think you'd learn a lot from them in the classrooms, in the dorms, on the playing fields, in the cafeteria, at the parties, etc...? Personally, I'd be bored!!!! You're all great, I'm sure, but going to a school where everyone is exactly alike would be boring, no? Thus, we do try and understand how, say, a white student from Appalachia would contribute to our campus in a different way than, say, a black student from the south side of Chicago or a Latino student from Beverly Hills. Race is not the only consideration we make when making decisions - this is really important to understand and something I think a lot of people don't get. One's URM status is never the only reason to admit a student, just like a 4.0 GPA and 2400 SAT aren't the only reasons to admit a student! Race is only one thing we look at, but somehow, because people have turned admissions into a zero sum game, many think that it can outweigh other factors. That simply is not true!</p>

<p>One other thing - oracle mentioned that racism still exists in certain parts of the country and that non-URMs are somehow held responsible for this. Well, I hate to break it to you guys, but racism still exists in all parts of this country! It is a fact of life, unfortunately, everywhere; just because it is not necessarily overt doesn't mean that students are not being treated differently because of their race - or because of their religion, socioeconomic status, gender, sexuality, etc..,. Discrimination - in all its forms - has been so institutionalized in schools that sometimes we don't even notice it! Intimidation, for example, because of racial differences, sexuality, gender, etc..., happens all the time in high schools, right? (If I remember back to my high school days, it was everywhere, and I'm not THAT old!) Stereotypes - no matter how ridiculous - still exist and do affect the ways teachers, counselors, administrators, and students treat each other and we can't ignore this. Thus, we do have to think about all these things when making our decisions! There are no formulas or magic extracurricular profiles or skin colors that will guarantee anyone admission at the most selective schools because there are so many great kids like you applying! Keep in mind, too, that at most "elite" colleges, African-American and Latino students are SEVERELY under-represented when you consider their proportion of the American population. No one is taking this out on non-URM kids or "blaming" them as you put it oracle. </p>

<p>Think of it this way: you go to a busy mall and you really want to eat at McDonald's in the food court. The line is really, really long - full of equally-hungry people as you, all wanting the same thing - say a burger and fries. You get to the front of the line, and they are out of burgers and fries. Does that mean that you can't go to another place and get an equally good burger and fries? Does it mean you can't go to, say, a Wendy's and get a burger and fries instead? Does it mean you're going to starve? Of course not! If you apply to Princeton and don't get in, does it mean you aren't going to get a good education somewhere else? Of course not - which is why you can't really say anyone is being "blamed" here - there simply isn't enough room at all the colleges you guys are applying to! </p>

<p>PHIMAS8888888 - I understand that it's hard to forget about all the hard work you've put into the past four years. But believe me, we don't ignore it either in committee. Keep in mind, again, that not all schools are created equal and not everyone has the same opportunities, advantages, etc...Regardless of how hard you've worked, I hope you understand that so too have the other 150,000 kids who are applying to the "top" schools every year and, therefore, no one is "entitled" to anything (and I think you understand that;))</p>

<p>SBG - keep in mind that the number of URMs applying to the most selective schools in the country is VERY low when compared to white and some Asian-American students (for the reasons I detailed above - institutionalized prejudice, intimidation, racism, etc..,); although there may appear to be a higher admit rate for these kids, the reality is it's only because there are so few of them applying...but again, no school is going to accept them just because they are URMs. Also, SBG, BE VERY CAREFUL when making comments like "URMs do tend to be, on average, socioeconomically disadvantaged," because, in fact, according to census data, this isn't exactly true. Maybe in some parts of the country it is, but in general, it's not entirely true. </p>

<p>VISSANIK - one, you seem to have missed my point and two, you don't really know exactly what you're talking about. Or, rather, you yourself are making a big assumption. Affirmative action, at least in college admissions, doesn't assume anything as you articulate it. For example: when I see an URM student applying to my college - say, a black student - who has parents who are both college educated (or have grad degrees) or who are in some way clearly privileged (say, socioeconomically), I don't automatically assume "but they are an URM, so they are disadvantaged, so admit!" the same way I would NOT assume that simply because a student is white they haven't had to overcome serious obstacles in life which have affected their achievements. You guys really need to stop assuming things! </p>

<p>Bottom line guys - Yes, we do consider a student's race within the greater context of their application and affirmative action protects the right to do this because issues like racism and prejudice do affect the opportunities some students may have. We need to understand the opportunities you all have had in order to make informed admissions decisions. It really comes down to what opportunities you have had and what you've done with them.</p>

92

<p>Actually, you are wrong there. If you look at Census figures, URMs (at least blacks and hispanics) have lower incomes, on average, than whites and asians. Maybe the gap is narrowing (I haven't looked at historical trends) but it is clearly there, especially at the higher ends of the income scale.</p>

93

<p>AdOfficer:</p>

<p>From the InfoPlease database (which got the info from the Census Bureau):
Median HH income in 2005:
Whites - 48.5K, Blacks -30.K, Hispanics 36K</p>

<p>I'd say that's a fairly substantial difference, even now. I'd have also thought that the racial/ethnic gap in incomes is fairly common knowledge.</p>

<p>I work in a place which is as diverse as they come and I agree wholeheartedly that it is an incredibly enriching and stimulating experience. At the same time, a part of me says that it is unfair to the kid from a non-URM background who's overcome obstacles of his/her own to be passed over by a URM kid who's privileged in every other way except for the race/ethnicity, if that is what happens (I hope not). And universities are in the business of promoting fairness (among other things), right? </p>

<p><a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

94

<p>I find this post very interesting, and I just want to add my own experience to it, as that is the only thing that I can really have a legitimate say in.
First of all, I am Asian, and I find it very disturbing that even though we are considered URMs in the greater context of the nation, we are not considered URMs in the world of higher education. I feel like this increased level of Asians in top universities is due to the fact that many Asians are high-achieving, and if colleges only looked at quantitative measures, most of the schools would consist of Asians. As wrong as that would be, the opposite is just as wrong. People come to expect high achievement from Asians, mainly because Asians value high grades over being well rounded and being involved in mediocre activities... it is backed by culture because schools in Asia, (specifically China) value quantitative measures most. However, I feel that this is a generalization assumed by most to be true of Asians, but in reality, there are those who are Asian, and don't apply to this generalization as well.
I for one, achieve for my self. I have no parents pressuring me to go to an Ivy, or get a certain score, or play a certain instrument. My parents (who are first generation immigrants) push me to reach my own goals, so where do I stand in this generalization?
Similarily, I find it wrong that people automatically assume middle-class people have it easier to get a better education/have more resources than lower class income people. Many of the middle-class people do not get special help to boost grades/scores, etc. There was a post earlier that said middle-class people had people readily lying around to chauffer the kids to activities. That is absolutely NOT true. I am from the middle class, and before I could drive, I would have to wait 2 hrs in the lobby of my high school everyday after school for my mom after play rehearsal. Yes, 2 hours. No chauffers, no limos. My parents work.
I think it's just wrong that these generalizations are made, and college apps do not provide nearly enough info. They ask for such things as parent's education levels, etc. but someone who's father is an engineer with a PhD does not necessarily mean that that person is more priveleged than someone whose father only received a high school diploma, yet these assumptions are made.</p>

<p>As for the OP... congrats, she deserves to be at Stanford, like 90% of the applicants did. Yet, I feel like it was the assumptions that were made based on her reported status of URM, combined with her low-income household, and her unique interest of Engineering as a female that put her over the edge.</p>

95

<p>SBG - your comment was "URMs do tend to be, on average, socioeconomically disadvantaged" is an overgeneralization. Statistically, simple income averages by racial group don't tell us exactly what I think you are trying to suggest...</p>

<p>For example, according to the 2005 Census, over 8.5% of Caucasian-Americans live below the poverty line; for African-Americans, it is about 24%; for Latinos, it is about 20%. These are glaring disparities, obviously. However, when one looks at the total American population and crunches the numbers, you find that the largest percentage/proportion of Americans living below the poverty line are caucasian (as they represent over 70% of the American population who identify as one race, while African-Americans are only about 13% and Latinos are about the same...see the Census's official site for these statistics). Thus, "on average," there are more caucasians living below the poverty line in this country than any other racial group. </p>

<p>Interestingly, according to several sources of educational research (including my own original research from graduate school), a higher proportion of wealthier African-American and Latino students are represented in "elite" colleges than their poorer peers (meaning there are more wealthier black and Latino students at these schools than poorer black and Latino students)...when one looks at the COFHE schools and their financial aid data, the disparities intra-racially are evident, although the disparities are being improved upon. </p>

<p>takeme2cali - your post is interesting, but like others, you seem to be making assumptions which, I feel, suggest that admissions officers make decisions or evaluate students based on stereotypes when thinking about the race of an applicant!!! I seriously don't know of anyone in my profession that does that. I do agree with you that - based on simple observations and my own formal research - that middle-income kids (and let me define that as students in the middle of the American income distribution, which is between $40,000 and $90,000/year for a family of four*) are being overlooked somewhat. However, there are many of us that are looking out for you and aware of this! </p>

<p>*believe it or not, that's "middle-income" in this country, at least according to Census info! our tax laws certainly haven't kept up with inflation or tuition increases, have they!</p>

96

<p>AdOfficer, excellent posting, and I am really taking to your logic. I think that affirmative action should be taken to a vote for each school. A school could poll current students and those who have graduated within say the last ten years. Ask them if they think that their benefit from a more diverse environment warrants the current admission policies.
AdOfficer, out of curiosity, do you see a.a. phasing out in the next 10 years?</p>

97

<p>AdOfficer - when I say "URMs do tend to be, on average, socioeconomically disadvantaged",what that means is if you take "a" random URM and a random non-URM, there is a greater chance that the URM would be socioeconomically disadvantaged than the non-URM. Your own numbers confirm that. Where's the overgeneralization in that? So if a random URM applies to a college there is greater chance of that person being socio-economically disadvantaged compared to a random non-URM. In fact, looking at the raw numbers (absolute number of poor people) as opposed to percentages is deceiving. We are talking about chances here, which is all about probabilities.</p>

<p>If there are more of the wealthier African-American and Latino students represented in the "elite" colleges than their poorer peers, that may be because, in general, more of the wealthier people apply to these colleges, irrespective of racial/ethnic background. So does that mean that the admissions process give preference to those URMs who are already well off? All the more reason in that case to base decisions more on socio-economic background and other hardship factors, instead of race/ethnicity.</p>

98

<p>SGB - I understand your point...However, the demographics I am talking about concern higher education and, more specifically, most selective college admissions. Looking at the kids who apply to these schools, research (including that which I have done) has found that there are a lot more poorer white kids in the pool as a proportion of their race in the total applicant pool than there are poorer black and latino kids in the pool as a proportion of their races in the total applicant pool. It is in this context that I'm telling you that URMs are not necessarily disadvantaged to the extent you imply. In greater American society, yes, but in the applicant pools of these schools, no - more wealthier black and Latino students tend to apply to these schools than do their poorer peers. The income distribution of applicants at these schools tends to show a greater disparity in income intra-racially amongst black and Latino students than that which exists amongst white and Asian-American applicants. I hope that is clearer. </p>

<p>Your second point is a valid one and tells me that you should go into education and public policy! Your suggestion of class-based affirmative action has been explored and suggested to politicians and lobbyists. In fact, it was a major chapter in my masters thesis (which talked about how it wouldn't increase diversity)! Today, many researchers are trying to figure out if there is a socioeconomic-based affirmative action policy that could be used instead of race-based affirmative action that would promote diversity. However, when various simulations of different socioeconomic affirmative action models were run (by Bill Bowen and Gary Orfield of the Harvard Graduate School of Education; another by Carnevale and Rose in "Socioeconomic Status, Race/Ethnicity, and Selective College Admissions," 2003, for example), it was found that the number of URMs would actually decrease at highly selective colleges because many URMs who apply are not necessarily in the bottom quintile of the income distribution and would thus not be included in the body of students being "helped" by the policy. There would instead be an increase in the number of caucasian students at these schools because of their concentration in the bottom income quintile. See Maria Cancian's 1998 "Race-based versus class-based affirmative action in college admissions" study if you want more detail...it's fascinating. But the point is that class-based affirmative action would actually decrease racial diversity in our colleges and thus the diversity of ideas, perspectives, and opinions we value.</p>

99

<p>oracle1 - i don't see aa being phased out in the next ten years, at least on the national level. Thus, I don't see private institutions changing their policies much. However, I think we will see these schools become more and more sensitive to lower-income students (of all races) and their special circumstances. </p>

<p>I am really quite scared to think about what is going to happen in the next several decades as more and more public institutions have to stop their aa policies because of referendums at the state level...these states may start to see educational and income disparities begin to increase significantly between URMs and nonURMs without affirmative action.</p>

100

<p>"decrease racial diversity in our colleges and thus the diversity of ideas, perspectives, and opinions we value."</p>

<p>Sir, ideas come from environment, not necesarily skin color. And, why must we assume that people of one ethnicity all think alike?</p>