<p>
[quote]
Yes, calmom. Everything you say is true. These are 17 year old kids who are allowed to be imperfect, right? They're still learning.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good to read this after the mega-dumping on Esther in the NY Times thread the last couple of days!</p>
<p>
Assuming (hoping) that someone actually wants an answer ;) I consider myself to be possibly (one of the) the most conservative "what are my chances" posters on this board. ;) What I have always done in assessing the chances for my D and similar unhooked applicants is to assume that on any given statistic or qualifier in the admissions process, whether that be test scores or ECs , whatever, that the bottom 25% has to be eliminated and the median found in what remains. So to use GPA instead of test scores for a change if the 25th percentile is a 3.6 and the 100th is a 4.0, I would assume a BWRK, or well-lopsided or other unhooked kid would need a 3.8 to have a fighting chance at admissions. It has served me well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Everything you say is true. These are 17 year old kids who are allowed to be imperfect, right?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most of us know how flawed 17 year olds can be :), but most of us don't post our kids' imperfections on the front page of the NYT for all the world to see, and if we were to make that ill-advised decision, not so naive as to not expect criticism.</p>
<p>Ah, but the mega-dumping was about Esther, not her parents. And whatever she wrote about Kentucky, she did not say it to other 17 year olds' faces. And the mega-dumping was done by adults. </p>
<p>But, okay; let's give a pass to the disappointed 17-year olds who feel entitled to tell a a very high achieving young woman that she got into Rice because of her race and to the adults who think it's okay.</p>
<p>Personally, given where Rice is situated, I doubt very much that her Cuban heritage played a role in her getting admission. If it had been Bowdoin or Colby, it might have. But then, from the posted stats, she is very highly qualified anyway.</p>
<p>QUOTE: 'When you throw ED into the mix, the answers are even more convoluted. Colleges that appear to accept 30% may really be in the 5-10% range for BWRK. What would be nice to know, for the majority of college applicants, is- what are my relative chances of getting in without hooks, ED, performing arts, legacy, URM, athletic, etc. Just as a "regular student." "</p>
<p>I completely agree that <em>this</em> kind of transparency would be enomously helpful to the entire general public, not just those applying to upper-tier colleges. It would SO reduce the "disappointment" factor, not to mention the large waitlist lists, on April 1. It would make the process more efficient for those sincerely interested in efficiency. (And I have no doubt that the majority of families are interested in efficiency & economy of effort.) Of course, to some extent there will be some flexibility year to year, over the proportions of BWRK's to "lopsided" or just hooked students. But overall, yes, I wish that every family could have a current snapshot of the dominant profile of the typical student admitted. Lots of colleges have on their website a link called "admitted freshman profile." That's usually helpful only for factors such as rank, grades, scores, and <em>generalities</em> about e.c.'s. </p>
<p>I don't think this is rocket science to provide this. For example, when reps make their rounds, they should be able to say, "Most recent admitted students have a variety of e.c.'s in their portfolios; a minority of them have exceptional accomplishments in them." (or vice-versa). That's not a predictive statement, or a promise. It's a factual statement. Let families take their chances & make their calculated assumptions with such info.</p>
<p>If a particular college esp. values a certain <em>category</em> of leadership (and some seem to), then say so. It doesn't mean that soph. & jr. students are necessarily going to race out & try to prove something quickly; it means that students without those categories of leadership will perhaps not apply.</p>
<p>Etc. etc. There are many ways to communicate such probabilities & trends to families, short of making promises or stating "chances" statistically. Families can take it from there & make their reasoned, intelligent choices. But you see, this is where this whole marketing & ranking thing comes into play -- satisfying the needs of the colleges & hurting major the needs of <em>all</em> famlies, not just the ones not admitted. When you keep the public guessing & pretend to be suitable for every student (because you want to maintain a large volume of applications), then you force, in the current college market, huge, wasteful numbers of applications, which in turn results in large, wasteful numbers of rejections, waitlists, & desperate responses to that.</p>
<p>I think a tip for URMs can exist in the college process, but only if we ignore the realities surrounded by being URM. When we look at the big picture that causes admissions officers to take an extra look at a black applicant in the first place, we see there is just no tip at all.</p>
<p>"In 1992, the life expectancy of a person born in the U.S. was 76 years. It was 74 for Black women, 65 for Black men, 80 for white women, and 73 for white men. Thus, white people will live, on the average, 7 years longer than Black people. Startlingly, in 1990 two researchers found that the life expectancy for a Black man in Harlem was lower than for a man in Bangladesh."
<a href="http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/%7Ekastor/walking-steel-95/ws-black-health.html%5B/url%5D">http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~kastor/walking-steel-95/ws-black-health.html</a></p>
<p>"In 1999, the New England Journal of Medicine addressed the issue of physician bias head-on with an article from a team of researchers led by Dr. Kevin A. Schulman (Schulman et al. 1999). For this study, the researchers developed a standardized computer program to survey primary care physicians' recommendations about chest pain. The computer program included videotaped interviews with patients (white males, white females, African American males, and African American females) about the nature of their chest pain. Unbeknownst to the physicians taking part in the study, the patients were actually identically dressed actors reading from identical scripts. The researchers had also standardized most aspects of the patients' medical and social histories-- age, cardiac risk factors, health insurance, and job. The only variables were the race and gender of the "patients." The study found that African Americans and women with chest pain had relative odds of referral for cardiac catheterization that were 60 percent of the odds for whites and men. African American women faced the greatest disparity--relative odds that were 40 percent of those for white men. The researchers attributed the disparate care to "subconscious perceptions rather than deliberate actions or thoughts" on the part of physicians".
<a href="http://academic.udayton.edu/health/Disparities/Disparities07.htm%5B/url%5D">http://academic.udayton.edu/health/Disparities/Disparities07.htm</a></p>
<p>Now just think about this. What sort of influences exist in a society that would cause highly-educated people to act in this way, even without trying? Who really has the tip? Imagine how these influences are playing themselves out in everyday Americans, people who are not terribly enlightened, and then ask who, really now, has the tip. Were you to ask 100 blacks if they sense this pressure, you'd probably get 100 blacks admitting that they do. The debate among black people is not that this extra-weight does not exist. The debate concerns how best to deal with it. But if the weight against blacks exists, who really has the tip? When two toddlers exist, one white, the other black, and the black toddler is imbibing a society where his dad is being killed faster than anyone else's, which kid do you think is gonna come up being best at Algebra? Which kid has the "tip", really now?</p>
<p>
[quote]
For example, when reps make their rounds, they should be able to say, "Most recent admitted students have a variety of e.c.'s in their portfolios; a minority of them have exceptional accomplishments in them." (or vice-versa). That's not a predictive statement, or a promise. It's a factual statement.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I remember this statement coming out quite clearly at the Stanford information session we attended. I can't quite recall the gist of the other info sessions, except that MIT stressed Mens et manes.</p>
<p>
Well, I was using performing arts as merely one of countless examples, but the strength / talent / self-created tip factor certainly doesn't have to be something offered at the high school. I think colleges are particularly impressed when a student goes beyond the offerings of their high school to pursue a passion, develop a talent, or create new opportunities for themselves. Certainly my daughter's high school never had a Russian exchange program. </p>
<p>I don't think this sort of thing can really be created by parents or kids looking to pad their resume, though. As long as the kid (or parent) is asking, "what can I do to make my ECs look better for the Ivy league?" they are on the wrong path, asking the wrong question. These opportunities tend to come naturally to kids who want something and won't take no for an answer. I mean - when my daughter was 6 she decided she HAD to have violin lessons and that meant that I had to go searching all over to find someone qualified and willing to teach violin to a 6 year old. The school certainly didn't offer it -- we had to go to a school about 30 minutes away for the lessons. It turned out that violin wasn't my daughter's thing (nor was piano, nor flute) -- hence no musical instrument listed on her resume. However ... the point is that "the high school doesn't offer ____" doesn't cut it for elite admissions. The kids with star quality are the ones who went far beyond what their high school ordinarily offers.</p>
<p>You don't necessarily need star quality to get into the college - I'm still speaking in the context of what quality is needed to counterbalance weaker stats.</p>
<p>Wow marite. I never said or implied that I would give the mean remarks of these kids a pass, just as I didn't give the NYT girl's insulting remarks a pass. I'm just pointing out it's lucky in this case that the kids' names and faces weren't published on the front page of a newspaper. I presume if that were the case, you wouldn't be criticizing them.</p>
<p>wow, hereshoping. What makes you think my original statement was directed at you?</p>
<p>This is completely off topic to the original post but since others have brought up transparency in the selection process, I thought I would throw this in. </p>
<p>Below is just some of the description that Southern Methodist University (SMU) has on their website for the Hunt Leadership Scholars Program with a large scholarship. It is fairly clear what they are looking for. Does this mean someone who showed leadership in other ways wouldn't be invited to interview? No it doesn't, however, you better be able to draw clear parallels between your leadership and what they are looking for. And, the number invited outside these parameters would be much, much fewer than those who had these. If you didn't fall in their description of leadership, at least you know going into it that this is a long shot. Is their description of leadership somewhat limiting and short-sighted, absolutely. Does that make it wrong? Nope, just limiting. </p>
<p>Now, this kind of openness by a University will get it bashed by many arguing their short-sighted viewpoint of leadership. But for me, I am less frustrated by their viewpoint than by most Universities and scholarhsip programs that "pretend" to look at all apps when they too clearly have specific viewpoints that are equally limiting but that they are afraid to make public. </p>
<p>In 2005, over 300 applicants for the Program were reviewed. Those invited to interview had shown truly exceptional leadership and service to their high schools and communities. They combined effective, dedicated, and energetic service and the ability to lead others with a spirit of inquiry and a strong sense of social responsibility. Students selected for the Program held top elected leadership positions in their high schools: President or Vice President of the student governing organization during the junior or senior year; President or Vice President of the Senior Class or Junior Class; Editor-in-Chief of the school newspaper. Aside from the leadership profile, there are no stereotypes or typical characteristics for the Hunt Leadership Scholars. Their academic intentions span the University -- Philosophy, Music, Premed, Political Science, Undecided, etc. -- and they have widely varying interests, activities, and backgrounds.</p>
<p>--DEMONSTRATED EXTRAORDINARY LEADERSHIP -- normally reflected through serving in top elected leadership positions of high school organizations. Leadership in areas other than high school will be used to support the candidacies of students who have met the prerequisite of top high school leadership activities.</p>
<p>--Rank in top 25% of graduating class.</p>
<p>--Composite SAT 1200 on Math and Critical Reading or ACT 28.</p>
<p>--At least 16 academic units, including Foreign Language, English, Math, Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences.</p>
<p>--Submission of the Hunt Leadership Scholars Program essay (see below).</p>
<p>Students who do not match these minimum eligibility criteria are not considered, with this exception: Within each group of Hunt Leadership Scholars, up to 10% of those offered scholarships can be exempted from either the 25% rank in class benchmark or the minimum SAT/ACT score requirement but not both, if outstanding abilities in other areas are identified in addition to the prerequisite leadership activities.</p>
<p>I'm aware of the fact that outside passions and activities are valued by colleges. I'm assuming that most/all highly qualified "regular" applicants have those as well. </p>
<p>As far as performing arts- I'm aware that whether or not a high school offers this doesn't inhibit students from pursuing the arts; I'm a private music educator and I wouldn't be in business if that were the case. Music students usually have to audition which, in large part, determines their acceptance. At our particular hs I happen to know exactly how many students have gone into music over the past four years because I'm intimately involved in helping them. There were very few and I know where they ended up auditioning/matriculating.</p>
<p>I wouldn't get my hackles up if I were you Rick. I'd first of all write the weirdo who beats a path to your mailbox every afternoon off...she's a creep and in serious need of mental heath counseling. Furthermore, if anyone brings it up with your daughter (asks her if she checked a box), she doesn't need to go into her stats (private), but I think it's an elegant and classy response to just say that she was most certainly more than qualified in her own rights and leave it at that. </p>
<p>Cur, my rule of thumb was to assume it's a match or safety if you are above the 75 percentile. 50-75% was a 50/50 proposition. Below that, hang it up unless you've got a hook (music, art, athlete, legacy, rich beyond belief, URM, pixie dust...)</p>
<p>Dross has got it right. </p>
<p>It's a wonder that minorities in this country, especially African Americans, even get to the point of being qualified to be admitted to an elite college considering how much the deck is stacked against them.</p>
<h2>"Idmom, the thread is about a Cuban girl who is hurt by nasty comments accusing her of having secured her successful admissions results through race."</h2>
<p>Gosh Stickershock, I didn't KNOW this! Thanks for clearing that up. All the posts re: legacies and athletes must have confused me...but hey...I tend to be "dense".</p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>If all this 'tipping' is so egregious, one would assume all the Ivies and top schools would be full of 'unworthy minorities' the 'dull-witted kids of celebrity dunces', rich and undeserving legacies, and hardworking, but intellectually thick, athletes.... and one would have to wonder why a smart kid would be so infatuated with the idea of attending such a school. I think the whole tip factor is exaggerated by those looking for excuses.</p>
<p>And no doubt, tips exist...but just because some kid possibly benefited from a tip doesn't mean they are unqualified to attend a school or that an unhooked kid IS...</p>
<p>doubleplay; I had an interesting conversation a few years ago with a couple who were both on the Harvard faculty and whose son had just been accepted. They had done a fair bit of research about admissions at the school. They said that Harvard really likes students who have shown a high achievement in music, because to them this is a key predictor of future sucess at the university. It has always seemed that way to me.</p>
<p>rick</p>
<p>
[quote]
And no doubt, tips exist
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Indeed they do, and sometimes they are filled with irony. In a case I investigated against a major private university, a young black woman was accepted when a young white woman with somewhat better credentials from the same high school was rejected. In previous administrations we wouldn't have taken the case because such one to one comparisons are absurd. It turns out they weren't applying to the same programs and were reviewed by different committees. But this being 2003 we did an investigation. </p>
<p>Both candidates were minimally qualified, both were deferred ED. Following standard university procedure the black candidate got a tip because: (1) her father was an alum, the white girl was an immigrant; (2) the black applicant was recommended by a major contributor and alumni association official who was a law partner of the black girl's father.</p>
<p>Some of believed, only half in jest, that that the push against legacies has to do with the fact that African Americans now fall into that category.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some of believed, only half in jest, that that the push against legacies has to do with the fact that African Americans now fall into that category.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I thought it was because so many legacies are Jewish.</p>
<p>"They said that Harvard really likes students who have shown a high achievement in music, because to them this is a key predictor of future sucess at the university. "</p>
<p>There's been a lot of studies about the interplay between music study and academic achievement, left brain/right brain, etc. IMO, it boils down to which came first- the chicken or the egg. Is it music that makes you smarter, or that smart people like to study music? I tend to think that it's sort of a self-selected population. Musicians have a need to expend their creative juices (as do all performing artists) and actualize their desire for expression. Therefore something is between their ears to begin with. They have the ability to focus, learn, interpret, and demonstrate. They are inherently coachable and self disciplined. All those skills make for a better student as well. Success in music, for most people, has more to do with those attributes than "natural talent."</p>
<p>Sorry to hijack, shameless plug for music.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Gosh Stickershock, I didn't KNOW this! Thanks for clearing that up. All the posts re: legacies and athletes must have confused me...but hey...I tend to be "dense".
[/quote]
If you say so, Idmom. Glad my post was edifying.</p>
<p>And by the way, MOvieBuff, I'm a Hudson County girl with many Cuban friends & former classmates, including some who literally risked their lives fleeing Castro. Even those who are third generation American call themselves Cuban.</p>