<p>One thing I have noticed is a proliferation of posts complaining about colleges admitting "less qualified" applicants. My question is, are they not allowed to do so? I was under the impression that private universities could admit whom they please. Is there a rule that says admissions must be a meritocracy? :confused:</p>
<p>The idea is to admit the most qualified people based on their backgrounds and oppporotunities. At least, I hope so.</p>
<p>Of course they're "allowed" to do so. I'm exaggerating the comparison here, but it used to be allowed to treat African-Americans as slaves. Didn't make it right though.</p>
<p>There is a sense that literally the best and brightest should be admitted by the best schools, simply because they are the best and the brightest, and for no other reason. It seems a bit dishonest when schools pass up a qualified student in favor of a less qualified or even unqualified student.</p>
<p>^Based on the messages that schools try to send about increasing diversity both racial and socioeconomic, I don't think it's simply best and brightest: a poor person is just as intelligent as a well-off student, but may not have as many opportunities. For example, consider:</p>
<p>Upper class high income child from the suburbs with a 2300 SAT and amazing EC's and 4.0 GPA</p>
<p>Lower Income with very few opportunities child with 2100 SAT and "solid" EC's and a 3.7 GPA</p>
<p>Based on the new philosophy, they should both be around even, right?</p>
<p>No, they should not be around even. Not even close.</p>
<p>But both should stand the same chance, because they would be evaluated in their "sphere". That said, I can tolerate attempts to inflate socioeconomic diversity, but not racial or gender, because all races and both genders are perfectly capable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems a bit dishonest when schools pass up a qualified student in favor of a less qualified or even unqualified student.
[/quote]
That's what I figured. I suppose it would make admissions even more of a lottery than it already is if colleges had random selection factors (e.g. rejecting everyone with the last name of Smith).</p>
<p>These colleges don't really claim to be meritocracies, at least not in my mind. If they were, they would simply admit the X highest SAT scores or the X highest academic index scores and would have terribly boring, unbalanced classes. I say this as a person who very likely would have benefitted from such a meritocratic policy. I also say this as a person who has had most any inherent benefit of birth--well-educated, highly intelligent parents, comfortably upper middle class family, natural test taker, etc., etc. An applicant who didn't have these advantages but performed well--not as well, but still well--needn't and isn't seen as particularly less accomplished than me, and that's how I think it should be. </p>
<p>Not to mention the applicants who bring something very special to the table--incredible talent or a unique passion--who also are rightfully boosted in the admission process. The process isn't going to change anytime soon, so I suggest that we all learn to deal with the concept of "less qualified" admits.</p>
<p>I don't think any school accepts students that are "Less Qualified". I think they may well have different definitions of qualified. Think of admissions as inviting people to a dinner party. You would want intelligent guests with a variety of interests to spur on conversation. The universities are looking for a variety of students so they can bounce ideas off of each other and make breakthroughs.</p>
<p>hahaha, that's funny and i hate it when people say that because a person is low-income they do not have as many opportunities. </p>
<p>I am Very Low Income and i am doing just fine...it doesn't cost any money to go to school, if you are low-income it doesn't cost that much to play sports, all the clubs are basically free, you can get a job just as easy as a rich person if you have the same qualifications...you do not have to pay for college apps or SATs or ACTs and all the summer programs that actually matter are basically free, you can also get fee waivers for AP tests..what do people mean when they say they do not have the same choices?</p>
<p>Affirmative action extends far beyond college admissions. Get used to it. Your skin color will be a deciding factor in many admissions/hiring decisions later on in your life.</p>
<p>i agree that socio-economic standing should be taken into consideration. but why should a rich black person have any advantage over a rich white person? when it comes down to it, the goal of AA is to take into consideration the opportunities the applicant has had access to--something that is not always correctly illustrated by race.</p>
<p>I never said that it is fair, and I never said that different races and genders don't have the potential. But when a race has been in chains for over 150 years, you can't exactly expect some kind of immediate catch up game can you? That's the mentality behind racially targeting programs etc.</p>
<pre><code>And to Sheed30, I know you may not like it when someone says that Low Income brackets have less activities have less opporutunities, but isn't that inherently true? Who has the advantage, the student with several private tutors for the SAT and ACT, or the one that can't afford them. Who has the advantage, someone who can afford a $6000 research camp at columbia, or someone who can't? Granted there are free summer programs and a few low cost tutoring programs, but just as a low income student has access to such programs, a high income student does too.
</code></pre>
<p>It may not cost money to go to school, but it certainly doesn't hurt when you go to Andover high school, or any of those other high tuition prep schools whose very purpose is not to get kids into college, but rather to get them into THE colleges. There are schools like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science that are free to attend, but those same schools require testing to attend, the same testing that Mom and Pop have been training their children for with high end daycare, aftershool tutoring, and other miscellaneous, high end programs. </p>
<p>Of course Low income does not necessarily preclude success, but unfortunately precludes access to many services that are extremely pricey to attend. There are free and low-cost programs that are compeititive and just as good as high cost programs, but at the same time they may have criteria that favor high income students, who can go into those programs AND the expensive ones.</p>
<p>Indeed there is much financial aid and many scholarships available for lower income students, but at the same time they are limited in supply, competitive, and do not necessarily run the whole gamut of education. </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, a low income student is every bit as capable as a high income student, but many of the expensive options in academia are not accessible to those who don't have the money to spend on some of those exorbitant costs. </p>
<p>It's a sad truth, but a truth nonetheless.</p>
<p>To mj93, the idea of AA is not only equal opportunity but equal REPRESENTATION. Now consider the implications if Affirmative Action:
Currently about 80.2% of the U.S is classified as white, and roughly 12.8% is classified as black (<a href="http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html)%5B/url%5D">http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html)</a>. Now let's assume that their are 80 poor whites for 13 poor blacks. Now if they all had similar stats, by the nature of the system, far more whites would be admitted than blacks. Such a system is completely ineffective in accomplishing the goals of AA; closing the achievement gap between RACES and having equal RACIAL REPRESENTATION, hence the term Under Represented MINORITY, and not Under Represented Income Bracket. When blacks and every other URM is on par with the performance with whites and asians, then the gap will no longer be admitted, because theoretically, every should have an equal shot and represented based on their relative population sizes of applicants.</p>
<p>I am very low income and I disagree that low-income students have the same opportunities. I attend an Ivy, maintain a good GPA, and wouldn't be able to attend unless I got the financial aid package that I have. I attended a parochial school on scholarship, did well on the SATs by spending my lunch money on the 10 real SATs book, and now am holding my own with kids who went to elite prep schools.</p>
<p>What's the difference? If I fail here, I go back to my poor neighborhood. If a prep school kid fails, they still have social connections that can keep them successful. The only social connection I have is two degrees of seperation from any given police officer or construction worker.</p>
<p>Money brings a lot more than just the ability to prep for tests or attend good schools, it brings networking, which is arguably most important in this world.</p>
<p>In this way, I refuse to let myself fail.</p>
<p>Well speaking as a stupid student myself, academics and test bubblin' just ain't for some people, regardless of how smart they are. I know that I at oe point studied to the point where my school was concerned about me. It's not just the grades that define who you are, on the contrary it's one of the least accurate indicaters in showing what type of person you are. And maybe...just maybe, the content of your character can be perceived as a far more valuable asset than a 5.0GPA in certain situations. Just, maybe.</p>
<p>Many of the people who complain about the "less qualified" are demonstrating a very narrow view of what qualified might legitimately mean, and are thereby showing themselves to be less qualified to contribute to the life of a university or workplace than many to whom they feel superior.</p>
<p>Considering that 60% of seats at top colleges go to the hooked: recruited athletes, URMs, legacies and dev candidates, no college is comprised of the applicants with the highest stats.</p>
<p>The mission of every college is to create the student body they want. Some will bring top grades, some athletic talent and others will bring in big $$.</p>
<p>And Derrick, trust me, Andover's mission is not to get kids into top colleges, it's to give them the best possible HS education--that Phillips Academy Andover, not Andover HS.</p>
<p>Chocoman speaks the truth</p>
<p>Alright now I'm confused... Sheed30 you just basically said that there is not significant difference in opporotunities between the income brackets. Chocoman just said the complete opposite.</p>
<p>Wow, i am confused...my bad i thought he agreed.</p>
<p>you didn't really respond to my argument. "RACIAL REPRESENTATION" of a campus simply means that the student body must be x percent black, x percent asian, x percent indian. the quotas you speak of only serve one purpose: publicity (brochures with attractive campus shots, ratings, staying competitive with other colleges, etc.) . but really, why was AA created in the first place? to give each INDIVIDUAL an equal chance to succeed based on their INDIVIDUAL experiences and opportunities. when you say, "When blacks and every other URM is on par with the performance with whites and asians, then the gap will no longer be admitted, because theoretically, everyone should have an equal shot," you are assuming that every single black applicant has been given fewer opportunities and has been handed less 'intelligence-building' experiences, if you will, than every single asian/white applicant. i would respond by saying that this isn't the case, some black applicants are more well prepared by their upbringing than some white/asian applicants. this all comes back to what i said before, race does NOT always correctly illustrate the benchmark each candidate should be compared against--in fact, income level would be a more accurate one.</p>