<p>M&B:
I thought you got into UMich. (?)
FWIW, Michigan is sometimes not so fondly referred to as the Affirmative Action King/Queen (whatever) of Universities. In the recent past, I've known of plenty non-URMs with fabulous records who were rejected mysteriously from Michigan, so clearly in your case you were admitted on merit, probably over some URMs not as meritorious. (I doubt that all the rejected students are Caucasian Anglos.)</p>
<p>No question, though, that admissions committees & procedures are imperfect. It's just that none of us knows the actual components going into those decisions -- save what we read on CC. And, many of the CC students don't even post all their stats -- sometimes because they sincerely forgot a score, etc., sometimes out of embarrassment or modesty. They also often do not delineate the level or type of EC accomplishment: might not seem imp. to them, for example, or they might feel that other CC students would not be interested to read EC information.</p>
<p>(However, adcoms are quite interested in the non-quantitative factors, particularly for private schools.)</p>
<p>Neither you nor I have read the admitted students' essays -- nor would we read them, if we had a chance to read them -- with the same viewpoint than an adcom member would.</p>
<p>Nor do we know what "gaps" the adcom was wanting to fill for the college -- such as a likely department/major based on the actual strengths shown in the h.s. record & the demonstrated interest in a partic. field over a number of years. Nor do we know what gender & geographical & college-e.c. participation that was also "under-represented." And maybe they already had too many leader-types in the likely admitted pool, & needed some cooperative, quiet but capable followers in the mix who demonstrated that they were nevertheless excellent team players & role models in an academic setting (or vice-versa -- not enough of the leader types).</p>
<p>And for private colleges/U's esp., we have not read their rec's. I don't care if every single applicant to a given college has the right-hand boxes all checked by their teachers (superior/best in my career). Normally, there are actual sentences & paragraphs elaborating on the student's qualities, in addition to those check marks. These qualitative evaluations are an imp. element of the comprehensive qualitative assessment by the adcom.</p>
<p>Also, what about those URMs who do not post on CC? Some of them who were accepted to fine universities may have as high, or higher stats than yourself or some other non-URMs. To deny this would be to embrace a generalization that is a stereotype.</p>
<p>However, reading all the stats posted by students on CC, as well as all the info provided by parents on the parents' forum, & follow-up concessions revealed by rejected/deferred/W-L'ed students, AND results of my D's own friends, I do see certain trends. They would perhaps not be the trends you see, though.</p>
<p>Here they are:
Setting aside admitted legacies & admitted athletes, who (let's pretend, probably inaccurately) may have been admitted for that reason alone, the tipping factors in this year's acceptances <em>seem</em> to have included the following, not necessarily in this order:
(1) demonstrated interest in the institution -- shown within the app. itself, in contacts made, & in visits to, the institution.
(2) fit from the applicant's point of view -- i.e., tailoring the app. so as to showcase the appropriateness of that college for that student; self-knowledge, self-awareness shown in the app. and/or the interview, revealing that the student has thought through precisely what he or she could contribute to this college & why this college should want him or her.
(3) personal qualities, from 2 angles. One angle would be what was mentioned above -- the inclusion of a variety of personality "types," if you will, in the freshman class. The second angle would be Attitude vs. non-Attitude. Cc'ers and D's friends who admitted that they failed to mask this "problem" on an appl. and/or in an interview, were often not accepted to those colleges. I can think of one exception to this -- for a college that seems to want Attitude & flaunts it, but this was not the only or main factor in this person's acceptance; there were other "fit" factors operative.
(4) fabulous accomplishment in e.c's outside of sports. I know of, & saw lots of, 1500-1600's whose only e.c. was sports (even a variety of them, even leadership in them, etc.) who were rejected. The adcoms seemed to want to see significant off-campus accomplishment this yr, & beyond just "being involved" or putting in a lot of hours in the off-campus, non-h.s.-related activity. Those who had achieved fine things in the performing arts, or in writing, or in research, or in some form of initiative in the community that was unique, got the adm. committee to take notice. Accomplishments in off-site e.c.'s were often noted by hand in acceptance letters, btw. That fact in itself speaks volumes about how imp. the e.c.'s were in the ultimate evaluation of the candidate.</p>
<p>If there were "AA" factors this yr. to add to the above as "tips" or "hooks," the 2 that I see that seemed to be more imp. than race itself were immigrant status (or First Generation) and poverty unrelated to race/ethnicity.</p>
<p>And the bottom line, after all the above is taken into consideration, & even should one "prove" that all those tipping factors were present in your own case, no one from the outside could know who/what you were competing against. That competition would encase far more than who & what is posted on CC. One can get unlucky by having a profile too much like others in a partic. applicant pool; the near-clone of you who got accepted may have surpassed you in one area ever so slightly -- or more accurately, been <em>different</em> enough from you in a way that the college needs or seeks this yr. And hair's breadths are what is involved, often.</p>
<p>I do not envy the children born in 1987. They are "handicapped" both by the sheer size of their population & by the level of the accomplishments of more of them than the top colleges have room to accept.</p>
<p>Please try to take all of the above into account. Just as it is no longer only about legacies, only about "connections," only about recruited athletes, it is also not only about ethnicity or race.</p>
<p>Finally, it is easy for a student to forget or ignore that Higher Education is a business, meaning that marketing & competition are factors. To say that the Ivies & the high-level LACs compete with each other for the same candidates is to say that the Pope is Catholic. You would not believe how my D was nailed to the wall in her 3 Ivy interviews, regarding what other Ivies she was applying to. (I also received a phone call from one of those Ivies, inquiring about that; I was actually asked to rank in importance/desirability which colleges were in what position on her list.) If, for example, Harvard & P'ton are opening up their acceptances to more minorities, it is because they fear they will or might be losing them to competing Ivies. They would hardly be concerned about losing <em>un</em>qualified candidates, would they? Rather, this tells me that URMs are becoming increasingly competitive in the college admissions marketplace, on their own merits irrespective of race. (Many would say, It's about time that this would be true in significant numbers.)</p>