<p>So, bio and friends, on to what really matters:
What works in high school isn’t what adcoms necessarily value. You’re not aiming for a lateral move, you are attempting to move up. Whatever colleges you all apply to, take the time to study their self-images, the true nature of their academic competitiveness, the variety of programs they tout, the qualities of the students they brag about, etc. And, show that match and those qualities in your app- along with personal strengths, good will, etc, that will let adcoms like you. Take a hard look at your picture- and get to fixing any cracks now. Stats may get you in the front door, past the first gatekeeper. But it takes more to get a seat. Good luck.</p>
<p>About Affirmative Action, I am going to limit my remarks to Harvard College since it is considered the gold standard in college admissions. But first let me share these quotes from the Harvard Admissions website at [Harvard</a> College Admissions § Applying: Frequently Asked Questions](<a href=“http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/faq.html]Harvard”>http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/faq.html) </p>
<p>Are there minimum required SAT, ACT, or SAT Subject Test scores?</p>
<p>Harvard does not have clearly defined, required minimum scores; however, the majority of students admitted to the College represent a range of scores from roughly 600 to 800 on each section of the SAT Reasoning Test as well as on the SAT Subject Tests. We regard test results as helpful indicators of academic ability and achievement when considered thoughtfully among many other factors. </p>
<p>Given this fact, Harvard is saying that a student who averages 600 on each section of the SAT and 600 on 2 SAT Subject Test has a chance of admissions. That is, an 1800 SAT score can be looked upon favorably when other factors of achievement are considered. Consequently, very talented athletes of whatever race, very talented legacies of whatever race, very creatively talented students of whatever race, very talented student leaders of whatever race, and extraordinary students in whatever area and of whatever race can gain admissions to Harvard without a 2300+ SAT score. Why? The SAT is not the gold standard! The gold standard is what you will bring to Harvard!</p>
<p>For example, lets say you have scored a 2350 on the SAT and appear to be a solid student in mathematics, but there is another student who scored 2100 on the SAT who happened to complete original research in the field of topology that impresses a professor at Harvard. Guess who Harvard will be more excited about? (This happens more than you think!) If your only talent is scoring high on the SAT, you are not going to Harvard! Now a school like Harvard finds a number of genuinely talented and extraordinary students in a diversity of endeavors who actually score high on the SAT (some because they have been prepping for the SAT since grade 6), and that is why Harvards SAT average is so high. But understand that some 2400, 2300, 2200, 2100, or 1800 SAT scorers outshine other students with similar scores when it comes to talent and achievement (even at MIT and Caltech).</p>
<p>Consequently, since no one knows the extent of the talents and achievements of each applicant to Harvard better than Harvard does, stop comparing and judging the SAT scores of people who did or did not gain admissions. Yes, Harvard practices affirmative action, but the SAT scores of underrepresented minorities at the school meet and often exceed the ranges that some of you suspect. More importantly, each of these students demonstrates considerable or extraordinary talent and achievement along with the range of SAT scores Harvard likes to see.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you ever consider that Berkeley is admitting these URMs, but they’re choosing to go to Harvard et al? In fact, admissions officers at Berkeley and UCLA have corroborated this: they have stated that they lose a huge portion of their URM admits to private competitors. One year, UCLA had only 1% or so black students, and the ultimate conclusion - besides a switch to more holistic admissions - was that most of them were choosing to attend a private university.</p>
<p>thebioguy has 0 experience with admissions. He rails against affirmative action, and goes around putting down minority students on these forums. Ignore him.</p>
<p>I too used to have the view that URMs were less qualified, that race was too important, that admissions should drop AA, etc. I was quite ardent about it. (I’m Asian if anyone is dying to know.) Then I spent my undergraduate years studying socioeconomic diversity in higher education from a scholarly standpoint. Without going into too much detail for anonymity’s sake, I can say that I was privy to some rather sensitive data from Stanford admissions, and that was what changed my views drastically - what I thought I knew was just plain wrong. Race is really really not an important facet of your application; but your background is *very *important. The two can’t even compare. This was for Stanford but I can’t imagine it would be any different for Harvard and the like.</p>
<p>My views were solidified as I watched the admissions policies shift in response to the poor socioeconomic makeup of elite universities student bodies (and the studies that showed even URMs were relatively well-to-do). They have changed a lot - which very few on CC appreciate - and the shifting socioeconomic makeup of the student bodies has reflected this: insanely higher numbers of low-income and/or first-gen students, not just at Stanford but at its peers as well. (Some have even doubled in Pell Grant recipients.) This has been much more heavily discussed in higher education within the past 4-5 years, including at AAU meetings.</p>
<p>Conclusion: at the elite universities which get tens of thousands of applications, race matters very little. Your background and the opportunities of that background are far more important and provide context for the rest of your application. This idea of ‘merit’ is intensified, because it’s viewed with respect to what you were afforded.</p>
<p>For another perspective:
[Colleges</a> resist Asian Americans’ success - Philly.com](<a href=“Inquirer.com: Philadelphia local news, sports, jobs, cars, homes”>Inquirer.com: Philadelphia local news, sports, jobs, cars, homes)</p>
<p>But, Phan, we can’t convince kids with a limited perspective who need to cling to some faulty perceptions or methodology for their own self worth. Unfortunately, that comes out as the fixation on stats. And those club titles that are nothing more than activity-lite. </p>
<p>We do see some applicants who have lower stats but brilliant life successes, a real sense of energy, perspective, compassion and the ability to identify opportunities and pursue them. They can show far more readiness for a top college’s academic and non-academic challenges; they can stand well over a higher stats kid who simply has a few dubious roles in his hs, etc. </p>
<p>What often distinguishes one applicant from another is the very set of things that other high school kids cannot judge in each other, cannot even perceive. On CC, they offer to read essays and rate ECs for others- with zero expertise or reference points. Sometimes, I figure, fine, let them go ahead and mislead each other. If they don’t have the common sense and smarts in the first place…</p>
<p>But, no, they are so sure the fault lies in reverse discrimination or mean adcoms or some lottery crapshoot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct me if I’m wrong, but what you seem to be saying is that race changes only a very small percentage of admission decisions for minorities. If this is the case, what is the point of having race-based affirmative action at all? Why not just say it is socioeconomic affirmative action.</p>
<p>Y’all could benefit from googling “affirmative action.” </p>
<p>What’s wrong with including ethnic background or other identity tags among the ways a college seeks to be diverse? A greater threat to a kid’s admit chances, btw, is geographic diversity goals. Or gender balancing in some depts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I said earlier in the thread, it’s likely more to ensure some kind of balance, but there’s variation from year to year, depending on recruitment. They won’t ever completely eliminate race, because they do want to keep tabs on how many of each ethnicity are applying, how many are being accepted, and how many are enrolling. IMO they aren’t willing to take a firm stance completely eliminating race-based AA in case imbalance does result and they have to go back on that.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, was the Truman Scholar the kid with the 500-something math SATI who went to Stanford?</p>
<p>I don’t remember, but I do remember that people railed on him for having a lower SAT score though.</p>
<p>Hey Phantasmagoric, i’m interested in the study having to do with the Stanford’s admissions process that you did. That sounds pretty interesting! If you have a link of the paper can you pm it to me? :)</p>