"Asian" in Chance Me and similar threads

We discussed this question at great length at home a few years ago. The correct mix, we thought, for a strong student, is one safety, two or three targets, and a large number of reaches (say 15), provided you think the reach outcomes are idiosyncratic and uncorrelated. You wouldn’t know whether your package will get the benefit of diversification or not until you get the first set of outcomes in mid December. In the old days three years ago, a set of OOS publics used to come mid-December, giving you data on whether your application is getting the benefit of diversification (the diversification is helped if you mix it up between humanities applications and stem applications, for candidates that can swing both ways), or there are structural flaws that need to be addressed for the RD round. Clearly, the large OOS publics have stopped giving you this information in mid December, and that is a genuine loss for an applicant. You need to go into the RD round pretty much blind.

The word “balanced” varies based on the strength of the student.

1 Like

On the question of parents who are unwilling to pay for private colleges not in the HYPSM type tier, what matters is the other message(s) that go along with it. If it is in the context of, "if you get into these XYZ schools, we will find a way to stretch our budget, but otherwise the budget is “X”, I think that is a fair way for parents to view their investment in their kids’ education. An open discussion with the kid on the economic rationale of this position would be beneficial. What is toxic is when the message is "if you don’t get into XYZ, you are a failure and as such don’t expect more than minimal support (especially if the parents can easily afford more).

4 Likes

I think people should carefully examine their own biases and the stereotypes they have about other parents. The narrative on many of these forums is such that the commentator is a fly on the wall and has keenly listened to the conversation in the other family, and finds the kid being done a great wrong, has the kid’s best interest at heart, and just cannot stand such treatment.

1 Like

However, in this schema:

  1. The safety must be an actual safety with assured admission (including to major if applicable) and affordability. There are too many threads where what the student assumed was a “safety” was actually a reach.
  2. Highly selective college admissions are not uncorrelated independent events. Because they consider many of the same applicant characteristics (although slightly differently and with different weightings), they are often fairly correlated, so that many strong students get completely shut out, but a few get many admissions.
2 Likes

The safety is the instate public.

It is enough if the correlation is some low 0.6 or 0.7. I don’t need them to have a correlation of 0.

Not all in-state public universities are safeties for a strong in-state student.

Some may be highly selective. Some (e.g. in PA) may be unaffordable for many students.

2 Likes

Then you would move the flagship instate public into the reach list and find another instate public that is a safety. The principle remains. Also I would define a strong student as someone who can get into the instate public.

Penn State instate is 18.5k + R&B. If you can’t afford that, then you can’t afford any of the reaches, many of which are likely to be private. This pricing is pretty standard for an instate public.

Not picking on anyone here but a reminder that for the majority of families in this country the in-state public is not necessarily the cheapest option. If they have the stats to compete for meets need schools - and presumably those aiming for HYS, etc., do have those stats- an LAC that meets all need will likely be cheaper than the in-state public (depending on the state of course, some are far cheaper than others). Our family income is over the median for the US and the in-state public came in second to last on the NPCs we ran (one took the entire equity of our house into account and came out slightly higher). The school my daughter attends gave us a package more than $10k better than the in-state public NPC suggested she would have gotten there. More importantly though my daughter had absolutely no interest in a big school nor in a highly prestigious school like an Ivy. Refused to consider either. I think sometimes posters here assume no financial aid when the majority of students (based on median incomes in the US) will get something - often enough to make a meets need school comparable or better to the in-state public. Different advice potentially for a non-top student potentially since they may not be competitive for most meet needs schools. But that’s not what’s being talked about here.

8 Likes

Some lower and middle income people may be able to get financial aid to make some private schools affordable, but not get enough at in-state Penn State to make that affordable.

2 Likes

I think we have strayed pretty far from the topic of this thread.

4 Likes

I agree with this for any strong student, caveat being (related to the topic of this thread) - my advice would be the same for any unhooked student.

The trouble is that on the Internet (unless some big award is won), we cannot realistically get to what “strong means” because we don’t know what specific school the candidate comes from and what their classmates are like.

My child was not motivated to do 15 applications. I would have categorized her as a strong student. We had 2 true safeties and most would categorize the rest as low reaches and 1 high reach.

You know if you are a strong student by looking at Naviance (or equivalent) for your school community for the past 3 years and comparing yourself with kids who got into the schools that you think are reach for you. To get 15-20 done, you need to start in Junior Spring.

Disagree a little with this - Naviance does not show whether the peers have won awards/major ECs or are FGLI/URM or recruited athletes or are F/M (useful in some settings).

Also, Naviance does not break acceptance out by major (can be a big difference at some schools).

Also, Naviance can be a biased sample set because the kids fill it in at our school and it is not mandatory.

6 Likes

Others have alluded to the past treatment of Jews by the Ivy League and how it relates to the treatment of students of Asian descent today. There was an article of an interview about the topic that seemed to relate to this discussion.

I don’t know if this link will work for everyone, as it’s a subscriber-only edition of a newsletter, but since I was able to get a link from the The Atlantic, maybe it will. In case it does not (or for people who don’t feel like reading the whole article), here are a few excerpts.

Mark Oppenheimer, a Yale grad who has also taught and mentored there, has created

Gatecrashers, an engrossing podcast from Tablet Studios that offers a revealing and often disquieting look into how anti-Semitism molded the Ivy League as we know it.

There are eight episodes in the podcast, one for each Ivy League school, and

The result is both entertaining and unnerving, as it quickly becomes clear just how many things that we associate with these institutions—their selectivity, their extensive application processes, even their push for geographical diversity—stemmed from one overriding motivation: to keep Jews out.

And the question of how what happened to the Jews relates to the situation with students of Asian descent at Harvard is apparently touched on in the 8th episode of the podcast,

we are certainly going to get into the question of how the history of the Jews is being used by litigants in the Harvard case that will be argued before the Supreme Court in October. I think there are both analogies and disanalogies, but you can’t ignore it, because the plaintiffs themselves have said, They did to us what they did to the Jews .

And though I have not listened to the podcasts, I suspect I agree with Oppenheimer in that there are similarities and differences between the situations.

2 Likes

Generally if you are top decile in a strong school then you know you are strong. Kids know who is strong and who is not in the class. People are self aware. I just asked my kids what do think their percentile ranking is. They will tell you.

Top decile is 1 factor. If you know the kids well, you will also know who the athletic recruits are, who has an interesting out of the box EC. To some extent, this is not important if the kids apply to different types of school - that’s another theory of mine. To go back to the Chance Me topic - I would also add - where are your classmates applying?

2 Likes

Thanks! I am behind in reading and love the logical mind he has.

The thing to understand is that everything we know about selective college admissions today is less than a century old. So if you go back to 1910 or 1920, the Ivy League schools were not particularly expensive. They were not particularly desirable, in that they didn’t have five or 10 or 20 times as many applicants as there were spots. And they weren’t particularly rigorous about vetting students. They appealed to a fairly small, self-selecting group of mostly Protestant, mostly well-to-do, mostly male Americans. So how did we get from there to here today, when these schools are desirable, expensive, and have a very rigorous vetting process?

The answer is that most of those measures came about as part of the effort to limit the percentage of Jews in the student body. The extensive college application of multiple pages came about because they added questions to figure out if an applicant was Jewish, including What’s your religion? What is your father’s occupation? What is your mother’s maiden name? Where were your parents born? At some schools, they asked you to attach a photograph. Some began to require an interview. And that was in part so they could try to suss out if you were Jewish or not.

My favorite example is the push for geographical diversity. Today we see this movement as a somewhat virtuous thing: Who doesn’t want to go to a school that has students from all 50 states? But it originally came about because colleges were trying to limit the number of New Yorkers, who were disproportionately Jewish. And so schools like Columbia began to send admissions officers to recruit students in the West and the South, because they were more likely to get gentiles from those regions. So even something as benign as geographical diversity has its origins in this quite calculated scheme to push the number of Jewish students down.

The broader historical background here is that around 1900, all of these schools had very few Jews, but by the time of World War I, all of them had rising numbers of Jewish students. That’s because they were largely open-admission schools, and ambitious Jewish sons of immigrants from New York City, Boston, and Philadelphia were applying. They figured out that if they had a few bucks, they didn’t have to go to City College or Temple. They could go to Columbia or Princeton, which were not particularly expensive and not particularly hard to get into. And so the number of Jews began to soar and multiply during those years of heavy immigration.

Yeah, the irony is that in 1920, the average student at City College or NYU was substantially more interested in homework and in learning a lot than the average student at Yale, who had pretty good prospects of going into his father’s business.

In some ways, this was a matter of happenstance. In 1920, something like half of New York City public-school students were Jewish, both because there’d been heavy Jewish immigration, but also because Jews didn’t drop out in eighth grade. Their parents wanted them to stay in school. And so as the grades went on, they began to overtake other ethnicities as a percentage of students. This meant that of the students graduating high school in New York City in 1920, a very heavy number were Jewish. So it just stood to reason that the percentages of Jews at all of the four-year colleges, which were the gateways to the professions like law and medicine, were going to go up. City College had pretty much maxed out. It was overwhelmingly Jewish. Columbia’s numbers were similarly going to go up, which they did—not as high, but perhaps to a quarter or a third. But it was not because the Jews necessarily did careful research and figured out that these were highly intellectual places. Rather, they might have had some sense that they were higher-prestige places, which might offer you a better chance of getting into one of the professional schools.

3 Likes

This thread has a lot to unpack.
We should all be careful of not replying to Asian students applying to multiple T20s differently than we respond to underrepresented groups. I am just as guilty of bias as the next person and it is wrong on all fronts.

I think it also helps to try to get as much information as possible to provide an unbiased assessment, including when it is for extremely top kids, regardless of race.

“Well, “average acceptance rate” does mean some applicants have a higher chance of acceptance and some have lower. It’s a common fallacy I’ve observed on CC that every highly qualified applicant has the same chance of acceptance. Some candidates have certain achievements that give them a significant boost.“

I absolutely agree it is a much- repeated fallacy that too many believe! The chances for very top applicants are not at all the same, and that is illustrated in the Harvard lawsuit data that revealed a kid rated an overall “2” had a >60% chance of admission, below 3 was below a 3% chance. (Kids rated just below 2 still have about double the published admit rate). Other top schools almost certainly have similar data, with much higher acceptance rates for the top end of the pool. We do get kids on here that are “2”s …it is not a “crapshoot” for them. And as @neela1 said, these kids do need more “reach” schools to balance their list and maximize their chances: for them they have a decent shot and should not be advised to only apply to 2-3 and add a pile of safeties and matches instead. And IMO that advice should not depend on race.

3 Likes

It’s counterintuitive that kids with a better than 60% chance of getting into Harvard need 15-20 reach schools in order to “balance out their chances”.

4 Likes

“Balance out” is the wrong phrase to use here. I would say that a kid who has a better than 60% chance at Harvard would likely be very happy at any number of highly rejective schools. As it’s not additive probability and if it’s no chore for them, might as well pump out those apps.

Easy for me to say as that is NOT what I would tell my kids unless they were driven to pump out the apps. I would maybe apply to another 6 highly rejective institutions and be done.

1 Like