<p>ignore-</p>
<pre><code> Unfortunately, the trend will continue, but with a twist - and the only constant might be MONEY.
</code></pre>
<p>Yes the wealthy will definitely have their options. If IVYâs do not work out, they can always send their kids to other prestigious private, public or LACs and make full pay. Now that is an offer that most schools will most likely be drawn to.
So, it makes sense to start SAVING for your unborn child/children if you want them to have a good education, because MONEY will matter.</p>
<p>I hate the feeling that students are not on even playing field especially for berkeley. Colleges should seek to admit the best students possible-period. I do not think we should have affirmative action (Is it fair to the asian kid who has to have higher scores than the hispanic kid?). I am a URM (hispanic) saying this and although I enjoyed the advantage, it is not fair. Similarly, California students shouldnt take away international student spots because they are from california-let the best kids in isnât that what education is about? Instead of using race and ethnicity as factors (which I believed is no more racist than the quotas imposed on minorities in the past) we should only use economic status as factors. If a kid is low income he has had less privileges regardless of if heâs black yellow green or pink. If heâs high income, then he has had more privileges- simple!</p>
<p>@spuding102 The UCâs are not allowed to practice affirmative action. Just clearing that up.</p>
<p>The UCâs donât practice affirmative action and are legally barred from doing so. If you got in, itâs unrelated to your ethnic background. Right now, the UCs operate exactly the way you suggest: Theyâre allowed to look at financial circumstances, but a poor Hispanic kid and a poor Caucasian kid would be looked at the same way otherwise the university would get in big trouble. And since there are people/groups that would love nothing more than try and prove bias, theyâre very careful to respect the law under which they operate.</p>
<p>In addition, âlevel playing fieldâ acknowledges that treating everyone the same is exactly whatâs unequal. It means the field is not, in and of itself, level. Think of it like the 1,000 meter race: the further from the center an athlete is, the further up the track they start. This âlevels the playing fieldâ because even if all are running around the same track, not all have the same distance to run in order to reach the finish line. Thatâs the way it works in admission.</p>
<p>Note, by the way, that you may hear protests against affirmative action, but rarely against legacies (who often enjoy as much of a boost as minorities and in some cases more of a boost), which is hypocritical. And of course you could not find many people in favor of your system if it included athletes.</p>
<p>Finally, remember that education is more than getting in. There is value in being surrounded by intellectual peers who come from a variety of cultures, countries, and backgrounds, with different academic and personal strengths. Resilience and determination have value, too, and in fact recent research shows it matters more for success, especially academic, than many other factors (one of the least âcorrelatedâ factors is test scores.)</p>
<p>I must have missed it, but there is nothing in @AhoySailorâs post to indicate if he/she is American or otherwise. It seemed to me that the poster was just making factual points, and yet has been replied to as though he/she is not American and is arguing out of self interest - which may well be the case; it is just that I donât know if I am missing somethingâŠ</p>
<p>Anyway, we are foreign, and are NOT applying to any Public university in California, so my post is not written on that front.</p>
<p>It seems to me however, that America is a true Capitalist state (and I say this as a matter of fact and nothing else). In keeping with this, it is therefore not strange that its universities will offer admission to those who bring something additional to the table, before others. </p>
<p>I believe (from what I have read on CC) that it is all about packaging yourself so that you show that you have something <em>extra</em> to offer.</p>
<p>In my view, the rejected students with âperfectâ stats and no hooks were NEVER in competition with students who were admitted with hooks; their competition was other students with similar stats to their own. As I understand it, here are some of the benefits of the âhooksâ:</p>
<p>URM - diversity</p>
<p>The truth is, whether we like it or not, good leaders need to have personally experienced a lot more of the world than the metaphorical âbubbleâ in which they live. Being able to see and learn about different peoples, cultures and backgrounds whilst studying for a degree must therefore be invaluable. Very good universities will not only look to provide their students with an education. I believe what they aim for, is to provide their students with the tools to graduate and lead the world (in whatever capacity). A lot of forward looking parents recognise this, and therefore LOOK for diversity when advising their children where to go. Top universities are aware of this also. If I am right, a URM could be seen as more valuable to a university than the say, 1000th applicant with great stats.</p>
<p>Athletes - success, visibility and possibly $$$</p>
<p>Anyone who knows any good athlete will know that that person WILL succeed in life. The only question is âhow bigâ. A previous poster has already set out what most athletes are about - juggling a heavy athletic load with an equally heavy academic load. It is true that a lot of athletes do not have academic results to rival the very best of the best, but the fact is that for most athletes that gain admission to the most selective institutions, if these same people were not as commited to their sport as they are, they would have much better results than they do. A lot of athletes wake up at 4.30am to make practice - and they have been doing this for years to get to where they are. This shows that they persevere (a trait of successful people). No good athlete has got to where they are without having suffered numerous set backs. This shows that they are able to, and do pick themselves up when they fall down (again, a trait of successful people). I could go on⊠Now, this is not to say that rejected students do not have the same traits. The difference is that with the athletes, the fact and level of their athleticism tells admissions a lot about them even before one word of their essays are read. Further, if these athletes succeed in their sports, the university is more visible (free PR). If they win, it also genders a sense of pride in the school that everyone benefits from. When they graduate/leave, this goodwill remains with the school. Then you have the income generating sports that bring money into universities. Apparently for some schools, this averages six figure dollar sums/athlete/year.</p>
<p>Legacy - loyalty and support</p>
<p>As has already been said, true legacy hooks are those who make BIG donations. A family donating say, $1m, will enable the beneficiary college to achieve more than the admission of candidate 1000 with great stats will do. Apart from the money, true legacies are the bedrock of any great university. They mentor the undergrads whether by giving talks/advice/lectures, providing internships or graduate jobs etc. etc., without which, the value/ reputation of getting a degree from that institution will be greatly diminished.</p>
<p>It seems to me that anyone who wants to moan about having been rejected in favour of a someone admitted because of a hook should only do so if they can say they brought more than any of the above to the table.</p>
<p>Lastly, there also seems to be a somewhat ill-informed view of the presence of:</p>
<p>Internationals - $$$ and networking opportunities</p>
<p>Internationals also bring added diversity (see above). Also, some pay much more than locals, again bringing in much needed funds, but without these factors, most Internationals (even those on FA) will most likely graduate and go back to their Home country and become a leader there. The potential networking benefits for the future can therefore be appreciated by anyone who can look at this issue objectively.</p>
<p>Disappointment is good - but only if we learn from it. Unless we face stark facts, we will not learn and will not be able to move forward.</p>
<p>Some will say, but âso and soâ who was rejected had great ECs etc. etc. What I say is this. Did âso and soâ show what they could bring to the table to make their target university a better place MORE THAN the other 999 candidates with great stats and great ECs? If the answer is no, then that, I fear, is why they did not gain admission. Not because they were not good/qualified etc., but because they did not (in comparison to the others) show how unique and beneficial they would be to their target university.</p>
<p>Good luck to everyone for the future!</p>
<p>Dear Researchmom:
</p>
<p>YES. You missed it. Hereâs what Mr. Entitled said. (It would have helped not to have missed the first person plural pronoun, We.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@epiphany - thanks for pointing it out. Yes, I did âŠ</p>
<p>Iâm perplexed at why berkeley is rated so lowly. when I look at lists for engineering (#3), business (#3), biology (#4), , et al, berkeley is rated so highly. Then why is itâs overall ranking so low (#20)? I donât get in, in practical fields itâs ranked top 5. Is it because of the reputedly impersonal nature of the college with little specialized attention? Whatever it is, I think that US news exhibits a bias in favor of liberal arts colleges. This can also be seen in the relatively low ranking of MIt on the list. </p>
<p>Berkeleyâs low ranking probably has something to do with their slightly lower acceptance rate and extremely high student : teacher ratio. Thatâs really the only strikes I can come up with against Berkeley -especially if youâre a California resident. Of course if youâre a premed student, prefer a smaller environment, or are OOS Berkeley might not be the greatest school for you. </p>