The problem is @FrankieSaysRelax is that when the universities WANT race to matter it wont or cant . If federal alw permits racial preferences for one goal then it by definition also permits racial limitations.
“the reason you have no idea what it is, is because no one knows, predictably what “it” is. Every year, students that are exactly the same in every regard as students who are accepted (LORS, stats, essays, etc.), are rejected.”
Actually for the tippy top schools, I think the LOR is a big differentiator. There are many kids that get excellent grades, top test scores, great ECs but getting a letter of recommendation from a teacher, GC, or principal that states this kid is the most talented and smart student we have ever had in 30 years at x school and describing exectly why is a huge “hook” and further validates the body of work that the student presented in their application. I know this happened to my friend’s unhooked D who is matriculating in the fall to H, also accepted to Brown, Cornell, UPenn, Duke, and UCB regents. She didn’t need luck, she just needed to be her brilliant self and have the documentation to back it up.
How so? It’s a narrow allowed use.
What some miss when they use the term "racial preference " is that this is not blind preference. Not, we’ll take x no matter what lack of qualifications. (I’m not referring to arguments about recruiting hooks.)
The LoR is not the primary differentiator. There are “many kids that get excellent grades, top test scores, great ECs” who can’t pull their own part of the app together well or make it make sense for that college. That part isn’t really the LoR responsibility. Even a great letter isn’t a “hook” if the applicant misses it.
It is not narrow at all: it is supposed to be narrow but due to holistic admissions latitude it is anything but narrow.
The “narrow” is what’s being clarified lately. If you read all of the Fisher case and ruling, it’s quite interesting and informs.
I seriously believe that to start to understand holistic, one has to consciously identify and strip out their assumptions. Stats isn’t what makes a fine candidate. Or activities that you, friends, and family think are “special.” No URM or low SES gets in just because he’s URM or low SES. This is about the four years, things don’t get easy just because, hey, I got admitted. Match matters.
On CC, there’s been a lot of reference to the H lawsuit lately. But I think it sometimes feels more like data mining than trying to comprehend the huge task of sorting through day after day of kids with top stats and some showpiece ECs (or lukewarm ECs, frankly.) And how much the thinking that comes through does matter.
Eg, most of CC says, “write a great essay.” Few stop to consider what makes a great essay, for a college app, especially to a competitive holistic.
Anyone can lean on the concept of “luck.” But do you want to apply to a tippy top counting on luck? Or do the best you can with the whole app, show them that? And you can’t do that just thinking, “In my high school, here’s what makes one a top dawg.” You aren’t applying to your high school.
(Heck, as people quote the case, sometimes I can’t even tell if they’re referring to the plaintiff assumptions, machinations and positioning or to the defense side of things. It’s been that jumbled.)
I dont believe that college admissions, particularly Ivy League, is holistic at all. The use of “holistic” as it pertains to college admissions reminds me of the quote from the Shawshank Redemption when the parole board asks Red if he has been rehabilitated: “I know what you think it means, sonny. To me it’s just a made up word. Politician’s word, so young fellows like yourself can wear a suit and a tie and have a job. What do you really want to know. Am I sorry for what I did?”. I digress. Holistic is mumbo jumbo for let us pick who we want to pick without any scrutiny OR enough of the positive PR optics for how things look to avoid scrutiny on certain other aspects of admissions. They want an even number of men and women, enough black and hispanic students to mollify the fairness police; they now add first gen to further pacify the fairness police; they limited jews way back when because they were “grade grubbing overachievers” and now do the same to asians because they need to reserve enough space for legacies, rich kids, Z listers and athletes for their teams. So it is wrong to say that no URM or SES students are getting in just because they are that–of course they are! ANY special category is a special category. Is perfect grades, scores and stats a special category? No.
See, sorry to pick on you, @Center, but you don’t believe it. You don’t know what scrutiny, so you assume it’s freehand. You want to draw reference to 100 years ago. You likely don’t know the quality of URM or low SES apps. Many assume wealth and “optics” reign supreme. So, no, you aren’t open to how holistic does work.
After first cut, nearly every app comes with “perfect grades, scores,” above the bar. How would you sort? Some kid founds a pie club or has 4000 hours volunteering at the pet shelter? Or programs apps (c’mon, anyone can.) Or has hr name on a publication (know how common that is?) Some kid wants stem but doesn’t even have a stem LoR? But you want to point to stats?
Meanwhile, H gets 40,000 apps for 2,000 seats.
Imo, “fair” shouldn’t even be mentioned. You put forth a fully quality app or you don’t. That’s where it starts. With the applicant.
Holistic admissions is a phrase the colleges hide behind so they can let in whomever they want based on any standard that suits them at the moment. Every group of prospective students will go through being the favored ones and the unfavored ones as time passes because the criteria changes with the whim of the school, and whichever bright shiny object they decided to chase. So college admissions are basically fair over time if you look at it from the point of view that every demographic gets screwed over at some point for reasons they have no control over.
In a sense I agree with this. Holistic means they take who they want, whether that’s an inner city black kid who excelled despite dodging bullets and gang pressure on the way to school, a rich white lacrosse player who had the benefit of pricey travel teams since kindergarten and private trainers (and of course, worked hard at his sport), the chess whiz, the senator’s kid, the simply rich, the legacy, the first gen immigrant.
As is often pointed out, it works. Lots of people very badly want to go to these schools, despite their opaque admissions policies and reliance on more than scores and grades in choosing a class.
The “formula” seems to be exactly what is best…for the college and for those who attend.
I’m curious…those of you that like to make fun of the use of “holistic” admissions, how would you propose changing things? Scores only? Once you add in GPA as a data point, you immediately start adding in subjective criteria…how on earth can you argue against “holistic”, and what is so wrong with Harvard deciding what the best combination of kids is based on their personally determined criteria? Do we think the government would do a better job of deciding what the admissions criteria should be for every school in the nation and that any use of subjective information should be forbidden? What exactly is the solution??
Think about what you are implying when you cynically criticize “holistic” admissions. I haven’t seen any better alternatives presented.
These colleges aren’t out to screw people and are not hiding behind the pretense of using “holistic” admissions criteria to purposely be “unfair”. Call me Pollyanna but I really think they try to be as “fair” as possible when comparing apples to apples students. But when they are comparing apples to oranges, the game changes and we just have to accept this and stop making our kids think they are being wronged or discriminated against by not getting into the most elite colleges because they were an apple and not an orange.
Maybe those oranges that got some spots that year had lower SAT scores than some of the apples, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have as much to offer to the university.
GPA IS subjective data. I am making fun of “holistic admissions” it because it is pretend. I have no problem with these schools letting in whoever they want --to to a large degree but they are masking/hiding racial preferences (and other preferences) under the guise of holistic admissions. No such thing as holistic admissions with 30,000 applicants and minimum numbers for special populations set aside. Solution? Academic index for all applicants with a minimum applied to all.
The problem is with schools like h the pie is smaller than we thought. It’s not 2000 seats. The h suit clearly articulated that after all the students in certain groups. Directors picks and staff children. Urm athletes legacies and development cases there are approximately 270 spots per gender for the world. It’s not impossible but statistically speaking nearly.
“So, no, you aren’t open to how holistic does work.”
Well we do know the output of holistic and it’s flawed for sure, but as I’ve said, colleges should be able to pick who they want. It’d would be good if they were transparent about it, half the class goes to hooked, asians and whites are competing for the other half, but they’re not going to do that.
However, the Harvard case is pretty revealing, the preferences given for athletes ,urms, legacies and the advantages they have. Is it illegal, don’t know, supreme court will probably decide that, but there are some people in higher ed who favor holistic admission who do think that while what they’re doing is legal, it is concerning.
No. Let’s face the rotten truth. Stats don’t make one a great candidate, a must-have for the 5%. You’d be surprised if you actually saw applicant pools and the mistakes.
Yes, all applicants get at least one holistic review. And repeats, if they pass first cut. You don’t believe it? Fine. You don’t know, though.
I hate how people insist URMs or low SES are inferior.
Umm what? No. There are plenty of whites in the “hooked” group (athletes? Legacies? Development?), and some Asians too.
SAME.
I also hate how people insist URMs or low SES are inferior. But when we start making that complaint, people start posting articles about “scientific studies” “proving” that URMs are “inferior”. We keep going round and round!
We keep trying to make a science out of an art.
*Originally posted on 07-30-2015. *
Warning: stereotypes to follow.
Everyone’s screwed.
The suburban white girl from MA who plays soccer, is the editor of the school paper, and volunteers knows she’s in a terribly oversubscribed demographic. Half her class is applying to the Ivies and NESCACs, and even with her 4.0 and strong test scores there’s no way for her to differentiate herself. “If only I lived in a small town in Idaho” she thinks, “I’d have it made.”
The kid from small-town Idaho knows he’s at a disadvantage because his school doesn’t offer AP’s and no one from his school has been admitted to an Ivy League college in 5 years. He points to the kid from a swanky New York private school offering 15 AP courses who obviously has an easier path to the Ivies.
The prep school kid notes that his class is made up of superstars. Even with his 2300 SAT he’ll never crack the top 10% of his class. Terribly unfair, and clearly he’s at a major disadvantage when it comes to elite admissions. If only he attended some mediocre public school across the border in NJ he’d be the valedictorian and he’d have a ticket to Harvard.
The high scoring middle class kid from a mediocre New Jersey school can’t afford to attend his top choices. Sadly, if he were a first gen. black kid from Mississippi his PSAT would have made the cutoff for NMSF and between that and minority scholarships the money would be pouring in.
The kid from Mississippi is trying to do it all on his own. How can anyone expect him to get into a top school when he has a terrible GC and so little support from his parents? If only he were one of those kids whose parents signed him up for Kumon math and Suzuki violin from the age of 4 like those Asian kids he’d be golden.
The Asian kid has read Espenshade’s research and knows she has to score higher and be a better all-around candidate to get into the schools she values, particularly because she’s applying as a STEM major. “Why should I pick a different major ? That Hispanic kid in my class isn’t even in the top 10 and I’m sure she’ll be welcomed to an Ivy with open arms” she thinks.
The Hispanic kid ranked #11 has only been in this country for 5 years. His parents attended college but they don’t seem to have any idea how American college admissions work. He knows he’s way behind all those suburban East Coast kids whose families have populated the Ivies for generations. They’re all legacies, right?
The suburban white girl from MA…
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
I think we’re done. Closing thread for, take your pick:
• Thread devolving into debate
• Political commentary
• Discussion of race outside the race thread.