<p>Ahhh I always knew that the idea of "development admits" and "privilege" when it comes to college admissions isn't just a myth.</p>
<p>Her message is positive, but even if you think this is justified, you no longer have a reason to argue against Affirmative Action. This is the gap that AA tries to close and the reason why it exists in the first place.</p>
<p>Columbia</a> Grad Says She Bought Her Way In - Business Insider</p>
<p>IMO, being able to afford an SAT prep course =/= buying admissions into college.</p>
<p>Of course not. She’s exaggerating, but it’s still a good point and a well-written essay.</p>
<p>How does income justify AA?</p>
<p>They should do it by income not race.</p>
<p>That’s exactly what I’m (and the author of the piece) are trying to get at but it’s very tricky. Schools that practice need-blind admission aren’t able to cut certain applicants some slack based on their socioeconomic status. Unless top schools are lying about being need-blind, I don’t see how they could evaluate applications based on the context of their backgrounds. </p>
<p>I’ve heard the argument that certain high schools are very indicative of a student’s socioeconomic status but there are still some wealthy applicants from low performing schools and disadvantaged kids at high-performing schools.</p>
<p>Interesting article, Haute! Thanks for posting.</p>
<p>She is an idiot. That OpEd is pure mental masturbation. As most OpEds are. </p>
<p>/yawn!</p>
<p>The takeaway from this story is that Columbia adcoms make mistakes and admit dimwit students.</p>
<p>If getting a high SAT score is all it takes, there should be no rejects at Columbia.</p>
<p>Although well written, this op-ed is too simplistic & exaggerates the importance of one’s SAT score in the admissions process.</p>
<p>Some of you are disturbingly missing the point of the article: disadvantaged students miss out on the opportunity to maximize their chances at top schools because of a lack of resources. </p>
<p>And many of you are seriously understating the importance of SAT scores. For most people a bad SAT score is sure to keep them out of schools like Columbia, which has SAT middle 50% ranges in all sections being 700+.</p>
<p>^ If you look at EA action threads for the top schools on CC, you will notice that is not the case. People do get in with 1950 into Columbia based on their race and circumstances while people with 2350 can get deferred or rejected. The schools already factor in the advantages one has. </p>
<p>Yale accepted people similarly with low scores needing financial aid while deferrring someone with 2400.</p>
<p>How disturbing is it to miss a point that was so poorly presented that it never registered?</p>
<p>What permeated throughout most of this “essay” is an uncanny ability to present arguments without foundation, and an uncanny ability to select horrendous sources like the buffoon of the Princeton Review Foundation. Despite the fancy name, this person has been publicly ridiculed for lacking the training to evaluate the SAT and having no research to back up his opinions. </p>
<p>People who know nothing about a subject should learn to keep their limitations private.</p>
<p>I thought the article was well worded but poorly thought out. As said above she overstates the importance of the SAT in the admissions process, and then builds a logical argument on this poor foundation. A good SAT doesn’t get you into a selective school, but a low SAT can surely keep you out. But what is a low SAT? 1850 is not a bad SAT if the admissions officer is familiar with your lack of educational opportunities. They may not have the financial information, but they do know many of the high schools and zip codes and their admission track records.
Also, one needs some preparation for a school like Columbia. If a low SAT (I mean below 1700) is a reflection of lack of opportunity rather than lack of ability, one might not have sufficient training for Columbia.</p>
<p>Wow, when I first saw this thread I thought it would be about how her family has donated millions of dollars to Columbia. </p>
<p>This student is an idiot and frankly an insult to Columbia. There as so many holes in this essay I don’t even know where to start, but some glaring statements:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So volunteering and extracurricular activities are suddenly a privilege? This statement is so outrageous; volunteering, by definition, is freely offering to help others and money isn’t/shouldn’t be a factor in how much time you can give. Same with extracurricular activities, you don’t pay to join clubs and sports teams (except sometimes a small fee). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. The Ivy League and peer schools simply do not have enough time to more deeply evaluate 30,000+ applicants in a few months without eliminating a good chunk of them based on grades and test scores first. With a relatively small admissions office and committee this is not a realistic option.</p>
<p>Why stop with the Ivy League? The vast majority of American colleges and have formulaic admissions based on grades and SAT/ACT scores. </p>
<p>And can this girl answer why then students with near perfect SAT and/or ACT scores get denied?</p>
<p>The only part I buy in her argument, aside from the prep course = good sat score, is that having more money does offer you more opportunities to volunteer. Not because you literally have more opportunities but because you have more time to volunteer. Low income students more often than not will be working to support their families instead of volunteering. A second job, however, is still something one can put on a application. So her argument is still flawed, just not in the way people have been saying.</p>
<p>cortana431 basically summed up my criticisms of the paper. Sophistry in itself is illogic derived through logical thought processes. The unwarranted foundation is the premise of a society (in this case, the Ivy League) that only views the SAT as a factor of application success.</p>
<p>Now, if you have the funds, sure, SAT classes are affordable. Now, my question to you is this, do SAT classes equate to higher scores? Perhaps but not necessarily. As cortana and a number of people noted, the SAT is a barrier keeping people OUT not letting people IN. A decent (I use this word loosely) SAT score is like purchasing a lottery ticket. Without one, your chances become nonexistent. However, once a certain threshold is achieved, it really tells little more to any person how intelligent the person is. This is where recommendations, the ESSAYS, various tests, etc come into play for a holistic application.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, those that are (at least in my opinion) mentally prepared and disciplined to study in an Ivy League general curriculum, is likely able to independently score higher on the SAT. A perfect SAT =/= entrance into a top university. </p>
<p>My last gripe is the insinuation that because so many Ivy Leagues have freshmen entering with very high SAT scores, it MUST be a correlation-> causation. The reason why the freshmen applicants have such high scores is BECAUSE SO MANY APPLICANTS HAVE SUCH SCORES. Do you expect the 2400 scorer to apply to schools they’re overqualified for? Ivy’s have SUCH HIGH test averages because these are the students they attract.</p>
<p>“So volunteering and extracurricular activities are suddenly a privilege?”</p>
<p>Are you kidding? It’s absolutely a privilege. Only those who do not have to work to support their families are able to work without pay. As for extracurricular activities, they may cost a fee ($) or require travel ($$), which makes it difficult for working-class students to participate. But even more importantly, sophisticated extracurriculars are usually offered at more expensive schools (either private schools with substantial tuition or public schools located in expensive areas) because they cost a lot of money for the school to run.</p>
<p>Your middle-class ignorance is showing.</p>
<p>This is tough.</p>
<p>It’s not money that gets a kid from high school to the Ivies, it’s drive.</p>
<p>Money can compensate for a lack of drive with parents putting opportunities on a silver platter but it’s not so advantageous that low income can’t overcome it. </p>
<p>My personal experience is that there s a definite knowledge gap. I was on the wrong side of that gap not knowing it existed until I found out accidentally then pursued that knowledge relentlessly.</p>
<p>I found out that the requirements to get into an Ivy weren’t just higher, they were way higher and much broader and excellence highly desired. I found out that our public school guidance counselor never had a student go to an Ivy. She was an expert at community college, state schools and work after H.S. but knew little to nothing of applying to an Ivy.</p>
<p>That was my disadvantage but once I learned what it took, it was just a matter of doing it.</p>
<p>Your EC can be your work.</p>
<p>It’s not directly relevant but the Times has a masterful, in-depth piece of reporting that follows a couple of brilliant but low-income students to college and discovers the obstacles they face: <a href=“Poor Students Struggle as Class Plays a Greater Role in Success - The New York Times”>Poor Students Struggle as Class Plays a Greater Role in Success - The New York Times;