<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely, Ambitious.</p>
<p>
But my point (besides having a laugh) was that I completely disagree with you and that your words:
Completely exaggerate the situation. If “everybody’s a little bit racist” (I think Avenue Q has some of life’s most brutally true lessons, relevant to this thread or not), then perhaps Princeton should not admit anybody ever. It is not tainted, LOL.</p>
<p>^I figured that. I should have been more clear. That particular statement was undoubtedly an exaggeration. Previously in this thread, someone hinted to the admission of the AA girl being an injustice; I was merely flipping that statement on its evil head.</p>
<p>
If your HS has an 8th generation Harvard legacy with a 3.2 GPA and 1850 SAT who gets into Harvard, and all he does is clamor to his classmates about about brilliantly layered with thought and emotion his essays were and how sparkling his teacher recs were, and a student gets fed up with it and responds by pointing out the more likely, has that student insulted him in a legacial matter? The point is the student of discussion here responded to the other student by pointing out the more likely and the fact that we think it is in any way a racial attack reflects upon 1) our own politically correct incompetence to distinguish between racism and a dispute over race and 2) our inability to see the irony that the exact purpose of affirmative action, a policy made by the colleges themselves, is to admit some URMs who otherwise would not have been admitted. If what some of you are saying is “well it’s true but he shouldn’t have said it,” colleges with affirmative action policy say it through their actions. If what some of you are saying is “we don’t know,” then fine. We don’t. Then the student is simply wrong, not some bitter scathing racist who is going to found a hate group-affiliated hate party.</p>
<p>Also, that point about them only admitting students who are qualified to do the work, what true and empty rhetoric.</p>
<p>If a student at my school had a 3.2 GPA and an 1850 SAT, I am fairly confident they would not be seriously considered. Legacy or not. Unless the family consistently donated millions.</p>
<p>But here’s the difference: Schools feel obligated to admit those people. They don’t feel so about African American students in general. There were underrepresented minorities with higher ACTs or better class rank (you haven’t mentioned GPA) than her that were rejected from Columbia. So it obviously wasn’t her race. If they just wanted X% African Americans, wouldn’t they just pick the highest scoring ones? I’m betting there was something significant about this girl that made her more appealing than others (including URMs) with higher scores.</p>
<p>
So you believe that Columbia knowingly admits people who are unable to graduate from Columbia?</p>
<p>monstor344, I see where you’re coming from and I agree with you, to an extent. </p>
<p>Reading through the comments posted by Money4Life didn’t resonate much of a feeling of a “calling out in a racial manner,” but more so a blow to self-esteem. If someone did that to me in a class setting, I honestly don’t know how I would’ve handled it and I would probably go into college thinking I had to prove myself to people who don’t matter and to people who have never had the opportunity to read through my application in its entirety. I don’t intend to downplay a slight boost to Affirmative Action, as it is arguably relevant to this girl’s acceptance. At the same time, it surely wasn’t the stronghold in this girl’s application, just as legacy status probably isn’t the stronghold in the applicant you exemplified in your post. Harvard, or any school of its caliber for that matter, surely attracts legacy students who have stellar numerical stats, just as it attracts racial minorities with stellar numerical stats. They could’ve had a ball playing with those astronomical numbers on both sides. </p>
<p>Like I said previously, there are cases in which numerically stellar stats get passed up for numerically dull stats relative to hooked boosts and they (the quantitively strong applicants) very much get rejected. That’s the admissions process … random and injust; to the applicant and commoners that is. A well-informed university decision to the adcom.</p>
<p>Columbia, or Harvard, choose who they want and there’s nothing we, the villagers, can do about it but boycott their schools.</p>
<p>I’m just throwing this out there, but I believe the middle 50% for ACT scores at Columbia is 31-33. So obviously 25% of admits scored above that and 25% scored below that.</p>
<p>Also, does anyone know if being in the top 10% is a requirement for admission? I would still like an answer because the OP made it seem like he read it someplace official.</p>
<p>
It is not. The OP is just sharing speculation on what he feels <em>should</em> be the case, but saying it as if it’s the only thing worth believing. Do not be misled.</p>
<p>Awesome. Then I will continue to encourage my very capable and bright high school friends, who are not in the top 10% of their class, to apply to selective schools.</p>
<p>That 10% “rule” only generally holds for people attending mediocre high schools. Kids who attend prestigious prep/boarding schools can get in even when they’re only in the top 40% or so of their classes.</p>
<p>
That 10% “rule” isn’t a rule at all. And class rank doesn’t mean as much as the full transcript and everything in the application. It’s never officially mentioned, and there’s no reason to think 10% is it. If we had 4 fingers on each hand, you’d call it the 8% “rule”, and it would be no more true.</p>
<p>I used quotes for a reason - I only called it a “rule” because the term seemed to best fit what a previous poster was postulating regarding Ivy League admissions, not because I believe it is an actual “rule.”</p>
<p>BillyMc, my point was that what you said is true but meaningless. If Columbia’s academic standards simply amounted to being able to do the work all kids with 3.3s and 1800s would still make it through the academic “cut” of admissions which simply doesn’t happen. Being able to graduate from an Ivy is easy…once you’re in.</p>
<p>Look, back to the main situation, I guess my whole point is that the person in question shouldn’t have said it because it probably wasn’t the nicest thing to do. Moreover emailing his teacher was just plain stupid. But my guess is that the whole situation only bubbled to where it ended up because race was involved, and for people to so easily and lazily take what was never an argument pertinent to race and inundate it with the race card just screams “shame on you”.</p>
<p>
Making the cut to be academically successful is only one part. From my interaction with top college admissions officers and interviewers, I have gathered at least three key admissions questions.</p>
<p>1.) Is the student academically qualified to succeed and achieve academic excellence?
2.) What can this school do for this student? Are they applying for prestige, or for a genuine reason?
3.) What can this student do for this school? Why should this student be picked over the others that pas #1 and #2? What can this student uniquely bring to the campus?</p>
<p>This is partially statements from admissions people and partially my inferences, but I would assume that there is a similar match making process at all top schools. Therefore, passing the academic criteria is just one point (many more than are accepted would be academically successful), even though the better the scores/stats, the better the applicant is. This student must have wowed the admissions officers in fields #2 and #3. </p>
<p>As I said, there are URMs with higher stats that were turned down, so it obviously wasn’t just her race. Do you dispute this?</p>
<p>Haha there aren’t many URMs who are turned down with 30+s on the ACT. As there aren’t many URMs with 30+s on the ACT. But Billymc, answer me honestly here, do you really think this girl would have gotten if she didn’t put that she was black on her application?</p>
<p>If you go to a normal public HS, I am sorry but you need to be in the top 10% of your class to get into an ivy (assuming you are of couse hookless). Now, I will concede that the one ivy that may admit students who are outside of the top 10% of their class is Brown. I have my qualms with Brown that I will not get into in this thread, but ya I have seen hookless kids get into Brown outside the top 10% of their class. However, I have NEVER seen a hookless kid outside of the top 10% at a normal public school get into a HYP, Wharton, Dartmouth, or Columbia.</p>
<p>I really don’t know how you can believe this girl would have gotten in without AA. Are you guys hooked applicants with poor stats as well who want to believe you all are just as entitled to an ivy league education as whites/asians with those darn perfect scores?</p>
<p>
In short,
Yes.
LOL - The truth of the matter is you’re right, URMs with better academic numbers have been turned down. You cannot dispute, however, the relative straightforwardness of the admissions process when a hook is involved (I have some pretty clear first-hand experience)! And if it obviously wasn’t just her race, that’s great, but if it can be said to have played a factor then it can be said to have played a vital factor.</p>
<p>But seriously, if your theory on how the admissions process is indeed true, it would logically follow that unhooked applicants with 3.3s and 1800s would have roughly the same success in admissions as applicants with 4.0s and 2400s, right? Because factors 2 and 3 are largely independent from the academic side of things. Clearly though that is malarkey; 3.3/1800s do not get in at roughly the same rate as 4.0/2400s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is a misleading fallacy. Two years ago, a girl from my school, who happened to be White, got into Princeton with a 1920 SAT and she was top 15% in her class of about 350ish. The valedictorian, who was Black, was rejected with a 2230 (she ended up at Harvard). When I went to Princeton’s Review weekend for admitted students this year, I met a White female who was accepted with a 1780 and she was legacy-less. Additionally, at Stanford’s admit weekend, I met an Asian male who was valedictorian but had an 1870. How many of these people exist? Chances are, there aren’t many of them. But they exist and they exist for a reason. Admissions is not a number game. Admissions officers at elite schools do what they want at the “expense” of the applicant pool and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. They call their policies “holistic” for a reason. To judge someone’s acceptance at face value from their numerical stats relative to that of the general population of students in a given school holds a degree of accuracy, but not to the extent that you’re insinuating.</p>
<p>Give the girl the credit and move on. I’m sure she’s going to be great at Columbia.</p>
<p>“But Billymc, answer me honestly here, do you really think this girl would have gotten if she didn’t put that she was black on her application?”</p>
<p>How do you know, Money4Life, that she marked her race on her application? Just curious.</p>
<p>And what are your qualms about Brown’s admissions practices? I’m really not trying to argue or anything; I just want to know how it’s perceived from the outside.</p>
<p>Also, you said “[n]ow, I will concede that the one ivy that may admit students who are outside of the top 10% of their class is Brown.”
—> My response to that: And I have seen students who are outside of the top 10% of their class get admitted to “HYP, Wharton, Dartmouth, or Columbia.” --As well as Penn (the other Schools) and Cornell.</p>
<p>All I want to say is this. When black people (such as myself) are top-tier students, other students in the class try to put them down through various insults. Specifically, “Oreo” or “Bumblebee” or whatever. Basically, the intent here is to make them think that they are acting out of character for a black person, and acting “white” or “asian.” </p>
<p>Meanwhile, at the same time, the same people rant on and on about how black people commit crimes, or they’re only good for playing sports or whatever.</p>
<p>So the fact is, society doesn’t want us to succeed, but they also don’t want us to be a detriment to everyone else. Interesting. How on earth is it possible to do both of those things? It isn’t. </p>
<p>The reason there are less qualified black applicants for top universities, is because of societal pressure. Black people are pressured into thinking it’s abnormal for them to be smart, or be a success; and they get the idea that the only path to success is to be Kanye West or Kobe Bryant. </p>
<p>In the same way, Asians have MORE qualified students because they’re pressured into being the opposite. The stereotype is that they get good grades, so people (parents and peers) pressure them into living up to that stereotype.</p>
<p>The end result of all this is like I said; more qualified Asians/whites, less qualified Blacks. And since we’re being put at a disadvantage, affirmative action is completely fair as a boost to help us get into the colleges we want to go to.</p>
<p>Wow so now you are just stereotyping huge groups of people. The fact of the matter is AA fosters quite a bit of bitterness and makes it so that the URMs who are admitted top schools aren’t on average as qualified as their hookless counterparts. Moreover, it makes admissions a racial (I would argue racist) process. I really do doubt that in upper-middle class/upper class society, people FREQUENTLY (I’m sure it happens…but no more often than insults other people have to face) attack blacks because they do well in the classroom. In lower class areas, it probably does happen alot. However, whites are probably also attacked for trying to rise up the social latter. In the end of the day, AA fosters racism and gives hookless applicants a reason to be bitter about admissions.</p>