Development Student Vs. Top Student

Applying to College
21

<p>"No one applies to a college because of "their admission policies". You want to go somewhere because of the education, reputation, environment, location, etc..!"</p>

<p>However, many applicants do consider "fit," which can mean how they like the other students at the school. If a school has a certain flavor -- compare Bard to Lehigh, for example -- that is partly due to admissions policy. So yes, I think you are considering admissions policy when you look at a school. If you want to go to a school where wealth, celebrity and connections are not a factor, then go to a state school. </p>

<p>I agree with advantageous that development admits are rare and many of those are handled totally outside the usual admissions committee (certainly celebrity applicants are), so that the two students in the OP would not be compared directly.</p>

22

<p>Advantagious, you have amazing resilience. I really admire that! For some reason, while reading about how you've faced disappointment before and have recovered.. I really did feel a near tear escape me.. in a good way, of course! </p>

<p>Grotongirlie, you said:</p>

<p>"I am hoping to attract a different "caliber" to this debate, a healthy debate is a great thing, but redicule,accusations,hating is just not my thing. Yes you are right there could have been 10 just like me and perhaps my dads legacy is in fact something that did work in my favor but I don't use my own situation as an example because in this case I was a pretty accomplished applicant even by Yale standards."</p>

<p>I'm sure you were a great applicant. But the truth is, the fact that your Dad was a legacy helped you even more. Even if you would have gotten in without your Dad, the fact is, you did list him as a legacy. I don't blame you for doing that at all, but that's the fact of the matter. You honestly DON'T know what would have happened if you hadn't listed him as a legacy. I'm not saying that you wouldn't have gotten in, but it's a little conceited to think that you can 'know' whether a college, especially a top one, would have accepted you or not.</p>

<p>I just want to say that stating you are a 'legacy', IMO, is not better than being incredibly wealthy and donating to the school. To me, it's all about the same. The difference between legacies, developmental cases and URMs and such is that URMs do generally have tougher circumstances. By the way, I don't want this to turn into an AA debate, so let's just ignore that part, yeah? :)</p>

<p>Again, advantagious' post pretty much spells it out. I haven't seen someone else explain it as clearly!</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
URM's have usually had to face disadvantages that others have not. Their lower stats are often related to these disadvantages and cannot be criticized in the same way that an underqualified developmental candidate's could. Plus nobody worth caring about wants to attend a place with only white kids.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Children of African and Carribbean immigrants have had to face disadvantages that others have not? What makes their lives so much more miserable that they are in need of preferential treatment?</p>

<p>Elites would neither admit it nor complete a non-biased study to dismiss the claims, but most of the so-called "African Americans" at elites are not the descendants of American slaves.</p>

<p>And, how do you know that a campus will become exclusively white without racial preferences? Are minorities so inferior that they can't make it without a little boost?</p>

<p>I, for one, don't subscribe to the idea that campuses are doomed to become homogeneously white without racial preferences. Even if that were the case, what would be the problem? No one was barred from admission due to his race.</p>

24

<p>Fabrizio, I specifically said "let's not turn this into an AA debate". Everyone on CC already knows your standpoint and that you're anti-AA. </p>

<p>The OP asked about developmental cases, and whether they have a significant advantage over other students. Even in MY post, I said that people can ignore that last part of my argument if they are anti-AA.</p>

<p>But since you asked for it, I'm going to answer:</p>

<p>A lot of African Americans, especially in Chicago, DO go to inferior schools, with inadequate resources. Chicago IS segregated. Anyone who says otherwise does not know the city's history. African Americans, living largely on the south side of Chicago, receive less money for their schools and a lot of them are on welfare. How do I know this? I LIVE in Chicago.</p>

<p>They don't have to be descendants of American slaves to be disadvantaged. A lot of the African Americans in my school, for example, ARE disadvantaged. Their parents know less about the college admissions process and can't help their children as much. They make less income. They are disadvantaged in many ways, and this has a lot to do with what part of Chicago they came from and a LOT to do with race. </p>

<p>I think it's silly to think that race plays no part in treating individuals better. Whites, on average, earn higher salaries than African Americans. Another CCer even posted an interesting study about how people with lighter skin were paid better, etc. I don't know if these studies are true, but it's intriguing nonetheless.</p>

<p>Minorities may NOT know about schools if colleges didn't attempt to get them to come. A lot of kids at my school, which IS a prep school, did not know about some top schools until they started receiving mail from their minority recruitment programs.</p>

<p>What would be the problem? Because, since the beginning of TIME, whites have been preferred in absolutely everything. AA might not be fair for everyone, but I don't have a problem with it. It's time that we started recruiting minorities who may not know about certain colleges. It's time that we started CONSIDERING people's backgrounds before rejecting them completely based on numbers.</p>

<p>Those are my 2 cents. I'm not going to continue arguing after this point as you simply take over every argument, sometimes ignoring what others have to say.</p>

<p>Regardless, this ain't an AA-thread. I already apologize in advance for my off-topic post. I won't make any posts on AA in this thread again.</p>

<p>:)</p>

25

<p>I'll send you a PM.</p>

26

<p>Thanks, murky, for your kind words. I would note that, as a legacy myself, I would not (did not) point fingers suggesting that GrotonGirlie or anyone else was admitted solely or even mostly due to her/their legacy status. I will take her at her word that she was highly qualified (although, again, I DO think that having the advantage of attending a school like Groton is worth something in admissions--you get opportunities at a school like that that other kids just don't get). But that is also part of my point: "special cases" kids are not always loser applicants who had nothing to add beyond what their special case dictates (which is something, I think, but I am sure that everyone does not agree). Just as there are qualified legacies, there are qualified athletes, and (probably, although the pool is so small) qualified developmental cases. I don't include URM's here because I feel that their situation is not comparable to the other special cases. </p>

<p>My own experience with rejection was within the music setting, and I think that there is a good analogy there. In a band, just as in a college, there are only so many spots for each instrument. The point of a top band/orchestra/choir is to compile the best musicians--just like a top college. In a wind ensemble, there are a lot of clarinets and trumpets, and only a couple of oboes and bassoons. Oftentimes, the intense competition on melodic instruments is such that the worst clarinetist or trumpeter is still an excellent player--maybe a better player than the best bassonist. Though the spots are less defined at a college, the same holds true. The worst unhooked applicant might still be "better", whatever that means, than the very best developmental case. But that's the nature of the game--there isn't another spot for the next best clarinetist, and there isn't another spot for the next best unhooked applicant. I suspect that a lot of life is like that--so either take up the figurative bassoon, or learn to deal with it, quite frankly.</p>

<p>P.S. I see that I have unintentionally incited an AA argument. I don't think that AA is perfect, and that isn't really what I was going for with my argument. Another poster threw URM's into the whole deal. I, however, (clearly) lean towards AA, so yes, I do generally think that.</p>

27

<p>
[quote]

P.S. I see that I have unintentionally incited an AA argument. I don't think that AA is perfect, and that isn't really what I was going for with my argument. Another poster threw URM's into the whole deal. I, however, (clearly) lean towards AA, so yes, I do generally think that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Development cases are a part of affirmative action anyway. This whole thread does focus on preferential treatment, just a different kind that isn't quite as explosive.</p>

28

<p>JUST FOR THE RECORD EVERYONE, I did attend Groton for ONE year, hated it and left and am back in my public school. My sister had made up this name and it stuck, kind of a mistake but its too late now, I have a rep to keep up.........JUST KIDDING! I am all for saying an advantage is an advantage whether it be legacy, developemental, or whatever BUT if the student is especially over the top, then I don't think all situations are equal. I did not mean to imply and apolgoize if I sounded conceited that I am sure I would have gotten in no matter what, I can just say with confidence that I feel in all honesty that I was as strong a candidate as they can get. I don't want to go into all my particulars because then I will be bashed for being full of myself or bragging but suffice to say my record it top notch, and it hasnt' come without a cost. That said, this is an age old debate that will no doubt be debated for many centuries to come and its unlikely things will change anytime soon. Perhaps if I wasn't as strong of a student as I am I wouldn't feel as strongly about this subject but I do, an opinion is as good as a fact if the fact is open to opinion. Right?:)</p>

29

<p>Grotongirlie, sorry if this is personal for you, but is this about getting rejected by some college? I don't mean to be inconsiderate, I was just curious. And I know this wasn't specifically about you, but you do manage to mention how great of an applicant you are, which means that this IS about you. I'm just curious as to what school you're referring to, and whether you got accepted or rejected.</p>

30

<p>Fabrizio, true...and if you are very opposed to AA, then I would think that you (royal you, not you in particular) would be at least somewhat opposed to developmental cases. But maybe not. </p>

<p>To answer your questions shortly, no, I do not think that all URM are descendent of slaves (not that that matters when people judge you based on your skin color--people who are racist are racist no matter how wealthy or cultured you are). I also do not think that there would be NO URM's (or no rich kids, or no legacies, or no athletes) if preferential prgrams were eliminated, and I have repeatedly said in my previous posts that I believe that at least some of the special cases admits are qualified. But, going back to my band analogy, it would be harder to fill out all of the instruments (special groups) that are important to the college experience if no preferential treatment is given. Personally, I wouldn't call it preferential treatment--it is really just filling out a necessary group of acceptees. Oboes and bassoons are just as important as trumpets and clarinets to the band, and having more trumpets and clarinets and no oboes and bassoons doesn't make the band better, it makes it worse. Personally, I believe that this analogy is apt to college admissions and special cases applicants, but I am aware that you and other people probably do not. AA of any persuasion is not perfect, by any means. But when I look at the current available options, I do not see another way to keep up diversity of all types. There ARE other ways (better schools for disadvantaged appllicants, the deemphasizing of athletics and a gradual moving away from family/money connections in admissions), but none of them are likely to happen soon. </p>

<p>GrotonGirlie, I apologize for assuming (although it was a pretty understanable assumption) that you were still at Groton. But I stick by my comments about schools like Groton in general...</p>

31

<p>Murky so far Thank God no I haven't gotten rejected YET. I have applied to 4 schools, got in EA Yale and applied to Harvard, Stanford and Brown. Harvard is my #1, Stanford was a close second but my dad just laid down the fact that he won't pay for me to go to school in Ca. so its either Yale or Harvard if I get in...........crossing my fingers! No its not about rejection, just about a system which I feel is unjust and severely handicapped.</p>

32

<p>Grotongirlie, would you post your Groton story on the prep school board? There are been several comments, negative and positive, but no Groton students to tell the real story.</p>

33

<p>Suze, sure I will be happy to share my experience both the good and the bad with this board. I have a TON of work sitting in front of me and know my "Groton story" will take time so I promise to post it in the next day or so. On to homework..........ugh!</p>

34

<p>advantagious,</p>

<p>My stance on developmental cases (and legacies in general) is that since their families are expected to contribute generously, someone will benefit in a very real way. Whether it's helping a student with financial aid, construction, creating an endowed professorship, new uniforms, whatever - someone benefits.</p>

<p>Does a student benefit from studying alongside a Black student just because he's Black? I don't think so. The benefits would come from getting to know that student as an individual, what he likes, what he doesn't like, his views on life, and so forth. Some people, particularly those who support racial preferences, believe that this student's skin color alone will make a fellow student's undergraduate experience more enriching. Umm...no.</p>

<p>My only beef with your band analogy is as follows: in your case, needs are being fulfilled. No problems. We can't have 10,000 violinists. We need some violists and some more cellists and about one or two bassists. That is fine, necessary, and fair. What's not fine, necessary, or fair, however, is to pick one over another, more qualified candidate because the former is of a different skin color.</p>

<p>I'm not against racial diversity. I am against forcing it artificially through a preference system, though. It's obvious that affirmative action in its present state uses such preferential treatment because its supporters won't accept a ban (on unequal treatment).</p>

35

<p>Well...we just disagree, Fabrizio. That's okay--at least you have real reasons why you oppose AA. I think that most URM's <em>do</em> have something to add because of their experiences, but here is where I think that we probably do agree: I am not convinced that the URM's at the top colleges are as disadvantaged as a whole as we are lead to believe. I suspect that there is probably a disproportionate number of wealthy/upper middle class URM's, and their admissions boost is a bit more questionable in my mind. I always think of AA as a leveling of the playing field for people who have not had the same opportunities for academic advancement/test prep/saavy packaging. That doesn't quite hold up as well for economically privileged students, no matter their race. However, as you said earlier, no one/no college seems to be willing to study/publish information about this, so it is tough to know for sure. </p>

<p>I guess, when I see an inner-city Chicago student with an ill single mother and who has completed an IB diploma, I am not bothered by the fact that she got into a top school with a 28 ACT (real example). Is that the majority of the people who benefit from AA? I don't know. </p>

<p>But bringing it back to developmental cases...I have already stated that due to their small number, I am not personally troubled by them. But, having read that "Price of Admissions" book, I was bothered by many (though not all) of the examples given. Sure, a developmental admit brings something very tangible to the college--big bucks. But at the same time, they are the people with the fewest excuses for their low stats--they have had all the money and advantages in the world and often their stats are the same or worse than your average URM. That does rankle me a bit--in reality, to me, their modest stats are even worse than they first appear.</p>

36

<p>I am somewhat of a cinic and I am not buying some of the positions expressed here. They would look great in a position paper discussing fairness, a better society and so on. Actions speak louder than words. </p>

<p>Please, indulge me in a little exercise to see if I can make my point clearer. For argument's sake, let's assume that you get accepted into H and at the end of the whole process, it is revealed that H did not admit the few extra minorities that would have made the class more "wholesome", compared to other schools. You are made aware of what happened. You realize how unfair the process was to that particular group. Will YOU be willing to give up your spot, to correct the mistake, if you are giving the opportunity? Will you be that selfless, wholesome individual that would say... Oh My Gosh..look at this. H did not take enough blacks or hispanics this year...and look at how many whites. I am giving up my place for fairness sake and i will just take their place at the local Community College. H did a wrong...but I will help to begin correcting it.</p>

<p>Come on!. Let's have a reality check here.</p>

37

<p>Well, if you want me to write the words that you seem to be desperate to hear, MovieBuff, in that TOTALLY, UTTERLY FALSE AND FANTASTIC SITUATION, no, I would not give up my spot. I have never claimed to be a saint or a martyr who has no personal wants. But with the exception of my aforementioned legacy, I am a boring, white, unhooked upper middle class applicant at all of my schools. I didn't even apply ED to the school that I have a legacy at, so who knows if that will even count for anything, anyway. I am not upset by preferential admissions, as some would call it, of any kind. I could come up with a whole bunch of reasons why I deserved to get in over other people. (I never did any test prep! I never tailored my extras towards college admissions! I don't go to a tony prep school! I've worked hard! I'm a good person! I would add a lot to any campus!). All of those things are true. But here are some other true things: I'm not rich, and my family won't be contributing millions of dollars to any college anytime soon. I don't have an amazing special talent, either in athletics, music, or another extracurricular activity. I have had a very comfortable life--I get most of what I want, I haven't had to have a job, people don't look at me and discriminate against me. I've never particularly exerted myself in my pursuits--I have done what I wanted to, not more or less, and I haven't changed the world. I can think of a lot of reasons why other kids would deserve to get in over me, and so the reality of the situation is that I am not upset now, and will not be upset if/when the time comes to think that my application was not accepted over another, less numerically qualified student's. That's the truth, for me at least. Take it or leave it, but I'm sticking by it.</p>

38

<p>Advantagious,</p>

<p>The reality of the situation is that you are very happy that you got in because ..you got in. I do not believe that anyone is questioning that you have taken the place of someone more deserving. My position is that academics should be a priority. Our society does not allow that because of the many reasons already stated, politics playing a big role. That's a fact and we have to accept it and believe me....I will use it to my advantage as well. </p>

<p>What I do not buy is the hipocritical arguments that some people make while trying to justify the admission policies. Fabrizio is absolutely right in my opinion. It is good that we can agree to disagree.</p>

39

<p>Actually, MovieBuff, I have only been admitted to my safety school so far. I applied EA to one school--Yale--and was deferred. I am sure that we all have pet things that we like to complain about. I will freely admit that mine is pricey prep schools--it rankles me to no end to hear some kids basically state that they are great because their parents can afford the exorbitant price of these schools, and that, in some ways, they turn out to be right with regards to college admissions. Why were three excellent applicants from my boring old, lame old public school all deferred in the early round? I don't know--numbers-wise, we were all good enough. Maybe it was extras, maybe it was just the EA/ED squeeze, maybe it was the fact that we are overrepresented minorities, maybe it was our unimpressive HS. But on the other hand, maybe we wouldn't look so hot if we went to one of those </p>

40

<p>My post was eaten...to continue</p>

<p>But on the other hand, maybe we wouldn't look so hot if we went to one of those</p>