Does being black raise my chances significantly of getting into Stanford/Ivys??

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
1

<p>Hey guys. So a lot of people tell me that I can get in to a lot of different colleges because I'm African American. I was just wondering if there was a lot of truth to this, or if this is not going to raise my chances significantly. I'm not foolish, I know that I have a higher chance of getting in over an asian or a white person who has nearly the same stats, but I was wondering how much lower my stats could be for me to still get it in. After reading the results in the RD admission statistics for Stanford and Brown, I'm not sure I'm measuring up to many of the other kids who are getting accepted, and realistically, I wouldn't want to be struggling at some ivy-league if I really did not deserve to be there.<br>
So comments? suggestions? condemnations?</p>

<p>Here are my stats:
I'm a junior... and a black female
SAT I : Havent taken it, but my SAT prep teacher guaranteed somewhere in the 2200 range for me
SAT II: none yet...
Unweighted GPA (out of 4.0): 3.87
Weighted GPA (out of 5.0): 4.62
APs: Environmental Science (4), U.S. Gov and Politics (5), Biology (TBD), English Language (TBD), World History (TBD) </p>

<p>Major Awards: Honorable Mention for the STAR scholarship, other random "good job" awards for being a minority and getting above a 3.0, got accepted into the Impact program at PricewaterhouseCoopers (college prep program for African Americans). </p>

<p>Extracurriculars: National Honor Society, Math Honor Society, Spanish Honor Society, Science Honor Society, Habitats for Humanity Club, Environmental Club, Varsity Indoor and Outdoor Track and Field, Minority Scholars Program, Black Student Union, the Impact program</p>

<p>Job/Work Experience: Aquatics Camp counselor at the YMCA (last summer)</p>

<p>Volunteer/Community service: Counselor-in-Training at the YMCA Aquatics Camp for 3 years (8,9,10th grade) </p>

<p>Summer Activities: see the 2 things above</p>

<p>Income Bracket: 200,000+</p>

<p>Hooks (URM, first generation college, etc.): no...not really</p>

2

<p>No, it doesn’t raise it significantly but it is a small factor in admissions. People continually overestimate the impact of being URM, probably because they don’t understand that there’s much more to it. What’s more important than URM is socioeconomic status, which is what gives many URMs a boost–after all, it’s more impressive when an URM (or even ORM) who’s working to support his/her family also has a high SAT score/GPA/etc., even if that score isn’t as high as other extremely qualified applicants (SAT score and income are most highly correlated). That said, since you’re upper-income, you probably wouldn’t get much of a boost, if at all; top colleges are cracking down on the socioeconomic/URM divide. Regardless that doesn’t matter much for you, since you seem very qualified (at least at first glance–it’ll depend much more on your essays and recommendations).</p>

1 Like
3

<p>Yes it does give you a huge boost. </p>

<p>@phantasmagoric</p>

<p>I kinda get what you are saying, but if you are analyzing how much of an impact one’s ethnicity has on his admissions you need to keep all other factors the same.</p>

<p>Like comparing an URM with 200,000 income and an ORM with 200,000 income.</p>

<p>Believe me. It gives a huge boost.</p>

4

<p>Absolutely: about as big a hook as one can have other than being a recruited athlete.</p>

5

<p>

</p>

<p>Exactly–and if you couldn’t tell, I am making the argument that people don’t keep all factors the same, namely socioeconomic status. They’ll see an URM and assume that they got a boost; but they won’t control for how socioeconomic status plays into it. If they did keep it constant, they would not see much of an advantage given to someone based solely on being an URM.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t know how it is at other schools, but the tons of data I’ve seen while working at a Stanford-affiliated organization that looks closely at socioeconomic status in Stanford’s admissions shows that it isn’t the case here.</p>

<p>Believe me. It doesn’t give a huge boost.</p>

<p>(Like you, I once believed that being an URM was a huge boost; I’ve since learned that it simply isn’t true.)</p>

6

<p>Yes it will definitely benefit you</p>

7

<p>It will DEFINITELY help.</p>

8

<p>To be honest, your stats and EC’s as listed are very good, but not stupendous like what is typical for the kind of kid who usually gets into Stanford and the Ivies. Based on what we’ve seen locally, Penn is one Ivy which would take you in heartbeat! (Might have something to do with their location in southwest Phila. and the safe assimilation into the neighborhood.) I agree that for the others, it will depend a lot on your essays and how your personality shines through.</p>

<p>But please apply and come back and post the results!</p>

9

<p>You would certainly have an edge over whites and Asians with similar credentials.</p>

10

<p>@phantasmagoric</p>

<p>According to Stanford, their admissions are need-blind, therefore invalidating your claim that URM status benefits low-income applicants more than high-income applicants. </p>

<p>@OP: Admissions at “brand name” schools will cut you slack on your SAT scores based on race, but you will still need to be a unique applicant to get accepted. This means letting your personality come through in your essays, extracurriculars and recommendations. Getting 2200 on your SATs would be great, but you would probably stand a good shot with +2100. </p>

<p>" I wouldn’t want to be struggling at some ivy-league if I really did not deserve to be there. "</p>

<p>If you can get a 99th percentile score on the SAT, you are certainly intelligent enoguh to succeed at a tier-one school. The rest comes down to working hard.</p>

11

<p>I agree with Somnambulant comment, after all the schools won’t accept someone JUST because they’re a URM, they do have to show intelligence and uniqueness regardless of background.
One note though, “need-blind” means that they won’t reject you or make it harder for you to get in if you can’t afford the college. Colleges that are need-blind do look to see if you’ve overcome economic hurdles and favor those who have.</p>

12

<p>Being black doesn’t help you significantly if you’re wealthy. The idea is to help those who are socio-economically disadvantaged and may not have had the privileges of shining in their communities. You are a strong candidate, in your own right, it appears, but don’t rely on pulling the race card to get you sympathy. </p>

<p>Need-blind admissions is in regards to FA, meaning they won’t reject you just because you need it, or make your admissions contingent upon it. However, they will most certainly look at your income bracket, should you report it, as well as your school, area, etc. to try and gauge what opportunities you had availible to you. The general issue is that being a URM means you do not have the same opportunities, thus people erroneously assume it is an intrinsic advantage. The idea is to equalize the results after inequitable opportunities, thus if you have not been denied any opportunities as an African-American, which, judging from your income bracket and school workload and not having to had worked during school in any meaningful way, I would argue that being an African-American is an asset, but a very slight advantage at best.</p>

13

<p>Somnambulant,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>They are need-blind in that they will not reject you for not being able to pay. However, Stanford admissions are very explicit about your background helping you out–in other words, being low-income is a form of adversity which helps them to evaluate your accomplishments in context. This is why Stanford participates in QuestBridge, which helps high-achieving, low-income students get into top schools. (After all, QB was created at Stanford, by Stanford grads, with the help of Stanford students, and is headquartered just off Stanford’s campus.)</p>

<p>bpsbgs’ post is spot-on.</p>

14

<p>@ phantasmagoric</p>

<p>A lot of schools are “need-blind” and/or participate in QuestBridge without giving low-income students an advantage. For example, Ivy League schools, which are need-blind and admit QB students each year, have only 3% low-income (bottom quartile) students, proving that most URMs at these schools are from middle or high-income families. </p>

<p>While I’m not suggesting that the policies of the Ivies directly prove Stanford’s policies, you have not given me any proof that your claims are correct. Until then, I will assume that Stanford follows the same Affrimative Action policies of its peer institutions-- that is, without considering socioeconomic status.</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>Which ones are those? I’ve worked for QuestBridge and can tell you, that isn’t true for any of the partner schools.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That is not true. The statistic you’re citing is actually that 3% of the students at the top 146 schools are from the bottom economic quartile; 74% come from the top economic quartile. (I remember these numbers because I’ve cited that study by Carnevale and Rose a great many times.) Ivy League schools all have greater representation than that; the % Pell Grantees at these schools ranges from 10-17%.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Even if you were right about the 3%, that would not prove your case. For one, you can still be low-income and not in the bottom economic quartile. For another, even if most of the URMs are from middle or high-income families, you would not be able to conclude that therefore colleges do not consider socioeconomic status. The statistic which you indicated suggests that upper-income students inherently have several advantages that leads to their over-representation. Thus, URMs with high incomes will also have those advantages, and naturally have a higher representation.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This, I think, shows how much you know about socioeconomic issues.</p>

<p>For what it’s worth, I’ve spent a large part of my efforts in college focusing on socioeconomic status in higher education. Not once in writing my papers on the issue have I had to spend time proving that socioeconomic status plays a role at the top colleges (especially the well-endowed, need-blind ones); it’s a well-known fact. While asserting authority does not prove one’s case, I’m not going to bother debating this well-studied, well-documented, and well-proven issue. Do a little research before making statements like the one above.</p>

16

<p>Here are a few tidbits to get you started. Stanford’s admissions FAQ explicitly states (emphasis mine)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s from the question on affirmative action, mind you, suggesting that socioeconomic status is more important than race. QuestBridge also says</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Is that explicit enough?</p>

<p>If you or anyone else is interested in learning more about socioeconomic issues in higher education, I highly recommend reading the full Carnevale and Rose study. It’s very illuminating.</p>

<p><a href=“http://tcf.org/publications/pdfs/pb252/carnevale_rose.pdf[/url]”>http://tcf.org/publications/pdfs/pb252/carnevale_rose.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

17

<p>Out of curiosity…what colleges did you end up getting accepted to?</p>

18

<p>I ended up not even applying to Stanford but I was admitted to Anherst, Georgetown, Wesleyan, Rice, Pomona, Emory, Washu(full ride merit), Duke, and Princeton. I decided to go to Princeton.</p>