<p>
</p>
<p>Which is it? You scorn these institutions because of the unqualified / undeserving people they let in, or you desperately crave validation from these institutions (me! me! pick me!). You can’t have it both ways.</p>
<p>Eh? I am having it one way. Go reread. </p>
<p>“Does Hernandez really say that? If so, she has some severe personal problems.”</p>
<p>Yep for the first part, although there is an exposition. “A is for Admissions” p3. On Amazon.</p>
<p>
Because it’s not a “metric.” I know you don’t believe that, but that’s the way it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t expect more information. Opacity in the super-selective schools’ holistic admissions processes and criteria protects them from non-speculative criticism (or worse, in terms of effects on donations, political relationships, applications, lawsuits, public image, etc.) based on their actual processes and criteria.</p>
<p>Whatever their actual processes and criteria are, not giving enough information means that those on the outside can only speculate and argue about speculation, rather than pin them down on some actual process or criterion that they consider undesirable.</p>
<p>Brooke Shields’s children are still in elementary school, so it’s a little early to predict which colleges will admit them, though they will be Princeton legacies when the time comes.</p>
<p>If they act in something by then, it won’t matter and all will want them.</p>
<p>On a sidenote, I wonder if Will Smith’s son counts as a first gen!</p>
<p>Brooke Shields was a Princeton legacy. Her dad was a successful investment manager. </p>
<p>So Princeton admissions killed two birds with one stone on that decision.</p>
<p>Pizza Girl,</p>
<p>"Why do you say “probably underrepresented”? </p>
<p>Based on their academic achievement including higher SAT scores (130 points over whites etc per Espenshade), their vastly disproportionate number of National Merit Scholarships, the California experience (Asian admissions rocketed to 40% plus at major CA publics post ban on AA), and the many examples of former AOs from top schools explaining in the media that Asians face tougher scrutiny in admissions and many AOs view them as “grinds” and “robots”, among other reasons. </p>
<p>Also, I said “probably” because of the mixed race/race unknown issue and my speculation that the AOs think a large percentage of these applicants are likely to be Asian. If a majority of them are, then this mitigates the issue.</p>
<p>Your attitude is trust in the institutional preferences of the admissions office even though they hide behind a black box called the holistic admissions process, which can mean anything they want it to mean. In my view, holistic admissions is a great system if it truly is holistic and not an excuse for quotas.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ditto. </p>
<p>I will quote a few excerpts from Jerome Karabel’s Book The Chosen. They seem quite relevant to Ron Unz’s article and bulk of the discussion on this thread.</p>
<p>*Like the most prestigious universities of other nations, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton
admitted students almost entirely on the basis of academic criteria for most of their long histories. But this changed in the 1920s, when the traditional academic requirements no longer served to screen out students deemed socially undesirable. By then, it had become clear that a system of selection focused solely on scholastic performance would lead to the admission of increasing numbers of Jewish students, most of them of eastern European background
Their response was to invent an entirely new system of admissions one at variance with their own traditions as well as with those of leading universities in other countries. It is this system that persists albeit with important modifications even today. [pages 1, 2]
The history of admissions at the Big Three has thus been, fundamentally, a history of recurrent struggles over the meaning of merit. [page 5]
For the definition of merit, including the one that now prevails at Americas leading universities, always bears the imprint of the distribution of power in the larger society. Those who are able to define merit will almost invariably possess more of it, and those with greater resources cultural, economic, and social will generally be able to ensure that the educational system will deem their children more meritorious.[page 550]
*</p>
<p>“Because it’s not a “metric.” I know you don’t believe that”</p>
<p>Hmmm which is more likely? They dont have a metric? Or the metric is to impolitic to have printed? The later has overwhelmingly more explanatory power. </p>
<p>First off we know that they have metrics since them report on them in the Common Data Set. </p>
<p>Secondly how come Harvard hasnt traditionally offered a degree in Accounting? A too little to ink-on-the-shirtsleeves, dont you think.</p>
<p>argbargy, you don’t know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Though I don’t dispute the data about the rich getting richer, I do take issue with the notion that our children’s options are fabulous wealth and glory *</p>
<p>Yeah, it’s whiney out there.
Every time someone gives info about what’s valued in holistic, what comes ext? Lottery, crapshoot, should be based on someting else (stats only,) underqualified adcoms, hidden metrics, quotas- and “But I know someone who told me he heard…”</p>
<p>Or, they’re all wealthy LAX playing scions, they’re anti-Asian, Asians float their academic boats, Asians are boring grinds, Jews-too-many-Jews, underperforming URMs, socialist dictates, illegal… These critiques seem to be based on not understanding- and yet they purport to understand. So much fear and anger.</p>
<p>And the proofs? Hernandez, Gatekeepers- and the fellow who said not to read too much into his limited study, Espenshade.</p>
<p>ps. Shields graduated with honors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You forgot the poor, who get to go for free!</p>
<p>I’m all for repping everyone. Just don’t favor anyone and most everyone will be happy.</p>
<p>You have to favor someone. Even if you’re choosing someone with a GPA of 4.0 over one with a 3.0, you are favoring someone.</p>
<p>On many CC threads, they are not poor. They are undeserving poor.</p>
<p>Lets be serious:</p>
<p>Academically qualified with the ability to pay the full fare, are in combine, the most powerful hooks of all.</p>
<p>Sorry, NOPE. These elites are seriously need-blind. ime.
The best hook of all is to be an activated, energized, empowered kid. The sort who can push him/herself and still be real, give to others, gain from others. And, put together a great CA. You have to believe there really are great kids out there, regardless of their circumstances.</p>
<p>The number of kids who get in on a privilege hook (discretionary admits, most often very big donor relationships where the kid is academically qualified) is very small. In the situation I know best, maybe 1%.</p>
<p>Yes, when the kid notes his parents’ occupations, any of us can assume the neurosurgeon family earns more. Believe it or not, that’s not enough to swing in an underperformer.</p>
<p>“Asians, 4x their population; Jews, 13x their population.”</p>
<p>I don’t believe there is a quota. Jews are simply better candidates than Asians under the current holistic system, IMO. That means similar results remain even if applicants were coded with no names. The reason is that Jews are good at academics and trade (buy/sell). They simply present themselves better in their applications. That’s my guess and I could be wrong as I don’t know too many smart Asians and Jews. I like those that I do know.</p>
<p>What indicator is the green square of?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funniest post of the day…:)</p>