<p>
</p>
<p>Does this mean being on the [url=<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?]lacrosse[/url</a>] team, or joining the “correct” social organization at the HYP school?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmmm, is this like the old days when the scions on inherited elite social status were content with “gentlemen’s C” (now B) grades at HYP, while the academically elite strivers from the public schools actually did work for their A grades?</p>
<p>“Harvard clearly favors kids from northern New England, especially Massachusetts. I thought it was explicit about that. It has a special mission to serve Massachusetts (and Maine, I believe, which was Massachusetts for most of Harvard’s existence, and doesn’t have a snazzy private university of its own).”</p>
<p>Interestingly their Common Dataset says “Not Considered” for State Residency.</p>
<p>Muckdogs, I don’t think people want their notions challenged. I don’t see a lot of evolution over the course of this thread. I think there may be some personal need to vent and find others who agree that it’s a lousy process that serves a few and dismisses the rest for intentional, unsupportable (and maybe evil) reasons. Most of the complainers don’t know admissons, but do assert what adcoms do is off. </p>
<p>In the end, it’s Harvard’s business, the H reps didn’t ask for an opinion poll on CC, their number of apps will likely go over 35000 this month and they will still only have roughly 2000 admit letters go out. They will still retain an impressive number of kids from year one to year two- and graduate an impressive number. And maintain their rep. And, we’ll still have complaint threads. Life’s tough.</p>
<p>State residency means (I’m hearing my echo) in-state, as in publics that prioritize is versus oos. UC, UNC, UT, etc. H does not.</p>
<p>Their adm stats page shows 17.7% from New England, 21.8% from Mid-Atlantic, 18.3 South. Would you please refer us to your sources so we can take your word and ponder it?</p>
<p>ucbalumnus I am sure you’ve seen this before but if not…</p>
<p>[The</a> Ultimate Lax Bro - YouTube](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqg01Nk3SYI]The”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqg01Nk3SYI)</p>
<p>…and from the article you posted:
</p>
<p>My S once posited a “modest” (as in Swift sort of modest) theory about LAX players that says they bro out and generally misbehave more than football and basketball players precisely because there aren’t professional prospects for them. My S is an amusing kid, at least to me…and not a LAX player :)</p>
<p>Things I would be happy never to see again on CC:</p>
<p>*Analogies comparing schools to cars
*References to oboe players as the quintessential missing ingredient in a college’s or university’s entering class</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like I said, these arguments are indistinguishable from those made in the Jewish quota era.</p>
<p>The arguments and prounouncements are endless. Are most H kids really from MA?</p>
<p>The eastcoast “elites” do have a higher proportion of east coast matriculants. The midwest “elites” are the same.</p>
<p>In the Tribune article I linked a while back, the schools themselves say so. There are some regional breakdowns, as well.</p>
<p>But, it makes sense. They pay no property tax in Massachussetts. Of course they have an obligation to serve the community, at some level, the same with Northwestern or UChicago in Chicago. </p>
<p>But, I’m not really sure any of these numbers are meaningful unless we know the numbers of each demographic group in the actual applicant pool. And then, really, when a school is in the 1 digit or low 2 digit acceptance percentage, I think it would be mightily, mightily difficult to find any group that wasn’t being “discriminated against.” LOL</p>
<p>
That’s the big problem for those who think the Ivies are unfairly discriminating against Asians. The colleges say they aren’t doing it. How are you going to prove they are? As I’ve said, there is no smoking gun. Are you going to insist that they admit the “right” percentage of Asians, and if so, what is it?</p>
<p>yep. I think that pretty much sums it up Hunt.</p>
<p>No, of course most Harvard kids aren’t really from MA. About 13% are, with another 5% from elsewhere in New England – about the same percentage as from the West Coast and the South (everything from Virginia to Texas), and only a little bit below the Middle Atlantic region. Massachusetts has about 5% of national population, and it’s meaningfully older than the national average, so it doesn’t likely have 5% of the college-age population.</p>
<p>But it probably does have more than 5% of the Harvard applicant pool. And, like all domestic applicants, they probably benefit from having international applicants rejected at a much higher rate. So I don’t really know if Massachusetts residents get admitted at a higher rate. I am certain that students from high schools in and around Cambridge, Boston, and their suburbs, seem to get admitted by the handful.</p>
<p>Hunt, just curious if you can imagine any kind of plausible class action suit? Forgive my ignorance, but if someone wanted to, I don’t know, take their concerns beyond CC, is there any way for him or her to petition a relevant federal authority to investigate? What would a “smoking gun” look like?</p>
<p>Yes, in the case of a 6% admission rate, how on earth do you “prove” discrimination?</p>
<p>
It’s already been tried by Jian Li. As far as I know, the federal investigation went nowhere. The “smoking gun,” in my opinion, would have to be a document, or a statement from a credible person stating that the colleges are deliberately limiting the numbers of Asian admittees for reasons of race, either because they don’t want “too many,” or because they have an animus against Asians. I’m not sure if even that would support a lawsuit against private colleges, but it would generate enough bad publicity that the schools would say they would stop doing it. They might even let the percentages of admitted Asians go up a point or two. But I think the existence of a smoking gun like that is extremely unlikely, since it hasn’t emerged already.</p>
<p>Let me just add, for the record, that it is my personal opinion, or maybe guess, that the reason Asian admissions are hovering around the same level at Ivies, and that they seem to lag behind grades and scores, is that Asians applying to those schools disproportionately identify as potential STEM majors. I can’t prove this is true, but in previous discussions I’ve shown some pretty good evidence that it’s the case. If I’m right about this, it could have a big impact, because we know that the Ivies are going to admit people that they think will major in a broad range of subject areas.</p>
<p>^^ I did not get in. :p</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny how no one complains that it’s “unfair” to Nebraskans that they don’t live in the vicinity of any elite school. Let’s face it - the only “fairness” being complained about is the alleged unfairness that results in your own kid not getting in. </p>
<p>Anyway, it’s clear that people think that there “should” be more Asians at Harvard (etc). So, how many “should” there be, and what do you base that on?</p>
<p>“Yes, in the case of a 6% admission rate, how on earth do you “prove” discrimination?”</p>
<p>“Because it SHOULD be based on SAT’s, because that’s how they do it in my home country!” That’s what it comes down to.</p>
<p>Must be all those red flags in which you are draped, texaspg. ;)</p>
<p>Thanks, Hunt. So Jian Li. That’s it. Okay, then.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yes, I think you are right. But, the schools themselves say over and over that SAT scores are just a baseline thing, and not a “reason” for admissions.</p>
<p>There is a thread about this on the MIT board, right now, which is interesting.</p>