<p>yes, bogi bogi, interesting, except harvard admitted 22% this past year and columbia 29%, and I have no reason, anymore, to take this 16% number very seriously. So, unless you can show me a CDS from all of the 8 Ivies proving they are somehow limited to 16%, I would call that a factual error in the premise of this entire thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We already established back a couple of pages that Harvard, at least, has no weighting system nor specific criteria, or more precisely, NO FORMULA.</p>
<p>Personally, I want to know why my oil prices are so high, whether that’s collusion and whether it unfairly discrimnates against those in cold climates with too few days of sun to effectively pay off a solar investment. </p>
<p>So, go to OCR, tell them about these narrow and consistent bands, tell them how you think the elites judge and prejudge and how you and some writers feel it is slanted- and how you can prove it. Or claim it as IMO and let’s all move on.</p>
<p>Not only OHMom’s link, but mine that discussed decisions. All available on H’s website.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Harvard is not a technical school. It has very large non-STEM departments and apparently sees value in keeping them.</p>
<p>columbia profile makes me wonder if they are taking advantage of their number 4 rank to admit lots of Asians in US and Asia as full pay in order not to compete with the top three doling out large chunks of scholarship money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Princeton is at 21.9% (Asian-American, not Asian including international). I too am questioning the 16% number. What do you say argy?</p>
<p>[Princeton</a> University | Admission Statistics](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/]Princeton”>http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/)</p>
<p>argbargy: What are you saying Harvard et al. practically stipulated to in the amicus brief? The brief says all the schools have rigorous admission criteria but that “they all recognized long ago that admissions by purely numerical factors such as grade-point averages and standardized test scores would not effectively accomplish their broader educational missions.” The brief also says, “Mechanistic admissions plans, whether based on guaranteed admissions or other ‘objective’ numerical criteria, would be at war with the educational missions of Amici and unworkable.” These principles were upheld, I gather, in the Grutter case, and Harvard and co. are asking the court not to reverse the decision in that landmark case. I’m failing to see the “gotcha” here. What am I missing?</p>
<p>So, we have Harvard at 22%, Columbia at 29%, and Princeton at 21.9%</p>
<p>Cornell is at 16.9%, but they also only have 5% African Americans, so what does THAT mean? :eek:</p>
<p><a href=“http://admissions.cornell.edu/[/url]”>http://admissions.cornell.edu/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they were to, what’s wrong with that? Indeed, if any elite college were to decide to go to only full-pays tomorrow, why wouldn’t they have that right? If someone doesn’t like it, they needn’t apply. There is no inalienable right to go to a specific private institution or to have that private institution make it affordable for you.</p>
<p>
I agree there is no formula. But you could tell the “shadow” admissions committee to judge the candidates by the criteria listed on Harvard’s admissions web pages and compare the racial mix of the “shadow” class with the real one to see if racial discrimination is occurring.</p>
<p>Suppose OCR said, “Good job.”</p>
<p>Texas, but, the Ivies are need-blind. No financial details are considered. I suppose some will contest that, too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please, PLEASE distinguish between “what was the admittance rate among Asians” and “what percent of the class is Asian,” as they are entirely two different things. Harvard did not “admit” 22% of all Asians. They have a class comprised of 22% Asians, which could be consistent with a very high or a very low admittance rate – it all depends on how many there are in the applicant pool.</p>
<p>pizzagirl - it means people at lower incomes do not have an easy time to get in if a top school is consciously making a decision to admit more fullpays.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Add Yale at 21.1%, also Americans only. It’s a PDF with a really long URL but I trust those doubting the number can find it with “yale class of 2016 race”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you read those web pages? They’ve been linked in this thread and directly quoted by me. There are no criteria listed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I understand. My point is - no school is obligated to not consider full-pay status.</p>
<p>Penn Has 20.8 % asians</p>
<p>[Incoming</a> Class Profile - Penn Admissions](<a href=“http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/apply/incoming-class-profile]Incoming”>http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/apply/incoming-class-profile)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Punched all the right tickets.” That’s the crux of the problem, right there. Doing what you think will make HYP love you, versus doing what you are authentically. Bad life strategy in general.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I listed % of the accepted class of 2016 that is Asian. Using that number makes sense to me if “is there a quota?” is the question being posed.</p>
<p>"no school is obligated to not consider full-pay status. "</p>
<p>If they say so openly, then yes. All they have to do is to change their status to read need aware. If they are not stating that openly but are rejecting candidates based on need, then it would be malpractice.</p>