<p>such as African-American and Amerindian, not include Asians, how much advantage will they have? can anyone give a example on a test score?</p>
<p>blacks you can add 100 points to all sections on SAT.</p>
<p>you mean each section? then its a plus 300 on the 2400 scale</p>
<p>how much would you add to GPA?</p>
<p>curious, is it a national policy that make the minority groups easy in the admission process or just the colleges like to do that?</p>
<p>I strongly doubt it</p>
<p>it? what is that it,</p>
<p>As long as you have other things to back yourself up with, SAT's tend to not be the main concern, cause when I was applying I had everything else going for me, EC's, recs, essays, SAT II's, interviews, GPA, rank, job experience, honors and awards, etc, and life turned out awesome, so I would say being a minority will compromise for just one of these and for me it was SAT's</p>
<p>
[quote]
curious, is it a national policy that make the minority groups easy in the admission process or just the colleges like to do that?
[/quote]
Of course not. It's not national policy to recruit athletes or bassoon players, but colleges do that too. The UCs have dropped affirmative action from admissions entirely. Private colleges are allowed to admit whom they will. In 2003, there were 2071 Caltech applicants and 520 students accepted. 59 black students applied, 9 were accepted, and none chose to go. According to The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, on two other occasions in the last 10 years Caltech has had no blacks in its freshman class (the highest number of black freshman has been 8). Race is a tipping point at selective colleges- nothing more and nothing less. The "point system" went out with Michigan's Supreme Court quasi-defeat several years ago. If an URM is otherwise qualified, then yes, (s)he is probably more likely to get in. However, many other factors (legacy, odd major, needed instrument, recruited athlete) can be just as important. Many of the Ivies have their pick of the litter (even among URMs), so be wary of the competition.</p>
<p>100 points is not added to each section of the SAT. I don't know where you got that info, but that would give me around a 2500. That doesn't even make sense.</p>
<p>100 points is like a approximation that add on it to show us the advantage</p>
<p>I think its more about supply and demand. Colleges don't automatically add points to an applicants SAT scores just because they're minority status. Thats not how college admissions works. Colleges are seek to matriculate a certain amont of minorities so that they can have a diverse student body. So if they do not have enough minorites in an applicant pool their acceptance rate for that group goes up. That is why according to JBHE, Middlebury accepts seventy percent of all black students that apply. So, affirmative action at most schools exists simply because colleges want to matriculate minorities, while there simply aren't enough minorities applying. </p>
<p>The answer to your question is that it depends on which colleges you are applying to. If you apply to a school like Harvard, being a minority won't help you as much as if you applied to a school like Middlebury, because Harvard gets so many applications from qualified minorities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
100 points is like a approximation that add on it to show us the advantage
[/quote]
</p>
<p>based on? What college actually says this? Tony and Warblesrules both bring up valid points as </p>
<ol>
<li>While some schools may wink at your SAT scores, they are not winking much and you better have other areas to make up for it, a good GPA, recs, ECs, work, etc. URM status will not make up for a poor academic record.</li>
</ol>
<p>2.Because the admissions process has become more competitive, everyone has to bring a stronger game to the table. (Got hrough the admissions decisions at some of the "more selective schools" as you will see that there are some posters, who others thought were a shoo-in for various schools that ended up being rejected/waitlisted.</p>
<p>What does this mean overall for URMs; every one has to step up their game as being a URM is still going to be a tip factor at the elites because they are not going to be at a loss of applicants and a hook at other schools, the pool in this population is going to be more competitive, whith more choices given to those that bring the overall "A" game to the table, as the pool is also participating in more rigerous courses offered by their school.</p>
<p>according to the JBHE:</p>
<p>**Black Students Are Beginning to Seize the Early Admission Advantage **</p>
<p>just an excerpt.. read entire article</p>
<p>At the nation's highest-ranked colleges and universities, the percentage of college-bound blacks who apply for early decision has always been far below the black percentage of the total applicant pool. The reason that college-bound blacks generally shun the binding commitments of the early admissions process is that their acceptance commitment cuts them off from the process of negotiating a favorable financial aid package from competing universities.
But JBHE statistics show that black students are now beginning to apply for early admission in much larger numbers. </p>
<p>In past years college-bound blacks have been much less likely than whites to seek early admission to the nation's highest-ranked colleges and universities. African Americans have avoided making the binding commitment to enroll if accepted because the rules of early decision eliminate their chances to "play the field" and consider a wide range of financial offers from competing universities. As a result, blacks have not been able to take advantage of the fact that early decision applicants generally achieve a much higher acceptance rate than applicants who choose to go the regular route. </p>
<p>Black Participation in Particular Advanced Placement Courses: </p>
<p>In 2004 more than 78,000 African-American students took Advanced Placement examinations. Blacks now make up 5 percent of all Advanced Placement test takers nationwide. For both blacks and whites, English literature, American history, English composition, and calculus were the most popular AP courses. Blacks were 6.9 percent of all students who took the AP test in French literature. This was the highest participation percentage for any of the 34 AP subject tests. Blacks were also at least 6 percent of all test takers in the subject areas of English literature, world history, macroeconomics, and French language. </p>
<p>The lowest level of black participation was on the Spanish literature test. Only 56 black students nationwide took the AP test in Spanish literature in 2004. They were only 0.6 percent of all test takers in this subject. Blacks were also less than 2 percent of all AP test takers in the subject areas of electrical and magnetic physics, Spanish language, computer science, and German.</p>
<p>sybbie, your link isn't working.</p>
<p>well i was explaining the term of "100points " that mikenthemaddog66 used, in my understanding</p>
<p>try this</p>
<p><a href="http://www.jbhe.com/latest/index022306.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.jbhe.com/latest/index022306.html</a></p>
<p>Black Students Are Beginning to Seize the Early Admission Advantage
The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. New york: Spring 2004., Iss. 43; pg. 81 </p>
<p>Of the 33,706 early applicants to these 15 universities, 12,094 students of all races were admitted. Thus, 35.9 percent of all early applicants were admitted to these universities. The highest admittance rate for early applicants was at Wake Forest University, where 53.2 percent of all early applicants were accepted for admission. At the low end of the scale, only 15.5 percent of all early applicants to MIT were admitted.</p>
<p>At six of the 15 leading universities in our study, the acceptance rate for white early applicants was higher than the rate for black early applicants. Again, there were major discrepancies. For example, 59 percent of all early applicants at Emory University were accepted for admission. But only 21.9 percent of all black early applicants gained admission. At Rice, 30 percent of all early applicants, but only 18 percent of all black early applicants, were accepted. At universities with a large early admittance rate but a low level of black early admissions, we may assume that a great many of the white students admitted early were legacies. The legacy admission advantage carries almost no value for blacks.</p>
<p>In conclusion, we note that blacks are slowly coming to see the advantages of applying early. The trend shows that black students are now more likely to apply early than was the case five years ago. In a 1999 JBHE survey, blacks made up only 2.9 percent of all early applicants to the nation's highest-ranked colleges and universities. This year, blacks were 4.7 percent of all early applicants at the nation's highest-ranked universities and 3.6 percent of all early applicants to the nation's highest-ranked liberal arts colleges.</p>
<p>Blacks Who Applied for Early Admission in 2004</p>
<p>JBHE has surveyed the nation's highest-ranked colleges and universities to determine how the controversial issue of early admissions actually affects black access to higher education, particularly admissions to our most selective institutions. JBHE asked each of the nation's 25 highest-ranked universities and the 25 highest-ranked liberal arts colleges for this year's early admissions data. Some of the nation's highest-ranked institutions such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Amherst, Williams, Stanford, Dartmouth, Duke, and Columbia declined to participate in our survey.</p>
<p>We believe that the reason for this reluctance has to do with the fact that at most highly ranked colleges and universities there is only a very small trickle of black early decision applicants. Publication of this shortfall tends to hurt a school's reputation for its commitment to racial diversity. It is likely, although by no means certain, that universities and colleges missing from our statistics have a low percentage of black early applicants.</p>
<p>JBHE obtained comprehensive data on early admissions from 15 high-ranking universities and 18 high-ranking liberal arts colleges. All told, 33,706 students applied early to the 15 highly ranked universities. Some 1,584 blacks applied for early decision to these universities. Thus, blacks made up 4.7 percent of the total early applicant pool at these schools. This is considerably less than the black percentage of the total applicant pool at these universities. For the class that entered in the fall of 2003, blacks, according to our count, were 6.6 percent of all applicants to these 15 universities.</p>
<p>Of the 33,706 early applicants to these 15 universities, 12,094 students of all races were admitted. Thus, 35.9 percent of all early applicants were admitted to these universities. The highest admittance rate for early applicants was at Wake Forest University, where 53.2 percent of all early applicants were accepted for admission. At the low end of the scale, only 15.5 percent of all early applicants to MIT were admitted.</p>
<p>In early application acceptance rates, blacks performed about five percentage points better than applicants of all races. Some 646 black students of the 1,584 who applied early to these institutions were admitted. Therefore, 40.8 percent of all black early applicants were accepted.</p>
<p>At Johns Hopkins University nearly 78 percent of all black early applicants were admitted. At the other end of the scale only 18.5 percent of black early applicants to Rice were accepted for admission. Remember here that Rice University's early acceptance rate for black students is low despite the fact that it is now using race as a factor in its admissions decisions. For the past eight years Rice had not practiced race-sensitive admissions following the 1996 Hopwood decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision was overturned by the June 2003 Supreme Court ruling in the Grutter case.</p>
<p>At nine of the 15 universities in our survey the black student early admission acceptance rate was higher than the rate for whites. In some cases the differences were huge. For example, 31.2 percent of all black early applicants to MIT were accepted compared to 15.5 percent of all early applicants. At the University of Virginia, close to two thirds of all early applicants were accepted while only 38 percent of early applicants overall were accepted.</p>
<p>At six of the 15 leading universities in our study, the acceptance rate for white early applicants was higher than the rate for black early applicants. Again, there were major discrepancies. For example, 59 percent of all early applicants at Emory University were accepted for admission. But only 21.9 percent of all black early applicants gained admission. At Rice, 30 percent of all early applicants, but only 18 percent of all black early applicants, were accepted. At universities with a large early admittance rate but a low level of black early admissions, we may assume that a great many of the white students admitted early were legacies. The legacy admission advantage carries almost no value for blacks.</p>
<p>Early Admissions at the High-Ranking Liberal Arts Colleges</p>
<p>At the 18 highest-ranked liberal arts colleges responding to the JBHE survey 6,766 students applied early. Some 259 blacks applied for early decision to these 18 highest-ranked liberal arts colleges. Thus, blacks made up 3.8 percent of the total early applicant pool at these institutions. As was the case with the highest-ranked universities, this is considerably less than the black percentage of the total applicant pool at these colleges. For the class that entered in the fall of 2003, blacks were slightly more than 5 percent of all applicants to these 18 colleges.</p>
<p>Of the 6,766 early applicants to these 18 liberal arts colleges 3,087 students were admitted. Thus, 45.6 percent of all early applicants were admitted to these colleges. The highest admission rate for early applicants was at Grinnell College where 69.4 percent of all early applicants were accepted. At the low end of the scale only 30.8 percent of all early applicants to Pomona College were admitted.</p>
<p>Some 114 black students of the 259 who applied early to these institutions were admitted. Therefore, 44.0 percent of all black early applicants were accepted, slightly lower than the rate for students as a whole. Again, there were wide disparities among the colleges. At Hamilton College 72.7 percent of all black early applicants were accepted. At Trinity College 70.6 percent of all black early applicants gained admission. Only 28.6 percent of black early applicants to Colgate were accepted. At Harvey Mudd College in California, a school that specializes in engineering, computer science, and other natural sciences, 88 students applied for early decision. Not one was black. Harvey Mudd College is heavily oriented toward the sciences and it too has had a history of low black enrollments.</p>
<p>At nine of the 18 colleges in our survey the black student early admission acceptance rate was higher than the rate for all student early applicants. In some cases the differences were huge. For example, 50 percent of the black early applicants at Pomona College were accepted compared to 30.8 percent of all early applicants. At Hamilton College 72.7 percent of all black early applicants were accepted while only 46.6 percent of all early applicants gained admission.</p>
<p>ummm, can you conclude it a bit? easy for everybody</p>
<p>Study by Thomas Epenshade and Chang Y Chung, Princeton University shows the following advantages given to specific minorities on SAT's. The study included 124,374 applicants at "select" schools. The advantage was based on the old 1600 test.</p>
<p>230 extra points go to Blacks</p>
<p>185 extra points go to Hispanics</p>
<p>0 extra points to whites</p>
<p>-50 point disadvantage to Asians</p>
<p>Based on the new 2400 point exam, the extrapolated advatages are:</p>
<p>307 extra points to Blacks</p>
<p>246 extra points to Hispanics</p>
<p>0 extra points to Whites</p>
<p>-67 point disadbantage to Asians</p>
<p>Parts of the study refered to post # 459 is based on a previous study by Espenshade, Chung, and Walling Admission Preferences
for Minority Students, Athletes, and Legacies at Elite Universities. Social Science Quarterly 85(5):142246, 2004.</p>
<p>Objective. This study examines how*** preferences for different types of applicants exercised by admission offices at elite universities influence the number and composition of admitted students.*** Methods. Logistic regression analysis is used to link information on the admission decision for 124,374 applications to applicants' SAT scores, race, athletic ability, and legacy status, among other variables. Results. **Elite universities give added weight in admission decisions to applicants who have SAT scores above 1500, are African American, or are recruited athletes. **A smaller, but still important, preference is shown to Hispanic students and to children of alumni. The athlete admission "advantage" has been growing, while the underrepresented minority advantage has declined. </p>
<p>Conclusions. Elite colleges and universities extend preferences to many types of students, yet affirmative action-the only preference given to underrepresented minority applicants-is the one surrounded by the most controversy.</p>
<p>Findings:</p>
<p>Model 1 is estimated using only those cases that report race and SAT score. The odds ratios are roughly the same in the two models, apart from the effect of being a non-U.S. citizen. A comparison of the other models in Table 6 with Model 1 shows that each set of interaction terms is significant at the 0.001 level. **The penalty for scoring less than 1200 on the SAT is significantly greater for African-American and Hispanic students than the penalty for white students who score less than 1200 *<a href="Model%202">/i</a>. Similarly, the reward (i.e., increased likelihood of admission) that is produced by scoring more than 1300 is significantly smaller for African-American and especially for Hispanic students than the reward for white students who score more than 1300. </p>
<p>Models 5 and 6 add athlete and legacy status, respectively, to Model 4.*** Being a recruited athlete significantly improves one's chances of being admitted to an elite university. The odds of acceptance for athletes are four times as large as those for nonathletes. Put differently, the athletic advantage is roughly comparable to having SAT scores in the 1400s instead of the 1200s. Legacy applicants also receive preferential treatment in admissions. Children or other close relatives of alumni have nearly three times the likelihood of being accepted as nonlegacies.*** The SAT effect is somewhat "steeper" when athlete status is controlled, but it changes little when legacy status is added. These results are partly explained by the fact that athletes in the applicant pools have lower average SAT scores than nonathletes (1298 vs. 1335), whereas there is a smaller gap between legacies (1350) and nonlegacies (1332).</p>
<p>The largest admission preferences are conferred on applicants who have SAT scores above 1400, who are African American or Hispanic, and who are athletes or legacies. </p>
<p>The athlete advantage is weaker than the preference for African Americans, but stronger than the preference for Hispanic or legacy applicants. The legacy preference, while substantial, is less than that shown to Hispanics. Using the estimated logistic regression coefficients, it is possible to convert the magnitude of these preferences to a common SAT metric. The bonus for African-American applicants is roughly equivalent to an extra 230 SAT points (on a 1600-point scale), to 185 points for Hispanics, 200 points for athletes, and 160 points for children of alumni. The Asian disadvantage is comparable to a loss of 50 SAT points.</p>
<p>**The biggest flaw with this study overall is that it speaks to colleges would prefer to have and not what is actually happening in admissions at these schools (and there is a big difference between the 2). **</p>
<p>While I would prefer to be independently wealthy, the reality is that I am going to get up in the morning and go to work becasue I don't want to live on the street. Just looking at the posters on the chances thread on CC, most would "prefer" to be admitted to and attend Harvard or some other elite institution, but what actually happens in the admissions process tells a different story. People are not admitted, people are admitted and can't afford the school, people turn down the school for a better financial opportunity at another school or a host of other things.</p>
<p>Most elite schools (the ivies, AWS) don't give athlethic scholarships. Although these schools have a "preference" toward admitting this type of student, there is nothing in the study that indicates that this actually happens. An African American student who is a recruited athlete and has SAT scores over 1400 although 'preferred by elite schools " will in actuality have many options including and being more likely to to accept a full ride at a school that would give athletic/academic scholarships in a school that would definitely give them more exposure in their sport (ex: Duke/ Stanford) than to pay to attend an Ivy because they do not give either athletic or merit money.</p>
<p>Espenshade, Chung, and Walling conclude their article by stating:</p>
<p>The relative weights assigned to different student abilities are in constant motion, and our data indicate that admission officers at elite universities are placing a declining weight on belonging to an underrepresented minority student group, whereas the admission advantage accruing to athletes has been growing.*** By 1997, in fact, being a recruited athlete mattered more than any other type of admission preference we have examined. ***A subsequent article in this journal will consider the opportunity cost of admission preferences (Espenshade and Chung, forthcoming). Who are the winners and losers from current admission practices?</p>
<p>Examining preferences for recruited athletes and children of alumni in the context of admission bonuses for underrepresented minority applicants helps to situate affirmative action in a broader perspective. Many different student characteristics are valued by admission officers and receive extra weight in highly competitive admissions. It is all part of a process that views academically selective colleges and universities as picking and choosing from many different pools or queues in order to create a first-year class that best advances institutional values and objectives.</p>
<p>Espenshade and Chungs study basically shows a halo effect and because it is a Princeton study, there could possibly be no problems and every one takes it as gospel when infact there was an article last week that stated Espenshade and Chungs own data was contridictory.</p>
<p>Last week there was an article in Chronicle of Higher Education 6-21-2006 By PAULA WASLEY</p>
<p>that states:</p>
<p>State Bans on Affirmative Action Have Been of Little Benefit to Asian-American Students, Report Says</p>
<p>Contrary to predictions in a widely cited 2005 study that said Asian-American students were the biggest losers in affirmative action, those students made only minor gains at law schools when the practice was banned in three states, according to a new study.</p>
<p>The article can be found at:</p>
<p>One of the major points of the study says;</p>
<p>
[quote]
Espenshade and Chungs inattention to the distinction
between negative action and affirmative action effectively marginalizes
APAs and contributes to a skewed and divisive public discourse about affirmative action, one in which APAs are falsely portrayed as conspicuous adversaries of diversity in higher education.</p>
<p>The problem is that Espenshade and Chungs study is internally
contradictory: their research design confounds the role of negative action
against APAs with the role of affirmative action for African Americans and
Latinos, yet the research question they posed was about the impact of
affirmative action and their conclusion that APAs would gain the most
appears to attribute causation to affirmative action per se (or at the very least, Espenshade and Chungs blurry conclusion will mislead many reasonable readers into believing that a strong causal claim about affirmative action has been made).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Conclusions:** Elite colleges and universities extend preferences to many types of students, **yet affirmative action-the only preference given to underrepresented minority applicants-is the one surrounded by the most controversy.</p>
<p>Models 5 and 6 add athlete and legacy status, respectively, to Model 4.*** Being a recruited athlete significantly improves one's chances of being admitted to an elite university. The odds of acceptance for athletes are four times as large as those for nonathletes. Put differently, the athletic advantage is roughly comparable to having SAT scores in the 1400s instead of the 1200s. Legacy applicants also receive preferential treatment in admissions. Children or other close relatives of alumni have nearly three times the likelihood of being accepted as nonlegacies.***</p>