<p>Momofthree: Thanks for the link. That's a wonderful first-hand account of "the crisis" that adds a slot of texture to the chapter in Walton's book on the history of Swarthmore.</p>
<p>Epistrophy:</p>
<p>Your questions are indeed fascinating, although I've seen better presentations that this particular article. There is quite a bit of anti-affirmative action research available, including a pair of research projects based on "Freedom of Information Act" acquisition of complete admissions data for the University of Virginia, including SAT scores by race. Most of this research is funded by the public policy groups who engineered the recent UMich Supreme Court affirmative action cases (they recruited the plaintiffs through advertising to find precisely the right set of legal circumstances).</p>
<p>Linda Chavez' group, CEO, (the group that just forced Swarthmore/Haverford/Bryn Mawr to open up their summer orientation program to whites) publishes a lot of
these articles.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ceousa.org/pdfs/VAS%20Report.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.ceousa.org/pdfs/VAS%20Report.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.ceousa.org/va2.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.ceousa.org/va2.html</a></p>
<p>As to SAT scores and the "slotting" admissions system, the "macro" answer is that, of course, anytime you use slots for one type of applicant, some other type of applicant loses a slot. Swarthmore was quite explicit in stating this fact as the rationale for dropping football. Their athletic department said that they could not continue to field the existing number of teams without 120 of the 360 slots in the freshman class earmarked for athletes. The admissions department was equally adamant that they could not allocate 120 slots AND continue to meet all of the other demands for slots, including diversity.</p>
<p>It is hard to dispute the fact that there are fewer slots for white applicants than there were in 1970. Unless you turn back the clocks to the days when elite colleges didn't enroll non-white students, that's inevitable. IMO, it serves no particular purpose to complain about that. My attitude? It is what it is. I love the diversity; I hate quota-based affirmative action. I'd love to see a better solution, but, I haven't been able to think of one.</p>
<p>You also have to look a the micro level. I see little evidence that Swat's admissions is heavily SAT driven. If it were, I don't think we would be seeing the waitlisted kids on College Confidential with SAT scores well above Swat's 75th percentile. We've all been commiserating with a waitlisted kid who had 1550 SATs, so clearly the decisions are based on something a little broader.</p>
<p>In the current freshman class, 25% of the verbal SATs are below 680 and math SATs below 670. This group obviously includes members of all racial/ethnic categories since it is considerably larger than the combined URM categories.</p>
<p>5.3% have verbal or math SATs below 600. </p>
<p>See page 10 of the Common Data Set:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.swarthmore.edu/Admin/institutional_research/SAT.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.swarthmore.edu/Admin/institutional_research/SAT.pdf</a></p>
<p>Likewise, I see little evidence to suggest that Swarthmore is more SAT focused now than in the past. From 1970 to 1995 (when the SATs were recentered) Swat's median Verbal SAT dropped from 674 to 650. Median math increased from 683 to 700. Since the recentering in 1995, median SATs have increased slightly: 710 to 730 Verbal, 760 to 770 math. However, the recent increase corresponds with the "echo boom" and significant increases in applications and an acceptance rate that hasn't been this low in 35 years. Not only does this impact Swat's pool, but it also impacts the acceptances at HYPSM, which means Swat may be enrolling more of their top acceptances (the accepted class always has higher stats than the enrolled class).</p>
<p><a href="http://www.swarthmore.edu/Admin/institutional_research/SAT.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.swarthmore.edu/Admin/institutional_research/SAT.pdf</a></p>
<p>I would also caution against drawing conclusions about who the below median SATs belong to at Swarthmore. I certainly would not assume a simplistic answer that the minority categories have the "lower SATs." I would not be surprised if the Asian-Americans at Swarthmore have the highest SATs of any group. This is a very broadly defined group covering ancestry all the way from the middle east, through India, to Japan. Some of these immigrant groups tend to do exceptionally well on standardized testing. </p>
<p>Conversely, I would not make assumptions about the Swarthmore students who self-identify as African-American or Latino(a). They represent a very wide range of ethnic backgrounds -- Carribean, African, African-American South American, and a LOT of mixed ethnicity. I would expect their test scores to cover a very broad range.</p>
<p>I don't think my white daughter was accepted because of super high SATs -- she had lopsided SATs that averaged right at Swat's median. She was accepted, among other reasons, because she had a solid high school transcript, glowing recommendations, a run-of-the-mill public school background, and a specific EC interest that Swarthmore valued. My perception of Swarthmore's admissions philosophy is that, if I had to choose between super-high SATs and a background/EC interest that added value to the campus, I'd much rather take my chances with the ECs (assuming some minimum SAT threshold).</p>
<p>Why does Swarthmore have such high median SATs? Among other reasons, kids who aren't very interested in academics don't apply, scared off by the "everybody works all the time" myth. It is also nearly impossible to get accepted to Swarthmore without a high class rank, high being relative to the type of high school. For the most part, the top students at any high school tend to have high SAT scores, relative to their socio-economic peers.</p>
<p>As to the specific claims in the article: the Admissions office openly admits that they ignore the policy of automatically accepting all qualified Quakers. As for legacies no longer being favored, I don't believe that claim for a nano-second. However, most elite colleges these days will only accept legacies who would be solid mid-pack or better applicants on their own merits. For example, I read in the recent Rice University athletics report that their legacy admits actually have slightly higher SATs than the overall accepted class. If you are a solid mid-pack applicant and a legacy at Swarthmore, I think you would generally be accepted.</p>