<p>I read it; it was a brave attempt at making sense of the seemingly irrational. The fact is, you cannot draw a direct correlation between one applicant's admission and another applicant's rejection. In Bowen & Bok's "The Shape of the River", I believe they estimated that if you eliminated every seat at every prestigious college or university awarded on the basis of some perceived vision of diversity, it would only affect the rest of the outcomes by some 1-2%. Small comfort, I know, to those still smarting from the sting of rejection. But, without some perspective on this, all you are left with is race-baiting, ("your race is benefitting at the expense of mine".) </p>
<p>On the contrary, if anyone is benefitting here, it is Amherst which gets to hedge its bets in a variety of ways in terms of which admittees will become outstanding students and in turn, outstanding alumni. I know at my own alma mater some of the most loyal alum of the past thirty years have been "affirmative action babies", including the director and lead attorney of the NAACP "Inc Fund", the president of Spelman College, a former vice-president of Burroughs-Wellcome pharmaceuticals, the publisher of the Miami Herald and this year -- a probable Tony Award contender. College admissions is an art, not a science.</p>
<p>Having a diverse student population does nothing but good for our entire country. I am a parent and attended college many years ago when colleges were just beginning to help URM and low income students. The contributions these often first generation URM students made to the colleges and later life is stunning. If we want to solve racism and poverty, education is where it begins.</p>
<p>D was waitlisted at our flagship and several URM students with SAT scores 100-300 points below hers got in. She feels it is just and enjoyed the excitement of these young persons who will be the first in their family to attend college. I must add, however, in fairness to the OP, that I do not know if D would be so charitable if she had not been accepted to her first choice schools (which had lower admit rates than the state school this year). We will end up paying more $$$ for her LAC education (and we are not upper middle class-ouch) but I really feel that having a diverse population is the best contribution a college can make to creating a better America.</p>
<p>For the OP, I know it is painful to be rejected. Review where you got in, visit these schools and move on. You are bright and capable and have the potential to do well wherever you go.</p>
<p>One of the things the search for diversity may do is to "invite" applicants to compare themselves (and their scores, stats, and results) with others on the basis of race, ethnicity, and other factors of "diversity." It's very human. It has taken me a long time to understand how unhappy always comparing myself with other people makes me, and I am trying to break this bad habit.</p>
<p>I really don't understand why people post their stats. It just sets people up to complain about the "unfairness" of who got in. It's not simply about the stats.</p>
<p>I whole heartedly agree with purplegirl. Everything is relative. We should reward students who have made a great use of their limited resources. That is why I strongly support any kind of affirmative action based on economic inequity. </p>
<p>However, the problem of the admission system is that it's not just based on students' economic resources, but also based on their skin colors. Does an African-American student living in an inner city deserve more opportunity than an Asian American student who grew up in a similar economic environment?</p>
<p>Whenever I see college pamphlets, most of them, except a few, do not give a statistical breakdown of the student population based on family income. Most of them, however, do show a statistical breakdown of the student population based on ethnicities of the students. It partly saddens me that many of them are willing to boast about their ethnic diversities, but not really focus on their economic diversities. </p>
<p>If an affirmative action program was designed to promote fairness and level the playing field, shouldn't it focus more on students' economic opportunity rather than students' color and ethnicities? Shouldn't a poor white student from North Dakota maybe given more opportunities than a child of Clarence Thomas?</p>
<p>I guarantee you, if "a poor white student from North Dakota" applied to my alma mater they would be given WAY more consideration than a son or daughter of Clarence Thomas.</p>
<p>Umm... that's the third statement to the effect that Amherst has Tufts syndrome I've seen in the past week. I have no idea where people get this idea. Amherst accepts the students they want most to fill their class, which unfortunately means leaving out a lot of great kids (as evidenced by this thread) because there simply isn't enough room. With such a huge influx of applicants this year (even compared to last years huge influx), Amherst has no need or desire to manipulate its yield.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Which school will you probably attend? (OP) Probably either Dartmouth or Brown
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I find it a bit amusing that the OP laments not being accepted into Amherst, which is quite competitive, but has the option of attending Dartmouth or Brown, even more competitive. Where I'm from we call that "crying about being hungry with a loaf of bread under your arms". I don't know what the real issue is here, as the OP has other outstanding comparable options. </p>
<p>Not wanting to have this turn into another CC AA thread, but I wanted to address the oft repeated mantra of supporting socio economic diversity but having issues with AA based on race. The avg AA kid that comes from that higher income bracket doesn't escape all the issues surrounding having brown skin just because they're in a higher income bracket. The issues affecting AA academic performance are complex. Simply put, in real numbers, the total number of AA who are within the academic index for being selected to many of the most selective schools are so small, it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. That poor white kid still on avg does better on standardized testing than his more affluent AA counterpart. Maybe that part isn't lost on the masses so they support socio-economic diversity. </p>
<p>The fact remains that diversity in all its contemporary manifestations are coveted by institutions of higher learning. There is a very finite number of qualified AA candidates and competing schools know this. You could take the top 2-5% of high performing AA and they would fill just one class at ONE top selective school. They are also acutely aware of the obstacles, obvious and not so obvious that are more prevalent within certain groups of people. They are viewing this IMO in the American historical context. With few exceptions, the graduation rates of those fortunate enough to be chosen into these select schools are reasonably on par with their contemporaries. So obviously, they aren't all that unqualified are they? In a country that has so many resources in abundance many times over, are we still so selfish, self absorbed and insensitive to the fact that there is much more to go around? Obviously, it is still a problem to share those riches with those who by and large are less fortunate than the masses</p>
<p>Are Dartmouth and Brown more competitive, really? I think they were all about equal...and all a crapshoot. No student can expect acceptance to any one, so 2/3 is excellent. I think Amherst made a good choice not accepting a student who complains that they sacrificed "everything else" for diversity, when "everything else" in this student's eyes means SAT scores. I know it's a tough time, but take it with just a bit of grace, and don't cry out Tufts syndrome when it doesn't exist here.</p>
<p>Kristina,
Congratulations! You have great choices. I'm glad everything worked out. However, if after reflection, Amherst is still your preference, I would suggest you remain on the waitlist. I would definitely communicate your strong interest to the the admissions office as well as your acceptances to peer universities. Conveying strong interest helps at this stage. Unfortunately, Amherst overadmitted by 50 or so students last year so there is no guarantee that the waitlist will be used this year as this year's class supposedly will be smaller than usual. As mentioned by many posters already, gaining admittance to top colleges and universities is a little bit of a lottery as they use many "soft" factors in their admissions decisions. Alternatively, particularly given your initial disappointment, I also can see value in putting the whole Amherst experience behind you and making your choices among the schools that accepted you. This is a very individual decision and I would not let others pressure you one way or the other.</p>
<p>With respect to other posters, I honestly do not think that Amherst uses the waitlist to increase yield. Moreover, if they were concerned about yield, they would not cap the ED rate at 30% and probably would interview candidates to better gauge interest/fit. Frankly, unless an application of a terrific candidate was written sloppily or showed lackluster enthusiasm, it is impossible for them to know a priori whether that candidate will choose to go elsewhere after being accepted. They do not know whether a given candidate is comparing Amherst with other LACs (where it fares well) or with Ivies, MIT, Stanford (where the competition will be keener). I personally experienced the latter situation when I chose where to attend college. Furthermore, they have no idea which competitor college will accept a given candidate given the vicissitudes of the admissions process. For these reasons, Amherst and its peer institutions, will be aggressively marketing to acceptees with phone calls by alumni, students, local functions for acceptees, and special programs for acceptees on campus. </p>
<p>Historically, Amherst loses the majority of crossadmits to HYP, MIT, and Stanford although there will be some students that will choose Amherst over them-it is hard to predict who ahead of time. To get those students, it is wise not to implement any yield strategy (sometimes it even backfires like last year when they overenrolled). Amherst generally holds its own with other ivies and other top private and public universities in winning or losing cross-admits. Among LACs, Amherst's main competitors are Swarthmore and Williams, with Amherst also getting its fair share of them.</p>
<p>Affirmative action is dead. It no longer exists. However, schools do look for diversity so that students can be exposed to different lifestyles, philosophies and backgrounds. As to diversity, I see many posters assume it pertains to race. However, that is NOT true at Amherst or most colleges. White students from underrepresented states may have a hook there. It is not Affirmative Action - it is an attempt to create an entering class that is reflective of our country: economically, socially, culturally, geographically, major-wise, as well as racially and ethnically to enrich everyone's experience.</p>
<p>HEY LOOK! One of those scores in the wait list category was mine! Guess what, I don't have the option of going to Dartmouth or Brown! You want to know what else, I was rejected from all the other schools I wanted to go to also! Guess the fact that I studied really hard for the SATs becuase someone told me they mattered to colleges doesn't mean anything. </p>
<p>...that was a little harsh, but please, in your philosophical discussions of whether affirmative action is good or not remember that there are kids like me: white and middle class, but who worked their buts off all through high school to get a high GPA and SAT and then didn't fit some demographic niche and therefore didn't get any sort of reward for all of their hard work.</p>
<p>Flippinout, it's unfortunate that you attribute your not getting to all of these institutions to affirmative action (which is what so many whites and asians feels) when in reality, the numbers of applicants who are just like you are so common that your hard work ends up being just like all the other applicants. I'm sure you know these are the most competitive years for students who are applying to elite institutions. With acceptance rates going from a low of 8 and 9 percent to 19%, do you assume that the 80-90% who were rejected were rejected because of affirmative action? I always find these arguments about poor middle-class white me unmoving. You're no different from the many other highly qualified applicants who could not be accommodated by Amherst and other institutions. There's a place for everyone. It may not be your first choice but I'm sure if you're as highly competitive as you say, you'll end up somewhere that is competitive.</p>
<p>It's worth remembering that Amherst and other top schools are in the business of creating the best educational experience they can, which necessitates crafting a diverse and interesting class. They are not in the business of validating the achievements of 18 year olds, and not getting an acceptance is absolutely not a rejection of your high school achievements or your worth as a human being.</p>
<p>Just keep up the hard work. The drive that produces the kind of stellar academic achievement that is necessary to even be in the running for admission to the Amhersts of the world is going to be far more important to your ultimate success than having a degree from a particular school.</p>