<p>^Well stated...</p>
<p>^Totally agree!</p>
<p>Oh yeah, and if schools break applicants into "race pools" than it would also make sense that the black admissions rate is higher. Most schools have a very low (comparatively speaking) black applicant pool and thus have to admit more to meet their "diversity quota."</p>
<p>I'm curious as to how many blacks apply early vs. regular. Does anyone have any guesses?</p>
<p>For me, considering the reasons Harvard and Princeton gave for dropping their early round, I would guess that less apply early becasue they don't know about it. But I'm not sure I completely buy this reasoning...any others?</p>
<p>Yes but then you would have to assume that black applicants have a tendency to be on the lower socioeconomic end.</p>
<p>"this means that the vast majority of the blacks who get in to ivies do not have stats equivalent to the those of the average white/asian admittee.
Thus, being from a certain ethnicity doesn’t necessarily help or hinder your chances of getting in to HYPS."
What? Your conclusion is in contradiction with what you said a couple of lines up. In addition, between there was no conclusive data or information to support you concluding point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For example, if there is a student of color from a tough background who has somehow persevered and "made" it, has good, perceptive essays, stellar recommendations, a notable EC list, but perhaps common scores and a regular GPA, would this kid not add something to the academic environment? Does this kid perhaps not deserve to attend Yale over another student (for the sake of this discussion, let us say this student is white) who has had everything handed to them on a silver platter, who might have high GPA, scores, etc. (like almost every OTHER applicant at Yale), but nothing distinguishing?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is the student of color benefited? Why should the student of color attend an institution like Yale where, based on common academic metrics, he or she may not be adequately prepared? Why doesn't this student, who has excelled through adversity, simply go to a school that is better suited to his or her academic abilities at that time? Yale isn't an award given to the most deserving student... it's a school. A kid who gets 1950 on his/her SATs, unless (s)he has a serious test-taking issue, is not going to help him or herself by going to Yale. He/she can still go to a top 25 university, get a great education, and possibly advance to a Yale Law or something. Admitting unqualified students only helps the affluent surround themselves with different folks and helps the school pat itself on the back for instituting diversity. The underqualified minorities are being victimized.</p>
<p>Just something to think about. I think AA is a lot more complex than people make it out to be. Acceptance into school isn't an award. It's a ticket to a four-year experience.</p>
<p>^ Absolutely, the school is definitely looking to be able to pull the diversity card. I don't doubt that. But the point is, they want the diversity and we can't change that. And if there aren't enough students who are "uber-qualified" to make the diversity, then they will choose students who are simply qualified to do so.</p>
<p>I don't think an SAT score is a good predictor of academic success in college. I think that someone who did well in high school, maybe not the BEST student, but a good student, can do well at Yale, if Yale admits him. I don't think a school would admit a student who they doubt will succeed in their school, regardless of race. My point was that this hypothetical student is an okay student, B/B+ average or so, but motivated, intelligent, perceptive, etc.</p>
<p>My point boils down to the fact that the choice, after all, comes down to the institution. They make the final decision and at that point, at an institution like Yale, "qualification" is irrelevant because the majority of students are qualified. It will come down to who the institution thinks will add to the student body, and someone who, at least on paper, looks like half of the other applicants doesn't add much to it.</p>
<p>I'm not saying it is necessarily fair. But, the discussion usually turns against students of color and I think it's a bad way to frame the conversation.</p>
<p>@drbigboyjoe9505</p>
<p>Actually there was a study recently that showed a correlation between SAT scores and college graduation rates at the CUNY system. I actually argue the opposite of what you're laying down. I don't think that grades demonstrate college success. </p>
<p>I know that at my school there is no standard grading system for any subject at any level for any grade. Also, most grading at my school seems to be subjective and is definitely based a lot on effort. So if I have teacher 1 I could get a B but have worked harder and could have performed better than another student with teacher 2 who gave him/her an A. That's not even hypothetical, that's really happened!</p>
<p>^ Okay, but I do not think that having "bad" SAT scores necessarily equates to bad performance in college. I'm not sure if this is an adequate comparison, but when I took my ISEEs (which is a standardized test in order to enter independent schools), I didn't do too well on it but have performed very well in private school. So, yeah, there might be a correlation between SAT and college performance, but I don't think it should be used as a sole indicator. I think academic performance in high school (i.e. GPA) is a better indicator.</p>
<p>I completely agree that SAT should not be used as the sole indicator, however, I'm not convinced that GPA is a good indicator.</p>
<p>When compared against the two, GPA, in my opinion, does a better job than one Saturday morning exam.</p>
<p>Mr. Fitzpatrick, I see what you mean. I guess you can argue nothing is a good indicator, but I agree with AmbitiousMind07 that it is generally a better indicator than one SAT test.</p>
<p>I just meant the SAT to be a convenient symbol of one's academic prowess. 1950 doesn't blow any doors down, and the implication is that the student is far from spectacular in other academic facets as well. The SAT discussion isn't really an affirmative action one.</p>
<p>I have several friends who received academic likies from ivies and ivy-equivalents last year, all in the RD round. They were typically science superstars with well-developed talents in other fields.</p>
<p>Acceptance/enrollment percentages don't say anything about the <em>quality</em> of the applicant pool. A proportionate amount of black students accepted/enrolled doesn't say anything about whether or not they are systematically advantaged or disadvantaged, because there is no information about whether these applicants are stronger or weaker than the general pool. </p>
<p>In short, nothing can be concluded from this info other than that black students are represented similarly in the applicant pool and the student body.</p>
<p>As for the race factor, I've said it before, *you never know what you're up against.*Basically, I'm tryoing not to think about it. I'm stressing over the whole college thing, and when I think about AA and race, I just ask myself "How can Yale even try to reject all thoses superb minorities?"</p>
<p>The numbers only say so much; I think Yale is trying its best to find that mix but have enough. A happy little medium of students from around the country, with different backgrounds, differnet stories, different looks. The percentages are nice to relie on if you want to know how African Americans are chosen, or how Hispanics are screen, or how other minorities are looked at, but they are just numbers. All the complexities that go into admitting students is private, so we can never really know. We can only hypothisize, and guess, and infer based on our limited perspective and knowledge.</p>
<p>Like kwijiborjt said, nothing can be concluded... though it would be nice to know it all, wouldn't it.</p>
<p>Look at the Harvard info in that JBHE chart: they admitted 217 black applicants out of 2175 applicants, and 139 enrolled. For Harvard, that's a low yield. Yale's is probably the same, or lower. This suggests (but doesn't prove) that the top schools are cross-admitting a small group of high-stats black applicants.</p>
<p>^^Well I do not think that the SAT is a good indicator of quality. I mean I got a 2070 which is not bad, but not up to snuff for Yale. Then I took the ACT and got a 34 which is in the top 25% for Yale. The problem that I see with affirmative action, is that let's say i got accepted to Yale, many people would say "oh it must have been affirmative action" but that is obviously not the case.
I suppose that Yale like other schools practices AA, but hopefully one day it will end. I firmly believe that there are many, many highly qualified black applicants, so I do not think that we actually need it.</p>
<p>What bothers me is when schools talk about "Under represented minorities".</p>
<p>Is the objective of the admissions process to create a mirror of the percentages of race distribution or to admit the most qualified student?</p>
<p>Is it like a school is obligated to determine the ethnic composition of its student body for the sake of having one near the national norm?</p>
<p>Does that mean there are "over represented minorities"?</p>
<p>Affirmative action is crap.</p>