Minorty status: does is really boost your acceptance chances?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
21

<p>I hope everyone was smart enough to look at the date of this publication. Published in 2005, this paper has only limited applicability to the HS class of 2009 and their college acceptances. Yes, while Affirmative Action remains one of the many admissions criteria, its validity and legitimacy as a factor has decreased exponentially throughout the years. </p>

<p>Also, it must be noted that Upper Class/Upper Middle Class minorities receive next to no benefit. Columbia's application requires you to list your parents educational achievements (in addition to a bevy of other things which can enlighten the Adcom as to your class status), meaning that a Hispanic or Black applicant who has parents with PhDs or multiple graduate degrees will receive no favor over an impoverished applicant, regardless of race.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
there'll be more than enough minority applicants with significantly better stats than yours to fill up the quota.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>well, first of all there's no quota because that's illegal...(perhaps an unofficial mental quota?)</p>

<p>also, first-generation college student is a good boost as well, showing that the rest of your family is not necessarily composed of academics and you are the first to take the initiative to go onto higher education (or have thought about the decision unlike other kids who automatically go to college after high school due to their environment)</p>

23

<p>wow 1st gen college grad scores points? I thought if you put on the app that your parents went to harvard (just example) that meant they bred decent offspring.... so instead I shouldve put that my parents dropped out in 6th grade- this wouldve scored higher in the adcoms eyes?</p>

24

<p>Hi, @ .Masochist. Be careful in the way you word the 150 points. If you pay closer attention to the study and others similar - Hispanic candidates nationwide regardless of socioeconomic status tend to score 150 points lower than the national average. So it is not to say being Hispanic gives you 150 points, but rather that the manner in which you interpret testing has to be sensitive to each community. A high achieving minority student may underperform "objectively" on the SAT and yet still have more promise than someone who performs better on the test. This is why it is a good thing they have more information than just SAT scores. </p>

<p>Lastly, you are wrong on the First Generation Student and the Socioeconomic status. No, they are not 'hooks,' but someone's family and personal background affects what kind of resources they have available and also impacts how AdComs will read the application and what expectations they may have. The more educated, the better off, the higher the burden of proof that you have truly maximized the resources available you. It makes sense. They are going to take all the information you give them, judge if you are someone who is pushing themselves academically in that setting and determine if you have the academic promise to succeed in their institution.</p>

25

<p>
[quote]
Also, it must be noted that Upper Class/Upper Middle Class minorities receive next to no benefit. Columbia's application requires you to list your parents educational achievements (in addition to a bevy of other things which can enlighten the Adcom as to your class status), meaning that a Hispanic or Black applicant who has parents with PhDs or multiple graduate degrees will receive no favor over an impoverished applicant, regardless of race.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not saying your wrong, but can you please provide solid evidence of this?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Hi, @ .Masochist. Be careful in the way you word the 150 points. If you pay closer attention to the study and others similar - Hispanic candidates nationwide regardless of socioeconomic status tend to score 150 points lower than the national average. So it is not to say being Hispanic gives you 150 points, but rather that the manner in which you interpret testing has to be sensitive to each community. A high achieving minority student may underperform "objectively" on the SAT and yet still have more promise than someone who performs better on the test. This is why it is a good thing they have more information than just SAT scores.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't agree with this, although I have not seen much studies, and information on your part may be insightful. If I interpret your argument correctly, then technically you are saying if there was a non URM and a Hispanic with exactly the same stats/ecs/etc. except the Hispanic student has a 150 lower they would be equal not only in terms of admission chances (which is what the study shows), but in their true qualities as a high school student would be equal. I understand a lower SAT score doesn't = worse student because admissions are holistic, but IF the condition that 150 points on the SAT actually tells in some way about the quality of a student is true, then a non URM scoring 150 points over a Hispanic with the exact same other stats would mean the quality of the non URM is higher, regardless of their chances in admissions. </p>

<p>I do not believe there should be different standards of SAT for students based on ethnicity alone. I believe if you score higher on the SAT than someone else then you are better at the SAT than the other person, and thus if you believe the SAT is a sign of student quality then the student with the higher score is a better student. If you do not believe the validity of the SAT then that is a whole different story and different debate. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Lastly, you are wrong on the First Generation Student and the Socioeconomic status. No, they are not 'hooks,' but someone's family and personal background affects what kind of resources they have available and also impacts how AdComs will read the application and what expectations they may have. The more educated, the better off, the higher the burden of proof that you have truly maximized the resources available you. It makes sense. They are going to take all the information you give them, judge if you are someone who is pushing themselves academically in that setting and determine if you have the academic promise to succeed in their institution.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, I agree. I understand admissions are holistic, and no doubt they do take these factors into consideration. My problem with this is it is unclear how much the affects someone, and unlike affirmative action which is clearly stated, these factors can be vague at times on how much effect they have. Once again, if you have differing evidence on this, I would be very interested to see it.</p>

<p>I have no evidence on this, but for whatever its worth in the top schools there is a disproportionate amount of rich kids, and clearly prep schools that usually harbor rich students tend to have a larger amount of people going to these top schools than poor inner city schools. It really brings to question just how much socioeconomic status affects the adcoms standards on this "higher burden of proof" rich kids need.</p>

26

<p>Yay. Go affirmative action. One of the fairest policies ever created.</p>

27

<p>Hey Masochist - </p>

<p>One thing to consider, the SAT originally was validated as a predictor of 1st year GPA. As the Collegeboard's latest study even asserts the SAT alone is a weak predictor of 1st year performance. It argues that high school GPA is the best individual predictor, and high school GPA taken with SAT scores (with preference toward SAT subject tests) is even more sensitive { <a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/197359.html"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/197359.html&lt;/a&gt;}. Secondly, variable sensitivity across different ethnic, gender or educational backgrounds is an often used concept in any human behavior statistics - just because two people score the same does not mean both people got to that score the same way. Being able to read SAT scores within the context of their performance is necessary in order to understand the validity of their assessment. Someone from an inner city school who achieves low 700s might be vastly overperforming their school, where as the same person from a wealthy suburban public is underperforming their context. Each score says more about their potential than it says about their actual intellectual achievement.</p>

<p>As for why there is a stacking of top schools - well an education like Columbia is rigorous, no doubt here. The pool of underprivileged inner city kids is not as vast as the pool of affluent well-resourced students. When you have that dynamic working out the numbers themselves suggest that the proportions will not be equal. A university that is interested in diversity and opening up access will have to be adept at reading different students and not establishing a single overarching standard.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
One thing to consider, the SAT originally was validated as a predictor of 1st year GPA. As the Collegeboard's latest study even asserts the SAT alone is a weak predictor of 1st year performance.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uhh...according to your link it doesn't. </p>

<p>"The SAT continues to be an excellent predictor of how students will perform in their first year of college"</p>

<p>They do say SAT + GPA is the best, but nowhere does it suggest that alone it is weak, according to your article. </p>

<p>
[quote]
It argues that high school GPA is the best individual predictor, and high school GPA taken with SAT scores (with preference toward SAT subject tests) is even more sensitive { <a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/197359.html"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/197359.html&lt;/a&gt;}.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Even this is not 100% correct. According to your link:</p>

<p>"The SAT is a better predictor than high school grades for all minority groups (African American, Hispanic, American Indian and Asian)"</p>

<p>The minority groups count for a pretty large proportion of students at many schools, especially when they added Asian in with the bunch of URMs. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Secondly, variable sensitivity across different ethnic, gender or educational backgrounds is an often used concept in any human behavior statistics - just because two people score the same does not mean both people got to that score the same way. Being able to read SAT scores within the context of their performance is necessary in order to understand the validity of their assessment. Someone from an inner city school who achieves low 700s might be vastly overperforming their school, where as the same person from a wealthy suburban public is underperforming their context. Each score says more about their potential than it says about their actual intellectual achievement.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ok. I didn't say socioeconomic factors had no effect, I know they do. I just questioned how much effect it had. </p>

<p>
[quote]
As for why there is a stacking of top schools - well an education like Columbia is rigorous, no doubt here. The pool of underprivileged inner city kids is not as vast as the pool of affluent well-resourced students. When you have that dynamic working out the numbers themselves suggest that the proportions will not be equal. A university that is interested in diversity and opening up access will have to be adept at reading different students and not establishing a single overarching standard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Can you provide evidence on this somehow? Specifically about the distribution of socioeconomic status of applicants? I would be quite interested to see. </p>

<p>Regarding your PM:</p>

<p>If you are going to debate with me, please don't PM me calling my arguments bs, and instead offer your own insight. I'm not going to quote your whole PM out of respect for your privacy, but a quick snippet:</p>

<p>
[quote]
But I will offer as a word of caution that Columbia will humble you here because you will find it difficult to disagree or agree without evidence especially in a Core class. People will call you on your ********.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thank you, your point is well taken. As for my evidence regarding this post, I will stand by the Princeton study's link.</p>

<p>Please make note that in your whole argument you provided only one link of evidence (as did I), and that article basically ended up contradicting some of your own points. If you wish to refute what I say then like you said, provide evidence. If not, at least acknowledge that I as much as you have a right to post my views. </p>

<p>You provided further argument in your PM regarding this topic, and I find it rather inconvenient to debate it without quoting, so if you would like to provide more insight to this thread then post what you wrote here. </p>

<p>On a last note I will say that I can often be wrong about my assertions, as all humans have that capacity for, and if you can convince me otherwise of my views, I would much appreciate what you can offer.</p>

29

<p>I had a long post that got kicked off, oh well. Short version. Read the NACAC study on standardized testing. Yes, there are people out there in admissions that question the validity of the SAT particularly the testing culture it has developed without teaching students anything of significance. And the guy who headed the study is the Dean at Harvard. Secondly, I went through both reports and the only thing I found was - "Results indicate that the SAT is more predictive of FYGPA for females compared to males and for whites compared to other racial/ethnic groups." And yet it continues to show however minutely that something such as HSGPA, which measures relative aptitude based on a school context, is as good if not better a predictor of FYGPA as the SAT, a supposedly objective test. I think as NACAC continues to urge that something that is coachable and not knowledge-based like the SAT/ACT does not truly measure potential as it purports. I would say the SAT study exposes it by itself, but that's me inserting my words into their self-praise. I think when you originally said if I questioned the validity of the SAT then that would be another conversation. I do, and others do too. And so the fact that you were near 800s for most of your section, I congratulate you, but in reality that just means you are good at taking these tests. It does not tell me anything about your actual intelligence, your academic potential nor your ability to solve a problem. Things that are far more interesting than your performance on a test.</p>

<p>As for socioeconomic data, the most compelling one that is readily published is the survey of Pell Grant eligible students in first-year classes. Pell grants in general go to the neediest families out there, the top two schools perennially are UCLA and UC-Berkeley. In terms of private schools, Columbia and Cornell do the best. US News republishes this study every year. {<a href="http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/national-economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools"&gt;http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/national-economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools&lt;/a&gt;}. Sometimes individual schools release the percentage of First-Generation college students, community colleges and other schools tend to have the highest percentage. Ivies are probably in the low 10s. You will also see especially highly selective schools tout the number of families on financial aid as a way to show their socioeconomic diversity. The point though that because a lot of this has to do with family finances, colleges are probably not going to share specific details, but that does not mean it does not play a part in the actual admissions process.</p>

<p>I am cool debating. I don't mind you having a problem with my argument, I am a bit rusty so it is good to have a keen eye to keep me on target. But I think you're nit-picking and not asking the real questions. If your goal is to say convince me or I am right well that's pretty damn naive. I would bluntly say that I know you don't know what you're talking about. I'd divulge more here or through a PM, but it is also clear you aren't one to keep things in a private message. So I am left with the thought that you are covinced you are right when you haven't researched beyond the Princeton study (which if you actually read it doesn't say anything you have used it to say - in summary it just says that there must be Affirmative Action because people are admitted at variable rates). Yeah I only posted one study, but it isn't the only one I am thinking of when I am asserting my beliefs.</p>

30

<p>BOTTOM LINE: Other VERY qualified hispanics will be applying to Ivy's every year. Don't rely on the "I'm hispanic, I can get in everywhere" idea. Look at TheWerg, BrandyBeer and myself as examples of competitive hispanic applicants.</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
I had a long post that got kicked off, oh well. Short version. Read the NACAC study on standardized testing. Yes, there are people out there in admissions that question the validity of the SAT particularly the testing culture it has developed without teaching students anything of significance. And the guy who headed the study is the Dean at Harvard. Secondly, I went through both reports and the only thing I found was - "Results indicate that the SAT is more predictive of FYGPA for females compared to males and for whites compared to other racial/ethnic groups." And yet it continues to show however minutely that something such as HSGPA, which measures relative aptitude based on a school context, is as good if not better a predictor of FYGPA as the SAT, a supposedly objective test. I think as NACAC continues to urge that something that is coachable and not knowledge-based like the SAT/ACT does not truly measure potential as it purports. I would say the SAT study exposes it by itself, but that's me inserting my words into their self-praise.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alright, I get your point. Here's my general gist to you: the OP asked whether hispanics or URMs or w/e got benefit. I told him they did, and I wanted to be more detailed and try to use a objective scale to measure how much benefit they got. The SAT isn't a perfect measurement of aptitude, I agree. If you believe the SAT is just an invalid argument, cool, that's your opinion, because there are studies that show it both ways, and its a controversial topic at the moment, not fact either way.</p>

<p>I don't believe your study proves anything except it supports your claims of whether SAT is a good measurement or not. But that's not what were talking about. </p>

<p>SAT does not prove student quality does not mean SATs have no effect on admissions. We don't know for sure how much SATs measure student quality, but whether it does a good job or does a bad job, it clearly has an effect on admissions. </p>

<p>You're arguing when an admissions officer looks at a student with different SATs and they are different in ethnicity, they have different standards because they believe SATs do not mean the same for different races thus a Hispanic with lower SATs should be equal to a white with higher SATs, thus when it comes decision time, it seems like URMs get an advantage. I'm arguing when an admissions officer looks at a student with different SATs and they are different in ethnicity, they have different standards because of lower standards for admissions. That's our inherent disagreement. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I think when you originally said if I questioned the validity of the SAT then that would be another conversation. I do, and others do too. And so the fact that you were near 800s for most of your section, I congratulate you, but in reality that just means you are good at taking these tests. It does not tell me anything about your actual intelligence, your academic potential nor your ability to solve a problem. Things that are far more interesting than your performance on a test.

[/quote]
</p>

<ol>
<li>When did this become about me? </li>
<li>I haven't given you my opinion about whether the SAT is a valid indicator of quality or not. I'm just saying it affects admissions, which it obviously does. </li>
</ol>

<p>
[quote]
As for socioeconomic data, the most compelling one that is readily published is the survey of Pell Grant eligible students in first-year classes. Pell grants in general go to the neediest families out there, the top two schools perennially are UCLA and UC-Berkeley. In terms of private schools, Columbia and Cornell do the best. US News republishes this study every year. {<a href="http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/national-economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools%7D.%5B/quote%5D"&gt;http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/national-economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools}.

[/quote]
</a></p>

<p>Alright, the schools on that list do the best job of promoting socioeconomic diversity, but does this mean it affects admissions a significant amount (as I said I believe it has little effect)? I think a lot of other factors contribute to this as well, such as the top private schools give the best financial aid so the poor high achieving students would apply to top schools versus worse endowed privates that give less aid. </p>

<p>I do however want to say you made a good point, and perhaps socioeconomic factors affect admission rates more than I believed at schools like Cornell and Columbia. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Sometimes individual schools release the percentage of First-Generation college students, community colleges and other schools tend to have the highest percentage. Ivies are probably in the low 10s.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not really sure what your trying to say here. I don't see how this proves first gen students have a significant advantage. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You will also see especially highly selective schools tout the number of families on financial aid as a way to show their socioeconomic diversity. The point though that because a lot of this has to do with family finances, colleges are probably not going to share specific details, but that does not mean it does not play a part in the actual admissions process.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't say it doesn't play a part. I know it plays a part. I think this is the 3rd time I've said this. Also I believe the finaid % at top well-endowed schools is misleading in relations to the students who actually have a socioeconomic disadvantage because of the wide range it covers. For example, I get financial aid, but it's not a lot, and I don't think I was ever extremely disadvantaged because of my socioeconomic status. In fact I am sure I am over the average income bracket for most Americans. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I am cool debating. I don't mind you having a problem with my argument, I am a bit rusty so it is good to have a keen eye to keep me on target. But I think you're nit-picking and not asking the real questions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you are referring to my comments on your previous post regarding the collegeboard link, I don't believe I was nit-picking at all. I just don't see how that article supports any of the points you made on that post. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If your goal is to say convince me or I am right well that's pretty damn naive. I would bluntly say that I know you don't know what you're talking about. I'd divulge more here or through a PM, but it is also clear you aren't one to keep things in a private message.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think I've ever said I was convinced I was right. In fact I think I mentioned how I could be wrong. It's not "convince me or I am right" as much as it is "convince me or I'm not sure I can believe your view". </p>

<p>And actually I do a lot of PMs, especially regarding questions that relate to your favorite SAT test :P. I just thought it would be more insightful to other readers if we expressed our opinions here, when there is a thread. </p>

<p>
[quote]
So I am left with the thought that you are covinced you are right when you haven't researched beyond the Princeton study (which if you actually read it doesn't say anything you have used it to say - in summary it just says that there must be Affirmative Action because people are admitted at variable rates). Yeah I only posted one study, but it isn't the only one I am thinking of when I am asserting my beliefs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here is what I wrote regarding the Princeton study:</p>

<p>"According to a study by Princeton a while back being Hispanic gives you an extra boost of about 150-200 (I forget the exact amount) on a 1600 scale, so probably around a 250-300 boost on the 2400 scale." </p>

<p>Here is what the Princeton Study says word for word, whether you agree with it or not is your opinion: </p>

<p>"they found that
elite universities give extra weight in admissions to candidates whose SAT
scores are above 1500, who are African American, and who are student
athletes. A smaller, but nevertheless important, preference is extended to
Hispanic and legacy applicants. African-American applicants **receive the
equivalent of 230 extra SAT points<a href="on%20a%201600-point%20scale">/b</a>, and being
Hispanic is worth an additional 185 SAT points...."</p>

<p>More: </p>

<p>"Who are the beneficiaries and, by extension,
who loses a seat at academically selective universities because some
students are favored over others in the admission process?"</p>

<p>There's more but I think my wording wasn't too far off from what the study says...</p>

<p>I'm not "convinced I'm right" as much as I am "more convinced I'm closer to the truth than you are".</p>

32

<p>my brother is hispanic and got rejected.</p>

<p>He had a 1460 (this was before writing) and a 4.0...</p>

33

<p>im a 1st generation hispanic w. a gpa of 99.3 (out of 100) , i ahvn taken the SAT yets (im a junior) but w/ a gpa lik that would u hav e anice chance of getting accepted to columbia?</p>

34

<p>Based on your writing skills…</p>

35

<p>^^It’s hard to judge based on GPA alone. For one, we don’t know the curriculum and rigor at your school. So a 99.3/100 means very little.</p>

36

<p>Underrepresented Hispanic students from low-income families, with strong academic records and respectable SAT scores, can expect either an acceptance or a waitlist from Columbia.</p>

<p>The problem is that New York City has such a significant and competitive Hispanic population that being a run-of-the-mill, unspectacular candidate of color simply won’t do.</p>

37

<p>I have also heard that geography has a lot to do with the decision as well. I come from Alabama where very, I mean very few people apply to Ivy League schools. I think last year there were only like 5 or 6 with 27 or above ACT scores. Which in Alabama is the 94% or that was what was reported on my ACT score report. I am a first generation student in a divorced family with a mother making less than $25,000. I would be the first person in my city to ever attend an Ivy League school plus my mother has a little Cherokee on her side. I was wondering if they would add SAT points ect. on my application?</p>

38

<p>A Minority has less chance of getting in than a wealthy underachieving legacy kid.</p>

39

<p>I believe the legacy percentage rate for most universities is 40%? That should really be looked into. So will they accept very low ACT/SAT scores for Legacy kids?</p>

40

<p>OP, I am not going to say anything about AA and address you directly. can you get into Columbia…? Yes, you can. However, AA is not anything you should consider when you say you want to go to Columbia. Instead, you must focus raising your objective stats as high as you possibly can and taking the hardest classes. Case in point, I am a URM-- African American. However, since Affirmative Action could never be quantified, I always pretended it didn’t exist and worked as harder or even harder than most white applicants to bring up my gpa and sat score. I knew my gpa/class rank wasn’t as hot as I’d like it to be (not in the top 5%) so I took really hard classes, aced AP exams and took the SAT 3 times for a composite score of 2250. I also made sure both my SAT 2’s were above 700. After I did that, I wasn’t even sure I should apply to ivies and only applied to ivies because of the urging of my parents and my Guidance Counselor. And a couple of days ago, I was luckily enough to get a likely from Columbia.
The lesson I learned

  1. AA is not important. Work as if AA doesn’t exist. If I had relied on AA, I might have left my SAT math score at 590 and thought hey I’m black-- I’ll get in.</p>

<p>** Now get out of here and hit the books!**</p>