<p>
</p>
<p>Or that they were qualified enough, but they still didn’t make it.</p>
<p>^Yeah. Seriously. Just because somebody doesn’t get into Stanford (or the like) does not mean they weren’t “qualified enough.” URM’s get into colleges with what often times really are lesser stats (without arguing whether the reasons for that are valid), and non-URMs with higher stats have to hear that they weren’t qualified enough?! That’s a little irritating.</p>
<p>As I’ve said earlier, I do not believe the OP should be bitter. In my mind, her daughter was not entitled to a legacy spot (nobody is), and her daughter did not necessarily lose “her” spot to a less-qualified student of another race or culture. None of us knows why we were rejected – we can’t logically just PRESUME it’s because another person of a certain culture or race “got our spot” – even if two such examples live right down the road, as in the OP’s case. Nobody says the OP’s daughter HAD a spot to lose! Or that the other URMs were actually less qualified. There are plenty of reasons to reject a candidate – even a well-qualified candidate. There simply aren’t enough spots in a school like Stanford to accept all well-qualified candidates.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I have never said that Affirmative Action doesn’t exist. I was only addressing the OP’s point: “Am I right to be bitter?”</p>
<p>I do think I understand WHY Affirmative Action exists. And I certainly do believe it exists. I guess I can see some value in it – but, more significantly, I can see why COLLEGES value it.</p>
<p>It’s easy to see that it exists simply by reading through the acceptance threads on CC. Find a qualified URM with good-to-great stats, and take a look at his or her acceptance posts. There’s no question that they are more readily accepted by a lot of universities. Colleges want a lot of diversity. If they can find a qualified URM candidate with good-to-great stats, it’s in their best interest to offer that candidate admission. It’s a business decision for the colleges. Qualified URMs also seem to be more readily offered these colleges’ special scholarships. Do I think it’s because the URMs are better than the rest of us? No. But they do have an advantage, in that all colleges want a diverse class. The reality is: colleges GET TO pick. It’s their domain, and they get to pick.</p>
<p>I DO understand why they want some diversity. Does that make me think that my son, who’s #1 out of 800 with an UW 4.0, a 2390 SAT, lots of community service, and all-state status, amongst other qualifications, is less qualified than a URM who’s number 4 out of 300 with an UW 3.86 and a 2120 SAT, amongst other qualifications? Nope. I still think my son is just as qualified, if not more so. But do I understand WHY they’d rather have the URM with those stats than my white son with his? Yep. Because I KNOW that colleges are all about diversity. And if they think a URM can handle their coursework and represent their university well, that URM will probably have a leg up in the business decision the college is making. That URM will also be more likely to receive that college’s largest scholarships – as an incentive to join their ranks.</p>
<p>I DO think URMs get some special treatment. I don’t even let myself “go there” in regards to whether it’s right or wrong. It’s each college’s decision to make, not mine. I can see why they make the choices they make. But do I think those URMs are MORE qualified than all the other white kids who are rejected – as somebody else here suggested? Nope.</p>
<p>I will admit … I do feel just the slightest bit irritated when I read from ANY accepted applicant that he/she was so much more deserving or well-qualified than all the other applicants. It’s particularly a little … um … frustrating (?) when it’s a URM who doesn’t recognize that he/she does have a bit of an advantage in college admissions.</p>
<p>I don’t think my son DESERVES a spot at every college to which he applies. He was rejected by Stanford this year, and I don’t feel the slightest bit bitter. Or surprised. Neither does he. Likewise, I don’t think my son is more qualified or better than everybody who DIDN’T get in at the colleges that accepted him; I think he was well-qualified AND fortunate to be selected. AND, I don’t think he’s any less qualified than a URM who gets accepted with equal or lesser stats. I just think college decisions are so much more than somebody’s race or culture or stats.</p>
<p>Since these are the COLLEGES’ decisions, not ours, I find my peace in trusting them to do their own jobs and leaving them to their own choices.</p>
<p>@SimpleLife: There is affirmative action, but not nearly to the degree you seem to perpetuate it to. Race, amongst other factors at the top schools are grouped as “considered” in comparison to talent, personality, essays, ECs, scores, GPA, and recs which are all grouped as “very important”. Take a look at Stanford’s CDS 2010 on C7 to see these rankings. In taking a peak at CC forums of URM acceptances, a reason people often cite as “proof” of the degree of significant AA, they ignore the fact that many are also lower class/lower middle class. In fact, a majority of URMs with “less qualifications” are of these two socio-economic groups. Colleges have no clue about your income, but they do have an idea of the type of school you graduated from, upper-class or lower-class. Also, while scores may not be strong, simply being a president of numerous clubs is not necessarily viewed as, in and of itself, a stronger EC than one who starts a fundraising project for an inner city athletic team. One formed their EC from their own ambition whereas being a president of a club, a club may have already been provided for you. If you founded the club and were president, many would view the fundraiser as greater for it required a greater degree of organization as it was not within the school, but the community. Then there is the passion. AdComs may view one being the president of every club as simply racking up college points with no real passion whereas the fundraiser, who likely devoted more time to that single activity so his team could play a sport they loved just as much as holding a greater passion for their EC. In scanning through URM ECs, they are not as numerous as ORMs, but they are rather concentrated and many times more unique (going back to a fundraiser vs. president of the math club). It is HIGHLY subjective in weighing ECs and this may add to the other issue of the sheer randomness of the admissions process. For example, I am a URM with rather high scores in SAT and ACT, 3.98 GPA, and good degree of ECs. I was accepted into Stanford, but rejected from Harvard. I was also of the upper middle class. A white student that mirrored my app in almost every way had the complete opposite, accepted Harvard, rejected Stanford. This was a minor anecdote for the point of randomness, but I would also like to point out less qualified ORMs were accepted into places I was waitlisted/rejected, but the majority of them were also of lower economic standing. The differing socio-economics also offer a different experience to be written about in the essays and may add to the factor of ability in that through strife, they have prospered rather considerably. Yes, racial AA is still present, but of a much less degree than prior to the point a URM whom is accepted is likely already on the same level of competition with another accepted student from a similar socio-economic background. They did not get in because they are a URM, but were a truly competitive applicant that race may or may not have given one little whiff of air in their favor. (I am aware you did not argue against this, I was merely stating.)</p>
<p>testure,
I am understanding from the colleges that fewer qualified URM’s apply to the tippy tops than qualified non-URM’s. That means that the acceptance rate within URM pool would be higher (less selective) than that of non-URM applicants. To maintain diversity this happens, even if non-URM’s are not literally stacked against each other. As far as I know, the colleges do not report per se the acceptance rate of URM’s or the range of their stats, so this is all we can know. But they do say there is a lack of qualified URM applicants applying. And some have even described adding points to stats and rating of applications of certain populations.
As the number of qualified URM applicants grows, the acceptance rate for URM’s will keep going down/becoming more competitive and closer to the more selective rate of non-URM’s. Until the number of qualified URM applicants reach the magic level where the acceptance rate is similar to non-URM, it will “feel” as if less qualified URM’s are “taking spots from” more qualified non-URM’s.
I think URM’s do have to admit that they are in a less competitive situation. Not to say they do not “deserve” to be accepted in any way.</p>
<p>Testure:
P.S. Same thing happens to male applicants- many colleges say that if they admitted gender-blind, they would accept way more than 50% females. So they make adjustments by comping boys to boys, possibly in other ways. I am not sure if all the colleges experience this situation within their applicant pools to the same degree, or if this occurs across all ethnicities. But it is a well-known trend. I also do not know if it changing in either direction LOL!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I had that same idea… but realized, no it isn’t true. Yes, a large portion of the applicant pool is going to be qualified to attend. But there’s a reason that Stanford is so selective. The students it ultimately chooses, it chose for a reason. They are technically more qualified than those who weren’t chosen. I hate this idea that it was “luck” that got students in as opposed to the waitlist (which is used as a safeguard to fill beds if not enough students say “yes”). Or that there’s any randomness in admissions. There isn’t. Decisions are made painstakingly. It’s because of this that students who don’t get in–well, they just weren’t as qualified as those who did get in. Call it a function of competitiveness, and when the accepted students are so unbelievably competitive and qualified, it makes even those who were very competitive and qualified technically “not qualified enough.”</p>
<p>That’s my view on it. The truth hurts. Fortunately, those who don’t like the truth can chalk their rejection up to a number of supposedly unfair factors that stopped them from getting in. Whatever helps them sleep at night.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s particularly a little … um … frustrating when people like you assume that every URM put his/her race down on his/her applications.</p>
<p>^phantasmagoric, you can ask just about any college admissions officer from just about any selective college, and they will likely tell you that “luck” or “randomness” IS part of the equation. They will tell you that after separating out the clear “rejects” and clear “admits,” there’s a large pool of people who represent “the muddy middle.” And of that large pool, there is eventually a smaller pool that must be painstakingly sorted through to the point that very minor, insignificant factors that were perhaps perceived a certain way by a certain reader or two on one particular day will get a file tossed to the “accept” or “waitlist” or “reject” pile.</p>
<p>You are mistaken.</p>
<p>That’s why the same exact student might be accepted to Harvard and Yale but rejected by Stanford and Princeton. The same applicant – different results. There are kids on here who have been accepted to, let’s say, 6 highly selective schools. Do you think when the 7th school rejects them, they’ve just become “technically not qualified enough?” If by “technically not qualified enough” you mean “technically not accepted,” then you’d be right. But what kind of silly argument is that?</p>
<p>Have you read many books or articles on the subject? Nearly every one I’ve read admits that it does, in the end, come down to a degree of luck or randomness – like a crapshoot. Every one of them says that it is NOT an exact science. Adcoms are people. NOBODY’s qualified enough to pick through 35,000 subjective applications with a fine tooth comb and come up with THE exact, one and only class of 1000 applicants that will work. Six months later, they’d be unlikely to make EXACTLY the same picks. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^Aren’t you making assumptions about my assumptions here? I don’t recall mentioning anything about that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Every year at convocation, the dean of admissions at Stanford tells the class that no admissions decision at Stanford is random or lucky, and that they made no mistakes. He said it to my class and every other class, because he knows that so many people fall prey to that absurd rumor that pervades college admissions. It makes people feel better in general and more at ease during the process, but it’s frankly BS. There’s nothing random about several people painstakingly reading your application multiple times, voting as a committee, etc. </p>
<p>So no, you are mistaken. More importantly, you seem to think that “random” = “unpredictable.” They are not the same. Randomness implies no reason behind something, when there is plenty of reason behind the decisions at Stanford. “Unpredictable” here simply means it’s too difficult to predict what the decision will be, which is accurate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know what your point is–you said that it’s frustrating “when it’s a URM who doesn’t recognize that he/she does have a bit of an advantage in college admissions.” That assumes that the URM had an advantage in college admissions (it’s a presupposition in linguistic terms). But that assumes that the URM put his/her race down at all.</p>
<p>^No. I said it’s irritating when ANYBODY thinks that he/she was so much more deserving or well-qualified than all the other applicants; and when it’s a URM who boasts that “fact,” without the recognition that he/she does have a bit of an advantage in college admissions, it’s a little frustrating.</p>
<p>Let me get your argument straight: </p>
<p>The material I’ve read (written by adcoms) and the discussions I’ve had with adcoms, over no applicants in particular, don’t hold water because those adcoms were just telling me that (and publishing books about that) to make all of us people feel better in general.</p>
<p>But when the Stanford dean of admissions tells his own students year after year that no admissions decision is random or lucky, you all really ARE the best, he’s … umm … what? He’s not trying to make you and your parents feel good? Is it not somewhat self-congratulatory?</p>
<p>phantasmagoric, college kids at all the top colleges around the country are told they’re the best, and that they’re special, particularly at graduation. Common place.</p>
<p>Let’s see … our local high school graduates about 800 kids a year. It’s a rigorous, large public high school. It’s predominantly middle-to-upper-middle class socioeconomically. It’s roughly 85% white, 8% Hispanic, 3% Asian, and 3% African American.</p>
<p>In the past 8 years that we’ve been closely affiliated with the high school, we’ve known 4 kids, one-at-a-time over 8 years, who were accepted to Stanford. (There may have been a few more that were accepted but didn’t attend – but we’re pretty sure there weren’t more in my kids’ graduating classes; we likely would have known about them.)</p>
<p>Three of the accepted kids were Hispanic, and one was African American. These 4 kids were awesome. They were accomplished and well-qualified. I wouldn’t begrudge them a thing. We were happy for them. Were they noticeably better qualified, or more worthy of acceptance, or more involved, or more economically disadvantaged, or higher ranked than their peers? No. Was there ANYTHING about them that was noticeably “better” than several handfuls of their respective classmates? Not that we could tell. They were well-qualified. So were some of their peers and fellow applicants. All of them were in the top 5%. Each of the 4 accepted students lived in nicer homes and drove better cars than my family. There was no obvious economic disadvantage. There was one thing that set them apart – ethnicity.</p>
<p>Could it possibly be that out of 6400 graduating seniors in 8 years, the only 4 who were “qualified enough” to attend Stanford were Hispanic and African American? Out of the roughly 5440 white kids who graduated from our public high school over 8 years, NONE of them were “qualified enough” to attend? Out of the 255 African American graduating seniors over 8 years, 1 was “qualified enough?” And out of the 512 Hispanic graduates over 8 years, 3 were “qualified enough?” But not even one white kid out of 5440? It’s statistically ridiculous to believe that race has nothing to do with admissions.</p>
<p>I say all of that without any hard feelings. I really do think I understand the choice to accept more “diverse” people. And I’ve never known anybody to be accepted who wasn’t qualified. Stanford made great choices with all 4 of those kids. But they also left some great choices behind – because they had to. Not enough spots, as they say. People who are chosen are deserving. People who are not are not necessarily “unqualified” or “less-qualified.” People who are not chosen have no right to be bitter. People who are chosen have no right to be arrogant.</p>
<p>As performersmom put it:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s funny to me that, in your mind, all of us who do believe that URM’s have a statistical advantage are telling ourselves that because “the truth hurts,” we need “to sleep at night,” and we “can’t face the uncomfortable reality that we weren’t qualified enough,” while you hold tightly to your belief, in the face of evidence to the contrary, that URMs don’t have any admission advantages, and that you and only you were deserving of “your” spot. Perhaps it is you who needs to sleep at night? :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And if you really think that… well I have no reason to pick it apart, because you say it all. I’ll let that stand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait, saying to students that there is an element of randomness in admissions isn’t supposed to make people feel good? Really?</p>
<p>And yeah, you can consider it a bit self-congratulatory. I think it more important that it dispels in others’ minds the absurd rumor that college admissions are “random.” As a statistician, I know there is absolutely nothing random about a bunch of people reading applications and painstakingly picking out the ones they find are the best.</p>
<p>Unpredictable? I can see that. But random? No. Random is picking a name out of a hat; that is not what is happening here, not even close.</p>
<p>The next several paragraphs of yours are a long-winded bit of anecdotal evidence that does more to show where your disposition on this issue comes from rather than proves your point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nice try–not gonna work.</p>
<p>FWIW, I never said that URMs didn’t have any admissions advantages (look at the first page where I said this explicitly).</p>
<p>[The</a> Undergraduate Program: Stanford University Facts](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/undergraduate.html]The”>http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/undergraduate.html)</p>
<p>Profile of the Class of 2014 </p>
<p>Ethnic Diversity
African American 11.1%
Asian American 19.8%
International 8.4%
Mexican American 9.7%
Native American 2.3%
Native Hawaiian 1.6%
Other Hispanic 7.5%
White 32.0%
Declined to State / Other 7.6%</p>
<p>It’s simply na</p>
<p>Let’s be frank: an over-worked, underpaid admissions officer could be in a cranky mood when reviewing the umpteenth file for the day.</p>
<p>If we really wanted an objective analysis we would have to see both students’ full college apps and essays.</p>
<p>It could very easily come down to what D’s life goals were vs. her peer’s life goals as expressed in the essays.</p>
<p>All you have to do is compare Stanford’s percentages with the percentages of the top rated UC schools. The UC schools are forbidden to use race as a criteria in admissions by state law. Compared to the percentages of Asians at UCB, UCLA, and UCSD, Stanford’s are low.</p>
<p>^ that doesn’t make sense, because Stanford’s a much more national university than the others, and Stanford also has different admissions standards, ones which Asians may not naturally live up to (and no, not their race; rather, as was discussed before, socioeconomic factors muddle the comparison to UCs).</p>
<p>
[quote]
It’s simply na</p>
<p>
Yeah as phantasmagoric said this is a poor criticism of the process. Maybe Swarthmore only has one reader per file though (?)</p>
<p>I’m reading a lot of the posts, and I honestly have to ask this question. What is wrong with admitting students of color? What is wrong with wanting to admit students of color (who are indeed qualified)?</p>
<p>All things equal, imo legacy status should actually raise the bar for the applicant because s/he has a “better” default environment, starting point, etc. That legacy applicants are “more likely” to get admitted may simply be the result of their exceeding these expectations.</p>