My Story (Rant). Am I wrong to be bitter?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Stanford University
161

<p>^^Kisho3, I haven’t kept up with all the threads here … but I didn’t really perceive that the argument was whether or not a school should admit students of color.</p>

<p>The main point I was focused for most of the thread was this: should the OP be bitter? She claimed that Stanford admitted, over her daughter, “less-qualified” students (who, she pointed out, were URMs) and that Stanford supposedly isn’t upfront about their legacy policy. Those were the points she made originally.</p>

<p>Then, a lot of people began focusing on the whole Affirmative Action thing, discussing whether or not Affirmative Action exists, and whether or not it’s a good thing.</p>

<p>phantasmagoric’s claims that applicants who weren’t accepted simply weren’t qualified to attend AND that there’s no luck or randomness involved in college admissions came across to me as so na</p>

162

<p>^ how is it arrogant to hold the belief that there is no randomness in admissions, especially when admissions officers also say that? (I’m not trying to make myself feel better–I received likely letters from three of HYPSM. Please stop with the personal accusations.) IMO it’s naive to think that there is; it’s a rumor perpetuated by those who don’t understand admissions and who would prefer to throw their hands up in the air and shrug when the process is too opaque for them to draw definite conclusions. But that doesn’t mean that admissions officers can’t draw definite conclusions–in fact, it’s the only way they’re able to admit a class. When they have X number of applicants that are extremely qualified, but only Y spots, they painstakingly narrow it down by finding tangible differences among the applicants. They don’t do it randomly; nor does one person make the decision (several people read the application, and they vote). I repeat:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Where do you find randomness?</p>

163

<p>@performersmom: I think you may be confused on my point. I do not claim that they do not use race in admitting students, but that race adds few points to an applicant. If truly unqualified, race would not be enough of a push to place them over as stated in their CDSs for race is only considered next to the much greater factors of writing, academics, and ECs. They must be qualified in and of themselves to be able to have race be a pushing factor. However, I am confused on the statement that if fewer qualified URMs apply than non-URMs, they would have a higher acceptance rate. If there are fewer, they would still have rather equal percentages as, assuming race is not taken into account, they would have fewer acceptances than non-URMs as less applied, providing each side with a roughly equal acceptance rate. However, if you mean this statement is so in regards to affirmative action, then that would be true and I claim that it would be true as race is taken into consideration. However, diversity more so is done with consideration of socio-economic ability more than race itself. Race, in my opinion, is used to have a roughly equal enrollment as the national average to provide a greater sense of equality and less controversy (unlike Berkeley) with diversity as a means more than a goal. You claim that they do state not as many qualified URMs apply as non-URMs, however, from statements I’ve read, they’ve used this in regards to the application process in general to colleges and sometimes as a statement of pride that those they accepted give them hope that there is a greater rate of qualified applicants whom are URMs in their application pools. If you will, they receive a good proportion of qualified URMs. However, if you feel as though spots are stolen from you, so be it. I cannot argue feelings, however, you must also accept that these applicants are not “unqualified” for race is not quite a powerful enough factor to turn “unqualified” into “accepted”. I do, however, that while more “lower qualified” URMs are accepted, the vast majority offer a competitive application in and of themselves in their ECs or demonstarted ability. There, again, is also the point that less qualified URMs are admitted because more less qualified URMs come from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Race is a factor, but what often seems to be an either disregarded factor or overgeneralized factor is that URMs are in the exact same economic boat in general as non-URMs, which is simply not true. Just as URMs are not in the same academic boat as non-URMs, neither are they in the same level of living/education. Schools are need-blind in regards to income, but they know the level of the school they attended and take that into consideration. Not the economic ability of the individual, but of the school. I will admit they are in a less uncompetitive situation in regards to race being added as a factor (though minor), but also on a more uncompetitive situation in their achievements at lower quality facilities. The application process is not as competitive (once they hold qualified factors) for URMs, but the achievement process is not as competitive for non-URMs (in regards to the percentage of lower class URMs applying to colleges than lower class non URMs). </p>

<p>In regards for the boys/girls thing, do you have an article about it? It sounds interesting. I do admit my opinions have mainly been in concern with the top universities whom would likely have a greater portion of qualified and competitive applicants in regards to gender and race than schools like state schools (excluding those like Berkeley who are top ranking schools).</p>

164

<p>Written by Stanford’s Dean of Admission, Richard H. Shaw, for the Los Angeles Times in 2007:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s an art. Adcoms are human. They disagree at times as to who should be selected, but a consensus must be reached. </p>

<p>Bottom line: students who are rejected from ANY selective university (yes, even Stanford, phantasmagoric) are not necessarily “deficient” in any way. Some rejected students don’t meet the standards. Some do.</p>

165

<p>She definitely seems qualified. It’s their loss!</p>

166

<p>/\ everyone is qualified… I think the article that Simple Life quoted sums this up perfectly. I’ve used the metaphor of a puzzle before. Each year, they make a 2,200 piece puzzle. Sure there are tons of pieces that <em>could</em> fit, or are the same, but Stanford wants a particular piece to fit into its particular spot. At the end, the puzzle is made up of 2,200 unique pieces that fit together perfectly. A couple wrong pieces, however perfect they may seem, would only make the puzzle incomplete. IT’s their puzzle to make, not yours or mine.</p>

167

<p>When the dean says this:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>he isn’t lying. He has said before that 90% of the applicants could thrive at Stanford. That is very different from saying that they are all qualified to attend Stanford. When you have so many applicants, you have to be more selective, and that means rejecting students who would be able to handle Stanford but who just aren’t qualified.</p>

<p>I never meant to suggest that those who are rejected are “deficient.” Saying they are not qualified is not the same as saying they are “deficient.” Rather, the absurd selectivity means that even those who are extremely qualified (on an absolute scale) were not quite up to the standards (on a comparative scale), since there are so many applicants.</p>

168

<p>Just wondering, may I use all of your (and this is for everyone) extra long posts in this thread to compile a book? :smiley:
JKJK</p>

<p>OP: yes, life is unfair but just think of it this way: the possibly less academically qualified kids may not do so well when competing against those top notch kids. So in essence, although your child may not have gotten into Stanford, I know that she will do/is doing well in a top college. When she comes out of the college she is now, I’m sure she one of best in her class while the other student might be not be doing so well by the time he/she graduates. (Really negative post but it’s a very possible scenario)</p>

169

<p>

</p>

<p>Tripletime, very interesting, thanks for sharing…</p>

170

<p>testure,
Let’s keep it simple:
As a URM you are more likely to get accepted,
because fewer in the slice of population you are part of applied, and the adcomm does not accept URMs based on the proportion who apply. {they are UNDER represented, reason for the term, so they OVERaccept}</p>

<p>You are factually incorrect: socio-economic status is not an “official” slicing or representation criteria considered; it may “nuance” the applicant in a reader’s eyes, and judgements are made indirectly from the application (address. content of essays, and so forth).</p>

<p>As for gender, it is well known that more females now attend college, and even more apply and are on average more qualified applicants.</p>

171

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s not true. Stanford admissions says:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[FAQ</a> : Stanford University](<a href=“Page Not Found : Stanford University”>Page Not Found : Stanford University)</p>

<p>Stanford also keeps very close tabs on low-income and first-generation college students, including applicants (likely why it enrolls the highest proportion of each among top private schools).</p>

172

<p>Yes, but they do not classify an applicant according to their socio-economic status. It is a “consideration.”
We are not disagreeing, except about the strictness of the technique.
URM is a classification.</p>

<p>The next question, after agreeing that AdComms classify certain ethnic groups as URM, what is “under-representation?”, ie, under vs WHAT? under the desired representation in the class? # of “qualified” candidates in the pool under-represented?
I think this should be clarified.</p>

<p>And, do colleges publish the average stats for admitted URM’s? Are these in line with overall class averages?
(Obviously, the subjective parts of each application are very important, as well, and cannot be presented so simply.)</p>

<p>And, a nod to OP, do colleges publish average stats for other groups, such as legacies, recruited athletes, Asians?</p>

<p>I wish they did, because these AA discussions would not be so inconclusive. This leaves many with a bad taste. I am sure we all have misconceptions, and that there is also some obfuscating going on as well…</p>

<p>Maybe the stats of URM’s are rising, both in the applicant pool and in the accepted- that would be fabulous!!</p>

<p>The point is that the process is not meant to be the same for all “classifications” of applicants.</p>

<p>Classification is a step towards diversification, and so is “holistic” admissions. And this is all happening when the number of applicants who “qualify” stats-wise or could easily do the work is exploding.</p>

<p>I would not take it personally. I would just realize that there is a system in place that does not select for just the highest stats.</p>

173

<p>@performersm</p>

174

<p>@performersmom </p>

<p>The claim that you have a higher chance because there are less of your type that applied than compared to ORMs is likely not true. They receive enough URMs to have a fair representation of them as a population. Simply having less URMs apply compared to ORMs does not inherently make one a URM nor that you had a higher chance because less of your peers applied. You are a URM because in the admissions process, there is less proportion of your type in terms of “high quality” applicants in the admissions process overall for colleges. They also, in case you are implying it, do not pit you against URMs of your category rather than the application pool as a whole. Your claim that you have greater acceptance BECAUSE less apply requires proof. It also requires that because less apply than compared to other schools, these URMs do not offer that competative an application as the few that apply to such top colleges are also the few with impressive marks. If this is so, it would be yet another factor to consider in why more URMs accepted as a proportion than ORMs. Again, though, I am uncertain of the claim more proportion of URMs accepted at top colleges because many of them did not release proportionate acceptances by race. Your claim may be right, but claiming it as fact requires proof if this is THE factor as to why more are accepted. If it is merely conjecture, I believe I pointed out some questionable factors. It is very well possible we are both wrong and all these factors behind URM application rate are why URMs may have a higher acceptance rate than other races. </p>

<p>As for the socio-economic claim, aside from what phantasmagoric posted, I never stated it was official consideration, but of considerable influence in that it reflects talent/ability through your success in such a low income school, not so much neighborhood. They are needs-blind in terms if income, but the school you come from and essays you write are taken into heavy consideration once low income is pointed out. Just as a mistake can indirectly cause one’s downfall, an indirect consideration of the applicant (unofficial consideration) can heavily influence a person in the AdCom’s eyes by a display of, again, talent/character/ability (all of which are viewed as “very important”). Also, why Stanford states they consider it, the consideration meant is likely not the same “consideration” meant when they classify what they look for in an applicant in their CDS chart as income is unofficial. The fact they also keep close tabs may likely mean income is cconsidered in such a way as to be quite influential. We have no clue what definition they use as “considered” and ignoring another definition can be qualified as an equivocation fallacy. However, where is it stated URM is a classification and not ethnicity in general? Also, why does simply being a classification mean it is more considered than that of a non-classified factor such as income or the level of schooling? Also, how do we know income is not a classification? </p>

<p>I know more women than men apply, but where can I read about inter-gender comparisons in the admissions process? </p>

<p>URM acceptance rate and scoring is rising. I believe a simply google search provides a variety of websites if you search “URM acceptance rate rising” or “URM scores rising”. However, this search may be biased in terms of how you frame the search. In terms of stats of the colleges’ scores of accepted applicants, the top universities tend to be very hush-hush. I don’t believe you can find one website with such stats. The only thing they give of ethnic stats is the amount whom enroll and the amount who applied. AA is so debated in terms of its priority in applications it is vastly assumptions on part of outsiders as AdComs don’t really reveal info and limited data is made available by schools. There are also AdComs who contend of their importance. One committee member may say race us highly influential while another says it is not. Even among them it is inconclusive.</p>

175

<p>So much Equivocation, such little Time.</p>

<pre><code> Stanford, as is true of almost all top institutions, engineers its undergraduate classes to fulfill a quota system as to the currently Politically Correct smorgasbord of “race”, “ethnicity”, and other assorted demographic categories. To achieve those proportions, categories are judged in isolation, like against like. Hispanic female against Hispanic female. East Asian Male and American White against the same. Your chances of admission, given a set qualification, is highly dependent on the category you fall into. The exact same objective qualifications can give you odds of admission from “Certain” to “Fuggedaboutit, Chump”, all hanging on those little boxes you fill out.
As an experiment, should you have the monies and time to so waste, apply to a dozen top schools, of which 6 have been randomly chosen to be given [for example] the information that you are a White Male from Ex-Soviet Union with Well-Earned Cynical Perspective, and other 6 that you are [for example] Mexican Male from Ex-Republic of Texas with Well-Earned Cynical Perspective. Then compare.
</code></pre>

<p>This sort of experiment has been done, comrades, intentionally and on occasion not so intentionally. The results are precision itself, and even the most willfully delusional PCer knows what the results are-- and how precise is that precision.</p>

176

<p>^ it can’t be that precise–look in the Stanford results thread and you’ll see plenty of unpredictable cases (URMs with amazing profiles getting rejected, others accepted, etc.).</p>

177

<p>Ummm, Igor, quotas based on race are illegal and if you claim that top institutions compare minority against minority, you should provide proof of this claim.</p>

178

<p>Tetsure:
Yes, quotas based on race are illegal, after court challenge. Which was a blow to the methods of admissions officers. But admissions officers are not so stupid as to think that one cannot achieve the “proper” proportions without formally using the word “quota”. So now there is the language of “overrepresented”, “underrepresented”, or the acronyms thereof which CCers seem to be so fond of. And the "holistic’ admissions processes, by the Miracle of the Invisible Hand, conjure up a carefully crafted classes of perfect fit…year after year, “elite” school after “elite” school–with the proportions in accord with those in the bad old days of unashamed quotas.
So, for example, MIT [a sop to Stanford sensibilities] accepts 21% of its female applicants, as opposed to 7% for its men, to achieve a rough “gender parity” in its classes. Year after year men dominate the applicant pool, but year after year it seems the men are just not so qualified, in nearly the same proportions, as the female applicants. Stupid Men. Clever Women. The acceptance rates for most "URM"s, say “Latino”, are far higher, even as the average qualifications run substantially lower, than for the general applicant pool. The disparity even stronger when compared to non-URMs [which in practice becomes Asians and Euros]. These rates break 50% in some years. Remarkable for MIT. But then not so Remarkable for MIT, as its admissions officers admit that only about 30% of its freshman classes are now chosen on the basis of academic/scientific merit. That leaves 70% for the games people can play when they understand that a tetsure can claim, with face straight and ironic smile hid, that by not using the word “quota” the letter of the law against quotas has been met…the statistical evidence, the heavy handedness of the euphemisms, the boasting about the engineered “diversity” [which seems to never ever involve the diversity of thought] be damned.</p>

179

<p>^I agree with you about the “quota” euphemism (though you still never provided evidence supporting your claim that they will compare “like against like”). Just look at the undergrad class profiles at top schools. It should be clear that there is some desired rough composition. Dean Shaw once said that he would fly out to South Dakota to recruit the admits from that state to ensure that a South Dakotan matriculates this year, because last year South Dakota was the only state unrepresented. Though this statement was meant to be a joke, one has to wonder how much he was joking. Admissions cares a lot about these seemingly trivial details, like having every state represented, or every American minority represented, or having 50/50 gender balance. </p>

<p>Igor, for future reference though, you may want to a) shorten your arguments, b) break them up into paragraphs with blank lines between them, c) simplify the language a bit, and d) stop demeaning others in your posts. </p>

<p>I’m really just trying to help you here. You seem like a bright guy, but you’re posting style makes me want to disagree with what you have to say. Because this particular argument was fairly fact-based and well-acknowledged already, it’s hard to disagree with you here. In other cases you are not so lucky. </p>

<p>Of course feel free to keep up your style. It just makes you seem really pretentious though. Thought I’d point that out.</p>

180

<p>I’d be really mad too, OP.</p>