<p>filler, If the poor are not giving an advatage during the addmission proccess then they would be a even greater minority. How do you expect somone who doesent have the money to buy a SAT prep book and goes to a crappy school to be competitive with an elite prep school kid? How do you expect this kid to be envolved in EC when they have to work a job instead. These kids should be giving an advatage they have overcome a huge hardship and succeeded when many others have "failed".</p>
<p>
[quote]
Their job is not to be "fair" or "promote diversity". They are to pick the students who have the best chance for success at college. That is BEST demonstrated by high school grades, and by STANDARDIZED tests, that help a bit to level out the differences in rigor at various high schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It may "best" be demonstrated by those things, but the correlation is not perfect--there is still a lot of variance in college success that remains unexplained by these two elements.</p>
<p>As for their job-- that is not how their institutions would describe it. They are to admit a class that fulfills institutional prioroties. It's not just looking for diversity in ethnicity, geography, or socioeconomic background. What if taking ONLY THE BEST GPAs and test scores meant they enrolled a class that was 80% engineers? Suddenly every engineering class is standing room only, there aren't enough qualified professors, while classes in other fields stand nearly empty. The same could happen with residents and nonresidents--if Michigan did that, nonresidents would push out a great number of resident students whose state govenrment helps fund the institution.</p>
<p>Your system also advantages those with the resources to pay for SAT classes. Someone with $1000 to pay for test tutoring could edge their score up. They'd edge out the student who is otherwise just as capable--but doesn't have the cash for tutoring. Just one in a host of examples where a higher score or higher GPA does NOT in fact mean a greater aptitude or chance for success--but rather that the student got a boost from something that has little relation to their own academic abilities.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, your simple solution has some appeal--all applicants would have to do it mail in a transcript and test scores. End of story. But I don't think it's as robust a predictor of success as you say--and it doesn't help a college create the kind of student body they are charged with enrolling and educating.</p>
<p>Over time the too-many-engineers problem would work itself out by supply and demand and in other ways. And I'm not saying that ad committees CAN'T look at things that I generally prefer them not to: EC's, race, first generation college ap, etc. The point is that they put their thumb HEAVILY on the scale. That tends to embitter the losers, be unfair (to losers and winners) and be counterproductive. If affirmative action were used only as a tie-breaker, I think that would be a compromise everyone should be able to live with. But, again, when people perceive that someone's thumb is on the scale, then losers AND WINNERS tend to feel they are not where they ought to be...</p>
<p>
[quote]
filler, If the poor are not giving an advatage during the addmission proccess then they would be a even greater minority. How do you expect somone who doesent have the money to buy a SAT prep book and goes to a crappy school to be competitive with an elite prep school kid? How do you expect this kid to be envolved in EC when they have to work a job instead. These kids should be giving an advatage they have overcome a huge hardship and succeeded when many others have "failed".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>We live in a money driven world. It wouldnt surprise me if adcoms did favor those who do have the money to pay for help. There's no point *****ing about it, because there's nothing any poor person can do besides working hard. It's how the world works.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We live in a money driven world. It wouldnt surprise me if adcoms did favor those who do have the money to pay for help.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe the point being made here is that wealth and privilege enables these applicants to present themselves optimally (attend good school distrcits or private school; can pay for tutoring or coaching if needed; can afford multiple test administrations to try to up their score;don't have to work so they have maximum time for homework, sports, ECs; are relatively savvy about the admissions process; can afford admissons consulting if desired, etc). They may be in less need of the kind of favoritism you're describing.</p>
<p>So what's the point that this boils down to? Big deal. It's not like poor people can do anything about it. They still get enough favoritism.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's not like poor people can do anything about it. They still get enough favoritism.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If that's the case, it's not evident. Students from lower socio-economic backgrounds make up pretty small proportions of the undergraduate student body at many selective schools. This is also why I question filler's implication that heavy-handed unfairness advantage is creating some number of embittered, non-poor "losers." </p>
<p>There is little to convince me that the poor are running away with some large number of spots in elite colleges, displacing their wealthier, more deserving peers. Share it if you've got it.</p>
<p>We, the poor, the minorities, etc don't have the extra help!. You know how much of an economical burden an sat prep class is? all we get to use are those pamphlets that are free at school, we're not encouraged to go to college our families are happy as long as you graduate from HS and help with the bills . Well it's not like the rich don't get a slight advantage, you guys get an advantage from being legacies having sat classes, summer programs, ECS, and even having your parents support and help in the application process. I' know this isn't every1's situation but this is mine.</p>
<p>My legacies dont help because A) my mom went to an all girls school and B) my dad couldnt afford to go to Penn. My legacy is my safety school
I have no help with ECs. I guess you mean having time to do more ECs. SAT classes are a waste of time and money. I've never done one, but i know how bad they are. I think you mean tutoring which i would agree with. Summer programs? The program I'm doing is aimed mostly towards very intellectual inner city kids, most of which cannot afford any of the luxuries i do. They get into this program for nothing.</p>
<p>my legacy is 2 safety schools: one good safety(hunter-wouldnt mind going if i had to) and one crazy easy..Commuter private called Molloy where my moms getting her B.SW my dad has paid for everything pretty much...I Will be A slight Legacy at fordham where my mom is going to lincoln center starting my senior yr..to get her M.SW my sister has a BS in Fashion merch. From Marymount of Fordham(the college thats being fased out which is owned by FOrdham) and my uncle has a bachelors in English...So imma semi legacy there and i think one other aunt/uncle went there but there is just to many aunts and uncles!</p>
<p>m8913s - if people can't figure out how to prepare themselves to take an SAT--at least to get 650-700'ish on the various sections--then how in the world are they going to survive at a tough college? One thing great about the American system is that if you fall behind, you can always catch up. If your high school record or college applications are weak, go to a lower tier school, work hard, excel, and move up as a transfer or grad student.</p>
<p>That's not the point. Here's a scenario:</p>
<p>Both Student A and Student B have the same IQ of 220. Both students have a 4.0 and a 2250 SAT in addition to 34 ACT and the same exact extracurriculars.</p>
<p>Student A, the child of two lawyers easily bringing in high 6 figures EACH, lives in a posh house (in the #26 school district in the country) in the suburbs of New York, and has a double legacy at Harvard, Yale, and UPenn. Grandparents are big donors to UPenn. Student A attended Choate, where recently they sent a large percentage of students to ivy league schools. Student A spent three years traveling the world and doing interesting things all over the world. Student A has also spent 2 years in SAT prep classes, hired a professional college counselor to hold his/her hand, and hired a tutor to help him/her in every subject imaginable. Student A has never worked an hour in his/her life, and is a member of MENSA (because he/she knew about MENSA due to his/her rich parents.) Student A gets into Harvard SCEA, and his/her parents will pay the entire bill. Student A ends up at Harvard.</p>
<p>10 miles away, Student B, the child of a college dropout working at McDonalds making minimum wage and a drug addict mother, lives in the Bronx, and doesn't have legacies anywhere. Student B's parents were first generation immigrants, and also make something below the poverty line. He/She has 4 brothers and sisters he/she babysits on a daily basis, and although he/she is just as qualified to get into MENSA, he/she is not a member because he/she is too busy studying. In addition to babysitting 4 siblings on a daily basis in a 1bdrm apartment with no heat, A/C or cable TV, he/she works full time as a waiter at a local restaurant. He/she is accepted to Harvard SCEA, Stanford, UChicago and Fordham (full ride) and is forced to accept a full ride to Fordham even though his/her dream schools is Stanford because his/her parents need him/her to babysit once in a while. And plus, he/she can't pay the $350 to fly across the country to Stanford, Chicago and doesn't have a car to drive to Harvard.</p>
<p>Let me ask you this: Would you say that it's fair for Student B to be FORCED to go to Fordham because he/she has parents that barely make 5 figures? Would you say that Student A has NO advantage over Student B? Would you say Student A would have a 4.0 GPA, 2250 SAT, and 34 ACT if he/she was in Student B's situation? Would you say Student B would have the same stats if he/she were in Student A's position? </p>
<p>Two briliant kids, one ends up at Harvard and the other ends up at Fordham. I'm in NO way belittling Fordham, but ask yourself if it's fair that it ended up that way. </p>
<p>If the answer is yes, you are an insensitive, compassionless human being. :)</p>
<p>not fair (10 char)</p>
<p>Growing up in a low income family, I can attest to the difficulty of managing schoolwork on top of home life. The biggest problem is a lack of financial support. Thus, the things that many kids take for granted (money for books, a car, knowledgeable parents, social connections, etc.) are things that I have desperately tried to attain. The lack of such things has hindered my ability to involve myself with ECs outside of school because of lack of transportation or monetary support for things such as piano/martial arts lessons. Also, it's just sad not to be able to hang out with your friends on the weekend to go watch a movie or whatever because you want to save money instead. The necessity of a job to provide for oneself uses time that could be spent doing things such as volunteering or studying. Couple that with the college admissions process during senior year (maintaining good standing in school and involving yourself with ECs) and it becomes a living nightmare almost. I had to do all of the research on our own regarding colleges, even taking into account what my family could afford or not. Also, I had to apply to so many scholarships because of the very fact that most colleges would be unaffordable. When you look at the big picture, the parents do have a significant role in a child's potential for success--whether that influence is direct or indirect. Children with well-endowed parents certainly have more resources than children who don't.</p>
<p>So if you believe that the parents' occupation doesn't play a significant role in our lives--you're misinformed or simply ignorant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think ad committees should not favor the rich, the poor, the well-bred, the poorly-bred, or anyone else. Their job is not to be "fair" or "promote diversity".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then explain why all the the top schools are reaching out to the lower class and to minorities. That's right, to promote diversity.</p>
<p>"and has a double legacy at Harvard, Yale, and UPenn"</p>
<p>how does one have double legacy at three universities? </p>
<p>just wondering.</p>
<p>Dad and mom go to Yale.
Dad and mom get their MBAs at Harvard Business School.
Dad and mom go to UPenn Law School.</p>