<p>I know that, SV2. The cases StickerShock was bringing up had to do with current/recent admissions, not ones for 07. (As I understand it.) Brown's future changes would not have impacted those cases.</p>
<p>But now I'm really confused. Like SV2, I thought that Brown was soon to become need-blind, but now someone has just told me that they went need-blind ~3 yrs. ago.</p>
<p>Referees, please?</p>
<p>"In short, the only hook the kid has is his skin color. That still pulls more weight than superior stats."</p>
<p>But, don't you see Stickershock? You could make this same exact statement about an Asian American kid with superior stats vs a lesser qualified Anglo kid. In this instance, comparatively, the white kid is the one with the skin color hook. To accept, with no complaint, the benefit of being white vs Asian American, one must also accept with no complaint the consideration given to Hispanics, African Americans and other URMs in the admissions decision process. We can't have it both ways.</p>
<p>btw...for the record. My daughter is a NMF (2250), URM (half Mexican American), 8 APs with 5s on all at the time of application. Also had two pages of awards, including national level awards, SAT IIs all in the mid 700s who wrote killer essays (her Harvard interviewer offered to show them to a publisher). BUT, she was weak on rank (10%) due to a rough freshman year and funky grading system. Despite tough courseloads and pulling near perfect grades her sophomore, junior year, she was denied at two of the three Ivys where she applied and got a conditional accept at the third. (She was accepted into honors programs with scholarship money at four highly regarded state universities.) </p>
<p>SO, I also take issue with the assumption that race trumps all. My d paid the price for her rank, just like everyone else.</p>
<p>Sounds as if maybe I read '07 as the h.s. class of '07, when maybe that was college class of '07 (which is usually how "classes" are referred to on colleges sites.) So sorry if have misinterpreted the date of Brown's policy change! I must admit when I visited their site about a month ago,I was confused about it, because a couple of years ago it sounded as if the change would not be in time to affect one of my own D's, but maybe the change has been around for awhile, & I have always misunderstood, perhaps. Hmmm.</p>
<p>Working backwards, if you look at the total enrollment at your average ivy league school, and then subtract out varsity athletes the various orchestras and bands, URMS, published authors, nobel prize winners and movie stars, you are left with only a very few slots for the average run of the mill valedictorians with 2400 SATs but no real hooks.</p>
<p>Our highschool gives data on each college where former students for the prior five years applied, as to the sex of the student, test scores, gpa, and any special circumstance such as audition, high level musician, recruited athlete, development, celebrity, legacy, urm, first generation to college,very high leadership positions, national recognition on some activity. THere are many overlaps as a poster here noted so it is difficult to ascertain why certain kids were accepted. I can tell you that the most glaring data of kids who have lower stats being accepted is among the recruited athletes, particularly in the high impact sports such as basketball and football. Also a lot of URMs in that mix, but it doesn't appear as though that is the overriding factor. I have seen several 2.5 (unweighted, rigorous private school) gpa, with 1150 -1200 accepted at ivy league schools in the athlete category. Even the development/legacy/celebrity department did not have such low academic stats accepted at highly selective schools.<br>
The Asian kids are not split out by race, but seeing that a good portion of our orchestra is comprised of very talent Asian American musicians, it isn't too difficult to figure out to some degree who those kids are, especially as they do tend to go for math/science majors and have exceptionally high math/science test scores. They uniformly do not have legacy/celebrity/development codes. Although these kids do end up in selective schools, there are many of them not accepted at the top schools that have accepted kids with lower academic stats but with more "footnotes" indicating hooks.</p>
<p>marite, looking back I can see that yes my post is confusing. Actually, some top non hook kids have applied to top schools, but few have been accepted. For example this year we had 5 kids apply to a top non ivy school. 2 were NMFs, one a URM and the other not, both 4.0+ Gpas, etc. The Urm got in, the other not even waitlisted. Of the remaining 3 the 2 who were accepted were both URMs. 2 years ago 2 kids from one of the hs here (val and sal w/ .00ths pt gpa differences) applied to top schools. Urm was accepted to harvard, dartmouth, vassar, and everywhere else she was accepted. Other was rejected by wustl, accepted tufts, whitman, emory, others. I know this is not exactly comparing apples to apples, but still when one kid (urm) can get into harvard with a 4.0 and <25 act and another with an unweighted gpa 3.8 and >25 act is waitlisted by grinnell, it makes you go hmmm. At least being from my area of the US helps. Many people don't even realize we are a state!</p>
<p>
[quote]
In short, the only hook the kid has is his skin color.
[/quote]
Just like the way in which the only reason for the bias this same kid may face in his career will be his skin color. The main reason I don't object to URM preferences as stated.</p>
<p>Thanks, csleslie. Yes, I can see the hmmm...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even the smallest Ivy accepts over 1,000 students each year. If you are rejected, why take that out on the only one of them who happens to be your lifelong friend, as opposed to the 999+ whom you have never met?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>:) And logic like that is the reason you'll go far in life, whatever you do and wherever you go. Thanks for posting that.</p>
<p>"Just like the way in which the only reason for the bias this same kid may face in his career will be his skin color. The main reason I don't object to URM preferences as stated."</p>
<p>What on earth is this? The AA equivalent of the first strike approach to national security? </p>
<p>Never have I encountered governmental or private institutions use this line of reasoning to justify affirmative action. Has the justification for AA in higher education become so weak that proponents are now claiming that it is OK to give prefential treatment because someday in the future, somewhere, someone MAY experience discrimination?</p>
<p>There IS a critical problem in the US with equal access to high quality education--at the K-12 level. That is where the problem lies, and that is where the solution must be applied. Nothing positive is accomplished by smothering fairness at the post-secondary level, but real change might be effected by instituting systemic reform to a poorly functioning system of public schooling. This is one problem that requires a bottom-up approach.</p>
<p>If we accept all of the data that indicate significant achievement disparity in elementary and secondary schools nationwide, then we must accept that the supply of well-prepared minority students is relatively small. It doesn't really solve the supply problem when affluent schools devote a huge chunk of resources to a bidding war for those few students.</p>
<p>With respect to this thread, most of us agree, I think, that affirmative action for the undeserving rich is not ethical, but frankly, I would suggest that the long-term consequences of that form of special treatment are less significant for everyone than race-based URM quotas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To accept, with no complaint, the benefit of being white vs Asian American, one must also accept with no complaint the consideration given to Hispanics, African Americans and other URMs in the admissions decision process. We can't have it both ways.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Idmom: I'm not acceting it. I just haven't seen it. I know it has been written about & I am not disputing it. I was just posting from my own personal experiences. D's close friend is of Chinese ancestry. A genius/athlete/musician. She jokes about the discrimination against Asians. I'll watch her progress closely. (I've been pushing her toward Notre Dame. Fab school looking for Asians, by the way.)</p>
<p>I really don't want a big AA debate. I just can't listen to the pat answer, that the URM had fantastic qualities of which you are unaware, and believe it time after time after time. Let's be honest: URMs still are gaining admittance to elite schools over better qualified whites. Whether or not there is some societal value for AA is a whole different discussion.</p>
<p>SS, regarding your post #32:</p>
<p>Although I do think conyat -- posting on this thread or another thread in this vein-- made a good point about what is apparent about a candidate from the outside, vs. how an admissions committee views the candidate, I'm willing to suspend judgment & concede that "less qualified" URM's are "still getting in over more [numerically] qualified."</p>
<p>That said, understand that <em>also</em>, the <em>equally</em> qualified are often not getting in versus a peer from the same school WHOSE HOOKS THE COLLEGE HAPPENS TO PREFER AT THE MOMENT. Sorry for shouting, not angry; this is emphasis. This is one of the "lottery' aspects that people refer to. So, two non-URM's (both Caucasian), identical stats (and I mean identical, down to scores, down to weighted GPA to the decimal point, unweighted GPA to the decimal point, down to the exact same scores on the AP exams -- 5's --): one was accepted, one waitlisted to the same Ivy. In fact, the w/listed one some would say had a more powerful but traditional hook, but the college didn't care: that's not what they were looking for, & the college had precious few spots to hand out.</p>
<p>And it can also be looked at another way. I would be dismayed if elites were admitting underqualified candidates. However, both the Princeton Rep and the Yale Rep (On the Road) told us that about 90% of the applicants to their schools would have no problem doing the academic work at their schools. I can bet that in the situations of which you speak, the accepted URMs are in that 90% category.</p>
<p>And I repeat what I said earlier about geography. The elites are not going to <em>eliminate</em> the Northeast for consideration. They must include the Northeast, & surely want to. But if they chose only the most numerically qualified, they might have to go to other regions to accept a sufficient quantity of URM's -- regions very high in URM's. However, those regions will not necessarily provide the quality h.s. education that the Northeast will.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just like the way in which the only reason for the bias this same kid may face in his career will be his skin color. The main reason I don't object to URM preferences as stated.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Alumother: Can we take this to mean that you agree preferences exist? That's all that I wanted to establish, until midmo posted this:</p>
<p>
[quote]
If we accept all of the data that indicate significant achievement disparity in elementary and secondary schools nationwide, then we must accept that the supply of well-prepared minority students is relatively small. It doesn't really solve the supply problem when affluent schools devote a huge chunk of resources to a bidding war for those few students
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So well put, I couldn't resist commenting. The supply side needs work, to say the least. It's the old "teach a man to fish" approach. Let's prepare the kids in k-12 (teach them to fish) so they can feed themselves for life. No need for preferences then. Now, if the kid is fat, or short, or ugly, he'll likely face bias in his career. But I don't know how to fix that.</p>
<p>agree, epiphany, that it is a lottery. But URMs hold more tickets & have a greater chance of winning. I also think that the elite schools could easily fill their spots 10x over with qualified kids. I really doubt many unsuitable URMs are getting admitted.</p>
<p>...and with regard to your post #34, SS, in many locales outside of the Northeast, those K-12 URMs are <em>not</em> being taught to fish, and are NOT in the 90% of qualified applicants of which the Ivies & other "selects" speak. The Ivies who admitted the Northeast URM's must have believed that the candidates were well qualified enough for their U's, and that additionally whatever small gaps, if any, were there in the K-12 education, the candidates would rise to the occasion, as well as being supported at a well-endowed, well-funded, well-staffed private U.</p>
<p>yes, sufficiently educated URM's hold more tickets. And well-educated non-URMs hold fewer tickets, overall -- unless they are exceptionally well-hooked in some unusual way attractive to the elites. (special talent, etc.)</p>
<p>But it is also not a given that the URM will always win out. Remember that there is Affirmative Action for The Rich in the way of donor legacies. We do not know how many URMs are not accepted because a U in question just can't resist the temptation to admit a candidate equally qualified to that "less qualified" URM, but with much bigger bucks than even a non-needy URM. We don't know of all those cases -- only the cases of acceptances, rejections we personally encounter. The others aren't published or visible to us.</p>
<p>Again, I'm not disputing that they are capable of success at an elite. I'm just pointing out that more qualified white kids were passed by to allow them in. The URM kids I'm familiar with are privleged. No gaps that could be attributed to being disadvantaged.</p>
<p>"Let's be honest: URMs still are gaining admittance to elite schools over better qualified whites. "</p>
<p>Let's be honest: Whites are still gaining admittance to elite schools over better qualified Asians, if one goes by SAT scores and often by ECs. Asians tend to have excellent ECs in science, math and music.</p>
<p>White legacies, children of faculty, and offspring of big donors are still gaining admittance over equally qualified and even more qualified URMs and Asians who lack such attributes.</p>
<p>I actually think that the whole notion of elite's accepting underprivileged URMs PRIMARILY to expand socioeconomic diversity borders fallacy. To a certain degree (with their eye on the dollar), elites do take URMs who need financial aid; but I still maintain that their favorite URM is the URM who has parents who can pay (or even donate). </p>
<p>Hooks are a funny thing....because it's all about context. Against a white nonlegacy, an Hispanic candidate is 'hooked'. But that Hispanic candidate applies for financial aid and goes up against a white legacy, he becomes a little less hooked. And against an Asian American candidate, the white candidate (and any other candidate) is hooked. Unless that Asian American candidate does something outlandishly unusual or remarkable (other than perfect SATs, perfect GPA, elite musician, science award winner, etc...read sarcasm here.)</p>
<p>Btw SS... I don't know if I'd push Notre Dame for d's friend. They have a notoriously high legacy/faculty offspring acceptance rate and a reputation for being a school who gives a lot of consideration to hooks. But Caltech is one school that has almost pure meritocracy in admissions.</p>