<p>So… 63% white… in terms of SES, what percentage of students were on Pell grants? (see <a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity</a> )</p>
<p>Another affirmative action post. How exciting. ZZzzzzZZZZzzzzz…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good luck finding a top school that doesn’t give preference to athletes. I’d have no problem giving athletes an edge if they were academically qualified, but sometimes/often, schools color way outside the lines.</p>
<p>I have a problem with legacies when donations to the college are tax deductible. Clearly that’s a tax dodge for the 1%. I don’t normally complain about the 1%, I aspire to be there myself, but clearly that’s an unfair advantage for the privileged. I understand the reason for the legacy admit, but if you’re providing something in exchange for the charitable donation, clearly that’s a violation of the charity rules.</p>
<p>@t26e4 I think diversity and experience reaches far beyond someones skin color. I think a students economic background rather his or her skin color determines attitudes and experience. Even though there may be 45% asian in that hypothetical school, not all asians have the same backgrounds and experiences just because they are asian.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It looks like you prefer your college to be majority or plurality white, not some other race.</p>
<p>It would not be surprising if this were a common unstated preference among many students.</p>
<p>What is the minimum amount you can be of an ethnicity to claim you are that ethnicity?</p>
<p>OP, I don’t know if your concerns are valid or not, but I have copied a previous post of mine where I summarised my conclusions about my understanding of the college admissions system, I wonder if you might find it useful ( it goes beyond your question, but have posted most if it so it can be understood in its proper context).</p>
<hr>
<p>It seems to me however, that America is a true Capitalist state (and I say this as a matter of fact and nothing else). In keeping with this, it is therefore not strange that its universities will offer admission to those who bring something additional to the table, before others.</p>
<p>I believe (from what I have read on CC) that it is all about packaging yourself so that you show that you have something <em>extra</em> to offer.</p>
<p>In my view, the rejected students with ‘perfect’ stats and no hooks were NEVER in competition with students who were admitted with hooks; their competition was other students with similar stats to their own. As I understand it, here are some of the benefits of the ‘hooks’:</p>
<p>URM - diversity</p>
<p>The truth is, whether we like it or not, good leaders need to have personally experienced a lot more of the world than the metaphorical ‘bubble’ in which they live. Being able to see and learn about different peoples, cultures and backgrounds whilst studying for a degree must therefore be invaluable. Very good universities will not only look to provide their students with an education. I believe what they aim for, is to provide their students with the tools to graduate and lead the world (in whatever capacity). A lot of forward looking parents recognise this, and therefore LOOK for diversity when advising their children where to go. Top universities are aware of this also. If I am right, a URM could be seen as more valuable to a university than the say, 1000th applicant with great stats.</p>
<p>Athletes - success, visibility and possibly $$$</p>
<p>Anyone who knows any good athlete will know that that person WILL succeed in life. The only question is ‘how big’. A previous poster has already set out what most athletes are about - juggling a heavy athletic load with an equally heavy academic load. It is true that a lot of athletes do not have academic results to rival the very best of the best, but the fact is that for most athletes that gain admission to the most selective institutions, if these same people were not as commited to their sport as they are, they would have much better results than they do. A lot of athletes wake up at 4.30am to make practice - and they have been doing this for years to get to where they are. This shows that they persevere (a trait of successful people). No good athlete has got to where they are without having suffered numerous set backs. This shows that they are able to, and do pick themselves up when they fall down (again, a trait of successful people). I could go on… Now, this is not to say that rejected students do not have the same traits. The difference is that with the athletes, the fact and level of their athleticism tells admissions a lot about them even before one word of their essays are read. Further, if these athletes succeed in their sports, the university is more visible (free PR). If they win, it also genders a sense of pride in the school that everyone benefits from. When they graduate/leave, this goodwill remains with the school. Then you have the income generating sports that bring money into universities. Apparently for some schools, this averages six figure dollar sums/athlete/year.</p>
<p>Legacy - loyalty and support</p>
<p>As has already been said, true legacy hooks are those who make BIG donations. A family donating say, $1m, will enable the beneficiary college to achieve more than the admission of candidate 1000 with great stats will do. Apart from the money, true legacies are the bedrock of any great university. They mentor the undergrads whether by giving talks/advice/lectures, providing internships or graduate jobs etc. etc., without which, the value/ reputation of getting a degree from that institution will be greatly diminished.</p>
<p>Internationals - $$$ and networking opportunities</p>
<p>Internationals also bring added diversity (see above). Also, some pay much more than locals, again bringing in much needed funds, but without these factors, most Internationals (even those on FA) will most likely graduate and go back to their Home country and become a leader there. The potential networking benefits for the future can therefore be appreciated by anyone who can look at this issue objectively.</p>
<p>It seems to me that anyone who wants to moan about having been rejected in favour of a someone admitted because of a hook should only do so if they can say they brought more than any of the above to the table.</p>
<hr>
<p>After writing the above post, I found out that the Navy Academy invites foreign Nationals to join its programme (limited numbers and for specified time periods and it seems all Home government recommended and sponsored) for the very reasons set out above - it makes other attendees better potential world leaders. Schools that pride themselves on producing leaders will therefore value diversity. If this means that a URM with lesser scores is admitted so-be-it. Looked another way, it could be said that the URM better met the university’s needs and requirements, and therefore, under a ‘holistic’ process of admissions, was actually better qualified.</p>
<p>Not all URMs/legacies/athletes/<em>whatever group some people like to think have stolen places from them</em> actually get admitted to the universities they apply to. </p>
<p>Having read so many posts of people trying to make these arguments however says to me that some of these posts reveal a certain level of unawareness of what admissions are all about, and more importantly, of what makes a school great. I sometimes think to myself, if so, no wonder…</p>
<p>I have dragged my poor kids all over the world. In their int’l school in Europe, the student body was almost entirely white. In their int’l school in Asia, it was majority Asian race. In those schools, my kids experienced a helluva lot more diversity that went beyond skin color.</p>
<p>@Researchmum </p>
<p>Whats sad is that a good number of CC members automatically assume that URMs are less qualified. They must blame someone. </p>
<p>There is an interesting story that I recently read and heard about on NPR radio, about a young man who grew up impoverished, to a 13 year old mother, father was 19. His dad, a drug dealer was shot dead before the boy reached his 5th birthday. His home was destroyed during Hurricane Katrina, they had to sleep on the Claiborne Ave bridge, he pushed his newborn sibling around in a shopping cart until they found safe shelter. </p>
<p>He and his family were nomads most of his young life and he attended some of the worst schools in NOLA, one of which has a 38% graduation rate. Through it all, he persevered, lack of food, lack of electricity, growing up on state services, he was able to gain admission to Yale. His ACT score? A 28.</p>
<p>His story is inspiring to say the least. What I found to be interesting was a comment left by a reader. I have posted it below-</p>
<p>JanetGG
For those of you who don’t know, white families and families with “means” (like me) pay big bucks on ACT and SAT prep classes for their children. Given this, one would expect their children to outscore a child like Leonard on such tests. Just think about how much higher Leonard would have scored if he had been prepping for the ACT since ninth grade as many in Jen Do’s comparison group have been doing. Wake up Jen Do! Leonard is probably brighter than the privileged students to which you choose to compare him.</p>
<p>What the members of CC and the world at large need to realize is this,
Adcoms realize what the above commenter so bluntly stated, and they respect the fact that kids who grow up in poverty are more than a number. They realize that the other applicants are able to afford the luxuries of life & then some. Hell, even the necessities. Adcoms are not ignorant to the fact that most high SES kids have access to SAT/ACT prep. And that many are savvy enough to self study. </p>
<p>@nickxx it’s sad that the young man decided to forgo a great education. I wonder how much of an impact peer pressure had with his decision. I’m sure the naysayers told him that he was inferior, and he bought it, hook line and sinker. I bet his peer who didn’t get into the Ivy is having the last laugh. Talk about dying on a principled sword. </p>
<p>As an aside, my own DD has some amazing ECs, none of which her classmates are aware of because she is a humble kid and wants to blend in with her surroundings. Her ECs are things that are not typical for a young black girl growing up in the inner city. She is always the only brown one in the bunch. I’m sure many kids who look like my DD are the same, so their peers have no clue as to how replete their resumes are with interesting and meaningful pursuits. </p>
<p>@Researchmum the blame game will continue for years to come. Someone will always want to pout, sulk & play the victim. Something that I have never allowed my DD to do. Even under some pretty arduous circumstances. </p>
<p>@Academic07 you can list yourself as whatever you want</p>
<p>It’s a myth, perpetuated in part by the test prep industry, that ACT/SAT test prep does anything to improve test scores beyond a marginal 2 or maybe at an outside extreme 3 ACT points, and most of that comes from test familiarity and strategy, not any actual increase in knowledge. High SES kids score well because, surprise, their parents are smart. And their parents have high SES standing because they were smart. Kind of a self-perpetuating thing that one would expect to see in a society that has been at least somewhat meritocratic for the last 70 years.</p>
<p>High SES kids are also more likely to benefit from better public schools, or the option to attend private schools if the public schools are inadequate.</p>
<p>It has been noted that high achieving low SES students are less likely to graduate college than low achieving high SES students (achievement based on standardized tests in this case).</p>
<p>So let me get this straight. A kid who has test scores and grades that put him in the top 25 % of kids at the school he’s been admitted, just look at the Ivy League common data sets. Turned it down because a friend of his answered a few more questions correctly on a standardized test and didn’t get in. Wow!</p>
<p>@MrMom62 </p>
<p>It’s a myth? Then why do so many HIgh SES, highly educated parents continue to spend there money on it? I’ve seen where its billions of dollars per year??? I know plenty of parents who have paid a handsome fee & have seen some great results. My own DD self studied & raised her scores. You mean to tell me that if she had done a test prep program that she wouldn’t have done any better? With the help of professionals?? REALLY??? Myth my foot!!! </p>
<p>Calm down, the number of question marks isn’t proportional to the strength of your argument.</p>
<p>A test prep company sits you and 20 kids down with an instructor who is probably of average or above average intelligence and can most likely be outscored by a good chunk of the kids that he/she instructs. I was forced into a prep session thing and the instructor was a complete idiot, bragging about his 1900 and struggling to multiply 9 and 8 without great deliberation and a calculator. (These “professionals” that you cite generally read from the company’s prep book at a 6/7th grade level and are no more useful than going through the books on your own)</p>
<p>People spend money on a lot of things that are not wise purchases; ignorance fuels the market. Self-studying (assuming the child is motivated and above average to start) will generally work out better because at that stage, it really is just rote practice that increases scores.</p>
<p>I’m calm…lol I was just making a point. I wanted to use some other language but thought better of it. Lol ;)</p>
<p>Again, highly educated, highly compensated individuals will not spend billions of dollars on “myths”. I guess the folks who have found test prep success are all lying? All of them? Are they apart of the test prep liars society?Come on…let’s be serious. </p>
<p>Does having a degree in psychology make one immune from marketing gimmicks? If anything, those who are more “street smart” (though I hate the term) would invest less in silly classes and more in the cheaper (self-study) method.</p>
<p>It’s merely correlation that causes the large amount of money being spent; average middle class kids don’t have the drive to read a 1000 page SAT book while they CAN be forced into a class, whereas a poorer kid cannot afford a class and only has one option.</p>
<p>But this is boring and I don’t want to reply any more so good day :)</p>
<p>@Academic07 well, within a certain limit… if you really have to ask what the “minimum” is, maybe you should reconsider claiming an ethnicity if it is in hopes of bettering or improving your chances at admissions</p>
<p>Let me tell you reading a 1000 page book is no use. Its all about simply taking practice tests</p>
<p>Although I said I wouldn’t reply, I probably will, so may as well start now.</p>
<p>Perhaps for the CC community that’s the way to go, but you forget that this is not the world we live in. People actually do struggle with the concepts and information, and not just the act of taking the test. You can take as many tests as you like but if you can’t find the value of supplementary angles, you aren’t going to get questions that ask for it right on your 1st, your 5th, or your 20th time doing it. </p>