<p>Doesn’t biracial mean in between two races? If you are 1/16 Native American, what is the other 15/16?</p>
<p>I agree with the above poster, 1/16 definitely does not seem significant enough to make a “difference” I guess.</p>
<p>The data does confirm Canuckguy’s hypothesis. </p>
<p>The real median income of U.S. households in 2004 was [url=<a href=“http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=8830]$44,389[/url”>http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=8830]$44,389[/url</a>]. That is, in 2004, half of all households earned more than $44,389, and half earned less.</p>
<p>However, in Harvard’s case, ninety-five percent of all students in the class of 2008 came from families that earned more than $46,939. Half of all Americans lived in families that earned less than $44,389, but only five percent of all Harvard students lived in families that earned less than $46,939. Thus, the number of Harvard students in the class of 2008 who were in the lower-half of the United States’ income distribution was at most five percent of the entire cohort, and I’m being generous with five percent.</p>
<p>The median family income of students in the class of 2008 was $119,870. That is, half of all Harvard students in that year came from families that earned more than $119,870. Moreover, a full quarter of that year’s incoming class were from households that earned more than $156,242. At least in 2004, Harvard clearly didn’t mirror the nation’s demographics.</p>
<p>junshik, the other 15/16 is caucasian.</p>
<p>On the application I would check Native American and Caucasian. (since it says to check all the apply)</p>
<p>fabrizio: Please go back and read Canuckguy’s original hypothesis.</p>
<p>You have failed to prove that this isn’t an instance of correlation rather than causation.</p>
<p>He stated that Harvard would reject students ONLY because of their lower income. That is factually and logically false. Harvard does not reject students simply for having poor parents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s just plain false. Do you truly believe that they would give greater preference to an equally qualified rich student over a poor one?</p>
<p>I’d check both. I mean while AA isn’t right, it will give you an edge, especially as a Native. I had a friend who was 1/256th native american (legally) and he checked just NA in this ethnicity. They didn’t seem to mind, and He was accepted to Cornell despite fairly low scores. </p>
<p>You’ll have alot of people on here complain about AA, because it truly isn’t right, but I say if you have a hook, use it. It’s not like the recruited athletes aren’t talking to coaches and the legacies aren’t pulling those strings. Every advantage in the crapshoot of college admissions is just that, an advantage. Esp. as a Native american you’ll get extra consideration.</p>
<p>But on the same hand URM isn’t a win all. If your test scores, GPA, and EC’s still aren’t within an acceptable range, it doesn’t help at all.</p>
<p>Use it damn right. Put down Native American no doubt. My friend put down African American when he really was Egyptian American and got into Yale with a 2040 SAT and 3.75 GPA! Who would have thought! </p>
<p>You’re NOT lying.</p>
<p>Canuckguy originally wrote, “From what I can see, these elite institutions exist for the purpose of educating the children of the ruling class.” You replied, “Wow. Just wow. How are people making less than $60,000 the ‘ruling class?’ Many, many students at Ivy League colleges receive need-based financial aid (including white students). I don’t see how you get from that that they are somehow from the ruling class.”</p>
<p>Canuckguy never said that Harvard doesn’t have poor students. In addition, your initial response doesn’t address his hypothesis and is quite misleading. According to figure one in tokenadult’s link, only fifteen percent of Harvard’s class of 2008 came from families with incomes less than $60,000. Clearly, we’re talking about a minority group, not the majority. In addition, that sixty percent of students receive some form of need-based financial aid doesn’t say much when you consider that a family with a $180,000 income can still receive “need-based” financial aid at Harvard.</p>
<p>The median income at Harvard in 2004 was much, much, much higher than it was in the United States as a whole. I hope you aren’t honestly trying to convince anyone that poor students are anything but an near-extreme minority at Harvard.</p>
<p>fabrizio: Even if poor students ARE a minority, that doesn’t put them at a disadvantage in the admissions process? (Such logic would mean URMs were at a disadvantage.)</p>
<p>Canuckguy’s hypothesis is that Harvard purposefully rejects poor students simply because they only want to “educate the children of the ruling class.” Clearly, that is not the case.</p>
<p>Do you honestly believe Harvard’s primary desire is to admit only wealthy, ruling students?</p>
<p>I don’t quite understand your first paragraph. Is it a question or a statement?</p>
<p>I see Canuckguy’s original hypothesis differently. To me, he said, “…elite institutions exist for the purpose of educating the children of the ruling class.” As I understand it, if your goal is to do that, then you’d be wise to include some children from other backgrounds so as to ensure that the people you’re educating are still in touch with the “common man.”</p>
<p>Only wealthy, ruling students? No. Mainly? Maybe.</p>
<p>It remains that the Harvard student body is much more affluent than the American public as a whole, at least in 2004. By definition, “only” half of the nation in 2004 earned more than the median income, but over ninety-five percent of Harvard’s student body came from families with incomes higher than the median. Your statements about the number of students receiving financial aid and the number of students from families earning less than $60,000 a year do not strengthen your argument.</p>
<p>I believe these institutions exist to educate the next generation of leaders/the ruling class.</p>
<p>Of course, a disproportionate number of those leaders will be the children of the previous generation (just look at political dynasties). Hence, there tends to be a correlation between parents wealth and the child’s achievement.</p>
<p>However, there will also be future leaders who come from more humble backgrounds. Elite institutions are happy to accept those students as well.</p>
<p>To say that the wealth of your parents is the primary factor in your chances is naive and false. What matters is your abilities and your record.</p>
<p>I’m against affirmative action myself but if I were fully an URM I would definitely take advantage of it. I still probably still will even though I’m not even close to half. </p>
<p>spunaugle, how low were your friends scores? </p>
<p>I’m not enrolled with a tribe, so when asked to report this on the commonapp should I just leave it blank?</p>
<p>Some schools may ask what tribe you are registered with. The %NA for registration is left up to the tribe but (I think) is usually 1/8.</p>
<p>Ahh he was enrolled with a tribe. But he had a 30 ACT and very low SAT II’s (not sure exactly but I think one was even 500 range…)</p>
<p>But I’d still report it and just leave the tribal enrollment part blank. If nothing else it’ll give your application more than one look because of the self-reported URM.</p>
<p>While it does seem slightly unethical because the federal standard for NA is 25%, I say go for it. The system is broken, but if they’re not going to fix it by the time you get there, you mightaswell take advantage of it. It’s like how we passed through a broken toll on our way out of DC. We could have went to one of the working ones, but…</p>
<p>I’m surprised so many of you are for this.</p>
<p>This thread really gets me upset that people would do this. I had a hard enough time putting White and Mexican American when I am 37.5% Mexican.</p>
<p>As someone mentioned, the percentage (blood quantum) varies from tribe to tribe in order to be recognized by that organization as “Native American.” Some only require having an ancestor on the Dawes Rolls. </p>
<p>I know for a fact that Yale sends out a request for additional information from those who identify as Native American that requires tribal affiliation and I think some other information.</p>
<p>Yes. You need tribal affiliation. One of my friends failed to get “certified” and thus could not check Native American. Talk to your local tribe.</p>
<p>Stanford and Dartmouth told me to check all that I identify with so I don’t think I need to be affiliated with a tribe, at least for those schools. I’ll just check white and native american and leave the date of registration blank.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your question was merged with the main FAQ thread on this subject (which messed up the reply order of a few replies above). The first few posts in this FAQ thread have a lot of reference information you should check.</p>