@gallentjill you raise good points about being in a hard major like pre-med at a prestigious college vs. a less prestigious college. I often wonder myself what’s the better path for a student as it relates to seeking employment after graduation or admission to a selective graduate program like medical school.
This might be an excellent question for a new thread (one probably already exists) because it comes up a lot. And it’s far from only being a racial issue, but is certainly a relevant conversation on this thread. Many college applicants end up having multiple admissions offers from varying levels of colleges. Sometimes the decision is an easy one because the “less prestigious” school offers so much money, it is too good to turn down.
Will it be easier getting into medical school with a 3.2 from Harvard or a 3.9 from BU?
What about getting interviews with top banks? They have their “target schools” (and they also have “diversity programs” that URM’s (including ASIANS), are eligible to apply for ahead of their white, male counterparts (yet banking is still dominated by white males). Many of the top firms allow you to apply for their internships and programs from almost any college, but they have their “target” schools and at the end of the day, most of their recruits are from these target schools.
My opinion based on the anecdotes I have observed is that for grad school, one might be better going where you will have the higher GPA (as long as you will be properly prepared for your GRE’s, MCATs, LSAT, whatever). But for employment with a top firm, an applicant might have more opportunities at a more prestigious college that is considered a “target” school. The GPA might help you get the first interview, but after that I don’t think the GPA matters all that much as long as it is above a certain level (3.0. 3.3, 3.5, whatever).
The answer is clear: A 3.9 from BU is far superior to a 3.2 from Harvard. But a 3.7 from Harvard might be considered the equal of a 3.9 from BU.
And since this is a race thread, this assumes that the two students are of the same race. The mean GPA and MCAT scores of admitted students varies significantly by race. And unlike the situation with elite undergraduate admissions, the data to support this assertion is much more publicly available.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
I posted this on another thread, but it seems that the comment needs to be made here as well; posts do not magically disappear; if one’s post has been deleted, one should assume that the was a reason. Therefore, posting it again verbatim is not advised.
Hardly anyone at Harvard has GPAs as low as 3.2. In the senior survey, 94% of the class reported having GPAs above 3.2. In contrast, GradeInflation.com suggests the average GPA at BU is below 3.2.
While a 3.9 at BU is better than a 3.2 at Harvard for the purposes of med school admission, there is no reason to think a 3.2 student at Harvard, who the senior survey suggests would be in the bottom 6% of the Harvard graduating class, would be at the top of the class at BU and get a 3.9. If the student is at the bottom of the class at Harvard because of various bad habits, such as not focusing on school work, then it’s likely that the same bad habits would also occur at BU. It’s even debatable whether he’s likely to be above the average at BU and get a 3.2; or whether he is not likely to be above the average at BU, so he’d get a lower GPA at BU than at Harvard.
@Data10 OK, you took my example too literally…the point I was making was in reaction to someone’s post about “doing better” at an easier school which might be better for some of the kids getting accepted to top schools. But if what you are saying is correct, then maybe not…and yes grade inflation is real at some schools, so does this take care of the problem then? So when you back any financial aid issues from the equation, maybe the student is better off at the better, more prestigious school (which many have grade inflation?) because they will have a higher GPA? Or will the graduate school notice class standing? I’m not sure the corporate recruiters see class standing, it might just be GPA.
As a larger portion of the class does ‘A’ quality work, professors tend to give out a larger portion of ‘A’ grades. HYPSM… type colleges, where larger portion of students do ‘A’ quality work, tend to give out a larger portion of ‘A’ grades than do BU and similar. Of course the grading at some specific colleges with similar selectivity varies. For example, Princeton tried to implement a grade deflation policy in which each department awarded no more than 35% ‘A’ grades. This system didn’t work out well . Most departments didn’t follow the guidelines well. Both students and professors reported being unhappy with the system. Some professors made announcements at the start of the class like, “There are 11 students in the class, so only 4 of you will get A’s.” Princeton cancelled the system in 2014 and were up to 55% ‘A’ grades in 2017… .well below most HYPS… type colleges, but well above most BU type colleges.
If “the problem” is it might be easier to get a particular GPA at school A than at school B, then there is still going to be a lot of variation. Majors aren’t equivalent, different classes within majors aren’t equivalent, different professors at the same college grade differently in the same class, the same classes at different colleges aren’t equivalent, different colleges at similar selectivity tend to grade more harshly/easily than others, etc .
There isn’t a simple rule like less selective = higher GPA. Instead it depends on a variety of factors, including the environment in which a particular student is most likely to thrive. Most employers of new grads aren’t hung up on small differences in GPA, so long as the applicant passes a basic screening threshold, such as GPA is more than 3.0. As I recall one survey of hundreds of employers found GPA was the 2nd least influential factor when evaluating resumes of new grads. There are a few exceptions, such as certain elite IB type recruiters, who I expect are familiar with the grading at the colleges where they primarily recruit. Some professional schools do expect high GPAs, but the need for near perfect GPA’s is usually exaggerated on these forums.
My question is what will harvard do to make it up to Asians?
Also is anyone here Jewish? What I find pretty astoudning is Harvard and many of these universities are led by American Jews, this seems to be missing from most articles (can’t post link to a number of references to Jewish heads at these places but ZOG might be a good website to reference, as crazy as it is, the references are on point) who are the most overrepresented group
This stupid notion that somehow minorities will look out for each other makes no sense, absolute power corrupts absolutely and we need transparency more than ever to deny small group interests
Not trying to make this a political discussion, but Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement earlier today. He was a key swing vote on the last affirmative action ruling, which allowed racial preferences to continue to be used at the University of Texas.
His replacement will likely be much less sympathetic to allowing race to be used as an admission factor, particularly if the SFFA v. Harvard case gets to the Court.
I can imagine a ruling prohibiting colleges from considering race. That won’t necessarily change the picture. Just as need blind schools find ways to know who is likely to be full pay, I believe that schools looking for diversity will find ways around any ruling.
We can use the UC Berkeley situation to estimate what will happen if the Supreme Court eliminates race as a consideration in admission. In 1997, before prop 209, Black students were 8% of freshman at UCB, but are now 3%. Interestingly Hispanic students were at 15%, dropped to 8% the following year, but have rebounded to about 20%.
Some others are probably more familiar with UCB’s current admission practices than I am, but my understanding is that class rank matters a great deal. UCB is looking to educate the best students in each school system, which fits with its mission of serving the entire state. I have heard stories that for students in highly competitive school systems, but not at the top of the school, it is easier to get admission to an Ivy League or equivalent than it is to get into Berkeley. Anyone comment on the truth of this?
To the two people who have brought up Jews in this race conversation, both of whom have asserted Jews are the most over represented group at elite universities, Jewish is a religion, not a race, although it was viewed as such by Nazi germany.
Per Wikipedia, ZOG - the site the last poster suggested readers go to for their facts - “is an antisemitic conspiracy theory that claims “Jewish agents” secretly control the governments of western states.”
I would suggest a new topic thread specifically on the alleged over-representation of Jews at elite institutions - for those so inclined - rather than bringing it up in a race discussion.
There have been quite a few people that have implied that Jews have an easier time getting into top colleges. I live in a community with many Jewish families and have many Jewish friends (I am not Jewish). We have shared the many intimidate details of our children’s college admissions processes with each other and from what I have personally experienced, my Jewish friends’ children have been held to the same standards as the rest of the unhooked white kids (like mine) that I know.
If there are indeed more Jews at some of the top schools my gut is they had the stats (unless they had legacy or were a recruited athlete, or some other kind of hook). Perhaps culturally many Jewish families value the importance of education and working hard, and this is what helps them get in. But they are not getting in because they are Jewish. In fact, some of my Jewish friends are scared to say they are Jewish on the applications that ask because they are concerned it will HURT them.
I am honestly shocked sometimes by some people’s comments. My husband is an accountant and had a client in this past tax season who asked him to explain the box that Blacks and Jews get to check so they can pay less taxes. You can’t make this stuff up.
Class rank as determined by the high school is not seen by UC admissions readers at all.
GPA, as recalculated by the UC method, is the biggest factor in UC admissions, and is relatively more heavily weighted than SAT/ACT scores compared to many other colleges (note that unweighted, weighted-capped, and fully-weighted GPAs are visible to admission readers, as are the courses and grades; most UC reports reference weighted-capped GPA unless otherwise noted). However, essays and extracurriculars can be significant, particularly for the most selective majors (e.g. UCB EECS, UCLA CS) where so many applicants are compressed at the top of the GPA scale. There is also a strong preference for those who built strong records from limited-opportunity situations (commonly low SES backgrounds; some may call it “SES affirmative action”).
ELC status (the “top 9%”) is correlated to class rank, but is determined by comparing the recalculated GPA to a threshold GPA which is the top 9% threshold of a recent previous class’ recalculated GPAs. ELC means that a California resident student who applies to UC and gets shut out will get admission to a UC which has space (in practice, UC Merced). But ELC status is also visible to admission readers, and apparently makes a positive impression.
Many of these stories appear to be of the following types (sometimes fitting more than one):
A. Test-score-heavy applicant gets into highly selective other schools but has disappointing UC results, because UCs emphasize GPA much more heavily (relative to test scores) than the other schools.
B. Applicant applies to major which is much more competitive at the selected UC campuses than overall admission stats suggest (e.g. UCB EECS compared to UCB L&S), and is surprised by rejection.
C. Because of “SES affirmative action”, more may be expected from those who came from backgrounds where there is more opportunity to do more. This may have an effect similar to consideration of class rank. On the other hand, other highly selective schools’ admission criteria skew their classes more heavily toward those from high SES backgrounds.
Well, I don’t have any crackpot theory that Jews are secretly controlling the government, or the weather.
But given that the entire concept of quotas started with limiting Jewish enrollment at Ivy League colleges about 100 years ago, I think that a respectful discussion of that topic as it relates to current racial preferences is quite germane here.
We are Jewish. My son did not check the Jewish box for applications, figuring it was not the business of the college admissions team as to what religion he is. Furthermore, in philosophy he may be closer to Quaker.
So would this in practice mean that UCB would favor the highest ranked kids in each school system, using its recalculated GPA? Or could some school systems be favored more than others due to relative grade inflation, or availability of courses that can improve the UC recalculated GPA?
I don’t know if any of you on this thread were around when it was common place to see signs prohibiting both Jews and Blacks from eating at restaurants, or frequenting other establishments. Jews also couldn’t join most social clubs. So, when people cite nebulous or no sources to suggest that anyone wants to give Jews something they didn’t earn, it flies in the face of history.
At any rate, the only Jewish kids I know who got into Ivy League schools were my H’s 2 cousins, both of whom are brilliant and had 1600 SATs. One went on to graduate top of the class at Yale law school, the other took 1 of 2 full scholarships offered at Columbia law school (he worked for a senator for years, tutored underprivileged kids in NY for free almost full time while in undergrad at Columbia, in addition to acing the lsat and having graduated at the top of his class.) And, I know lots of Jewish kids who had very high SAT scores, lots of EC, and talent, none of whom got into elite universities.
So, if you want to discuss Jews in this race thread, citing statistics and legitimate sources would be helpful.
“The evolution and refinement of admissions policies is an ongoing process, but the “holistic” admissions approach has become widely accepted as ideal. While current admissions policies at Harvard are far removed from their origins in Lowell’s committee, and invoke genuine inclusion rather than disguised exclusion, the history reminds us that even well-intentioned policies may have unintended consequences. This story has not ended and its implications extend to the present day. The Lowell administration’s New Plan was the precursor to present-day holistic admissions policies and the history of Harvard’s transition to the New Plan provides a unique window into contemporary debates about admissions procedures and who “deserves” to attend the country’s most selective schools. As applicant pools become more diverse, increasingly international, and larger in numbers, questions about the process of selecting candidates for admission become more difficult and more essential. While the holistic admission process today is broadly considered a just system, and is accepted by most elite institutions in the U.S., its familiarity should not render it immutable or unquestionable. The story told by the research in this essay illustrates that the subjective criteria of holistic admissions can be used against the stated desires and objectives of educational institutions. “
