Getting back to the main topic of this thread, I’d like to reiterate the advice I have given often to smart URM: prepare for your standardized tests. Reading through cc in general, one gets the impression that testing is not very important, perhaps only at the margins.
While that may be true for applicants generally at the elites, a quick look at the admit rates by score and GPA at Harvard dispels any illusion for URM that they don’t count. Score high enough, say 1420+ SAT equivalent, and on that alone you become a viable candidate for any T20 school in my opinion.
After that, of course, it’s up to the other parts of your application that make you special, but I do think that the single biggest thing that any URM can do to increase her odds is to make a concerted effort to score as high as possible. At the margins, time spent there will be more valuable imo than another leadership position in some high school club. Just my two cents.
OK I’ll revise - unhooked applicants have a less than 5% chance at admission to Harvard, perhaps half that. Recruited athletes do best, (take the most seats with highest accept rates in any case), and there are development, URM, legacy…and then all the various considerations of geography and so on.
The fact remains that it is very difficult for a very bright student with no major out-of-school accomplishment or hook to get in, period. Way too many applicants for way too few seats. 1 out of 20 overall, and yes there are several back doors.
But this thread singles out only one. Not even the largest one.
@nokilli it’s harder for women at some schools and harder for men at others. Overall it’s harder for women. There are simply more of them graduating from HS with high stats and applying to college. In the T10 male/female acceptance rates are about the same overall, last I looked, with Brown hardest for women and MIT hardest for men.
Regarding legacy admits and so on - correlation is not causation. Many legacies enjoyed all the advantages of their parents’ education and wealth and that made them attractive candidates already. The single fact of their legacy status likely doesn’t cover all the space between 5% and 55% ("of the top, so presumably far less than 55%). As is the case with URM: I think many are seen as having achieved more in the face of adversity - not only economic adversity either. Development are just buying their way in, period - that’s capitalism at work. The athletes are my sore point because their acceptance rate is SO HIGH and standards are bent for them very deliberately with an official system (AI) and all, but it is what it is.
That’s because this is the only one to be accorded strict scrutiny under our laws.
The elites have played fast and loose with the law for quite some time, relying on a nod and a wink from fellow elites in the judiciary. I sense we are approaching a turning point.
Right! Seems to me the angst about URM admission rates are rediculous and misplaced. Its this kind of legacy preferance that is making it difficult for unhooked, excellent kids to gain admission. On the other hand, those unhooked excellent kids are all being admitted to wonderful colleges. Personally, I’m far more worried about the low income decent students who can’t get full rides at elite universities and therefore have problems affording college at all.
Could we solve that with increased funding on public community colleges and decent public universities? It would server far more of those students for the same tax spending.
Its just an observation, at our High School that boys don’t get into ivys. I’ll leave the overall stats to the number geeks out there. We have zero acceptances over the past 6 years for boys.
another n+1:
Last year one of my son’s friends was rejected from Brown. The kid is brilliant and was nationally ranked in something academic which you would all recognize. Actually, he was rejected everywhere except for one good LAC, which he is attending. The same thing happened to his older brother who was even smarter. It is messed up system.
Were they applying with intended majors that may be “gender oversubscribed” (e.g. engineering or CS for male students)? Even though Brown does not admit by major, it may be that “another guy applying for engineering or CS” may be too common a stereotype (like “another gal applying for psychology”) that could cause admission readers to become uninterested and biased against such applicants.
Nokilli I don’t think you can extrapolate “that boys don’t get into Ivies” and “it’s a messed up system” based on your individual very narrowly described experience. Unfortunately for the young man you describe many of the 36,000+ kids that apply to Brown (and all top tiers) are nationally ranked at something, have near perfect scores, GPAs and ECs. Saying the system is messed up diminishes those within the applicant pool who stand out enough to get accepted.
This isn’t to demean the young man you describe, but your suggestion that admissions is random, flawed, or impossible comes at the expense of those that did get in. Boys (and women) do get into Ivies and they worked very hard to do so.
I’m not generalizing or extrapolating anything. I made a statement about our high school, not all high schools.
And the current system does suck which takes nothing away from qualified students attending these top schools. I’m a believer in the NYC specialized high school method for BxSci, Stuy, and Tech.
disclaimer, I attended BxSci and took the entrance exam on a lark to get out of class for the day. I had no idea how I got in until a few years ago when my kids who have friends at Stuyvesant explained the scoring method. I'm was pretty good at those hard math problems.
">>Just for the record, everyone (well, perhaps besides recruited athletes) has a miniscule chance at admission to an >>Ivy+.
Maybe the girls and URMs get in at a 5-10% rate. The unhooked white/asian boys are completely shut out over the past 6 years at out HS. The white boy slots go to the legacies, elite feeder high schools, and development cases. Ya see, I’m annoyed at the entire system, not just AA. If you want to really see how these high performing kids feel, head over to reddit. There is an “applyingtocollege” subreddit that is quite salty.
I throw out a n=1 case from 2 years ago. Asian Male, 1600 SAT 4.0GPA, Val or Sal, US National Champion in a well known STEM EC you all know. Got completely shut out of any T20 he applied. There is absolutely no way if he was female or a URM he doesnt get in somewhere T20."
You are kinda of making broad and general statements “no way if he was a female or a URM…” based on extrapolating the experiences of " an individual 1600Asian Male"… Commenting “the current system does suck” isn’t specific to your school (as you suggest) but a general and self serving statement.
Question to anyone who knows how the U of California system works.
I realize it is now illegal there to use race as a factor in admission. Does anyone know if this is the case for out of state applicants as well, or just the in state applicants? I imagine it’s both in and out of state students, but just checking.
Also, if AA is indeed going to go away as we know it today, any idea which application cycle it would impact? I’m sure not this year’s, but do we think it could impact next year’s?
Thanks. You guys are all so smart and raise such great points.
Oh, it will not go away quickly, and definitely not for this year’s cycle or for the next few years at least (good thing for us personally, because we hope our kid will be race preference Hispanic and we will certainly play it up!).
I do think that schools will start paying a little more attention to who they let in starting now, though. Honestly, Harvard’s looking into the questions starting in 2013, based on the Unz article (“The Myth of American Meritocracy”), probably already signaled an interest into tightening up its process.
This reexamination will likely have the effect of weakening traditional affirmative action by increasing attention to low SES factors. Up until now, places like Harvard simply gave points to kids who appeared black and Hispanic. It preferred the wealthy and privileged URM kid from Andover to the equally smart and in many ways more impressive middle class (or even lower) black kid from the LPS. We might see less of that sort of thing.
I also think the elites will start to nudge up Asian admit rates, which would be easy to do with a greater focus on SES, even in advance of any rulings or consent decrees. Asians tend to have lower SES profiles, at least compared with white, with high academic credentials. There is certainly discrimination against Asians at Harvard and others, in my opinion, but I do not think it is extraordinarily high when properly compared with the unhooked white group. Just my opinion of course, and no offense meant to the many superb Asian candidates who are shut out in favor of less qualified legacy, URM and other hooked candidates.
True race-based “virtue signaling” as I call it is not going to go away. The elites are all in on this and have been for over 50 years. (I even think University of California has never abandoned race preference, although obviously Prop 209 has had a massive effect in lowering it dramatically.) But I hope it can be “bent” into a more fair system that emphasizes achievement in the face of true adversity and difficult circumstance, rather than just a preference for a certain “racial aesthetics” as it has been up until now, as Justice Thomas put it in his dissent in Grutter.
I am very familiar with an unhooked white male with no legacy, athletic prowess, or Z list status that was accepted to Brown last year RD. Another n=1.
I disagree with Satchel. I think AA will be ended very quickly especially if Trump wins reelection. The very very big difference now is the composition of the SCOTUS and that the DOJ is supporting the Asian position. Few schools will want to take the risk of action by the DOJ.
I hope you are right and I am wrong, @SAY. But even you will admit that University of California has been figuring out how to evade - at least partially - Prop. 209 over the past couple of decades now, especially in the professional schools. These guys are slippery, and Harvard and the other elites have enormous connections with the status quo.
I do like the idea of all these schools being faced with ongoing DOJ and DOE inquiry and supervision, and a Trump reelection should further that goal. If private businesses have to twist themselves into knots trying to satisfy DOJ and EEOC directives, it’ll be nice to see these elite schools squirm as well. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I think as long as a conservative is put on the bench, it won’t matter who is president. But if they block Kavanaugh, which I doubt they will be able to but will keep trying, they may not have time before the midterms to get a vote in on the next nominee. This should be interesting as it relates to AA, and they definitely are mentioning it as something that will be a top issue at stake.
I have a very basic question just to make sure I fully understand what could happen.
If you have two nearly identical candidates in all regards (including the squishier stuff like extracurricular activities, geographic residence, essay, etc.) and one has a higher score than the other, no matter what their race is, it would be illegal for the school to take the kid with the lower score? Even if they are both white or both asian or both black??? Or any combination?
Will the colleges be able to pick applicants from North Dakota over New Jersey just because they want more people from other states??? Isn’t that just another form of discrimination?
Assuming Kavanaugh is confirmed, if there is a ruling against Harvard, I would not expect a sweeping broad decision based on a 5-4 vote. SCOTUS historically rules as narrowly as possible especially when the court is evenly divided. In those situations, schools that value “holistic” policies that want to factor background/life experience of candidates will probably be able to parse the language of the decision in a way to continue to factor race, directly or indirectly, in the decision making process.