"Race" in College Applications FAQ & Discussion 12

Applying to College
2741

Food for thought, on several levels, with links.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/asian-americans-rejected-harvard-need-resist-anti-affirmative-action-narrative-ncna863496

I found this particularly interesting, about Berkeley post Prop 209 (banned AA) . It’s often pointed to as what will happen if AA is banned, more Asian-American students will get into elite schools. But…

The "deeper dive: http://care.gseis.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/care-brief-raceblind.pdf

Basically, the admit rate for Asian-Americans went down after race stopped being considered in CA (at every UC except Riverside). More Asian students who were admitted chose to attend.

I’m guessing @ucbalumnus has seen these numbers?

2742

I think we’ve well discussed discussed why you can arrive at very different totals, by doing some combination of the following.

–Only look at freshman from a single year
–Use accepted students, rather than entering students
–Remove international students from denominator
–Double count multirace students, so total is more than 100%

Using a real example, a comparison for racial percentages reported by the National Center for Education Statistics (https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=harvard&s=all&id=166027#enrolmt ), and Harvard & Princeton’s private websites is below. The NCES website linked above reports a specific percentage rather than number enrolled, so they don’t give visitors a simple option to manually adjust them number to a different reporting format. Looking at college websites, a visitor might think Harvard has twice the portion of black students as Princeton, which likely influences quite a few college application decisions. However, looking at NCES standardized reporting, one would think the racial percentages at Harvard and Princeton are very similar.

Princeton NCES – 8% Black
Princeton Website – 8% Black

Harvard NCES – 7% Black
Harvard Website – 15.2% Black

2743

Not specifically that paper, but you can fish out the data and more from https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/freshman-admissions-summary . Note that admit rates have been on a general downward trend for all race/ethnicity at most campuses. Admit rate by GPA band shows downward trend for each campus as well. You can also see yield rates there as well.

2744

@ChangeTheGame I share your frustration when people imply the URM’s getting into the elite schools don’t deserve to be there…I think we resolved this point down thread a while ago that most URM’s still had very strong applications, both objectively and subjectively. They deserve their spots.

I also share your thoughts on how some applicants seem to feel entitled to spots at the most elite schools. I think that’s what bothers me the most about this whole debate. When schools have 4-9% acceptance rates, how could anyone feel that they are entitled to a spot? It’s more like the lottery than anything else. If you are one of the students that felt you were snubbed, I’m sure there are students just like you that WERE accepted.

I am not as active as most of you on this thread, especially in my research and peeling back the onion on the stats (thanks for your summaries though!), but I as I read I continue to have the same feelings come over me as I read…that there are so many great schools out there and these rejected students are likely still getting into great schools (hopefully they applied to more than just the super elite…if not, what does that say about them?).

2745

I am watching the Harvard Lawsuit with interest.

I am a middle class American.

I watched the Harvard applicants on an internet site last year. One applicant, a URM, was represented by a Non Profit that identifies URM’s and matches them with Elite Private Universities. I wasn’t overly impressed with his stats. He was quite confident that he would attend Harvard do to his situation. He received an interview. He came away confident that he was in. He knew he was in. I remember thinking that Harvard didn’t operate this way. Nobody was just “in”. Except he was.

My son applied to two Elite Colleges. I read stories like " I got accepted to 8 Ivey League and 37 top Universities". My second child is one of the most intelligent persons I have ever met. He took the SAT once. He came out and said it was easy. He receives 100% on tests so I wasn’t surprised. I was surprised when his score came back a 1550. We both laughed and thought he must have accidently checked the wrong box on some answers. He did not take it again.

Friends asked me if my son was admitted to all the top universities. Why didn’t we apply to all the top Universities? I told them that at $70-$90 applications fees it wasn’t doable. I further explained that retaking the ACT and SAT cost money unless you are on a reduced lunch. And furthermore, children that are admitted to “all” the Ivies and numerous Elite schools do not come from the middle class. “Privileged” reduced lunch kids can apply to all the Universities for free. My wife and I are employed so we pay for SAT/ACT tests. We had to pay application fees for both children last fall. There is no free lunch, for us anyway. I am quite confident that both my children would have been admitted to an elite private school had I paid for numerous application fees.

My children are minorities. Whether they are URM I guess depends on where they apply. They attended public school in the 50th worst state for public education in the USA. IMHO, If HYPS etc. is where all the most intelligent kids go for an education then I would have wanted my children to apply and see if they met the high academic standards. If the standards are determined by Diversity/Quota’s relating to income, geographic location, race, sexual preference etc. etc. etc. Then maybe those are schools for others children seeking a more “diverse” education. I would like my children to attend a school with their intellectual peers. (call me old fashioned)

My son was waitlisted at both schools. By that time I had feared he may in fact get accepted. At that point in the process I was more knowledgeable and no longer wanted him to attend either. A third elite Private school sent him additional paperwork and asked if he was interested in attending. Luckily, he wasn’t. He chose a Public University (100% merit Full Ride) with great stats and settled down with his peers in the Honors College dorm. I was elated. He currently has received 100% on every test and helps tutor other brilliant kids through the weed out classes.

My daughter also chose a Public institution. She received a near Academic Full Ride. (95-97%) She also settled in an Honors dorm where she is currently expecting a 4.0.

My third child is in 8th grade. She attends the worst public school system in the USA. She has earned a 31 on the ACT in 7th grade. The charts say she will be in the 35-36 range by her junior year. She is sure a 36 wont take that long. Her goals are both a 36 and a 1600 by her sophomore year. I have another 4.0 lifetime 6th grader behind her. Where will they apply? At this point, I hope not to any Private Elite Ivy League College.

I am watching the Harvard Lawsuit with interest.

If they are adding 160 points to ones SAT and subtracting points from others, to meet “criteria”, please don’t tell me that your URM “earned it”.

I expect that I offended some.

2746

^^^ Those grapes were probably sour anyway, right?

Your kids are clearly bright. But so are many others, and they are most concentrated in the elite schools. There are 17 schools that show an average ACT score of 33 (98th percentile) or higher. Of these, 8 have an average ACT score of 34 or higher (99th percentile). There is a well-known site that shows these percentile breakdowns, but I cannot link to it.

The other thing to note is that, for most of those kids, just being bright was insufficient to get admission. Many of those kids have national level achievements in literature, math, science, athletics, or the arts.

There is nothing wrong with your kids going for free at state flagships and finding peers in the Honors College. I did that myself, and have thrived in my career. But don’t kid yourself that the experience is the same. Your children will find peers in the Honors classes, whereas kids at the elite colleges have peers everywhere.

If your kids were not URM, it might be true that they were held to a higher standard than URMs. The Harvard case might illuminate that. I too will watch it with interest.

2747

FSUdad93- Congratulations on the success of your kids. I think your comments below (from different threads) reflect the paradox of holistic admissions. Everyone wants an advantage if it applies to their loved one and somehow assumes their loved one is unique in their academic greatness.

“I am hoping a possible Latino/ Mississippi URM helps out”.

“If the standards are determined by Diversity/Quota’s relating to income, geographic location, race, sexual preference etc. etc. etc. Then maybe those are schools for others children seeking a more “diverse” education. I would like my children to attend a school with their intellectual peers. (call me old fashioned)”

On one hand you want your child to benefit from URM status but on the other hand diminish URM consideration as lowering the “intellectual” quality of the school.

Can’t really have it both ways but we all want it. Unfortunately as evidenced by your post we all see admissions through the prism of our own circumstances and results. While I empathize with your emotions, I disagree strongly with your denigration of those that gain admissions to the most elite schools as less than “intellectual peers” of those such as your kids that failed to.

Keep it m mind the vast majority of kids accepted to Ivy/elite schools have near flawless grades and then have unique qualities that differentiated them among a crowded field, not the other way around or at the expense of intellectual ability.

2748

@Nocreativity1 very well said. And to take your point a step further,

“Keep it m mind the vast majority of kids accepted to Ivy/elite schools have near flawless grades and then have unique qualities that differentiated them among a crowded field”

And many kids with those flawless grades and unique qualities were rejected from the elite schools…in fact, probably most of them being many of these schools have a 5% admission rate.

My daughter had those stats, was Valedictorian, and an amazing resume, if you ask me. But they didn’t ask me, nor should they have. She’s doing fine at her non-Ivy…just got a great internship for this coming summer. No complaints.

2749

Collegemomjam- I completely agree. Far to few spots for so many amazing, worthy and comparable kids. Thankfully lots of great schools and outcomes as your daughter proves.

2750

@Nocreativity1 exactly…there are so many great schools in the country!

2751

@OHMomof2
19% is the floor for Hispanic + black percent without properly dis-aggregating the data. I’ll just give you that and ignore the inaccuracies of ignoring international and the other factors. Rounding down to 7 + 11 (when it’s something like 7.6 + 11.5, don’t remember the exact numbers, if you wanted to round you would properly round to 8 + 12 which yields a nice, even sum of 20%) irks me and I have to call it out btw.

40-60% of these students would not have gotten in without affirmative action, quoted from Harvard:

That’s a shift of around 10% of the entire student body! I guess if you still consider that “minor”, we can just agree to disagree on the point.

Admission rates plummeted for everyone, everywhere in those years. Admission rates at Berkeley and UCLA most likely decreased less than admission rates at HYPSM for Asian Americans.

Specifically for UCs:

https://accountability.universityofcalifornia.edu/2015/documents/images/chapter-1/1-1-2.png

HYPS admission rates:

https://www.stoodnt.com/images/blogs/20161213143643_Admissions_Graph_Stanford.jpg

The UC system is better than the racially discriminatory alternative but you are right in that the UCs are not correctly serving the non-black, non-Hispanic community.

The UCs have been going against the spirit of the anti-discrimination laws and are attempting to increase black and Hispanic acceptance rates by using very questionable admissions practices:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/education/edlife/lifting-the-veil-on-the-holistic-process-at-the-university-of-california-berkeley.html
https://nypost.com/2018/09/01/california-passed-an-anti-affirmative-action-law-and-colleges-ignored-it/

Note that the tricks that the UCs use cannot be used by the Ivy League schools. The Ivy league schools have different goals. The Ivy League schools recruit from exclusive magnet, private schools and the true 0.1%. If the Ivy League schools boosted local context like the UCs, they would not yield enough upper class, privileged or connected students.

Would the Ivy League schools rather have privileged, upper class students or URMs? With affirmative action, they can have their cake and eat it too. Without affirmative action, I believe that they would stick with the 0.1%.

2752

It is unclear whether or not the universities are dramatically or only slightly lowering their standards for URM admits.

Anecdotally and from the admitted posts (and the black specific threads) on here, there is a clear divide between URM admits and normal admits. URMs that have a decent shot at Mich or NYU tend to get into at least one (but usually multiple) Ivys. Any better than NYU/Mich stats and URMs tend to have a very good shot at HYPSM. The URMs that have the “Asian” STEM profile tend to do much better than the Asian with an “Asian” STEM profile, go figure.

About universities having thousands of very qualified applicants that meet the bar: The actual number of well-qualified URM applicants that meet the bar is unclear. It’s only clear that an applicant pool with all races included has many qualified applicants.

Admission officers are trained to look out for the amazing African Americans who score above 700 on the math SAT:

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/6/23/admissions-officers-trained-on-race/

2753

@UndeservingURM I have seen those numbers of Asian American and African American SAT test takers with a possible 700 math score from the original source and those numbers were a mathematical estimate (not saying the estimate is wrong) of each group and not the actual numbers from College Board. One of the statistical gurus on CC has already reviewed the numbers and showed that the differences in SAT scores at Harvard were much smaller than I expected (due to Harvard getting the best of the best URMs to apply) along with 6 year graduation rates that were literally identical between races (So happy to see data that disputes the unworthy URM stereotype) . I am an African American who scored a 700+ SAT Math 25 years ago with 5 direct members of my family that have scored a 700+ on the Math section of SAT and a 6th who could easily do so (sticking with the ACT score), and while a couple got into Ivy’s, none of us truly considered attending due to the perceptions of our accomplishments being downplayed. One day a family member will get into one of those schools and decide that the pluses outweigh the minuses, but my own lens is colored by the sum of my own experiences. I see standardized tests as just 1 piece of a largely complicated puzzle to evaluate prospective students for elite college admissions, while you are making the standardized testing the most important factor in admissions. I believe that is just as flawed an argument as using race based admissions policies as the most important factor. I don’t believe anyone “deserves” to go Harvard or other such schools, and there will be some very talented people who will get rejected from elite schools every year regardless of the final outcome of the court case because there are just not enough seats. My big issue is that people fight over URM seats (I agree because there should not be any URM seats), but not over other factors (legacy, non-revenue sports athletes, development admits) that may take up seats from students in the majority. Some will point to the legality of what Harvard and other elites are doing on this issue, but I also see something a little more sinister around the edges of this fight (there goes those colored lens again).

2754

@UndeservingURM said:

I have got to say that the NY Times article was a revelation, and not in a good way. The author describes what I consider blatant racism. UC Berkeley responds, but interestingly does not refute the accuracy of the author’s statements.

I fully understand that the mission of the University of California is to educate the best and brightest across all of California, not just the pockets of concentrated intelligence in places like the Bay Area. The University of Texas has a similar mission, and their approach was to guarantee admission to the top X% of each high school (this itself is fairly non-controversial, the controversy is that UT wants to reserve a group for which it uses holistic admissions).

How about a modification on the UT system? Instead of just “take the top X% from each school”, how about “take the top Y% in each region” and the top Z% statewide, where Y and Z are adjusted to yield roughly equal numbers of students. Yes I realize there is an intersection of the two–we can work out the math later. This has the advantage of being transparent and not unfairly penalizing really bright kids where the talent is concentrated.

2755

The UC system actually does prefer the top 9% statewide (approximated by GPA and test scores http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/admissions-index/index.html ) and top 9% in each high school (by UC-recalculated GPA matching a recent previous year benchmark, not current high school class rank http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/local-path/index.html ).

But note that this is the for the UC system, which in practice means that meeting either top 9% threshold assures admission to UC Merced, which is the campus with space available.

2756

Yes, thank you for that reminder. But of course the top California students are not aiming for Merced. They are aiming for Berkeley or UCLA.

Texas handles this via different guaranteed admission criteria with UT-Austin being the most stringent, Texas A&M less so, and so on. No reason why California can’t do the same thing.

2757

The UCs are smaller relative to the state population than UT Austin and Texas A&M. So doing a Texas style auto admit by class rank or a proxy thereof would probably mean a threshold of top 2% or 3% at UCB and UCLA. Compare to top 6% at UT Austin and top 10% plus top 25% with high enough test scores at Texas A&M (but admission to popular majors is not automatic).

2758

@hebegebe Do you worry about the bloodbath that may occur within the top High Schools in the state of California if they went to Texas styled law on college admission?

2759

@ChangeTheGame,

Well, my key modification is that they also accept the top Y% statewide. Let’s suppose that UC Berkeley guarantees both the top 2% in each district and the top 2% in the state. It is quite possible for 15% of the class, at say Palo Alto High School, to be the top 2% in the state. UCLA might be able to do the same, and at that point you have 30% of the class with admission to either Berkeley or UCLA.

Running some rough numbers to estimate how feasible this is. I gathered these numbers quickly so someone more familiar can correct me. It appears that California graduates about 425K students each year from high school. Let’s suppose 200K of them have their sights set on the UC system, and apply to all of them.

Berkeley seems to have a freshman class of about 6300 students, and about 70% of them are in-state, which is about 4400 students. Berkeley’s total yield is about 44%, but let’s assume in-state is higher at 50%. Therefore Berkeley could admit about 8800 California applicants to fill its in-state allocation. That works out to 4.4% of all graduating California high school students that are interested in the UC system. It is probably reasonable for Berkeley to guarantee admission to the top 2.5% overall or within each district given that some will overlap between the two.

2760

I think that’s already the case for many Bay Area high schools.

This basically has no effect on the livelihoods of most people since it only grants access to a low ranked school.

Target school or bust. Outside of the top ~30 (depending on major) schools, the brand name and resource differences between ranks are negligible. If a student doesn’t get into one lower ranked school, there will usually be another similar school that will accept that student.

I don’t have much of a problem with Texas’s system for this reason. The best school in that system, UT Austin, is decent for engineering but it’s not that great for anything else (and IIRC, being in the top 6% isn’t enough to get into any competitive majors like CS). I’d actually put UCSD over UT Austin.

Although I think UT Austin can become a very competitive school and break into the top 30 by dropping affirmative action and the top % rule. It seems like this isn’t an unpopular opinion:

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2017/06/18/top-ten-rule-hurting-competitive-school-districts-unduly-burdens-ut-austin

I don’t know much about this being an estimate. According to the article author, those numbers are directly shown to Harvard admissions officers during training, so I assumed that they’re actual numbers.

Standardized test scores are the easiest to talk about and compare. They’re quantifiable and aggregatable. URMs do worse by other metrics also. The other metrics are just harder to explain and compare. URMs are underrepresented at most national competitions and anything with national recognition like Math olympiad, Science olympiad, Intel talent search, MIT inspire, etc. IIRC, ranking high on a national competition or getting national recognition gets applicants the highest score on the extracurricular or academic category and students receiving the highest score on any one category have a high chance of acceptance.

Aside from athletics and political issues/clubs, anecdotally, URMs tend also to not to be in leadership positions and aren’t that involved in extracurricular activities, definitely not enough to make up for the lower average academics. And to contradict the stereotype, I found that Asians tended to be very involved in extracurriculars because their parents have wisened up and pushed them to do extracurriculars in addition to academics.

From my understanding, the one major weak point for Asians has been humanitarian or political type work with national recognition involving meeting political figures or going on humanitarian trips to Ethiopia. The upper class type of activities that the Ivy League salivate at. In recent years though, I’ve been seeing an uptick in bougie Asian students involved in this type of work.

And note, people don’t generally talk about these topics in relation to affirmative action because all they can go on are anecdotes or weak trends.