It’s really uncommon for someone to get accepted into Stanford, MIT and Cal Tech and then rejected at H. I’ve seen a few (mainly Asians) get into MIT and Cal Tech and not H or S (or waitlisted at one of them). But to see this would mean that H thought he would get into Stanford or MIT and select one of them even though he applied SCEA to Harvard.
Changing the subject a bit, but does anyone think/know if it’s easier or harder for an African American that is NOT applying for aid at a need blind school to get accepted? In other words, even if the school is officially need blind, do you think they ever look to see or make assumptions based on the application (Common Ap does ask if you are applying for aid) and take this into consideration?
In theory it shouldn’t matter, but in practice, high-income African Americans have the highest odds of being accepted among all demographics (excluding recruited athletes, faculty children and development cases).
A boost for having low income is well documented in the Harvard lawsuit, even though the school is need blind with readers not seeing FA status. Harvard assigns the “disadvantaged” label to applicants who readers believe are from “modest economic means” based on things like parents’ occupation, requesting a fee waiver on the application, and location/HS characteristics. Getting the “disadvantaged” flag is associated with a boost in chance of admission.
Specific numbers from Harvard OIR’s internal analysis are at http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Doc-421-112-May-1-2013-Memorandum.pdf . Applicants with $0-$40k income were predicted to have a 6% chance of admission, but actually had a 11% admit rate due to the low SES boost. Applicants who had a $40-$80k income were predicted to have a 8% chance of admission, but actually had an 11% admit rate, suggesting a good portion of $40-$80k income applicants also get a boost. Neighborhood SES demographics also influence recruiting efforts.
In the lawsuit sample, otherwise unhooked “disadvantaged” African American applicants had a similar admit rate to otherwise unhooked African Americans who were not “disadvantaged”. The combined regression coefficients were interesting and showed nearly identical hook strength between otherwise unhooked “black” applicants who were “Disadvantaged” and not “Disadvantaged.” " The Harvrad OIR analysis showed a more significant benefit for having less than $60k income among Black applicants. Both analyses agreed that Asians applicants with less than ~median US income had an advantage over typical unhooked White middle class applicants. Specific regression coefficients are below. A higher number is associated with a stronger boost in chance of admission for otherwise similar applicants.
Plantiff Analysis
Black and “Disadvantaged”: +3.871 (~0.15)
Hispanic and “Disadvantaged”: +2.98 (~0.15)
White and “Disadvantaged”: +1.53 (0.15)
Asian and “Disadvantaged”: +1.35 (~0.13)
Black and not “Disadvantaged”: +3.876 (0.11)
Hispanic and not “Disadvantaged”: +2.03 (0.09)
White and not “Disadvantaged”: 0.00
Asian and not “Disadvantaged”: -0.33 (0.07)
Harvard OIR Analysis
Black and Less than $60k Income: +3.02
Hispanic and Less than $60k Income: +2.56
White and Less than $60k Income: +1.00
Asian and Less than $60k Income: +0.77
Black and More than $60k Income: +2.51
Hispanic and More than $60k Income: +1.23
White and More than $60k Income: 0.00
Asian and More than $60k Income: -0.42
Part of this is the blunted effect for multiple hooks that I mentioned in a previous post. This blunted effect would explain why the “Disadvantaged” effect is a a bit weaker for Hispanic applicants and a bit stronger for Asian applicants. However, it would not explain the additional benefit for the secondary “Disadvantaged” boost dropping no near 0 for Black applicants in the Plantiff analysis. It’s not a simple hook ceiling with the African American hook being so strong that no additional hooks push the boost higher, as AA + legacy or AA + early both gave additional boost, with an expected blunted effect.
It’s got to be not only uncommon, but very very rare, for anyone to get into those 3 in the first place, no? S has like a 3-4% admit rate, MIT and CT not that much more. Aren’t we talking about .01% of the app class here?
What does adding a Harvard rejection to those chances do to make a more uncommon situation? .001?
Let me fix that for you - “In theory it shouldn’t matter, but in practice, high-income APPLICANTS OF ALL RACES have the highest odds of being accepted among all demographics (excluding recruited athletes, faculty children and development cases).”
40% of H students do not qualify for financial aid AT ALL (source: current H FA page), even though it is offered well into the top income level in the US. Being wealthy is a MASSIVE advantage for any and everyone.
And @Data10 your good work notwithstanding, the advantage wealthy kids have is not in those numbers - “A higher number is associated with a stronger boost in chance of admission for otherwise similar applicants.”. Low income applicants will only rarely be “otherwise similar” to wealthy ones in the way that data measures it. Only those who can highly achieve despite the odds get into that pool of “low income advantage” in those numbers.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/harvard-university
Yes.
And I’ve seen it happen often, but I appreciate your reply, anyway.
My clientele is almost 100% Asian. In the past, most of them (>50%) have included H on their list, no matter the qualifications of the candidate, no matter the major, etc. In the last 2 years, thought, it’s been less common for students to casually apply to H. There was one girl two rounds ago that I thought was quite a good candidate for H in her profile. She was Val of a rigorous private. She even said that although her family had pressured her to go into STEM “because of her gender,” it was political science where she had found her true voice and “calling.” That was through both challenging coursework and debate. Yet it was MIT who accepted her, not H. OTOH, I will say that very often, folks, the EA, SCEA, ED applications are rushed. Few students are able to do as fine a job on them as they later do on the RD apps. I remember having to push her to complete it, and wishing she had allowed herself more time to polish her H statement.
So again, there are many, many factors at play in Who Gets In (where), which is a whole picture, including those of all “groups” (identities) who did not get in. Timing (who’s competing in that round), location, and minute differences in applications which conveniently appear to allow the committees to make their decisions, which will never be “perfect” in an objective sense, but will be “the best” at a moment in time judged by that institution to be what it “most” needs.
None of us will ever see the additional candidates who were turned down, and their personal origins and their files. For example, a very important missing element is the ratio of percentage accepted to percentage applied – of any particular group. That is not to excuse some of the stupid comments I have read that have been made during the trial, by some witnesses. It’s just to say that the factors are many and the dynamics among the factors complex.
@OHMomof2 I agree that wealthy kids, regardless of their skin colors, enjoy lots of advantages that make them “better” candidates for admission, and the results are pretty clear. Some colleges are known to favor full-pay applicants, even though they’re technically need blind.
In general, those from high income families are most likely to get to the point of having academic and other credentials to be realistic candidates for admission to a highly selective college, due to 17 years of various advantages growing up, compared to those from middle and low income families.
In the lawsuit data, unhooked “low income” (as indicated by "disadvantaged flag) non-URM applicants had more than twice the acceptance rate as those who were not low income. Harvard seems to think a large portion of their low income applicants can highly achieve, and as such low income unhooked applicants appear to higher odds of being accepted than wealthy ones. However, the overall acceptance rate for wealthy applicants is slightly higher due to a greater rates of hooks among wealthy applicants, and less of a low-income boost among URMs.
It’s far more common than “rarely” for low income applicants to have similar category ratings to wealthy ones, as well as similar scores. However, it’s true that low income applicants often overcome a variety of challenges and disadvantages that wealthy applicants rarely face; and in that sense, they are not similar.
Correct me if I’m wrong. I assume these low-income non-URM applicants include many 1st gen applicants? If we exclude the 1st gen applicants, would the result still be the same?
It’s true that there is a large overlap between low income and first generation. In the freshman survey, most first gen members of the class were what Harvard considers to be “low income.” However, the Plantiff’s analysis suggests the admissions benefit for this group primarily relates to most being “low income” rather than being first gen. In the Plantiff’s analysis with full controls, the regression coefficient for otherwise unhooked and first generation was -0.001 (0.168), which is not significantly different than zero. It found that first gen who were not flagged as economically disadvantaged did not get a boost. The reader manual states the “disadvantaged” flag is supposed to be assigned “if you believe the applicant is from a very modest economic background.”
Restricting ourselves to college admissions alone for a moment, I’ve never understood the argument why we couldn’t replace a policy that’s based on the color of skin to one that’s based on SES. The two are very highly correlated. Not only are they correlated, but there is a causal relationship: the person of color who has been disadvantaged will likely have lower SES.
@Data10 thank you for all of that info.
Do you or does anyone have a general opinion on African American admission rates for NON Harvard elites that claim to be need blind? Those applying for aid vs. those not? I’m assuming it varies by school. Obviously the African Americans that are not applying for aid at Wash U or Tufts will have an advantage, all things being equal, because they are need aware. But I’m wondering if anyone has an opinion (even if it’s not backed by a lot of stats) on this at the need blind elites.
Because while there are overlaps, they are not interchangeable or exactly similar.
Colleges want to give a boost to rich URMs. If you read the briefs in the Fisher lawsuits, the college was explicit about using AA to attract more high income and high SES URMs.
So what if the overlap isn’t 100%?
I haven’t read the brief in that case, but I do know that high SES URMs are among the most sought after by most private colleges.
At the expense of low income URMs? I don’t recall reading that.
Moreover, it is vanishingly rare for low income kids to apply to Harvard at all. That was my point.