That is cherry picking. Read a little further and it states that the URMs are overwhelming rejected. It also states that within the context of their school the students need to be in a certain decile requirements and have good LORs.
The author also states that students from low income homes are given some grace which applies to all students, not only URM.
^If, for example, you admit 10% of group A and 20% of group B, then group B has a significant advantage even though you reject the vast majority of both groups. This is the same issue we see when legacies are discussed. The Ivies might reject the majority of legacies, but that doesn’t mean legacies still don’t get a substantial advantage.
Nowhere in the article does it say that they admit URM at twice the rate.
A higher rate could also apply to many LACs that have to admit more males in order to maintain a semblance of gender balance.
Perhaps they need to admit more URMs because yield has typically been poor. I know my kid crossed off colleges on her acceptance list the colleges with the lowest numbers of minority students because critical mass mattered to her.
Not enough information from that article to start reaching conclusions.
That posted out of order. Phone is being goody
Grrr. Goofy
^The article was poorly written, but seemed to imply their expected cutoff between Asians and African Americans was 150 points. That’s not a small difference. That’s over one full standard deviation.
I think the point being made by the AO is there are two scenarios.
If you have a Latino student with a 650, high rigor, top 5% of his class, Dad is a welder, Mom is a receptionist, great letters of recommendation - top 5% with that score means the school may be on the lower performing end of the scale. The student took opportunities offered and was the cream that rose to the top. This kid could have achieved more if the school was better. Let’s give him a shot.
If you have a Latino student with a 650 from a wealthy school, access to multiple APs, only took 3, top 30% of the class, college educated parents, no after school job, then this kid is going to get a pass.
My take away from that AO’s piece was how they do indeed look for income markers. That is a win for all low income or blue collar students. “… Obviously, those from a lower income background will not be held to as high a standard as those who are higher income; we can deduce income levels from essays, LORs, and subtle/explicit things in the application…”
Athletes and VIPs do not have to meet the same minimum standards either. What do you think of that?
Athletes and VIPs usually benefit the school directly (prestige and or money) by their attendance.
@“Snowball City” There is a third scenario:
Latino student with high scores, top % in the class at a competitive HS, parents are professionals and fairly well-off. That student may get in with demonstrated success and more than “just give him/her a shot” - and with a specific merit scholarship (as happened to someone I know).
The college application process is stressful, for sure–and disappointing to many applicants out there. Inequities exist and it is a difficult issue to tackle. There are various “advantages” (URM, First in family to go to college, Legacy, athlete and then the less quantifiable ones: great ECs–music/robotics award winners, state champion in a sport, and fantastic essays/recommendations. Holistic evaluation and all of that…
All students probably have some “advantage” or another and hopefully kids end up at colleges that are a good fit for them.
@dragonmom3 I agree, athletes do benefit the school as do legacies (VIPs or just regular old alums), but so does diversity (geographic, socioeconomic, racial).
@dragonmom And minority students add nothing to the college learning environment?
@firstwavemom My kids were the high scoring URMs but the earlier poster was decrying the lower threshold for minority students. I was trying to illustrate show a student could have done well by community standards but still have somewhat lower test scores.
@“Snowball City” yes, agreed. I was just adding another scenario with another highly qualified URM (like your kids). regardless of parent jobs. There are valued intangibles (as is the case with almost everyone–in a number of different ways).
I suspect the unstated goal of many colleges is to avoid having a dating pool too lopsided in either direction. This might be an interesting topic as its own thread, but I don’t see how it’s connected to this thread’s topic.
Yield isn’t relevant. If you want to know if a college is acting in a biased fashion, you should judge them on admissions decisions, which the college controls, and not matriculation, which partly depends on the students.
Overall, I think colleges put too much of an emphasis on athletics in admissions. Maybe, a winning football team is why donors get excited about giving money to Alabama. It’s not why people donate to most top universities and LACs.
Colleges don’t control yield but they can predict it and do take it into account in deciding who and how many to admit.
Actually, they can and do control yield by adjusting the size of the early (especially ED) pool, which is essentially 100% yield.
I’m sure colleges can predict yield, if they’re trying to meet racial quotas, but it seems ridiculous they would have racial quotas in the first place.
They’re trying to build whatever their vision is of a great class and yield prediction is one tool in the toolbox to meet that end.
So if more Hmong kids are accepted because they know from previous years that only 1 out of 10 will attend if admitted and they’d like more than one, they act accordingly with admits to get to their goal - which might be 5 Hmong kids. Or whatever.
Yield isn’t relevant. If you want to know if a college is acting in a biased fashion, you should judge them on admissions decisions, which the college controls, and not matriculation, which partly depends on the students.
[/quote]
It has been a topic. It’s only related to this thread because it’s a gender admissions preference rather than a race admissions preference and the difference in reactions to it are interesting.
Stuyvesant under criticism: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/opinion/the-truth-about-new-york-citys-elite-high-schools.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
Valid criticism. I attended one and have sadly watched these schools become less diverse over the years, due to minority lack of access to prep for the exam. The three schools offer an amazing and free education and needs to be more accessible to all.
Uh, the majority of students are not white. They are from minority groups.