SAT Scores of URMS at Ivies

Applying to College
121

<p>"I don't see why there is such an emphasis by black special interest groups on getting URM's into the top colleges. "</p>

<p>Other than the black alum groups at those colleges, black special interest groups are not emphasizing this issue. </p>

<p>Instead, black special interest groups are concerned about things such as:</p>

<p>the low high school graduation rate of black students, particularly black males. Only about 50% of black males graduate from high school. The rates for black females are higher, but still are well below the rates of white and Asian females. </p>

<p>The low literacy rate of African Americans, particularly males. I've seen figures that as many as 40% of adult African American males are functionally illiterate.</p>

<p>The low percentage of college graduates that are African American, particularly males. I think that only 15% of black males get their college degrees, far below the rates for white and Asian males.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, when it comes to graduating from colleges, the places with the highest success rates are the most competitive colleges in the country -- places like HPYS, Williams, Smith, Amherst, -- which tend to have black graduation rates of 85%-95%.</p>

<p>A big reason for this may be their generous need-based financial aid. Research has indicated that lack of funds is a major reason why many black students drop out of college. Many black students have to take out large loans, work during the school year, and may even be sending $ home to help their families.</p>

<p>I agree with those who suggest that much more emphasis needs to be placed by society on improving the education for African Americans and for low income students of all races. A reason that many African Americans have low test scores is that they are more likely to attend schools in poor areas, and such schools tend to have fewer teachers that are certified in their subject areas than is the case at schools in more affluent areas. </p>

<p>As for the impact on society of black students going to top colleges, some research ("Shape of the River" by Bowen and Bok) indicates that individual black alum of such colleges do far more community service than do individual white alums. That would be a great benefit to society.</p>

122

<p>I think the problem is that the inner city schools, which statistically have a high number of URM's, are in a shambles. Also, affluent parents are better able to help their kids in schools than poorer parents. It seems to me that trying to get an extra 10-15 extra URM kids into Harvard each year is like taking toys to the orphanage at Christmas while you let them starve the rest of the year. You are helping very few people, and a lot of the ones you do help may be affluent URM's from prep schools, anyway.</p>

<p>I'm not suggesting that AA should be done away. If imperfect, it still is working in the right direction, and the topl colleges do not want to appear to be conclaves of primarily white/asian students. However, the whole thing is just a side show, and distracting from the real problem. It is also devaluing the achievements of URM's who get accepted, especially the ones who had a solid shot in the final cut even without AA.</p>

123

<p>It feels so good to see that people are finally starting to see that the issue is not essentially one of black and white but about society itself and the disparities in the educations of inner city kids versus affluent kids. It would be interesting for someone to start a thread primarily on affirmative action just to see what everyone else thinks. I'm sure there are many more opinions floating around out there but the title of this thread does not indicate that it is about AA and these people are not giving these opinions. There should be a poll.</p>

124

<p>northstarmom: Thank you for your post, but I question one part of it: "Other than the black alum groups at those colleges, black special interest groups are not emphasizing this issue."</p>

<p>If this is true, and I'm not saying it isn't, then the whole AA issue is just a bunch of black alumni who are trying to get their own kids into extremely selective colleges. A segment of the Harvard Black Alumni Club was recently upset at a report that a lot of the black students at Harvard (41%) were immigrants or biracial. If all of this is just a bunch of black alumni who care only about their own few kids, then why is it a national debate? Everyone is upset with socioeconomic status of a large part of the US population and the collapse of the public schools. I am just saying that AA doesn't address that.</p>

125

<p>dufus I agree. i believe that i would have been admitted to my schools without the help of AA yet I used it in order to take advantage of the various scholarships out there for african americans. this system ended up ruining my senior year because my class began to hate me and talk about me. I believe this bitterness carries on through life and instead of showing some of these kids that diversity is important and that the races are equal in intelligence, these people are beginning to hate us for what we have accomplished since we are seemingly getting a big helping hand. i do believe however, that colleges are able to tell the affluent blacks from the low income and this is a huge factor if a student gets in or not. top schools like cornell and notre dame dont really have a choice but to admit blacks without thinking about income because they get so few who matriculate anyway. however the top top schools such as HYPSM, i believe are using AA only when the income entails its use. I may be wrong but after talking to people who got in and who didnt get in at many admit weekends and convos, this is my perception. AA at top schools may seem wrong now but once the yields for these races increase and the number becomes self sustaining, which is the case right now in HYPSM, then it will be alot more agreeable to everyone.</p>

126

<p>trisa: There have been many threads on CC about AA in the past. I have seen them referred humorously to as the AA Wars. Any thread helps somebody, but the people on CC tend to be even more self interested than the general public. The topic centers on why should somebody get MY SLOT when I have better stats. I can see the argument that the person with the best stats should should get the rewards. I can see the argument that an applicant with a 1350 from an inner city school is better qualified to succeed than somebody with a 1550 from an affluent prep school. I can see the argument, slightly, that URM's are currently being discriminated against. I can't see the argument that the SAT's are culturally biased (Hey, it is English and math, people!). To me, the main argument for AA is that the very top colleges can not be primarily white/asian, no matter for what reason.</p>

127

<p>f this is true, and I'm not saying it isn't, then the whole AA issue is just a bunch of black alumni who are trying to get their own kids into extremely selective colleges. A segment of the Harvard Black Alumni Club was recently upset at a report that a lot of the black students at Harvard (41%) were immigrants or biracial"</p>

<p>Huh? A lot of the black alum are themselves bi-racial (as is Lani Guinier, who was one of the alums who commented on it) or are children of immigrants.</p>

<p>I truly doubt that the black alums are concerned about the issue in order to boost their own kids in. The black alums simply note that in the interest of true diversity and of applying affirmative action (which was designed to compensate for the effects of slavery in this country), African Americans who aren't biracial or immigrants should account for more of the admissions.</p>

<p>After all, most black people in this country are not biracial nor are they immigrants. </p>

<p>I agree that AA does not address the problems with the public schools -- particularly in the low income areas that many black kids live in. In addition to the problems that I mentioned, the concerns include a disproportionately high proportion of black students (particularly black males) who are suspended (including for violations that white kids would not be suspended for), and a disproportionately high proportion of black kids being shunted into special education. </p>

<p>Add to this, many teachers don't expect much of black students, particularly black males. It's a reverse halo effect. The students are expected to be lazy, stupid, disruptive, and they then live up to that expectation.</p>

<p>I think that all teachers -- particularly those in predominantly black schools -- need to be educated in African American history, culture and psychological issues affecting African Americans. It is very hard for a teacher who has never been around African Americans before and who knows very little about African Americans to be an effective teacher of African American students.</p>

<p>For instance, some such teachers may think they are doing black kids a favor by not teaching them correct grammar, and not expecting them to be able to learn the material, but simply passing them. That's not helping anyone.</p>

128

<p>My S just got out of high school, and I never want to talk about public schools ever again.</p>

<p>Among black leaders, I don't know if there is a lot of emphasis on AA. It is just that when it comes up, I wonder how much time is being spent trying to get filet mignon for a few while millions are without bread.</p>

129

<p>"who are suspended (including for violations that white kids would not be suspended for)"</p>

<p>That is crazy and inexcusable Northstar. Do you really think you can back that up? Do you really think more black kids get suspended because the administrator or school is racist? It is because blacks are, on average, raised in less strict or family value based households that would help them be less inclined to juvenile delinquency. This has nothing to do with race, it is a poverty issue.</p>

130

<p>"and a disproportionately high proportion of black kids being shunted into special education." </p>

<p>Because the black kids have a disproportionate likelyhood of being poor, which often is a cause of those who need special education. Would you rather that the black kids aren't allowed in special ed because the person making the decision would feel racist? Then the black kids who needed special ed for extra help don't get it. Is that what you want?</p>

131

<p>I agree with drummerdude on this one, although I suspect that what was said by Northstarmom is going to be backed up with statistics of some sort. Speaking as someone with a degree in statistics, it is well to remember what Twain said about them: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." </p>

<p>Unfair things happen all the time to everybody. At the risk of being called a rascist myself, I think that some blacks are very quick to attribute every little slight to racism. If I, a white person, is ignored by a cashier at Walmart, the service sucks. If some black people have problems in line, the cashier is racist. I wouldn't mention this, but I think it is a big problem. I praise northstarmom's post for not blaming all of the ills afflicting black high school students on discrimination. </p>

<p>I noticed the same things in northstarmom's post that drummerdude did, but I decided not to say anything. Part of why I kept my mouth shut was that I decided that some racially biased statistically study existed somewhere. I do agree that teachers don't always treat white/black students the same. This was in Newsweek a couple of years ago. The conjecture there was that white students think it is cool to be smart and get good grades, while black students (statistically) have a different idea of what it means to be cool. Teachers would react differently, of course, and they might react according to their own race to some extent. In my S's very diverse high school, he and I both thought that white teachers tended to grade on mastering the material while black teachers tended to grade on effort. (Either way would make sense.) There are going to be differences.</p>

132

<p>The only people with 1500+'s who are getting rejected and waitlisted at the Ivies are absolute nerds with no lives and no personalities to match their "uber stats". In short, as much as people talk about about half of the 1600 SAT scoring valedictorians who apply to the ivies every year, it makes sense. Colleges want more than perfect stats and 4.0 GPAs. Thay want interesting people. You could be valedictorian of your HS, with a 4.0 uw GPA and a 2400 SAT (or 36 ACT) to boot, you could have varsity letters in 3 different sports, you could have found the cure to 100 different cancers, you could have 3829 awards in Debate team, etc. etc.... But if you come across as BORING, SELF-CENTERED, NERDY, DORKY, ARROGANT, (any of these things) in your college interview or application, there is a very big chance that you may be rejected at the ivies. </p>

<p>Pure numbers is NOT what the ivies is looking for. If you have a solid 3.5 GPA, you're definetely in the ballpark. All you really need to get into the "beloved ivies" is a 1400 SAT(or now a 2100, however you want it). If you have higher, then all the power to you, but honestly it's not gonna help you much. You have to be 1) a Well-rounded person that the colleges think will make a good fit on the campus, 2) <strong><em>gasp</em></strong> interested in more than academics (or the annual science fair, lol), and 3) passionate about SOMETHING non-academic (kinda goes along with #2). This COMBINED with having the basic ballpark numbers and a rock-solid application is a surefire way to get into at least one of the ivies (The law of averages says that if you apply to all 8 with this approach, you'd have to have something like a 5% chance-- maybe less -- to not get into ANY.) </p>

<p>There's nothing really MYSTICAL about the ivies.</p>

133

<p>rbase: Your comments about not being boring and etc. are good. Your minimum SAT is way too low for an unhooked applicant. Your comment about well-rounded students is dead wrong. I am basing this on "Admissions Confidential" by Toors who made BWRK (Basic Well Rounded Kids) into an acronym, "The Gatekeepers" by Steinberg, "Harvard Schmarvard" by Mathews, a lot of Wash Post articles, and a lot of college guides. The only exception to this is Michelle Hernandez ("A is for Admissions") who totally believes that everyone who is qualified gets in, as if the number of open slots magically adjusts itself to the number of qualified and deserving applicants.</p>

<p>If you have a 10% chance of getting into 8 schools, the the odds of not getting into any of the is (0.9)**8 = 43%.</p>

134

<p>I agree with you RBase--it is really about a lot more than SAT scores. There IS a point at which you probably can't be helped, no matter how outstanding your personality is, but SAT scores and stats alone won't get you in. Schools want people who are not only smart but charismatic and likeable. People on this board tend to forget that perfect stats aren't enough. If you're a jerk, nobody's going to like you, including adcoms.</p>

135

<p>Nobody said perfect stats. A reasonable unhooked candidate needs SAT's of at least 1500/1600, three SAT II's in at least the mid 700's, and EC/interests to make them stand out from the crowd, and the crowd is tough.</p>

<p>This is really the issue of the thread, because hooked applicants don't need to be that high. How high is subject to debate because there are no stats published, and anecdotes don't help.</p>

136

<p>"If you have a 10% chance of getting into 8 schools, the the odds of not getting into any of the is (0.9)**8 = 43%."</p>

<p>That's why you don't take the numbers I put out LITERALLY and make sure you get into college by having a true safety or two.</p>

137

<p>"Nobody said perfect stats."</p>

<p>I'm aware of that.</p>

<p>"A reasonable unhooked candidate needs SAT's of at least 1500/1600, three SAT II's in at least the mid 700's, and EC/interests to make them stand out from the crowd, and the crowd is tough."</p>

<p>I think you missed my point. What I was saying that you could have all what you just said above-- stand-out grades, scores, and EC's-- and STILL GET REJECTED!!! It happens to countless valedictorians every YEAR. </p>

<p>Let me put it this way: As you said, "the crowd is tough". Therefore, you'll need more than 1500/1600 SAT scores and 4.0's to, as you said, "stand out from the crowd". There's another thing that I want to touch on, or clarify, or whatever. And that is this: ANYBODY CAN HAVE A HOOK. You don't have to be an URM, a Hilton, or a Nobel Peace prize Winner. As I said before in my previous post, all you need is <strong><em>A</em></strong> personality to match your <strong><em>ballpark</em></strong> scores (1450-1500 is all that's really necessary-- I know it may seem like it but every person who gets accepted into HYP every year does not have a 1600) and B+ average grades to get into the top schools. You don't have to walk on water to receive recognition for your EC's-- as long as you get involved OUTSIDE OF THE CLASSROOM, colleges will notice that you're not a bookworm who stays in his dorm all day and studies 24/7. </p>

<p>Just stop worrying about the exact numbers so damn much.</p>

138

<p>Many of you are changing the subject. I have news for you all. These URMS of which you speak usually tend to be all the way from upper-middle class to rich. Not many poor black students apply. In fact, there was a thread about how some girl in a "hood" type place in CA got into Harvard with a 1200/1600 SAT score -- Which, for her area, was very good. But really, guys, how many URMS do you think who apply are actually considered low-income?</p>

139

<p>a lot more than you would think.</p>

140

<p>"a lot more than you would think." </p>

<p>Really? Funny, because I talk to Eve Drucker, a Harvard student, and all of the students she's come in contact with EVER that were black were from upper-middle class + families, except for one girl. Not a ton of poor black people apply. I'd like to see your statistics, too.</p>