My husband and his siblings went to Sidwell as did a nephew and both my MIL and SIL worked there. (I wish they still did so I could get the real story!) My SIL did grumble about the college counseling, but more for their lack of imagination than their lack of support. My nephew ended up with good choices and chose Rice over Cornell. (That said, I suspect if they really create separate categories of excellence compared to other school candidates for each college he probably got a top score at Rice and not at MIT which was his first choice.) I did get the sense they steered kids away from colleges they thought were too reachy more than my kidsâ public school.
The Harvard lawsuit analyses (both internal Harvard OIR analysis and Plantiff analysis) found that âdisadvantagedâ Black applicants received the same average admission preference as did non-âdisadvantagedâ Black applicants, after full controls. This differs from all other races, in that âdisadvantagedâ applicants were preferred over non-âdisadvantagedâ, after full controls. However, many colleges she applied to obviously do things differently than Harvard, such as Caltech.
As far as hooks go, I think the most potentially influential one is athletic recruitment, rather than race. Dayo was clearly in communication with coaches and ran on Pennâs track team, while still a freshman. The Harvard lawsuit found athletic recruits have orders of magnitude stronger preference than Black applicants on average, after full controls. Dayoâs track times were right on the border of Ivy recruitment. For example, Dayoâs ran a 12.29 100m while at Sidwell. Harvardâs website lists a recruiting target of 12.2 and team target of 12.45. Sheâs clearly good enough to run for the team and is expected to have some degree of athletic preference, but is not necessarily going to be a formal recruit.
Harvard, as an example, first splits out the applications by geographic region. The first reader(s) will read all the applications from the HS and note the applicantâs citizenship, race, SES, legacy/recruited athlete status (if applicable), among other things, then make further notes before making their recommendation for the larger group. My guess is that it is similar at other peer institutions. So no, I donât think that Penn and Princeton read applications first by race/ethnicity.
From Inside highered https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/04/09/new-research-how-elite-colleges-make-admissions-decisions Here is something to that effect
"When an applicant has an exceptional talent (e.g. music, athletics) or is part of a severely underrepresented group at the institution, the applicant may not compete for admission against the larger applicant pool. Instead, he/she may compete only among those with the same talent or within the same group. In these circumstances, sets of applications are considered separately based on a universityâs institutional needs. As a result, disparities may arise between the levels of academic merit of certain subgroups of students. "
I think itâs quite likely that many people (including Dayo and her parents) overestimate the impact of URM status on admissions. So that might be why she made the error of over-reaching with her apps â particularly if most of the other apps from Sidwell to the same school were white. That is, she might have thought that she had some sort of advantage as one of the only African-American students from Sidwell applying to top colleges â simply because she viewed herself through the lens of her own school rather than the college applicant pools.
I do see this happen fairly frequently with results on CC â URM students who overestimate their chances simply they perceive their status as a greater hook than it is.
And I do think that colleges have a range of diversity goals and a student who can fill multiple goals may be at an advantage over the one who fills fewer of those goals. âGraduates of Sidwell Friendsâ is probably an over-represented group at the top schools â so I do think itâs more appropriate for the student to be evaluated against others from her school who are applying vs. only others of her same race from her school.
And I might be wrong, but I think the value of athletic recruiting generally applies only to those who are actually selected by the coaches during the recruitment process, and generally is strongest for early round admissions. It looks like Dayo didnât make the cut at any of the schools that were recruiting her â though perhaps that was a factor in her admission to Penn the following year.
A whole lotta qualifiers in that paragraph. 
Yes, it will depend upon institutional wants and needs, but Iâm not sure that at any of her target schools an AA female qualifies as âseverely underrepresented.â An AA male or NA male or female is more likely to get the golden ticket. And the recruited athlete probably trumps them all. But weâre all just basically guessing on the specifics in this case. Regardless, being âconsidered separatelyâ is not the same thing as âAdcoms are assigned to read URM applications.â The process is different for the recruited athlete, who will get a pre-read.
The lawsuit mentions that Dayo met with multiple track coaches in regards to athletic recruiting and mentions various signals of interest (coach Riese contacting Sidwell about Dayo, athletic âpreferred listâ, letter of support from athletic dept., etc.). However, itâs not clear whether she was an officially recruited athlete. During the Harvard lawsuit period, Harvard athletic preference was not a simple binary either recruited or zero preference. Instead applicants were rated on a 1-~5 athletic scale, with varying degrees of athletic preference. Iâd expect Dayo received some degree of athletic preference at many schools on the list, even when not officially recruited.
The lawsuit suggests that the Adetus expected to be admitted partially because of this athletic interest, rather than anything having to do with race, although such statements may be disingenuous. An example statement is below:
âA whole lotta qualifiers in that paragraphâ
Yes, but still the Harvard researcher that came up with those findings based it on answers from 63 of 75 elite schools⊠and it indeed was a finding. The sub headline of the article (again from Inside Higher Ed) even reads:
âStudy of the most competitive colleges finds that âholisticâ admissions policies look very different at different colleges â and that some kinds of applicants may compete only against each other.â https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/04/09/new-research-how-elite-colleges-make-admissions-decisions
So its not really a completely unfounded finding.
My neighbor had two URM kids attend an ivy. After the first studentâs admission acceptance they had a slight problem w a social media page for accepted students. They complained to the school and they were contacted by an admission rep who introduced himself as the âXYZ URM admission person for that schoolâ. (For privacy Im not disclosing the minority group, but it was a specific minority group admission person)
So as a (perhaps?) recruited athlete and a URM, I can see where her family thought she may not be competing with everyone, instead only be competing in a smaller pool where she had a decent chance of being accepted.
Again, I think the lawsuit is crazy and not remotely what our family would do, but I donât think everything else is so cut and dry to deserve all the negativity. It really bothers me too that some are saying this should be held against her in her future career. I think thats over the top.
Employers are understandably wary of litigious applicants. While she has no responsibility for the earlier suit when she was a minor, she did spend 5 years as an adult pursuing this claim. I can understand why that would be relevant to a future employer.
âif they really create separate categories of excellence compared to other school candidates for each collegeâ
For those of you who attended or had kids who attended private schools, do you think this is the norm? I donât but maybe Iâm unaware of this angle.
That may be true, but it would be for Brown or Princeton to decide to compare her to other athletes or other URM, not Sidwell. Sidwell can only compare her to other applicants to Brown (if they are asked to do so) or to the class as a whole. Being #126 out of a class of 126 might still make her an excellent candidate for Brown (or any other school) if all 126 students are excellent. All Sidwell can do is send the information requested by the school. If Spelman asked for a comparison to other Spelman apps, then Sidwell did that. If they asked for the comparison to the entire class, Iâm sure that was provided.
How the colleges want to slice and dice the info is up to the college.
First of all, donât count on the lay interpretation of the H lawsuit to fill in all the blanks. Thereâs a whole lot missed in how reactions are formed.
âIf all the would be Sidwell 9th graders transferred to public HSs, Iâd expect the would be Sidwell kids as whole would still do well in college admissions.â
Sorry, I think thatâs a stretch. Not every kid at SF or its peers is automatically some sort of special snowflake. There are lots of reasons kids get in, same as with holistic colleges. Itâs different if you want to specify some of the tippy top BS that woo in the math geniuses.
My experience mirrors skiâs blurb in #302. Regional reps read all in their area (save for the recruit process) and citizenship, race, etc, are auto downloaded/coded into the reader files. In comments, the first AO read (first cut) may note these addl factors, as they apply and IF they make some difference. Remember, holistic. After first cut, H and itâs peers have additional reads. Itâs a culling process in search of consensus, in the context of what that college looks for.
No matter how many times CC says URMs are in some special pool of their own, for a tippy top college, thatâs not my experience. URM is but one bullet in holistic.
And 305, no matter the URM particulars (M/F, major, geo, etc) each is expected to be fully qualified, able to tackle the in-class challenges and thrive. I suspect itâs âfully qualifiedâ that stumps many people. Thatâs not stats superiority. Itâs more complex and another reason not to assume what you read of the lawsuit, in Chronicle, or the umpteen thousand blogs is all there is.
Also note, weâve quoted the SSR question several times. Itâs in the Common App. Basically, the same questions, same phrasing, over the years.
âif they really create separate categories of excellence compared to other school candidates for each collegeâ
I had one son attend a private school and one attend a public school, neither was rated against their classmates for particular colleges. Instead they were rated as top 1% of class or top 10% of class etc. That was the only comparison vs classmates.
I cant imagine a school rating how students would compare against each other in how they would perform compared to their classmates at a particular school. The guidance counselors would have to have extensive knowledge as to academic grading and workload particulars for each and every school.
As to an employer holding this against her bc she is perceived as being litigiousâŠre no responsibility as a minor yet responsibility once she hits 18 âŠthis is all the same case as the one that was started when she was a minor correct? Its just moved down the channels in time? And the initial complaint was a lawsuit? I thought it was just a complaint to the EEOC that was handled by mediation and then a lawsuit filed after the family thought the school breeched their contract? Sorry that part is a little fuzzy to me.
In any case, I think for an employer to hold it against them for their entire career sends a dangerous message to people who file complaints of racial discrimination (in HS!) that they will be looked down upon during their career for filing a complaint. What if the case had real merit, they shouldnât file bc they would not be able to get a job later in life???
Rachel Rubinâs study dates to 2012. We had a long thread cutting that up. She did the work as part of a grad education degree and, iirc, not directly working alongside admissions 100%. No views to the specifics in an app package that matter.
@doschicos I never before heard- or considered- that a hs would be rating kids per the specific college target. The question asks, compared with the class. But somewhere, Sidwell says they do this per the pool applying to that college. ?? Iâd say we can bet public hs arenât doing that.
Recruited athlete aside for a moment, the family of a URM should not have thought that she had a âdecent chanceâ at any reach school. Better then the overall acceptance rate at the school (assuming her stats were in line)? Perhaps. But certainly not a shoo-in. And again, in my opinion, she would still have had less of a chance that an AA male or a Native American, all other thing being equal (which they never are).
Now letâs look at the recruited athlete hook for a second. And I canât speak if her times were competitive since I know little about women 's track. But at least according to the court documents, she was being recruited by Brown, Princeton, and Columbia. She opted to SCEA to Princeton, presumably around September 30, since recruited athletes are asked to submit applications after their official visit, if not before. She could have submitted them all early as RD, as is common practice, and then switched Princeton to SCEA after the OV. Once she has applied early to one college, no other college will have interest in her anymore (in general), since the coach will use use most/all of his/her slots on students who apply early. Even prior, Brown lost interest in her as a recruit. SO for all intents and purposes, the recruit hook only applied at Princeton.
Now in general, Ivy League recruited athletes who will be accepted will receive a Likely Letter, usually in early October. If not, the athlete should be in contact with the coach to find out the story. So for her to be surprised at her deferral just strikes me as disingenuous.
So worst case, from December 13, when she was deferred (and really for the 10 weeks prior with no Likely Letter), she really should have realized that the sure thing ainât happening and switched gears accordingly. She didnât. And Iâm not being negative on her by continuing to think that itâs not the schoolâs fault that she was not admitted or that she did not have a balanced list. Iâm not saying that Sidwell did everything right. Clearly they conceded that based upon their earlier settlement. But it does boggle my mind that Dayoâs 23-year-old self still seems to think that she did nothing wrong
Yes, @lookingforward, I wouldnât expect that at private schools as a matter of course, either. Too much work and too much granularity. Is this common practice, truly, at SF or did they do it as a one off in this instance for this student since she put in a late application and they wanted to push for her for Spelman knowing she really had no matches or safeties on her list otherwise.
Agree with the recruiting angle. Given the timeline, it doesnât sound like she was heavily recruited. Having conversations with coaches doesnât equate to recruitment.
I tried to figure out when this lawsuit was filed. It has a â2015â case number, but I believe it was first filed as a complaint in 2014 when Dayo was a minor and thus her parents were listed as her âNext Friendâ, and when it moved up the chain it retained its original case heading and parties. Also, in the most recent court documents, it notes the âDayo is now an adult.â
Could Dayo have pulled the case when she became an adult? Probably, but maybe she felt sheâd been wronged and wanted the case to continue. I donât think this makes her âlitigiousâ. I donât think a lot of employers would either.
We donât even know if âwas being recruitedâ means the active/proactive process, ultimatley a possible LL-- or they were having a general look-see. Again, weâre dependent on the suit statements.
@lookingforward Totally agree.I was just giving the perspective if she were being actively recruited. Obviously most of the documents available are one-sided. If not recruited, HS athletics, while a good EC, is still just an EC.
Agreed, Dayo was not responsible for the initial lawsuit(s); that falls squarely on Dr. & Mrs. Adetu. But she was clearly an adult when they decided to tilt at windmills with SCOTUS and could have said at that point (and maybe she did), âDad, itâs time to move on.â
Whether this impacts her professional opportunities is something I donât care to speculate upon. I guess if we keepan eye out for future court filings, weâll know. Just kidding Dayo; donât get any ideas. 