<p>You can talk about GPA, test scores, ECs, but what about the CONTEXT of the applicant in relation to his high school and peers?
For example, what if the student scored 99th percentile on the SAT or ACT while the rest of the school is below national average? What if the student is the first in the school or city to get X or Y accomplishment, like winning a state-level science competition?</p>
<p>Athletics is the most most most most important part of a college application. If you are a good athlete with borderline “academic index,” you will do great in admissions. Hernandez does not consider this.</p>
<p>@makennacompton
I’d say only to some extent, unless the athlete in question is extraordinarily talented.
For example, Stanford wanted to recruit Johnny Manziel even though he only had a 1550 SAT (3 sections).
Stanford, too, wanted to recruit a classmate of mine who was one of the best soccer players in the state, even though his academic record was not all that impressive.</p>
<p>but being Asian subjects you to being stereotyped as boring whereas a white person with the same accomplishmenst would be more unique. There is no debate on that. </p>
<p>a white (or urm person) with the same accomplishments would be considered extremely smart whereas the Asian would be branded as stereotypical asian and more prone to rejection. Are you going to argue against that?</p>
<p>@theanaconda: I assume these last two posts were directed to me and my comments earlier when I said that elite colleges reject “boring” students rather than Asians, per se, whereas you assert the common “anti-Asian” bias theory.</p>
<p>'but being Asian subjects you to being stereotyped as boring whereas a white person with the same accomplishments would be more unique. There is no debate on that. " </p>
<p>Ahhh, but let’s debate. What accomplishments are you speaking about? And what’s “my” definition of “boring?” And how does that play into very selective college admissions?</p>
<p>(please bear with me) </p>
<p>Let’s stipulate the following: a goodly amount of very selective US colleges admit holistically where they can freely mold and fashion their incoming freshman pool.</p>
<p>This pool is not a single pool but is many smaller pools brought together to form the whole. Hypothetically, let’s say college “X” admits only 100 students each year has traditionally fostered 6 main smaller pools (categories) of students in the following proportions:</p>
<p>1) super genius STEM kids (15)
2) athletic recruits (15)
3) super theater kids (5)
4) top international kids (10)
5) URMs (15)
6) “general” kids: well-rounded, very good scholars (40)</p>
<p>Let me also stipulate the following: these categories’ proportions serve as unofficial quotas (which are malleable and can vary year to year). Many colleges practice what’s called Category Admissions. That is, an applicant is separated into one of the six smaller pools (categories) of applicants. </p>
<p>This January, 20 top athletes apply for the 15 slots. Amazingly, 12 of these athletes have great academics and will contribute to the program. They are all admitted w/o hesitation. Then you’re down to 8 kids for 3 slots. They have lesser stats. Of these 8, two are better than the other six. Although closer to the low end academically, these two get offers. Now, we have six for 1 slot. All six are identical in every way. Coin flip. One gets the offer. The other five, if they get viewed through the prism of any of the other 5 categories, don’t meet the criteria and get rejected. Admit rate: 75%</p>
<p>Now let’s look at Category 1, the STEM kids. A whopping 150 kids apply for those 15 slots. Rotten odds. Somehow the “best” 15 are chosen and offers made. The other 135 get a second look and ten are offered spots from Category 6, the “general” pool. The other 125 get rejected. Guess what? The avg SAT of these 125 rejected is MUCH higher than the 5 rejected athletes. Also the avg SAT of the 15 Category 1 admits is also much higher than the 15 athlete admits. Frankly, the avg SAT of the rejected 125 might be higher than the avg SAT of the athlete admits! Overall admit rate for these 150 = 17%</p>
<p>In Category 5, the URMs, 30 kids apply for 15 slots. Ten are shoo-ins, great potential & top academics. Ten are completely unrealistic and are several std deviations below the avg metrics of admitted students. The remaining ten, are ranked in order based on a combination of potential and past academic performance. The top five get offers, the bottom five get rejected. Admit rate: 50%</p>
<p>Category 4 gets 500 applicants for the 10 slots due to college X’s fantastic financial aid for int’l kids. The 490 rejected kids avg SATs is jaw dropping – they are clearly the most high scoring applicant pool of all. Admit rate: 2%</p>
<p>Category 3 (actors) only gets 5 applicants for 5 slots due to weak admissions recruiting/marketing. Only 3 are academically viable. 2 are rejected. (admit rate: 60%) These 2 slots are then allocated to…</p>
<p>Category 6 (general), which went down to 30 slots (due to 10 going to 2nd tier STEM kids) but rises to 32 due to leftovers from the theater pool. 150 kids apply and the “top” 32 are admitted, 118 are rejected. Admit rate: 21%</p>
<p>now let’s look at these 6 pools. If we were to crudely guess at which ones would have the greater concentration of non-international Asian applicants, I think we would agree that 1 and 6 are most likely, right? Other than the pitiful international applicants, categories 1 & 6 have admit rates of only 17% and 21% and the highest aggregate no. of rejections (again, except for the internationals). </p>
<p>When I mean “boring”, I mean kids who aren’t positioned to be viable in more than one category. How many Asian recruited athletes or musical theater people do you know? I’ve only run across a few. </p>
<p>Traditionally, Asians face a lot of pressure to remain the type of kid who would eventually be put into categories 1 or 6. But can you see how it would be easy for that super high SAT rejected Asian girl (Mary) from category 1 to feel chaffed if she knew the avg SAT of the athlete, URM or actors? But what she’s dealing with is that her fate was decided upon what category she would be viewed through. The academically weakest of the admitted URM, number 15 on the list – did not take a slot away from Mary. The 15th URM took the last remaining seat away from the 16th and 17th URMs. That 15th slot was NEVER available to Mary. Neither were the slots allocated to the 15th athlete or the 10th international kid.</p>
<p>Back to potentially “boring” Asians. I met a young Caucasian student, whose parents were UMich faculty. She had thoroughly studied African art, traveled and did research. She had rec’d offers from HYP. Simply an amazingly accomplished young woman. In my imaginary scenario above, she would have been offered a slot from Category 6. I wonder how many 1st generation Asian families would feel secure enough to nudge their obviously bright son or daughter to follow such a non-traditional path which did not lead obviously towards a financially secure future? </p>
<p>If instead, she had been Asian with the same accomplishments, I’m certain that she would have been similarly noticed and rewarded. I disagree with your 2nd assertion, here. This is what I mean about what I perceive as the lack of genuine Asian uniqueness. Far too often, we are the tennis/piano/violin/karate/STEM/NHS/tutor kids readying ourselves for Med school or engineering. And in the context of elite school admissions, our Asian kids’ admits don’t seem to follow their external metrics (GPA & test scores) vis a vis others.</p>
<p>Our parents left a continent behind to secure stability and wealth here which can partially explain it. I can guarantee you my artist brother faced a lot of pressure from my parents which I, as son #2 headed to an Ivy, did not face. Caveat: I speak from my own perspective, an Asian American whose SATs were about the 30th percentile of each of the Ivies I was admitted to. I’m certain there were many many Asians with better scores than me that were rejected. But I’m sure I would have been a Category 6 admit in my hypothetical above. I had a very unusual story of being a student leader at an almost all-black urban HS, who happened to be very academically aggressive and accomplished.</p>
<p>Sorry I’ve been very long winded here…</p>
<p>for category #1, the asian’s are less likely to get in than a white person with the same achievemetns i’m pretty sure, say usamo qualifier or intel semifinalist etc, again, just look at what happened at berkeley or the UC’s. when they got rid of race. And even if asian students are well rounded, stereotypes against them will cause them to be perceived as less well-rounded. </p>
<p>Let’s try not to let this thread deteriorate into another discussion of race and college admission.</p>
<p>@T26E4
Was that whole quota example hypothetical? Do elite colleges really fill quotas of their class based on say, theater kids (5%), general scholars (40%), athletes (15%), etc.?</p>
<p>Or did you just make that whole scenario up to prove your race point?</p>
<p>hypothetical only – based on random reality, I suppose. That would be one unique college to actively set aside 5% of its seats for great theater kids!</p>
<p>Myself and others have used this analogy to describe college admissions</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And keep in mind if they neglect one of these roles for a year or two they have a big probem. e.g. don’t admit any “theatre kids” for two years on a row and the theatre department will be history.</p>
<p>Though I can’t say much about other universities,</p>
<p>I know University of Georgia puts heavy emphasis on GPA and rigor of classes one takes. </p>
<p>GPA
Rigor
SAT/ACT scores</p>
<p>Test scores are least important to them . </p>
<p>T26E4. The question I have w your example is something I think permeates a little through CC why are the amount of URM’s applying so low. I believe that the number is much higher at the elite schools than people realize. Your example sets in motion that theory that qualified URM’s are shoe ins. This is not the case and your 50% admission rate though just an hypothetical is much to high. </p>
<p>T26E4, I think your writing is very good. Here are a few things I have to add.</p>
<p>(1) The catergories may be further sub divided by factors such as races. Or the overall pool may be divided multiple other ways. For example, one partition by majors, and another partition by races, and the admission is trying to make it look “right” every possible way they slice the final accepted pool. So unless you are an athelete who tends to be URM, you are really competing against people in your own race for the quota.</p>
<p>(2) An applicant who’s good in multiple categories may still trump an applicant who’s marginally better in a single category.</p>
<p>(3) Schools publish data. But really that’s not enough transparency. Things like atheletes, donors, legacies are not applicable to most people. What people really want are the data excluding those. Of course, that probably will never be published.</p>
<p>(4) There is nothing special about ECs such as research or founding a school in Africa. ECs are like fashions. Someone will start something new, and once others get to know it, they will be doing the same thing too. In 10 years, Asians can be at the forefront of founding schools in Africa. But by that time, it would has lost the luster, and people will be searching for new ones. The applicant you cited has the advantage of having college professors as parents, thus knowing what’s the flavor of the day before others.</p>
<p>@Mayihelp: I just developed broad nos. in my example – all so it would equal 100 for illustrative purposes. The actual nos. of URMs vying for seats at top schools – I have no idea the real nos. or what that sub-group admit rate might be. As for a “qualified” URM being a shoo-in, I don’t believe that – especially given the fierce competition that occurs among the most popular destinations.</p>
<p>@pastwise: I can only imagine the permutations that exist out there IRL.</p>
<p>It does depend on the college. But if we’re talking top tier schools, once you’ve met the rigorous academic standards (GPA, SAT, academic program) and discounting feeder schools (HUGE factor, but the vast majority of people have no control over this), the most important factor is that your application (essays, recs, ECs, summer activities, volunteer activities, sports/music, work, awards) tells a cohesive, compelling, and unique story about you and what you will bring to the college. Having a laundry list of unrelated ECs and a one off volunteer trip to Haiti will not necessarily get you into Harvard even with a stellar academic record. </p>