<p>Facts are stubborn things. Agreed, it is not all about stats, but it does show even at the level of Emory that a 1990 SAT puts one in the bottom 25% of admits. Emory is ranked #20; there simply are not enough 2100+ black scorers to go around to even hit the Emory average. The higher ranked schools obviously get the cream of the crop who applies. </p>
<p>I add that the OP has the right to feel the way he does. I too believe handouts suck too. But, there is the affirmative action dilemma - would the OP have applied if the black students were accepted with a score mix on par with other kids? The school would definitely have a lot fewer black students and I bet that would play a part in how many apply in later years. I do not know, but given what I read on CC, I reach that position. There would have to be a lot fewer because the math of total numbers with even average Emory scores just does not exist.</p>
<p>Adcoms look for evidence a kid has what it takes. That’s what’s more complex than stats. That is not the stuff “chance me” threads are about. Or high school kid speculation. If you can’t do math, chances are you won’t make it in, say, engineering. A prospect in psych doesn’t require strengths in calc and physics. (I know he isn’s a psych major now.)</p>
<p>OP should not be focused on his admit. He should be focused on today and the path ahead. He said he is doing fine. </p>
<h2>NOTE: Alright guys, I did not want to push this further, but I can’t see the harm in expressing my personal views towards this situation on a broader scale. It needs to be said.</h2>
<p>First off, I’m actually a senior, so I’m already going to be okay. This thread IS NOT about me and my opportunities here.</p>
<p>There is one fundamental premise I think we all disagree upon:
Under-qualified students are being accepted into Emory (and other prestigious universities across the US) based on their race.</p>
<p>Here is the trend of responses I have seen and expect to continue to see:
-You will say I’m making this a bigger issue then it should be.
-You will disagree on the term “under-qualified.”
-You will use my success as a standard of judgement to say that Emory was cognizant of my inner-abilities
-You will say to look passed this decision by Emory simply because things worked out</p>
<p>My definition of under-qualified is based purely on the applications being sent to Emory, the only variables admissions usually sees. I do NOT mean under-qualified in terms of will or drive. This is something Emory is usually blind to during admissions (it’s hard to make judgements on essays) thus, I’ve excluded it as a criterion for qualification. Now, it can be argued that will and drive can be expressed in essays, but can you really argue that every minority with low stats accepted just happens to write powerful essays that overshadows their drawbacks?</p>
<p>There is one thing many of you are not discussing, and that is that a process like this is fundamentally flawed regardless of how I turned out as a student. This is not an isolated incident. This is not an Emory-specific problem. This is a charity-driven system, and I really am still pushing this because I think it causes minorities to NOT try as hard as they should. I’ve witnessed this, although my case in particular was an exception due to life-changing realizations early on in my academic career. </p>
<p>I would go as far as to say it is racist because it is fundamentally causing long-term issues in the black community because the bar is set low, in an attempt to alleviate a short-term racial issue.</p>
<p>OP. I don’t need to argue based on your speculation. Are you seeing these apps or just hearing about stats? You think these schools are being charitable. Go ahead. I see it from another perspective. Not a high school or college kid. No axe to grind. In fact, if anything, really amazed at the quality of kids out there- in all sorts of categories. Quality measured in more than stats or who took how many APs. Oh, as in life. You are going to graduate. Don’t go out with a chip on your shoulder. Or you will always be second guessing. I won’t respond. But as a fourth year in college, try to at least consider other perspectives. Even if just an exercise.</p>
<p>The larger, more fundamental point is good intentions can have bad consequences, but the good-intentioned people rarely look back at the actual result or damage caused. </p>
<p>It is a universal truth that setting a lower bar for the same thing always hurts the intended beneficiary by teaching that lower, unequal standards are equal - a very bad thing for a kid, at any age, to learn.</p>
<p>^^ Oh, yes they do, it makes them feel better about themselves; and, the government programs funnel money; Look at the black graduation rates - if many colleges cared, many kids would not be where they fail out of. Notice how college tout their diversity admits, but rarely say their diversity graduation rate. Take a guess why… </p>
<p>But, you also are missing the bigger cultural picture of what I mean by damage. It is damaging for any kid to think he can be less than the standard and get the same thing as someone else. Get fed that from age 2 and naturally the kid lowers his bar of effort required. Why work 5 hours for $80, when some good-intentioned nice guy gives you $80 for 3 hours work? That is character and motivation destroying behavior.</p>
<p>Bernie, you don’t understand.
Paying money for an education is not the same as receiving a handout. And colleges have always been about making money.</p>
<p>lookingforward, you are giving adcoms way too much credit.</p>
<p>I agree with awcntdb and elitesound. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But elitesound needs to understand that what happened to him and his brothers in BAM was a special case. Not the norm.</p>
<p>I was discussing what happens after the money is paid …but anyway. Also, FYI for some. Selective schools are far, far more successful on average at graduating the under-represented students. In fact, it is on par with the graduation rates of non-URMs at less selective institutions. I’ll leave to you all to speculate (perhaps not on this threat) on why this is the case (could be many reasons: As much is these places cost, it should be the case I guess). As for students not trying as hard as they should…I think AA could contribute, but I feel that a stronger community, especially at selective schools should be promoting excellence from all angles. When even non-minorities on campus are not working particularly hard, and that culture isn’t ingrained, it certainly doesn’t encourage others to do differently. In addition, I also worry about things like “stereotype threat” preventing many URMs from taking risks (especially academically) where some may just automatically assume that they cannot perform as well as others in a competitive or very rigorous course (some use this to partially explain why even well off URMs perform poorly vs. non-minority counterparts). </p>
<p>There is also the tendency to start struggling and to just easily give up and resign with “this is just too hard for me” (as if it should come easy. This pretending to be weak is complete BS. I hate it when minorities or non-minorities do this. We all need to act like we belong here and have a purpose outside of having a smooth ride through Emory). As a science oriented student, I observed this type of fear among many fellow URMs and I’m glad I didn’t absorb much of it primarily because of the track I took. I honestly feel a lot of this sort of thing was even going on before college where AA had a say in anyone’s future. However, I do believe there is hope. As a “group” (I guess) we can be strengthened. For example, Georgia Tech is really successful at empowering its students, especially URMs. However, at Tech, you really don’t have a choice but to toughen up or you’ll be destroyed. I don’t necessarily think that the URMs they recruit are better from the get go, it’s a matter of how the community accommodates them and a lot of this is indeed influenced by institutional culture. AA plus an institutional culture not conducive to becoming fearless, motivated, and self-empowered is probably not a good mixture, so I can agree with some things.</p>
<p>Again, we know this isn’t ideal and that it’s happening, but my main goal would be to figure out what to do once everyone (AA admit or not) is here. Do we cultivate a culture of strength or weakness. I and elitesound fear (and I have observed) a culture of weakness at Emory. We can’t do anything about the mysterious ways that AA works, but we can create a culture of success that makes sure everyone optimizes their opportunities and outcomes. That’s what needs to be worked on. The various corrupt aspects of highered admissions are not going to change anytime soon. </p>
<p>As for giving Emory’s admissions process credit…just don’t. You’re talking about what is probably the only selective school sending “likely letters” to those who it views as “top applicants” instead of sending them money. Not too smart, these folks. We all know that empty acts of desperation will help yield “better” students.</p>
<p>I get what you are saying by not wanting anyone to give you something you didn’t earn, but you have earned what you have. I am not sure what is going on with admissions, however, to recruit an underrepresented group, one has to start by admitting them out of the application pool. Eventually, as a college attracts more applicants, the selectivity can get higher.
The main achievement is not admissions. Once there, a student has to succeed academically and graduate. The work isn’t any different. IMHO, you are a senior, and you are soon to graduate. Your four years at Emory count way more as a qualifier than what you achieved in high school.
I don’t dispute your concerns, but IMHO, I hope you can be proud of your achievements.</p>
<p>@Pennylane2011: Isn’t this one of the main issues though, especially for Emory? This goes for URMs and non-URMs; Emory may be admitting some, if not many, of the same applicants as other selective schools, but will not yield many of the very top ones for whatever reason. Any increase in selectivity brought in by extra applications I believe is artificial. I feel like they just cherrypick better students simply because there are more apps, not because the additional apps. are better than before. Schools who do this are banking on peer schools becoming more selective such that admitting at a higher threshold will not necessarily hurt their yield. Emory is just one of the schools that has not go on board with this type of scheme yet. The first step to joining it is to do very aggressive mass marketing it seems and Emory definitely doesn’t do that for better or worse (maybe for better…). </p>
<p>Perhaps it is because a very top applicant will have many colleges to choose from, which would also affect the yield for Emory. In any case, Emory is opening the doors to minorities, and although that may be a “work in progress” it’s a step in the right direction.
I wanted to emphasize that competence is recognizable in many ways. Not being a URM, I know that I can’t speak about his experience personally. However, from interactions with students and professionals, I can see where that quality shines. When someone speaks favorably about a student or co-worker- it’s about more than scores. I don’t dispute that URM’s face obstacles, and that there is probably a long way to go, but did want to make note to the OP that at this point in time, his SAT scores hold very little meaning compared to his college achievements and what he does with them.
Emory admission may have flaws, but the OP was given an opportunity to get a great education. I wanted to reassure him that his scores are not the sum of his ability. Perhaps Emory recognized that when they admitted him.</p>
<p>First, I don’t believe the post. Especially from someone who hasn’t had a track record of posting on CC. This seems like trolling to me. Second, this case can be made for the athletes that are lauded by the public and coveted by the prestigious universities despite under performing academically. Don’t leave them out of this conversation either.</p>
<p>Among the high-ranking national universities, Harvard and Rice have Black graduation rates that are only one percentage point below the rate for Whites. Duke, Emory, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania have Black graduation rates that trail the White rate by only three percentage points.</p>
<p>Yeah, that’s what I thought. We’re doing pretty well. That’s actually very good for Princeton which is expensive and extremely tough academically (so is Harvard, but they have way more grade inflation). Also, SAT’s tend to only correlate well with the first year and nothing else. Even then…I’ve seen many people with on par SAT scores screw it up because they were not very serious or used to the freedom of college. So many factors go into freshman success that I don’t really know how SATs would be but so informative except maybe in science where the math score can correlate decently. Also, I have to wonder if many of the top scoring URMs score well on APs/IBs because I know many that did on several APs. I think that this (though many AP courses are at a level below the counterparts taught by a medium or high rigor instructor that you may get at a place like Emory) is more telling. Again, I actually believe that these are used in admissions when scores are sent (the ones you earn before senior year). After all, those exams are more closely linked to classroom instruction. </p>
<p>I believe the SAT correlation is gpa through soph year (unless someone is now presenting earlier numbers.) And who really cares about soph cumulative gpa broken down by tenths of points, if the student is in good standing? This SAT stuff comes up all the time on CC as “proof” minorities should just freaking give up. </p>
<p>I find the preconceived notions that Blacks can’t succeed (and there are may ways seemingly gentle folks phrase this) to be stereotyping. Unfair and dangerous. Yes, some face challenges. Some colleges take people in and leave them hanging. Apparently not Emory. </p>
<p>I don’t give adcoms “too much credit.” I know a bit about the process and what qualities tell that X is going to do what it takes to get that degree, in the context of selective schools. </p>
<p>@frugaldoctor ■■■■■ or not, it is an interesting conversation that for sure mirrors what society has been talking about for a while now, so dismissing as ■■■■■ does not lessen its relevance.</p>
<p>While it is tempting to add athletes to the mix, there is no uproar to that because it is distributed purely on merit of skill, not skin color. Athletes of all races get special treatment, as long as they are as good as or better than the next guy - the way it should be. One thing to say about college sports is they truly do not invest in failure or get credit for admits that are lower than the team standard. Alumni sports donors would not stand for that.</p>
<p>@lookingforwad - One cannot use the select schools as barometers of the situation. Select school represent less than 2% of all students who go to college; and even less for minority students. The problem is not the schools you cite; it is the 98%+ other schools where 98%+ of students go. The exception is not the determinant of the rule. </p>
<p>awc, select schools, though, are where people whip up the most Sturm und Drang about minorities. And we’re on a CC Top U/Emory forum. </p>
<p>Yes, it is a shame many college kids don’t get the support they need, at various colleges. The media periodically comes up with tales that focus on the resulting debt, too. But I’ve been through a lot of threads, over the years, where seemingly good people simply boil it down to minorities are disabled and any good admit is a gimme. Wow, that takes away from all of us, minorities or not. Implies adcoms are just grubbing for numbers. At “easy in, easy out” schools, sure. Not as you get more selective. Some kids are a bad match. But let’s not throw them all under the bus.</p>
<p>My feeling about people who make conclusions about another person based only on GPA and scores is that they don’t know the entirety of the person or the individual skills and qualities that person brings to college. I’ve known students who may not have amazing scores, but when I look at the whole of their strengths, I think a college would love to have them. Although I am not an admissions counselor, I think professionals who see student records can also see this. Mistakes are made, no college has 100% graduation rates, and many things can happen that lead to students not finishing. but on the whole, I believe that once a student is admitted, he or she is qualified. </p>
<p>@lookingforward - OK, we are looking at different worlds. I suggest googling the cases of minority admissions in the CA, MI and TX state university systems. Similar issues are in other states. </p>
<p>Just because the conversation is on CC and Emory forum does not mean the data used should be limited to that subset - unfortunately, the issue is far bigger, more persuasive and polarizing than you give it credit for. All facts are more useful than selective use of facts. Selective use easily skews what is actually happening in the real world. </p>
<p>Looking at one subset and limiting data study to that one subset is the one major problem most government programs have; they purport to help one cohort and do not study or pay attention to the widespread damage happening to everyone else. It is like the oncologist saying, “I am going to have to kill you to cure you.”</p>
<p>@Pennylane201 - No one is making conclusions on people based on SAT scores and GPAs; they are only doing the most objective thing possible - comparing apples and apples. No where did I make any conclusions about the students in any way. But, facts show they get accepted with lower scores and are graduating at much lower rates - you are free draw your own conclusions. And obviously, others are already drawing their own conclusions, which many do not like. </p>
<p>And like you, I do not know/understand how URMs think or view the world. But, where I differ is that just because you are not “something” does not mean you cannot speak about it or your ideas have less weight. People can be wrong and misguided about things regarding themselves. Not that this is the case here, but all voices need to be heard.</p>