It would be easy to correct the law firm data for the % of female/male lawyers in the relevant talent pipeline- if they are hiring new law school grads, that data is readily available. If they are hiring 4th year associates that requires a little more detective work, but again- not so difficult.
“Then, that would already be controlled for in the statistical analysis. Further, getting 77x as many male applicants at a law firm would be such an odd scenario as to merit an investigation into why they aren’t getting more female applicants.”
I am not sure what you mean by controlled for in the statistical analysis.
But the rest is my point all along in this thread. Pipeline. K-12.
I think two factors that help explain the large number of applicants and acceptances to Yale from Connecticut haven’t been mentioned here.
The first is that some healthy portion of those applicants are the children of faculty and staff.
From what I’ve seen the biggest possible boost to an application is being the child of faculty and/or staff.There is a decided bump to an application if the applicant’s parent–and sometimes parents–work for the college. Since Yale is located in Connecticut, a lot of its faculty and staff–and their kids–live in Connecticut.
I don’t think it’s as good as it used to be, but most Ivy League colleges offer heavy tuition discounts to the children of faculty and staff and the colleges LOVED admitting qualified children of staff in low level positions.
I can’t remember what Ivy it was, but years ago, there was the touching story of a janitor who worked well past retirement age at one of the Ivies. He retired the day after the youngest of his seven children graduated from the Ivy. All seven had gotten free tuition.
Another reason is that Yale has a gazillion programs in which Yale faculty and students help local public high school kids. (So do most other Ivies.) And, if one of the kids in such a program catches the attention of a Yale faculty member, it's not at all unusual for the faculty member to encourage an app to Yale and write a LOR and sometimes to advocate even more forcefully for that student's admission. It's one thing to read an app from an inner city kid who has strong recs from people the admissions officers don't know--it's quite different to read one from a member of the Yale faculty the admissions officer KNOWS who is willing to personally attest that he KNOWS this kid and this kid has what it takes to succeed at Yale. I'm NOT saying that merely enrolling in the program will increase your chances. But if 40 ish New Haven public high school students participate in a program that allows them to work in Yale's science labs and every other year the head of one of the labs is so impressed by a kid that he advocates for his admission, well, odds are high that kid will be admitted.
As for the elite sports thing…well…lacrosse is a Native American sport and most Ivy teams have at least one player from a reservation. In NYC, 2 Dartmouth grads started “Street Squash,” which combines learning about squash with after school tutoring.https://www.hfny.org/affiliates/streetsquash
And NYC’s PSAL (Public School Athletic League)offers fencing.
“For those who think that Harvard is doing just fine with its admissions, like socaldad2002, #580, if you are willing to share whether you are the satisfied parent of a student who was admitted to Harvard, or whether you are just generously inclined toward Harvard, it would be interesting to know.“
I am not necessarily in the camp of “Harvard is doing just fine”, so much as I don’t have a problem with them having a legacy policy. I think they need to admit more lower SES, even if it hurts my kid’s chances down the line.
My kiddo is a couple years from applying, and I have no idea if he will want to apply to any Ivies, but I don’t care either way. He is probably accurately described as an average excellent white boy. He is the poster child for the middle of the barbell being squeezed by the ALDCs on one end, and increased lower SES students on the other.
My husband and I are products of public schools. I have family that went to elites, some Ivy, some not. Kiddo wouldn’t be a legacy at an Ivy or a recruited athlete, and no one from my family is donating a building. FWIW, I was rejected by Harvard back in the day.
We live in an area where parents spend a fortune on club sports (we didn’t), and I have heard plenty of grousing on the sidelines about how unfair admissions are these days - as the justification for spending the money on club sports. I have also heard plenty of parents in his private school (he attends a private high school now for reasons personal to us, but has been in public schools up to now) complain about “what is the point” of spending all of this money on private school if it doesn’t help get their kids into elite schools.
All of this colors my view. My kid will be fine with or without an Ivy education. I was. It will make a difference for other people much more than it will make for him. I don’t begrudge those talented, hardworking kids a spot. I also don’t begrudge a legacy a spot if Harvard wants them. If my kid applies and gets rejected, it isn’t because he isn’t qualified, or a legacy or an athlete or a poor kid took his spot. I don’t even need to know why he didn’t get in. Life will go on, and wherever he goes to college, the school will be lucky to get him.
A reasonable and balanced view, @CateCAparent; of course your son will be fine wherever he attends, assuming you do not need the very generous financial aid offered by the top handful of elites. For those who can not manage the $77k COA, their choices are likely to be restricted.
The “elite” colleges, especially the Ivies, and most especially HYP, have spent Billions of dollars on spreading and maintaining the narrative that they are educating the leaders of the USA, and that the reason is that they are The Best Of The Best Of The best, and that their students are The Best Of The Best Of The Best, because every student is rigorously vetted for academic and social excellence.
This narrative is self-perpetuating, and allows people in the ruling elite to their wealth and power is due based on their own merits: “we deserve to be in power and hold a disproportionate amount of the wealth of the USA, since we’re excellent in all facets of our lives, as demonstrated by our education at Harvard/Yale/whatever”.
I have heard it repeated time and again, that this or that political or other public figure “Must Be Really Smart And Talented”, because they attended an “elite” college, when, in fact, they were accepted because of donations or legacy. This is not only repeated in conversations in bars and living rooms, but published in multiple media outlets.
You can view the demographics across athletes in the The Ivy League sports conference at https://web1.ncaa.org/rgdSearch/exec/saSearch . In the most recent year, there was only 1 Native American lacrosse player in the entire conference. Squash isn’t much better, with only 6 Black or NA kids across the full Ivy League conference. Fencing is interesting in that it is one of the only sports in which Asian kids have good representation. While there are a few lower SES kids playing these sports, they are rarely the ones who get recruited.
The sports with the least Black+NA+Hispanic+Asian enrollment appear to be Equestrian, Ice Hockey, and Skiing – all sports associated with a high SES. The only 2 sports with the majority listed as Black+NA+Hispanic+Asian enrollment appear to be Basketball and Football, which are not as well correlated with high SES.
As I have mentioned on other threads our close friends daughter is a sophomore at Harvard and it’s the perfect college for her. She is unhooked (but brilliant and humble) majoriting in political science / government and the experience is incredible. She has met and talked with national politician like Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren and has had impromptu lunches with other congresspeople. She says that her peers are very smart, whether it is her international roommates (England and South Africa) or the faculty that teachers her classes. No one that meets her would say she is elitist, just a very bright, intellectual, kind, kid who has a thirst for knowledge and is now surrounded by her peers unlike her public high school she attended where she was #1 (actually Sal, as she wanted to take 4 years of band, which slightly “hurt” her weighted GPA).
I really think that this “Harvard is evil” is way overblown but look it’s the most recognized college in the world and will always have a target on its back.
Today in post #598 on this thread, lookingforward wrote, “I have never said that H requires worldliness. In fact, I think it’s a misleading concept.”
It is true that lookingforward has not said that Harvard requires worldliness. However, in post #122 on 10/21/19, lookingforward wrote, “As if the elite colleges are admitting poor kids who can’t possibly have, in some views, any worldliness? At the elites, these kids are chosen for activation, maturity, and more, including academics.”
Clearly, Harvard is not being said to require worldliness. But I took the words above to mean that worldliness was regarded favorably by Harvard. Perhaps not.
Maybe the implication was only that the students whose families are lower on the SES scale are still worldly enough to know how to maneuver effectively during applications season, but they are chosen for “activation, maturity, and more, including academics.”
lookingforward’s argument has generally been that Harvard chooses fairly, and that we would see that if we could read that applications. The part of the actions of Harvard admissions that is closed off to most of us is what I meant by “what is going on in Harvard admissions.” Perhaps I should have written “what is going on behind closed doors in Harvard admissions, with documents and discussions that are inaccessible to most of us.” Of course, part of what Harvard wants is clearly detectable. But the combinations of decisive elements that cause one applicant to be chosen over another are rather opaque. The argument for fairness essentially boils down to “Trust us, we are not discriminating, but we can’t show you our reasons.”
Regarding persons born in to the top 1% being 77x more likely to attend Harvard than persons born in to the bottom 20% (the actual figure from the NYT is 67x for Harvard, not 77x), there are many contributing factors, which have been discussed in the thread.
For the bottom 20%, the rate of applicants is a key factor. Relatively few high achieving students in the bottom 20% apply to selective colleges – not just “elites”, any type of selective college. The low rate of applicants among high achieving students appears to be the bigger factor than the portion of high achieving HS students in US that are lower income, or admissions policies that do not favor lower income students. References are linked earlier in the thread.
Top 1% are more likely to apply than other income groups, but there are other key factors, including admission policies. A large portion of top 1% admits appear to fall in to hook groups. The class survey suggests the majority of entering top 1% are legacies and a good portion are athletes. A large portion are also likely special interest list applicants. Some are Z-list deferred admits. Without these and other special preferences, the portion of top 1% would drop significantly.
Many highly selective colleges are far worse than Harvard in chance of top 1% attending / chance of bottom 20%. This partially relates to Harvard’s excellent FA for not higher income, admissions preference for not higher income applicants, being relatively well known to not higher income students, and being located near a large city. Highly selective colleges without these factors sometimes have 200x or worse ratios.
That kind of blind trust in the big business of higher education is no longer warranted.
The 77x refers to all Ivy-Plus colleges defined by Chetty as (the eight Ivy League colleges, University of Chicago, Stanford, MIT, and Duke).
Isn’t this a little like arguing homes in 90210 are more accessible to the masses because they’re not as expensive as parts of Manhattan?
C’mon, QM. That worldliness bit was a response to an attitude I detected. Absolutely, poor kids can have a worldview. Despite stereotypes.
“lookingforward’s argument has generally been that Harvard chooses fairly, and that we would see that if we could read that applications.”
Nonsense. I have never said they choose fairly. Have never been asked on CC I have always admitted there are points I don’t like. And have asked you not to rephrase me into positions I don’t hold.
What I do say, in part, is there’s more to this than metrics…or assumptions, anecdotes, or pointing fingers. Building a class involves meeting many needs/wants.
But look at the impact of your rephrasing. You say it, another responds that attitude is unwarranted, and a whisper down the lane starts.
“This narrative is self-perpetuating, and allows people in the ruling elite to their wealth and power is due based on their own merits: “we deserve to be in power and hold a disproportionate amount of the wealth of the USA, since we’re excellent in all facets of our lives, as demonstrated by our education at Harvard/Yale/whatever”.”
The show The Good Place has a character that fits this description to a tee. He is identified as the WORST human possible and he is destined for the Bad Place. Utterly beyond redemption.
Great show, btw.
Harvard is getting singled out because there is a lot of information available about Harvard. However, Harvard is far from the worst… Harvard does a lot of things that are good for SES diversity, as well as a lot of things that are bad for SES diversity. It’s important to distinguish between the two, and also review what happens when other colleges do things differently – which “elite” colleges are better and worse, and why.
For example at the time of the NYT tax sample, WUSTL had 22% of the class in top 1% , 84%of class in top 5%, and <1% of class in bottom 20% for a chances born in top … % of attending ratio of >440x. The median income for WUSTL parents was an inflation adjusted $300k. The income inequality and “elitist” admission at WUSTL was on a completely different level than Harvard and there are many important reasons for that difference.
Some of the contributing factors were WUSTL being need aware for a portion of students and actively seeking out wealthy students beyond just hook preferences. Some believe this relates to trying to improve USNWR rankings. I am using past tense because WUSTL has been taking steps to improve the situation since the time of the NYT sample. In contrast Harvard is need blind, has good enough FA for near $0 estimated const to parents with below ~median income + typical assets, and gives a tip to low income applicants, Harvard’s huge endowment helps support such policies, but WUSTL’s endowment also isn’t small, with a similar endowment per student to Chicago or Duke.
“Do kids rest their apps on stats and hs status, missing the rest of the assets looked for? Too many, yes. And posters who recommend looking only at stats or the CDS, are not pointing them in the right directions.”
Ok, but there’s a lot of kids who are legacies and athletes who do the same thing, thinking (correctly I might add), that legacy and being a recruitable athlete is all they need to get in and they don’t need the rest of the assets. Very few, if anybody, on this thread has said only look at the stats, and CDS is mentioned as a starting point to get general guidance (e.g. does a college track interest) but not the final word.
“What I do say, in part, is there’s more to this than metrics…”
Again, I don’t think anyone is saying it’s just about metrics, that’s a strawman you keep bringing up. The analysis presented is about the overall evaluation, taking into account all the holistic factors you mention - fit, stretch, curiosity and with that, there is still a significant advantage for the ALDCs.
“…thinking (correctly I might add), that legacy and being a recruitable athlete is all they need to get in and they don’t need the rest of the assets.”
No, legacy is not “all they need.” That does seem to be a popular opinion on this thread. Yet we know, eg, that H rejects 2/3 of legacies. But little more.
Ratings are a metric. But just one snapshot, a sorting tool. You can’t glean process from ratings. It does lead to conclusions that legacy is “all they need.”
You write that all the time to criticize everyone else writing on the subject, but give no specifics other than that one has to see the actual applications as an insider to know what they look for. Do you really expect high school students to figure this out, rather than some happening to hit what is being looked for by chance, or by advantage that is handed to them (e.g. legacy or being in a well connected prep school)?
It is just cover for decision-making which can not be rationally defended. If the admissions officers themselves can not articulate the specific factors, then there is no reason to think applicants will guess them accurately.
^In theory, there shouldn’t me anything to “figure out”. Students would represent themselves honestly in their apps and no one would have consultants packaging them. Then, the sorting cap would magically pick the kids that are the best match for that school, without interference or bias. But that only happens in books.
I don’t think the problem is with kids not figuring out. It is in the machine that has developed around applying to college - for some but not others. And for many, the machine gets it wrong. Others get to bypass the hat altogether. The muggles don’t even know the hat exists.