<p>well, it's not necessarily my OPINION, just general admissions stereotypes, that's all...</p>
<p>Gavroche, Tony, etc., I don't think any of us are assuming you or the adcoms want to base things solely on race. I'm just taking issue with that one. Some of the things that contribute to "good diversity", such as diversity of socioeconomic status, culture, etc., are closely related to race, but not directly related. I see race as an unnecessary roundabout to achieving those types of diversity.</p>
<p>Typically (and this is a very broad stereotype but it is generally true), a poor kid's parents (who are of course also poor) are not very well educated. Hence their poverty. Most of these parents aren't creating a rigorous academic atmosphere in their households (again, a broad generalization). Now for something like broad and general, just about any poor kid will go to a school where they will recieve a subpar education: less money going into the school, fewer good teachers willing to teach there, kids who grow up in similar settings and don't achieve well or try hard. A poor kid, regardless of natural intelligence and drive to succeed, is automatically at a disadvantage. That's why socioeconomic status should be looked at in college admissions. And now we get to a dangerous generalization: most of the poor kids we're referring to are black/Latino, hence race in AA. And while it's true that race is roughly correlated with poverty level that way, why use race to address the problem of poverty when you can more directly attack it by simply looking at socioeconomic status?</p>
<p>EDIT. Tony: At what point do you propose to "phase out" AA, and why is that time not now?</p>
<p>Well I was just pointing out that many people would benefit from having direct experiences across racial boundaries. This isn't an issue for me given the city I live in, but meeting people from smaller towns and lower classes is something that I would appreciate, and if a university will give those people a leg up so that we can all benefit from the enhanced experienced, I thank them. I guess I was never so cut throat about admissions.</p>
<p>hmmm... can we please get back on topic (aa is tiring me terribly).</p>
<p>SO... what does it take to get admitted to hahvahd anyway (excluding race)??</p>
<p>perhaps they do consider socioeconomic status and use race as a cover. That's more pc and you get more money from richer alumni that way.</p>
<p>EDIT: "Rome wasn't built in a day"</p>
<p>Seriously though, for how many years did America of slavery and segregation and discrimination? How long has affirmative action been in place? How long does it take to build a lego castle? How long does it take to destroy a lego castle?</p>
<p>Lack of time = simplified (disjointed) response from me ahora.</p>
<p>A lot of money is usually a surefire way to get in. A kid from my school who's dad is on the Forbes list got in no sweat. In fact, this year mostly only legacies/ developmental admits (read: very very rich kids) got in early. We actually calculated that no one who got into an ivy from my school had parents that made less than $1 million. -- but this was before we found out about Dartmouth, where one upper middle class girl got in.</p>
<p>couldn't have said it better, guitarman. you must be a Harvard grad, you should write a book. I would buy a copy. =)</p>
<p>Agggg!!!!!! No More!!!!! please</p>
<p>guitar you eloquently stated my feelings almost exactly!</p>
<p>hahaha. Yes, dxu is right!! Hijacking a thread is bad enough, hijacking it with 10 pages of yet MORE AA discussion is worse :p Tony, maybe you're right, that sounds pretty reasonable. Who knows? ;) I think in order to get into Harvard, you have to cure cancer and AIDS. At the same time.</p>
<p>EDIT: David + steveo, thanks! :)</p>
<p>yeah, getting back on topic...</p>
<p>you need uniqueness to get in. Live your life without worrying about getting into Harvard and you'll be fine. -don't scoff at that statement ;) -</p>
<p>So there we have it, then, Godwin's Law for College Confidential is proven. Now we just need to find a person after whom to name the law.</p>
<p>Here's the formalization of the tentatively named law:</p>
<p>As the length of a discussion on College Confidential approaches infinity, the probability of involving Affirmative Action in the discussion approaches 1.</p>
<p>Duality--There was no AA in the "Random Discussion" thread. Just a lucky coincidence? :p</p>
<p>Had it survived longer, I'm sure it would have it.</p>
<p>No, it would not have. I wouldn't have allowed it. :)</p>
<p>Thou dareth defy the immutable law of Godwin?</p>
<p>There's an exception--the Corranged Corollary.</p>
<p>nice!!! Guitarman</p>
<p>Shhhh...it is considered gauche to actually mention Corranged's Corollary.</p>
<p>I dont really mind the hijacking of this thread, i mean it wasnt all that helpful to start with. I mean duh! you need passion, intelligence and all that bull. the best answer i can give is that you need val, 4.0, 2330 or more sat, pres of a lot of clubs, and then something extra. even that doesnt gaurentee anything. i know a guy who was val, pres of his class, founder of a couple clubs and got a 2170 sat and he got rejected from the big H (he got into yale and every other top school but thats beside the point) realistically guys if you look at the stat threads, thats what you need. lets face it. dont dwell on harvard unless you have these things. if you dont the only way in is if you have some serious nationaly recognized, passionate award. on the mit thread, ben jones likes to talk about a kid who liked trains (amtrak) he made it sound like the kid's passion got him in. of course thats a trick! the kid had a executive position at amtrak when he was like 14! thats what they mean by passion. </p>
<p>sry for the length but this info is honest and useful. of course its brutal too.</p>