<p>I have been browsing some of the RD postings for many of the top tier and second tier universities. It seems EASIEST to gain admittance if you fall into one of the following categories (in no particular order)</p>
<pre><code> 1. Legacy;
2. Developmental Admit;
3. Athlete;
4. African American;
5. American Indian;
6. Hispanic;
7. White Males;
8. Asian Males.
By contrast, it appears to me MOST difficult for female Asians and female Caucasians. What do you think? What can we parents do about it? What should we do about it? Can we have an intelligent discussion without ad hominem attacks, please?
</code></pre>
<p>Schools want a gender balanced population. I think that’s just as important as racial diversity. Most top schools seem to get more female applicants than male. The main exceptions are tech schools and ones with good sports, where men apply and yield in greater numbers.</p>
<p>You can determine that from “browsing some of the RD postings for many of the top tier . . . universities” on College Confidential? That’s a neat trick!</p>
<p>In any event, given that some of your favored categories are obvious, it comes down to non-hooked boys seem to do better than non-hooked girls. And as another poster pointed out, when it comes to non-technical schools (and overall, for that matter), girls’ applications outnumber boys’, but the schools prefer balanced classes. So . . . tougher on the girls. Not news. On the other hand, girls have a much easier time than boys getting into such top colleges as Wellesley, Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Mt. Holyoke, and Smith. Which does even things out a bit, in addition to which many almost-top colleges are willing to enroll more women than men, within reason.</p>
<p>lockn, it it fair for “traditional” URMs (even if they are female) to be favored over better qualified Asian and Caucasian girls, apparently in the name of diversity and/or affirmative action? Again, is it time to consider my original question of whether Asian and Caucasian females are the new—if not unrecognized----URM?</p>
<p>Women are killing men in numbers in college. Colleges want more balance. When you look at the top ten students in the high-school graduating class and 9 are women, you have to ask what are the guys doing in high-school?</p>
<p>“URM” stands for under-represented minority. With Caucasian girls, I think you would have a great deal of trouble establishing that they are a minority in any meaningful sense of the word (since they are the largest single race/sex combination) or that they are under-represented. Asian girls are a minority, and are represented in most colleges far in excess of their presence in the population.</p>
<p>You can say that they have a tougher time getting into college, etc., and that it’s unfair, but don’t talk about them as under-represented minorities. They aren’t.</p>
<p>The problem for white and Asian girls isn’t that they’re the “new URM” but that they’re the majority.<br>
For many students, there comes a “tipping point” in gender-balance that many colleges are close to or have gone beyond. There are fewer well-qualified boys for many reasons far beyond this post. The problem is that many students won’t consider schools that are more than 60 or 65% female unless they are (or were) all-female schools. A LAC that’s 50-50 is seen as more selective than one that’s 70-30 even if scores are equal. </p>
<p>Outside of the hyper-selective schools and those that specialize in math, science or engineering, most colleges have more female than male students. Those white and Asian girls, esp from well-off suburbs, have a huge hill to climb in admissions. Kind of like the hill boys had to climb 10 or 15 years ago…</p>
<p>Good point BCEagle. Many boys (and I was one of them MANY years ago) are focused are many nonacademic things more so than girls. It is true that we need balance. It is also accurate (per JHS) that women’s colleges are a good venue for many of our daughters…However???</p>
<p>To drive home the point, the NYT did this a year before I applied to colleges. It’s hard to be a high achieving girl, ask these True Religion jeans-wearing girls.</p>
<p>dragonmom, I see your point about the abundance of female Asians and female caucasians. But by stating these girls have a BIG hill to climb, are you not open then to the emerging reality that the BEST of these candidates are UNDERREPRESENTED because the AdComs have to be obsessed with class balance, and many of these girls are disproportionately left with 2d tier choices?</p>
<p>BarristerDad, in the adcom’s world, underrepresented means that they are on campus in fewer numbers than in the real world, not that they have to work harder to get admitted.</p>
<p>“the NYT did this a year before I applied to colleges”</p>
<p>I went to high school there. Things were so relaxed in those days. I’ve looked around at some of the alum and that high school produced a lot of highly productive people.</p>
<p>Girls should have a good shot at admission if they declare engineering majors. That’s one place where they are underrepresented (I keep telling my daughter).</p>
<p>There are desirable (non-tech) schools where female applicants don’t face a disadvantage - Cornell, Penn, Duke, Princeton. And if you are willing to go to a tech school, MIT, Harvey Mudd, and Carnegie Mellon will give you a big boost over the males.</p>
<p>Barrister I am sorry if I am taking your posts out of context, but you make it sound as if these girls are significantly more deserving than those who take their spots in the name of diversity. If you are discussing T1 schools in particular, as in those with <30% acceptance rates, the admissions are flooded with more than competent applications to begin with. If you have the ability to pick and choose your class from such a great candidate pool, why would you not try to provide the most balanced environment for students.</p>