<p>Just because few Asians and white people WANT to go to HBCs doesn’t mean that they can’t go. Howard, as I mentioned earlier in this thread in response to your “where do Supreme Court justices go” question, actually will auto-admit AND give a FULL RIDE to anyone for scores/GPA. </p>
<p>Your friend could have gone there for free. Books and all.</p>
<p>@LanaHere there isn’t much to reply to since the OP is incorrect. There is no “repayment for slavery” at HBCs since they are majority black campuses by the choice of their applicants, not because whites or Asians are kept out. </p>
The report you mentioned is referring to grade/high school education, not US university education. The report actually praises US universities saying:</p>
<p>“US companies are highly sophisticated and innovative, supported by an excellent university system …”</p>
<p>Consistent with this, it’s quite common for students in other countries that are highly ranked in grade/high school math and science to want to study math/science/engineering at the university level in the United States, in spite of US universities usually costing much more than local colleges and usually having limited FA for international students. World university rankings follow a similar pattern. For example, according to the Times World University Rankings, all of the top 5 ranked universities in both physical sciences and engineering are located in the United States. </p>
<p>The biggest factor in losing STEM jobs to workers in other countries is probably differences in salaries, rather than lack of talent. One can often hire a group of several talented workers in a lower income country for the salary of one talented worker in the United States. I’ve chosen to hire temporary employees from many lower income countries as part of my Internet company, in an effort to reduce costs. Some worked out well. Some did not. The most talented person I’ve ever worked with as part of my website grew up in a country with a per capita income of only ~$100 per week. I recently learned he got a Visa to the United States, started a successful software company in Oregon, and now charges ~50x the rate he used to charge me when living outside of the US (and working independently, with minimal overhead).</p>
<p>This article focuses on the impact of legacy status. The admission advantage is very large, as much as 45 percentage points for “primary” legacies. So, if non-legacy candidates have a 15% admit rate, legacy candidates would have a 60% rate. The article notes that legacy applicants have slightly higher average SAT scores than non-legacies; however, the research apparently controlled for this factor in calculating the percentage-point advantage. Among applicants with SAT M+CR scores in the 1550-1590 range, legacy status gives a 49.1 point admission advantage. That’s huge.</p>
<p>Now toss in other hooks. As many as 40% of students attending some of the Ivies got in with at least one hook (<a href=“10 Secrets for Top College Admissions | HuffPost College”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost). If as many as 40% of students get admitted with a hook, and the admission boost is as much as 45 percentage points (maybe more than that for recruited athletes) … and you are an unhooked “bright well-rounded kid” applying in the RD round … then what do you suppose is your real chance of admission to a school like Princeton without a truly exceptional essay or extracurricular talent? It’s miniscule! Being VP of a youth group or secretary of the math club just won’t cut it against that level of competition.</p>
<p>Many unhooked applicants are wasting their time on most of these 8 colleges. About 50 other schools claim to meet 100% of demonstrated financial need. Many of them offer smaller classes than the Ivies, enroll high concentrations of top students (with or without the “amazing” extras), employ top scholars who actually teach undergraduates, and have admit rates above 20%. That’s still tough, but not a total crap-shoot for someone as qualified as the OP’s friend.</p>
<p>jsmike, I think this will be the third time I’ve asked: what is your friend doing now that his Ivy dreams were crushed? Has he decided to pull himself together and move on or is he wallowing in self-pity and refusing to accept the outcome the way you are?</p>
<p>OP, I think you should take a look at Karabel’s “The Chosen”. Chapter 9 tells the story of the battle between some faculty members who want an Ecole Normale Superieure vs. Dean of Admissions Wilbur Bender who was more concerned about Harvard’s more narrow institutional needs. History has shown that Bender’s pragmatism has served the school much better than Chicago’s idealism; It has maximized Harvard’s influence in government, business, and managed to fill its financial coffer all at the same time. This argument took place in the 1950s. Old news now.</p>
<p>TK, do you know if the 40% include people such as children of foreign dignitaries, senators, movie moguls etc., or do they belong to still another category?</p>
<p>That may be true, but only if you believe that maximizing influence in those areas is an appropriate goal. The president of the University of Chicago in 1951 might have said that the mission of his university was, almost exclusively, to discover and disseminate knowledge. Both Chicago and Harvard have been pretty successful at that in the last 60+ years. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Huff Post blog article I cited referred to “VIP or high-profile applicant” as a sub-category in its “40%”. I wouldn’t take that number as gospel (it would fluctuate depending on exactly whom/what you’re counting), but this article is not the first place I’ve seen a figure about that high.</p>
<p>The number of purely discretionary applicants is very limited. On CC, we make a big deal of the potential that a very wealthy/powerful person or famous name can swing his/her kid into a most competitive, but these kids go through the same vetting. Within that small number, two things still matter: that the kid is capable of succeeding at that college and that the parent has some sort of existing relationship with that college. (Usually, yes, a history of large donations. But it can also be a history of working with the school in some effective capacity.) I can only repeat that, at the school I know best, the number allocated to these discretionary admits is less than 1%. That’s allocated, not “filled.” Imo, not worth worrying about.</p>
<p>OP isn’t thinking very broadly or deeply. If he did apply to colleges appropriate to his strengths, we can give him some credit for at least that. </p>
<p>Why do seemingly perfect students get rejected from Ivies? Because the flaw here is in who is seeing them as “seemingly” perfect. This isn’t something that can be backed into- that someone knows some kids who seemed to be so great and were rejected. Nor is it that high stats kids aren’t valued or are boring (which is summary judgment and a stereotype. No one should easily dismiss what many have accomplished in their rigor, grades and scores.) </p>
<p>Instead. you have to look from the other direction- there are thousands of them in the pool for a tippy top. I’d guess Harvard easily ends up with 15,000 4.0 (or nearly) applicants, with rigor. (Also a mistake to assume lower SES kids aren’t taking rigor and getting top grades.)</p>
<p>Now, they can choose the best within that group. “Best of the best.” Often, that is about how they stretched themselves in other ways, as well. How they think. How they serve. The breadth of their interests, as well as how they pursued them in depth. The impact they are already having on those around them, at school, in their talent areas and in the community. How they present themselves. It can be gratifying to see what kids can do. </p>
<p>What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Oh, exactly nothing. There are no math morons at Ivy League colleges. NONE. You are talking about a TINY subset of incoming college freshmen who are being denied admission to exactly 8 colleges among the THOUSANDS of colleges in the United States. The fact that a comparatively minute set of students is not accepted to an Ivy League school in spite of having respectable stats is not indicative of any societal problem whatsoever and requires exactly ZERO angst among policy makers in the United States; it also has ZERO to do with the state of public elementary school and secondary school education in our country. They are completely separate sets of issues, and there is no need to change anything in order to satisfy a minuscule number of the intelligentsia who believes that grades and scores should be the determining criteria for acceptance at a handful of private universities. In the big picture, NO ONE CARES if your friend and others like him are crying in their cereal because they have to go to Duke instead of Harvard.</p>
<p>As others have noted, anybody with stats like the OP’s friend can console himself if he doesn’t get into his reach schools by getting a really good education entirely free. Indeed, there is another long thread in which some people are arguing that such a person ought to take that free education even if he gets into the reach school and can afford to go there.</p>
<p>I agree with OP and can understand where the curiosity/surprise/anger is coming from. OP is comparing <em>profile</em> (that INCLUDES numbers, but not numbers alone) - has examples of “deserved-declined” and “underserved-accepted” (not one but four) all from the same school. It is natural for one to attempt rationalization based on known data points. Personally, I had a similar feeling recently when S (val, great scores/EC and what not) got no Regents at 4 UC campuses when at least a dozen from same school all with seemingly inferior visible profiles got it (fortunately, got admission to first choice major at the same schools). It is natural to attempt to rationalize and then blame the unknown.</p>
<p>It is a HUGE assumption that there is an underlying rational process in absolute sense - as someone provided the good link to Betterman College Planning slides, there is partial “meritocracy” and partial “institutional engineering”. It is probably a combination of “financial management” (rich pays for poor) and mandate to build a team that is a “microcosm” of the larger society. More transparency would definitely help. Visibility to some intermediate stages will minimize the feel of randomness - we all expect that holistic is not same as random. May be, gradual reduction of applicant pool 30,000 => 10,000 => 2000 => 1200 would give a better sense to all. This should include an interview by adcoms, so they can “interact” with applicant rather than form opinions based merely on reading heavily doctored essays, for example. The interview process is expensive, but should be the last stage (say) applicable to 2000 (not 30,000). This can be achieved including the “subjective” parameters that account for special talents. </p>
<p>I think every analysis starts with a mindset. The more you like kids and believe in them and their potential, the more comfortable you feel expecting them to rise to various challenges, successfully juggle several valid balls.</p>
<p>These kids represent a unique age group with the ability to get involved and contribute. Even lower SES kids are out there, engaged, having some influence. </p>
<p>OP’s starting point may be his local observations- but that’s as far as he’s taken it. In a sense, his vision ends at what he can see in his own context. It’s not only not good science, it’s not good critical thinking. It’s a string of “assumptions.” Ie, if this is how I see it in my hs (or my neighborhood, whatever,) then it’s screwed and here are my explanations.</p>
<p>So, I might say, it’s not as simple as top-down merit versus institutional engineering. In between, there is a beautiful wealth of kids who do exceed ordinary expectations.</p>