If based on the chart you assume all legacy losses become Asian gains…is it more diverse with or without the higher number of legacy?
Is voluntary military service (which is selective these days, as the US military considers only about 29% of young people acceptable for enlistment) more unfair than the path to college preparation and admissions, where parental circumstances and choices determine the students’ opportunities for college preparation and impose the limits on what most students can afford and get admitted to?
You are right, @blossom, it is easy to figure out the minimum requirements, so I do think 13 year old 8th graders can largely do that, but the difference is that colleges aren’t honest about what their minimum requirements are, and take things like “recommended” at face value, not knowing any better. Since colleges check all the boxes (athletics, clubs, Community service, etc) of activities being a potential admission factor, kids assume they should do one of each, or at least as many as possible, to bolster their chances.
Was referring to SES diversity, since that would be improved by removing legacy preference.
But are you suggesting that legacy is used as a back door “affirmative action for [some mostly] White students” policy?
Good point. I was referring to the academic index all teams are required to meet in the Ivy League. Academic index is a single number which is calculated by weighted HS GPA, SAT and SAT subject tests. Collectively, each team AI must meet/exceed the AI of the non-athletes on the campus, which includes hooked and unhooked students. Roughly of the athletes fall below that standard and half fall above. That doesn’t mean that every athlete getting in with and above average AI would get in if they weren’t an athlete. But it does mean that ignoring all of the subjective traits in the more extensive application process, half would make the cut as above average.
In reality, nothing else really factors in to the admit decision for athletes other than a major character alarm. I would say this about admissions/academia and athletes: there is likely a good deal of bias against athletes as well. Not that it matters what the AO says. I’ve seen this with a cousin of mine and undergrad med school advising. He was a D1 pitcher in a Power 5 conference and a couple members of the screening committee in his undergrad didn’t think he “had what it took” because athletes are “entitled and undisciplined”. His grades, MCATs and letters were good. He’s now an ER doc btw. It would not surprise me if AOs were a bit tougher on athletes…especially since their conclusions don’t really matter when the football team needs a TE and stud recruit X has an AI above the university average.
And horror of horrors, they not only have to pass a physical fitness test but are “forced” to take the ASVAB to determine whether they are smart enough to enlist and which jobs they are qualified to do.
2 Likes
Absolutely. Not me…but the data above suggests that in a “fair”, unbiased assessment, legacy admits would fall 71%. If you assume well-funded white alums, then they would be the current beneficiaries.
On an amusing note, my Facebook feed shows Dr. Biden and the Duchess of Cambridge carrying big bowls of carrots to feed a school rabbit. Both are educated, intelligent, affluent women with enormous staffs to assist them in making such a well-publicized appearance. But no one thought to google that carrots are bad for bunnies and should never be given in large quantities. So maybe we could cut the kids a break from their google research too?
1 Like
I don’t believe this is correct.
My understanding is that athletes as a group must be within one standard deviation of the full student class. Individual athletes can be much lower, but must balanced by other athletes that raise the AI.
Certain sports such as the football and basketball team are typically much lower, but they depend upon strong AI from athletes in sports such as fencing to bring up the overall AI.
2 Likes
Everybody else is. During my freshman year I went to a college fair event at my school and heard a lot of this from the people there representing the colleges.
I know a lot of kids in my school that have never spoken to the GC, purely because they have no reason to. Now they’re spending their summer at our community college for Spanish 1. In a junior class of 750 students, 5 guidance counselors also simply don’t have the time to reach out to everyone.
I agree with your take…and the AI index low end is 176.
Adding also that test optional schools (which includes the entire Ivy League, and Cornell is test blind for certain schools) can not calculate an AI for TO applicants.
Whether some attempted to approximate an AI using a PSAT I don’t know, but wouldn’t be surprised. I have not heard that any Ivies required test scores from athletic recruits, even though the school is TO…but this does happen at other schools or with certain coaches (again, all non-Ivy).
1 Like
There are schools where recruited athlete admission does not necessarily have lower academic standards than regular admission. For example, University of Mississippi automatically admits Mississippi resident applicants (including non-athletes) who meet the NCAA minimum academic standards in addition to other paths to admission ( https://admissions.olemiss.edu/apply/freshman/ ).
And you are 100% correct. It’s been awhile since I’ve looked at that. So roughly 16% of athletes are at the campus academic standard and 50% fall within one standard deviation.
I guess all Harvard needs to do is to create a 100 member varsity dodgeball team full of the +1.5SD admits.
1 Like
I think more colleges should use this type of admission, if your GPA is in a certain range and your SAT is in X-Y range, you are a competitive applicant. Then you can throw out the apps that don’t meet the minimum, and to differentiate between applicants things like EC’s or awards can be considered. I think it would make college admissions much more straightforward and transparent. I think Canada uses this system.
I’ve always thought that the real cachet of the Ivy’s was that you were going to be rubbing shoulders with the future leaders of America if not the world. Not necessarily the smartest, or the most academic, though they want leaders in academics too.
Dunshire, do you want to take on the test optional crowd with your argument? I’ll take cover while you do…
It works in Canada because we have a “relatively” standardized curriculum and universities don’t really have “diversity” as part of their mandates (with a some minor exceptions primarily for indigenous students).
1 Like
I truly think that colleges shouldn’t go test optional. The tests such as the SAT/ACT or AP tests are standard for everybody in the nation, unlike EC’s/GPA/Legacy/URM/Athletes. Sure, kids from a higher income bracket can get paid test prep or tutors but there’s so many free resources out there that can help to level the playing ground.
Of course, a lot of top colleges support test optional policies because they get more applicants. More applicants = more money.
A University of Georgia study found that schools receive 200 more applications on average after adopting test-optional policies. It also revealed that when going test optional, many schools see SAT scores rise by 26 points on average.
All this back and forth about what colleges should do. But here’s my question that no one has answered - does it really matter? Given the number of highly qualified students each year, why does it matter that Suzy didn’t get into Harvard and has to go to Middlebury or even her local flagship? Why does a school need to accept the objective top 2000 students for admission (I don’t even think that’s possible or what Americans want)? I dare say if these colleges switched systems as many are advocating, there would be even more upset parents and students than there are now because the ones wanting this other system still wouldn’t stand a chance.
5 Likes
Strikes me that the colleges are pretty “transparent,” whatever that means. They say what is important to them on their websites and the common data set. They report scores and gpas. They say the admissions is holistic and they are building a community. They have programs to recruit first gen and poc. What else is there? How exactly would they deliver that information?
The high schools are the ones who need more transparency. Not just Naviance is enough. How many students apply, how many students get in? How many are athletes, how many are legacies? How many get sufficient financial aid? That puts the likelihood of success in the accurate context. No way can colleges do that on the granular level that would actually help an applicant. But the high school could.
You aren’t going to stop kids from being in denial about their chances. I don’t think that is the fault of the colleges.
5 Likes