<p>Ok, i know that there is no way that Yale would accept anyone but the best, but in trying to make myself feel better, are there any profiles of admitted students who don't have 2400 / 4.0 / Saved the world from nuclear war / invented a time machine? </p>
<p>Duh its an exaggeration, but what are the stats you've seen that make you most hopeful??</p>
<p>I have seen a few get accepted with about 700 or lower in on the SAT in each category, have a 3.9, and great, but not amazing extracurriculars. It seems as though they either were from a less common state such as Hawaii, but then again, it CAN happen with a good essay. Of course, higher stats help immensely.</p>
<p>^no one with a 3.85 has been accepted? (or maybe a 3.85 gpa but with higher sats/better ec’s?)</p>
<p>^ ^ ^</p>
<p>I would assume that in going over applications, the committee would keep GPA within the context of your school.</p>
<p>The academic bar is dropped significantly for minorities (excluding Asians of course), but then again 99.9999999999999% of them need this drop in selectivity.</p>
<p>I completely disagree w/rtrgrove’s statement. Frankly, it borders being offensive to me. (and I’m asian BTW)</p>
<p>Where am I going wrong? Though, I was wrong to say 99.9999999% need this lowering in selectivity, but its patent fact that the majority of URMs really need AA to get into the ivy league.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong, at least for African Americans. For starters, about 3500 African Americans score a 700 or above on all three sections of the SAT. That’s several times more than those who get into the ivy league.</p>
<p>^but a white or asian who scores a 700 on each section would almost never get into the ivy league whereas an african-american who scored 700 on each section would have a pretty good shot. urms with average test scores are definitely helped a lot by AA. even urms with high test scores might not get into the ivy league if they were white or asian.</p>
<p>^A 700 or above.</p>
<p>Well, first of all getting a 700 on all three sections of the SAT is pritty far from stellar when compared to the admitted applicants at Yale, Harvard, and Princeton who are white or asian. Ya, I am neglecting the fact that some in this group may have indeed scored higher than that, but I doubt many got above a 750+ on each section, something that is essentially required for hookless applicants to these schoosl. </p>
<p>However, just a cursory glance over the results threads at the top schools (HYPSM) gives people the idea that a large majority of the minority population admitted into HYPMS have pritty subpar stats. I have read most of these results threads from the past 2 or so years, and while almost every admitted asian/white app has a 2300+, a black with these stats is a true anomaly. </p>
<p>All I am saying is that the bar is dropped academically for URMs (it is…that really cant be denied) and most of them wouldn’t get into ivies without AA.</p>
<p>Rtgrove
I’m a Native American with a 4.0, lots of APs, a 34 on ACTs, great ecs, 1000 volunteer hours and work experience, SO clearly I need AA to get into an Ivy</p>
<p>After the centuries of effort to ensure equality for the citizens in the US, it is sad that AA is so widely used within nearly all educational and vocational institutions. Plain and simple, the policy is a blatant form of racism and deprives a countless number of highly qualified individuals from matriculating into an institution that they deserve. Socioeconomic AA, however, is a more equitable policy since those from low-income backgrounds have likely faced more obstacles in pursuing their academic and career aspirations.</p>
<p>Anyone who wants to argue the position that the academic bar is not significantly lowered for URM’s is facing an avalanche of data that will be exorbitantly difficult to overcome. The simple fact is that the majority of URM’s are allowed into all universities 1, 2 and sometimes even 3 standard deviations under the mean. I believe that AA policies ultimately serve to diminish the academic accomplishments of URM’s as such a paradigm casts doubt upon their accomplishments. Even worse, it forces academic peers and employers to categorize and judge people by race, since the university implicitly does so with admissions. At this point in our history, AA does very little good, and actually creates a racially based paradigm within academia since, by it’s very ontology, affirmative action is racist in nature. Not to mention the savage hypocricy faced by low income caucasians, who face most of, if not all, of the same obstacles as URM’s. </p>
<p>[Ivy</a> League Diversity Contortions John Stossel](<a href=“http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/10/17/ivy-league-diversity-contortions/]Ivy”>http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2009/10/17/ivy-league-diversity-contortions/)</p>
<p>To my view, the only AA policy that makes sense is socioeconomic, in that students who did not have stable households and came from low income households should be examined on a case by case basis to determine if there is a more appropriate context with which to view their accomplishments. For instance, many parents cannot afford 2 years of SAT tutoring for their child, and other children must work jobs or endure abuse or frequently miss school as a result of their home life. Thus, I firmly believe that socioeconomic data is much more telling than skin color. Consider for instance, a black or hispanic student that comes from a privileged background: Obviously such a person does not deserve special treatment when they grew up with more opportunity than most people in America, and yet there are no controls in current AA policy for this. And, if socioeconomic data is used, it doesn’t eliminate URM’s, rather it offers an appropriate context to judge achievement for all people based on their actual circumstances and not a predetermined rubric of opportunity based purely on racially driven stereotypes governing the assumed availability of opportunity.</p>
<p>^Completely agreed, wonderful post. I hope that in the coming future racial demographics will be completely eliminated from the application. Skin color should not define anyone beyond a superficial level and we should all ultimately identify ourselves within the greater scope of humanity.</p>
<p>^phear_me; just what I was thinking. agree completely.</p>
<p>yepp, as much as we’d like to hope that skin color will be eliminated it will NEVER be because the under represented will always protest and say that the system is biased against them, and to quell these groups, we have affirmative action =], so really it’s not the white person’s fault for discriminating against whites/asians because it’s politically and morally incorrect for all races to not be represented equally, because all people, blacks, hispanics, asians, and whites are created equal which is why they all score the same on the SAT. duh =]</p>
<p>and it’s sort of our primeval instinct to notice race. it’s how people evolvedddd. you no my family you go away.</p>
<p>this is AMERRIKUHHHH!</p>
<p>yikes guys i was just wondering…</p>
<p>also, in doing advocacy/ awareness work, sometimes you see people abusing causality and saying because cause A and effect B frequently occur together, they therefore are related. Yes, the population of black students might be have lower scores, but historically (and in the present) the african american population is also disproportionately skewed towards the poorer ends of the socioeconomic scale. The evil, terrible race based AA that many people see can often just be a coincidence.</p>
<p>Lol, as a minority (african-american) who goes to Yale I can honestly say it will be funny when you all get rejected.</p>
<p>^hi, AA case =] so what was your SAT score?</p>