Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.
College Confidential’s “Dean,” Sally Rubenstone, put together 25 of her best tips. So far, the "25 Tips from the Dean" eBook has helped more than 10K students choose a college, get in, and pay for it. Get your free copy: http://goo.gl/9zDJTM

"Race" in College Applications FAQ & Discussion 12

1212224262738

Replies to: "Race" in College Applications FAQ & Discussion 12

  • Snowball CitySnowball City Registered User Posts: 1,076 Senior Member
    Nowhere in the article does it say that they admit URM at twice the rate.

    A higher rate could also apply to many LACs that have to admit more males in order to maintain a semblance of gender balance.

    Perhaps they need to admit more URMs because yield has typically been poor. I know my kid crossed off colleges on her acceptance list the colleges with the lowest numbers of minority students because critical mass mattered to her.

    Not enough information from that article to start reaching conclusions.
  • Snowball CitySnowball City Registered User Posts: 1,076 Senior Member
    edited March 14
    That posted out of order. Phone is being goody

    Grrr. Goofy
  • roethlisburgerroethlisburger Registered User Posts: 930 Member
    ^The article was poorly written, but seemed to imply their expected cutoff between Asians and African Americans was 150 points. That's not a small difference. That's over one full standard deviation.
  • Snowball CitySnowball City Registered User Posts: 1,076 Senior Member
    I think the point being made by the AO is there are two scenarios.


    If you have a Latino student with a 650, high rigor, top 5% of his class, Dad is a welder, Mom is a receptionist, great letters of recommendation - top 5% with that score means the school may be on the lower performing end of the scale. The student took opportunities offered and was the cream that rose to the top. This kid could have achieved more if the school was better. Let's give him a shot.

    If you have a Latino student with a 650 from a wealthy school, access to multiple APs, only took 3, top 30% of the class, college educated parents, no after school job, then this kid is going to get a pass.


    My take away from that AO's piece was how they do indeed look for income markers. That is a win for all low income or blue collar students. "... Obviously, those from a lower income background will not be held to as high a standard as those who are higher income; we can deduce income levels from essays, LORs, and subtle/explicit things in the application.."


    Athletes and VIPs do not have to meet the same minimum standards either. What do you think of that?
  • dragonmom3dragonmom3 Registered User Posts: 209 Junior Member
    Athletes and VIPs usually benefit the school directly (prestige and or money) by their attendance.
  • firstwavemomfirstwavemom Registered User Posts: 76 Junior Member
    @Snowball City There is a third scenario:

    Latino student with high scores, top % in the class at a competitive HS, parents are professionals and fairly well-off. That student may get in with demonstrated success and more than "just give him/her a shot" - and with a specific merit scholarship (as happened to someone I know).

    The college application process is stressful, for sure--and disappointing to many applicants out there. Inequities exist and it is a difficult issue to tackle. There are various "advantages" (URM, First in family to go to college, Legacy, athlete and then the less quantifiable ones: great ECs--music/robotics award winners, state champion in a sport, and fantastic essays/recommendations. Holistic evaluation and all of that...

    All students probably have some "advantage" or another and hopefully kids end up at colleges that are a good fit for them.
    @dragonmom3 I agree, athletes do benefit the school as do legacies (VIPs or just regular old alums), but so does diversity (geographic, socioeconomic, racial).
  • Snowball CitySnowball City Registered User Posts: 1,076 Senior Member
    @firstwavemom My kids were the high scoring URMs but the earlier poster was decrying the lower threshold for minority students. I was trying to illustrate show a student could have done well by community standards but still have somewhat lower test scores.
  • firstwavemomfirstwavemom Registered User Posts: 76 Junior Member
    @Snowball City yes, agreed. I was just adding another scenario with another highly qualified URM (like your kids). regardless of parent jobs. There are valued intangibles (as is the case with almost everyone--in a number of different ways).
  • roethlisburgerroethlisburger Registered User Posts: 930 Member
    @Snowball City
    A higher rate could also apply to many LACs that have to admit more males in order to maintain a semblance of gender balance.

    I suspect the unstated goal of many colleges is to avoid having a dating pool too lopsided in either direction. This might be an interesting topic as its own thread, but I don't see how it's connected to this thread's topic.
    Perhaps they need to admit more URMs because yield has typically been poor.

    Yield isn't relevant. If you want to know if a college is acting in a biased fashion, you should judge them on admissions decisions, which the college controls, and not matriculation, which partly depends on the students.
    Athletes and VIPs do not have to meet the same minimum standards either. What do you think of that?

    Overall, I think colleges put too much of an emphasis on athletics in admissions. Maybe, a winning football team is why donors get excited about giving money to Alabama. It's not why people donate to most top universities and LACs.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 8,762 Senior Member
    Colleges don't control yield but they can predict it and do take it into account in deciding who and how many to admit.
  • keiekeikeiekei Registered User Posts: 105 Junior Member
    Actually, they can and do control yield by adjusting the size of the early (especially ED) pool, which is essentially 100% yield.
  • roethlisburgerroethlisburger Registered User Posts: 930 Member
    @OHMomof2

    I'm sure colleges can predict yield, if they're trying to meet racial quotas, but it seems ridiculous they would have racial quotas in the first place.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 8,762 Senior Member
    They're trying to build whatever their vision is of a great class and yield prediction is one tool in the toolbox to meet that end.

    So if more Hmong kids are accepted because they know from previous years that only 1 out of 10 will attend if admitted and they'd like more than one, they act accordingly with admits to get to their goal - which might be 5 Hmong kids. Or whatever.
    Perhaps they need to admit more URMs because yield has typically been poor.
    ----
    Yield isn't relevant. If you want to know if a college is acting in a biased fashion, you should judge them on admissions decisions, which the college controls, and not matriculation, which partly depends on the students.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 8,762 Senior Member
    I suspect the unstated goal of many colleges is to avoid having a dating pool too lopsided in either direction. This might be an interesting topic as its own thread, but I don't see how it's connected to this thread's topic.

    It has been a topic. It's only related to this thread because it's a gender admissions preference rather than a race admissions preference and the difference in reactions to it are interesting.
Sign In or Register to comment.