latina177

Sorry paixdemonde i really don't know her real GPA but I estimate it was around a 3.75 something like that she was an A student. Her SATI for sure I know it was like a 1500 or 1600. I'm starting to think she might had some hook ups overthere because she came from a very wealthy family. Other than that, I don't know I don't really know how she got in everyone's saying that her minority kind of helped her.

brandnewstate

abercrombieindy and whoever else,

Here's the link for the princeton study http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/Tje...adeSSQPtII.pdf

stacym

being asian counts as a less appreciated minority, doesn't it..

sorry that i come off bitter. but anyhow, just apply and see what happens. it can only help that you have that hook.

aCTyankee

what if im a hermaphrodite? would i be columbias first? could i get in for free and have them run tests on me at the med school?

Akis Psilos

It depends actY, if you have to compete with more hermaphrodites than Columbia's quota allows then you have a chance to get out free of suffering all those "anatomy by dissection" lab exercises at the med school.

09910745

I hope everyone was smart enough to look at the date of this publication. Published in 2005, this paper has only limited applicability to the HS class of 2009 and their college acceptances. Yes, while Affirmative Action remains one of the many admissions criteria, its validity and legitimacy as a factor has decreased exponentially throughout the years.

Also, it must be noted that Upper Class/Upper Middle Class minorities receive next to no benefit. Columbia's application requires you to list your parents educational achievements (in addition to a bevy of other things which can enlighten the Adcom as to your class status), meaning that a Hispanic or Black applicant who has parents with PhDs or multiple graduate degrees will receive no favor over an impoverished applicant, regardless of race.

CheeseManBus

well, first of all there's no quota because that's illegal...(perhaps an unofficial mental quota?)

also, first-generation college student is a good boost as well, showing that the rest of your family is not necessarily composed of academics and you are the first to take the initiative to go onto higher education (or have thought about the decision unlike other kids who automatically go to college after high school due to their environment)

aCTyankee

wow 1st gen college grad scores points? I thought if you put on the app that your parents went to harvard (just example) that meant they bred decent offspring.... so instead I shouldve put that my parents dropped out in 6th grade- this wouldve scored higher in the adcoms eyes?

admissionsgeek

Hi, @ .Masochist. Be careful in the way you word the 150 points. If you pay closer attention to the study and others similar - Hispanic candidates nationwide regardless of socioeconomic status tend to score 150 points lower than the national average. So it is not to say being Hispanic gives you 150 points, but rather that the manner in which you interpret testing has to be sensitive to each community. A high achieving minority student may underperform "objectively" on the SAT and yet still have more promise than someone who performs better on the test. This is why it is a good thing they have more information than just SAT scores.

Lastly, you are wrong on the First Generation Student and the Socioeconomic status. No, they are not 'hooks,' but someone's family and personal background affects what kind of resources they have available and also impacts how AdComs will read the application and what expectations they may have. The more educated, the better off, the higher the burden of proof that you have truly maximized the resources available you. It makes sense. They are going to take all the information you give them, judge if you are someone who is pushing themselves academically in that setting and determine if you have the academic promise to succeed in their institution.

.Masochist

I'm not saying your wrong, but can you please provide solid evidence of this?

I don't agree with this, although I have not seen much studies, and information on your part may be insightful. If I interpret your argument correctly, then technically you are saying if there was a non URM and a Hispanic with exactly the same stats/ecs/etc. except the Hispanic student has a 150 lower they would be equal not only in terms of admission chances (which is what the study shows), but in their true qualities as a high school student would be equal. I understand a lower SAT score doesn't = worse student because admissions are holistic, but IF the condition that 150 points on the SAT actually tells in some way about the quality of a student is true, then a non URM scoring 150 points over a Hispanic with the exact same other stats would mean the quality of the non URM is higher, regardless of their chances in admissions.

I do not believe there should be different standards of SAT for students based on ethnicity alone. I believe if you score higher on the SAT than someone else then you are better at the SAT than the other person, and thus if you believe the SAT is a sign of student quality then the student with the higher score is a better student. If you do not believe the validity of the SAT then that is a whole different story and different debate.


Yes, I agree. I understand admissions are holistic, and no doubt they do take these factors into consideration. My problem with this is it is unclear how much the affects someone, and unlike affirmative action which is clearly stated, these factors can be vague at times on how much effect they have. Once again, if you have differing evidence on this, I would be very interested to see it.

I have no evidence on this, but for whatever its worth in the top schools there is a disproportionate amount of rich kids, and clearly prep schools that usually harbor rich students tend to have a larger amount of people going to these top schools than poor inner city schools. It really brings to question just how much socioeconomic status affects the adcoms standards on this "higher burden of proof" rich kids need.

Light Airen

Yay. Go affirmative action. One of the fairest policies ever created.

admissionsgeek

Hey Masochist -

One thing to consider, the SAT originally was validated as a predictor of 1st year GPA. As the Collegeboard's latest study even asserts the SAT alone is a weak predictor of 1st year performance. It argues that high school GPA is the best individual predictor, and high school GPA taken with SAT scores (with preference toward SAT subject tests) is even more sensitive { http://www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/197359.html}. Secondly, variable sensitivity across different ethnic, gender or educational backgrounds is an often used concept in any human behavior statistics - just because two people score the same does not mean both people got to that score the same way. Being able to read SAT scores within the context of their performance is necessary in order to understand the validity of their assessment. Someone from an inner city school who achieves low 700s might be vastly overperforming their school, where as the same person from a wealthy suburban public is underperforming their context. Each score says more about their potential than it says about their actual intellectual achievement.

As for why there is a stacking of top schools - well an education like Columbia is rigorous, no doubt here. The pool of underprivileged inner city kids is not as vast as the pool of affluent well-resourced students. When you have that dynamic working out the numbers themselves suggest that the proportions will not be equal. A university that is interested in diversity and opening up access will have to be adept at reading different students and not establishing a single overarching standard.

.Masochist

Uhh...according to your link it doesn't.

"The SAT continues to be an excellent predictor of how students will perform in their first year of college"

They do say SAT + GPA is the best, but nowhere does it suggest that alone it is weak, according to your article.

Even this is not 100% correct. According to your link:

"The SAT is a better predictor than high school grades for all minority groups (African American, Hispanic, American Indian and Asian)"

The minority groups count for a pretty large proportion of students at many schools, especially when they added Asian in with the bunch of URMs.

Ok. I didn't say socioeconomic factors had no effect, I know they do. I just questioned how much effect it had.

Can you provide evidence on this somehow? Specifically about the distribution of socioeconomic status of applicants? I would be quite interested to see.

Regarding your PM:

If you are going to debate with me, please don't PM me calling my arguments bs, and instead offer your own insight. I'm not going to quote your whole PM out of respect for your privacy, but a quick snippet:

Thank you, your point is well taken. As for my evidence regarding this post, I will stand by the Princeton study's link.

Please make note that in your whole argument you provided only one link of evidence (as did I), and that article basically ended up contradicting some of your own points. If you wish to refute what I say then like you said, provide evidence. If not, at least acknowledge that I as much as you have a right to post my views.

You provided further argument in your PM regarding this topic, and I find it rather inconvenient to debate it without quoting, so if you would like to provide more insight to this thread then post what you wrote here.

On a last note I will say that I can often be wrong about my assertions, as all humans have that capacity for, and if you can convince me otherwise of my views, I would much appreciate what you can offer.

admissionsgeek

I had a long post that got kicked off, oh well. Short version. Read the NACAC study on standardized testing. Yes, there are people out there in admissions that question the validity of the SAT particularly the testing culture it has developed without teaching students anything of significance. And the guy who headed the study is the Dean at Harvard. Secondly, I went through both reports and the only thing I found was - "Results indicate that the SAT is more predictive of FYGPA for females compared to males and for whites compared to other racial/ethnic groups." And yet it continues to show however minutely that something such as HSGPA, which measures relative aptitude based on a school context, is as good if not better a predictor of FYGPA as the SAT, a supposedly objective test. I think as NACAC continues to urge that something that is coachable and not knowledge-based like the SAT/ACT does not truly measure potential as it purports. I would say the SAT study exposes it by itself, but that's me inserting my words into their self-praise. I think when you originally said if I questioned the validity of the SAT then that would be another conversation. I do, and others do too. And so the fact that you were near 800s for most of your section, I congratulate you, but in reality that just means you are good at taking these tests. It does not tell me anything about your actual intelligence, your academic potential nor your ability to solve a problem. Things that are far more interesting than your performance on a test.

As for socioeconomic data, the most compelling one that is readily published is the survey of Pell Grant eligible students in first-year classes. Pell grants in general go to the neediest families out there, the top two schools perennially are UCLA and UC-Berkeley. In terms of private schools, Columbia and Cornell do the best. US News republishes this study every year. {http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/national-economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools}. Sometimes individual schools release the percentage of First-Generation college students, community colleges and other schools tend to have the highest percentage. Ivies are probably in the low 10s. You will also see especially highly selective schools tout the number of families on financial aid as a way to show their socioeconomic diversity. The point though that because a lot of this has to do with family finances, colleges are probably not going to share specific details, but that does not mean it does not play a part in the actual admissions process.

I am cool debating. I don't mind you having a problem with my argument, I am a bit rusty so it is good to have a keen eye to keep me on target. But I think you're nit-picking and not asking the real questions. If your goal is to say convince me or I am right well that's pretty damn naive. I would bluntly say that I know you don't know what you're talking about. I'd divulge more here or through a PM, but it is also clear you aren't one to keep things in a private message. So I am left with the thought that you are covinced you are right when you haven't researched beyond the Princeton study (which if you actually read it doesn't say anything you have used it to say - in summary it just says that there must be Affirmative Action because people are admitted at variable rates). Yeah I only posted one study, but it isn't the only one I am thinking of when I am asserting my beliefs.

BigWeight

BOTTOM LINE: Other VERY qualified hispanics will be applying to Ivy's every year. Don't rely on the "I'm hispanic, I can get in everywhere" idea. Look at TheWerg, BrandyBeer and myself as examples of competitive hispanic applicants.