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.
Please take a moment to read our updated TOS, Privacy Policy, and Forum Rules.

"Race" in College Applications FAQ & Discussion 12

1666769717284

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

  • CottonTalesCottonTales Registered User Posts: 536 Member
    edited September 13
    @jzducol, do you have factual info that 36 ACT scorers that are also URMs' are rarely rejected from Brown, or is that your assumption?

    I did misread the part about yield protection.
  • ucbalumnusucbalumnus Registered User Posts: 62,870 Senior Member
    edited September 13
    jzducol wrote:
    Almost every school with the exception of HYPS has yield protection.

    Actually, it is likely that most colleges do not. But you have to go beyond a narrow subset of more selective private colleges to see that.

    For Brown specifically, "level of applicant's interest" is "not considered", according to http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=163 and https://www.brown.edu/about/administration/institutional-research/sites/brown.edu.about.administration.institutional-research/files/uploads/Brown CDS_2016-2017_Final_1.pdf .

    Out of HYPS, note that Princeton does list "level of applicant's interest" as "considered", according to http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=111 and https://registrar.princeton.edu/university_enrollment_sta/CDS_2016-2017.pdf .
  • preppedparentpreppedparent Registered User Posts: 2,251 Senior Member
    @dragonmom3 I don't think quotas of any kind are justified, but rather the most compelling and qualified students should gain admission to the top colleges. Let's get away from quotas, we need the best talent to be competitive in a world market.
  • CottonTalesCottonTales Registered User Posts: 536 Member
    @preppedparent, how do you define the most compelling and qualified students, the best talent? You have made it clear that testing is a factor. Anything else?
  • preppedparentpreppedparent Registered User Posts: 2,251 Senior Member
    edited September 13
    @Cotton Tales...I can tell you what it isn't...it isn't race or skin color.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 10,141 Senior Member
    edited September 13
    @preppedparent there are quotas for athletes.Very firm ones, with levels. At Amherst, for instance, there are 67 slots per year for athletes who do not meet the normal academic standards for admission (14 for football alone). Then there are those who are just as qualified as any other applicant they might accept, but will get in over everyone else. There are 60-90 of those per year. And those numbers DO NOT include applicants who might have a different hook such as URM or legacy or development or first gen - these are just for athletes who do not check one of those boxes.

    Amherst only has about 475 students in any class. So 127-157 slots a year just for white athletes, with almost half of those for athletes who wouldn't get in otherwise because their academic achievements don't make the cut.

    Everyone cool with that?

    https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/media/PlaceOfAthleticsAtAmherst_Secure_1.pdf - page 11
  • CottonTalesCottonTales Registered User Posts: 536 Member
    You didn't answer the question @preppedparent. Please tell me defining qualities of the most compelling and qualified students, NOT what isn't.
  • whatisyourquestwhatisyourquest Registered User Posts: 598 Member
    Round and round we go... I still think this back and forth about athletes, legacies, development cases, etc. whenever AA is brought up is tu quoque ("you also" in latin):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

    Can we please agree that if slots/quotas/bumps for athletes, legacies, development cases, etc. were to be eliminated, that AA should be abandoned too? It's not that hard of a question.
  • preppedparentpreppedparent Registered User Posts: 2,251 Senior Member
    ^^By saying what isn't, I have answered your question what is. It is all else. Identifying what is based on race, only promotes sterotypical thinking, like racial profiling for example. hope this helps
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 10,141 Senior Member
    @whatisyourquest Can we please agree that if slots/quotas/bumps for athletes, legacies, development cases, etc. were to be eliminated, that AA should be abandoned too?

    Maybe. Should they be eliminated though? Sports go away or go rec-only, alumni get mad when their kids don't get in, significant development money is lost, schools lose some of the small # of URM they have now, women outnumber men at most colleges by a lot.

    Does that improve the college experience?

    What if some schools did all that and some didn't? Which ones would be more desirable?
  • CottonTalesCottonTales Registered User Posts: 536 Member
    edited September 13
    @preppedparent, I will give you a scenario. Say a URM gets into med school with a MCAT score in the bottom 25% of the class. Are you pissed because there are others that are more "compelling and qualified?" Let's then fast forward to med school graduation, and that same URM was #1 academically in the graduating class, above the 75% that entered with a higher MCAT score. Did the admissions committee give that student a nod because of the color of their skin, or can you concede that other factors were important to admissions and factored into their decision? Did that student still not deserve an admissions because they may have received a slight URM bump?
  • roethlisburgerroethlisburger Registered User Posts: 1,664 Senior Member
    edited September 13
    ^At the very least, colleges should be compliant with the constitution and civil rights act. Of course, the courts make their rulings, but we can all decide independently some of those decisions(Plessy, Fisher) were erroneous.
  • dragonmom3dragonmom3 Registered User Posts: 280 Junior Member
    edited September 13
    Personally, I think the system works quite well as it is.
    Schools have priorities and personalities which set them apart from the competition.
    Many people forget that WE-the students and parents- are the customers and the market responds.
    My kids from CA like Southern and Midwestern schools.
    They like school spirit and don't want too much political disruption in general.
    They target top schools and have been happy with their choices. Other families look for much different things and have a different idea of the kind of college experience they are looking for. They seek out different schools.
    It's brilliant, really.

  • ucbalumnusucbalumnus Registered User Posts: 62,870 Senior Member
    OHMomof2 wrote:
    Maybe. Should they be eliminated though? Sports go away or go rec-only, alumni get mad when their kids don't get in, significant development money is lost, schools lose some of the small # of URM they have now, women outnumber men at most colleges by a lot.

    Yes, all of these factors relate more to the college's own marketability (to future students and donors) than student merit. Racial/ethnic composition is probably more important to college marketability than many colleges will admit (because such targets for marketability probably sound too much like racial/ethnic quotas), since many students (including white students as well as non-white students) have preferences with respect to the racial/ethnic composition of the college in terms of desirability.

    In a theoretical highly selective college where admissions is based purely on student merit considerations (without the college marketability considerations that result in big "hooks" for development and some recruited athletes, and smaller ones for legacy and/or URM), one can argue that athletic ability (considered as an EC achievement, not to the magnitude of a "hook" or special admission override) is an aspect of student merit. The same goes for individual consideration of whether an applicant has a disadvantaged starting line (first-generation-to-college, low SES, and (yes) race/ethnicity are some such factors, but based on individual evaluation than check-box or automatic "hook"), so that his/her achievement is more meritous than the same achievement from an advantaged starting line.

    On the other hand, legacy and development give no indication of the student's own merit, and tend to indicate an advantaged starting line (although there are presumably a few legacies who are low SES and/or had issues with being held back by racism and could be individually evaluated as such in a pure student merit admissions process at a theoretical highly selective college).
  • dragonmom3dragonmom3 Registered User Posts: 280 Junior Member
    edited September 13
    Many people seem to underestimate the attraction of going to schools with those very legacy and development students that everyone seems to disparage. Isn't that part of what makes the "Ivy League" so appealing? If we are honest about it?
    If students just wanted to be with good professors and smart classmates they could find that at most top 50 schools and public flagships.
    Just my opinion.
Sign In or Register to comment.