<p>Ummm, no. I claim that hiring, firing, and promotion decisions in most employment are much less consistent (across companies), much more holistic, much more opaque, and much more prone to corruption and nepotism than college admissions. And the chance of success getting hired can often be far lower than the chance of admission to an elite college (just ask most people looking for jobs). Compared to employment, college admissions is a paragon of consistency and transparency. Unless “merit” is both highly valuable in the job and easily observed and assessed, it is often not much of a factor beyond the baseline ability to do the job. And there is typically no such thing as a “safety” in getting hired.</p>
<p>No, it isn’t called “optimism bias.” It’s called work. </p>
<p>I generally have a distaste for personalizing posts, because that is the death knell to intelligent dialogue, and if anything distinguishes CC it is the consistently well-written and intellectual honesty of the posts, and their focus on ideas rather than the personal. That said, as long as we are volleying life facts, it has not always been sunny here in Philadelphia. My mother died of lung cancer, as a non-smoker, my first semester at my college. My best friend was the victim of a mass murderer my first semester at law school. I would not broadcast those facts but for, on my third post on this point, I seem to be perceived as one for whom life has always gone smoothly. </p>
<p>Life is not smooth. Life is not fair (to Blossom: I had a boss once who was a career government lawyer who had never been in court but would edit away at my briefs in a severely clueless manner. I feel your pain and shared it). Life is not easy. My solution when it did not go correctly was to work harder. In those efforts, I was rewarded. I fear for those kids today who will not reap those same rewards, for no fault of their own and no shortcomings in their efforts. </p>
I do. It’s a “committee’s” decision from each individual school. I also know the regional AO is the “presenter” of the kids in his/her area. So, by “differences in how AO’s are doing their job”, I really meant how that “committee” are doing their job. Am I saying AO’s are doing a bad job? No. They are doing a fine job in putting together a well-balanced class that meets the school’s mission and institutional needs. Given the luxury of the talent pool they are choosing from, it’s not incredibly hard work for them in terms of obtaining a high quality class. After a certain rough cut, there’s just not too much of a wrong choice no matter who they choose. However, it makes a difference to individual applicants. While many of them are “qualified”, the AO’s decisions would determine which “qualified” ones are NOT admitted, which as probably every AO would tell you, are NOT “random” decisions. And what criteria they use to select their students will shape the perceptions of the institute and their students on and outside the campus. </p>
<p>
Is it? In a selection process at this level of competitiveness, many candidates have more than one strength, I agree. But it’s the one “hook” that tips the scale that really matters, isn’t it?</p>
Actually there are lots of programs for girls in engineering. And as the parent of a boy who was in engineering (or at least comp sci - the school it was housed in varied) I had no problem with it. Nor did I have a problem with MIT admitting girls at a higher rate than boys. One of the things that makes MIT more attractive than say RPI is the M/F ratio.</p>
<p>Bearsgarden, I am quoting from two of your posts:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There may be a “level,” but it is a very rudimentary one. My kids’ huge high school had 26 National Merit Semi-Finalists the year my son graduated. I knew almost nothing about most of them, even though we have been in the same school district all the way through. I did know which kids were interested in the same things my son was and which ones were good at those things if the results were publicized (i.e., sports). Assuming my kid was one of these NMSFs and we thought he was competing against the other 25 for admission to top schools, I would have to have a MUCH greater level of detail to even begin to assess their chances against his. It would take a LOT of work–learning about which science competitions kids were entering (since I know nothing about science), which students were in what chair in the city youth orchestra, who had the best stats on the baseball team, who was the editor of the yearbook, and so on. Even if I tried, I would be embarrassed to admit to so much snooping about kids other than my own. (Not to mention, my kids would KILL me if they knew I was such a stalking freak of a parent.) Seriously!</p>
<p>In the case of the OP, the daughter did reap rewards. Big ones. NMF full ride. And presumably by working hard in high school, she gained some knowledge, learned what she liked and disliked, received some insight into what she may want to study in college. Aren’t these rewards? I haven’t seen a downside to her life yet. And really, I haven’t seen a downside to the many disappointed kids on CC who may have been denied by MIT or Williams but got admittance and maybe substantial merit aid to Purdue or UIUC or the much maligned Rutgers.</p>
<p>Let’s assume that the URM’s who are admitted to the elite schools are every bit as qualified as the Asians or Caucasians who are also admitted. If you wish, further assume that in some cases they have special talents unknown to those in their community (such as fantastic essay writing), and additionally are more resilient, less entitled, less arrogant, and more interesting than many of their non-URM counterparts, since that has has been posited in many a hypothetical musing on this thread. Then wouldn’t it stand to reason that schools could totally remove race as a consideration and still end up with a sufficient number of URM’s? Why the need for preference?</p>
<p>@blossom I agree with your basic premise that lamenting over some of these outcomes is misguided, but it surprises me that you do not have some empathy for those that worked as hard as you apparently did in High School.</p>
<p>I read one of your previous posts where you say that you “hated” high school, participated in no clubs or high school related EC’s and described yourself as a “social zero”. From what I can ascertain from your post, what you did have was extremely good grades and standardized test scores plus a part time job outside of school. So I am pretty sure you were feeling pretty good about yourself when you were admitted to a very good college. You were admitted on merit, and unless I am missing something, merit alone. So certainly you can empathize with the student that has achieved a similar academic record AND done all the other things he/she was told were necessary for consideration, and then still gets the rejection letter. With the single digit admit rates, I am not saying the disappointment is rational, but these are kids and it is to be expected. The parents of course are another story and I can understand the sentiment that the children should have been better prepared.</p>
<p>So now High School is over and you agree in your most recent post that merit, which served you so well in High School, isn’t always the trump card in the corporate world. You mention the “dolts” that charm, schmooze and “create relationships” while others knuckle down and do the work. And you agree that it isn’t “fair”, but you are an adult and seem to take it in stride. So isn’t ok for the kid who doesn’t have the benefit of your life experience yet, to feel disappointed? </p>
<p>I think it is one thing to be faced with the reality that “merit” and hard work is not always rewarded when one is an adult in the working world, and quite another thing to be faced with that reality as a high school senior. I wish all these kids the very best.</p>
<p>Actually, you’ve had the history reversed regarding some of the factors. </p>
<p>Some factors such as legacy, donation potential, and race in the sense of signaling high SES and connections in a mostly WASP centered elite actually carried much more weight in the Ivies before the mid’60s. </p>
<p>This was even admitted to in one article in a Yale alumni publication a Yale alum friend showed me once. </p>
<p>Not to mention if you were from one of the “undesirable” groups…whether race, ethnic, or religion, there was either an exceedingly limited quota or worse, one was effectively shut out altogether. </p>
<p>Regarding the status of international students, that has changed greatly even within my shortish lifetime. While there’s now much written about international students being given preference in admissions for economic reasons, that wasn’t nearly the case just a decade or more ago. </p>
<p>If anything, internationals were held to higher admission standards and were expected to be full-pay…along with some intl student fees to boot. </p>
<p>Moveme: Most, virtually all, high stats kids get into an excellent college, even if not their top choice (or top 5). Many quality workers found themselves on the street, especially in the last recession. Trying to find a new job, regardless of high competent one is, can be incredibly different if the jobs are gone or if you over age 45. I don’t see how have an option for college - even if not your first choice - comes close to employment. There are no “open enrollment” jobs.</p>
<p>It’s not preference. Not that they “prefer” URMs. Maybe that’s where all the armchair stuff goes wrong. They still end up with a percentage of Blacks usually well below their representation in the population. Some of that depends on who matriculates, sure. But it’s not like they take all URMs and see what few spots are left for white kids.</p>
<p>Of course, if one is seen as too competent, then employers with lower level jobs may pass because they believe that the job seeker will depart in a relatively short amount of time if a higher level job is offered (even if the prospects are remote for such higher level jobs actually being offered). Think of it as being analogous to “level of applicant’s interest”. This is probably the real reason why older workers have trouble finding jobs in many cases – there are not too many higher level jobs, and employers look skeptically at whether someone who previously held higher level jobs really has a high “level of interest” in a lower level job (at a lower level of pay than the previously held higher level job).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Occasionally, there may be booms localized to a particular industry and/or region where almost anyone can get a job by just showing up (certain oil fields seem to have that reputation today). However, such booms and their associated jobs may be short lived, and the jobs may not necessarily be desirable to most people.</p>
<p>Don’t call if preference. Call it weighting then. Call it whatever you want. The schools express their need for create diversity and at times, equate diversity with racial balance. So if the elite schools have to pay attention to race in any way, shape or form, and list race as a factor they consider for admission, then there is some reason the school does not trust randomness and simple odds. There is some reason that they worry there would not be a critical mass of African-American or Hispanic students admitted if they didn’t monitor the race percentages. Why? Times have changed. The elite schools are increasingly on the radar for URM’s. Out of the thousands and thousands of applications to each elite school–which supposedly contain three entire classes full of well-qualified potential admits–wouldn’t there be enough great URM candidates that would get randomly selected due to their unique personal qualities and qualifications? After all, as posters have claimed, they are every bit as qualified and in addition tend to have some attractive qualities less common in non-URM’s (who are suspected by said posters of often being arrogant, entitled, boring, and un-honed by sufficient adversity, given they start on 3rd base.) </p>
<p>Asians are a minority in number in the population but are over-represented in admission. African-Americans and Hispanics do not reach even proportional numbers relative to their percentage in the population. What conclusions can you draw from that? Before there were some 80,000 applications submitted to elite schools, maybe you could say there weren’t enough URM’s applying. Can that still be the case, or do you have to admit they are just not as well-qualified as Asians, even with holistic considerations? So I guess here is where people either disagree or will assert the URM’s are qualified enough to succeed, so it’s fine. Perhaps they are qualified enough. But when you have superbly qualified students who are shut out, it’s hard for students to stomach the assertion that some additional skin pigmentation warrants “good enough” being accepted over “superior.” I am not talking about any specific superior kids here… Not mine, not yours, not the OP’s. I am speaking in general terms.</p>
<p>For that matter, there is the claim on here that if admissions were less holistic than they currently are, then schools would end up with “too many” Asians or some vaguely defined other imbalance in composition that would be unappealingly non-diverse. So much so that people would no longer want to attend. Hmm. While Asians as a group may be more similar one to another than members of some other groups, even that has changed quite a bit in the last fifteen years. Asians are playing soccer, not just tennis. They are playing the drums, not just the cello. They are writing poetry, not just doing math team. Do you honestly believe that you couldn’t build a class of ALL high-stat Asians such that you’d still have a variety of majors, sports, interests, and talents represented? The football team might be a tough one, but other than that I’m not certain we’d have a problem of diversity in any way other than race. A school could achieve great diversity without having to move far down the academic preparation list, if race weren’t considered part of diversity. Besides, taking race completely out as a consideration for admission still would not yield an all-anything class. No one group has the monopoly on excellence.</p>
<p>"Brown’s admissions rate was 9.2%. But no matter how hard you stare at the figure of 9.2%, this is not the admissions chance for every applicant. I think it is unjustified to call good folks “fools” if they understand that their chances may deviate multiple percentage points higher (or lower) than the overall admissions rate.
Take a gander at the Brown admissions facts for 2017:</p>
<p>-15% of salutatorians who applied were admitted
-14.2% of applicants who scored 750-790 on SAT Critical Reading were admitted
-12.5% of applicants who scored 33-35 on the ACT were admitted
-4.3% of applicants who scored 550-590 on SAT Math were admitted</p>
<p>I could go on, but I think the point is made."</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s “made” one bit. So big whoops, you’re the salutatorian and your chance is 15% versus 9%. Whoop-de-doo. 85% chance of rejection vs 91%. It’s all the same - you’re a fool if you don’t mentally prepare for the near certainty that you’ll be rejected. Do you see a material difference between an 85% chance of rain or a 91% chance if you’re planning a picnic?</p>
<p>“That’s the sadness part. But the anger and hurt comes from the feeling that they didn’t have the same chance of being admitted as some other students due to their genetic makeup that determines outward appearance.”</p>
<p>My kids also don’t have the same chance of being admitted as your kids, due to their genetic makeup that makes them not-athletic. But, I suppose that’s “different.”</p>
<p>(And I don’t have an issue with a school choosing to give preference to athletes - I can choose to apply or not-apply if their values so bother me. Just making the point that “genetic makeup” also makes people athletes.)</p>
<p>For that matter, my kids didn’t have the same chance as being admitted as the kids of a major donor. Oh well. Their genetics didn’t serve them well in that department either. </p>
<p>Yes, it still is – the URM’s do not apply in numbers proportionate to the population, for a variety of reasons – including the very real economic discrimination that still exists in our society. So even if you took all qualified applicants and let a computer make a random selection from there, you’d probably end up with underrepresentation of hispanics and black students, and over-representation of Asians (particularly Chinese/Indian) and Jews. </p>
<p>Also, the SAT tests are discriminatory. If the process was race neutral, then they’d have to quite using the test, because it’s easy to show that the test systematically favors some racial groups over others – the stats are published for all to see on the College Board web site… </p>
<p>So then what do they have. GPA? Will that be neutral too? So that the kid from Oakland Tech’s 5.0 GPA is accorded the same weight as a GPA from Choate? That’s essentially how it works in Texas with the top-10 rule for UT admission - that policy doesn’t go over well at all with the students who attend the better quality high schools in the wealthier neighborhoods. </p>
<p>And yes: it would undermine the school’s ability to function, because one year they’d end up with too many bio majors and no one interested in philosophy, and the next year there might be an imbalance between prospective English majors and students wanting to study Arabic. Of course their sports teams would be a mess too. And what would they do about that wealthy donor who is ready to give them 5 million dollars, if only they will admit donor’s grandson? (If you want to talk about lowered admission standards, you need to look at some of the development admits – those were the ones that left my daughter really shaking her head. But I don’t begrudge them their spots: the facilities they endow benefit all the students who can use them.)</p>
<p>"People can hold two competing ideas in their mind at the same time. A person can recognize “that really bright African-American kid is a great student who fully deserved to have his achievements recognized by school Y” and still also say “I’m thrilled to be going to school X, but it is a little frustrating to consider that I would have had a lot better chance of getting into Y, my top choice, had I been a URM, or had my parents gone to Y, or had I been from a celebrity/super wealthy family.” Or, in some cases, “You know, based on everything I know about this person, unless there’s something huge I’m missing, I really think Princeton messed up on this one.” </p>
<p>A relative of mine always says - don’t count other people’s money. It’s a good reminder not to sit and waste your life worrying what other people do. How about we teach our kids the same thing? Focus on yourself and where you are heading. Life isn’t a zero sum game (as said earlier) so there’s just no point in wallowing that Betty Lou got someplace you didn’t. Good for Betty Lou, but her life trajectory doesn’t impact yours in any way, so say congratulations and move on.</p>
<p>“Oh and I forgot to add Caltech as a school that appear to place high value on demonstrated academic ability.”</p>
<p>So feel free to go there. Have you noticed, however, that Caltech (a fine school, to be sure) is really a very niche school that doesn’t have broad popular appeal? Why do you suppose that is? Hint: A “pure brains” admissions criteria doesn’t make for as interesting of a class as a holistic one. </p>
<p>“many of them are “qualified”, the AO’s decisions would determine which “qualified” ones are NOT admitted, which as probably every AO would tell you, are NOT “random” decisions. And what criteria they use to select their students will shape the perceptions of the institute and their students on and outside the campus.”</p>
<p>Then obviously they’re doing something right, since they’re creating a “stew” that all of you so desperately want a part of. You can’t make the argument that they are dumbing down the place with all their unqualified fill-in-the-blanks and then say it’s critical your kid gets in there because where else is he going to find the intellectual company and experience he deserves? You can’t have it both ways. </p>