<p>
Right. And isn’t it more likely anyway that if colleges have an institutional mission to increase diversity, they are looking at “diverse” applicants within their own pile? If they say “we need 8% of the accepted students this year to come from URM groups,” then the other 92% are STILL duking it out for the majority of the spots. So the white and Asian kids are more likely in direct competition with each other anyway. It’s just easier to blame someone else.</p>
<p>Momzie, I agree with your posts. The idea that there are no metrics that could possibly have even GENERAL correlation with academic excellence is absurd. </p>
<p>For all that people are talking about not understanding admissions rates, I don’t get not understanding that the presence of exceptions does not mean we can’t ever make meaningful statements about the most usual and ordinary state of affairs. I feel like some posters, if we were talking about a 5 foot 6 men’s college basketball player, and someone said “Really? He plays basketball? Isn’t he kind of short?” would respond with “How dare you! Mugsy Bogues was even shorter!” Which would be true, and would do nothing to change the fact that usually, basketball players are a lot taller than that. </p>
<p>I also don’t think there is any particular virtue in being so gosh-darn smart that you can’t manage to stand out academically, at least in certain disciplines, in your podunk high school.</p>
<p>Then why are the Amherst admissions committee members themselves being introspective about their own process? Do you mean duh to them too?</p>
<p>"But Slackermom, it would be extremely rare for a child to not have the grades to get nominated for a governor’s school in science and math but to somehow mysteriously have the ability to do the work at MIT, wouldn’t it? "</p>
<p>Maybe the kid got nominated but for whatever reason chose not to pursue or accept the nomination, and you don’t know about it because not everything in your community is your business, and a kid who decides not to pursue this doesn’t necessarily send out an APB to all of his classmates’ parents for their files?</p>
<p>You posted fairly recently about me on a thread about visitng colleges prior to applying that you “recalled me talking about my kids being on FA” when I’ve never said anything of the sort and have been quite clear that we are full-pay. Now, I’m just a person on a message board, and not a person you know IRL, but that’s the kind of thing I mean - you could easily be mistaken in your beliefs about someone or something. </p>
<p>I think you get a better sense about what schools are looking for after offspring start attending them-a little late. . One at Cornell, one at MIT and one at a small liberal arts college. The patterns of acceptances showed us that it was not a crap shoot but it also wasn’t a linear process. It wasn’t a matter of one school having higher cuttoffs than another. Also, any one type of student at one school could be found at another but there is a prevailing climate to schools that reflect characteristics that the schools are trying to cultivate. The one at a LAC is an excellent all around student not that interested in partying-did loads of theatre in high school. got A’s. Spends spare time in community theatre-can be pensive, emjoys reading and arguing. Wanted an intellectual atmosphere and got it. Her college is filled with students craving academic challenges. Students are engaged in an impressive array of activities at an intense level. Cornell kid had top academic credentials in hs. Top grades, scores and well rounded but never intense. Did sports cause friends were doing it. Liked hs parties and doing things popular with friends. The deal was clinched when a close friend at Cornell raved about it. Wanted a balance of a school with a good acaademic rep and a moderate party atmosphere. Cornell is great as a traditional elite university with a professional slant. MIT kid was always making things. Excellent grades but not a focus. Excellent scores but no drive to spend a whole lot of time on things like test prep. Wouldn’t spend the time to study to convert an ACT 35 to a 36 but used a termendous amount of time building a model vehicle. Then, swaped the vehicle for a bunch of computers he sold for good money. MIT all the way. </p>
<p>And for the umpteenth time, when colleges come right out and TELL you that factors that have zero to do with individual merit go into the equation, it isn’t necessary to assume that all of the people admitted are actually closet inventors, prodigies, and humanitarians. </p>
<p>The student to student comparison is actually a little bit silly. I don’t have to believe I “lost” my spot to a particular URM or legacy, either of whom may in fact have any number of talents that I don’t, to recognize that URMs and legacies with academic and demographic profiles similar to mine have a substantially higher chance at admission, and think that isn’t fair. Even if you disagree with that opinion (as I myself do when it comes to AA), you can’t pretend it is a totally ignorant one no matter how times you repeat “it is a lottery for everyone.” I know that. I also know that certain people are getting a few extra tickets through no particular virtue of their own.</p>
<p>@momzie, I’m confused. Is it nominated or accepted? In any case, it is possible (I assume) the student may withdraw his or her nomination to the Governor’s School. I wasn’t aware that nominations are made public - that’s a bit odd. I would hate to be the student whose nomination was announced but didn’t get invited.</p>
<p>I have known people (within my own family) to turn down quite prestigious summer programs due to schedule conflicts. My sense is if you are good, you may have more than one option.</p>
<p>D and I went to a session about admissions put on by Tufts a while back. Okay, not an ivy, but darn close with an admission rate around 20%. It really helped to demystify the holistic process for me, and made me feel better about the amount of care and thoughtfulness that is put into selection. These are not brainless bureaucrats or crazy-eyed social engineers making decisions. They are intelligent, empathetic people who want the best class possible for their university. </p>
<p>Part of the session included a step-by-step process of review where the session attendees were invited to try their hand at being part of an admissions committee. The presenter had five or six candidates (who we later found out were real candidates from previous years). They first showed basic test scores and grades, and we all decided Admit/Waitlist/Decline for each. They added in basic EC lists, same process—some changes but not a lot. Then they included more info, including quotes from LORs and essays. We went through four or five “stages” of admission—some high stats students went down as more info was shared, others stayed high. Some kids with borderline stats became much more interesting, others dropped out of the running entirely. At the end, there were a few sample applicants who were standouts, a few on the fence, and some, that for reasons that were not immediately apparent, dropped out of consideration. Finally, the speaker shared the actual admissions outcomes…and they were surprisingly close to a poll of what most of the audience members (made up of prospective students and their parents) would have decided themselves. </p>
<p>If they put one on in your area, I’d recommend going. It made the process seem much less arbitrary than it appears at first glance. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ironic. People who know only the most mild and provisional evaluations of those around them are often very quick to point to those kids as evidence that they are “less qualified” or “more qualified” than another student. PG is often harsh in her delivery, but I’ve got to agree with her that no matter how much people think they “know” about another student, they REALLY REALLY don’t know some of the most critical information that the adcoms DO. Essays, LORs, come to mind first, but as many parents have already stated here, their kids often had ECs and a life outside of school about which other kids’ parents couldn’t possibly know all. Yet it doesn’t stop some of those same parents/students from insisting they “know who the best is.” Yuck. Just…yuck.</p>
<p>Right. And I would have hoped that she would be able make that point without acting as if everyone who dissents, from her opinions in the slightest way is past contempt. </p>
<p>Pizzagirl, this is a nonsensical parody of anything I (never) said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please try to engage with the real debate.</p>
<p>“Even if you disagree with that opinion (as I myself do when it comes to AA), you can’t pretend it is a totally ignorant one no matter how times you repeat “it is a lottery for everyone.” I know that. I also know that certain people are getting a few extra tickets through no particular virtue of their own.”</p>
<p>Is it problematic that girls applying to MIT get a few extra tickets just for being girls? Is that objectionable too? Is it wrong for MIT to want to make up for the fact that their applicant pool isn’t 50/50 by admitting a few more girls? (I don’t think it’s wrong - I fully recognize that it makes them more competitive / desirable to equalize the genders.)</p>
<p>People get all kinds of extra tickets through no particular virtue of their own. Indeed, there probably is some truth to - you wrote about your golden retriever named Lucy, and the particular reader who read you loves or hates golden retrievers or the name Lucy and voted you up or down accordingly. We all have our own particular soft spots, and if we were all given apps we’d all have our own preferences. So what? It all works out in the wash. There’s just so much … fear it’s palpable.</p>
<p>“I don’t have to believe I “lost” my spot to a particular URM or legacy, either of whom may in fact have any number of talents that I don’t, to recognize that URMs and legacies with academic and demographic profiles similar to mine have a substantially higher chance at admission, and think that isn’t fair.”</p>
<p>:Let’s assume that a computer went and screened out anyone below a certain SAT level (let’s make it 2100 for grins). And then let’s assume the computer went and arbitrarily selected every nth candidate without regard to anything else. So the racial makeup matches exactly the applicant pool. Doesn’t matter that Afr Am are 12% of the pop - they are only 5% of the applicant pool, so they make up 5% of the selected pool. </p>
<p>Suppose further that you did this, and you found that the average SAT scores of Afr Am was 2200, of whites was 2250, of Asians was 2300. What would your reaction be? Would it still bother you that “lower” Afr Am were getting in? Or would you feel better because there was a consistent “floor” beneath which no one went?</p>
<p>If the average SAT of low SES applicants was 2200, middle SES was 2250 and high SES was 2300, then fine. If even one high SES black student is favored at 2200 over a low SES Asian student at 2300 - ABSENT ANY OTHER INDICATOR OF SUPERIOR MERIT - that would be unfair.</p>
<p>EllieMom: I’ve gone to several of those sessions done by my alma mater (Brown). It is very enlightening. It’s why I feel I know some of what happens behind the closed doors. And it is interesting how a wonderful student goes swiftly from admit to deny based on recommendations or essays.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We hear anecdotes about these kids (TheGFG had one upthread). But an anecdote doesn’t prove anything. I don’t see hard evidence that there are thousands of weak URMs without SES disadvantages walking around the top schools. </p>
<p>Obviously there are no easy answers to these questions. </p>
<p>Here’s an example of what happens when there is no holistic admissions. Admission into Stuyvesant HS is by test only. This year, 7 blacks and 21 Hispanics were offered spots, out of 952 accepted students. 70 percent of NYC’s public school students are black and Hispanic. I don’t think anyone would suggest that Stuy’s students are boring. Everyone who got in deserved to get in. But to me, it is very troubling that only 7 black students got in – and who knows if any are actually going. No matter which way you slice it, someone gets hurt. </p>
<p>There are many other good high schools to attend, and they will go on to have perfectly successful lives …</p>
<p>@sorghum - There IS NO “ABSENT ANY OTHER INDICATOR OF SUPERIOR MERIT.” There are ALWAYS other factors. There are TOO MANY to even list. The entire premise is FALSE… as if, “all other things being equal…” but all things are NEVER equal. </p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I fully support the holistic admissions that does give URMs, and other such categories much higher chances for admissions despite the FACT that such admissions does result in lower test scores, gpas, academic difficulty preparedness in a number of such applicants.</p>
<p>However, I will not deny that every such seat that is set aside for such pools, whether it’s for athletic recruits to field the teams, development admits to further the financial contributions, or ANY such reason that such categories exist, does mean one less seat on the general floor for everyone else. So, yes, mathematically, if one models this situation, seats are being taken out of the general category by making specific ones. I don’t see what the argument here is . Some people resent that the situation is the way it is. Too bad is my response, but I’m not about to argue that it is not the case. </p>
<p>And when Yale and Dartmouth went co-ed it essentially removed half the seats from the male population.</p>
<p>CPT- do you object to that?</p>
<p>No psalcal, you are wrong. If student A is better on stats, plays an instrument at a higher level, runs faster, has better LOR, etc. than student B, then B should never be preferred over A. </p>