<p>Seriously Sorghum you think that 50 points on the SAT means much of anything? How many sittings? How much tutoring? So every kid with a 4.0 and a 2300 should be admitted over the kid with a 4,0 and a 2250 no matter what? That is certainly putting way too much on one test. And it also means that for the most part, the wealthy will win since those kids generally have a much better shot of doing better on the SAT, regardless of tutoring, because they have superior schools. The 2250 kid (or even the 2100 kid) may be a much more promising student. I know you say other evidence of merit, but not clear what you mean. All of these kids have high grades. The high SES kids are more likely to have impressive ECs. </p>
<p>But what if A and B are EQUAL on stats and A plays an instrument the school doesn’t care about? Or A runs faster than B but not faster than student C? What if A has better stats, but B has all the rest of the package? Then how to choose? LOr and essay are totally subjective. </p>
<p>Years ago, my son and I were given free passes to a sneak preview of a super-hero movie. I think he was 7 or 8 at the time. We went to the theater, and got on the end of a long line. As we waited, I noticed the people running the showing were taking several large groups of teenagers past the line and into the theater. When we got up to the front of the line, we were told that the theater was full and that we were out of luck. We were close enough that if those teenagers hadn’t been taken ahead of us, we would have gotten in. Was I angry? Yes–I was furious, and I complained to several different entities about it. Was I mad because we didn’t get in? No–I wasn’t mad when, on another occasion, we just didn’t get to a theater early enough. No, I was mad because I thought what appeared to be a first-come-first-served process was being subverted. And I was particularly mad because my kid was really disappointed. And this was for something we got free.</p>
<p>So I can’t really fault people for being angry, or annoyed, or disappointed, if they think the process that is being used is unfair. But they shouldn’t be shocked and surprised, because as apprenticeprof keeps pointing out, the colleges make it clear that their process includes giving consideration to these hooks. I don’t see why anybody has to be painted as a loser for thinking that it would be better if, for example, Stanford didn’t care so much about recruiting athletes.</p>
<p>And I would also say that there is sort of a Pollyannaish trend in these discussions to suggest that it just doesn’t happen that people get into top colleges who wouldn’t have done so without a specific hook. The colleges essentially say that they do this–indeed, for recruited athletes, there is a whole process in place to prevent them from compromising academic stats too much for athletes (the Academic Index).</p>
<p>Personally, with respect to affirmative action for URMs, I think the costs to students and others are, in fact, worth it, at least as our society stands now. I think it would be a bad thing if Harvard and similar schools had only 1 or 2 % African-Americans, which is what I think would happen without affirmative action. Others may disagree, but for the time being, the most selective schools feel the same way.</p>
<p>P.S. I note that the people giving the sneak preview were probably trying to “craft” the kind of audience they wanted–loaded with a lot of enthusiastic teenagers. But nobody told the poor shlubs in line that this was happening (in fact, they later lied about it)–so there were a bunch of really angy people. I don’t think colleges are doing this, at least. They make it pretty clear what they are doing.</p>
<p>Really, people. Did I say 50 points on the SAT means much of anything? Did I ever say “So every kid with a 4.0 and a 2300 should be admitted over the kid with a 4,0 and a 2250 no matter what?” </p>
<p>Is it really too hard to engage with what I actually did say?</p>
<p>I said repeatedly that SES should trump race, and that if you got lower scores (taking into account SES) then you better bring something else to the table. </p>
<p>
I agree that Caltech admissions appears to be more focused on academics and stats than HYPSM, but they still have holistic admissions that values much of the same non-stat criteria as other schools. For example, Caltech’s CDS indicates that they consider race, legacy, first generation, etc. They mark character / personal qualities, ECs, essays, and LORs at the same importance level as stats. They mark course rigor as more important than stats. The importance rankings are not that different from most other highly selective private colleges. Consistent with this, Parchment members with perfect a 4.0 UW GPA + a perfect 2400 SAT scores had roughly the same chance of acceptance at Caltech as HYPSM. Specific numbers are below for perfect stat Parchment members over the past 2 years (a biased sample that likely includes a minority of false data):</p>
<p>Caltech - 46%
Harvard - 45%
Yale - 46%
Princeton - 49%
Stanford - 40%
MIT - 39%</p>
<p>There are plenty of other excellent top 25 type private universities where a high stat student has an extremely high probability of admission, much higher than a perfect stat applicant at HYPMSC. For example, admits rate below are for Parchment members with a 3.85+ GPA with 4+ APs and 2200+ SAT… high stats, but not pinnacle of top stats. At Vanderbilt and USC, admit rate approaches near 100%, like the others listed below, as stats increase above 3.85/2200 to near perfect.</p>
<p>Notre Dame - 100% admit rate
Wake Forest - 100% admit rate
Emory - 98% admit rate
Vanderbilt - 92% admit rate
USC - 86% admit rate</p>
<p>" 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>How about if one high SES Asian student with 2200 got favored over a low SES Asian student at 2300? Is that unfair?</p>
<p>Because if you say yes - then you ARE saying that 2300 should always trump 2200. You can’t possibly be that blunt and literal.</p>
<p>And you keep treating it as though the decision is being made among 2 candidates competing for 1 spot. They are building a class, not pitting two-by-two in a cage match. </p>
<p>Who here could have this discussion without somehow turning back to stats as some measure of superiority?<br>
And who here really knows what they’re talking abut when they tell others how admissions works, who’s getting some leap over everyone else? </p>
<p>Several times, posters have made assumptions about others’ apps- without seeing them, without having seen any large number of apps from all over (to understand what the overall competitive picture is,) without some sense of how adcoms review. You assume your own hs is some perfect microcosm- and that success there is some ultimate test. You assume URMs aren’t really as worthy because (just to hit a recent comment,) “such admissions does result in lower test scores, gpas, academic difficulty preparedness in a number of such applicants.” Whew, back to stats.</p>
<p>Lots I’d like to say, but settle for this: look at the comparative grad rates, white/black: Harvard 98/97, Yale 98/94, Princeton 96/93, Brown 96/91, etc. You really think these colleges are incompetent?</p>
<p>We tell hs kids all the time, to get their heads out of their comfy little hs box thinking. Adults should do this, too. </p>
<p>Ps High SES kids are not likely to have more impressive ECs. (The exception being some of the top BS, where they actively produce opps for kids.) Nor high stats kids. It’s a matter of what the individual pursues- and his ability to see what more he can do. </p>
<p>." I don’t see hard evidence that there are thousands of weak URMs without SES disadvantages walking around the top schools."</p>
<p>Indeed, given that the average SAT scores for elite schools keep going up and up and up, there’s little fear that OMG-academic-standards-are-being-lowered. </p>
<p>
You think it’s obvious, but many, many of the posts in this thread argue that no such preference is given, or at least it’s not given to anyone you know or have heard of, and that the URM got in because they have a better life story to tell, and maybe a whole lot of other things no one can know except AO’s… I think it’s worth emphasizing that when engaging in a discussion like this one distinction must be made - there’s system built in policies/processes that are meant to affect a large number of applicants and the whole makeup of the student body, and there’s individual cases that are outliers falling out of the general principles. The preferential treatment of URM and recruited athletes etc. is a policy these colleges have “officially” acknowledged. To argue there’s no preferential treatment or it doesn’t apply to anyone you encounter IRL or from media is just not going to fly. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless the high-2200 brings something else to the table, then I would take the low-2300. Of course. Wouldn’t you?</p>
<p>" 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>
<p>Ever? I thought you just said it was ok if there were “points” given for low SES. You’re ok with points given for low SES, just not for race, right?</p>
<p>But anyway, this is silly. It’s very easy to envision giving the nod to the person who was just a columnist for the student newspaper, and not admitting the person who was the editor-in-chief. It’s very easy to envision giving the nod to the person who was 4th in the state who wrote an essay that really captured attention, and not caring that the next application was from the person who was 1st in the state. The literalness, the “I need to rank on some quantitative criteria and then and only then can I make a judgment” is stunning. </p>
<p>“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.”
and</p>
<p>"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>
<p>I was responding to these two posts. It is just not typical that A and B are only compared to each other. There are the thousands of others.</p>
<p>Again, once the kids with low stats are removed the applicant pool, there are still many more highly qualified kids than can be accepted. Plus, schools manage yield. They are probably not happy when one kid gets into every single top 10 school, because he will decline 9 of them. Most of know the kid that did not get into Stanford, but got into Princeton. Or got into only one of the top 10 (and is thankful), but if they had not subimtted that particular application would have been shut out of the elites. </p>
<p>Agree, however, that the low SES kid should get more consideration. But disagree that there is always a clear line.</p>
<p>It’s very true that they are crafting a class, but as they do it, they are (in my opinion, anyway) likely saying things like, “We want to have somebody from all 50 states, if possible,” and “we don’t want gender balance to get too far out of whack” and “last year we only managed to get 6% African-Americans in the freshman class-how can we do better?” Now, they may not take anybody from Idaho if there just isn’t somebody with reasonable stats applying this year. But the person with the best overall package from Idaho will get in, even if it’s not as impressive as that of some kids from New Jersey who end up rejected. Personally, I don’t consider this a problem. Similarly, I don’t consider it a problem if they admit URMs, or athletes, or legacies, or other hooked people, as long as they can do the work and if they meet institutional needs. But I don’t think it’s a problem if you disagree with me about the value of any of those hooks. I do think it’s wrong for colleges to take hooked students who can’t do the work–and many, many colleges do this for athletes (note the recent scandal at UNC).</p>
<p>It’s possible that they are also saying, “Let’s make sure we don’t get overloaded with Asians–we already have 15%, and that’s plenty.” But there’s little proof of this–and some sensible reasons to think that isn’t exactly what’s happening.</p>
<p>“Unless the high-2200 brings something else to the table, then I would take the low-2300. Of course. Wouldn’t you?”</p>
<p>Uh … no, not necessarily, because there’s no meaningful difference. (I can’t believe I have to say this.) God, this is just about as silly as the people who believe there are meaningful differences between the school ranked #6 and the school ranked #9 on USNWR. </p>
<p>Pizzagirl, surely even you would take the 2310 over the 2290 if they were otherwise identical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>‘Ever’ means assuming equal SES.</p>
<p>LOR, etc. are not quantitative. Comparing activities and abilities is not absolute. Of course the system would be holistic, but in my opinion need not consider race per se.</p>
<p>You are only stunned by your own straw man.</p>
<p>Benley: I think most are acknowledging that hooks exist, but that they are not being given to unqualified kids. Or that a particular student was rejected due to a URM with lesser stats. Yes, the applicant pool is deeper for some kids - no doubt. But the NE SWF is much more likely to have rejected due to another SWF NE with a better application than some phantom unworthy URM. </p>
<p>No, sorghum <em>I</em> would not, because test scores-of ANY population-are not the be-all and end all success predictors of life or college . If they were, then there would not be colleges-good ones-eschewing test scores altogether, for ANY demographic. Why, even here on CC there is a list of test-optional schools. It’s well known that not everyone tests well, due to factors such as learning disability, test anxiety, lack or exposure to the test methods, or even having a bad day and a lack of time or funds to retake a test 5 or 6 times. </p>
<p>That high 2200 may have a very valid reason to have a marginally lower score than that low 2300. The fact that you think the small deviation in scores trumps everything else is missing the bigger pictures, which at least some ad coms seem to be able to see. </p>
<p>I just don’t believe admissions committees do that much sorting by SAT scores. Years ago I was on an admission committee for Columbia’s architecture school. We read each file by itself and gave it a score from 1-6. Three people read the file, top scores were admitted. We weren’t told to weight high GRE scores over all else, we were told that generally they were looking for GRE scores of at least x. Lower scores had to have an explanation, or the rest of the application had to look really good.</p>
<p>Would I take the 2300 over the 2200? Only if the 2300 was better otherwise. (And you know it’s rarely that clear cut.) As far as I am concerned those scores are equivalent. I had a kid with 790 CR and 690 M. Why would any one care that a future IR kid was not brilliant at math? (He was pretty good - taking Calc BC as a senior.)</p>
<p>“You think it’s obvious, but many, many of the posts in this thread argue that no such preference is given, or at least it’s not given to anyone you know or have heard of, and that the URM got in because they have a better life story to tell, and maybe a whole lot of other things no one can know except AO’s…”</p>
<p>Uh … who has argued that no such preference is given? Of course there is a thumb on the scale for URM. The colleges all come out and say that in so many words! They want to ensure a certain critical mass and this helps them do that, given that URM’s represent a disproportionately small portion of the applicant pool compared to their presence in the population. </p>
<p>But it’s sometimes a light thumb and sometimes a heavy thumb depending on the totality of the entire picture. Some of you seem to think and act as though it’s a brick that guarantees an automatic yes. And despite what the nosy nellies of the world think they “know” about Betty Lou in calculus class, you don’t <em>know</em> whether it was a light thumb, heavy thumb or brick for Betty Lou specifically. </p>