<p>Calmom, you crack me up.</p>
<p>Where is the “like” button when you need it?</p>
<p>Really? Barred at the door because 8% of Yale is Black? But no issue with 17% being Asian American? Push this thread into politics and it will close, btw.</p>
<p>“Until students do not feel wronged by their ethnicity or race, then this contentious issue will continue and will do fundamental harm to students who will not forget that they felt wronged and slighted because of their ethnicity or race.”</p>
<p>It’s “interesting” that the ire is still always towards the Afr Am kid, rather than the white kid from Idaho or the white kid who lives in the immediate area. It still sends the signal that an Afr Am kid in an elite school needs to uber-double-prove-it. I mean, look at how Obama was hounded for transcripts and his bonafides at HLS questions. Did anyone ever ask for HIllary’s transcripts at Wellesley or YLS? No, the assumption was - no matter what one thought of her politically - she was smart enough to “deserve” her spot at elite institutions. </p>
<p>“Pizzagirl, surely even you would take the 2310 over the 2290 if they were otherwise identical.”</p>
<p>Doesn’t matter if Pizzagirl, Calmom, you, or I would take the 2310 over the 2290. Some schools don’t care whether an applicant has a 2310 or a 2290. They have categories for the test scores and it is very possible at some schools that a 2290 and 2310 are in the same category, and get the same number of points upon assessment. Say, 2290-2330 are all rated "4"s and anything above that is a “5” and the next category is a “3” for test scores. That’s why kids with perfect test scores may not make the cut. Once they get the “credit” for their test score, it’s on to other parts of their apps. </p>
<p>“Some of them may conclude that we have gone from George Wallace standing in the doorway of the university barring an African-American for no reason other than race, to an African-American barring THEM from that doorway for no reason other than race.”</p>
<p>OMG. “Barring them”? Are Afr American applicants muscling their way in via brute force, or are these elite institutions CHOOSING to let them in? Anyway, spend any time on any elite campus - there’s no shortage of whites and Asians. I think you’re painting a picture that’s a bit too apocalyptic here. </p>
<p>Looks to me like plenty of kids are going to find reasons to be permanently wounded. Bear in mind this is admitted, not matriculated. <a href=“Admissions Statistics | Harvard”>https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics</a><br>
Looks like all those STEM kids barred some really great humanities kids. Dang, my humanities kid was freaking shut out!</p>
<p>We really should ignore absurd posts, especially when inflammatory.</p>
<p>Blossom, it doesn’t matter how hard it is or isn’t growing up gay. It’s hard growing up fat. It’s hard growing up with a big bulbous nose/huge breasts/no legs/name your physical deformity It’s hard growing up with Asperger’s or a chronic disease. It’s really tough growing up with drug addicted or alcoholic parents. It’s hard being a cutter, when people keep asking about your scars. It’s hard growing up anorexic. It’s hard growing up the only whatever in your neighborhood. The issue is that colleges are selecting a subset of the population for special consideration in admissions or student recruitment for reasons that have zero relationship to intellectual ability and academic qualifications and which in some cases are physically/genetically determined. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nah, I think they’ll get over it. You know, they’ll have a great experience at their non Harvard, realize that a lot of what they’ve been spoon fed about the Ivies being the best or only avenue towards happiness and success was total bunk, and experience success and growth wherever they end up. Because what they find out is their school is just as awesome as they had imagined their dream school to be; they meet many other similarly accomplished and intelligent young people who manage to engage in articulate and stimulating class discussions, they find ample opportunity to spread their wings, take part in meaningful research or other endeavors, and have some fun while they are at it. And they sit back and reflect on all that angst they experienced in April of their senior year in high school, shake their heads, roll their eyes, and laugh ruefully.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>“The issue is that colleges are selecting a subset of the population for special consideration in admissions or student recruitment for reasons that have zero relationship to intellectual ability and academic qualifications and which in some cases are physically/genetically determined.”</p>
<p>One could say the same thing about athletic recruiting at Ivies or other elite schools - which, after all, has zero relationship to intellectual ability and academic qualifications. I guess it depends on which side one’s bread is buttered, as the old saying goes. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or whether someone’s a second generation or later legacy who contributes substantially, a child of a notable family/celebrity, or a wealthy family who dumps millions on a school. </p>
<p>Colleges want diversity. I am not talking about politically correct diversity, but true diversity: students from different races, different cultural backgrounds, different states, different interests, different sexual orientations, etc. My daughter probably got admitted to colleges over kids with much higher test scores because she was studying Russian. Does that mean that each of the colleges had a slot reserved for Russian-studiers-- something that the kids who studies Spanish and French could never aspire to? Did she benefit from Affirmative Action for Russian-language studiers? NO. It just means that my daughter had something to offer that added diversity value, simply because serious Russian-studiers were somewhat unusual in the applicant pools at that particular time. </p>
<p>My daughter did have one very big advantage over many other applicants: she had a supportive parent who encouraged and supported her to pursue her own interests. And then in the end she was able to form a college list based on which would appreciate and allow her to pursue the stand-out interests (the ones that were well-documented over time). </p>
<p>To me, lack of diversity = lack of value to the college. Again - I am using “diversity” very broadly. My daughter is a WJF, and she attended a college that already has way too many WJF’s. So it wasn’t race, it wasn’t cultural background. It was her divergent academic background that made her interesting and represented added value to the college. “Value” = if we accept this student, she will bring something that the other’s won’t. </p>
<p>When you raise hypotheticals about “substantially equal” applicants and then add in an element like race or SAT score… I don’t see the value that any of those students add. Why should the college really care which of a set of virtually interchangeable students they admit? And if they have a set of virtually interchangeable students, isn’t it among that set where it make the most sense to look for diversity factors? If I have a pool of 300 pre-med majors all who have high GPA’s and test scores and have taken similar courses in high school… . and I want to narrow that pool down to 40 students… then I’m going to look for a way to differentiate. So putting them in stacks to represent race or geographic origin or public vs. private schools or urban vs. rural are all ways to differentiate. And if I am left with one big stack of white suburban applicants from the NE, and 19 small stacks of other flavors of applicants - I might just decide to take 2 of each and that’s going to substantially reduce the odds of admission for the white suburban kids from NE… but then, I end up with the class I want. </p>
<p>@NHDad926 - HOLY TOLEDO… I can’t believe you wrote:</p>
<p>“Some of them may conclude that we have gone from George Wallace standing in the doorway of the university barring an African-American for no reason other than race, to an African-American barring THEM from that doorway for no reason other than race. You can debate the correctness of that view, but have no illusions about the culture of resentment this is creating…”</p>
<p>What the heck? </p>
<p>Nobody is being BARRED from entrance because of the race of another. That is an obscene analogy, it belittles the real struggle minorities faced then (and still can face today). </p>
<p>LIFE IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME! Your little special snowflakes have NO “right” to get in a particular PRIVATE institution, regardless of your belief otherwise. </p>
<p>I wonder… where is that sense of entitlement coming from again??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please. “Future leaders”? Among the many traits most successful leaders share are resilience, compassion, and the ability to look at the greater good. The spoiled kids who understand neither history nor statistics—and then blame others for their disappointments—are unlikely to rise to the top no matter where they go to college.</p>
<p>This thread is getting silly. Calmom’s explanation above about the piles describes very nicely what can happen and why the white suburban kid would feel slighted. She was. And, obviously she will get over it. But, noticing is valid. </p>
<p>I think one thing I find disorienting about this conversation is that I feel like I’m defending the selective colleges for what they actually do–which is give admissions advantages to hooked kids who they otherwise wouldn’t admit–while some of you seem to be defending them on the theory that they’re not really doing this, even though they make perfectly clear that they do. While they do consider every applicant holistically, they clearly and admittedly “add points” (or however you’d prefer to put it) for demographic characteristics like race, gender, SES, geographical location, legacy status, and others. To me, this is justifiable for a lot of reasons (more or less, depending on what the hook is). Other people don’t value some of those hooks, and thus think it’s a bad idea for colleges to consider them. I think it’s unfortunate when critics refer to those policies as “unfair,” because that’s not really what it’s all about–it’s really whether they agree with the policy choice or not. Nobody thinks it’s unfair (for example) if Harvard discriminates on the basis of academic ability. That’s because most of us (I think) would agree that this is a sensible criterion upon which to discriminate.</p>
<p>But if (to choose a crazy example), Harvard announced that in order to increase diversity of opinion, it was going to give an admission tip to persons who don’t believe in evolution, I would criticize that decision. Not because it’s “unfair” to people who believe in evolution, but because it would be a stupid decision that would harm Harvard’s academic integrity, in my opinion. Now, some people may think that some of Harvard’s current admission policies are also bad ideas, and they should be able to discuss that here without being labelled or attacked–even though I strongly disagree with some of them, especially about affirmative action. I have a personal investment in the legacy hook, so I can’t be impartial on that one. I don’t really care one way or the other about athletic recruits–but I do criticize, and harshly, colleges that recruit athletes that aren’t capable of getting an education at that school. I don’t think the Ivies do that, but some highly selective colleges do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, they make no bones about the fact that they absolutely have no intention of making “intellectual ability and academic qualifications” the only considerations when choosing their class. They are not going to change that in order to satisfy a small subset of disgruntled students and parents who feel THEIR definition of “qualified” is the one which should rule the day.</p>
<p>And so? Seems the choices are obvious: stew in one’s bile about it indefinitely until one becomes permanently angry and bitter, boycott in favor of schools which ask only 2 questions of applicants, accept what one cannot change, and move on. Demanding that schools see this “your way” (a general “you”) is going to get you where it’s gotten everyone of like mind before you: nowhere.</p>
<p>I agree Hunt, people seem to be defending a practice while at the same time denying that the practice exists. It’s a very strange conversation.</p>
<p>@Sally305 - Looking at the current composition of Congress, I’m afraid that I can’t agree with your optimistic view of “future leaders”. (My kids are poli sci majors; I believe that Machiavelli is required reading along the way).</p>
<p>But the point is- the future leaders who harbor those attitudes didn’t get them from college results – those attitudes are either picked up or instilled in early childhood-- and when those attitudes persist, it is because those individuals see everything that happens in their lives through the lenses of their pre-existing biases. Nothing about the admissions system is going to change that. </p>
<p>@Hunt Well put. </p>
<p>One thing I DO like about this thread…if I actually take the time to read what others have to say, most of the time I don’t have to write. I can just “like.” 
</p>
<p>@Flossy - Noticing is valid, having conversation about it is welcome. Blaming?? Not so much! </p>