<p>But that proves nothing, sewhappy. These schools are going to admit some students for whom it really is all about pure academics / with stats similar to your son’s, some students where they see a lot of community service, some students where they see artistic ability, some students where they see leadership potential, etc.</p>
<p>This isn’t a formula whereby because 2400 / 36 / 4.0 was important for <em>your</em> son’s admission, therefore it either <em>is</em> or <em>should be</em> important for everyone they consider for admission. It is perfectly consistent that they want a sampling of “pure brains,” kids who are heavily angular in a given field, and kids who are well-rounded.</p>
<p>( I deleted my post because I worry about privacy for my kid)</p>
<p>Pizzagirl - I honestly think the constant drumbeat of “Be special!” “Be passionate!” “Develop something unique!”</p>
<p>Is kind of cruel and misleading. For the unhooked, let alone Asian, candidate they just really should first make sure the academic credentials are as sky high as possible. I think all that effort going into the special EC often syphons important time from the academics. Not scores or straight gpa so much as taking more time with the actual classes. Teachers perceive the students who are truly engaged at a profound level with the courses vs those who are superduper organized kids who efficiently score a 92.5 for the class and manage to keep their 4.0 while still being a mover and shaker out there doing “special things”. I think this can really lead to kids who never sleep and even though they may have a load of A’s on their report cards have really very little recollection of what they actually learned.</p>
<p>My kid is fortunate to be an insanely good tester. But I think if he hadn’t got those perfect scores and hadn’t gone to a tippy-top school but somewhere really good anyway he still would be so much better off carrying with him a high school EDUCATION. To this day, he tells us how important his high school classes were in shaping him intellectually and preparing him for life. Those years in high school are so important and I think the constant emphasis on the big ECs is shortchanging a lot of kids educationally.</p>
<p>Trophy admissions aside. In the end it’s their actual education that matters most.</p>
<p>Finally, I think the kid who maybe isn’t quite as busy being “special” thru high school has more time to read for pleasure, ponder and muse and just cook awhile intellectually. Then those college essays will be written in a voice that is going to stand out above the fray. And the interviews are also likely to reveal a genuine scholar v an academic acrobat. It’s subtle. But I think it matters. And again, the kid comes away with something more valuable, regardless of whether they bag the trophy admission.</p>
This is an interesting hypothesis. What are the data that support it? That’s all I keep asking for.</p>
<p>
As often happens on CC, I think it’s important to distinguish how we think things should be from how they actually are. What you have described is a very sensible strategy for a kid who wants to learn and to get a good college education. But, honestly, it is not the best strategy for a kid who really (for whatever reason) wants to go to Harvard. But I think (and I think Pizzagirl does too) that going to Harvard is not all that important in the grand scheme of things.</p>
<p>I agree. I think the “specialness” indeed can be reflected by the essay … rather than necessarily developing an EC that’s unique just for the sake of uniqueness (I mean, I don’t think it is “better” deciding to play the accordion just for the sake of checking off a box of “unique EC”). I think the uniqueness can indeed be simply “I look at the world through a different lens.”</p>
<p>I disagree, I don’t think that the academics need to be as skyhigh as possible. My older son knew exactly how much work needed to be done for an A (or a B+ in English) and never did one bit more. His AP Bio teacher laughed with us because unlike other kids in the class he never did one bit of extra credit. Instead he spent the time reading computer manuals. (Luckily the teacher didn’t hold it against him, he knew my son’s primary interest was not biology, but that he’d mastered the material.) Being unique doesn’t have to take a lot of time, though I’ll admit my comp sci son spent an appalling amount of time messing around with computers, but he also got 8 hours of sleep a night. My younger son’s hobby of making origami earrings, also wasn’t a huge time sink, but it did give him something to write about that was a bit off the beaten path. He also wrote a terrific essay about some volunteer work he did for the neighborhood. (Archiving neighborhood association papers, including lots of records about lobbying for various issues at the neighborhood school.) He did 10 required hours junior year and then enjoyed it so much he spent about an hour a week for the rest of high school, not exactly a huge time sink. It was the way he wrote about the activity that set him apart I think. He really showed himself thinking like a historian.</p>
<p>mathmom - Can you explain the origami earrings? I am really curious what it means. A few years ago, I saw in our local papers that a kid fulfilled some IB requirement by creating 5000 Origami birds reflecting various types of birds.</p>
<p>The whole point is that they want a mix. There is no blunt “2400’s > 2200’s” but there are some kids where 2400’s are their whole story / raison d’etre and some kids for whom the 2200 and interesting EC’s are their story. I’m so tired of all the reductionist thinking which is “they admitted my kid with a 2400 / therefore, unequivocally across the board, they value 2400’s” OR “they admitted my kid with a 2200 and interesting EC’s / therefore, unequivocally across the board, they value unique EC’s over stats.” Stop trying to reduce it to a formula that is uniformly applied!</p>
<p>My point is that the kid is going to win most by savoring and extracting the most out of his high school classes – all of them and not just the classes in their area of strength. This will serve them best going forward in life, regardless of what colleges accept them.</p>
<p>I think it’s up to the individual, really.
Some people say being a Native American applying to Ivies automatically gets you in.
…I’m not sure if that’s true.</p>
I don’t want to keep on repeating myself. Please go back to my early posts in this thread about the data on erollment number, SATs, location, demagraphics, comparisons with HYPC, Caltech and Berkeley, etc. There is no smoking gun on this issue. Like the Simpson case, though he was acquitted (no smoking gun and glove won’t fit), but most peope think he was guilty.</p>
<p>PG may have addressed this in her reply, but I want to address it more specifically. She mentioned that one cannot be reductionist. I agree. I think, sewhappy, you are tending in this post of which I just quoted a portion, to be reductionist yourself. It is not either/or. When possible, what the Ivies want is the student, who as one person, is both a brilliant test-taker and “has a life.” Believe it or not, they can get that, and often. Not students who are zombies and get no sleep (on one end of the spectrum), not students who barely get that 92.5 for an A but spend their best energy for what they love in their e.c.'s (on the other end). </p>
<p>They admit people, first, who are both brilliant on numerical measures and who have interesting & accomplished lives outside of school. I agree: it’s about the education first. The elites definitely value that first. But education is not just measured in grades/test scores, as you’ve indicated in your post you also understand. What fleshes out those grades and test scores are the observations of perceptive teachers who write careful, thoughtful letters of rec, and the breadth & content of that coursework itself, and often the level of cognition that can be inferred from an essay. Someone who is not just a humanities person or just a science person, but who has excelled magnificently across the board, is an indicator of overall potential. They will tend to be the students grabbed first (with multiple offers) over the student who may have perfect scores, but not as impressive coursework in all areas. They will also value highly the virtual-genius level student who is rather angular but exceptional (such as in math, or in writing). That person may not have the e.c.'s, and may not have breadth, but the depth in that one area (with much more than scores and the kind of template contests that are entered) is commensurate with the breadth of excellence that others bring.</p>
<p>If a student has managed to be either of these latter examples and also achieved at high levels in e.c.'s, consistently, and is not a nervous wreck, that student has a high chance of an offer from at least one elite school, if not several. It’s really not about either/or. It truly is about both/and in most cases (because obviously the pool of the angular “genius” level is even smaller than the overall brilliant student). </p>
<p>It’s interesting that you brought up “the kids who never sleep.” Perhaps you’ve seen some local evidence that that is true of those who spend more time on e.c.'s. It is absolutely the opposite in my region. The kids who never sleep (almost literally) are the kids obsessing over grades and scores. Here’s the pattern: school day + e.c.'s; come home, eat, do some homework, then sleep for 4 hours (say, 9-1): Get up and stay up, from the wee hours in the morn. Same cycle, every day. A little more sleep on the weekends. Those are not people spending hours and hours doing e.c.'s. This is a drill program, i.m.o.</p>
<p>My son’s origami earring are made by folding small piece of origami paper - usually 2"x2" into various shapes. He makes a lot of cranes, because that is a classic shape with a lot of history ( [Thousand</a> origami cranes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_origami_cranes]Thousand”>One thousand origami cranes - Wikipedia) ) and they sell well, but he likes other shapes too. He puts them on ear wires and dips them in an epoxy mixture that make them look like they are made out of porcelain instead of paper. He sold them at a local co-op gallery.</p>
<p>No proof, but I think the reason more 2400s get accepted than 2200s is that a student who expends the time (or has the natural ability) to get top scores probably also spends the time to make sure the rest of their application looks outstanding too. But it’s a mistake to think everything has to be perfect. Some kids will always get in with stellar academics and so-so (relatively so-so) ECs and vice versa. There will always be some well-rounded kids accepted and some pointy kids. </p>
<p>And I agree you’ll never know exactly why the decisions were made. I certainly don’t know if my comp sci guy was admitted to Harvard because someone thought his essay was funny (the first paragraph was) or boring (the rest of it), or because they were creating an engineering school that year, or they thought he was pointy (all that comp sci stuff), or well rounded (great AP and SAT scores in non-math and science courses and his highest score was always CR) or maybe they just took him because he was a legacy with the top SAT scores from our high school and in the top 1% of his class. </p>
<p>I can be pretty confident though that my younger son wasn’t accepted to the schools that took him because of his grades (not stellar), or his SAT math score (just under 700). I liked his essays and think they probably were pivotal, but may it was the teacher recommendations which I didn’t see, or even the GC recommendation, she was a ditz, but she liked him.</p>
<p>I think this is the main post Professor101 is referring to:
He or she also argued that because Stanford’s SAT scores are “lower” than those at the Ivies, this allows for more discrimination against Asians (an argument I’m not sure I understand).</p>
<p>At least here is an argument that projects what the percentage of Asians “should” be. He seems to think that because the Ivies have about 3 times as many Asians as the national average, Stanford should have about 3 times as many as the California average, although somewhat fewer than CalTech. I don’t think this follows at all. If there was a decline of Asian admissions, that’s something worth knowing more about, though.</p>
<p>Another point that occurred to me: you can’t assume that Asians are uniform across the country in terms of how competitive they are likely to be for highly selective schools. As indicated upthread, the most competitive seem to be more recent immigrants, and California in particular may have more Asians who are not recent immigrants. There also may be more lower income Asians where there is a much bigger Asian population.</p>
<p>Question: what do people of Asian background in Hawaii think about all this? What is their experience?</p>
<p>sewhappy,
There are some people for whom scoring 2400 and being val while also becoming a recruited athlete is just not that hard. As my friend’s son did, which I mentioned earlier.</p>
<p>Professor,
If you recall, while OJ Simpson was acquitted on charges that he killed Nicole in the criminal case because the prosecution could not prove it <em>beyond a reasonable doubt</em> (aka no “smoking gun”), the Brown and Goldman families prevailed in the civil case against him and were awarded millions of dollars in damages. They only needed <em>a preponderance of the evidence</em> to convince the court that OJ killed Nicole. </p>
<p>You don’t need a “smoking gun” to sue Stanford, all you need is a preponderance of the evidence. If you and others think you’ve got that, what’s holding you back?</p>
<p>Stanford numbers at 23-24% or so makes sense for Asians. If Ivies are keeping them around 17-18% and Stanford is a peer, they should have similar numbers. Stanford differs a bit because they take 40% in State. So proportionally, they can take more Asians to follow the instate model to compete with Berkeley and UCLA but don’t have to match the same numbers for the other 60% of the admits. </p>
<p>So out of 100 admits, they admit 35% of 40 people (14 people) and 17% of 60 people (10.2) and you get 24 out of a hundred. I have no way of proving that the instate admits are actually 35% Asian.</p>
<p>You’re completely ignoring the % of the applicant pool which is Asian, which might very well be different at Stanford vs the Ivies because Stanford is located in a heavily Asian-concentrated state and the others are located clear across the country in parts of the country that are not heavy with Asians. The applicant pool is <em>always</em> heavily influenced by the location of a school, because most students still only apply to schools that are relatively close to home.</p>
<p>I believe that is what I am saying, i.e., different pools at Stanford. They are accepting 35% from California as part of the 40% admits they do inside of california (Stanford is very California friendly and if Yale admitted 40% of connecticut, no one else can get in) and 17% for the rest of the population which is 60% and also includes internationals.</p>
<p>Who said a 2400 is hard? I seriously think the majority who get 2400 don’t prep.</p>
<p>That’s so cool that you know an athlete with 2400. If you check out the Presidential Scholars you will see quite a few who do very well in sports, music, various stuff. Just like normal kids!</p>
<p>While repeating the same data is not helpful, it would be better if the data was interpreted correctly and in its proper context. </p>
<p>As it is almost always the case, one should be careful to avoid reaching for hasty conclusions by not looking at the patterns and trying to understand the NATURE of the changes. It seems that Professor101 has focused on the numbers published in the latest Common Data Set of Stanford, but overlooked WHY the reported numbers of Asians " dropped."</p>
<p>Could it be that changes in the CATEGORY labels tell a different story? Could it be that the subgroups have been reported differently in 2010-2011 than in previous years? </p>
<p>Lastly, before providing an quick overview, allow me to reiterate that one should be careful in reaching for ADMISSIONS conclusions by looking at the ENROLLMENT. With a yield lower than 100%, there ARE differences!</p>
<p>Here are the numbers for the past years at Stanford:</p>
<p>FALL 2010
Nonresident aliens 138 493 7%
Hispanic / Latino 306 1079 16%
Black or African American 128 506 7%
White, non-Hispanic/Latino 534 2,350 34%
American Indian or Alaska Native 23 88 1%
Asian 273 1223 18% …NEW CATEGORY
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 8 19 0% …NEW CATEGORY
Two or more races, 135 581 8% …NEW CATEGORY
Race/ethnicity unknown 127 548 8%
Total 1672 6887 100%</p>
<p>FALL 2009
Nonresident aliens 128 469 7%
Hispanic 247 881 13%
Black, non-Hispanic 180 656 10%
White, non-Hispanic 561 2,355 36%
American Indian or Alaskan Native 54 182 3%
Asian or Pacific Islander 397 1,514 23%
NA 0%
NA 0%
Race/ethnicity unknown 125 507 8%
Total 1,692 6,564 100%</p>
<p>FALL 2008
Nonresident aliens 123 452 7%
Hispanic 248 795 12%
Black, non-Hispanic 178 647 10%
White, non-Hispanic 536 2,482 38%
American Indian or Alaskan Native 54 178 3%
Asian or Pacific Islander 350 1,497 23%
NA 0%
NA 0%
Race/ethnicity unknown 214 451 7%
Total 1,703 6,502 100%</p>
<p>FALL 2007
Nonresident aliens 126 414 6%
Hispanic 219 752 12%
Black, non-Hispanic 143 619 9%
White, non-Hispanic 689 2,683 41%
American Indian or Alaskan Native 41 149 2%
Asian or Pacific Islander 429 1,577 24%
NA 0%
NA 0%
Race/ethnicity unknown 74 326 5%
Total 1,721 6,520 100%</p>
<p>PS First column is freshman enrollment. Second column is total enrollment. Percentages represent the % of the total enrollment.</p>