<p>“I’ll defer to lawyers here, but I think that those laws/rules that are typically allowed to stand.”</p>
<p>No, they aren’t, but give the Roberts court a little more time, and you’ll be right.</p>
<p>
In reading over this thread, I’m curious about something. This son is already in college somewhere (where?), which you apparently knew, and you knew he was some variety of math geek, with good stats, but otherwise not too impressive. Did you know when you asked her where he is attending? </p>
<p>I realize the question “did he apply there” would be something you might easily blurt out without thinking about it, but if you knew where he is at school, then obviously, even if he applied to Harvard, he was either rejected or accepted and turned it down for some reason. Assuming he’s not at some other HYP-like place, people probably have a difficult time turning down Harvard for where ever he actually IS. Such decisions don’t come without a lot of grappling. So either he was rejected (painful) or he was accepted and turned it down with difficulty - maybe you walked into a hornet’s nest in learning which.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s all the difference in the world, to me. </p>
<p>If my kid applies to Harvard (this is all theoretical, this isn’t happening for either Pizzakid) and doesn’t get in because Harvard made it a priority to get kids from every state, including the lower-scoring kid from Idaho, and they felt they had enough bright-well-scrubbed-upper-middle-class-Jewish-kids-from-Chicago that they didn’t need another one, that’s COMPLETELY different from if the starting point was “let’s not admit any more Jewish kids. OK, we need to fill our class, let’s go find some other kids to admit. Hey, there’s a kid from Idaho!”</p>
<p>Anyway, spare me the faux-sadness of how awful it is to be white and upper middle class in the US in 2010, and the tragedy of having to settle for Rice or Emory instead of Harvard. Cry me a river.</p>
<p>"In reading over this thread, I’m curious about something. This son is already in college somewhere (where?), which you apparently knew, and you knew he was some variety of math geek, with good stats, but otherwise not too impressive. Did you know when you asked her where he is attending?</p>
<p>I realize the question “did he apply there” would be something you might easily blurt out without thinking about it,"</p>
<p>I blurted it out without thinking about it.</p>
<p>Still, most people who are upset about their kid’s not getting accepted to Harvard don’t bring into a conversation how they and their kid visited Harvard. She was the one who brought up Harvard when I was talking to someone else encouraging them to consider applying to the college my son attends (a 2nd tier private).</p>
<p>I said that my son’s college is the most beautiful that I’ve ever seen, and the woman chimed into the conversation to say that Harvard’s dining hall looked like Hogwarts, and her son had loved the way it looked.</p>
<p>I then blurted out, “Oh, did your son apply to Harvard?”</p>
<p>I wish I hadn’t asked that question. Still, the woman takes every opportunity to let others know about how smart her son is, so she set herself up for what I asked. She was the one who inserted Harvard and her son into someone else’s conversation.</p>
<p>That’s all the difference in the world, to me. "</p>
<p>I think its fair to judge policies by their social results, whatever the motivations.</p>
<p>Note, also, I said maybe. I am not 100% certain the motivations are so pure, or even that easy to tease out - what DO the folks on the Harvard board of overseers really think in their heart of hearts about those hard driven asian kids? Do they know? I suspect the faculties teaching sociology, social psychology etc at Harvard would warn against the assumption that motivation can be isolated and known, is always conscious, etc.</p>
<p>“If my kid applies to Harvard (this is all theoretical, this isn’t happening for either Pizzakid) and doesn’t get in because Harvard made it a priority to get kids from every state, including the lower-scoring kid from Idaho, and they felt they had enough bright-well-scrubbed-upper-middle-class-Jewish-kids-from-Chicago that they didn’t need another one, that’s COMPLETELY different from if the starting point was “let’s not admit any more Jewish kids. OK, we need to fill our class, let’s go find some other kids to admit. Hey, there’s a kid from Idaho!””</p>
<p>Kids from Idaho arent well scrubbed? Or upper middle class for that matter? All upper middle class Jewish kids from chicago are? The latter all share the same opinions, interests, etc? The thingst that are REALLY important to making a campus diverse? I mean cmon. </p>
<p>"Anyway, spare me the faux-sadness of how awful it is to be white and upper middle class in the US in 2010, and the tragedy of having to settle for Rice or Emory instead of Harvard. Cry me a river. "</p>
<p>Its much harder to be poor in America in 2010 than it is to be upper middle class. I support public policies for economic justice. If you want to argue about this wrt to college admissions, go to one of the whiny financial aid threads. We aren’t discussing class right now. At least I am not.</p>
<p>Are white better off than blacks and hispanics? Yes, I suppose so. Are Asian Americans better off than blacks and hispanics, yes, that too. Are Jews better off, well yes. </p>
<p>Is not getting into Harvard the biggest tragedy? No. Though by the same token, if Harvard didnt have affirmative action, those URMs for who affirmative action is a tip, would still have lots of fine choices as well, precisely BECAUSE they are generally well qualified. Thats an argument for not worrying so much about Harvard, not for affirmative action in general. I would agree though, that there resentment about AA (outside of the Asian American community, where being harmed by AA while STILL be subject to old fashioned racial discrimination particularly sucks) is more about employment (esp blue collar), apprenticeship programs, etc. </p>
<p>I am not faux sad. I am also no fan of Rush or his race baiting. I understand that there is residual discrimination to deal with, and that at least poor urban and rural blacks bring distinctive life experiences to a campus. I am STILL not comfy with the idea that some racial groups are under represented, with the implied inverse that others are overrepresented, and I think that we would be better off as a society if we could someday reach the point where race blind college admissions and hiring were possible.</p>
<p>I also feel that the benefits the most selective colleges get from their holistic admissions policies are offset to some degree by the opacity of the process, the dishonesty (clearly the attempt to guess who will be a future wealthy donor is important, yet they claim its all about the campus experience) etc.</p>
<p>I see on CC often a sentiment that being a URM is an auto admit, a golden ticket. I believe it may give a little of the boost spoken of earlier. Perhaps a student goes from a 7% chance to a 20% chance. But there still is the 80% chance of rejection.</p>
<p>I think the adcoms look not only at who can do the work but how well they would thrive there. Many people would assume that my daughter would have had a great chance of admittance to Harvard. She is URM from a rural part of an underrepresented state, HIGH test scores, 3 season athlete, unusual EC -How many mule trainers do you know?</p>
<p>She was rejected and we were fine with it. We thought for about for a minute and decided they were right. She would have been miserable in a busy city. I figure they looked at her and said, “Great kid, but this is the wrong place for her.” </p>
<p>Nothing did her in, no one took her spot. People like to talk about “fit” and the fit wasn’t there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would disagree with this. Two of my kids applied to Stanford - one got in and one didn’t. However, to me, Stanford is an interesting place to visit in California, apart from it being a top school. I’ve often talked about the size of the campus, location and compared it to other schools I’ve been to. Harvard is a real place that is interesting to visit apart from whether your kid got in or not - it’s an American institution. So is Berkeley, so is Yale. Why would I not talk about places I’ve visited and seen? One of my kids applied to Princeton and got in and didn’t go. I loved the campus and have often spoken about how beautiful I think it is and would say the same had she not gotten in. I just don’t think it’s odd that this woman would make that comment when you mentioned thinking your son’s campus was beautiful. Her original comment was not full of sour grapes – it was just a statement that he son thought Harvard beautiful when he visited.</p>
<p>two mules: i agree with you, but i take it further because i’m convinced that there is no URM boost. it’s an american cultural myth.</p>
<p>pizzagirl: u rock! lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said there weren’t well-scrubbed, upper middle class kids from Idaho. (Parenthetically: The wealthiest person I knew at Northwestern, bar none, was a girl from Idaho whose family owned a potato processing company. And that’s saying something, as there were quite a few heavy hitters. She married a man affiliated with Georgetown and they are quite heavy donors to that school.)
I said that it’s not as interesting for Harvard to take yet another affluent-suburban-Jewish-Chicago kid when they already have them well represented, as it is for them to take the kid from Idaho. Do you disagree?</p>
<p>I have already said as much as I can say in public on that</p>
<p>"I also feel that the benefits the most selective colleges get from their holistic admissions policies are offset to some degree by the opacity of the process, the dishonesty (clearly the attempt to guess who will be a future wealthy donor is important, yet they claim its all about the campus experience) etc. "</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess I’m not so sure. The conventional wisdom (endlessly repeated on CC) is that applicants from “underrepresented states” have a significant advantage in admissions to elite colleges and universities, but I’ve never seen data to back that up. It’s hard to get that data, but fortunately Princeton gives us details on the geographic distribution of their entering class, which for 2009 included:</p>
<p>Idaho 1
Montana 0
Wyoming 2
Utah 3
4-state total 6</p>
<p>Exceedingly low numbers, about as “underrepresented” as you can get, right? Well, how many applicants did they have from those states? We don’t know, exactly, but College Board’s state-by-state reports tell us how many kids from each state sent SAT scores to Princeton (if it was one of the 45 schools receiving the most SAT scores from that state). And there’s really no reason to send your SAT scores unless you plan to apply, right? For these states, the number of college-bound seniors who sent SAT scores to Princeton in 2009 were:</p>
<p>Idaho 52
Montana 40
Wyoming 11
Utah 63</p>
<p>Now we don’t know that all the SAT-senders actually completed applications, and we don’t know how many applicants Princeton accepted from each state; it’s possible they have an unusually low yield from this part of the country. But the ratio of enrolled freshmen to SAT-senders for these states is:</p>
<p>Idaho 1:52 = 1.9%
Montana 0:40 = 0%
Wyoming 2:11 = 18.2%
Utah 3:63 = 4.8%
4-state region 6:166 = 3.6%</p>
<p>Now compare some “overrepresented” states:
New Jersey 185: 3468 = 5.3%
California 149: n/a but < 4410 = > 3.8%
New York 129: n/a but < 3037 = > 4.2%<br>
Massachusetts 60: n/a but < 1485 = > 4.0%
Illinois 47: 808 = 5.8%</p>
<p>(For HS seniors in California, New York, and Massachusetts, Princeton wasn’t among the top 45 choices to receive SAT scores, from which we can infer the the number sent was less than the #45 school. As a result, the percentage figure in the last column represents a lower bound on the ratio of enrolled Princeton freshmen to SAT-senders from that state; the actual percentage could be significantly higher, probably more in line with NJ and IL for which we have real numbers.)</p>
<p>Conclusion? It looks like a slightly HIGHER percentage of SAT-senders from “overrepresented” states end up enrolled at Princeton. So where’s the underrepresented state advantage?</p>
<p>Then again, maybe it’s just better to be from Wyoming than from Idaho ;-)</p>
<p>“Exceedingly low numbers, about as “underrepresented” as you can get, right? Well, how many applicants did they have from those states?”</p>
<p>A few years ago, I talked with a Harvard classmate who chaired the alum interviewing committee in Miss., and he told me that one year, they got only 1 applicant from Miss.</p>
<p>I’ve heard from people on the alum interviewing committee in the Pacific Northwest that it’s very hard to get students from that area to apply to Harvard. They prefer staying in state or going to West Coast schools like Stanford.</p>
<p>^^^What about kids that just sent the ACT? </p>
<p>Also, just a question, is this any SAT test result, or just SATI?</p>
<p>It’s interesting data, but a lot of assumptions to really make any firm conclusion IMO. </p>
<p>For example, these are kids who decide to go there, not necessarily those admitted. Because the sample sizes are so different, tiny changes in the smaller states have huge effects on the percentages, whereas in the larger states they would be insignificant. A kid from Idaho, admitted to both Stanford and Princeton, might very well choose Stanford. Since only one kid out of 52 actually doubles that percentage, it is a little volatile in that sample size.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good clarifying questions. The data represent the number of 2009 college-bound students from each state sending SAT score reports to the school (with multiple score reports from the same student listed as as a single “student sending score reports”). SAT score reports would include SAT I scores, SAT II scores, or both. Princeton requires all applicants to submit two SAT IIs, whether they’re sending the SAT I or the ACT. Consequently, every applicant to Princeton—at least every applicant submitting a complete application—will be listed as having sent an SAT score report to Princeton. No doubt some fraction of those sending score reports end up not completing their applications, either because they have a change of heart, they’re admitted ED or EA at their first-choice school, or whatever; but there’s no particular reason I can see to think that percentage would vary significantly by state or region.</p>
<p>I don’t claim the data are definitive. But they certainly don’t support the idea that there’s a significant “underrepresented state” advantage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting. In 2009, 626 kids from Washington State sent SAT score reports to Harvard, or 2.2% of Washington score-senders. Stanford got nearly 3 times that number, 1732 (6.0%). Yale got 566 (2.0%), Brown 514 (1.8%), Cornell 496 (1.7%). The rest of the Ivies—Princeton, Penn, Columbia, Dartmouth—didn’t make the top 45, consequently we know they were < 460.</p>
<p>Similar story in Oregon: Stanford 871 (6.4%), Harvard 286 (2.1), Yale 241 (1.8%), Cornell 229 (1.7%); all other Ivies not in top 45, so < 215.</p>
<p>But the relative West Coast preference for Stanford is just as strong in California: Stanford 17,836 (10.9%), Harvard 5,767 (3.5%), Yale 4,959 (3.0%), Cornell 4,665 (2.9%), Brown 4,431 (2.7%); all other Ivies not in top 45 (< 4,410). </p>
<p>And there’s a pretty strong hometown bias in Illinois: Northwestern 1,880 (24.7%), U Chicago 1,059 (13.9%), Harvard 971 (12.8%), Stanford 960 (12.6%), Yale 818 (10.8%), Princeton 808 (10.6%), Cornell 796 (10.5%), Brown 550 (7.2%), Columbia 494 (6.5%), Dartmouth 474 (6.2%), Duke 455 (6.0%), Penn 444 (5.8%).</p>
<p>And in, say, North Carolina: Wake Forest 4,248 (9.1%), Duke 4,205 (8.8%), Harvard 716 (1.5%); all other Ivies, Stanford, Chicago, Northwestern, etc. not in top 45. </p>
<p>There’s a tendency for Northeasterners-- a large fraction of CCers—to think the whole academic world revolves around Harvard and the Ivy League. Not so in most of the country. There’s a lot more regionalism even at this elite level than the usual CC chatter assumes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it looks like Harvard is doing dramatically better in Mississippi. In 2009, 82 Mississippians sent SAT score reports to Harvard (9.5% of all the SAT score-senders in the state), making Harvard the second most-popular private school among that state’s 2009 college-bound seniors after Vanderbilt with 103 (12.0%). But I’m not sure we can read too much into these relative numbers since Vanderbilt accepts either the SAT I or the ACT and doesn’t require SAT IIs, and if memory serves Mississippi is an ACT-dominant state so likely most Vandy applicants just sent in their ACT scores.</p>
<p>Princeton, by the way, was right up there with 61 (7.1%). Of those, 4 ended up in Princeton’s Class of 2013 (6.5%). I don’t have time to see whether underrepresented Southern states as a group do better by Princeton than the underrepresented Rocky Mountain states.</p>
<p>Very interesting, bclintonk. It would be interesting to know which of these states are mandatory-test-taking states. (For example, here in Illinois, everyone is required to take the ACT as part of high school graduation requirements, regardless of whether he or she is even planning on going to college. Therefore, there is little incentive for a student to take the SAT unless he or she has an explicit desire to see how the scores compare or is applying to an elite college and believes that the SAT may be advantaged.) I never even took the ACT in my day – believing as it was that it was the “midwestern state school test” – and yet I’ve not had my kids take the SAT, which I never thought I would say :-)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wonder if your classmate meant to say they only got one applicant from <em>rural</em> Mississippi that year. Candidates from rural Mississippi are in short supply in the college applicant pool. But Mississippi has several cities with sophisticated, affluent populations. Right off the top of my head, I can think of two prestigious prep schools in the Jackson area. There’s no way Harvard would get just one applicant a year from the entire state.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even leaving aside the ACT / SAT issue, the confounding variables are that in your “overrepresented” states – NY, MA, NJ, IL, CA – a greater % of the students may be a) legacies and / or b) attend private schools that have long-lasting, cozy relationships with admissions staff at elite colleges. One might be cynical and say developmental admits as well – not that there aren’t rich people in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming, certainly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is Minnesota that underrepresented at Harvard? You’ve got some pretty sophisticated people who know what’s what there, esp in the Mpls / St. Paul area. I wouldn’t think there’s any shortage of Mpls / St. Paul - area applicants, certainly.</p>