Well, it probably won’t end until there isn’t a significant disparity between the scores of white and URM admittees, just as Asian kids won’t stop thinking they’re being discriminated against until there isn’t a disparity between the scores of white and Asian admittees. In both cases, the disparities are real–although, in my opinion, the reasons for them are almost certainly different. With respect to URMs, I think it’s pretty clear that colleges do practice affirmative action, and admit URMs who would not have been admitted if they weren’t URMs. But so what? I’m in favor of this, and the Ivies, at least, don’t admit URMs who can’t do the work. The disparity between white and Asian scores is more difficult to explain (there have been numerous lengthy threads about this), but it’s my opinion that (1) there is little, if any, evidence that the disparity is the result of conscious discrimination by colleges and (2) there are demographic differences between white and Asian applicants (like identification of STEM majors and geographical location) that explain much, if not all, of the disparity.</p>
<p>So, yeah, URMs are getting some slots that would go to white or Asian kids if race were not being considered. Anybody who doesn’t like that can go to a college that doesn’t practice affirmative action as a protest.</p>
<p>I actually think the letter is hilarious and brings up some good points. That said, I do think she overestimates herself. I have a 3.78 UW GPA (not stellar, but not terrible), 2350 SAT, and two 800s on Subject Tests… I would be happy to go to Michigan (where she will probably be attending). But I’ll probably end up at Case Western.</p>
<p>That is true, but it also gets to that old “correlation versus causation.” Is the label (and what it represents) the sole reason why colleges take a deeper look at students with lower scores? Or do they (correctly) measure how a student overcomes the disadvantages of his race or lower SES, and what he or she accomplished in light of fewer opportunities. </p>
<p>Is that much different from schools looking with kinder eyes to students from rural (whitebread) areas who did well in the CONTEXT of their environment? </p>
<p>One reality is that, if it were that easy, the colleges could have dropped giving preferences a LONG time ago to URM and LOW-SES students, and focus on helping legacies, athletes, and big donors.</p>
<p>Wow, “rural (whitebread) areas”—that phrase is amazingly racist. Epecially in light of the fact that rural poor applicants have long been ignored by the colleges’ diversity programs. Only now are top schools advocating for socio-economic inclusiveness.</p>
<p>Hm. I can imagine a scenario in which a disadvantaged person (race not relevant) is seen as more meritorious because s/he had to study with a flashlight to not wake up three other siblings who shared his/her room and who had no tutors for SAT’s.</p>
<p>The 2100 means something different than a kid at a prep school with a special class devoted to SAT preparation and a guidance counselor whose sole job is overlooking his/her and friends applications. Or better yet, a paid consultant.</p>
<p>This does not discriminate. It looks at circumstances to determine the kid who has left more of themselves on the field. It works for me.</p>
<p>Had my kids done that, they might have been Ivy admits, not that that matters to them or me as such.</p>
<p>It is noble to give one’s all and achieve way above expectations for one’s situation, even though it certainly is not necessary to do so to be a worthwhile person.</p>
<p>The point here is that the girl in question does not seem to have done that and yet expects a place reserved.</p>
<p>And I have no doubt that there are plenty of people who do that who don’t get spots. Just the musical chairs nature of the game.</p>
<p>Yes, why not make fun of development admits instead of affirmative action or diversity admits. That’s the racism and homophobia that seems to follow a particular political bent. (Well, it was the WSJ.)</p>
<p>And really, the piece just wasn’t that funny. If the WSJ wants to run it, well good for her. Now she has something to put on a college application.</p>
<p>2120 is not a good score for a top 5 or even top 10 school. it’s probably below the 25%-75% range. And she doesn’t really have anything to make up for it. The unweighted GPA is not listed either, so she may have not even gotten straight "A"s. </p>
<p>The Indian kid who was a academic star at a Texas magnet school and who made the training camp for the chemistry olympics team but was denied at the top schools he applied to had a much better case.</p>
<p>Things are more competitive these days, but in the 90’s this type of candidate would have been a match for a school like Northwestern or Duke with schools like Cornell being slight or moderate reaches.</p>
<p>Sorry, but this is the stupidest complaint ever. I whole-heartedly disagree with this girl. Ivy league colleges have never given a promise that if you were to be yourself and work hard you would definitely get in. Never. In response to her video, yes you are being judged on things you cannot control, and I think there’s nothing wrong with that. If you can’t do well on the SAT, a test that many colleges believe accurately reflect your ability to do well in the college, then you may in fact not be able to handle the work at the college. Also, not to mention, as PsychoDad10 said on the first page, there are many other excellent colleges out there, and it’s selfish to limit yourself to these so-called “elite” schools.</p>
<p>She didn’t limit herself to so-called “elite” schools; she’s going to attend Michigan which is a very fine state flagship. I’m sure she will be able to successfully handle the workload there just as she probably would have been able to handle the work at Harvard had she been admitted. I just don’t believe there’s that much difference in excellent students at Michigan vs those attending “elites”.</p>
<p>ps. From this day forward I will only use the word “elites” with parenthesis.</p>
<p>Wow, “rural (whitebread) areas”—that phrase is amazingly racist. Epecially in light of the fact that rural poor applicants have long been ignored by the colleges’ diversity programs. Only now are top schools advocating for socio-economic inclusiveness.<<<</p>
<p>Say what? Wow and amazingly racist? Perhaps, you saw a slur in that term when none was intended… </p>
<p>The comment was about states such as Montana, Wyoming, and others where the selective schools have made efforts to increase recruitment and enrollment.</p>
<p>I’ve read most of the posts on this thread and it’s funny how it is “automatically” assumed that Blacks & Latinos are getting into College solely because of their Minority status and that “merit” is never cited as a reason that they have been accepted into a Prestigious University or Top Liberal Arts College. My daughter attends a “Top” Boarding School with a reputation for Academic rigor that is unsurpassed and Ivy League Colleges acceptance on average 33% of the Class. Some of her friends are Blacks & Hispanics and she admitted to me that she always believed Minorities got into her very selective Boarding School because of their URM designation until she actually took classes with them and saw how academically smart many of them were. She also stated that their scores are much higher than Misses Weiss SAT Scores which in comparison to her peers is considered weak and hardly a ticket into the Ivies. To think that a score in the 2100’s “qualifies” you in the extremely competitive Ivy pool is laughable, even for “minorities” at her School who routinely score much higher than that on the SAT Test. So the next time you see a Minority walking the paths of an Ivy League Campus, be careful to not assume you scored higher than them and their Matriculation is solely due to their Minority status hook. They come from Hotchkiss, Deerfield Academy, Exeter, Andover, Milton Academy, Choate, St Pauls, and Prestigious rigorous Schools across the Country. Believe it or not, Miss Weiss and other kids like mine from privilege with far more resources are not always the smartest kids in the room.</p>
<p>Yeah, not sure how it is racist to say “whitebread” when it accurately describes the demographics of the people in question.</p>
<p>Also, it is NOT true that top schools are only now advocating for socioeconomic inclusiveness. My college boyfriend was a poor (white) farm kid from the poorest county in a southern state. He was admitted to our “elite” school with a very generous aid package…and that was more than 30 years ago.</p>
<p>How do you know there is a disparity between the SAT scores of blacks, Hispanics and whites at elite colleges? I mean, doesn’t the Ivy League (and other “top” schools) admit non minority kids with lower scores all the time? How then are their admittances explained? </p>
<p>Like, you’re telling me there’s some set rule that the only way a kid can be admitted with a non competitive SAT score is if the individual is an URM.</p>
<p>So many assumptions with so little evidence. Okay.</p>
<p>So what’s more impressive, a homeless girl with a 2060 or a kid from an affluent school who took the SAT three times (after extensive prep and tutoring) and scored a 2280?</p>
<p>Interesting how many people Little Suzy has reached out and touched for something considered so “ignorant” on her part.</p>
<p>Apparently it is causing a national uproar if so many people have to write about it in papers, talk about it in shows, release spoofs, write defensive articles - the list goes on.</p>