<p>Of course, the top of the top students at such a high school may not have given the best marketed application for admission to MIT or other super-selective schools. When the usual academic criteria of grades and test scores are maxed out by numerous applicants, it may well be that the best marketed application (best essays, best recommendations, etc.) wins out, even if there were better (in terms of the admissions committee’s goals) students behind less well marketed applications.</p>
<p>An applicant to the college is trying to market and sell himself/herself to the college. In most cases (e.g. moderately selective state universities), marketing yourself means just presenting sufficiently high grades and test scores. But when decisions are made holistically and opaquely, it is not so simple (just like real life marketing and sales). And (just like real life marketing and sales) sometimes the better marketing and sales, not the better product, wins.</p>
<p>While the article focuses on small differences in the approval of the President of the United States due to racism-related reasons, perhaps the relatively high percentage of people with racist attitudes (though not necessarily hard core) may mean more significant differences in contexts where one is considering people who are not exceptional like the President of the United States (non-hard-core racism can get overridden by other factors, so if the person is seen as exceptional (good or bad) for other reasons, the racism may not be a factor).</p>
<p>Of course, what to do about it (or what can be done about it) is something else entirely.</p>
<p>The article reminds me of those old “medical” articles from about a hundred years ago talking about how women’s brains will overheat if they fill their heads with too much learning.</p>
<p>Here’s an interesting article which compares, as have Cbreeze and Collegealum, and maybe a few others on this thread, though I’m not sure, the Jewish American experience to the Asian American experience.</p>
<p>It is interesting, actually. I wasn’t aware of the Jewish situation, since many of my jewish friends went to the Ivies from high school (I attended a feeder public, New Trier), but that was in the 1980’s.</p>
<p>I certainly can’t claim to have the answer, here, except to say I hope all applicants this season will stay aware throughout the entire process, that for some, if not most, top 25 schools, the metrics are such that there is no such thing as a “match” school for anyone. Even the tippy top students need to have a financial and academic safety or two.</p>
<p>Good luck to all students, and I hope the parents can remember to breathe. (easier said than done, I know.) ;)</p>
<p>Thanks for the link. Interesting read. But no surprise to me(or to others who look like me). Its something that we face each day. In the media, in every day life, at work… its all around. I am sure that I speak for others, we just learn to deal with it…</p>
<p>“of course, what to do about it(what can be done about it) is something else entirely”</p>
<p>Nice idea ucbalumnus, but this is not possible, will never happen.</p>
<p>"According to one parent at TJ whose kid ended up at Caltech, there was a a general consensus that the many of the top cohort of kids in terms of intelligence did not get into MIT. This person did not seem to care, it was just an observation. I’ve seen this from MIT before, so it’s not just one isolated quote. </p>
<p>I’m pretty familiar with TJ and its graduates, as I went to a similar high school and MIT (my alma mater) has many TJ graduates. People are not likely making a determination on whether the “best” got in on the basis of stats, because realistically probably half the school had 750+ on each subsection of the SATI and SATII. There tends to be a small group of people who rack up most of the academic awards and are stars in class. "</p>
<p>To those who attend “prestigious” high schools -like Stuy and TJ and IMSA and so forth - dont you ever stop to consider that maybe elite schools get tired of feeling that they HAVE to accept umpteen of your kids every year, and that given the choice between yet another one of you and, say, the kid in rural Louisiana that shows promise, they’d rather go from the Louisiana kid? When there are 30,000 hs in the US, probably which 15,000 have never sent a kid to an elite, why do you think you’re entitled to x number of spots and that it’s evidence of something dastardly if that number goes down? It continues to puzzle me.</p>
<p>Liberals often tar conservative views as racist, which is easier and more ego-boosting than considering if those views are correct. This study is another example. Here is one of the questions:</p>
<p>“How much discrimination against Blacks do you feel there is in the United States today, limiting their chances to get ahead?” (Coding: A lot = 0, Some = .33, A little = .67, None at all = 1)</p>
<p>Reasonable people can disagree about the answer to this question. Conservatives and Republicans are more likely to answer “a little” or “none at all” than liberals and Democrats, but that does not make them “anti-black” or prejudiced. The other questions are of a similar nature. The paper is at </p>
<p>One indicator of racist beliefs is the extent to which people commit crimes against people of other races. Black-on-white violent crime far exceeds the reverse kind.</p>
<p>“Give the choice of a black kid who’s the daughter of a doctor and was on the same Lacrosse team as all her suburban peers, and an inner city Sri Lankan boy whose family fled here and didn’t speak English, the university would much rather have #1 on their poster to demonstrate diversity” </p>
<p>You don’t know that. It may depend on a lot of things. You clearly don’t get “holistic.” It’s in context of the entire class being built, not a choice of A vs B.</p>
<p>“Here’s what gets me though. What is so danged fantastic about Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and the like that makes people think they are the only game in town?”</p>
<p>That’s not the point that is made. In reality, for all competitive schools that promote AA, URMs are admitted with far lower credentials than whites or Asians. So URMs are given a leg up along the entire spectrum of competitive colleges. </p>
<p>Since spots in colleges are fixed, this means other groups are displaced out of the entire spectrum of competitive colleges. Some of the proponents of AA don’t seem to get this.</p>
<p>“Here’s what gets me though. What is so danged fantastic about Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and the like that makes people think they are the only game in town? I think we’ve all clearly established over 15 + pages of discussion that we are not dealing with an academic or intellectual meritocracy. These schools are not seeking a class filled only with the most brilliant, high IQ kids they can find and admit. Their mission is to collect a group of kids based on varied criteria, much of it nonacademic, known only to them at any given time. So what keeps those of you who are fighting so vigorously for admission to these schools so fixed on just those schools? Is it simply bragging rights? Is it some misguided belief that that name will take you further as you go forward? Do you really think it’s a step down to attend a top 10 or 20 university or a top LAC? (I’m deliberately refraining from naming names.) Their populations are as smart or smarter than the HYPS group. Don’t you realize that there may be greater opportunity for excellence and post-grad placements/scholarships at the non-HYPS schools?”</p>
<p>Every year on CC, you see posts from kids in anguish because their well meaning parents have indeed taught them that HYP are the only game in town. Which is a perfect example of how SAT-style intelligence is only one measure of intelligence. The ability to observe and conceptualize --gee, I moved to another country and things are not like my home country - is another kind of intelligence. How many essays does HYP receive that say – I want to attend you because you are the pinnacle of academics? And how kindly do you think they look on such essays?</p>
<p>Because academic achievement varies so greatly across Texas schols, the Texas top 10% plan does lead to the admission of some unqualified students, as described in</p>
<p>I don’t think the Supreme Court should strike down the Texas plan as it should racial preferences, but if public universities admit most of their classes by such a system, this will lead to considerable mismatch.</p>
<p>When schools are at that level of selectivity, you can always argue that people are displaced. There are kids who have perfect applications who might have gotten in if their initial reading was on a different day or by a different individual.</p>
<p>Many universities have filed briefs to the Supreme Court in the Fisher case, supporting the use of racial preferences by the University of Texas. Several have said that if Fisher won, they would have to change their admissions practices, which is an admission that they are using racial preferences.</p>
<p>Here’s an Asian kid with 4.0 GPA/2350 SAT and XYZ extracurriculars. He gets turned down by some elite.</p>
<p>How do you “know” his spot was “stolen” by the AA kid with 3.6/2200? You know, there’s another Asian kid with 3.8/2250 with some fabulous EC who got in. How come only people of other races can “steal” one"s spot? </p>
<p>And do you not get that even in a totally race blind system, our subject STILL might not get in - because it’s a school with a 10% acceptance rate? That’s what really frosts a lot of you. You’re just so annoyed that its not predictable racking and stacking of stats. Well, grow up.</p>
<p>I can appreciate how a competitive university may want to assemble a well-rounded class comprised of some artsy types, some tuba players, some football players, in addition to the math wizzes. These are all activities that students are selected on the basis of their achievement in that activity. </p>
<p>Race is not an “achievement” any more than being a legacy is.</p>
<p>No, the people who think the “entire spectrum of competitive colleges” is incredibly finite (i.e., a range of maybe 5-10 schools) don’t get it. Have you ever looked at the faculty at some of the “lesser” state universities or second-tier LACs? There are not even enough TEACHING spots to go around in your rarefied spectrum for all the PhDs that come out of elite programs every year. So what happens to them? They go and teach at other schools, and their students benefit. There are amazing opportunities at many, many colleges and universities. And when exceptional students are pushed “down” to schools outside the Most Desirable list because there aren’t enough spots at the top ones, they enhance the student body wherever they end up (unless, of course, they spend four years being bitter that they didn’t get what they “deserved”).</p>
<p>If you want to keep wringing your hands over the increasing difficulty of your superior kids getting into HYPSM because of a small number of URMs who might, holistically, be viewed as better candidates than yours EVEN with lower scores, go ahead. It’s just a problem you are not going to be able to solve by complaining. And IMO, it’s also selling your kids short. If they are that bright and capable they should be able to succeed wherever they go.</p>
<p>Some proponents of racial and socioeconomic preferences cite the benefits, both to the preferred students and the other students, of mixing with people from different backgrounds. A recent NYT story on NYC private schools suggests that little of this mixing occurs. </p>
<p>Many observers have noted a tendency for students to self-segregate at colleges as well. This weakens the “mixing” argument for affirmative action.</p>
<p>GMT, it’s pretty insulting to suggest that all the URMs who get into a top university are doing so ONLY because of their skin color. How do you know they don’t have great talents as well?</p>
<p>“When schools are at that level of selectivity, you can always argue that people are displaced.”</p>
<p>While that is certainly true of any one individual, to have that be true across a large group requires a systematic bias. </p>
<p>Suppose we flipped a coin 10 times, then 100 times, and then 1000 times. What is the probability in each case that heads comes up 60% or more? I will spare everyone the mathematics, but if my calculator is correct:</p>
<p>A) There is a ~38% chance of 6+ heads out of 10
B) There is a ~2.8% chance of 60+ heads out of 100
C) There is less than a 1 in billion chance of 600+ heads out of 1000</p>
<p>Now, the probabilities of getting into the highly competitive schools are certainly less than 50%, but the conclusions remain the same. It is irrelevant to talk about individual cases while ignoring the widespread bias.</p>