<p>Actually, I think many of the problems at Stuyvesant are probably directly attributable to it being an exam school. Kids there have learned to put way too much importance on tests at the expense of other things. We might be better off if there were a more holistic way of judging academic potential.</p>
<p>I think the greater good is sometimes more important than the individual good. I can see there are many who think the opposite.</p>
<p>No one is denying, NotYourBusiness, that some people make assumptions about the qualifications of URM students based on the fact that school admission policies give certain groups a boost. The problem may not be as widespread as you think. But let’s just say it is. This may be an “unintended consequence” of affirmative action. It does not on its own negate the value of affirmative action programs. You’ve made your point. People who benefit from affirmative action should be aware and people who are high-scoring URMs should be aware that SOME people will make assumptions and may judge them if they make it into an elite school. Oh, well. I cannot speak for any URMs on this thread, but I would be shocked if any of what you say is news to anyone who has grown up as a URM in this country or if entrance into college marks the occasion of the first instance of prejudiced thought they have encountered in their lives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depends whether you start out with a fear-based scarcity mentality or a generous mentality. If my kid hadn’t gotten into a fancy school but had to “settle” lower down the totem pole, I’m confident enough in his abilities to know he’d do fine in life anyway. It would e unfortunate, but life would go on. Other people are a lot more scared, see everything as a competition / out for “what’s rightfully mine,” and actually fear that a bright, hardworking kid is going to wind up flipping burgers if they don’t have the right name on the diploma ("right’ typically being defined as a very narrow set of schools). I actually kind of feel sorry for people who walk around so fearful. It’s not a good way to live, IMO.l</p>
<p>“NotYourBusiness, most colleges publish a Common Data Set which provides the SAT and ACT ranges of their students. You can simply google the college name and common data set and it should pop up.”</p>
<p>Institutional CDS also provides the relative importance of academic and non-academic factors in admission evaluation. For example, Yale’s 2011-2012 CDS ([Common</a> Data Set (CDS) | Office of Institutional Research](<a href=“http://oir.yale.edu/common-data-set]Common”>Common Data Set | Office of Institutional Research)) states:</p>
<p>Academic Factors:
Rigor of secondary school record, Class rank, Academic GPA, Standardized test scores, Application Essay, and Recommendation are VERY IMPORTANT.</p>
<p>Nonacademic Factors:
Extracurricular activities, Talent/ability, and Character/personal qualities are VERY IMPORTANT;
Interview, First generation, Alumni/relation, Geographical residence, State residency,
Racial/ethnic status, Volunteer work, and Work experience are CONSIDERED;
Religious affiliation/commitment, and Level of applicant’s interest are NOT CONSIDERED.</p>
<p>Other universities may have different weights in their evaluation. You may look up their CDSs for more details.</p>
<p>To me, it is very clear that, at least for Yale, race is a minor factor in their holistic admission practice.</p>
<p>Notyourbusiness,</p>
<p>Are you aware of any studies showing how the Berkeley non-AAs compare with students from comparable universities (say UM or UVA) in terms of job prospects or grad school? Is anyone underetaking that? This might at least start to tell us what, if any, impact stigmtization has on future prospects.</p>
<p>Beliavsky,</p>
<p>You were sounding so reasonable in my view until you equated the efforts of a wealthy student from a great school district on a standardized test with AA’s who have been subject to decades of discrimination that as a group has impeded the socio-economic and educational progress of their familes (or single moms as the case may be). The former kid is to be applauded for his hard work and if he/she does not quite make HYPS, there is always Brown, Cornell, Duke or any number of other great schools happy to take them. On the other hand given the statistics I distributed from the SAT re AA perfomance on standardized tests (in 2011, less than 1000 scoring 700s on CR or M (not even both, which generally is thought to be the minimum for serious consideration at elite schools) and less than 400 scoring 750 or above on CR or M (again not both, which is generally thought to be the starting threshold for unhooked applicants at HYPS). </p>
<p>In a world w/o any consideration based on race, you would have few AAs at any elite schools, lose the benefits of diversity, and make it less likely that even the very best, thoroughly qualified AAs would want to attend an elite school when they will typically be the only student of their color in the class room. Do you really want that?</p>
<p>PabloN,</p>
<p>Your point about the maid’s non-AA kid versus the wealthy investment bankers’ kid who happens to be AA is a good one and there are definitely costs to AA. In my view, however, those costs are not as great as many on this board assume because colleges do not base all, or even the vast majority, of their admissions decisions on academic merit. Indeed, it is a slippery slope even defining academic merit based in large part on standardized test scores (ie, which is better the 2200 kid (superscore after 3 attempts with tutoring), from an affluent school district, who is also top 10% with decent ECs but little leadership versus the 1900 AA (one test, no tutoring), from a mediocre school district, who is at the very top of her class and has shown leadership in student government – in my view, not a clear choice at all re academic potential). </p>
<p>The alternative is a world where few AAs will attend elite schools and the socio-economic and educational benefits of those schools will be lost to them, thus perpetuating a cycle started by discrimination over many decades.</p>
<p>Pizza:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Missinformation again. The Common Data Set does not provide SAT/ACT ranges by ethnicity/race. I tell you for sure that Harvard and Northwestern do not. Check it out. </p>
<p>[The</a> Office of the Provost | Common Data Set](<a href=“http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/common_data_set.php]The”>http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/common_data_set.php)</p>
<p>[Common</a> Data Set, University Enrollment - Northwestern University](<a href=“http://enrollment.northwestern.edu/common-data/]Common”>http://enrollment.northwestern.edu/common-data/)</p>
<p>Do you acknowledge now that they don’t?</p>
<p>NYB, you did not specify that you were looking for GPA/SAT by ethnicity or race.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not what you asked. You asked whether they provided SAT and ACT ranges. Sorry if I misread, but I didn’t see “cut by ethnicity / race” in your question. </p>
<p>But suppose they did. And you found that the average SAT scores of blacks at elite colleges was lower than the average SAT scores of Asians. Now what? Well, the pools of applicants likely have different ranges and averages, so EVEN IF ADMISSIONS WERE DONE BY RANDOMLY SELECTING EVERY NTH APPLICANT VIA COMPUTER, the average SAT scores of blacks might well be below those of Asians.</p>
<p>But so? Is it important that the average SAT of blacks at Harvard = the average SAT of Asians at Harvard? Is it important that the average SAT of people from the Plains States = the average SAT of people from Massachusetts at Harvard? It only matters if you think higher SAT = more meritorious. And clearly you do. Which is fine and your prerogative, but Harvard doesn’t (beyond a certain point, or only at a very blunt level). And even if you eliminated consideration of race altogether, Harvard STILL isn’t going to consider SAT the prime determiner of merit for admissions. If they did, they wouldn’t turn down all the 2400’s they do.</p>
<p>Some have inquired as to the impact of Fisher on private colleges. Here is the answer from the dean of Emory law school.</p>
<p>"Q: What might be the impact of such a ruling? </p>
<p>A: The impact will be extremely significant for public schools across the land and, perhaps, for private schools as well. Though private schools are not bound by the strictures of the United States Constitution, courts may adopt a similar interpretation of federal civil rights statutes, which do apply to private institutions. If the Court accepts the arguments of those challenging the University of Texas affirmative action plan, schools will scramble to achieve racial diversity by indirect means."</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s also code for, “I want there to be an objective, specific formula against which I can rant.” Seriously, those of you who want transparency, ask yourself if that’s what you want or if you wish the mission of various elite schools squared better with YOUR ideal for what education should accomplish. </p>
<p>I mean, it’s okay to disagree with these schools’ missions, and it’s okay to go down fighting for your own educational ideals. But please admit that your ideal is not an absolute. And please understand that if an elite school’s mission doesn’t square with your ideals, there ARE options, completely viable options, where you or your child could get a fine education. If “racking and stacking” SAT scores (to borrow Pizzagirl’s phrase) is your ideal, then maybe you or your kids should look for schools where that is the model. If you disagree with any “boosts” based on race, then go for schools where that doesn’t figure in. At least for now, private schools have rather wide discretion with regard to their “holistic” review of applicants. If federal rulings come down the pike that make race an illegal consideration for admissions, it would still be possible for elite schools to compose classes “holistically.” Ask yourself how comfortable you would be if that “holistic” review on occasion gave preference to (echoing Pizzagirl’s question above) someone whose quantifiable merit was relatively low but whose qualitative merit (even if YOU don’t see it) is relatively high.</p>
<p>I know there are plenty of people on this thread whose objection to race-based admission decisions is principled. I respect those objections, even if I am in favor of affirmative action myself. But I fear that if race were off the table, some people would find another “unfair” advantage to get worked up about.</p>
<p>You can’t argue that there is indisputible stigma because you personally find grounds to stigmatize. Or, think you do.</p>
<p>This is all getting a little like snooping in someone’s drawers.<br>
You want a hierarchical formula. We get it. You can list the things PG disagrees on. We get it. </p>
<p>Frankly, anyone is free to dig into the colleges’ webs sites (we’re focused on privates,) see the very things they tout in the students they are proud of, the programs they boast about, the sorts of engagement they get excited by. I think you’d be hard pressed to find, “Johnny was in Key Club and NHS, ran the prom dec committee and supported a walkathon.” The stakes are higher. And so, your kids should be applying/competing based on this recognition, not what works in their hs.</p>
<p>Read the admissions pages and you will further glean what they value. It is not what any one parent, kid or set of hundreds of parents think, that matters. It is what the college thinks, the adcoms who run through thousands of apps from kids “just like yours” every year, year in and year out, who go to their regions, dig into socio-economics and ed challenges or triumphs, meet GCs and often the kids. Adcoms who know far more about kids than anyone sitting at home or tallying junior’s accomplishments can pretend to know for another region, even for their own area. Face it, you don’t even know how your kid’s Common App stacks up against what hs friends put together. How his LoRs read. Only his stats and rigor. </p>
<p>Adcoms know makes their U tick and tick well. It’s one thing to discuss aspects. Another to expect them to tell you, A-Z. Who owes anyone an explanaton? What? So you can review your attitude about stigma?</p>
<p>I agree with the people who don’t think the selective private universities are very forthright about their admissions procedures. Here is a funny excerpt about Harvard legacy admissions from a book by Andrew Ferguson.</p>
<p>[Crazy</a> U: Scenes from the System](<a href=“http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2011/03/_there_is_a.html]Crazy”>http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2011/03/_there_is_a.html)</p>
<p>Bookmark at page 66.</p>
<p>Not much time to post, but in terms of solutions, I think it would be worthwhile to look at what historically black fraternities and sororities are doing in their communities. These are largely members who have long ago graduated college, but spend almost all of their resources on maximizing the educational outcomes of underrepresented groups.</p>
<p>Nice post, lookingforward, but it won’t stop those from being “offended” that the black kid from across town got in with lower SATs than their kid and deciding that that kid “didn’t deserve” to get in, without a CLUE what extracurriculars, letters of rec, essays that kid had. </p>
<p>“But I THINK SAT should be more important! Wah-wah!” Well, it’s not. Deal with it.</p>
<p>No one remotely believes that 30-35% of the entering Harvard freshman class are legacies. And I certainly hope that people aren’t confusing the horizontal - what % of the H freshman class are legacies - with the vertical - what % of H legacy applicants are admitted. Those two numbers are mixed up all the time on CC.</p>
<p>But AGAIN - suppose that indeed 30-35% of the entering H freshman class were legacies for the sake of argument. The implication being they didn’t really “deserve” it, they are stupider than the “real class” that should have been admitted but wasn’t, blah blah.</p>
<p>A huge part of college is the students you are with. So if these are the inferior / stupid students, why would you be so eager to go to Harvard in the first place? WHy wouldn’t you try to figure out where the “real smart” students got accepted and go there instead?</p>
<p>And don’t pretend that you don’t care about the smarts of fellow students - after all, you want smart study partners, from what I hear :-)</p>
<p>Let’s use the numbers!</p>
<p>With a simple search, you can easily find that, at least of May 2011, Harvard’s undergraduate population is comprised of approximately 12 to 13 percent legacies.</p>
<p>[Legacy</a> Admit Rate at 30 Percent | News | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies/]Legacy”>Legacy Admit Rate at 30 Percent | News | The Harvard Crimson)</p>
<p>Regarding the AMC12 (and whatever that other math test is):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My son participated in math competitions for two years and walked off with 7 ribbons, yet never took the AMC 12. We have a different set of math tests called CCML in place for our region (Chicago). Clearly the AMC 12 is far from universal.</p>
<p>At this point, Beliavsky, the selective private universities are are as forthright as they need to be. Maybe someday they will be required to be more forthright on some or many points. But, I mean, duh. So legacy status helps. There’s evidence that it may help more than a little. Do people not know this? Do people not know that, however fabulous they are or think they are, they have a better-than-decent shot of NOT getting admitted to a school that lets in single-digit percentages of its applicants? What does this have to do with the presenting issue of this thread? Or is the real issue not race at all, but what the top schools (however you want to define “top”) owes to people who think that the definition of academic worthiness begins and ends with them and/or their children?</p>
<p>But, legacy admits help everyone. How else will they build their endowments and pay for all that middle class FA they give out? </p>
<p>Do you guys not understand that the more you dilute the legacy pool, the less attractive the school becomes to people who would otherwise be open to the network? Connections can only work for the kid if the connection hasn’t lost his/her taste for the school.</p>