<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe she should get nerdy horn-rimmed glasses and a pocket protector? ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MIT has a pretty good endowment and financial aid. They don’t have legacy preference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not about these specific institutions. However, I posted a long list of studies yesterday. One of them controls for perceptions about people who received preferences for AA vs. people who did not receive.</p>
<p>LoremIpsum-- She does that sometimes for halloween and superhero parties. She calls it alter-ego girl. Most days though she is happy in her heels and dresses and lipstick. Who cares if they think she can’t think.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look I think MIT is fantastic. They have the coolest parties in the world at that school. Seriously. But, I don’t think MIT is a working model for the US university system. At least not at this point. I could be wrong, though. It does happen.</p>
<p>GA2012MOM</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are trying to get me on technicality here. </p>
<p>The same way that you expected me to know that your post refers to my previous post (about the fact that the CDS does not provide data by ethnicity/race), It is very reasonable to expect that Pizza should also know that we were talking about transparency in admissions, and that it is desirable that schools should be more transparent about how they evaluate the <em>quality</em> of applicants. If you think that this was not clear to Pizza, I would be very surprised, because she was involved in the transparency conversation between me, PabloN, Beliavsky, and Lookingforward about this issue.</p>
<p>nevermind, info already posted…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This whole thing about “transparency” with a holistic process is so silly.</p>
<p>How did you find the person you were attracted to / dated / married? Did you sit down with a list of candidates and methodically pore over their SAT’s, job prospects, parental education / income, give them extra points if they had a hair color you liked and dock them if their BMI was wrong? </p>
<p>Asking them to be transparent about a process that occurs IN THE MOMENT is just as silly as asking you to be transparent about whom you’re going to be attracted to when you go to that party or bar. You don’t know til you’re there. You don’t know that this candidate X might have been super-appealing, if it weren’t for candidate Y who is more appealing. You don’t know that this candidate over here would have been great except you just admitted three other tuba players from North Dakota and you need to cleanse the palate a bit. It’s all done in the moment. It’s self-evident to anyone who has ever hired or had a social life. We’re all really, really sorry that the elite colleges don’t have elaborate computer programs that rack and stack and plug and chug and give people 10 points for class president and 5 points for leader in the school play and 1000 points for the very best SAT’s ever, but such is life.</p>
<p>
Pizza:
Please do not try to make this about SAT only. The same way you tried to make things about finding SAT of potential dates. I know as well as you do that admissions should not be based on SAT only and that SAT is not everything.
What I am saying is that schools should be transparent about the entire admissions process. Someone defending non-transparency said that quality is difficult to quantify. Here is how I replied:
</p>
<p>NYB posted</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t that what PCHope covered in post #1041?</p>
<p>Why SHOULD universities be transparent, NotYourBusiness? Why is the information they have shared not satisfactory? Do you really think there’s a secret rubric, beyond what they’ve already divulged (CDS, websites, etc.), that the adcoms are using to make what ultimately are subjective judgments? </p>
<p>Pizzagirl’s analogy to hiring works totally for me. Have you never had to make a choice between two equally qualified candidates for a job, where one person had a little more this and the other had a little more that? Picking an entering class for a school where the vast majority of candidates are rejected must involve a lot of those decisions. What’s wrong with that? Or, more to the point, if you don’t like it, why not apply or encourage your kid to apply to a school that has a more predictable process? </p>
<p>I can imagine, as I said upthread, a scenario in which private universities that benefit from federal programs could be held to account regarding race as a factor in admissions. We shall see. But when it comes to making admission decisions NOW at the elite privates, they’re sharing plenty. If you don’t like the results or the methods, why “should” that matter to an elite school’s adcom?</p>
<p>They define quality via looking at the hs record (and considering it within the context of the offerings / rigor of the school), SAT and other test scores, essays, teacher / other recommendations, volunteer and / or paid work, other evidence of leadership, evidence of character, creativity, as well as taking into account (which is not the same as quota-ing for) where live, athletic status, legacy status, demonstrated interest, perceived socioeconomic status, and race. </p>
<p>Now, pretend that race has been taken off the table. OK, now repeat that paragraph but take out race. Is that sufficiently transparent? Because that’s all the answer you’re ever going to get. </p>
<p>Why you don’t think it’s transparent is beyond me. Transparent does not equate to “is predictable in advance,” which is what you want. An admissions system can’t be predicted in advance - especially at elite universities which have gazillions of students knocking at the door - unless it’s quantifiable and a computer could spit out who gets in and who doesn’t. </p>
<p>Why should Harvard have to justify its admissions policies to you? You know, if they decided tomorrow they were going to admit every legacy who applied with a 1600+ or more SAT, or only varsity athletes, or no more internationals, or only people who were full-pay – they’d have every right to. I might not LIKE it, but that’s immaterial. Harvard’s self-interest is Harvard, not pleasing me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My lawyer friends tell me this isn’t true. The Court of Appeals held that because Fisher had no intention of re-applying to the University of Texas, she wouldn’t be entitled to injunctive relief even if she won on the merits (but she lost at both the trial court and appellate court level). Instead, she’d only be entitled to money damages. But in oral argument before the Supreme Court, Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor pointed out that the only money damages Fisher claimed was a refund of her application fee. They suggested the case might be moot, i.e., there’s no continuing controversy here. Justice Scalia disagreed, saying the “harm of racial discrimination,” if established, was sufficient to allow the case to proceed. But the Supreme Court hasn’t “ruled anything out.” The Justices expressed a range of personal views in the questioning at oral argument, but the Court as a whole has ruled on anything, one way or the other. </p>
<p>Many outcomes are possible. They might find the plaintiffs lack standing because they can’t show a concrete injury to themselves. They might find the case is moot because they’re asking the Court to rule on something it’s too late to correct (after all, they’re no longer trying to get into the University of Texas). They might rule the plaintiffs were harmed by an unlawful act by the University, but only to the extent of the value of their application fees. They might rule that, even if the plaintiffs were harmed, there was no legal wrong. Or they might go whole hog and throw out the University of Texas’ race-based admissions criteria, which might or might not affect other uses of race by other public universities. </p>
<p>Whether the Supreme Court would issue such a sweeping ruling that it would affect admissions criteria at private institutions is much more doubtful, however. To get there, the Court would essentially need to rule that private universities are “state actors,” i.e., that they have become arms of the government. I don’t think the Court wants to go there, nor can it go there in the Fisher case because that issue is not before it. So whatever the Court decides is more likely to affect public than private universities, and it may or may not affect all publics.</p>
<p>absweetmarie</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is not a question of what a single person thinks. This is a very serious issues that relates to core aspects of the US Federal Law. As you said, we shall see.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl,</p>
<p>I applaud your perserverance. Unfortunately, some will never be happy with the process.</p>
<p>Maybe I think differently than most. My dream for my children is that they get a great education and make enough money to be comfortable. This does not mean driving a BMW, Mercedes, Audi etc. or living in the most prestigious town. More important, may they be healthy and happy. </p>
<p>Materialism has had such a negative impact on our society its just sad. It seems many of the ccers are concerned with thier child getting into the best college (HYPSM) so they get the best job,for what? Amassing the most material possessions.</p>
<p>Investment Banking the end all and be all to eternal happiness.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl,</p>
<p>Actually the process for Ivy colleges is more formulaic than you think. There is an Ivy Academic Index that looks primarily at class rank and SATs/ACTs and gives students a certain overall score. The Ivy Coach blog has had detailed discussions about this index. Surprisingly (at least to me) the single biggest factor in the index is class rank and there are significant variations in points even between val and sal status and big drop offs in points once you get past the top 5 or 6 in a class. Based on the index, val status can count for more than 100 SAT points over top 5% status. </p>
<p>This index started out primarily for athletes, but has since expanded into admissions decisions as well. Elite college counselors are familiar with it and base admissions advice on it. This index of course is not the end all/be all and there is other holistic review done of candidates, even unhooked ones. But there is a fairly tight band in the index for the bottom tier of the accepted unhooked candidates. </p>
<p>Holistic is a slippery word. The Ivies clearly use a holistic analysis but this does not mean they pore over every application for hours trying to compare the ballet dancer with the class president and then seeing which one strikes their fancy the most. Nor does it mean that the 1800 SAT kid with an amazing story has the same chance as the 2300 SAT kid. Holistic simply means that other factors are taken into consideration beyond grades and test scores. Yet, the Ivies receive so many high GPA/SAT applicants that they have the luxury of basing the admit decision on factors other than GPA/SAT. GPA/SAT gets the unhooked applicant into the game at these schools, but does not ensure a winning hand.</p>
<p>bcclintock</p>
<p>Most commentators (see SCOTUS blog) do not believe that the Supreme Court will decide Fisher based on standing. Also, whether the court finds no standing in Fisher has nothing to do with the merits of the “no damages” argument for AA. It will depend on Fisher’s unique circumstances (ie, already graduating from LSU, among others).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That surprises me too, considering that our school does not rank and numerous kids get into the Ivies every year.</p>
<p>The other thing that surprises me is that people will apparently pay $14,000 for a two-day workshop to prepare them for elite-college admissions (per the Ivy Coach blog).</p>
<p>Muck, AI is prmarily for athletes, I do not see it used in UG. Holistic is not about hours spent poring over, no. Each app gets roughly 12-15-20 minutes. Kids have a fast chance to make their impressions. But, there are several reviewers who will read each kid’s app. We do not use anything even close to a 100 point scale, at all. And, not all hs rank, the number diminishes every year.</p>
<p>Beware the college entrance experts. They make their money purporting to “know.”</p>
<p>Btw, from what I hear, 14k is cheap.</p>
<p>Good point, Bclintok, but I think you are missing something here.</p>
<p>The point of the argument is not whether Fisher is entitled to reparations, nor the monetary value of those reparations. The point of the argument was whether AA practiced by U.Texas can cause people to “suffer damage”. Maybe it is too late for Fisher, but there are other students applying to U.Texas right now at this moment. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the argument was in the context that, at the time of my post, most (if not all) of the proponents of this thread were unwilling to concede that AA imposed costs on society. I had to face a Frankenstorm of cheap shot arguments trying to dismiss my claims that it does. I made a reference to the Texas case. I also made a reference to the Grutter case, which in its decision makes it very clear that non color-blind admissions practices are a tradeoff, and because of that, institutions should strive to find color-blind methods, and that color-aware practices should be limited in time.</p>
<p>I also posted a quote from the article “Persuasion and Distrust: A Comment on the Affirmative Action Debate” by Kennedy, Randall, 99 Harv. L. Rev. 1327 (1985-1986)</p>
<p>" “Affirmative action,” “preferential treatment,” and “affirmative discrimination” are used as synonyms. At the level of semantics, “affirmative action”. avoids the problem of preference that is inescapable if one uses the term “preferential treatment.” It also avoids the problem of discrimination made salient by the term “affirmative discrimination.” On all too many occasions, however, proponents of affirmative action have hurt their own cause by evading the difficulties posed and costs incurred by the policy they advance. These difficulties and costs will not disappear behind euphemistic terminology. To properly convince the public that these costs are worth shouldering, proponents of affirmative action will have to grapple straightforwardly with them - a process which involves, at the least, conceding their existence. " </p>
<p>After all of this finally some of you agreed to recognize that AA does have costs… And even unintended consequences to the AA beneficiaries.</p>
<p>I realize that even in face of all of my arguments, you still may think that AA is the best policy for our educational system. It is fine. It is your prerogative to think like that. </p>
<p>However, I hope you appreciate that I provided cogent and backed-by-facts arguments. I did this even when posting rational arguments were received by “not ethical”, “not decent”, “crying for not being admitted”, etc. </p>
<p>I also hope that the same way you perhaps expect me to acknowledge and embrace the positive sides of AA, I expect readers to look at the costs and negative consequences of AA.</p>
<p>Lastly, I think it will be hard for you to see and recognize this. But although my posts can be seen as “cold” by you, they were much more based on facts and on rational arguments than those of some other posters here, who tried to disprove my points by choosing to distort my arguments instead of by providing a cogent rebuttal. Incidentally, what you just did was great: you looked at my argument; talked to your friend lawyer; argued back with a cogent response… You did not argue back with something such as “cry me a river your Harvard reject who think you are owed a seat that was not yours to begin with because they have enough 2400 SAT nerdy students who are all the same and only date people with SAT on their heads”. Maybe you thought about this, but you didn’t say it 
So thanks!</p>
<p>Pablo, I agree with your sentiments for the most part. But I don’t think anyone is suggesting that people who want “transparency” have a hidden agenda. </p>
<p>I do think it’s reasonable to assume that colleges are acting in good faith. If you don’t believe some are, it is your choice to not apply to those schools. And bringing out the “my tax dollars support private institutions and thus I deserve to know everything” argument is the start of a slippery slope, in my opinion. Are you entitled to know what the CIA is doing? Or read classified briefings from the Pentagon? Your tax dollars pay for those too, in some small way. Contributing in some infinitesimal and indirect way to an institution does not give you the right to demand information about it as a consumer. Colleges report plenty of data. It is all you are going to get.</p>
<p>The real issue here–and by “here” I mean “on College Confidential”–is that people are OBSESSED with the Ivy League and other “elite” schools. I did a rough tally of the number of threads started on Ivy League schools and the total was about 100,000. The number of POSTS was about 1.3 million. The overwhelming majority of people who attend universities are not attending these institutions. There are many, many great options out there–and not just for URMs. In my opinion the tension around the AA subject would be defused substantially if people with smart kids realized that they could be successful almost anywhere, regardless of where they fall on the prestige scale.</p>