<p>And the thing is - those Ivies really have you over a barrel, since you HAVE to consider them in your college search for your kid! It’s practically a law! So, really, since they’re forcing you to apply there, they owe you an explanation.</p>
<p>Where’ve you been, texaspg? Nice to hear from you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It probably matters more before they arrive at MIT. I never rarely heard anyone talk about AA there, but I see threads on gender AA all the time on the cc mit forum. They are not necessarily for or against AA, but a lot of posts assume a large boost.</p>
<p>I have tried to read through most of this thread. If you get past the rancor, it has got me thinking on this issue. Thanks for that. I have attached a link from Time. Nothing really new here but it concisely summarizes the mismatch effect argument. It also has links to much of the sources cited in this thread. I was most struck by the Amicus brief submitted by three members of the US Commission on Human Rights in support of the Petitioner. It is under the first here at the bottom of the link. </p>
<p>For me, AA always seemed to be over blown on both sides. It didnt help URMs as much as advocated and didnt hurt non-URMs as much as complained. On balance it was right or at least not bad for our society as a whole. And I always thought it was a good thing for any campus to advocate diversity. We can learn much from people in different circumstances or cultures from that which we were raised.</p>
<p>But after reading this thread, the Time article and the brief, the phrase primun non nocere first do no harm- keeps coming back to me. Does AA work for the individual URM who is benefited from this policy? This troubles me.</p>
<p>Carry on-rancor an all.</p>
<p>[How</a> Affirmative Action Backfires at Universities | TIME.com](<a href=“http://ideas.time.com/2012/02/28/how-affirmative-action-backfires/]How”>Heather Mac Donald: How Affirmative Action Backfires | TIME.com)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good grief, you’d think a bunch of often-nerdy guys would WANT affirmative action or at least a boost for smart females to maintain something reasonably close to a 50/50 balance. Smart females may bring something to the MIT experience even if their SAT scores are (horrors) lower on average :-)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certainly, as one quoted study demonstrated.</p>
<p>Time Magazine.
Google Heather Mac Donald. Get to know her and her perspective.</p>
<p>PG re your post 1125. What’s the MIT name for the bus from Wellesley?</p>
<p>But so what if many people do assume a large boost, collegealum314? What if the boost is less than some people think and more than others think? Please tell me why MIT “should” provide data to quell the speculation. Maybe people should go about their business and worry about matters over which they have some control. But, you know, I suppose people could petition their legislators and encourage them to make it a law that institutions that benefit from federal programs MUST report these data. Do you really see that happening? And given the more likely scenario that private universities will continue to have discretion regarding the data they share, do you really think if you were in a position of leadership at MIT that you would consider this data-sharing effort the BEST use of whatever time and effort it would require?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>post #2 on the thread is a sexist one, and YOU are the one commenting on the rancor? Nice.</p>
<p>Understand re Heather. Read the brief and consider the consider the 3 advocates.</p>
<p>I know what the nickname is, jusdafacts. What does that have to do with anything?</p>
<p>1130 Your right. I apoligize. I was trying to be funny. No excuse.</p>
<p>Same for you pg.</p>
<p>Lookingfoward and Philovitist,</p>
<p>My last-email on the academic index (promise) as I brought it up only to show generally that the landscape at HYPS etc would be virtually bereft of AAs without at least some affirmative action. </p>
<p>Philovitist, </p>
<p>The academic index now does take into account SAT subject scores as well as the regular SAT per a variety of calculators and explanations of it on the web.</p>
<p>Lookingforward,</p>
<p>I agree that the academic index is not the end all or be all of admissions, but we agree that it is calculated at a minimum for each accepted applicant at an Ivy to get the numbers required (called the campus academic index) to calculate the required standard deviation for athletes. </p>
<p>Also, although I have no hard facts on this, I would be extremely surprised if each Ivy calculated AI after admisisons as opposed to during the application process. It would be easy to calculate at the application stage and a duplicative waste to do it later and require admissions to drag out all of the accepted student data a second time. In addition, to hit the standard deviation for athletes, you probably need to have some idea of the past four years’ campus index, the other sports AI is not and just a year out making more likely the need to have an idea of here the campus AI stands during the process… </p>
<p>I think people are fooling themselves if they do not think this index provides an insight into Ivy admissions. A high AI certainly does not guarantee admissions at any Ivy, but the higher the AI the more likely the admissions. </p>
<p>Just by way of example, according to the Daily Princetonian, in 2011 the median campus AI at Princeton was 228 (up from about 220 10-15 years ago whent the Ivies received less applicants). I was unable to find recent AI numbers for the other Ivies, but did find out numbers from10-15 ago indicating AI for HYP of around 220, for Dartmouth, Brown, and Penn of about 216 and for Cornell and Columbia (maybe more holistic given loads of international students there, among other factors, and/or the most likely to have changed places with other Ivies and gone up due to Columbia’s recent surge up the rankings) of about 210. </p>
<p>228 out of 240, per the AI calcuiators, basically means that the valedictorian at a school with a class of 500 needs to get at least straight 750s on SAT and SAT subject tests to hit 228. For a top 2% student , straight 770s does not hit 228. </p>
<p>What this means is that regardless of the wholistic characteristics of the Ivies, the rank/SAT numbers are still exceedingly important and that the vast majority of the time the holisitic part of the analysis is used most closely to pick among already top applicants. There are of course exceptions to this, and each year on CC you hear from a 650 SAT student who got into Brown etc. But the odds are clearly against unhooked applicants without outstanding AIs.</p>
<p>Also, that Princeton’s campus AI has gone up 8 points in 10-15 years suggests MORE not less reliance on numbers. This would be consistent with the huge influx of applications at the Ivies since the common app and the fact that the number of admissions officers there has not increased commensurately.</p>
<p>"Good grief, you’d think a bunch of often-nerdy guys would WANT affirmative action or at least a boost for smart females to maintain something reasonably close to a 50/50 balance. Smart females may bring something to the MIT experience even if their SAT scores are (horrors) lower on average 
"</p>
<p>Based on what I know for some of the females who got into MIT, they are unusually below par. I noticed many of them may not have perfect scores and missed a question or two on their SATs. What will MIT do with those 2300+ girls when all the boys have 2200? may be they need the girls to interpret for boys with perfect 800 math/science scores but lacking in English?</p>
<p>It’s not that it’s funny or not funny (actually I do think the name is funny and I don’t get all worked up over it) - it’s just not relevant to anything. Young men like the company of young women and vice versa; that’s hardly breaking news. I even hear some people choose study partners based on physical attractiveness and not SAT scores, though I need more data to back that up.</p>
<p>Re: Ivy League Academic Index</p>
<p>The claimed index is highly class-rank-based. But how does the match up to Harvard listing class rank as “not considered” in freshman admission: [Harvard</a> College Admissions Information - CollegeData College Profile](<a href=“http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=444]Harvard”>http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=444)</p>
<p>
Where did you find this? Do you have a link? I’m surprised all these schools give out all this information.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What makes you think there is a big disparity in performance between the incoming boys and girls at MIT? </p>
<p>I don’t get where you and others are going with this.</p>
<p>It seems like you, PG, and others assume that the male-female ratio would be very lopsided without AA. On what do you base this assumption? Perhaps you guys know more about this school.</p>