<p>I enjoy reading your posts and think you often make really good points. But I think your emphasis on this one is mistaken. </p>
<p>“Some of you are unbelievable. You complain about wanting transparency - and then when there are actual quotes from MIT admissions people and Harvard admissions people saying, “Stats are important, but we don’t sweat small differences and above a certain level, it’s all pretty much the same,” you don’t buy it.”</p>
<p>The key here is “we don’t sweat small differences and above a certain level” (ie for unhooked applicants there is a threshold of expected performance before you get a detailed holistic review). Harvard and MIT have two of the highest median SATs in the country and so that certain level probably means Harvard won’t select the dull 2380 over the interesting 2290. But the certain level is still awfully high and based on rank and test scores. Indeed, Harvard’s AI is anything like Princeton’s median of 228 (which means the median for the unhooked is almost certainly higher than this), the unhooked have to be nearly perfect just to get in the ball game for the holistic review absent something amazing akin to the chance of getting struck by lightening. </p>
<p>As for the admissions officers, they do not outright lie, but they couch things in ways that can be subject to multiple interpretations because they have a vested interest in getting as many applicants as possible for their school as a mark of prestige and due to the rankings. For example, the statement that grades/tests are not the primary factor in admissions. Well, technically this is true because once you have those extraordinary grades/test scores they then base the admissions decision on holistic factors. But if you do not meet that high threshold you have virtually no chance of admission. </p>
<p>Do agree though that it is hard to be transparent when the standards vary among applicants and subjective judgments of admissions officers come into play. But I do think, they could highlight for parents and students that the very good student (ie, top 5%, 2200 on SAT, 8 APs, unhooked) has virtually no chance of admission. But then that might dampen applications.</p>
<p>Phil, how would you know? I mean, that’s at the heart of this thread- what people think they know versus really do. No offense intended. Many find that post golden, for it’s wry slam.</p>
<p>That’s NM’s point. All this dithering about what it really takes when 92% will be let down. Kids asking other kids for chances and advice.</p>
<p>At least Bclintok recognizes when one is splitting hairs and when one is making a completely wrong statement.</p>
<p>Example of a wrong statement: Grutter is only about a Law School. Another example of wrong statement: the Fisher case is all about making sure that all colleges will use Standard Tests as the only basis for admission.</p>
<p>Lie is too strong a word, but shading by the MIT admissions officer, yes I do believe that. You are right there is some aspect of lopsidedness at MIT,. BUT in 2011 CR was still between 680 - 780 and so a median of 730, which is not bad and generally medians the minimum unhookeds should shoot for to have a decent chance. For math, 740 to 800. Thus, median SAT there is 1500 including those with hooks. It is also quite likely that those w/o hooks that are below 700 on CR are close to or at 800 on M and thus way over 1400. Do you really think MIT has more than a handful of unhooked applicants at 1400. I don’t.</p>
<p>NYB, it doesn’t matter. “Some” posters are now throwing as much as they can at the wall, hoping something will stick.<br>
I did not say Fisher is about St Tests as the only basis.<br>
And my repeated point, not too complicated, was that these cases one refers to were brought to focus on a public and a public law. Whether or not their impact spills over to privates is tbd. I will bet against it, in the next 15 years.</p>
<p>What’s up? Really? I have said I believe publics should be scrutinized, to ensure their constituencies needs are being met.</p>
<p>@NYB- I applaud those who study hard. I am also in favor of being anti social at times, in order to get to the goal of graduating with a certain rank/gpa/sat scores etc. Some may say that I am old fashioned, but I think the younger generation is too preoccupied with fun and tomfoolery. Dating, romance will come. I tell my dd14 (who is not allowed to date) that she has enough time for boys AFTER she hits “send” on the common app next year!!..She will have enough time for that the rest of her life. But for now, she needs to focus on the 3 R’s. Reading Riting and Rithmatic!! and of course, science too!</p>
<p>I don’t think they are prevaricating here. I think the thing is that the other factors they do care about correlate well with very high SAT scores. </p>
<p>I agree that in general, elite admins do phrase their language so that just about anybody thinks they have a chance. I’m sure generating a high volume of applicants has as much to do with this as finding the “diamond in the rough.”</p>
<p>How is that post inaccurate? Let me count the ways.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False. Though Harvard’s acceptance rate is 7%, acceptance is not some lottery where every person this year is given a spin on a roulette and has a 7% chance of getting lucky. Every person’s chance of getting into Harvard is different. The kid with a 2400 SAT, perfect GPA and good ECs has a better chance of getting in (better than 7% chance) than a kid with a 1000 SAT, period. For example.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bull. Look at any Harvard results thread and you’ll see that the acceptance rate of applying CCers is higher than 7%, let alone 1 in 100. Most of those who are accepted posted a chance thread and/or had CCers (or just other people, in general, for goodness sake) read their essays.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This incorrectly implies that pursuing one’s passion is not what will happen if someone has an actual understanding of what will impress Harvard.</p>
<p>Great post. And I agree with a lot of what you say here.</p>
<p>I know it was not you that said this (about the SAT). But the issue is that my post, which you referenced, was trying to correct the SAT post by NewHope. </p>
<p>Regarding your perspective that the Texas decision will not impact privates. I am asking on a pure intellectual basis here (white flag anyone!?) Why do you think this? My best guess is that if there is any it impact to Public institutions, it will immediately impact Private Institutions. I do not see this intermediate decision (Public only). I see that it will be something akin to either impact to no institution, or impact to most institutions (Public and Private).</p>
<p>The Ivies will not be as transparent as I would like, but CC could set up a system that asks high school seniors for their data and later their acceptances and rejections and then create probability calculators for various schools. Such calculators would be more informative than the “chance” threads.</p>
<p>^^^
Isn’t that basically what Parchemnt does, not to mention several other similar websites I can’t remember, as well as your own school Naviance system?</p>
<p>As a brief aside, our local high school used to publish extremely complete accpetance data for the senior class. THey would assign each student a number, then print a massive spreadsheet of everywhere they applied, what the result was, along with all test scores, grades, courses taken, honors AP and colllege courses, and even ECs. It was extremely interesting and since it was public I posted links on here.</p>
<p>Good Lord, what a mistake.</p>
<p>People began dissecting it to pieces. THere are even a couple meta studies about the data published on the web. Which is fine I suppose. It was public data after all.</p>
<p>THe real problem was the content of the comments -
"How did #XXX get in there? Must have been a legacy or URM. " “I can’t believe somebody with those test scores got into Yale” Some pretty nasty stuff considering the actual kids might actually have been reading this website. </p>
<p>Well, it looks like the counseling office wised up. No data from this year so far. And if they do post some, no more links from me. People can find it themselves.</p>
<p>Not sure if you guys read the book THE GATEKEEPERS. It chronicles the admissions process of Wesleyan U back in 1999. One of the adcoms back then was Rafael Figeroua. </p>
<p>The article below was written by R. Figeroua… he has since moved on to a school in New Mexico. </p>
<p>“As I said above, I can clearly see by your language that you do not understand Grutter. You also do not understand Fisher. These cases are not about SAT scores. These cases are about whether the benefit of diversity is sufficient enough (weights more) than the cost of not observing the constitutional principle of Equal Protection.”</p>
<p>Unbelievable. Do you not see the other side of your very argument?
“These cases are about whether the benefit of (eliminating) diversity is sufficient enough (weights more) than the cost of not observing the constitutional principal of Equal Protection.” </p>
<p>What kind of SCOTUS would accept eliminating URMs from Tier 1 universities? What does Equal Protection mean if it’s used to keep one group or another from access? What Court would accept the argument “URMs are under-represented already, but we advocate eliminating them entirely from campus’ in order to grant them Equality?” The delusion only works if one believes that standardized tests are the be all and end all in determining merit. Does that qualify as Equal Protection? Hardly.</p>
<p>I will try one more time in a very simple way:</p>
<p>The U.S. system of laws prefer not to discriminate based on race/ethnicity. Neither to favor, nor to harm, because of the Equal Protection clause. Grutter passed not because justices thought “let us allow AA, so that now group X has equal opportunity as group Y to be accepted at the Ivies, and so now they are equal there” [my words]. Grutter passed because justices were convinced that diversity on campus benefits all students of that institution to a significant extent, a benefit that was compelling enough to allow discrimination based on race/ethnicity, and to say that this discrimination does not violates the Equal Protection clause.</p>
<p>Again, Grutter does not say anything about prohibiting or mandating SAT scores.</p>
<p>To other folks here, in particular someone who have been advocating for AA (Pizzagril, Poetgril, Lookingforward,…) and has more “credibility” on this issue. I know we may have had divergences in the past, but perhaps you could chip in here and deny/corroborate/amend what I just said. I think it is beneficial to everyone if we all understand what Grutter really is.</p>
<p>The SCOTUS (and I) recognize there is value in having Diversity. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the SCOTUS ruled that there was a compelling state interest to ensure a “critical mass” of students from minority groups, to “ensure that these minority students do not feel isolated or like spokespersons for their race; to provide adequate opportunities for the type of interaction upon which the educational benefits of diversity depend; and to challenge all students to think critically and reexamine stereotypes.”</p>
<p>The big contention of Fisher is that Grutter is faulty because it does not what define what constitutes a “critical mass”:</p>
and Rithmatic!!