<p>Neither of My Ds applied to MIT but they did apply to schools with similar admissions policies, so I will comment. I wish that the super-selective schools would be more upfront about what they are looking for. Had they been neither of my Ds would have applied to the super-selective. Both were NMFs with high GPAs, the younger was SB president and extremely active in several organizations, drama and Orchestra (1st chair in her instrument), but neither was “hooked” in the sense of being URM, legacy or winning a state contest in her EC and the SB president was at a school that was unknown to the super-selective schools (had no track record). I think that for this category of student the chance of rejection is greater than the stated 87% and that encouraging the white or asian unhooked BWRK to apply is only a step upward from advertising for the lottery. Some people who buy lottery tickets do win, so it’s not impossible.</p>
<p>Higherlead…the “other credentials” I meant, were NOT race. I don’t see race as a “credential.” I see an applicant, however, as being more than the sum of some test scores. I understand what elite colleges are looking for but given the low admit rate, you might have those things and still not get in. But if you have what it takes, you are a viable candidate and take your chances. Know going into it that the odds are still slim. </p>
<p>Mardad, I don’t think you have to have a hook of URM, legacy or state winner or be from a known high school to get into an elite college. I don’t think my kid was hooked and she got into several elite colleges. In fact, she was the epitome of a BWRK. She even wrote an essay on her well roundedness. It is possible to get in. She got into more than one. But she also knew that it was just as likely to not get in. She took her chances. If she didnt get in, she didn’t take it personally and surely didn’t think there was anything unfair about it. We felt we knew what the colleges were looking for and didn’t feel that they were not upfront. But the odds were what they were. It goes with the territory of very selective college admissions. We did think her odds were better than winning the lottery though, LOL.</p>
<p>However, I see a LOT of families with very unrealistic expectations when it comes to creating a college list and assessing their odds. ADDED to that, is the fact that even if you have what it takes, the odds are still slim at low admit rate schools.</p>
<p>I recall from the U. Michigan affirmative action case that for certain GPA/SAT combos for which the black admit rate was 100%, the white admit rate was 8%.</p>
<p>Re: the math in post 1600
I think that the math will show that the “corrosive” effects of AA will not be felt at the super-selective schools but at schools that are just not quite as selective. A qualified AA student applying to an Ivy may have a one-in-three chance of getting in while a qualified white or asian may have a one-in-nine. The admitted students, URM and nonURM alike, are qualified and capable of doing the work with success. The rejected students can be thought of being returned to the applicant pool which now has an altered ethnic-qualification mix. The process is then repeated by the almost super-selective colleges again altering the mix, but again all students admitted are qualified. Then it is repeated by the next most selective layer of colleges. At some point we will reach a group of colleges whose admissions committees will face an applicant pool with a disparity in talent between the ethnic groups applying. These committees will face the choice between having a less diverse student body and having a diversity of academic ability across their student body.
In summary HYPMS will not suffer in the quality of their student body. The rejected students who were qualified to go to HYPMS will go on to great colleges, so the zero sum effect will not really adversely affect them. There will however be some very good colleges that will have rather homogeneous student bodies.</p>
<p>Soozievt, I agree that the odds of getting into the super-selective are better than the lottery, but you do see the comparison. I know people who have won some money in the lottery although not the big money, and we all remember Andison’s experience in the opposite direction. I’m just saying that in retrospect, after reading alot of the posts here and seeing who got into where locally, I would have told my daughter that she had a one-in-twenty chance instead of a one-in-five.</p>
<p>“the “other credentials” I meant, were NOT race. I don’t see race as a “credential.” I see an applicant, however, as being more than the sum of some test scores.”</p>
<p>You don’t but the schools do. It would be possible to construct a “holistic” system that took into account all the factors that are taken into account now in addition to grades - ECs, recommendations, even economic circumstances, hardship, etc. without expressly awarding a bonus for race, so that the economically disadvantaged Vietnamese student would have an equal chance of getting in as an economically disadvantaged black student. Personally I wouldn’t object to such a system (except to the extent that it was used as a disguised method of race discrimination by using factors that are essentially a proxy for race - this is what the U. Mich. administration seems to be intent on doing now that the Mich. voters have banned explicit race preference ). BUT this is not the system we have now, because MIT (and every other top school) knows that if it had such a system that did NOT take race explicitly into account as a factor in and of itself, they would never be able to enroll their target URM numbers. </p>
<p>You have to understand that the “holistic” system is used as window dressing to disguise this system of explicit race preference. You could strip away the race preference and keep the “holistic” approach (or vice versa except for the fact that the Supreme Court banned this approach - U. Mich., with tens thousands of applications to screen, thought that they could save a lot of work by awarding every black kid extra points on his academic index just for being black but the SC said, no, no we want you to hide behind a holistic charade). But I think you would find that since the race preference is the driving force of the entire holistic system (and has been since the beginning, except in the old days it was the driver in reverse, to keep OUT Jews) that once you took away that driving force, suddenly the desire to put all that energy into sorting out applicants “holistically” would disappear - the tremendous effort involved is only justifiable if you can achieve some larger goal such as keeping some race group in or out or achieving gender balance, etc. You wouldn’t have to get rid of holistic admissions once you removed race as an explicit factor (e.g this is currently the situation in state schools in Mich., Calif. and probably more states soon) if you really felt attached to it, but almost no other country has such a system because no other country has America’s unique racial and ethnic problems. We are so used to dealing with “holistic” admissions that we think that it is the most sensible admissions system, that it is the “natural” admissions system that was devised by wise men as the best and most sensible way of assembling a class, but once you go back and realize that it was conceived from day 1 as an ignoble scheme for hidden racial screening, suddenly it doesn’t sound so appetizing, at least to me.</p>
<p>Mardad - you are basically right about the math of this - the “top” Ivies and MIT get the pick of the litter so that the black white SAT gap is only around 50 or 60 pts/subtest at those schools - by the time you get to the “lower” Ivies (Columbia, Dartmouth) the gap is around 100 pts/ subtest and by the time to get to say U. VA or Rice the gap is greater still. Back in 94 the JBHE article I sited earlier gave the following table for the black white gap: (I’m giving selected entries because I don’t feel like typing the whole table)</p>
<p>Harvard 95 (pts out of 1600)
MIT 122
Columbia 182
Dartmouth 218
U Va 246
Rice 271
Berkeley (this is before they banned AA) 288!</p>
<p>“so the zero sum effect will not really adversely affect them.”</p>
<p>It won’t afect them other than they won’t get in. Hmm… Why do I have prolems wih this sort of reasoning? Isn’t the whole point to get in?</p>
<p>“I think that the math will show that the “corrosive” effects of AA will not be felt at the super-selective schools”</p>
<p>To be perfectly honest I don’t care what the schools feel. I care about how the applicants feel. To e perfectly honest I don’t even think the schools have feelings. I mean after all they are nothing but legal charters when all is said and done.</p>
<p>What determines qualified? Show me one school that openly states what their minimal qualifications are. Anyody accepted is by definition qualified. If MIT accepted Paris Hilton she would by virtue of the fact that she was accepted be qualified. The term qualified in this context is meaningless.</p>
<p>BTW, one interesting corollary or side effect of this is that you can use the score gap as a crude ranking system - the “most desirable” school will have the smallest gap.</p>
<p>There is a continuum of talent, ability, and accomplishment. I think soozievt hasn’t seen people who are more talented than your average valedictorian with 1500/1600 SAT scores, so he/she thinks they are all indistinguishable (i.e., they all have “the smarts” to succeed.) I went to a high school where the average SAT score was 1400. And while it’s true you couldn’t distinguish the people who were the smartest strictly on their SAT scores or whether they got straight “A’s” vs. 1 or 2 “B”'s, there were people that were obviously more qualified than others. And this was clear based on their recommendations (i.e., performance in class beyond getting the “A”) and academic competitions. If you want to find out who was the deep thinker in the class, then you just read the recommendations. Also, sometimes small differences in GPA were, in fact, revealing–there were people who couldn’t handle the theoretical version of multi-variable calculus or group theory.</p>
<p>I fundamentally object to the fact that once you get to the neighborhood of say 1500 SAT and ~4.0 GPA that you can’t or shouldn’t figure out who is smarter. Just throwing up your hands and saying, “you’re all qualified” is a pretty nonsensical system. I also find that people often decide where the meaningful cut-off is based on their own performance. At MIT, I knew some people who thought the guys who were getting 5.0 GPAs were all freaks, yet the guys getting 4.0 GPAs were lazy idiots. Naturally, their own level or performance was ideal–both above and below it was bad. If someone gets 1450 on the SAT, then they decide there is no difference in intelligence between that and 1550. </p>
<p>I also have a problem with the idea that non-mathematical fields shouldn’t highly value mathematical ability. Some of the same guys that made ARML and were acing group theory are famous in medicine today. (Incidentally, these guys didn’t do that great in HYP admissions because they didn’t have time or the inclination to accumulate fake “leadership” activities like starting clubs, doing community service in 3rd world countries, etc.) Doctors without Borders is great, but my experience is that most 17-year-olds spend their summer in Africa in order to get into college. Almost all of them are on Wall Street or practicing medicine in the suburbs today, not serving the underpriveleged…Maybe if the ivies selected more for intellect, then we wouldn’t have so many corrupt and stupid people in high positions in government.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, we might have lots more unemployed pure math or theoretical physics majors. There are reasons why the most highly gifted are not to be found in government or business. One of them is their attraction for research. Nice if you can get a job, but many can’t.</p>
<p>collegealum…you miss my point. It is not that I haven’t seen geniuses smarter than 1500/1600 scores…My point isn’t to find kids who are “smarter”. I never meant that a 1450 and a 1550 were indistinguishable but simply both are smart and smart enough for entrance into an elite college. Precisely, smart kids are distinguishable and it is when you go beyond the SATs, that you find out what distinguishes one person from the other. I was saying that smart matters, but there is more to admissions than simply intellect. I am not talking about finding out who is “smarter.” I was saying that at a certain level of intellectual ability, elite colleges will consider you and then also look at other qualities that set you apart. That is why someone whose SATs are slightly lower than another person’s could conceivably be a more attractive candidate. Colleges are not ONLY trying to find the smartest kids on the pile. They want smart kids, yes. They don’t want an attribute INSTEAD of intellectual ability, but in addition to it. I don’t think they ONLY care who is the smartest of all. I never claimed that a person who is “more talented than your average valedictorian” (whatever that is?!!) isn’t “smarter.” I was only saying that if a candidate is “smart” enough, they are interested in that candidate and also look to many other attributes. In fact, even you then went onto say, what makes candidates distinguishable is determined by looking beyond their SAT scores and GPA. As you say, maybe someone with a 1600 is smarter than someone with a 1450. So what? The person with the 1450 MIGHT be someone who is very smart and also has other significant accomplishments to make them an attractive candidate for admission. I don’t think colleges are trying to find the smartest kids on the entire pile or the highest SATs on the entire pile. They want smart kids. It isn’t just a contest as to who is the smartest kid on the pile. “Smart” is one important attribute in an attractive candidate. It is the other stuff that sets one apart from another. </p>
<p>You know, once they even get to college, it doesn’t follow that the kids with the highest SATs in the entering class are the shining stars when they graduate college. The college has accepted a group of smart students and then it takes other things to distinguish oneself. </p>
<p>Even upon entrance to a college, a student can be selected for a big merit scholarship or as a “Scholar”, and that student isn’t necessarily the highest SAT scorer in the entering class. I know even my own kids were selected as such and neither had 1600 SATs, though I am sure some classmates did. They were selected, I imagine, for their entire profile (smart being one of the criteria). Colleges want students who will make a difference or have something to offer, as well as their smarts. Smarts count. Smarts plus more is something a lot of elite colleges look for. In my opinion, most students selected for admission at elite universities are quite smart. I truly do not care if they are the top geniuses of all. They were smart enough to get in and succeed and graduate, and in some cases be a chosen Scholar, and/or graduate with Honors.</p>
<p>I have to agree with soozie. Skimming the highest SAT scorers off the top of the pool wouldn’t necessarily make the best class. I’ll bet we’ve all known “geniuses” who’ve wasted their lives self-destructively and people who probably would score much lower on an IQ test (or SAT) who live their lives productively, even brilliantly. Some have incredible people skills, creativity or motivation. SAT or IQ scores are easier to quantify, but that doesn’t make them the best measure of what is good.</p>
<p>Following this thread through all the meanderings, I learn another thing I have in common with some of you . . . a tap-dancing son! There aren’t that many boys who tap around here.</p>
<p>“BTW, one interesting corollary or side effect of this is that you can use the score gap as a crude ranking system - the “most desirable” school will have the smallest gap.”</p>
<p>Not in my mind. You are equating “most desirable” with highest SAT scores. Why?</p>
<p>“Maybe if the ivies selected more for intellect, then we wouldn’t have so many corrupt and stupid people in high positions in government.”</p>
<p>People in government – including the corrupt and stupid and honest and smart – come from all types of colleges. Ivies are probably underrepresented. This statement reflects ignorance about both the college application process and government employees. </p>
<p>And I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why they want MIT to turn into a school that is predominantly white, Asian, male, suburban and wealthy, with just a sprinkling of African Americans, Latinos, women, first-generation, low-income, rural and urban-poor kids?</p>
<p>(My daughter tap dances too!)</p>
<p>Sly - you’re missing the point - I didn’t say highest scores, I said the gap - the more desirable the school (to black applicants) the less the gap will be, because the most desirable school gets picked first by the black high scorers, as mardad explained. This has nothing to do with SAT per se - the gap is sort of an “index of desirability”. You really need to chill out so that when someone mentions the word “SAT” you don’t get all huffy.</p>
<p>I would want MIT to “turn into” a school that did not select its students based on racial and gender characteristics that have nothing to do with their abilities.
BTW, the Asian SET qualifiers are overwhelmingly from first generation families . Also of note is that Asians from homes making less than $10,000 score higher on the SAT than blacks from homes making over $100,000, so this has nothing to do with low income either. If MIT had a preference for first generation or low income , this would be OK with me but they would end up with even more Asians - the only way they can get more black and Latinos is to expressly select by race and this is what I find objectionable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MIT isn’t selecting the students BASED on race or gender. First and foremost, they are selecting QUALIFIED students…who have the academic qualifications to succeed at MIT and beyond…There are a lot of people who fit that description. Once they have narrowed the pile to those with very strong academic profiles, they select other qualities…personal traits, activities, interest areas, achievements, and so forth. Every single person who is seriously considered as an admit goes through that process. At that point, they do attempt to balance the class by gender, race, background, geography, and so on. They value that. So do I. This is NOT the same as saying they select by race or gender. They don’t start with race and gender and just take someone based on that. The candidate must be strong intellectually, academically, and in other personal traits. They do not view Black and Latinos as less “desirable”. It is YOUR criteria that the more “desirable” applicants have the HIGHEST SAT SCORES. I would not want a school that selected by SAT scores alone. I would not want a school that was mostly Caucasian males either. All those who gain entrance to MIT are deemed intellectually qualified. It is just that YOU do not think some of these students are intellectually qualified because some of their SAT scores were not as high as someone who was not admitted.</p>
<p>As to your statement…they are NOT selecting students based on racial and gender characteristics without considering their abilities. Their abilities are certainly MORE than “considered.” Their abilities are considered to be qualified to succeed at MIT.</p>
<p>My S likes to salsa dance. Seems to be the thing to do on Friday/Saturday night for a lot of the top students from his school.</p>
<p>Soozie: I agree with a lot of what you say, howeve,r I do not agree about the low probabilty of acceptance for all kids at MIT. The 1/10 or 1/11 odds are for the overall applicant pool. I know many kids who had odds of probably 4/5 or better who applied and others who were 1/20. As a teacher and working with counselors we can usually state who will get in with pretty good accuracy. I was wrong on one kid two years ago who was a good fit. I later found out he put together a pretty sloppy application that may have been missing parts. I think MIT was not really his top choice.
A good example of incresead chances are RSI attendees. I believe they went pretty close to 100% (something like more than 15/15 this year). I believe they went maybe (14/16 for Harvard). I think, almost perfect on Yale, Princeton and Stanford too. I know from certain regions of the counry and with certain stats, GPA etc , the odds are very high for MIT or other schools. I wrote a recommend for a kid this year who applied to MIT and Caltech among other places. I figured the odds were long as he had done some good things but was not of the same calibur as others who have been acceptedi in the past. He was rejected from MIT but made it into Caltech.
Although many talk of the crap shoot,and I think at times H and S are close, there are typical and untypical candidates who with an objective assessment of their strenghts and fit can get a reasonable estimate of their chances that is not just the overall post-acceptance rate.
I think MIT does a good job a selecting a top class. There is no perfect way but as you and others point out they are picky people not widgets and building a class.</p>
<p>oldolddad…Let me say I entirely agree with you and perhaps I wasn’t expressing what I meant so well. The odds at MIT are very difficult ones. But the odds are NOT the same for all applicants. You gave great examples. Also, those who fall in the lower range of stats of admitted students to MIT, have a much smaller chance of admission. Those at the top range, stand a greater chance but it is still chancy. Those who have extraordinary accomplishments have a much stronger chance but cannot be assured admission. Even taking simple measures…for example…at Brown, my D’s college, the acceptance rate for vals such as herself, was higher than non vals. So, already her chances were higher than the published admit rate. Still we considered the school a reach. She was qualified but they can’t take all who are qualified. So, yes, the odds for each applicant varies.</p>
<p>While part of my job is to assess someone’s odds of admission, I still maintain that at schools with very low admit rates, these must be considered chancy even for the highly qualified types. They are OVERLY chancy for those who are either in the lower end of the admitted stats or who do not have extraordinary achievements, and so forth. Then, coming from an underrepresented state, background, minority, first generation, legacy or so on adds another layer of hook for some candidates and not for others. Assessing chances involves a host of factors beyond the SAT scores for sure. It also isn’t enough to have strong SATs. WAY too many kids have the requisite SAT scores for admission to the elite college and so looking at their entire profile is crucial in evaluating their chances. Some have greater chances than others. Those who are strong in every which way have a much better chance. But it is still just a chance and not an expectation. I suppose there must be some who are overly incredible (like you say, RSI…or some national award winner) who have a high chance of admission. But for any other star applicant a tad below that, MIT is still chancy. I agree that one can make a reasonable estimate of chances and that it SURELY will not be just the overall admit rate to the college!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a good example to bring up. Students post their “stats” on forums here and others assess their chances of admission based on some numbers. However, a true evaluation of chances cannot be made by stats like SATs alone. Besides a host of other factors weighed in admissions (rigor of courses, achievements, activities, personal traits, essays, recommendations, etc.), a very good application is going to help over one that had no effort. Expressing interest in the school and how it matches what you want and what you plan to contribute to campus comes across differently from one candidate to another even. I interview candidates for my alma mater and without even seeing their stats, there is a wide range as to who is the more attractive candidate. So, all these other factors come into play. Good stats alone are not enough. Like you say, even a poorly done app can derail a candidacy.</p>