IDK what I’ve said that’s factually incorrect or misleading considering the entirety of my exchange with you has been about the definition of the term “Hispanic” and its inclusion or not of racially white people from Europe or South America.
Regarding my daughter, I have no idea what got her accepted to her college. The admissions committee didn’t share that info with her or with me. She did well in school and had great test scores. She’s an interesting kid. Some colleges wanted her to attend their school and some didn’t. She chose from the options offered to her and she’s very happy,so I am too.
Based on your answer I guess it depends on the definition of elite colleges. Virtually no one gets into HYPS or a few others without knowing how they got in. Mine got in through non-revenue sports with a high AI. If you know anything about the very elite colleges almost everyone has a hook. So what special thing did he/she have?
My genes Interesting ECs? Luck? She was not a recruited athlete or legacy. Just a smart kid into science and math. I realize many kids accepted to retire schools have hooks but I think some are probably just smart enough and just interesting.
Did your child win any significant major award? I’m sorry but smart kid into science and math isn’t remotely enough to get into those top schools. Our HS had dozens of students with SAT’s over 2300 and super high GPA’s and every student that got into HYPS had a hook(sports, major academic award,or legacy). At orientation my son told me every student knew what helped them get admitted and they all openly discussed it. A few kids had gone to school overseas as exchange students or had very unusual backgrounds. His roommate is a double legacy plus grandfather. No one was just a very good student.
A girl interested in science and math is a gigantic hook… I’d say it’s equivalent to being a URM.
White and Asian males have to be 1000x better than any girl to get similar STEM job. I’ve noticed that even girls at the bottom of my comp sci class got offers at prestigious places like Blizzard and FB before graduation. The guys only got offers at some obscure firms and had to prove their competency through legitimate achievements before joining the big firms; on the other hand, girls who code poorly got the benefit of the doubt and instant acceptances everywhere. The girl in my class who got a position at Blizzard is just an awful coder. She barely uses methods and classes. Her codes are just one long main method. But ofcourse, because she’s a female, Blizzard HAD to have her, because of all the great diversity she would bring with her subpar coding skills… I mean, it couldn’t possibly be due to the tax breaks Blizzard would get from hiring women. No, it’s obviously her novice-like programming skills that Blizzard was attracted to… /sarcasm
They say people with the most privilege are blind to their privilege. You just proved SAY’s argument.
“I’m sorry but smart kid into science and math isn’t remotely enough to get into those top schools”
That’s only if you are a white or Asian male.
In terms of college admissions and job recruiting, females of all races showing a remote interest in math and science, even if they have no talent, are equivalent to white or Asian men who win national and international math & science competitions.
Idk if a white female science major is all that unusual, she didn’t go into engineering or cs, but she did have independent research and related summer stuff. If neither of you can believe any white (or presumably Asian) person can get into a top school without some major, known to the likes of you, hook, then maybe you don’t understand college admissions as well as you think. There are many reasons she could have been accepted where she was and her high school was definitely not the sort where kids discuss their hooks. Maybe it was appealing that she was just herself and not trying to develop a hook for college reasons…
Regardless of why your daughter was selected, it doesn’t change the fact that a female interested in math & science = big hook.
As an advice, I suggest all Asian males to say that they are interested in the arts when applying for college. Writing an essay about being gay is also a huge plus and would be an auto-accept at all ivies as long as your GPA is 3.7+ and SAT is 2100+.
You just gotta make sure the adcoms don’t see you flirting with girls when you’re on campus.
An Asian friend of mine got accepted to 6 ivies, stanford and mit by writing about his “repressed homosexual desires”. The essay was a riot and complete bullshit. His stats: 3.6 GPA and 2070 SAT.
The most ridiculous part about this is how much ‘elite’ colleges care about stupid superficial quotas instead of achievements and merit. What a disgrace. The founders of the ivies would be embarrassed by what the ivies turned into if they were alive today.
There are no issues with me. I just rarely find females who are exceptionally brilliant. In the very upper-ends of the IQ distribution (IQ 145+), there are like 20 men to 1 female.
I also know that mediocre females that show even a basic knowledge of programming or calculus are treated like they’ve won the field’s medal, while white and Asian men who have successfully succeeded in rigorous studies are ignored.
It’s sad how we’ve turned from celebrating merit and achievement to celebrating superficial qualities.
OHMom you are avoiding my question. Being female with an 800 math score is definitely an advantage at the top engineering schools but that is different from being a female science major which is a dime a dozen at the top schools since it’s basically premed.
“a female science major which is a dime a dozen at the top schools since it’s basically premed.”
Even a mediocre female science student can get offers everywhere.
Once they land in a big firm and work for several years, they and they employers realize she isn’t going to succeed at doing the really hard things in the company, so they relegate her to managerial busy work where she’ll fulfill a diversity quota, bring the company tax breaks, and be good PR.
Men will still do the important work. Unfortunate truth of today’s work environment.
As an addendum, just look at what happened with Clockmed. He took apart an old digital clock and placed the innards in a pencil case and the media are saying how smart he is for repackaging pre-fabbed electronics.
He got thousands of dollars worth of gifts from Microsoft (Just google Microsoft ahmed in google search), an invitation to google science fair, and got more attention than the winner of that science fair (Who found a way to test for ebola within 30 minutes).
Some leftist wingnuts were even arguing for giving him a Nobel Prize in Physics for his “accomplishments”.
Female privilege and URM privilege is getting praise and rewarded for doing the simplest things. Check your privilege.
@IQTrumpsEffort An IQ of 145? Seriously , your setting the bar that high for females to succeed in the sciences? Also who says you need that high of an IQ of 145 to be a nobel laureate or field medalist there are some with low IQs say 120-125, the average is around 130+.
Also the correlation between IQ scores for countries and number of nobel laureates is not significant and only account for 6.7% of winners: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/nobels.aspx
This may have to do with bias among the nobel committee in the way they choose nominees
'"For example the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is awarded by the Nobel Assembly, which consists of 50 professors (out of a total of about 500) in the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. The Nobel Committee consists of five members and the secretary of the Nobel Assembly. The members are elected for a period of three years. Each year, ten associate members are elected for a term running from March until October. The Nobel Committee is the working body of the Nobel Assembly [19, 20].
The right to submit proposals for the award of Prizes, based on the principle of competence and universality, shall by statute be enjoyed by: IN PHYSIOLOGY OR MEDI-CINE
Members of the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institute;
Swedish and foreign members of the medical class of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences;
Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine;
Members of the Nobel Committee not qualified under paragraph 1 above;
Holders of established posts as professors at the faculties of medicine in Sweden and holders of similar posts at the faculties of medicine or similar institutions in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway;
Holders of similar posts at no fewer than six other faculties of medicine selected by the Assembly, with a view to ensuring the appropriate distribution of the task among various countries and their seats of learning; and
Practitioners of natural sciences whom the Assembly may otherwise see fit to approach.
Decisions concerning the selection of the persons appointed under paragraphs 6 and 7 above are taken before the end of May each year on the recommendation of the Nobel Committee”
Stronger advocacy behind some scientists than behind others could be the main reason for this bias, may also explain the few nobel prizes from countries in east asia that have high average IQs.
“I suppose any advantage female science applicants have is balanced by the advantage given to men applying to lacs and many universities as well.”
The advantage males get at LACs is nothing compared to the advantage females and URMs get at STEM fields.
Males still need test scores around the average scores at the college to be considered, while females and URMs can get in with vastly lower stats than the average. At most, the males who got in through gender affirmative action would make up a very slight percent of the class (Talking about low single digits).
There is no “male privilege” with white and Asian males.
@IQTrumpsEffort “Males still need test scores around the average scores at the college to be considered, while females and URMs can get in with vastly lower stats than the average. At most, the males who got in through gender affirmative action would make up a very slight percent of the class (Talking about low single digits).”
I wouldn’t compare females in general to URMs. Also, there is not much of a difference in tests scores between males and females. A good example would be the MCAT, which is a standardized test used to select candidates for medical school. The mean MCAT score for males was 29.6 while MCAT scores for females was 27.4 a difference of 2.2. Females applicants have a higher gpa than males 3.55 to 3.54. Also science gpa difference was trivial, males outscored females 3.47 to 3.43. The acceptance rate for women was 44% compared to male acceptance rate of 42%.
In addition to this, the mean difference in sat scores between males and females is 25. Males outscore females 1526 to 1501. The math section tends to be the cause of the gender gap with males outscoring females by +30 points. Males outscore females 531 to 499. However, females outscore males on the writing section 493 to 482. The difference in reading is a trivial 5 points.
I just don’t see how females get preferential treatment in this department, also note females make up the majority of applicants to universities and the majority of college students(57%).
Williams - 21% acceptance rate for men, 18% acceptance rate for women
Amherst - 15% men, 13% women
Swarthmore 20% for men, 15% for women
Bowdoin - 17% for men, 13% for women
Middlebury - 19% for men, 16% for women
Pomona - 15% for men, 10% for women
Carleton - 25% for men, 21% for women
CMC - actually even, both 11%. Women get a fair shot here.
Davidson - 26% for men, 19% for women
US Naval Academy is the only one where more women are accepted - by 1%. 8% vs 9% (IDK why they now consider it a LAC but whatever)
Haverford - 26% for men, 23% for women
Vassar - 34% for men, 19% for women (!)
With national universities the difference shrinks, presumably because they get so many applicants they don’t have to compromise standards to get a class that’s 50-50.
HYP are essentially even with
P at 1% higher for women
Y at 1% higher for men
H same
Columbia is 8% accept for men and 6% for women
S same
UC is 9% for men and 8% for women
MIT 13% vs 6% - the one and only bright spot for women in the top 20 or so Us and LACs.
Duke - 1% higher for men
etc.
At EVERY top LAC but one, they are at an admissions disadvantage - sometimes a huge one - and at top national Us they are also at a disadvantage at many, though it is smaller. The only schools where women have an advantage, as you probably know, is at tech schools.
Interesting ECs? Luck? She was not a recruited athlete or legacy. Just a smart kid into science and math. I realize many kids accepted to retire schools have hooks but I think some are probably just smart enough and just interesting.