Correct me if I am wrong - I think MIT is still holistic. They just don’t consider legacy as a hook. All the other hooks still apply (edit: and I think being female is almost a “hook” for MIT).
Here’s a different thought experiment.
Suppose an elite college were to say: If you are a legacy and you have above a certain GPA / score (let’s make it 3.9 GPA and 34 ACT, just for the sake of argument), you are in, no question. Any other legacies, you’ll just be considered with non-legacy admits. Reactions? “Fair” or not?
“Fair” only when all non-legacy with the same stats are admitted too
^^^ Can you define “the same stats”? Specifically please. Does 770 SATII Math = 770 SATII Lit? Is a 1500 SAT that is 800 M 700 V the same as 700 M 800 V? Does 3.8 GPA from unranked school with no APs = 3.8 from Stuyvesant?
But leaving aside the legacy issue for the moment, panpacific – kids with lower stats get admitted over kids with higher stats. Is that “unfair”? Is the only system that is “fair” one in which the highest stats get admitted, in descending order?
@Postmodern I was responding to post #242
Isn’t the quote, “Guarantee at least a 2nd read?”
@panpacific you are post #242?
It’s only a discussion. Let’s chill. Some people like apples. Some like oranges. What’s the big deal? Also name calling is against forum rules. Peace
Anger? Or not liking the way some fling a gauntlet down? We can all be more civil.
@lookingforward It’s all a matter of perspective. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Why make it so personal?
“Merit,” btw, is not all about stats.
And how would you account for differences among high schools and curriculums? It seems to me that removing the holistic aspects is stripping the kid’s individuality out of the equation. Is that what some want?
@Postmodern I meant post #241. Sorry!
@lookingforward Somehow I got a different message. It was communicated to me as “Just” a second read. Maybe when it’s communicated to alums, the message would be “at least” a second read?
I think "at least"means even kids who might not stand out in first cut. I can;'remember (o find) who said it, either. At an elite, assuming you get past first cut, you’re getting more than 2 reads, total.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
College Confidential is not a debate society. Feel free to make your opinion known or to politely disagree with another poster’s opinion. Recognize, however, that opinions will not be changed, so don’t keep banging the same drum. Additionally, under no circumstances is it OK to be rude to another poster, so let’s desist with calling another user’s opinions “XXX.” Several posts deleted.
On a related topic, a user cannot tell another user what s/he can or cannot post on this, or any other thread. If one has an issue with a particular post, it should be reported so that a moderator can review.
Additionally, if you are responding to another poster, please reference the post. The preferred method is to use [ quote], since post numbers may change during clean-up. While post #'s are better than nothing, it’s far better than just referencing the user. If I can’t figure out what post you are referencing, it runs the risk of being deleted during clean-up.
Panpacifc, need to revise, a bit. No matter how many eyes, a truly subpar legacy isn’t going to get the full procedural devotion. There are too many apps to get through, too many top kids. The very qualitative distinctions among kids that some don’t like, are necessary.
“Fair” only when all non-legacy with the same stats are admitted too"
What about institutional needs to fill all the majors? Is it “unfair” to dip down into the stats pool a bit to fill the Classics department? (not throwing shade at Classics, just illustrative) Is it “unfair” if we have STEM Kid 1600, STEM Kid 1600, and Classics Kid 1550, and they only admit one of the STEM kids and then the Classics kid?
For those who are concerned with the “unfairness” of a legacy boost (whatever that boost may be):
Does it also concern you that it’s “unfair” that many of you live in affluent / well-funded public school districts and / or are able to send your children to private schools, when there are other kids who are in high schools where the chemistry teacher is the gym coach who has read one chapter ahead in the chemistry book?
Does it also concern you that it’s “unfair” that some budding athletes have SAHM’s who can drive them from tournament to tournament starting at a young age, pay for private coaches, etc. and other kids have no such luxury and have to work after school versus participate?
Does it also concern you that it’s “unfair” that some people can pay for SAT coaching / tutors and others can’t?
Because from where I sit, it seems like a lot of awfully privileged people already on third base are complaining that they aren’t guaranteed to get to home plate, but don’t seem terribly concerned with the people who are barely making it to first base.
I really would like a serious, thoughtful answer to this question:
If, indeed, the elite schools are admitting the “wrong” people (undeserving in some fashion) and not the true deserving geniuses, why are you still so intent on your kid going there? Wouldn’t you want to avoid such schools, and send your kid instead to the schools where the real deserving geniuses wind up?
And related to this - where do you think the deserving geniuses wind up if they don’t wind up at the super-elites? How is their education sub-optimized, and why doesn’t that make those schools more desirable to you?
I don’t see that “hierarchical thinking” finds a place for this sort of open consideration, PG. It’s narrow. There are kids out there performing IRL well ahead of the kids who can get a 4.0 or the topmost scores, exciting kids, already empowered, able to communicate and who are expressing their drives through solid actions. So what if they didn’t get 2300?
I think to take a balanced view, people need to consider more than their own kids, how they love and believe in them. Take a look around, at more than your one hs context, the kids you do know. See what others are achieving- even despite SES challenges. Pretty amazing.
So when people think it should be all about stats, it feels so artificially constrained.
So let me add this: affluence, expensive camps, a better starting position, does not translate to how they think, the choices they make, the actions they take. In many cases, tortoise and hare.