Last year, Princeton’s acceptance rate was 18.56% for SCEA and 4.42% for RD. I understand a large part of the boost in SCEA is for athletes, legacies, lots of URMs/questbridge people, etc.
If you had to guess, what do you think the chances for an Asian (who doesn’t qualify for any financial aid) with no hooks are for SCEA as compared to RD? Insofar as Princeton seems to defer atleast 70% of people in SCEA to RD, is there really an advantage if you don’t have hooks to applying SCEA?
You’re really asking a loaded two-parter question:
Princeton, Harvard, Yale, and Stanford are all on record as saying “We don’t accept anyone in the SCEA round that we wouldn’t accept in the RD round.” That’s basically Admissions-speak for “We accept the best-of-the-best in the early round.”
If you are the best-of-the-best from your high school – meaning if you are academically ranked in the top 1% of all graduates from your HS class and have top test scores – you SHOULD apply early somewhere. That’s true even without hooks, as the very tippy-top students stand a better chance of being scooped up in the SCEA round as they are showing demonstrated interest in one college by applying SCEA.
That said, the hard-reality is that Asian students are being held to a higher standard and HYPS seem to place a soft cap on Asian enrollment (at HYPS it never seems to be more 21% to 22%, as opposed to white enrollment which is 42+%). See: http://dailyprincetonian.com/opinion/2015/02/princeton-admissions-and-its-racism/
My guess is that if an Asian applicant is ranked in the top 1% of their HS class, and has top test scores, they still stand a better chance of being admitted in the SCEA round than RD round.
If you are ranked in the top 2% to 10% of your high school class, no matter what race or ethnicity, with great but not off-the-chart test scores, IMHO all bets are off, as there are just too many other soft factors that come into play to predict anyone’s chances.
Full disclosure: My son, who is white with no hooks, applied to Princeton with a 36 ACT, ranked in the top 0.25% of his graduating class of 900 at a top “feeder public high school”, and was admitted in the RD round. He ultimately matriculated to Yale where he had applied and been accepted SCEA. For top students like him, regardless of race or ethnicity, I don’t think it matters if you apply SCEA or RD.
I went to a presentation last year held by Princeton admissions for local parents and students. At this presentation one of the questions that came from the audience was very similar to yours. It came from an Asian student, and he asked whether applying SCEA would confer any advantage. The admissions officer was very quick to respond that applying early to Princeton doesn’t offer any specific advantage, and that they accept the same caliber students in the EA round as the RD round.
@gibby There is strong disagreement that Asians are held to a higher standard. In fact some would argue just the opposite. Asians represent 5 per cent of the population yet 20 per cent of the college is Asian. If you look at admissions holistically and factor in SES, location , parents education and other variables there are many who would argue that the whites are held to a much higher standard than anyone else
@collegedad13 If ivy league admissions were a true meritocracy, the Asian population would be much higher than 20% I can assure you. I’m not advocating for this demographic shift, because frankly that would be a boring campus with little social enrichment, so I understand the rationale, but from a statistical standpoint the evidence that Asians are discriminated against is simply irrefutable.
@gibby, I read many times your reference to, "“We accept the best-of-the-best in the early round.” I’ve always wondered, yes - but what does that mean in terms of hard statistical numbers. Sounds from you, that means “the top 1% of all graduates from [a] HS class and [with] top test scores”.
@Senior2016M, I think you are defining meritocracy as test scores. If so, then Asians would probably be much higher than 20%. However, there are other ways to define meritocracy. Maybe merit for the ivies should be defined as “those who have volunteered the most hours in their community”, maybe defined as “those who have achieved high GPAs with English as a second language”, maybe defined as “those who have achieved high GPAs while working a job during high school”. There are many ways to look at merit. Merit simply means those deserving praise or rewards.
@collegedad13, It does seem to me that whites are the most under-represented racial group at the ivies. Whites are about 64% of the population and only 42ish% at the ivies. The fact is, the racial makeup of the ivies does not reflect the racial makeup of the country. Personally, I think college applications should omit racial identification. Applications are still read holistically so as to consider grades, scores, ECs, recs, etc. Just no racial identification. Is the goal a racially blind society or not?
@HYPSPlease: Yes that sounds about right. If a student is ranked in the top 1% to 2% of their graduating class AND has top test scores, their application will bubble to the top no matter what round they apply in (SCEA or RD). However, it’s decidedly tougher for students applying to HYPS in the SCEA round who are ranked in the top 3% to 10% of their graduating class with good, but not over the top, test scores. Those students’ applications tend to be over shadowed by the ‘Polly Perfects’ of this world when they apply in the SCEA round. And, those students are more likely to get deferred to the RD round, so Admissions can compare them with a broader applicant pool.
@collegedad13: Both my kids attended a high school that is a TRUE meritocracy – Stuyvesant High School. About 30,000 New York City 8th graders sit for an SAT-like test and the top scorers get to choose which specialized school they want to attend. No other criteria is used for admission. Most of those top scorers (900 of them or so) choose Stuyvesant. Today Stuyvesant is 73% Asian. IMHO, that is what would happen if all US colleges were not allowed to consider race in college applications. The percentages of Asians admitted would sky rocket, just like they did at California State Colleges when Admissions was not allowed to consider race in the applications process. The same percentage rise cannot be said for white students, so while whites may be discriminated against in the Admissions process, Asians are more discriminated against.
My point exactly^
@HYPSPlease wrote:
Absolutely not. Ask the Native Americans how they would take that phrase – or any non-European immigrant. It’s a blunt phrase that we take to mean blotting out our identity or quieting us when we complain (BLM).
@T26E4, a racially blind society means no discrimination. All people equal. It doesn’t mean “blotting out … identity” or “quieting us”. I would be happy to ask Native Americans if they want to be treated with equality and no discrimination.
I’ve read many of your postings on CC. Quite disappointed in such a silly statement.
@Hypsplease you may want to read Fisher 2 vs the University of Texas. Taking race into account is legal in this country and not considered discrimination. @T26E4 hit the nail on the head.
@Gibby Stuy is not a TRUE meritocracy. You may want to read this article. http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2014/07/how-to-address-the-stuyvesant-problem-014376. Here is a short quote from the article
“The idea is that taking into account more factors would provide less of an unfair advantage to wealthy middle schoolers whose parents can pay for extensive test prep for the exam the schools now rely on.”
I had heard a lot about Stuy so the last time I was in NYC I walked by it. It looked like a prison to me. My kid goes to college with a couple of Stuy graduates. The former graduates described it as awful. They said the kids who go there are cut throat and vicious and that cheating was rampant. It doesn’t sound like a school that I would personally use as a model
@Hypsplease I accept that you mean well, i.e. no discrimination. I’m saying when people use that phrase, it’s not minorities that use it --We hear white folks telling us: everyone is on a level playing field, when the whistle blows, you all run for the home plate.
When we hear “race blind society” we hear people ignoring the fact that the majority are mostly sitting on third base while lots of people of color are still standing on first base or even the batter’s box.
We fear people turning a blind eye to profound racial disparities in our society. Think about the President’s election and how people fantasized about a “post-racial” society. Then think about the blow back against brown people (immigrants and people of color) in the broader white society that bubbled to the surface afterward. While the words may seem like a laudable ideal, they’re draped in something else to me – your race doesn’t matter and we’re all equal so stop complaining. I’d love to see real equality in my lifetime.
@collegedad13: I was using Stuy as a model of what happens when race is ignored in the process of Admissions – when acceptance is based upon a single factor, in this case an SAT-like test. I didn’t hold Stuy up as a model to be emulated. FWIW: My daughter (Harvard) loved it; my son (Yale, also accepted to Princeton) hated it.
@gibby, going back to the “best of the best” discussion. When I review EA/RD results threads, I see students with a 35 or 36 ACT and top 1-2% of the class who were rejected from numerous ivies. Do you have a thought on the most common reason why these students were rejected? Is it essays? Thanks.
^^ My guess is that it would be a combination of teacher recommendations, essays and interview report. FWIW: See the sample interview reports for Jerod, Hans, Richard and Theresa: http://asc.yale.edu/samplereports and this blog for bad teacher recommendations: http://marymountcollegeadmissionblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/when-recommendations-attack-worst.html
@gibby, thank you for the info and links. I found the “samplereports” quite fascinating. I expected the interview reports to be more “general” and not so specific. Very good info. Thanks.