In the Northeast, when land grants were handed out and later, because private school (Ivy) alums were the politicians in power (because the Ivies had already been around for centuries by that point and had big powerful alumni bases), they purposefully kept the publics weak while politicians in other parts of the country would rather build up the public colleges in their states. A huge state like NYS didn’t even have a public university system until the SUNYs were started well after WWII.
I am going to suggest that D3 athletes applying ED1 may get accepted at a higher % than RD with same scores but do not receive the merit they may have gotten as a non athlete. The school knows these kids will enroll if accepted, there is no incentive to give merit money.
@mamom, I don’t see that mattering much. The NESCAC and peer schools hardly give any merit money at all.
@epiphany @3SailAway Well, partly I was being facetious, of course, and exaggerating. However the legacy boost does make it easier for them to get in, AND, legacies are mostly rich. Looking at Harvard, who generously provide this data, 46.4% of their legacy admits for class of 2022 had a family income of above $500K, 22.4% had income of $250K-$500K, and 19.4% had income of $125K to $250K. So, of the legacies, close to 50% were in the top 1% by income (above $434,455, and at least some of the $250K-$500K were in this bracket), about 22% were in the top 5%-1%, and another 17% or so were in the top 20%-5% by income ($127,144). So, with almost 90% being in the top 20%, and half of those being in the top 1%, yes, legacies are rich.
Since the top 1% make up about 15% of Harvard’s student body that would mean that half of all of the kids from the top 1% at Ivies are legacies. There are about 9.3% donor admits mean, meaning that 62% of these top 1% are donor admits, and it would be difficult to believe that fewer than half of the donor admits are legacies, which would mean 31% of all legacies are donor admissions. At an acceptance rate of 8 times that of everybody else, donor admits are almost certainly under-qualified, relative to the rest of Harvard admits.
Let us look at the reasons I make this claim:
Based on the average SATs and the numbers of URMs, about 16% of the bottom 25% SAT scores (64%) are those of White or Asian kids. Based on the racial makeup of recruited athletes, about 8% of the incoming class are White athletes. Even if ALL Athletes were in the bottom 25% of SAT scores, that would mean that at least 8% of the kids who were admitted with SATs in the bottom 25% are White/Asian non-athletes. Of these, maybe 1% or 2% are low income White/Asian kids, so about 6%-7% have some other serious hook which is neither Athlete or URM status. There is only one hook that can do that, which is donor status.
So, at least 65%-75% of all kids of donors would not be considered if they were not the kids of donors.
So, of the 15% of the admitted kids who are in the top 1% by income, 50% of them are legacies, 62% are donors, and 24% are recruited athletes (based on % of athletes in the top 1%). Based on all that is written, athletes and donors and athletes do not really overlap. However, legacies overlap with both. If all recruited athletes are underqualified, that would mean 3.5% of the admits are rich, unqualified White Athletes. Another 6%-7% are rich, unqualified donors kids, which would be about 67% of all rich kids who are being admitted lack the academic qualifications.
Of course, if you say “well, some rich White athletes are qualified”, well, every rich White athlete that you remove from the “unqualified” category, indicates an additional White/Asian non URM who has been accepted without the athlete hook, and is, therefore, almost certainly a donor’s kid. You still have 2/3 of the rich kids who should not be there, based on their qualifications.
So 86% of all rich kids are either donors’ kids or athletes, and 67% are unqualified. So, about 14% of all very wealthy kids have top 1% stats, ECs, etc. Another 19% are at least minimally qualified, but were helped by being either an athlete or the kid of a donor. About 67% would never have even been considered if they were not either rich donors or rich White athletes.
Of course, if not all legacies are donors’ kids or athletes, that would mean that even fewer than 14% of the very rich kids are admitted purely on merit alone.
Inn any case, between something like 20% and half of the legacy admits are also kids of donors, so while what I wrote may have been an exaggerating, it still is not some far-fetched claim.
Again, the only reason I chose Harvard is because they provide the data up front.
BTW, we can also see that 64% of all kids with SATs in the bottom 25% are White or Asian. So, for all of those who are complaining that URMs are pulling down admissions standards, well that is not true, since almost twice as many academically unqualified White and Asian kids are being accepted as academically unqualified Black or Hispanic kids…
@PurpleTitan didn’t know that, but it makes sense, especially considering that the made sure that at least one of the land grants in the NE went to a private university
^MIT!
(and yes, Cornell)
@cu123. In Massachusetts 10 schools outrank The University. True. Lol.
Let’s look at the ten.
Harvard and MIT could be said to outrank everyone.
Wellesley. the finest women’s college in America.
Amherst and Williams - two of the best, if not, most selective LACs.
Boston College Tufts Brandeis Boston University Northeastern. Pretty skimpy admit rates and super high stats. Not that far down the pecking order of excellence. In most states would be the one of the top two or three schools. In many states they would be considered, subjectively, “the best school”.
All within an hour and half car ride. Most within 20 minutes of each other.
It’s a unique college ecosystem that isn’t comparable.
In a state with a total statewide population smaller than two or three cities in the USA. A smaller land area than some individual “counties” out west - the state uni is not going to be the top draw for all the students.
Put all these schools en masse into Chicagoland, Los Angles, San Francisco, Atlanta, NYC, DC or Houston and watch the changes in admissions to the state schools. And most of the local private elites there too. Lol.
Especially if they’ve been there for two hundred years earlier.
Not so sure, @privatebanker. The Texas cult of UT is like nothing I have ever seen. Seriously, I am not sure they would flock to Harvard if it moved to Houston. Fine school, but it isn’t UT. Not even Texan.
@Sue22 Interestingly, that’s the reason that Virginia state schools are so excellent-- they are older, formerly private colleges. UVA was founded in 1819 and W&M in 1693. My understanding is that they both became public after investing much of their endowment in Confederate war bonds.
If it had been there for 300 years it would be lol.
Or if they changed their name to the “Crimson Cowboy Boots”
Add Smith, Mt Holyoke, Franklin Olin to those extraordinary schools in MA.
Considering that UMass Amherst is a really good university, MA has indeed an embarrassment of riches when it comes to higher education.
It is natural to ask why. @PurpleTitan had a good answer. Elitism and history explains it.
We should also note that higher education has always been one of the pillars of the economy in MA. Its colleges evolved to compete successfully by focusing on niche markets or using marketing strategies such as creating a brand, aura of exclusivity.
The elitism remains in their roots and this is one of the first factors we should consider why we have this mostly “unholistic” system of admissions to private colleges in this country while maintaining the world’s best higher education system.
@privatebanker That’s my point - the privates in the NE were entrenched before the state schools, so the thinking has always been “state schools are for students who can’t get into the privates.” In other areas, the thinking is more along the lines of “we have really good public schools, so let’s save some money and go there and get just as good an education.”
I went to UIUC 30 years ago (from NJ) and I knew people who might have been able to get into Northwestern or Chicago, but they didn’t even apply because they felt they would have just as good an experience at UIUC, if not better, for a much lower price. Meanwhile, I don’t think anyone in the top 20% or so of my HS class even considered Rutgers or any other NJ state school.
I went to UMass Amherst. I was a recruited athlete to middlebury and Colby. Who would pay 15k to go to college was the answer at home. Lunacy they said. Try out at UMass and see where it goes. A Broken collar bone and re-alignment of my talent level within two days of practice is all I found out. Lol.
My wife and fil went to h. And they all come to me now for financial and career advice. So maybe it wasn’t such a bad decision and dad was right. lol.
I looked up the specific numbers for the admitted class in the last year of the lawsuit. I am using the Academic Index stats, which is composed of 1/3 GPA/rank, 1/3 SAT/ACT, and 1/3 SAT subject tests. Note that by “hooked” I mean not in baseline group, so applying early counts as being hooked, as do things like legacy, children of faculty, and being on the special interest lists. This sample group does not include international students.
I found that the majority of the bottom 25% AI were non-URM, which fits well with MWolf’s estimates for SAT. Specifically 33% of the low AI kids had a non-athlete/non-URM hook, 29% were recruited athletes, 25% had no hooks besides URM, and 13% were unhooked non-URMs. The latter figure about unhooked kids being in the group doesn’t surprise me, as I’d expect a small number of unhooked kids to be below bottom 25% stat thresholds. There are a large number of criteria beyond stats, and some combinations can be quite influential. However, when I drop to bottom 5% AI, then it becomes a range for which admission appears to be virtually impossible without strong hooks. The vast majority were recruited athletes, and there were zero unhooked kids.
Harvard Bottom 25% AI Stats Admitted Class of 2019
47% are White – 22% Athlete, 16% Hooked non-athlete, 9% Unhooked
28% are Black – 5% Athlete, 9% Additional Hooks, 15% Unhooked (besides URM)
17% are Hispanic – 1% Athlete, 6% Additional Hooks, 10% Unhooked (besides URM)
7% are Asian – 1% Athlete, 3% Hooked non-athlete, 4% Unhooked
Harvard Bottom 5% AI Stats Admitted Class of 2019
58% are White – 43% Athlete, 15% Hooked non-athlete, None Unhooked
28% are Black – 19% Athlete, 4% Additional Hooks, 4% Unhooked (besides URM)
11% are Hispanic – 3% Athlete, 6% Additional Hooks, 1% Unhooked (besides URM)
3% are Asian – 1% Athlete, 1% Hooked non-athlete, None Unhooked
@rosemaryandthyme UVA was never private. It was chartered by the Commonwealth of Virginia. William & Mary was a royal chartered college, which was endowed with land given by the monarchy. It then became more traditionally private, and then public in the early 1900s. It had hit hard times after the Civil War.
Interesting factoid: In Connecticut, the first agricultural experiment station was established first at Wesleyan and later at Yale, a decade before it was finally established at Storrs, the location of the state university. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/CAES/DOCUMENTS/Publications/SemiCentennialoftheConnecticutAgriculturalExperimentStationpdf.pdf?la=en
So, looking at @Data10’s numbers and trying to fit them into @MWolf’s thought process, it looks like 25%((47%-22%)+(7%-1%))=7.8% of the class of 2019 were White/Asian non-athletes in the bottom academic 25%. Of the 7.8% of the class that was bottom 25% / White/Asian / non-athlete, 25%(9%+4%)=3.3% were unhooked, leaving 5.5% that were hooked in some way other than being URM or athlete. As @Data10 notes, hooks for this purpose include applying early, legacy, faculty child and special interest.
Table A.4 of the Arcidiacono report (https://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Doc-415-1-Arcidiacono-Expert-Report.pdf) helpfully segments this information, showing that for the class in question, there were 100+467=567 kids admitted who had “special circumstances” (legacy, athlete, faculty child, dean’s/director’s list). 524 kids were admitted early without special circumstances (i.e., were otherwise unhooked). Per Table A.2 there were 1,374 athletes in the six years of the dataset, so let’s assume that one-sixth, or 229, of the special circumstances admits in the class of 2019 were athletes, meaning that 567-229=338 weren’t. So, of the hooked kids admitted that year, 524 were admitted early with no other hooks, 229 were athletes and 338 were legacies / faculty children / special interest.
Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s enough information disclosed to account for overlaps and URMs who applied early, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to say that about half of the hooked White/Asian non-athletes were deemed to be hooked simply because they applied early. So, something like 5.5%/2=2.8% of the class, or around 50 kids, were bottom quartile academically, White or Asian, not an athlete, and hooked for some reason other than applying early (likely a big donor or child of someone important to the university). That feels like the truth.
“Put all these schools en masse into Chicagoland, Los Angles, San Francisco, Atlanta, NYC, DC or Houston and watch the changes in admissions to the state schools. And most of the local private elites there too. Lol.”
That would not happen in SF, LA or California in general. None of those four schools would touch Stanford, Cal Tech, Pomona, Harvey Mudd, Claremont Mckenna, Scripps, USC, wrt desirability for Californians. Second, they would have to give serious financial aid to compete with most of the UCs. Tufts is probably the best school of the bunch and for STEM, kids/parents will choose Berkeley and UCLA over Tufts, maybe for something like IR or econ they would choose Tufts. But again, they’re not going to pay $70K for that. Now yes they would take students from Santa Clara, Occidental, Chapman, UC Merced et. al., agree there.
I know that this is not on-topic, but not all of you may be aware of the situation in CA, and since it came up on Page 6, I want to address it.
The state is so impacted with capable, ambitious students – relative to the most accessible institutions in the state (UC, CSU) that nothing is guaranteed or even reasonably predictable any longer. If you are really top, you are probably getting into at least one of the top 4 UC campuses (but all bets are off as to which one, and it is probably only one, not all 4.) Seats at UC campuses are being rationed, literally. The in-state high-achieving student population is huge, relative to the institutions in a position to accommodate their desires. Foolish students are “counting on” UC’s as a “safety,” when the only campus guaranteed right now is Merced, for everybody. Non-foolish students are applying abundantly, not only to privates in-state but to as many public and private colleges s as they can manage OOS. This will include some elites on the East Coast, but that’s not really the problem, since more and more students are getting it that their odds are at least as long for such other colleges. What’s more likely to affect all students, nationwide, is the pressure on good publics (Illinois, North Carolina, Washington State, Michigan) because of the increase in the number of West Coast students (including Washingtonians) applying OOS.
Therefore (again, because the topic came up), it can’t be reduced to “but I have more affordable/just-as-good options locally.” Not any longer you don’t. Even CSU’s are waitlisting and rejecting, right and left. Like UC, CSU’s are rationing.
So with these super long posts with a ton of data that I can’t read do to my ADHD that @Data10 and @Mwolf write, seems to me you can directly correlate all of this to culture/race and the importance that each culture puts on academics/athletics/etc. It is clear that Caucasians place importance on athletics and academics. Asians value academics far above athletics, and AA value athletics above academics, and this is reflective in admission rates. You can add other activities and you’ll find the correlation to values determined by culture to admissions.
@theloniusmonk That’s your opinion. Try having a 250 year head start. And I actually think if they were there it would have an impact. Crazy to think otherwise. Didn’t say shut down.