Brutal Admissions Year!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL at the person (incorrectly) decrying private colleges' affirmative action policies as unconstitutional and then trampling the First Amendment when it comes to the US News rankings

NP. Your post makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Admission may be brutal, but financial aid offers have been brutal. Our HHI is under $100k, and no aid from any of schools that our DC got accepted to. The desirability of an accepted student may depend on his stats, and our DC is pretty competitive, and yet received no fin aid. Pretty bummed that we can't spend half of our income for college every year, so the acceptance is meaningless for us.

This can't be right, unless your child applied only to OOS schools and has mediocre stats. Did your DC apply to any privates with need-blind admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is these threads working people up. Anecdotal stories, most often the negative ones, does not mean that it has been a brutal year, or that things are necessarily getting worse. I have heard of many good results this year.

+1 I haven't heard any sob stories yet, just success stories.

Well here's one for you....DD....applied to 5 schools within range...and .....5 "wait lists"......

I'm sorry, what about her safeties?

I know two kids who were on wait lists and got in due to constant pestering of the school's admissions office. They visited the schools over and over, sent weekly emails, letters, recommendations, all sorts of stuff indicating they really, really, really wanted to go to that particular school. It's a lot of work, but for these two kids, it worked!

[Anonymous]

Just to get this thread back to the OP's point: I know a number of kids at my kid's private school who were turned down at all their reaches and some of their matches, so yes, I'd have to agree that it's been a surprisingly competitive year, but I have nothing to compare it to. Our college counselor says the reaches (Ivies and the like) are now madness, and that no one, not matter how smart, is a shoe-in at any of these schools. The top kids at my kid's school were turned down at some of the Ivies, and accepted at others. Why? Who knows? Does it really matter?
My kid doesn't know where she's going yet -- we have to see if we can wring a few more dollars out of the schools that offered her merit aid -- wish us luck! If none of the private colleges budges, then she's going in-state. She's a great student, but not at the tippy top. She got into some selective schools and not into others, got merit money from some and none from others. Hard to decipher why. I think every year becomes more brutal -- just so many kids applying to basically the same number of colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the kid who is the bagpiper/chocolatier/just a nice guy!

now watch there be a huge spate of bagpipe/chocolatier/nice guy applications next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Admission may be brutal, but financial aid offers have been brutal. Our HHI is under $100k, and no aid from any of schools that our DC got accepted to. The desirability of an accepted student may depend on his stats, and our DC is pretty competitive, and yet received no fin aid. Pretty bummed that we can't spend half of our income for college every year, so the acceptance is meaningless for us.

This can't be right, unless your child applied only to OOS schools and has mediocre stats. Did your DC apply to any privates with need-blind admissions?

I think it's possible, if parents have a ton of equity or investments. I know a family where Mom is working as a substitute teacher but dad retired at 50 from investment banking....3 homes and likely a hefty net worth. She could liikely claim income under 100k, but they're not middle class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of all the people focusing on affirmative action I have the following points.

1. The numbers are African americans and Hispanics at elite schools are relatively small, less than the percentage
in the general population. For example, there are 88 African amercians in last year's freshman class at Darmouth. Out of 1152.
2. Why is it accepted that athletes are okay but seeking other types of diversity is not? What value does a lacrosse player really add? I don't agree with this premise. It gives you an admissions edge even when there are no scholarships attached. Thus, it becomes a preference based upon your ability to pay for Lacrosse (or fill in the blank) in order to gain an admissions edge.
3. Most of you suppose that all or most of the minority applicants are unqualified. It presumes that they are nearly always inferior, and therein lies the cruelest of all lies. First, most minority applicants that are admitted have very high qualifications. Refusal to acknowledge this devalues these young men and women and is, frankly, insulting. Look at the Common data sets for school. Most admitted students meet a very high standard and it is very few who fall below a certain SAT and GPA.
4. Pretending that it does the minority no favors and that you feel sorry for the poor minority who cant cut it in the big leagues is also really laughable.
5. Scapegoating minorities is not going to make this process any less competitive.

I could go on but you get my points.

The easy answer to minority admissions being given the appropriate respect as opposed to assumptions that they are the result of preferences is to make ALL admissions to be based on merit.

Legacy and sports related preferences don't draw a distinction when it comes to race except to the extent that legacy admissions for historical reasons go more to whites than other races.

If one is going to offer some sort of preference to the disadvantaged then the criteria should be based on socio-economic status. The child of a coal miner in West Virginia is disadvantaged but if he/she is white then there is no preference given to that applicant. Yet, the child of an affluent black or Hispanic parent would get preference just based on race.

Exactly!!

Of course there's preference for the coal miners kid. Ever hear of geographic diversity? That's why people say to move away from here because it's easier to get in elsewhere. Plus, if you're the first in your family to go to college AD's look at that. You are silly.

[Anonymous]

The top kids at my kid's school were turned down at some of the Ivies, and accepted at others.

Which Ivy League schools have released their results already? The kids I know are still waiting for them to come out later this week. I know at least some of them are releasing tomorrow at 5 pm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of all the people focusing on affirmative action I have the following points.

1. The numbers are African americans and Hispanics at elite schools are relatively small, less than the percentage
in the general population. For example, there are 88 African amercians in last year's freshman class at Darmouth. Out of 1152.
2. Why is it accepted that athletes are okay but seeking other types of diversity is not? What value does a lacrosse player really add? I don't agree with this premise. It gives you an admissions edge even when there are no scholarships attached. Thus, it becomes a preference based upon your ability to pay for Lacrosse (or fill in the blank) in order to gain an admissions edge.
3. Most of you suppose that all or most of the minority applicants are unqualified. It presumes that they are nearly always inferior, and therein lies the cruelest of all lies. First, most minority applicants that are admitted have very high qualifications. Refusal to acknowledge this devalues these young men and women and is, frankly, insulting. Look at the Common data sets for school. Most admitted students meet a very high standard and it is very few who fall below a certain SAT and GPA.
4. Pretending that it does the minority no favors and that you feel sorry for the poor minority who cant cut it in the big leagues is also really laughable.
5. Scapegoating minorities is not going to make this process any less competitive.

I could go on but you get my points.

The easy answer to minority admissions being given the appropriate respect as opposed to assumptions that they are the result of preferences is to make ALL admissions to be based on merit.

Legacy and sports related preferences don't draw a distinction when it comes to race except to the extent that legacy admissions for historical reasons go more to whites than other races.

If one is going to offer some sort of preference to the disadvantaged then the criteria should be based on socio-economic status. The child of a coal miner in West Virginia is disadvantaged but if he/she is white then there is no preference given to that applicant. Yet, the child of an affluent black or Hispanic parent would get preference just based on race.

Exactly!!

Of course there's preference for the coal miners kid. Ever hear of geographic diversity? That's why people say to move away from here because it's easier to get in elsewhere. Plus, if you're the first in your family to go to college AD's look at that. You are silly.

You are an idiot: geographical diversity does not have socio-economic constraints or preferences - both the coal miner's child and the executive's child would provide geographical diversity if he/she were from the same state.

More to the point, why should someone who is black or Hispanic and socio-economically well-off, be given any sort of preference?

[Anonymous]

But what the poster is saying is what we have observed -- My son's room mate is "Hispanic". His dad is an investment banker and he attended private schools and was waited on by a house full of servants. He drives a Lexus. I don't think that that was actually the target audience for the system of racial admissions preferences. One of my college roommates grew up on some kind of a ranch in Namibia. She was "African" -- even though she was white and quite wealthy. My son's friend is "African-American". Both her parents are neurosurgeons and her house is literally five times the size of ours. This feels like cheating to me. And no one wins in this scenario -- not the kids who don't get accepted, whether white or black, nor the students who are, who aren't really getting exposed to a diverse group of people, unless you consider Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous as a diverse group of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But what the poster is saying is what we have observed -- My son's room mate is "Hispanic". His dad is an investment banker and he attended private schools and was waited on by a house full of servants. He drives a Lexus. I don't think that that was actually the target audience for the system of racial admissions preferences. One of my college roommates grew up on some kind of a ranch in Namibia. She was "African" -- even though she was white and quite wealthy. My son's friend is "African-American". Both her parents are neurosurgeons and her house is literally five times the size of ours. This feels like cheating to me. And no one wins in this scenario -- not the kids who don't get accepted, whether white or black, nor the students who are, who aren't really getting exposed to a diverse group of people, unless you consider Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous as a diverse group of people.

You are seeing increasing numbers of these situations as minorities who received preferences and those who came up through their own qualifications are now part of the affluent class. But members of these groups will continue to ardently protect their right to continued preference.

If there are to be preferences then it should be blind to racial categorization and reflect that it is more difficult for any person who comes from a less privileged background to make the same headway as one who comes from a more affluent background.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Do away with the US News report rankings, and others like it.

OK, so how do you proposed we "do away" with this rankings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to get this thread back to the OP's point: I know a number of kids at my kid's private school who were turned down at all their reaches and some of their matches, so yes, I'd have to agree that it's been a surprisingly competitive year, but I have nothing to compare it to. Our college counselor says the reaches (Ivies and the like) are now madness, and that no one, not matter how smart, is a shoe-in at any of these schools. The top kids at my kid's school were turned down at some of the Ivies, and accepted at others. Why? Who knows? Does it really matter?
My kid doesn't know where she's going yet -- we have to see if we can wring a few more dollars out of the schools that offered her merit aid -- wish us luck! If none of the private colleges budges, then she's going in-state. She's a great student, but not at the tippy top. She got into some selective schools and not into others, got merit money from some and none from others. Hard to decipher why. I think every year becomes more brutal -- just so many kids applying to basically the same number of colleges.

Why are either of the bolded statements indicative of an especially brutal admissions year?

Its extremely common for kids to be turned down by their reaches. That's why they're reaches. Its also common for kids to be turned down for some of their matches. That's why they're matches, not safeties.

Its also not at all surprising or unusual that top students got turned down for some Ivies & admitted to others. There are a lot of high schools out there, each with it's own "top" students, & all the Ivies can't admit all the top students. Different Ivies are looking for different things to balance out the class & some Ivies have more competitive admissions than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of all the people focusing on affirmative action I have the following points.

1. The numbers are African americans and Hispanics at elite schools are relatively small, less than the percentage
in the general population. For example, there are 88 African amercians in last year's freshman class at Darmouth. Out of 1152.
2. Why is it accepted that athletes are okay but seeking other types of diversity is not? What value does a lacrosse player really add? I don't agree with this premise. It gives you an admissions edge even when there are no scholarships attached. Thus, it becomes a preference based upon your ability to pay for Lacrosse (or fill in the blank) in order to gain an admissions edge.
3. Most of you suppose that all or most of the minority applicants are unqualified. It presumes that they are nearly always inferior, and therein lies the cruelest of all lies. First, most minority applicants that are admitted have very high qualifications. Refusal to acknowledge this devalues these young men and women and is, frankly, insulting. Look at the Common data sets for school. Most admitted students meet a very high standard and it is very few who fall below a certain SAT and GPA.
4. Pretending that it does the minority no favors and that you feel sorry for the poor minority who cant cut it in the big leagues is also really laughable.
5. Scapegoating minorities is not going to make this process any less competitive.

I could go on but you get my points.

The easy answer to minority admissions being given the appropriate respect as opposed to assumptions that they are the result of preferences is to make ALL admissions to be based on merit.

Legacy and sports related preferences don't draw a distinction when it comes to race except to the extent that legacy admissions for historical reasons go more to whites than other races.

If one is going to offer some sort of preference to the disadvantaged then the criteria should be based on socio-economic status. The child of a coal miner in West Virginia is disadvantaged but if he/she is white then there is no preference given to that applicant. Yet, the child of an affluent black or Hispanic parent would get preference just based on race.

Exactly!!

Of course there's preference for the coal miners kid. Ever hear of geographic diversity? That's why people say to move away from here because it's easier to get in elsewhere. Plus, if you're the first in your family to go to college AD's look at that. You are silly.

You are an idiot: geographical diversity does not have socio-economic constraints or preferences - both the coal miner's child and the executive's child would provide geographical diversity if he/she were from the same state.

More to the point, why should someone who is black or Hispanic and socio-economically well-off, be given any sort of preference?

Well, that's the question. The answer is that Justice O'Connor wants diversity in classrooms in elite schools. She also said it should sunset 20 or whatever it was years from the decision. But that was dicta, and.., it's not going to happen. Ballot initiatives such as those that were used on CA and MI are the only way it gets changed.

[Anonymous]

I'm dating myself with this reference, but I recall an episode of the Sopranos where Carmela was bemoaning the fact that a classmate of Meadow's would have an admissions edge due to Native American antecedents, I think. That captured the angst and repressed anger of privileged suburban families quite nicely. But she did get into an Ivy. I have Hispanic antecedents, fwiw.