Ivy League results so far? who is making it in?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I found this interesting--the acceptance rate for all racial groups at Harvard has actually fallen in recent decades, with the *steepest* declines for African Americans and Latinos: "...the acceptance rates for all racial groups did not fall at the same rate. African-American applicants saw the steepest decline — their acceptance rates fell by 12.4 percentage points over 18 years. In the 1995-1996 admissions cycle, 19.2 percent of African-American Harvard hopefuls earned a spot at the College; in the 2012-2013 cycle, just 6.8 percent of African-American applicants did so. Hispanic-Americans saw the second-steepest decline of 8.9 percentage points, while white students saw a decline of 5.4 percentage points. Asian-American applicants saw the smallest decrease: their acceptance rate fell by just 3.6 percentage points in that time period." This doesn't fit the popular narrative on DCUM that it's easier to get in for "URMs." Looks like it's actually more difficult, relative to whites and Asian Americans, than it was a couple of decades ago. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/19/acceptance-rates-by-race/ |
Anonymous
| Could this be attributed to first-gen and/or poor students gaining admittance in greater numbers? Poor students and/or first-gen aren't always POC. |
Anonymous
|
Re 9:22.
It has been found over and over that at Harvard, legacies and athletes comprise a significant percentage of admitted students. Those hooks are > others, including demographics. |
Anonymous
Very wrong. White girls have the lowest admit rates of all groups, including lower than white males, at almost every top college. That’s because white girls tend to be more mature at their age, and to work harder, then many teen boys of any race/ethnicity. So there are more white, female applicants to the top schools. |
Anonymous
Where can political papers be published without academic credentials? |
Anonymous
People on DCUM struggle with understanding statistics sometimes. This graph does show that it is easier for AAs and Hispanics to be admitted compared to Asians and Whites. The admitted percentages have fallen for every group as more qualified applications are submitted. The increase over 20 years will obviously be greater for URMs due to outreach and efforts by universities, the College Board and high schools to extend college prep and expectations to a more diverse group (not to mention that the number of Hispanics in this country has increased dramatically in 20 years.). Anyway, the thing that people are complaining about when they say it is easier for URMs is not the acceptance rate, but the level of academic achievement needed for admittance. The difference in achievement between groups will be least at HPYS because they can recruit the highest achieving URMs, but as you go down the rankings, it would become acute. |
Anonymous
And the stats/qualifications for this group are higher as well. |
Anonymous
*for legacies |
Anonymous
Data? |
Anonymous
aside from only being true for legacies, isn't it still arguable that the stats are not so much better for legacies that they deserve to get in at a higher rate than non-legacy applicants? Maybe this isn't the way to think about it, but if the stats for admitted legacies is on par with those for non-legacies, then at the end of the day, legacies are still being admitted not for anything they've done, but simply for who their parents are. In a way, this is no different than demographics, in that it's just about an accident of birth. |
Anonymous
PP here. I have to run to a mtg, so just a quick response. I actually do have a good handle on statistics (I have a Ph.D. in a research field). I only meant to suggest that there are different ways of looking at this. Yes, URMs ave. test scores are lower, but *as a group* they are less likely to be admitted now than in the 90s relative to whites and Asians. As for level of "achievement," it depends on how you define it. You would like more emphasis placed on test scores, which is a fine position to take. However, with universities valuing holistic admissions, they disagree. And so you feel it's unfair that test scores don't get more emphasis, but universities are looking at what else applicants bring to the table. The latter seems especially key in the face of the current scandal over admissions, and the extensive test prep cottage industry. |
Anonymous
|
Something to keep in mind is that at the Ivies and other top colleges a high percentage of white students will be Jewish. Possibly close to half of white students on campus will be Jewish. Jews make up 1.5% of the US population but a much higher percent at the Ivies. I am not at all implying this is unfair or that Jewish students don’t deserve it (they do, as an incredibly accomplished and hard working demographics) but it does underscore that if if you are a non-Jewish white applicant you are greatly underrepresented on campus compared to the national statistics. That is the new reality.
Some would argue it doesn’t make a difference but it was not that long ago Jews were considered a different demographics separate from white America and suffered from quotas. |
Anonymous
Half the applicants are multiracial. |
Anonymous
Keep up. High school students have been co-authors on papers in various fields. |
Anonymous
This is the only good post in this thread. Bumping it so maybe we can get back on track and add to it on March 28 with actual first-hand accounts of what it takes to get into an Ivy these days |