Reach vs. Possibility vs. Safety?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simply having a "hook" as a minority no way guarantees admission.

Not a guarantee, but it does increase one's chances.
My DC's class had several very strong minority students. Their admissions were more impressive than those of their white or Asian peers with equally great credentials. The kids themselves admitted that their skin color gave them the edge. Their friends did not really begrudge their success... everyone worked equally hard for their goals and they realize that's the way the system works.

What a nice, quaint, pat story. Fits so nicely into the stereotype of the black kid getting in based on race alone. It also reaks of bull. As an educator and parent of a senior, I can assure you this little scenario makes zero sense. Students simply do not have those types of conversations. I've never heard it once in 20+ years of education. And my DC tells me that it's not a conversation had among peers because it's sad. No one wants to think of leaving high school and parting with their friends forever, so there's little to no discussion surrounding colleges, credentials, etc.

Furthermore, no one can know whose credentials were better. The white or Asian kids may have 4.0's but the black kids could have 3.8's with more AP courses, an after school job and/or unique story. I simply don't know how your child would know who had which credentials. Did DC see transcripts or is he simply taking their words for it? And what senior takes a poll of credentials and notes them by race? Also, did all of these kids apply EA?

And black kids admitting that their skin color gave them the edge? That's another load of bull. The LAST thing a black child wants to THINK much less admit is that he's inferior and unworthy of a spot that was given to him solely based on race.

Come back with a better story next time.

This one is full of so much BS it STINKS.

Mind, nowhere did I suggest that the black kids were inferior in any way. They were strong students with great ECs. However, you are entitled to your opinion based on your limited experience.
This was not the class of 2014. The nature of conversations changes as the senior year draws to an end. And the kids are just as excited to begin their new life as they are sad to part with old friends.

Your 2nd hand conversations with DC several years ago is much more limited than my 20+ years as an educator.

I've had very, very bright students in my classes over the years. But even I couldn't predict how they would fair in the college admissions process. And despite my conversations with them surrounding grades, the app process, etc., I had no way of knowing who was better credentialed than others. And I was actually in charge of the GRADE BOOK in my class!!!

I will give it to you on your last point. After college acceptances have started coming in and summer approaches, they may begin having those conversations about who's going where after HS. But I still doubt credentials would be a part of that conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a top kid -- I mean like top 10% or higher SATs and GPA but no "hook" like being an underrepresented minority, playing a sport or having a unique talent or strength, then I'd say be careful with applying to Ivies. When competing for college acceptance at the highest levels, almost no one can consider themselves "likely" for admission. If you are going the Ivy (or Ivy equivalent) route, I'd advise applying to a few more schools than typical, and including a true safety like UMD, Michigan, Tulane, Penn State.

There are so many highly qualified, high academic and test score applicants that the underrepresented minority is becoming passe. If anything, they are competing among themselves for the selective slots AND there scores are just as good if not better than the top 10% of non-white students.

I personally know 7 black students (private and public schools) who were early admit to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Stanford. Every one of them had superior grades and scores, attended top flight private and public in this area, and ranked in single digits (one school does not rank). There is absolutely no doubt they were admitted for their outstanding credentials. If the Ivy schools salivated and did not look beyond their skin color, that's their problem.

People should stop assuming that underrepresented minorities are solely admitted because of their skin color. Harvard or any of the other top schools will not admit someone who can't carry their academic weight regardless if they are the first purple person on earth. Richard Sherman (football) may be rambunctious and was most likely admitted for sports, he had a 3.7 GPA at Stanford.

Simply having a "hook" as a minority no way guarantees admission.

Oh please. URM is a huge hook, equivalent to hundreds of SAT points. It does not guarantee admission, but it sure increases one's chances. Just take a stroll through some College Confidential accepted student threads to see the advantage being a URM provides.

As for Sherman's grades, it is well known that everybody does well at the top schools. Grade inflation there is out of control. As they say, the only thing harder than getting into an an an Ivy, is failing out.

While it is true that failing out of an Ivy is almost impossible, it's not due to grade inflation. In fact, the idea of grade inflation is a lie.

As an Ivy grad, I can assure you everyone works their asses off for every grade they receive and not everyone gets an A. However, there are lots of A's given simply because you're dealing with the cream of the crop, best of the best students.

Sounds like a serious case of selection bias, "because we are all so smart here (as validated by our admission) most everyone deserves an A." As for grade inflation, Princeton had to put a cap on the number of As professors were handing out. "Grade deflation" was not only not a lie, it was policy. It looks like now Princeton may reverse that policy after nearly a decade because it is "not consistent with our educational goals." And so the grade inflation continues.

Of course rationing out A's based on policy instead of granting the true grade that was earned is "not consistent with educational goals".

I am aware of the idea and study of "grade inflation" at selective schools. However, I am here to tell you that the A's are not handed out like candy on Halloween. They are earned. However, these highly selective Ivy Leagues--where very, very deeply intellectual people are always challenging the status quo--looked at the data and decided that it was worth looking at why so many A's were being given. Was it because the professors were lax? Were the classes not intellectually challenging? Or *gasp!* Was it because they'd only accepted the cream of the crop who'd spent their wholes lives making nothing less than straight A's in very competitive classes? Many have concluded the last, which is what I suspect caused Princeton to reverse it's policy.

Of course, the 'grade inflation' theory works well at soothing the hurt feelings and insecurities of those who didn't make it into the Big League.

That last line is such a giveaway! I smell Cornell a mile away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a top kid -- I mean like top 10% or higher SATs and GPA but no "hook" like being an underrepresented minority, playing a sport or having a unique talent or strength, then I'd say be careful with applying to Ivies. When competing for college acceptance at the highest levels, almost no one can consider themselves "likely" for admission. If you are going the Ivy (or Ivy equivalent) route, I'd advise applying to a few more schools than typical, and including a true safety like UMD, Michigan, Tulane, Penn State.

There are so many highly qualified, high academic and test score applicants that the underrepresented minority is becoming passe. If anything, they are competing among themselves for the selective slots AND there scores are just as good if not better than the top 10% of non-white students.

I personally know 7 black students (private and public schools) who were early admit to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Stanford. Every one of them had superior grades and scores, attended top flight private and public in this area, and ranked in single digits (one school does not rank). There is absolutely no doubt they were admitted for their outstanding credentials. If the Ivy schools salivated and did not look beyond their skin color, that's their problem.

People should stop assuming that underrepresented minorities are solely admitted because of their skin color. Harvard or any of the other top schools will not admit someone who can't carry their academic weight regardless if they are the first purple person on earth. Richard Sherman (football) may be rambunctious and was most likely admitted for sports, he had a 3.7 GPA at Stanford.

Simply having a "hook" as a minority no way guarantees admission.

Oh please. URM is a huge hook, equivalent to hundreds of SAT points. It does not guarantee admission, but it sure increases one's chances. Just take a stroll through some College Confidential accepted student threads to see the advantage being a URM provides.

As for Sherman's grades, it is well known that everybody does well at the top schools. Grade inflation there is out of control. As they say, the only thing harder than getting into an an an Ivy, is failing out.

While it is true that failing out of an Ivy is almost impossible, it's not due to grade inflation. In fact, the idea of grade inflation is a lie.

As an Ivy grad, I can assure you everyone works their asses off for every grade they receive and not everyone gets an A. However, there are lots of A's given simply because you're dealing with the cream of the crop, best of the best students.

Sounds like a serious case of selection bias, "because we are all so smart here (as validated by our admission) most everyone deserves an A." As for grade inflation, Princeton had to put a cap on the number of As professors were handing out. "Grade deflation" was not only not a lie, it was policy. It looks like now Princeton may reverse that policy after nearly a decade because it is "not consistent with our educational goals." And so the grade inflation continues.

Of course rationing out A's based on policy instead of granting the true grade that was earned is "not consistent with educational goals".

I am aware of the idea and study of "grade inflation" at selective schools. However, I am here to tell you that the A's are not handed out like candy on Halloween. They are earned. However, these highly selective Ivy Leagues--where very, very deeply intellectual people are always challenging the status quo--looked at the data and decided that it was worth looking at why so many A's were being given. Was it because the professors were lax? Were the classes not intellectually challenging? Or *gasp!* Was it because they'd only accepted the cream of the crop who'd spent their wholes lives making nothing less than straight A's in very competitive classes? Many have concluded the last, which is what I suspect caused Princeton to reverse it's policy.

Of course, the 'grade inflation' theory works well at soothing the hurt feelings and insecurities of those who didn't make it into the Big League.

That last line is such a giveaway! I smell Cornell a mile away.

Not Cornell.

Try 2 different Ivy leagues (one under the other grad).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Make sure you have at least one school that your kid would be fine with attending where they are essentially guaranteed to get in (test scores and grades way above average). After that it's risk tolerance.

+1 -- 'tho OP's question goes to assessing the risk; once you have a handle on that, ITA agree with ^^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a top kid -- I mean like top 10% or higher SATs and GPA but no "hook" like being an underrepresented minority, playing a sport or having a unique talent or strength, then I'd say be careful with applying to Ivies. When competing for college acceptance at the highest levels, almost no one can consider themselves "likely" for admission. If you are going the Ivy (or Ivy equivalent) route, I'd advise applying to a few more schools than typical, and including a true safety like UMD, Michigan, Tulane, Penn State.

There are so many highly qualified, high academic and test score applicants that the underrepresented minority is becoming passe. If anything, they are competing among themselves for the selective slots AND there scores are just as good if not better than the top 10% of non-white students.

I personally know 7 black students (private and public schools) who were early admit to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Stanford. Every one of them had superior grades and scores, attended top flight private and public in this area, and ranked in single digits (one school does not rank). There is absolutely no doubt they were admitted for their outstanding credentials. If the Ivy schools salivated and did not look beyond their skin color, that's their problem.

People should stop assuming that underrepresented minorities are solely admitted because of their skin color. Harvard or any of the other top schools will not admit someone who can't carry their academic weight regardless if they are the first purple person on earth. Richard Sherman (football) may be rambunctious and was most likely admitted for sports, he had a 3.7 GPA at Stanford.

Simply having a "hook" as a minority no way guarantees admission.

Oh please. URM is a huge hook, equivalent to hundreds of SAT points. It does not guarantee admission, but it sure increases one's chances. Just take a stroll through some College Confidential accepted student threads to see the advantage being a URM provides.

As for Sherman's grades, it is well known that everybody does well at the top schools. Grade inflation there is out of control. As they say, the only thing harder than getting into an an an Ivy, is failing out.

While it is true that failing out of an Ivy is almost impossible, it's not due to grade inflation. In fact, the idea of grade inflation is a lie.

As an Ivy grad, I can assure you everyone works their asses off for every grade they receive and not everyone gets an A. However, there are lots of A's given simply because you're dealing with the cream of the crop, best of the best students.

Sounds like a serious case of selection bias, "because we are all so smart here (as validated by our admission) most everyone deserves an A." As for grade inflation, Princeton had to put a cap on the number of As professors were handing out. "Grade deflation" was not only not a lie, it was policy. It looks like now Princeton may reverse that policy after nearly a decade because it is "not consistent with our educational goals." And so the grade inflation continues.

Of course rationing out A's based on policy instead of granting the true grade that was earned is "not consistent with educational goals".

I am aware of the idea and study of "grade inflation" at selective schools. However, I am here to tell you that the A's are not handed out like candy on Halloween. They are earned. However, these highly selective Ivy Leagues--where very, very deeply intellectual people are always challenging the status quo--looked at the data and decided that it was worth looking at why so many A's were being given. Was it because the professors were lax? Were the classes not intellectually challenging? Or *gasp!* Was it because they'd only accepted the cream of the crop who'd spent their wholes lives making nothing less than straight A's in very competitive classes? Many have concluded the last, which is what I suspect caused Princeton to reverse it's policy.
Of course, the 'grade inflation' theory works well at soothing the hurt feelings and insecurities of those who didn't make it into the Big League.

That last line is such a giveaway! I smell Cornell a mile away.

Not Cornell.

Try 2 different Ivy leagues (one under the other grad).

So refreshing to see a humble graduate of the self-described "Big Leagues." We get it. The privilged are the best and deserve top grades. Believe you me, people work hard everywhere, not just in the Ivy League. If hard work were the only variable, the woman working a double shift at McDonalds works harder than any college student. So more is going on.

[Anonymous]

1. Many Asian students and their parents discuss race in admissions ALL THE TIME. Many in this community feel that their children are disadvantaged by diversity policies that limit the number of Asian students in a class to make room for others, particularly in STEM programs.

2. The US Supreme Ct has held that race, ethnicity socio-economic status and other factors may be considered in college admissions and it has been that way for a long time, although recent decisions are cutting back somewhat on this in the area at public universities. It cannot be credibly denied that these are relevant factors in many, many schools admissions decisions any more than it can be denied that ability to pay is a factor in a school that is not need blind in admissions (although many of the most selective schools are need blind, some are not) . I did not see earlier posters argue that race is the only reason any student is accepted to school, but I did very strong reactions suggesting that such a point was made and then criticizing a point of view that was not advanced. I saw earlier posters talking about URM status as a factor. But if we are going to consider such things in admissions, students who benefit from such things should not be defensive about it. There are kids at our school -- of all races and backgrounds -- who play sports and may contact a college lacross, baseball, cross country or basketball coach to help them in the admissions process also to schools that they would be less likely to get into based primarily on grades and SATs, and they are usually fairly open about. And yes the other kids generally know how academically strong those students are as well without seeing a transcript. It isn't a big secret.

3. As noted above, maybe it isn't true in all schools but in smaller school the kids know one another's academic abilities well. All kids know who makes various honor societies in schools that publish such things, honor such students in assemblies, etc. and the criteria for these are known (for ex., top 10% junior year, top 20% senior year, etc.). When student A in the top 10% is passed over for student B in the top 20 or who isn't in the top 20%, that is known. It may not happen that often at a single school, but it is hard to deny that it happens at times. Similarly, kids all know who are the National Merit Semifinalists and the Commended Scholars -- this is published in the newspapers even if not announced (as it usually is I believe) at school. They also know the African American and Hispanic students who receive awards based on the same tests that are available only to students of that ethnicity/race, and that the cut offs for these awards to date have been lower than the cut offs for awards to the overall population as NMCSs or NMSFs. Sure, SAT scores can change between junior and senior year. Sure, some students with lower grades or SAT scores may get in because of stronger college essays and amazing life stories unrelated to their race, ethnicity, etc. But is anyone prepared to say it never happens because the URM status was a factor? Such defensiveness only fuels the arguments against consideration of diversity factors for everyone. To deny that URM status is a favorable factor in admissions is as ridiculous as claiming that there is no one in the country who dislikes the President solely because of his race. The only difference is that colleges are usually more open about taking diversity into account in admissions decisions than racists are about their own views.

[Anonymous]

While public schools may still rank students, many privates do not (except maybe for No. 1 an 2). Therefore, in those schools rank is not relevant.

[Anonymous]

Very well said, 17:40. I wish more people would have responded to OP's original question, though, because I share it. My DC goes to a small school so there are not a lot of data points for the schools DC is interested in on Naviance, and our counselor is rather inexperienced. Wondering if we need to consult with an outside consultant to create a realistic list. I hate to spend money on that, , but I also don't want DC to be aiming too high or too low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very well said, 17:40. I wish more people would have responded to OP's original question, though, because I share it. My DC goes to a small school so there are not a lot of data points for the schools DC is interested in on Naviance, and our counselor is rather inexperienced. Wondering if we need to consult with an outside consultant to create a realistic list. I hate to spend money on that, , but I also don't want DC to be aiming too high or too low.

This isnt' quite kosher, but maybe in that case you can find a parent at a different, but similar, school and ask them to tell you some of the Naviance results at their school if they have access? The last three people I know who have a child that got into an ivy league school did not use an outside counselor (one was form a public, two from different privates)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very well said, 17:40. I wish more people would have responded to OP's original question, though, because I share it. My DC goes to a small school so there are not a lot of data points for the schools DC is interested in on Naviance, and our counselor is rather inexperienced. Wondering if we need to consult with an outside consultant to create a realistic list. I hate to spend money on that, , but I also don't want DC to be aiming too high or too low.

This isnt' quite kosher, but maybe in that case you can find a parent at a different, but similar, school and ask them to tell you some of the Naviance results at their school if they have access? The last three people I know who have a child that got into an ivy league school did not use an outside counselor (one was form a public, two from different privates)

I take your point that a private counselor isn't necessary to ensure admission to a highly selective school. That said, though, I think putting together a list of schools is the hardest part of the application process. We got very little help from the counselor at our DC independent school on this point. If DS hadn't been accepted ED, we would have been a little nervous about whether we had the right mix of schools for regular decision applications.

[Anonymous]

18:59 here. I did not mean to suggest you shouldn't hire a consultant, only to offer you some other approaches. My company had a free benefit with college coach which I asked to generate a list as a second check on our school. It was much less focussed -- no schools we hadn't considered -- and without knowing our specific high school as well or DC, in retrospect, less accurate as to categories. If you have a weak counselor at school and can find a better ousted and can afford it, sure. We thought about a private pay outside consultant, but based on our research concluded that for generating a list they were not worth it. I have heard they are most valuable for keeping kids on track -- getting essays done, test planning/ prep, etc. -- if the parents don't have time or there is too much family tension pressrun the kid. Makes sense and we considered for those reasons, but ultimately decided we wanted to be more directly involved. Also, I think good outside counselors will want to get to know your child and family well. That was going to be a lot more meetings / forms etc junior or senior year. We thought that would ad more pressure than it was worth. But again, we came to feel our school counselor in our private was great. It could make sense for someone else. But I would add you need to give the school counselor time to get to knoeyou and your kid before judging how good he/ she is. Good luck

[Anonymous]

I agree that one benefit of a counselor, whether it's at school or an independent one, is that in additional to identifying schools and calibrating chances (an inexact science, given the crapshot factor) they serve as an outside authority to keep students focused on deadlines, etc. The supplemental essays can be a bear. Agree that deciding on which schools is the hardest part of the process. Parents can still be very involved, but a third party can neutralize things if for instance like my child there are stubborn streaks about how to handle this or that. This is a very intense process, the stakes seem so high for students. (Which is a shame, but that's a post for another day.) DC, who is a senior, has the most terrific college counselor. Worth her weight in gold. DC also turned to a counselor in another city who is a personalize friend, for feedback on an essay to DC's first choice school.

18:02 If your child's school's college counselor is inexperienced, I'd definitely research working with an independent counselor.

[Anonymous]

Try googling the Common Data Set for schools on your list. You'll see a breakdown of test scores, GPAs and academic requirements for accepted students, and also info about how a school rates extra curricular activities, essays, interviews, etc. This is the official info the colleges report to the outside world so you have to assume it's fairly accurate. Then, compare the info against your high school's Naviance results to get a sense of how individual admissions offices weight your high school (at our HS there are a few highly regarded SLACS who routinely take kids in the bottom tier of the CDS stats -- I guess they just like our school).
I used this strategy for both of my kids and found it pretty much on the money in terms of results.
Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: 1. Many Asian students and their parents discuss race in admissions ALL THE TIME. Many in this community feel that their children are disadvantaged by diversity policies that limit the number of Asian students in a class to make room for others, particularly in STEM programs.

2. The US Supreme Ct has held that race, ethnicity socio-economic status and other factors may be considered in college admissions and it has been that way for a long time, although recent decisions are cutting back somewhat on this in the area at public universities. It cannot be credibly denied that these are relevant factors in many, many schools admissions decisions any more than it can be denied that ability to pay is a factor in a school that is not need blind in admissions (although many of the most selective schools are need blind, some are not) . I did not see earlier posters argue that race is the only reason any student is accepted to school, but I did very strong reactions suggesting that such a point was made and then criticizing a point of view that was not advanced. I saw earlier posters talking about URM status as a factor. But if we are going to consider such things in admissions, students who benefit from such things should not be defensive about it. There are kids at our school -- of all races and backgrounds -- who play sports and may contact a college lacross, baseball, cross country or basketball coach to help them in the admissions process also to schools that they would be less likely to get into based primarily on grades and SATs, and they are usually fairly open about. And yes the other kids generally know how academically strong those students are as well without seeing a transcript. It isn't a big secret.

3. As noted above, maybe it isn't true in all schools but in smaller school the kids know one another's academic abilities well. All kids know who makes various honor societies in schools that publish such things, honor such students in assemblies, etc. and the criteria for these are known (for ex., top 10% junior year, top 20% senior year, etc.). When student A in the top 10% is passed over for student B in the top 20 or who isn't in the top 20%, that is known. It may not happen that often at a single school, but it is hard to deny that it happens at times. Similarly, kids all know who are the National Merit Semifinalists and the Commended Scholars -- this is published in the newspapers even if not announced (as it usually is I believe) at school. They also know the African American and Hispanic students who receive awards based on the same tests that are available only to students of that ethnicity/race, and that the cut offs for these awards to date have been lower than the cut offs for awards to the overall population as NMCSs or NMSFs. Sure, SAT scores can change between junior and senior year. Sure, some students with lower grades or SAT scores may get in because of stronger college essays and amazing life stories unrelated to their race, ethnicity, etc. But is anyone prepared to say it never happens because the URM status was a factor? Such defensiveness only fuels the arguments against consideration of diversity factors for everyone. To deny that URM status is a favorable factor in admissions is as ridiculous as claiming that there is no one in the country who dislikes the President solely because of his race. The only difference is that colleges are usually more open about taking diversity into account in admissions decisions than racists are about their own views.

I agree with #1. Every other race discusses the DISADVANTAGES of race/stereotypes. Whites are the only ones who discuss race in terms of advantage and privilege. That supports my position that a black child simply would not discuss his race in college admissions as an advantage/reason he got in. It DOES.NOT.HAPPEN.

To the other points, no one is denying that being an URM (athlete or legacy) can be a boost in the admissions process. I take issue with 1) the pat story that seemed untrue but the perfect stereotype of the somehow less qualified black kid unfairly getting in based SOLELY on race (which is what PP implies by saying other kids were better credentialed) and 2)the BOGUS claim that black students actually said (perhaps even bragged) that race was the reason they were admitted. I will cry BS on that all day long.

Furthermore, you clearly know very little about how college admissions really works if you think that posted lists of honor society members and some knowledge of SAT scores and classroom grades are enough to gauge how a person will fair in the admissions game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: 1. Many Asian students and their parents discuss race in admissions ALL THE TIME. Many in this community feel that their children are disadvantaged by diversity policies that limit the number of Asian students in a class to make room for others, particularly in STEM programs.

2. The US Supreme Ct has held that race, ethnicity socio-economic status and other factors may be considered in college admissions and it has been that way for a long time, although recent decisions are cutting back somewhat on this in the area at public universities. It cannot be credibly denied that these are relevant factors in many, many schools admissions decisions any more than it can be denied that ability to pay is a factor in a school that is not need blind in admissions (although many of the most selective schools are need blind, some are not) . I did not see earlier posters argue that race is the only reason any student is accepted to school, but I did very strong reactions suggesting that such a point was made and then criticizing a point of view that was not advanced. I saw earlier posters talking about URM status as a factor. But if we are going to consider such things in admissions, students who benefit from such things should not be defensive about it. There are kids at our school -- of all races and backgrounds -- who play sports and may contact a college lacross, baseball, cross country or basketball coach to help them in the admissions process also to schools that they would be less likely to get into based primarily on grades and SATs, and they are usually fairly open about. And yes the other kids generally know how academically strong those students are as well without seeing a transcript. It isn't a big secret.

3. As noted above, maybe it isn't true in all schools but in smaller school the kids know one another's academic abilities well. All kids know who makes various honor societies in schools that publish such things, honor such students in assemblies, etc. and the criteria for these are known (for ex., top 10% junior year, top 20% senior year, etc.). When student A in the top 10% is passed over for student B in the top 20 or who isn't in the top 20%, that is known. It may not happen that often at a single school, but it is hard to deny that it happens at times. Similarly, kids all know who are the National Merit Semifinalists and the Commended Scholars -- this is published in the newspapers even if not announced (as it usually is I believe) at school. They also know the African American and Hispanic students who receive awards based on the same tests that are available only to students of that ethnicity/race, and that the cut offs for these awards to date have been lower than the cut offs for awards to the overall population as NMCSs or NMSFs. Sure, SAT scores can change between junior and senior year. Sure, some students with lower grades or SAT scores may get in because of stronger college essays and amazing life stories unrelated to their race, ethnicity, etc. But is anyone prepared to say it never happens because the URM status was a factor? Such defensiveness only fuels the arguments against consideration of diversity factors for everyone. To deny that URM status is a favorable factor in admissions is as ridiculous as claiming that there is no one in the country who dislikes the President solely because of his race. The only difference is that colleges are usually more open about taking diversity into account in admissions decisions than racists are about their own views.

Re #2. When the poster said that white, Asian and black kids all had the same credentials (HA! Where does that happen??!!) but it was the BLACK kids who got in (HA again!), that is making the argument that black kids got in based solely on race.

Ooooh the HILARITY! Black, white and Asian kids all with the same impressive credentials?!! What in the Disney Movie world??? I'd also have to assume they all applied at the same school. AND the black kids conceded they were admitted due to some magical black privilege? HA! And it gets even better: The white and Asian kids don't begrudge those black kids the spots they gained based solely on race??? That poster should write for Saturday Night Live. I have yet to see a skit on that show funnier than the one she dreamed up.

Re #3. More bull. I challenge every person in this thread to ask some random high schooler who the National Merit Semifinalists and Commended Scholars are in their schools. Ask them who ranks higher academically, whose the highest scorer in the National Honor Society, who earned the best SAT scores, etc. I can assure you that kid will look at you like And you'll be looking like NO teenager has or cares about that information. They may have some inkling of how some of their closest friends are doing. But to have the kind of information you suggested, whether it's published or not...