Ivies and big 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The OP's comment is very misleading. Numbers just don't support their impressions or their inferences. Taking Yale as one specific example from which to extrapolate - of the approximately 1,350 in any incoming class, roughly 110 are AA (8%) and a similar number are Hispanic (8%). Add the recruited athletes (say 200 total, but significant overlap with two previous categories so net 130). Throw in 200 more for international and other URM (11% and 4%, respectively). Legacies are probably 1/5 of the class, so 270 more less those already counted previously (net 200 for arguments sake). Add all of these up:

110
110
130
200
200

and you come to 750 "preference" slots. I might be slightly off, but this leaves us with 600 acceptances from non-hooked Caucasian and non-URM Asian students (corroborated by published 62% white and 17% Asian representation in Yale College) . The overall yield (ratio of offers to acceptances) is roughly 70%. Slightly lower for non-hooked students, but we can use overall number for approximation. So, 600 acceptances grosses up to 850 offers of admission.

So, if your un-hooked kid did not get in it is mostly because they didn't quite get one of the 850 "other" offers. Moreover, scapegoating 110 successful AA students with strong credentials or 200 recruited athletes has nothing to do with a single student's success or failure. One would have to be quite confident that they were next in line for acceptance to have been effected. In other words, they would need to believe with confidence that they were one of the next 300 in that pile out of a total queue of 27,000 who were not accepted (the next 1%).

I am highly sympathetic to unsuccessful candidates. I just think that it is important to place the blame squarely where it belongs - a highly competitive and idiosyncratic admissions process.

Standing ovation.

You and your "logic" and your "facts" getting in the way of some perfectly good self-pity. Tsk.

+ a million!