Insider Perspectives from a Highly Selective Admissions Office

[Anonymous]

If an asian student(mindy kalings brother) can pretend he is black and get into a more selective medical school than his "numbers" would typically achieve than race is certainly a factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At Harvard, there were 39,041 applicants for the Class of 2020. Only 2,106 were admitted. Of those, just 289 were African-American. If Harvard just didn't accept any Black students, regardless of qualifications, that would mean the non-Black admission rate would go up by 0.7%. Don't blame affirmative action for your child's rejection. There 99 other reasons he didn't get in and affirmative action isn't one of them.

Ahh., but my child did get accepted so that is not the issue. However, raw numbers of acceptances do not tell the whole story. Take a broad cross reference of elite schools and you will see that URMs are getting accepted with stats that would drop kick an Asian or white kid before the essays were even read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At Harvard, there were 39,041 applicants for the Class of 2020. Only 2,106 were admitted. Of those, just 289 were African-American. If Harvard just didn't accept any Black students, regardless of qualifications, that would mean the non-Black admission rate would go up by 0.7%. Don't blame affirmative action for your child's rejection. There 99 other reasons he didn't get in and affirmative action isn't one of them.

Ahh., but my child did get accepted so that is not the issue. However, raw numbers of acceptances do not tell the whole story. Take a broad cross reference of elite schools and you will see that URMs are getting accepted with stats that would drop kick an Asian or white kid before the essays were even read.

Also from earlier in the thread there is such a small pool of URM with decent scores

If you get a top score as a black or Hispanic person your acceptance rate is over 33%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Does anyone know the answer to this question? Do colleges give the results to the high schools or do they only find out as students self-report?

I know the answer and any Fairfax counselor would as well. Just ask them.

Why not just give the answer if you know it?

Seriously! What's the point of coming on here to say that you know the answer and then fail to share it? It's hardly classified information, and it will help people figure out how much they can rely on Naviance.

Isn't it obvious? Some counselors inquire and some don't. Some colleges respond to the inquiries with lists and some don't. SO the only way for you to know if YOUR school gets a list form the colleges on your list is to talk to your counselor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the above pps saying that colleges want bright, motivated kids from mediocre or low income areas over typical affluent generic white kids - while I agree with you that such kids are admirable and full of grit and perseverance, I doubt colleges take many from this category. My nephew just started at a highly ranked ivy this year and said he is amazed at the level of affluence of most of the kids. Not just upper middle class but seriously wealthy. Don't colleges still want the vast majority of students to be wealthy as that is where the money comes from. Also, while some wealth in this country is newly acquired, a large % of it is family wealth is passed down through generations. Makes sense that colleges and universities want to keep that spigot flowing. Unless you are talking about Amherst or Middlebury, most of the slots go to the top grade performers of private schools and well off suburban white schools.

PP who recently posted. That's actually not the point. We can completely fill our classes with perfect scores and grades. These are almost entirely from wealthy area, so your son has a point.

But we do make an effort to have economic diversity and to seek applicants who have achieved past adversity. And we look for people to fill specific roles on our campus. That applicant pool for some reason is much, much smaller.

I was trying to explain why so many high stat applicants do not get in. I don't think I made my point clear, but I am trying to explain that it isn't race.[b] I see these threads and I just think...well...maybe I can give some clarity.

How are you so sure it isn't race unless you come from a school where that is not allowed to be a factor. If your school allows for certain races easier entry then it must at least partly due to race.

+1M

It's literally not true. Is there a correlation between awful schools and race and does that correlation play out in the admissions pool? Of course. Because more minority children are raised in poverty and difficult conditions. But we are not looking at race when we are trying judge an applicant. Like I said, all of our applicants clear the floor. Once they clear the floor, we are looking for three things.

First, we want to source students who will contribute to our campus. Specific programs, sports, endowment (legacy), cache (celebrity admits), etc. These applicants all fall into different pools and you would probably lose your stuff when I tell you the easiest admissions odds basically goes to celebrities, extremely wealthy people's children, and athletes.

Second, we look at grades, scores, essays, etc. If we did a straight GPA and SAT cut off, we could fill our class with perfect scores basically. We don't. We look for students who have demonstrated an interest in being a big thinker, a creator, an innovator, etc. We look for people who have overcome a lot and have shown strength through true adversity because the data shows that these are the people who go on to do amazing things in the world and do really well here. I can attest that after years of dealing with students who aren't emotionally or socially equipped for college, this has really cut back on the perfect sheep and helicopter issues that were so prevalent ten years ago.

But go ahead and hang your hat on race. That's fine. I think it's more telling and interesting when people refuse to acknowledge the privilege inequity built into the primary education system in this country. It takes a lot of grit to excel and flourish in difficult circumstances. It takes a lot less to be a cultivated flower in a greenhouse.

No one is saying that it doesn't take "grit" to excel in impoverished homes and school systems. However, the "race" factor in college admissions is not limited to a boost only to URMs from impoverished homes. An URM with two Ivy league educated parents presumably has no more grit than the middle class kid from nowhere or the Asian kid and yet the URM gets the boost. No wonder people are frustrated.

Furthermore, op, it is pretty racist in and of itself to state of imply that URMs need the boost because they are, of course, from uneducated households, poor neighborhoods and sub-par school systems.

You are assuming we assign grit in the way you described. Not true. But go ahead and continue with your racist views.

[Anonymous]

OP here (started this thread), I just have to say I'm not the poster who's been posting recently. They mentioned they worked at another school, so please be sure to segregate their views from those espoused in the first few ones. Different schools, different processes. I stopped posting around pg 10 due to worries about exposing the specific school with more and more details + just the overwhelming amount of questions to answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the above pps saying that colleges want bright, motivated kids from mediocre or low income areas over typical affluent generic white kids - while I agree with you that such kids are admirable and full of grit and perseverance, I doubt colleges take many from this category. My nephew just started at a highly ranked ivy this year and said he is amazed at the level of affluence of most of the kids. Not just upper middle class but seriously wealthy. Don't colleges still want the vast majority of students to be wealthy as that is where the money comes from. Also, while some wealth in this country is newly acquired, a large % of it is family wealth is passed down through generations. Makes sense that colleges and universities want to keep that spigot flowing. Unless you are talking about Amherst or Middlebury, most of the slots go to the top grade performers of private schools and well off suburban white schools.

PP who recently posted. That's actually not the point. We can completely fill our classes with perfect scores and grades. These are almost entirely from wealthy area, so your son has a point.

But we do make an effort to have economic diversity and to seek applicants who have achieved past adversity. And we look for people to fill specific roles on our campus. That applicant pool for some reason is much, much smaller.

I was trying to explain why so many high stat applicants do not get in. I don't think I made my point clear, but I am trying to explain that it isn't race.[b] I see these threads and I just think...well...maybe I can give some clarity.

How are you so sure it isn't race unless you come from a school where that is not allowed to be a factor. If your school allows for certain races easier entry then it must at least partly due to race.

+1M

It's literally not true. Is there a correlation between awful schools and race and does that correlation play out in the admissions pool? Of course. Because more minority children are raised in poverty and difficult conditions. But we are not looking at race when we are trying judge an applicant. Like I said, all of our applicants clear the floor. Once they clear the floor, we are looking for three things.

First, we want to source students who will contribute to our campus. Specific programs, sports, endowment (legacy), cache (celebrity admits), etc. These applicants all fall into different pools and you would probably lose your stuff when I tell you the easiest admissions odds basically goes to celebrities, extremely wealthy people's children, and athletes.

Second, we look at grades, scores, essays, etc. If we did a straight GPA and SAT cut off, we could fill our class with perfect scores basically. We don't. We look for students who have demonstrated an interest in being a big thinker, a creator, an innovator, etc. We look for people who have overcome a lot and have shown strength through true adversity because the data shows that these are the people who go on to do amazing things in the world and do really well here. I can attest that after years of dealing with students who aren't emotionally or socially equipped for college, this has really cut back on the perfect sheep and helicopter issues that were so prevalent ten years ago.

But go ahead and hang your hat on race. That's fine. I think it's more telling and interesting when people refuse to acknowledge the privilege inequity built into the primary education system in this country. It takes a lot of grit to excel and flourish in difficult circumstances. It takes a lot less to be a cultivated flower in a greenhouse.

No one is saying that it doesn't take "grit" to excel in impoverished homes and school systems. However, the "race" factor in college admissions is not limited to a boost only to URMs from impoverished homes. An URM with two Ivy league educated parents presumably has no more grit than the middle class kid from nowhere or the Asian kid and yet the URM gets the boost. No wonder people are frustrated.

Furthermore, op, it is pretty racist in and of itself to state of imply that URMs need the boost because they are, of course, from uneducated households, poor neighborhoods and sub-par school systems.

You are assuming we assign grit in the way you described. Not true. But go ahead and continue with your racist views.

Not liking the response or even having the issue questioned does not make a view racist and attempting to end the discussion by crying racism isn't going to make the issue go away or make it unimportant. Responses like yours only make the questions have a bigger significance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, 16 pages on this? Can't read through all of it but the whole college admissions game, and it is a game reminds me of what someone told me the first day of business school:. "the easiest way to make money is through people's insecurities, vanity, or laziness.

Think of the money all these ratings, tutors, and coaches make and HYP is still a lottery.

But what a win if you win! Most people I know from HYP are complete morons and yet they are often held in high esteem for no reason other than HYP. Look at all the HYP idiots running the gov.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But what a win if you win! Most people I know from HYP are complete morons and yet they are often held in high esteem for no reason other than HYP. Look at all the HYP idiots running the gov.

Right, it's better not to get educated at all! Who needs to read any books or study? I mean, I watched House, so why can't I be a doctor? Distinguished professors, great libraries, state-of-the-art labs, research opportunities, and smart classmates can't do anything but create morons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here (started this thread), I just have to say I'm not the poster who's been posting recently. They mentioned they worked at another school, so please be sure to segregate their views from those espoused in the first few ones. Different schools, different processes. I stopped posting around pg 10 due to worries about exposing the specific school with more and more details + just the overwhelming amount of questions to answer.

Thank you for starting the thread! As you can see, there is no end to our curiosity on this topic. It feels a lot like a game rigged on behalf of the colleges, with most kids and families feeling like beggars or losers at many points along the way. It's nice to get a clearer picture of what outcomes you can reasonably expect for a particular kid.

[Anonymous]

Welcome back op. This was asked earlier but not answered as far as I know. How much does being a legacy at your school help? Does the admissions board know how much they have donated over the years assuming its not some extremely large number and are applicants penalized if there haven't been any donations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, 16 pages on this? Can't read through all of it but the whole college admissions game, and it is a game reminds me of what someone told me the first day of business school:. "the easiest way to make money is through people's insecurities, vanity, or laziness.

Think of the money all these ratings, tutors, and coaches make and HYP is still a lottery.

But what a win if you win! Most people I know from HYP are complete morons and yet they are often held in high esteem for no reason other than HYP. Look at all the HYP idiots running the gov.

That automatic presumption of smarts is exactly why people want the brand. You make a good point that you still have to be able to do the job post graduation. However those kids get the chance to prove themselves with a lot less effort to get their foot in the door.

[Anonymous]

Honesty you can not be a highly selective school if you even look at a 23 ACT. A 29-34 would be more like it. Starting to doubt this person.

[Anonymous]

For example, Lets just say a 21 to 23 is a West Virginia Student.

[Anonymous]

University of Maryland is at a 29-34, with the average at a 30 ACT.