Pulling Back the Veil on College Admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm.

The article:

* Legacies
* Children of faculty or donors
* URMs
* First gen
* Students from upscale private schools
* Top 1% of applicants

Reaction from DCUM parents when their kid gets rejected or wait listed at a selective college:

* URM!!!
*First gen!!!

Oh stop. We complain about athletes and legacies all the damn time.

Not really. And definitely not more than complaining about URMs/ First Gens.

Why?

Because legacy and athlete preferences in highly selective college admissions disproportionately benefit white applicants.

Confirmation bias on your part. LOTS of threads here complaining about athletes and legacy preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article:


https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickhess/2022/06/13/pulling-back-the-veil-on-college-admissions/?sh=35bfd2283bc6


"Indeed, Goldstein says that the only populations with non-trivial odds of admission at these colleges are athletes, legacies, children of faculty or donors, certain racial minorities, first generation college students, students from upscale private schools, and those whose academic records put them in the top one percent of applicants. About half of all admitted students belong to one of those preferred groups.

Most everyone else (for whom the acceptance rate is about 2%) might be better off saving their admissions fees."

I disagree with the bolded. It should be "those whose academic records put them in the top one percent of one percent of applicants.". Academics will help with not getting cut but after that all the social engineering BS kicks in to eliminate a lot of the Asian and White kids with no strings.

And that is a good thing, honestly. I would not want my kid attending school with only white/asian kids. I (and my kids) want diversity. That means ethnic diversity, social diversity, socioeconomic diversity, major diversity, etc. Makes the world a more exciting place. We recognize that we are privileged and not everyone has those advantages in life.

Similarly, I recognize that my DD had an advantage applying to college as a STEM/Engineering major. She probably got acceptances places where the "similar male" did not, simply because most good engineering programs are looking to improve M/F ratio. So that means more females will get acceptances than males, in hopes of yielding closer to 50/50. It also means she likely got additional merit at several schools simply by being a female. That's life and it's a good thing as we work towards equity for everyone on many levels.

Yes, being a white or asian, upper middle class/rich male has some disadvantages in the college process. But that kid has had so many advantages in life in their 18 years simply because of that. I for one want to help URM and first gen kids find their way to a great college and onto doing amazing things in life. That benefits society as a whole. And I wouldn't want my kid to attend a university made up of 100% white/asian, rich kids---that would be depressing and boring.

Stop. Men also have advantages in other ways. At the more elite colleges, where fewer men apply, they have an advantage for the reasons you state - so that the college can "shape" their incoming class to be diverse. That's a fact - google it. Read a book.

And yes, I agree, diversity is a good thing. But, I was first gen, poor family, etc. etc. I've worked hard to made a good living (not rich) and give my child the things I didn't have. And now you're saying that DC is "privileged enough" so tough tomatoes if you don't get into a good college (however one defines that)?

Oh stop. Never did I say your "DC is privileged enough". However the fact is they have experienced privilege in certain areas of their life, apparently according to you. If they are a White male they definately have. What I'm saying is stop complaining you didn't get in because of "first gen, URM, etc." got my DC spot instead. You yourself were poor and first gen so you know how hard it is to grow up like that. Your own kids have had advantages you did not have. But just because you've worked hard does not mean they deserve a spot more than anyone else. Everyone at an Ivy or T20 (or whatever level school you are complaining about not getting into) worked hard to do well and go to a great college.

Ironically, you were "first gen/poor family, etc etc" yet somehow have lost touch with all the extra hard work it takes for someone with that background to get to college, stay in college (finances, need to help family pay bills, etc), and graduate.

Your DC will get into a good college---maybe just not a T10 or T20, just like thousands of other kids each year who are highly qualified, because there are simply not enough spots in T20 schools for everyone who is "qualified". So rich, poor, first gen, URM, and other groups will all have plenty who get rejected from a T20 university that were "qualified".


So stop complaining and focus on helping your kid find a school that they got accepted to that is a great fit for them. Your kid is should d well wherever they go, because they have your support and grew up "expecting to attend college and beyond". But no one is entitled to a T20 education---get over it and get a great education somewhere else, it's really easy to do. Most T100 universities will provide an excellent education, I even know really smart people in honors programs at T140 schools who go on to do amazing things (shocking, right?---that's sarcasm)

DP. That’s a straw man. PP didn’t say that. You fail to mention that what counts as “qualified” varies pretty significantly, depending on your category of preference (or not). The question is whether their child should be disadvantaged because PP worked hard. Which is clearly the case.

I agree; these schools can admit on any basis they choose. They can social engineer to their heart’s content (at the moment, we’ll see what the Supreme Court has to say about it). Your argument is that PP’s kid is privileged in other ways, so this unfairness is justified. Fine. Let’s just stop pretending admission is based purely on merit. These schools used to be able to sell themselves as “the best of the best.” They are now “the best of people who met certain demographic parameters to achieve our social goals.” Will that impact their “prestige” over time? We’ll see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article:


https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickhess/2022/06/13/pulling-back-the-veil-on-college-admissions/?sh=35bfd2283bc6


"Indeed, Goldstein says that the only populations with non-trivial odds of admission at these colleges are athletes, legacies, children of faculty or donors, certain racial minorities, first generation college students, students from upscale private schools, and those whose academic records put them in the top one percent of applicants. About half of all admitted students belong to one of those preferred groups.

Most everyone else (for whom the acceptance rate is about 2%) might be better off saving their admissions fees."

I disagree with the bolded. It should be "those whose academic records put them in the top one percent of one percent of applicants.". Academics will help with not getting cut but after that all the social engineering BS kicks in to eliminate a lot of the Asian and White kids with no strings.

And that is a good thing, honestly. I would not want my kid attending school with only white/asian kids. I (and my kids) want diversity. That means ethnic diversity, social diversity, socioeconomic diversity, major diversity, etc. Makes the world a more exciting place. We recognize that we are privileged and not everyone has those advantages in life.

Similarly, I recognize that my DD had an advantage applying to college as a STEM/Engineering major. She probably got acceptances places where the "similar male" did not, simply because most good engineering programs are looking to improve M/F ratio. So that means more females will get acceptances than males, in hopes of yielding closer to 50/50. It also means she likely got additional merit at several schools simply by being a female. That's life and it's a good thing as we work towards equity for everyone on many levels.

Yes, being a white or asian, upper middle class/rich male has some disadvantages in the college process. But that kid has had so many advantages in life in their 18 years simply because of that. I for one want to help URM and first gen kids find their way to a great college and onto doing amazing things in life. That benefits society as a whole. And I wouldn't want my kid to attend a university made up of 100% white/asian, rich kids---that would be depressing and boring.

Stop. Men also have advantages in other ways. At the more elite colleges, where fewer men apply, they have an advantage for the reasons you state - so that the college can "shape" their incoming class to be diverse. That's a fact - google it. Read a book.

And yes, I agree, diversity is a good thing. But, I was first gen, poor family, etc. etc. I've worked hard to made a good living (not rich) and give my child the things I didn't have. And now you're saying that DC is "privileged enough" so tough tomatoes if you don't get into a good college (however one defines that)?

Oh stop. Never did I say your "DC is privileged enough". However the fact is they have experienced privilege in certain areas of their life, apparently according to you. If they are a White male they definately have. What I'm saying is stop complaining you didn't get in because of "first gen, URM, etc." got my DC spot instead. You yourself were poor and first gen so you know how hard it is to grow up like that. Your own kids have had advantages you did not have. But just because you've worked hard does not mean they deserve a spot more than anyone else. Everyone at an Ivy or T20 (or whatever level school you are complaining about not getting into) worked hard to do well and go to a great college.

Ironically, you were "first gen/poor family, etc etc" yet somehow have lost touch with all the extra hard work it takes for someone with that background to get to college, stay in college (finances, need to help family pay bills, etc), and graduate.

Your DC will get into a good college---maybe just not a T10 or T20, just like thousands of other kids each year who are highly qualified, because there are simply not enough spots in T20 schools for everyone who is "qualified". So rich, poor, first gen, URM, and other groups will all have plenty who get rejected from a T20 university that were "qualified".


So stop complaining and focus on helping your kid find a school that they got accepted to that is a great fit for them. Your kid is should d well wherever they go, because they have your support and grew up "expecting to attend college and beyond". But no one is entitled to a T20 education---get over it and get a great education somewhere else, it's really easy to do. Most T100 universities will provide an excellent education, I even know really smart people in honors programs at T140 schools who go on to do amazing things (shocking, right?---that's sarcasm)

DP. That’s a straw man. PP didn’t say that. You fail to mention that what counts as “qualified” varies pretty significantly, depending on your category of preference (or not). The question is whether their child should be disadvantaged because PP worked hard. Which is clearly the case.

I agree; these schools can admit on any basis they choose. They can social engineer to their heart’s content (at the moment, we’ll see what the Supreme Court has to say about it). Your argument is that PP’s kid is privileged in other ways, so this unfairness is justified. Fine. Let’s just stop pretending admission is based purely on merit. These schools used to be able to sell themselves as “the best of the best.” They are now “the best of people who met certain demographic parameters to achieve our social goals.” Will that impact their “prestige” over time? We’ll see.

Many of these bases are merit. They are looking for students who have passion and excel in a variety of areas to create a class that will benefit one another. You seem to define merit as grades and test scores, but those are just 2 factors. The one category that wouldn't contribute anything to the academic community would be legacy, but those kids all have the merit qualifications as well. Of course there could be an outlier of someone who donated a ton of money or a famous parent/student, but those are so few. The point is, that there are far more students that have the merit than there are spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm.

The article:

* Legacies
* Children of faculty or donors
* URMs
* First gen
* Students from upscale private schools
* Top 1% of applicants

Reaction from DCUM parents when their kid gets rejected or wait listed at a selective college:

* URM!!!
*First gen!!!

Oh stop. We complain about athletes and legacies all the damn time.

Not really. And definitely not more than complaining about URMs/ First Gens.

Why?

Because legacy and athlete preferences in highly selective college admissions disproportionately benefit white applicants.

Confirmation bias on your part. LOTS of threads here complaining about athletes and legacy preference.

In DCUM? Certainly not more than complaints about URM and first gen.
More of the "legacy" complaints are the " my DC got rejected... despite being a legacy and/or double legacy." There are a few athlete complaints, but it's more equating athletes as " dumb jocks" rather than those who are exceptional enough in their given sport to get recruited - and still meet the academic requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting in what sense? There is literally nothing here that isn't discussed on this forum on a daily basis.

Yet the DCUM crowd ( my UMC suburban FCPS kid with the 1500 SAT and 4.0 GPA is awesome!) still chases the fool's gold.

I guess it's like playing the lottery.

Yes but those 2 numbers are not a student's academic record. What classes did they take? What other academic achievements did they accomplish? The students accessing these schools on their academic records have more that just high how's and test scores.

[Anonymous]

High gpas*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting in what sense? There is literally nothing here that isn't discussed on this forum on a daily basis.

Yet the DCUM crowd ( my UMC suburban FCPS kid with the 1500 SAT and 4.0 GPA is awesome!) still chases the fool's gold.

I guess it's like playing the lottery.

Yes but those 2 numbers are not a student's academic record. What classes did they take? What other academic achievements did they accomplish? The students accessing these schools on their academic records have more that just high how's and test scores.

Yes. Admissions sort out the two questions in your post, however there are many parents who think those academic data points are golden tickets to T20 colleges and that their kids are uniquely qualified because of them. Unrealistic expectations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP again. This idea that URMs are "taking all the spots from 'qualified' students" that some like to promote is preposterous. These are the most underrepresented in the stats and in observation. Visited several Ivy colleges -- largely white and Asian (some moreso than others, of course).

Not sure where to get this data, but it would be interesting to view racial demographics for SAT scores over 1500 and over 1400, etc. I suspect that is very different than "the percentage of race X in the USA". But it would more accurately explain why Elite universities have a higher percentage of Asians than the general population. In general most asian kids grow up being pushed academically and in households where education is at a premium and parents will make sacrifices to make it happen.

I agree with elite universities attempting to broaden their diversity and include more URM, more lower incomes students---I want society to succeed and that means helping those who don't have as many opportunities as my family has to attain success. The fact my kid didn't get into a T10 school doesn't really upset me that much---my kid will be fine. One reason is that we picked target schools and safeties that were "true target/safety" and one's my kid really liked. Do that and your kid will have a great school they love to attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article:


https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickhess/2022/06/13/pulling-back-the-veil-on-college-admissions/?sh=35bfd2283bc6


"Indeed, Goldstein says that the only populations with non-trivial odds of admission at these colleges are athletes, legacies, children of faculty or donors, certain racial minorities, first generation college students, students from upscale private schools, and those whose academic records put them in the top one percent of applicants. About half of all admitted students belong to one of those preferred groups.

Most everyone else (for whom the acceptance rate is about 2%) might be better off saving their admissions fees."

I disagree with the bolded. It should be "those whose academic records put them in the top one percent of one percent of applicants.". Academics will help with not getting cut but after that all the social engineering BS kicks in to eliminate a lot of the Asian and White kids with no strings.

And that is a good thing, honestly. I would not want my kid attending school with only white/asian kids. I (and my kids) want diversity. That means ethnic diversity, social diversity, socioeconomic diversity, major diversity, etc. Makes the world a more exciting place. We recognize that we are privileged and not everyone has those advantages in life.

Similarly, I recognize that my DD had an advantage applying to college as a STEM/Engineering major. She probably got acceptances places where the "similar male" did not, simply because most good engineering programs are looking to improve M/F ratio. So that means more females will get acceptances than males, in hopes of yielding closer to 50/50. It also means she likely got additional merit at several schools simply by being a female. That's life and it's a good thing as we work towards equity for everyone on many levels.

Yes, being a white or asian, upper middle class/rich male has some disadvantages in the college process. But that kid has had so many advantages in life in their 18 years simply because of that. I for one want to help URM and first gen kids find their way to a great college and onto doing amazing things in life. That benefits society as a whole. And I wouldn't want my kid to attend a university made up of 100% white/asian, rich kids---that would be depressing and boring.

Stop. Men also have advantages in other ways. At the more elite colleges, where fewer men apply, they have an advantage for the reasons you state - so that the college can "shape" their incoming class to be diverse. That's a fact - google it. Read a book.

And yes, I agree, diversity is a good thing. But, I was first gen, poor family, etc. etc. I've worked hard to made a good living (not rich) and give my child the things I didn't have. And now you're saying that DC is "privileged enough" so tough tomatoes if you don't get into a good college (however one defines that)?

Oh stop. Never did I say your "DC is privileged enough". However the fact is they have experienced privilege in certain areas of their life, apparently according to you. If they are a White male they definately have. What I'm saying is stop complaining you didn't get in because of "first gen, URM, etc." got my DC spot instead. You yourself were poor and first gen so you know how hard it is to grow up like that. Your own kids have had advantages you did not have. But just because you've worked hard does not mean they deserve a spot more than anyone else. Everyone at an Ivy or T20 (or whatever level school you are complaining about not getting into) worked hard to do well and go to a great college.

Ironically, you were "first gen/poor family, etc etc" yet somehow have lost touch with all the extra hard work it takes for someone with that background to get to college, stay in college (finances, need to help family pay bills, etc), and graduate.

Your DC will get into a good college---maybe just not a T10 or T20, just like thousands of other kids each year who are highly qualified, because there are simply not enough spots in T20 schools for everyone who is "qualified". So rich, poor, first gen, URM, and other groups will all have plenty who get rejected from a T20 university that were "qualified".


So stop complaining and focus on helping your kid find a school that they got accepted to that is a great fit for them. Your kid is should d well wherever they go, because they have your support and grew up "expecting to attend college and beyond". But no one is entitled to a T20 education---get over it and get a great education somewhere else, it's really easy to do. Most T100 universities will provide an excellent education, I even know really smart people in honors programs at T140 schools who go on to do amazing things (shocking, right?---that's sarcasm)

DP. That’s a straw man. PP didn’t say that. You fail to mention that what counts as “qualified” varies pretty significantly, depending on your category of preference (or not). The question is whether their child should be disadvantaged because PP worked hard. Which is clearly the case.

I agree; these schools can admit on any basis they choose. They can social engineer to their heart’s content (at the moment, we’ll see what the Supreme Court has to say about it). Your argument is that PP’s kid is privileged in other ways, so this unfairness is justified. Fine. Let’s just stop pretending admission is based purely on merit. These schools used to be able to sell themselves as “the best of the best.” They are now “the best of people who met certain demographic parameters to achieve our social goals.” Will that impact their “prestige” over time? We’ll see.

These schools still are "best of the best". I wouldn't want my kid to attend a school where everyone got 1580+ and 4.0+. There is more to "being best" than just test scores. Harvard is not taking a high percentage of kids with a 1200 or a 3.0 gpa. The URM who get in are still taking rigorous HS curriculum (or at least as rigorous as their HS allows---when you don't live in DCUM land you might not have 25AP courses available.) And the poor kid who works a 20 hour week job while in HS and doesn't have time for ECs and 3 varsity sports is just as "qualified" for an elite college, despite what you think. Not everyone has the $$ to do expensive ECs---some kids have to work to help their families survive. I for one am happy that some colleges recognize that these kids are equally qualified and grant them admission.

The fact is 95% of those who apply to Elite colleges are "qualified" and have earned a lottery ticket. but with 5% admission rates, 95% of those will be disappointed. That does not mean your kid is being discriminated against. Even if HYP took all White kids for the freshman class, there's still a really good chance your kid wouldn't gain admissions.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, admissions are over for this year. Take a chill pill and get over it.

[Anonymous]

We have been saying this for years. Not interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, admissions are over for this year. Take a chill pill and get over it.

Your comment was previous deleted. What about being snarky and unhelpful do you not understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmm.

The article:

* Legacies
* Children of faculty or donors
* URMs
* First gen
* Students from upscale private schools
* Top 1% of applicants

Other than the top 1%, with such a large group of non-meritorious admits, I can’t understand how these schools will remain “elite” in the eyes of employers. The top schools seem to want to ruin their reputations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, admissions are over for this year. Take a chill pill and get over it.

It just got started again for 2023

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have been saying this for years. Not interesting.

Apparently, DCUM parents haven't gotten the memo and are the ones wasting their application fees on the lottery colleges.

Perhaps you're one of them?