Turns out, Harvard students aren’t that smart after all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, duh? Did anyone think that Harvard and the like were really selecting for the most intelligent students?

+1, at least for the white applicants.

Oh really? Average SAT scores of admitted applicants by race at Harvard:

Asian-American 767
White 745
Hispanic American 718
Native American 712
African American 704

Source: The Harvard Crimson

Out of 800 per subject. Can’t do out of 1600 because it was out of 2400 some years.

On a test scored out of 1400, the average Asian-American got 767? I really find that hard to believe. Do you have a link?

It's out of 800. And that's quite a spread from top to bottom.

If you think >5% is "quite a spread" I can tell you weren't a math major at Harvard.

/ps before you yell read the post back in the thread you have to double the scores for the percentiles so yes 63 >5% of 1600.

+1. GTFO people. Learn about math before you comment.

I can't decipher the above comments really, but yes, it is definitely the case that there is a world of difference between a 767 and a 704 score, despite the fact that one is only about 9% higher than the other. In terms of population percentiles, if you want to do it that way, it's about 1st percentile vs 7th percentile. Both of those are stratospheric relative to the average joe. But at a top university you kind of expect everyone to be in the first couple of percentiles, so you really can drive a truck through that gap in that context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All athletes have to get into Harvard just like everyone else. All of them. They don't get a pass.

Exactly. The student doesn’t get in because he is athlete. The athlete gets in because he is student. I know 4 recent “recruited” athlete. Would they have gotten in without the sport at 3% admission rate? But were they qualified—absolutely. Every one was 1580 or above and top grades. It might also be the same with legacy, don’t have any personal experience. But at least with athlete, everyone has chance to be that.

Cute story. We don't need to speculate or use personal experience. We have six years of data from Harvard and it is unambiguous. Admitted athletes have markedly lower academic ratings than other admitted students and, but for their athlete status, would not have been admitted.

I truly don't understand why people can't admit this. They have no problem saying someone was admitted only because they were a URM or their parents donated a building. You got in because you were an athlete and you probably would not have gotten in otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't see any proof in the article that those applicants were not qualified or would have been rejected. Just a statement that said they would have with no support. Just because you are an athlete, a legacy or a teacher's child...does not mean you aren't smart or have the grades or test scores.
Did those things help them get in - sure - but no support for the other.

The study itself states that a significant portion of this group would not have gotten in without the preference.

That's because brilliant white kids still need another hook to get in.

Brilliant white kids need another hook to get in because non brilliant white kids are being accepted due to their athletic abilities.

Being white is a detriment for admissions.

You can't really believe this do you? I guarantee if a white kid doesn't get in, it's not because he is white. It's because there is a more qualified, hooked, legacy white kid who took that space. Not some random person of color.

Admissions is a function of a bunch of variables -- test scores, school performance, extracurriculars, athletics, legacy, other hooks, region, random noise, and yes, ethnicity. Nobody who studies this seriously denies that race plays a major causal role in admissions. That is, given equivalence across all other dimensions, candidates of different races get different treatment. Of course given the complexity of the decision-making process you can always point to some other factor. But that's a naive way of looking at it.

This topic is so interesting because of the knots people will tie themselves into trying to deny this basic fact. But if you support AA, as I do, you need to be honest about this because otherwise it's just discrediting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All athletes have to get into Harvard just like everyone else. All of them. They don't get a pass.

Exactly. The student doesn’t get in because he is athlete. The athlete gets in because he is student. I know 4 recent “recruited” athlete. Would they have gotten in without the sport at 3% admission rate? But were they qualified—absolutely. Every one was 1580 or above and top grades. It might also be the same with legacy, don’t have any personal experience. But at least with athlete, everyone has chance to be that.

Cute story. We don't need to speculate or use personal experience. We have six years of data from Harvard and it is unambiguous. Admitted athletes have markedly lower academic ratings than other admitted students and, but for their athlete status, would not have been admitted.

I truly don't understand why people can't admit this. They have no problem saying someone was admitted only because they were a URM or their parents donated a building. You got in because you were an athlete and you probably would not have gotten in otherwise.

Yes, this is pretty clear in the data. On the other hand it is also likely true (haven't seen it measured, but would love to see evidence pro/con) that athletic success is predictive of life success. It's basically concrete evidence of achievement in a competitive environment, requiring consistent, dedicated effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All athletes have to get into Harvard just like everyone else. All of them. They don't get a pass.

Exactly. The student doesn’t get in because he is athlete. The athlete gets in because he is student. I know 4 recent “recruited” athlete. Would they have gotten in without the sport at 3% admission rate? But were they qualified—absolutely. Every one was 1580 or above and top grades. It might also be the same with legacy, don’t have any personal experience. But at least with athlete, everyone has chance to be that.

Cute story. We don't need to speculate or use personal experience. We have six years of data from Harvard and it is unambiguous. Admitted athletes have markedly lower academic ratings than other admitted students and, but for their athlete status, would not have been admitted.

I truly don't understand why people can't admit this. They have no problem saying someone was admitted only because they were a URM or their parents donated a building. You got in because you were an athlete and you probably would not have gotten in otherwise.

Yes, this is pretty clear in the data. On the other hand it is also likely true (haven't seen it measured, but would love to see evidence pro/con) that athletic success is predictive of life success. It's basically concrete evidence of achievement in a competitive environment, requiring consistent, dedicated effort.

Ah, the eternal fallback, athletes are a special kind of person. because people who excel at anything else don't need to put in consistent, dedicated effort.

Maybe athletes succeed later in life because they're constantly given handouts - athletes from rich, white backgrounds prefer hiring people who are like them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't decipher the above comments really, but yes, it is definitely the case that there is a world of difference between a 767 and a 704 score, despite the fact that one is only about 9% higher than the other.

The fact that you believe this is your main problem.

Colleges don't believe this. Nor do employers. The categories that matter are "qualified" and "unqualified" and if you think that a single percentage difference in scores makes that distinction you are massively wrong or biased.

Here's how the decisions are made: You put the applicants in either the bucket of "qualified" and then "unqualified". Then you pick the applicants that best build the class you want and achieve your missions from the "qualified" bunch. That's the smart way to do it, and that is why the people who matter do it that way. You are suggesting someone who has 40 points higher over-rides all the other categories a college needs, and the fact is, for that college those 40 points alone make no difference whatsoever.

That's how it works. It's that simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All athletes have to get into Harvard just like everyone else. All of them. They don't get a pass.

Exactly. The student doesn’t get in because he is athlete. The athlete gets in because he is student. I know 4 recent “recruited” athlete. Would they have gotten in without the sport at 3% admission rate? But were they qualified—absolutely. Every one was 1580 or above and top grades. It might also be the same with legacy, don’t have any personal experience. But at least with athlete, everyone has chance to be that.

Cute story. We don't need to speculate or use personal experience. We have six years of data from Harvard and it is unambiguous. Admitted athletes have markedly lower academic ratings than other admitted students and, but for their athlete status, would not have been admitted.

I truly don't understand why people can't admit this. They have no problem saying someone was admitted only because they were a URM or their parents donated a building. You got in because you were an athlete and you probably would not have gotten in otherwise.

Yes, this is pretty clear in the data. On the other hand it is also likely true (haven't seen it measured, but would love to see evidence pro/con) that athletic success is predictive of life success. It's basically concrete evidence of achievement in a competitive environment, requiring consistent, dedicated effort.

Ah, the eternal fallback, athletes are a special kind of person. because people who excel at anything else don't need to put in consistent, dedicated effort.

Maybe athletes succeed later in life because they're constantly given handouts - athletes from rich, white backgrounds prefer hiring people who are like them.

That is also possible! And yes, it is of course the case that success in other competitive fields should also be predictive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All athletes have to get into Harvard just like everyone else. All of them. They don't get a pass.

Exactly. The student doesn’t get in because he is athlete. The athlete gets in because he is student. I know 4 recent “recruited” athlete. Would they have gotten in without the sport at 3% admission rate? But were they qualified—absolutely. Every one was 1580 or above and top grades. It might also be the same with legacy, don’t have any personal experience. But at least with athlete, everyone has chance to be that.

Cute story. We don't need to speculate or use personal experience. We have six years of data from Harvard and it is unambiguous. Admitted athletes have markedly lower academic ratings than other admitted students and, but for their athlete status, would not have been admitted.

I truly don't understand why people can't admit this. They have no problem saying someone was admitted only because they were a URM or their parents donated a building. You got in because you were an athlete and you probably would not have gotten in otherwise.

Yes, this is pretty clear in the data. On the other hand it is also likely true (haven't seen it measured, but would love to see evidence pro/con) that athletic success is predictive of life success. It's basically concrete evidence of achievement in a competitive environment, requiring consistent, dedicated effort.

Ah, the eternal fallback, athletes are a special kind of person. because people who excel at anything else don't need to put in consistent, dedicated effort.

Maybe athletes succeed later in life because they're constantly given handouts - athletes from rich, white backgrounds prefer hiring people who are like them.

That is also possible! And yes, it is of course the case that success in other competitive fields should also be predictive.

True - and competition is by no means limited to the athletic fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't see any proof in the article that those applicants were not qualified or would have been rejected. Just a statement that said they would have with no support. Just because you are an athlete, a legacy or a teacher's child...does not mean you aren't smart or have the grades or test scores.
Did those things help them get in - sure - but no support for the other.

The study itself states that a significant portion of this group would not have gotten in without the preference.

That's because brilliant white kids still need another hook to get in.

Brilliant white kids need another hook to get in because non brilliant white kids are being accepted due to their athletic abilities.

Being white is a detriment for admissions.

You can't really believe this do you? I guarantee if a white kid doesn't get in, it's not because he is white. It's because there is a more qualified, hooked, legacy white kid who took that space. Not some random person of color.

Admissions is a function of a bunch of variables -- test scores, school performance, extracurriculars, athletics, legacy, other hooks, region, random noise, and yes, ethnicity. Nobody who studies this seriously denies that race plays a major causal role in admissions. That is, given equivalence across all other dimensions, candidates of different races get different treatment. Of course given the complexity of the decision-making process you can always point to some other factor. But that's a naive way of looking at it.

This topic is so interesting because of the knots people will tie themselves into trying to deny this basic fact. But if you support AA, as I do, you need to be honest about this because otherwise it's just discrediting.

DP. You need to be honest with yourself. White kids are advantaged by race. If race were not a factor at all, there would be many more high stats Asian kids who would replace white ones. Yes, white kid may have higher stats than URMs, but if whites took the places of lower stats URMs, those white kids would then be replaced by higher stats Asian kids. White kids are advantaged by admissions not being race blind. Look at the UCs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't decipher the above comments really, but yes, it is definitely the case that there is a world of difference between a 767 and a 704 score, despite the fact that one is only about 9% higher than the other.

The fact that you believe this is your main problem.

Colleges don't believe this. Nor do employers. The categories that matter are "qualified" and "unqualified" and if you think that a single percentage difference in scores makes that distinction you are massively wrong or biased.

Here's how the decisions are made: You put the applicants in either the bucket of "qualified" and then "unqualified". Then you pick the applicants that best build the class you want and achieve your missions from the "qualified" bunch. That's the smart way to do it, and that is why the people who matter do it that way. You are suggesting someone who has 40 points higher over-rides all the other categories a college needs, and the fact is, for that college those 40 points alone make no difference whatsoever.

That's how it works. It's that simple.

That's a nice story, but absent AA, a 1408 SAT score would be in the unqualified bucket for Harvard

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't decipher the above comments really, but yes, it is definitely the case that there is a world of difference between a 767 and a 704 score, despite the fact that one is only about 9% higher than the other.

The fact that you believe this is your main problem.

Colleges don't believe this. Nor do employers. The categories that matter are "qualified" and "unqualified" and if you think that a single percentage difference in scores makes that distinction you are massively wrong or biased.

Here's how the decisions are made: You put the applicants in either the bucket of "qualified" and then "unqualified". Then you pick the applicants that best build the class you want and achieve your missions from the "qualified" bunch. That's the smart way to do it, and that is why the people who matter do it that way. You are suggesting someone who has 40 points higher over-rides all the other categories a college needs, and the fact is, for that college those 40 points alone make no difference whatsoever.

That's how it works. It's that simple.

DP You know nothing about admissions at elite colleges. So maybe take a pass on commenting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't decipher the above comments really, but yes, it is definitely the case that there is a world of difference between a 767 and a 704 score, despite the fact that one is only about 9% higher than the other.

The fact that you believe this is your main problem.

Colleges don't believe this. Nor do employers. The categories that matter are "qualified" and "unqualified" and if you think that a single percentage difference in scores makes that distinction you are massively wrong or biased.

Here's how the decisions are made: You put the applicants in either the bucket of "qualified" and then "unqualified". Then you pick the applicants that best build the class you want and achieve your missions from the "qualified" bunch. That's the smart way to do it, and that is why the people who matter do it that way. You are suggesting someone who has 40 points higher over-rides all the other categories a college needs, and the fact is, for that college those 40 points alone make no difference whatsoever.

That's how it works. It's that simple.

That's a nice story, but absent AA, a 1408 SAT score would be in the unqualified bucket for Harvard

That's a nice story. Go tell the white football player they aren't getting in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All athletes have to get into Harvard just like everyone else. All of them. They don't get a pass.

Exactly. The student doesn’t get in because he is athlete. The athlete gets in because he is student. I know 4 recent “recruited” athlete. Would they have gotten in without the sport at 3% admission rate? But were they qualified—absolutely. Every one was 1580 or above and top grades. It might also be the same with legacy, don’t have any personal experience. But at least with athlete, everyone has chance to be that.

Cute story. We don't need to speculate or use personal experience. We have six years of data from Harvard and it is unambiguous. Admitted athletes have markedly lower academic ratings than other admitted students and, but for their athlete status, would not have been admitted.

I truly don't understand why people can't admit this. They have no problem saying someone was admitted only because they were a URM or their parents donated a building. You got in because you were an athlete and you probably would not have gotten in otherwise.

Yes, this is pretty clear in the data. On the other hand it is also likely true (haven't seen it measured, but would love to see evidence pro/con) that athletic success is predictive of life success. It's basically concrete evidence of achievement in a competitive environment, requiring consistent, dedicated effort.

There is a direct correlation between women leaders and athletes. A shockingly high percentage of women CEOs were college athletes. This has been studied multiple times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's a nice story, but absent AA, a 1408 SAT score would be in the unqualified bucket for Harvard

No, you are 100% wrong, you either can't read or are in denial. I am guessing you read just fine, so....

THEY. ARE. ALL. QUALIFIED.

Harvard doesn't see strata within the qualified category as you do. They don't see it because it doesn't exist in practicality. That strata makes no difference to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a nice story, but absent AA, a 1408 SAT score would be in the unqualified bucket for Harvard

No, you are 100% wrong, you either can't read or are in denial. I am guessing you read just fine, so....

THEY. ARE. ALL. QUALIFIED.

Harvard doesn't see strata within the qualified category as you do. They don't see it because it doesn't exist in practicality. That strata makes no difference to them.

The average African American SAT section score is a 704. If you believe that a 1408 gets you into Harvard, I have a bride to sell you.