This should tell you how elite college admissions really are

post reply Forum Index » College and University Discussion

◄ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ► Go

Go to page...

05/25/2019 13:31

Subject: This should tell you how elite college admissions really are

quote

Anonymous

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I stopped reading after the OP mentioned the race and ethnicity of the students going to top 10 colleges.

Why? That’s probably the most pertinent fact in college admissions these days

You know this is not true.

DP. You’re kidding yourself if you think this isn’t true. The amount of effort and money the elites pour into scouring the country for black and Latino applicants that are even remotely qualified is staggering. And that’s just the beginning because they pour an equal amount of resources into ensuring they graduate at a rate that is somewhat comparable to the median. The entire admissions and retention effort is social justice kabuki and nobody has any idea if it makes a difference at all.

Racist much?

Such an idiotic comment.....those are facts not opinions. And yes, it’s the exact same thing for athletes.

But I’ll add that the handicap for athletes, while significant, isn’t close to that for URMs.......and that’s before this adversity nonsense factors in.

What facts do you have?

"amount of effort and money the elites pour into scouring the country for black and Latino applicants that are even remotely qualified is staggering" - how much?

"they pour an equal amount of resources into ensuring they graduate at a rate that is somewhat comparable to the median." - how much?

"the handicap for athletes, while significant, isn’t close to that for URMs." - how much?

just because you assert conclusions as facts, doesn't make them facts. you have no support.

Some actual facts:

Recruited athletes are admitted to Harvard roughly 80 percent of the time.

Recruited athletes with an academic rating of 4 on Harvard's 1-6 scale are admitted at a rate of 70.46%. Non athletes with the same rating are admitted at .076 percent. More than a thousand times less.

Ivy League athletes are 65% white

50 to 60 students in each admissions cycle are admitted on Harvard's z-list.

Harvard admitted that z-list admits have pre-college academic records more comparable to rejected students are perform far worse than other admitted students.

Z list admits for Harvard classes 2014-2019 are 70% white.

Are you a racist? who knows? but pulling out one hook and presenting it as the 'most pertinent' factor when you have others that are, at the very least, equally pertinent, but are markedly in favor of white applicants, is well, telling.

My opinion: I'd much rather be a white athlete, white rich kid or white legacy than a URM when applying.

BTW - the 1995-2013 admit rates by race at Harvard are

13.2% African American
11.1% white
10.6% Hispanic
8.1% Asian

Who's really getting screwed here?

Hey genius, you do realize that Harvard only recruits athletes that have a high probability of gaining admission. The coach knows all of the candidates credentials before supporting their candidacy and will direct them to apply ED so obviously they’re going to have a high admit rate.

Well, just to be clear Harvard doesn't do ED. that aside, I think you're missing the point. All you're doing is explaining why the 80% figure I cited is what it is. To be clear, coaches aren't always recruiting athletes who are otherwise qualified. Harvard, as the stats show, recruits athletes who would not get in otherwise. The 70.46% acceptance rate for marginally qualified academics compared to 0.076% should have told you that.

the issue being argued is whether race is the most pertinent factor. I think the evidence is that it is not.

Think of it this way. If I gave you applicant X and said I would give you $100K if you told me whether they had been accepted at Harvard this year. You could buy the answers to three yes or no questions for $25K each to improve your chances.

What would be the first question you asked? I think it would be whether they are a recruited athlete. If the answer is 'yes', then you have an 80% chance of being right. The next question should be whether they are a legacy. If the answer is 'yes', then you have a 33% chance of being right. Only then might you ask if they were black. but even if the answer is yes, you only have a 12.6% chance of being right. The single most pertinent factor in college admissions is whether the applicant is a recruited athlete. Then it's whether they are a legacy. Neither of which, I would add, has any relationship to being the 'best or brightest'. Ivy League athletes, as a general rule, are not the best athletes in their sport.

Bitter, white nationalists rail against URMs as the paramount example of all that is unfair in college admissions. They should be upset with recruited athletes and legacies, both of which are substantially white. (well, they should really be upset with the Z list kids who comprise 2.5% of admitted students and are largely dumb as rocks). The fact that you are not upset with these categories (or less upset) raises the legitimate question of why you are more upset with URMs. Which leads, invariably, to the racism question.