Yale Admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.

NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.

Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.

If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.

Why should they compete equally though? We're not in what Rawls would call the original position. Most top schools and their alumni want the connection and tradition. They love multigenerational families. As schools more push for estate planning positions with wealthy alumni, I wouldn't be surprised if these connections become more useful data points for them $$ wise too. Grandparents love to see a kid follow in their footsteps.

This is not a wholly privately funded club. They take goverment money. Should not be allowed to service Grandpas desires at soemone else's expense.

Colleges can legally make decisions based on a huge number of attributes. Legacy status is something they can decide not to take into account but it isn't due to a legal obligation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a kid who got in who is none of those things. He is finishing up his first semester at Yale right now. He's Asian, too! I don't know his stats as he is a friend, but from what I know he had outstanding academics, national math and science competitions, top musician, etc. It does happen.

It’s 2023 post affirmative action. If your kid didn’t get in, then it has nothing to do with his/her hook so please stop including URM as a reason. They just didn’t make the cut.

The quoted post is the only answer I will accept now because the old excuses no longer work and now your child will be judged negatively the same way my child was judged. How does it feel?

-URM Mother of an Ivy student who is obviously not surprised the same blame and excuses are still being used.

you are mistaken. URM and first-generation (greatest percentage of First gen are URMs) is still very much alive. C.J. Roberts said in the opinion that the discussion of import of race in the applicant's life just moves to the essays. American colleges are going to continue to engage in social engineering even if they have to hire more readers to figure out who is whom without a box.

No you are mistaken.

I just sat through a webinar with a Civil Rights lawyer at a government agency and this person emphasized that schools using essays to identify students who have good “character” and who have had to overcome hardships will be acceptable. To the extent race contributed to an experienced hardship, then it may be discussed in the essay but universities do not have control over that. There is no longer a legal reason for universities to use race alone (with all other scores/grades being equal) to give anyone a boost over another applicant. So a student can mention race in their essay but it will not give an applicant a boost.

Having said that, please provide facts to support your assertion that most first generation students (specifically at top 20 schools) are URM. If so, I would bet most of the first generation students at top schools are definitely not African Americans. I understand why lumping URM as a hook with first generation makes you feel better about shifting blame once again to these students but it comes across loud and clear as a dog whistle. Now it’s “These first generation (URM by proxy) students took my child’s spot”.

High SAT scoring college applicants who are the children of my highly educated peers (and arguably privileged) did not waltz into any top 20 school. Plenty received Ivy rejections and were put on waitlists just like any other kid. In fact, many of these kids are attending UVA or Georgia Tech and are highly qualified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.

NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.

Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.

If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.

Let's assume the legacy goes to a Big 3 and "edges out" someone from their school with similar stats, income level, ECs, and race. I don't always see any big issue with the legacy preference there. The legacy kids are not pushing out the first gen and URM applicants the schools are recruiting so hard to get. They are pushing out kids in similarly advantaged situations. If anything, an UMC kid could have a bone to pick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

If only white people had kidnapped more Africans, being a “URM” wouldn’t carry so much weight. Dammit!

[Anonymous]

All threads end up here...

[Anonymous]

Everyone feels like they need to blame someone for something.
Decisions haven't even come out yet and the board is already here? Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.

NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.

Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.

If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.

Let's assume the legacy goes to a Big 3 and "edges out" someone from their school with similar stats, income level, ECs, and race. I don't always see any big issue with the legacy preference there. The legacy kids are not pushing out the first gen and URM applicants the schools are recruiting so hard to get. They are pushing out kids in similarly advantaged situations. If anything, an UMC kid could have a bone to pick.

In our Big 3, in nearly every legacy vs. good academics last year, the good academics kid has been from a middle-income to scholarship kid who was amazing academically but passed over for an 'okay' academic kid who happened to be a legacy and usually very wealthy family. Not similarly advantaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.

NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.

Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.

If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.

Legacy is at best a tie breaker these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.

NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.

Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.

If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.

Let's assume the legacy goes to a Big 3 and "edges out" someone from their school with similar stats, income level, ECs, and race. I don't always see any big issue with the legacy preference there. The legacy kids are not pushing out the first gen and URM applicants the schools are recruiting so hard to get. They are pushing out kids in similarly advantaged situations. If anything, an UMC kid could have a bone to pick.

In our Big 3, in nearly every legacy vs. good academics last year, the good academics kid has been from a middle-income to scholarship kid who was amazing academically but passed over for an 'okay' academic kid who happened to be a legacy and usually very wealthy family. Not similarly advantaged.

Not at pur private, low income scholarship kids far and away did the best, especially if urm. Both those categories are far bigger institutional priorities than legacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a kid who got in who is none of those things. He is finishing up his first semester at Yale right now. He's Asian, too! I don't know his stats as he is a friend, but from what I know he had outstanding academics, national math and science competitions, top musician, etc. It does happen.

It’s 2023 post affirmative action. If your kid didn’t get in, then it has nothing to do with his/her hook so please stop including URM as a reason. They just didn’t make the cut.

The quoted post is the only answer I will accept now because the old excuses no longer work and now your child will be judged negatively the same way my child was judged. How does it feel?

-URM Mother of an Ivy student who is obviously not surprised the same blame and excuses are still being used.

you are mistaken. URM and first-generation (greatest percentage of First gen are URMs) is still very much alive. C.J. Roberts said in the opinion that the discussion of import of race in the applicant's life just moves to the essays. American colleges are going to continue to engage in social engineering even if they have to hire more readers to figure out who is whom without a box.

No you are mistaken.

I just sat through a webinar with a Civil Rights lawyer at a government agency and this person emphasized that schools using essays to identify students who have good “character” and who have had to overcome hardships will be acceptable. To the extent race contributed to an experienced hardship, then it may be discussed in the essay but universities do not have control over that. There is no longer a legal reason for universities to use race alone (with all other scores/grades being equal) to give anyone a boost over another applicant. So a student can mention race in their essay but it will not give an applicant a boost.

Having said that, please provide facts to support your assertion that most first generation students (specifically at top 20 schools) are URM. If so, I would bet most of the first generation students at top schools are definitely not African Americans. I understand why lumping URM as a hook with first generation makes you feel better about shifting blame once again to these students but it comes across loud and clear as a dog whistle. Now it’s “These first generation (URM by proxy) students took my child’s spot”.

High SAT scoring college applicants who are the children of my highly educated peers (and arguably privileged) did not waltz into any top 20 school. Plenty received Ivy rejections and were put on waitlists just like any other kid. In fact, many of these kids are attending UVA or Georgia Tech and are highly qualified.

I have a family member who works at a T10 and another on the board of trustees at a T25. Both sent internal emails post SC decision reaffirming their commitment to diversity. URM will continue to be a hook, and the admissions record will NEVER have anything in it to justify a challenge on affirmative action grounds. It’s incredibly naive to expect otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a kid who got in who is none of those things. He is finishing up his first semester at Yale right now. He's Asian, too! I don't know his stats as he is a friend, but from what I know he had outstanding academics, national math and science competitions, top musician, etc. It does happen.

It’s 2023 post affirmative action. If your kid didn’t get in, then it has nothing to do with his/her hook so please stop including URM as a reason. They just didn’t make the cut.

The quoted post is the only answer I will accept now because the old excuses no longer work and now your child will be judged negatively the same way my child was judged. How does it feel?

-URM Mother of an Ivy student who is obviously not surprised the same blame and excuses are still being used.

you are mistaken. URM and first-generation (greatest percentage of First gen are URMs) is still very much alive. C.J. Roberts said in the opinion that the discussion of import of race in the applicant's life just moves to the essays. American colleges are going to continue to engage in social engineering even if they have to hire more readers to figure out who is whom without a box.

No you are mistaken.

I just sat through a webinar with a Civil Rights lawyer at a government agency and this person emphasized that schools using essays to identify students who have good “character” and who have had to overcome hardships will be acceptable. To the extent race contributed to an experienced hardship, then it may be discussed in the essay but universities do not have control over that. There is no longer a legal reason for universities to use race alone (with all other scores/grades being equal) to give anyone a boost over another applicant. So a student can mention race in their essay but it will not give an applicant a boost.

Having said that, please provide facts to support your assertion that most first generation students (specifically at top 20 schools) are URM. If so, I would bet most of the first generation students at top schools are definitely not African Americans. I understand why lumping URM as a hook with first generation makes you feel better about shifting blame once again to these students but it comes across loud and clear as a dog whistle. Now it’s “These first generation (URM by proxy) students took my child’s spot”.

High SAT scoring college applicants who are the children of my highly educated peers (and arguably privileged) did not waltz into any top 20 school. Plenty received Ivy rejections and were put on waitlists just like any other kid. In fact, many of these kids are attending UVA or Georgia Tech and are highly qualified.

I have a family member who works at a T10 and another on the board of trustees at a T25. Both sent internal emails post SC decision reaffirming their commitment to diversity. URM will continue to be a hook, and the admissions record will NEVER have anything in it to justify a challenge on affirmative action grounds. It’s incredibly naive to expect otherwise.

Are you an expert with a PhD in this subject? Why should I believe you? Because you said it is so and added a condescending and flippant “incredibly naive” remark? I would love if those mythical emails surfaced. A university’s commitment to diversity does not equate to URM being a hook. I clearly gave examples demonstrating that it wasn’t for all qualified URM. Least you forget, affirmative action helped generations of women in the name of diversity. It’s just speculation on your part regarding what admissions committees will do.

I get it. Despite your best efforts, your kids still won’t get in so you need to protect your ego and come up with new reasons to justify why. Tough cookies. I would focus my energy on getting my own children up to par to compete and save that blame for legacy admits now that affirmative action was successfully challenged. Leave URM out of it.

- An expert with a PhD ; -)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.

NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.

Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.

If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.

Let's assume the legacy goes to a Big 3 and "edges out" someone from their school with similar stats, income level, ECs, and race. I don't always see any big issue with the legacy preference there. The legacy kids are not pushing out the first gen and URM applicants the schools are recruiting so hard to get. They are pushing out kids in similarly advantaged situations. If anything, an UMC kid could have a bone to pick.

In our Big 3, in nearly every legacy vs. good academics last year, the good academics kid has been from a middle-income to scholarship kid who was amazing academically but passed over for an 'okay' academic kid who happened to be a legacy and usually very wealthy family. Not similarly advantaged.

Yes, definitely not similarly advantaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.

NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.

Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.

If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.

Legacy is at best a tie breaker these days.

No, it isnt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a kid who got in who is none of those things. He is finishing up his first semester at Yale right now. He's Asian, too! I don't know his stats as he is a friend, but from what I know he had outstanding academics, national math and science competitions, top musician, etc. It does happen.

It’s 2023 post affirmative action. If your kid didn’t get in, then it has nothing to do with his/her hook so please stop including URM as a reason. They just didn’t make the cut.

The quoted post is the only answer I will accept now because the old excuses no longer work and now your child will be judged negatively the same way my child was judged. How does it feel?

-URM Mother of an Ivy student who is obviously not surprised the same blame and excuses are still being used.

you are mistaken. URM and first-generation (greatest percentage of First gen are URMs) is still very much alive. C.J. Roberts said in the opinion that the discussion of import of race in the applicant's life just moves to the essays. American colleges are going to continue to engage in social engineering even if they have to hire more readers to figure out who is whom without a box.

No you are mistaken.

I just sat through a webinar with a Civil Rights lawyer at a government agency and this person emphasized that schools using essays to identify students who have good “character” and who have had to overcome hardships will be acceptable. To the extent race contributed to an experienced hardship, then it may be discussed in the essay but universities do not have control over that. There is no longer a legal reason for universities to use race alone (with all other scores/grades being equal) to give anyone a boost over another applicant. So a student can mention race in their essay but it will not give an applicant a boost.

Having said that, please provide facts to support your assertion that most first generation students (specifically at top 20 schools) are URM. If so, I would bet most of the first generation students at top schools are definitely not African Americans. I understand why lumping URM as a hook with first generation makes you feel better about shifting blame once again to these students but it comes across loud and clear as a dog whistle. Now it’s “These first generation (URM by proxy) students took my child’s spot”.

High SAT scoring college applicants who are the children of my highly educated peers (and arguably privileged) did not waltz into any top 20 school. Plenty received Ivy rejections and were put on waitlists just like any other kid. In fact, many of these kids are attending UVA or Georgia Tech and are highly qualified.

I have a family member who works at a T10 and another on the board of trustees at a T25. Both sent internal emails post SC decision reaffirming their commitment to diversity. URM will continue to be a hook, and the admissions record will NEVER have anything in it to justify a challenge on affirmative action grounds. It’s incredibly naive to expect otherwise.

Are you an expert with a PhD in this subject? Why should I believe you? Because you said it is so and added a condescending and flippant “incredibly naive” remark? I would love if those mythical emails surfaced. A university’s commitment to diversity does not equate to URM being a hook. I clearly gave examples demonstrating that it wasn’t for all qualified URM. Least you forget, affirmative action helped generations of women in the name of diversity. It’s just speculation on your part regarding what admissions committees will do.

I get it. Despite your best efforts, your kids still won’t get in so you need to protect your ego and come up with new reasons to justify why. Tough cookies. I would focus my energy on getting my own children up to par to compete and save that blame for legacy admits now that affirmative action was successfully challenged. Leave URM out of it.

- An expert with a PhD ; -)

The emails express a commitment to diversity. That isn’t actionable. You may have a Phd (you don’t say in what but you clearly are no expert on affirmative action). However, I’m a lawyer, I don’t have to go to a seminar to understand the Supreme Court decision. As a practical matter, all the decision changes is that the check box for race isn’t passed onto the admissions office. Race/Ethnicity will be discussed in essays, ascertainable in recruitment events, and clear from college board National African American and Hispanic honors.

The new U.S. News criteria cements Pell eligible and first gen as institutional priorities. URM make up a disproportionate percentage of both groups.

I support affirmative action so not looking for anyone to blame. Colleges will be able to retain diverse student bodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.

Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.

NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.

Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.

If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.

Let's assume the legacy goes to a Big 3 and "edges out" someone from their school with similar stats, income level, ECs, and race. I don't always see any big issue with the legacy preference there. The legacy kids are not pushing out the first gen and URM applicants the schools are recruiting so hard to get. They are pushing out kids in similarly advantaged situations. If anything, an UMC kid could have a bone to pick.

In our Big 3, in nearly every legacy vs. good academics last year, the good academics kid has been from a middle-income to scholarship kid who was amazing academically but passed over for an 'okay' academic kid who happened to be a legacy and usually very wealthy family. Not similarly advantaged.

I'd still be fine with the college taking the legacy over a middle income or partial scholarship kid assuming the person isn't a first-gen college student and that both kids are more than minimally qualified.