Anonymous wrote:I say the same thing every times these threads come up. But, as I have learned from the current environment in this country, people often keep long-held beliefs, even when they fly in the face of facts.

Most of the schools my DC applied to, among the top fifty schools, were less than 8 percent African American. The numbers are miniscule. We were looking for a diverse culture but it was hard to find.

Some numbers. A few years ago, the African American males at UCLA did a video. At that time, there were 43, yes, 43, of them (AA males) that were not athletes in the ENTIRE freshman class.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/ucla-black-enrollment-freshmen_n_4242213.html


I visited several highly selective colleges this past year and it was the same. For example, at most of the top schools, the international student percentages exceed those of African Americans, with most top schools taking over 10 percent international students. Yet I do not hear an outcry about these students.

Often, this blog starts off from this premise, every AA candidate has lower stats than every other race. That is not true. But I believe that this is founded on the underlying societal belief of white superiority.

This past year, I saw most kids, black and white, rejected from Ivy League and other highly selective schools. Most of these kids had tip top stats. I know students that got into Ivy League stats, black and white, that had other hooks, mostly athletes, legacies, money and fame. Almost all of these applied ED. I know very few kids that got into Ivy League regular decision, ED increases your chances of getting in exponentially at some schools but no one on DC Urban moms seems to think that as an unfair advantage.

Where did you see this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's way past-time to end race based affirmative action, and in time the Supreme Court will end it. If you're going to have a preference, have it be socio-economic. The latter would obviously benefit a lot of socio-economically disadvantaged blacks and Hispanics. But please explain why the African-American, private school offspring of a Big Law partner or surgeon should get a "URM" preference in college admissions over the kid of an Asian dishwasher or of a white unemployed coal miner. Makes no sense at all.

It makes no sense because this is not what happens. Idiots. All of those groups you listed get preferences in admission especially with schools that take a holistic approach. It's not the URM over others. If you want to end affirmative action - you need to end all hooks and preferences - legacies and athletes in particular. You idiots who rail against affirmative action don't even realize that is where the majority of the advantage lies in college admissions, along with the ability to pay full freight.

You're missing an important point. URMs receive well documented allowances in the evaluation process in the for skin color.....250 points on the SAT if you're black, 180 if you're latino, etc. Legacies and athletes receive a benefit in the admissions process as well but it doesn't come in the form of handicaps, it comes in the form of an extra (albeit heavily weighted) credential in their application. You're assuming athletes and legacies aren't qualified to gain entry on their own merits but that's erroneous. Any elite college will tell you that >90% of applicants are qualified, based on their statistics, for admittance. The challenge of course is standing out with non-quantifiable attributes. Athletics and legacies are great ways to stand out but by no means a guarantee of admittance.

Bullshit especially at places like Tufts and Amherst. I've seen this for myself first-hand. Legacy and athletics impact admissions way more than the points given to URMs on tests- which by the way is just one metric for admission. You don't know anything about their grades, talents, recommendations or ECs.

I think you're half right; Athletes get very large bumps if they're good. As much as being AA? Perhaps, perhaps not, but significant all the same. The legacy bump is much less significant most places unless the parents have thrown a ton of money at the school. I've seen many, many cases of legacy children with stats above the median getting rejected.

I'd be perfectly happy removing all of these preferences.

I'm PP I think its difficult to determine how significant any of these advantages are. My main point is that I believe in terms of sheer numbers there are more students gaining admission due to legacy and athletic admission than there are URMs, simply because more white students apply to these schools. I don't think many URMs apply to these top schools in the first place. Freaking Tufts has 5% black students.

Anonymous wrote:I notice that we talk about getting rid of legacy and athletic preferences, the vehemence disappears. In the NESCAT, over 40 percent of admits are athletes, nearly all white.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's way past-time to end race based affirmative action, and in time the Supreme Court will end it. If you're going to have a preference, have it be socio-economic. The latter would obviously benefit a lot of socio-economically disadvantaged blacks and Hispanics. But please explain why the African-American, private school offspring of a Big Law partner or surgeon should get a "URM" preference in college admissions over the kid of an Asian dishwasher or of a white unemployed coal miner. Makes no sense at all.

It makes no sense because this is not what happens. Idiots. All of those groups you listed get preferences in admission especially with schools that take a holistic approach. It's not the URM over others. If you want to end affirmative action - you need to end all hooks and preferences - legacies and athletes in particular. You idiots who rail against affirmative action don't even realize that is where the majority of the advantage lies in college admissions, along with the ability to pay full freight.

You're missing an important point. URMs receive well documented allowances in the evaluation process in the for skin color.....250 points on the SAT if you're black, 180 if you're latino, etc. Legacies and athletes receive a benefit in the admissions process as well but it doesn't come in the form of handicaps, it comes in the form of an extra (albeit heavily weighted) credential in their application. You're assuming athletes and legacies aren't qualified to gain entry on their own merits but that's erroneous. Any elite college will tell you that >90% of applicants are qualified, based on their statistics, for admittance. The challenge of course is standing out with non-quantifiable attributes. Athletics and legacies are great ways to stand out but by no means a guarantee of admittance.

Bullshit especially at places like Tufts and Amherst. I've seen this for myself first-hand. Legacy and athletics impact admissions way more than the points given to URMs on tests- which by the way is just one metric for admission. You don't know anything about their grades, talents, recommendations or ECs.

I think you're half right; Athletes get very large bumps if they're good. As much as being AA? Perhaps, perhaps not, but significant all the same. The legacy bump is much less significant most places unless the parents have thrown a ton of money at the school. I've seen many, many cases of legacy children with stats above the median getting rejected.

I'd be perfectly happy removing all of these preferences.

Anonymous wrote:Well, if AA students are over-represented in admissions but under-represented in matriculations (which they consistently are, based on your population stat and the last column of the chart), all that means is that the yield rate is lower for AA students than for the pool of admitted students as a whole. Lots of reasons why that could be true -- more offers, different preferences, financial issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's way past-time to end race based affirmative action, and in time the Supreme Court will end it. If you're going to have a preference, have it be socio-economic. The latter would obviously benefit a lot of socio-economically disadvantaged blacks and Hispanics. But please explain why the African-American, private school offspring of a Big Law partner or surgeon should get a "URM" preference in college admissions over the kid of an Asian dishwasher or of a white unemployed coal miner. Makes no sense at all.

It makes no sense because this is not what happens. Idiots. All of those groups you listed get preferences in admission especially with schools that take a holistic approach. It's not the URM over others. If you want to end affirmative action - you need to end all hooks and preferences - legacies and athletes in particular. You idiots who rail against affirmative action don't even realize that is where the majority of the advantage lies in college admissions, along with the ability to pay full freight.

You're missing an important point. URMs receive well documented allowances in the evaluation process in the for skin color.....250 points on the SAT if you're black, 180 if you're latino, etc. Legacies and athletes receive a benefit in the admissions process as well but it doesn't come in the form of handicaps, it comes in the form of an extra (albeit heavily weighted) credential in their application. You're assuming athletes and legacies aren't qualified to gain entry on their own merits but that's erroneous. Any elite college will tell you that >90% of applicants are qualified, based on their statistics, for admittance. The challenge of course is standing out with non-quantifiable attributes. Athletics and legacies are great ways to stand out but by no means a guarantee of admittance.

Bullshit especially at places like Tufts and Amherst. I've seen this for myself first-hand. Legacy and athletics impact admissions way more than the points given to URMs on tests- which by the way is just one metric for admission. You don't know anything about their grades, talents, recommendations or ECs.