Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what do you (and those in your office) think about the higher standards being placed on Asian American applicants?

It's a difficult topic. We receive thousands of applications from Asian Americans who score a 2200+ and who have a 4.0 UW or close to it. We know these students have worked immeasurably hard to achieve these goals. The reality is that our purpose is to bring people from all walks of life, and unfortunately, when Asians are already over-represented at campus, it's hard to admit more students without compromising the diversity we aim for. Our white % is already noticeably lower than the US Census; the Hispanic and African-American numbers are a little lower or around the same, but the Asian American number is much higher than the US Census. Most of our international students are Asians as well. I know that sounds hypocritical when our campus is so privileged socioeconomically, but our admit pool is ultimately a microcosm of the larger applicant pool- no matter how many adjustments we try to make- we receive a lot (and I mean a lot) more applications from rich students, we receive more applications from Asians than Blacks or Hispanics and just a few more Caucasian applications than Asian applications.

I see the value of a meritocracy similar to the UC system- admitting students on the basis of their objective measures. My personal stance is that subjectives are as key to bringing the best and brightest. Were we to rely on just numbers, we'd exclude the student who graduated summa cum laude in our college but had only a 1750 SAT from her inner city background (real story, just happened last May). We'd exclude the valedictorian who had to work full time to support their family, and thus didn't have the ability to do test prep. Relying on objectives alone means eliminating the richness and complexity that is part of these students' lived backgrounds and experiences, and we just don't want to do that. We also want to make sure the students ARE capable of handling the work, hence the minimum expectations for GPA, test scores, etc. and a heavy consideration of academic potential by LORs.

Isn't it a little silly to aim for diversity as measured by the census while at the same time claiming to admit the strongest students?

Not OP, but no, it isn't silly when you've got an abundance of highly qualified students and when there are a variety of ways of being a strong student.

One of which is having the correct race..

No, some of which aren't captured by the SATs but are reflected in letters of recommendation or in actual achievements. Even if you hold race constant, at the most selective schools, it's not a process where the kids with the highest SAT scores get admitted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP I know you don't want to reveal the college but given the stats you mention in your opener, I'd say it was a bit of a crappy school, maybe 3rd or 4th tier.

I don't know that the admissions office practices of such a place are as helpful as knowing the practices of the more competitive schools, in that you should always aim high and fall on a lower branch, not aim low and fall on the ground.

It is not a 3rd or 4th tier school. You should take a look at Stanford's own pool and see how many applicants come from the lower end (and how few are taken): http://admission.stanford.edu/basics/selection/profile.html

You don't mention recalculating GPAs at all. That's insane if you are getting apps from DMV.


Are you feeling marginalized at work? Is they why you've come here to invited these people to worship at your alter of knowledge?

I thought that was obvious given that it is my perspective at one office. No one should take it to be indicative of every single admissions office at an elite college. I just thought it would be nice to answer some questions that people have. Also, we don't recalculate GPAs on a particular scale, but we know from past history which GPAs are particularly on the low end for each school (listed in the profile we create for each school).

Admissions offices are up to their necks in finalizing the regular decision pool at the top tier colleges. The fact that you have time to come on DCUM during the middle of the day screams lack of credibility. Folks, I think we have a poser here--a knowledgable poser but still a poser. A top tier admissions officer would not have the time to play around on DCUM with admissions decisions a mere days in some cases (MIT) or weeks (Ivy's).

This is a good thread. Please don't disrupt it with troll hunting or "poseur" hunting.

The above is a perfectly logical response for anyone who knows what it happening in admissions offices now. Don't blindly accept any "expert" when things don't add up. Op may very well work in an admissions office (clerical maybe) and has some good info, but seriously, anyone making real decisions on applications doesn't have time to post middle of the day on DCUM during this period in the admissions process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, what do you (and those in your office) think about the higher standards being placed on Asian American applicants?

It's a difficult topic. We receive thousands of applications from Asian Americans who score a 2200+ and who have a 4.0 UW or close to it. We know these students have worked immeasurably hard to achieve these goals. The reality is that our purpose is to bring people from all walks of life, and unfortunately, when Asians are already over-represented at campus, it's hard to admit more students without compromising the diversity we aim for. Our white % is already noticeably lower than the US Census; the Hispanic and African-American numbers are a little lower or around the same, but the Asian American number is much higher than the US Census. Most of our international students are Asians as well. I know that sounds hypocritical when our campus is so privileged socioeconomically, but our admit pool is ultimately a microcosm of the larger applicant pool- no matter how many adjustments we try to make- we receive a lot (and I mean a lot) more applications from rich students, we receive more applications from Asians than Blacks or Hispanics and just a few more Caucasian applications than Asian applications.

I see the value of a meritocracy similar to the UC system- admitting students on the basis of their objective measures. My personal stance is that subjectives are as key to bringing the best and brightest. Were we to rely on just numbers, we'd exclude the student who graduated summa cum laude in our college but had only a 1750 SAT from her inner city background (real story, just happened last May). We'd exclude the valedictorian who had to work full time to support their family, and thus didn't have the ability to do test prep. Relying on objectives alone means eliminating the richness and complexity that is part of these students' lived backgrounds and experiences, and we just don't want to do that. We also want to make sure the students ARE capable of handling the work, hence the minimum expectations for GPA, test scores, etc. and a heavy consideration of academic potential by LORs.

Isn't it a little silly to aim for diversity as measured by the census while at the same time claiming to admit the strongest students?

Not OP, but no, it isn't silly when you've got an abundance of highly qualified students and when there are a variety of ways of being a strong student.

One of which is having the correct race..

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks for the response. One follow-up...so given two students of similar background, grades, high school, qualifications, etc....the new SAT scores skew lower than old SAT? In other words...did you just ignore the concordance tables?

No, we did review the concordance tables, but we're just not seeing as many folks scoring high on the new SAT than on the old ones. Since a good number of applicants did take the new SAT, we can't just put them aside. We're waiting for CB to come up with a more accurate concordance table.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP I know you don't want to reveal the college but given the stats you mention in your opener, I'd say it was a bit of a crappy school, maybe 3rd or 4th tier.

I don't know that the admissions office practices of such a place are as helpful as knowing the practices of the more competitive schools, in that you should always aim high and fall on a lower branch, not aim low and fall on the ground.

It is not a 3rd or 4th tier school. You should take a look at Stanford's own pool and see how many applicants come from the lower end (and how few are taken): http://admission.stanford.edu/basics/selection/profile.html

You don't mention recalculating GPAs at all. That's insane if you are getting apps from DMV.


Are you feeling marginalized at work? Is they why you've come here to invited these people to worship at your alter of knowledge?

I thought that was obvious given that it is my perspective at one office. No one should take it to be indicative of every single admissions office at an elite college. I just thought it would be nice to answer some questions that people have. Also, we don't recalculate GPAs on a particular scale, but we know from past history which GPAs are particularly on the low end for each school (listed in the profile we create for each school).

Admissions offices are up to their necks in finalizing the regular decision pool at the top tier colleges. The fact that you have time to come on DCUM during the middle of the day screams lack of credibility. Folks, I think we have a poser here--a knowledgable poser but still a poser. A top tier admissions officer would not have the time to play around on DCUM with admissions decisions a mere days in some cases (MIT) or weeks (Ivy's).

This is a good thread. Please don't disrupt it with troll hunting or "poseur" hunting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP I know you don't want to reveal the college but given the stats you mention in your opener, I'd say it was a bit of a crappy school, maybe 3rd or 4th tier.

I don't know that the admissions office practices of such a place are as helpful as knowing the practices of the more competitive schools, in that you should always aim high and fall on a lower branch, not aim low and fall on the ground.

It is not a 3rd or 4th tier school. You should take a look at Stanford's own pool and see how many applicants come from the lower end (and how few are taken): http://admission.stanford.edu/basics/selection/profile.html

You don't mention recalculating GPAs at all. That's insane if you are getting apps from DMV.


Are you feeling marginalized at work? Is they why you've come here to invited these people to worship at your alter of knowledge?

I thought that was obvious given that it is my perspective at one office. No one should take it to be indicative of every single admissions office at an elite college. I just thought it would be nice to answer some questions that people have. Also, we don't recalculate GPAs on a particular scale, but we know from past history which GPAs are particularly on the low end for each school (listed in the profile we create for each school).

Admissions offices are up to their necks in finalizing the regular decision pool at the top tier colleges. The fact that you have time to come on DCUM during the middle of the day screams lack of credibility. Folks, I think we have a poser here--a knowledgable poser but still a poser. A top tier admissions officer would not have the time to play around on DCUM with admissions decisions a mere days in some cases (MIT) or weeks (Ivy's).

Anonymous wrote:

And, BTW - those SAT scores for alums that you want to denigrate were probably harder to achieve "back in the day" before the SAT re-sets and the mainstreaming of the prep industry

This is true. The SAT was "recentered" in 1996 (before they even went to the 2400 total possible score). Here's a chart that compares the pre-1996 scores to post-1996 scores. Many of the parents of applicants took the SAT before 1996, so their scores might appear to be lower than they actually would be had they taken the more recent versions of the tests.

And, BTW - those SAT scores for alums that you want to denigrate were probably harder to achieve "back in the day" before the SAT re-sets and the mainstreaming of the prep industry