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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Are the admits from DC pretty much all legacies? Any non-legacy cases?
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 $$ wise too. Grandparents love to see a kid follow in their footsteps.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Other than Legacy/Athlete/URM - any DMV admits at all? Looking at our school, this seems to take up 100 percent of the cases.
Yes, there is little room for kids admitted solely on merit these days.
NP. Junior mom. A little shocked to see the assertions on this thread. What an awful situation for our top universities to be driven by legacy considerations. Even the UK with its traditions of royalty does not permit this.
Virtually all the legacies I know getting admitted are highly qualified. I'd be much more concerned about the famous/influential people's kids or the 1st gens/URMs.
If highly qualified, they should compete EQUALLY against non legacies. Tons of people are qualified. To edge out others on the basis of legacy is the problem.
Why should they compete equally though? We're not in what Rawls would call the original position. Most top schools and their alumni want the connection and tradition. They love multigenerational families. As schools more push for estate planning positions with wealthy alumni, I wouldn't be surprised if these connections become more useful data points for them $$ wise too. Grandparents love to see a kid follow in their footsteps.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Check the thread on being compared to your peers. If YALE is the whole point then send your kids to a hood school. Drop them off. Pick them up. Supplement at home and sign them up for activities away from their hood classmates. They'll really stand out against their peers then.
Sounds gross, doesn't it?
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Seeing this thread. Realizing it was a BIG mistake to apply early to Yale. Top kid but zero hooks! Oh well..
I'm sorry. But if they have the stats to be competitive at Yale, they will do fine in the end.
But yes, I would not encourage any unhooked kid to apply SCEA to Harvard or Yale. Waste of an opportunity. The sweet spot for a strong ED application are the schools ranked 10-20. You'll never know whether they could have gotten into Stanford, but you'll avoid the stress and anarchy of regular decision and still be assured of a great education.
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.