Anonymous wrote:

Excelling at a national level in an extraordinary way (holding patents, being published in a prestigious academic journal, having a meaningful book published, Intel, Siemens finalists, IMO member etc. which serves as a hook) can obviously help overcome 2,100 SAT score with not so spectacular GPA but not many kids have these achievements. Whereas URM will not need these kinds of recognitions to overcome 2,100 score.

Not sure where you're pulling your latest "stat" about how more URMs are supposedly benefitting from affirmative action than white kids are benefitting from holistic admission.

However, Golden's book, The Price of Admission, makes a solid case that sports and legacy preferences are effectively affirmative action for rich white kids. And that more rich white kids benefit from these than URMs benefit from AA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2100 is not good enough for top 10 universities. There were plenty of kids from my child's HS with 2300 or better SAT scores, in the top 15% of class with tons of ECs and national recognitions and awards being rejected by top 10 universities unless the applicant happens to be URM.

Absolutely wrong. My own DC got into a Top 5 with a score of exactly 2100. Granted, this score was in the 25% percentile for this Top 5 university, but still well within the range.

Maybe there were other factors such as legacy, athlete or other hook or being in the top 1% of the class etc. Applicant with 2100 SAT score with no hooks, not URM and so so GPA/ranking will NOT be admitted to the top 5 university unless the kid is URM.

Nope. DC is a white girl from the DMV suburbs - two anti-hooks, if anything. DC is not a legacy or an athletic recruit, either. DC does happen to excel, at the national level, in a particular passion. Building a class with kids with many talents is the very definition of "holistic admissions," my friend.

WTF is wrong with you? You have already been told similar facts many times.

For 1 white kid with 2100 score being admitted to the top 5 university without any hooks, there are 1,000 white kids with 2100 score without any hooks but with national recognition being rejected. Thank your lucky star your kid got accepted instead of being nasty.

You deserve nastiness, you racist scumbag.

Maybe she checked African American box and received AA benefits. You sound like an angry black woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2100 is not good enough for top 10 universities. There were plenty of kids from my child's HS with 2300 or better SAT scores, in the top 15% of class with tons of ECs and national recognitions and awards being rejected by top 10 universities unless the applicant happens to be URM.

Absolutely wrong. My own DC got into a Top 5 with a score of exactly 2100. Granted, this score was in the 25% percentile for this Top 5 university, but still well within the range.

Maybe there were other factors such as legacy, athlete or other hook or being in the top 1% of the class etc. Applicant with 2100 SAT score with no hooks, not URM and so so GPA/ranking will NOT be admitted to the top 5 university unless the kid is URM.

Nope. DC is a white girl from the DMV suburbs - two anti-hooks, if anything. DC is not a legacy or an athletic recruit, either. DC does happen to excel, at the national level, in a particular passion. Building a class with kids with many talents is the very definition of "holistic admissions," my friend.

WTF is wrong with you? You have already been told similar facts many times.

For 1 white kid with 2100 score being admitted to the top 5 university without any hooks, there are 1,000 white kids with 2100 score without any hooks but with national recognition being rejected. Thank your lucky star your kid got accepted instead of being nasty.

But still, this proves you wrong when you claim that unhooked applicants with 2100 will NOT (your own caps) get into top 10 colleges, no?

Excelling at a national level in an extraordinary way (holding patents, being published in a prestigious academic journal, having a meaningful book published, Intel, Siemens finalists, IMO member etc. which serves as a hook) can obviously help overcome 2,100 SAT score with not so spectacular GPA but not many kids have these achievements. Whereas URM will not need these kinds of recognitions to overcome 2,100 score.

Anonymous wrote:

For 1 white kid with 2100 score being admitted to the top 5 university without any hooks, there are 1,000 white kids with 2100 score without any hooks but with national recognition being rejected. Thank your lucky star your kid got accepted instead of being nasty.

Source? All the kids I know who are good enough to succeed on a national stage got onto elite universities, unless there was something else going on, like a terrible GPA or SATs below maybe 2000. 2100, pphhhttt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2100 is not good enough for top 10 universities. There were plenty of kids from my child's HS with 2300 or better SAT scores, in the top 15% of class with tons of ECs and national recognitions and awards being rejected by top 10 universities unless the applicant happens to be URM.

Absolutely wrong. My own DC got into a Top 5 with a score of exactly 2100. Granted, this score was in the 25% percentile for this Top 5 university, but still well within the range.

Maybe there were other factors such as legacy, athlete or other hook or being in the top 1% of the class etc. Applicant with 2100 SAT score with no hooks, not URM and so so GPA/ranking will NOT be admitted to the top 5 university unless the kid is URM.

Nope. DC is a white girl from the DMV suburbs - two anti-hooks, if anything. DC is not a legacy or an athletic recruit, either. DC does happen to excel, at the national level, in a particular passion. Building a class with kids with many talents is the very definition of "holistic admissions," my friend.

WTF is wrong with you? You have already been told similar facts many times.

For 1 white kid with 2100 score being admitted to the top 5 university without any hooks, there are 1,000 white kids with 2100 score without any hooks but with national recognition being rejected. Thank your lucky star your kid got accepted instead of being nasty.

But still, this proves you wrong when you claim that unhooked applicants with 2100 will NOT (your own caps) get into top 10 colleges, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2100 is not good enough for top 10 universities. There were plenty of kids from my child's HS with 2300 or better SAT scores, in the top 15% of class with tons of ECs and national recognitions and awards being rejected by top 10 universities unless the applicant happens to be URM.

Absolutely wrong. My own DC got into a Top 5 with a score of exactly 2100. Granted, this score was in the 25% percentile for this Top 5 university, but still well within the range.

Maybe there were other factors such as legacy, athlete or other hook or being in the top 1% of the class etc. Applicant with 2100 SAT score with no hooks, not URM and so so GPA/ranking will NOT be admitted to the top 5 university unless the kid is URM.

Nope. DC is a white girl from the DMV suburbs - two anti-hooks, if anything. DC is not a legacy or an athletic recruit, either. DC does happen to excel, at the national level, in a particular passion. Building a class with kids with many talents is the very definition of "holistic admissions," my friend.

WTF is wrong with you? You have already been told similar facts many times.

For 1 white kid with 2100 score being admitted to the top 5 university without any hooks, there are 1,000 white kids with 2100 score without any hooks but with national recognition being rejected. Thank your lucky star your kid got accepted instead of being nasty.

You deserve nastiness, you racist scumbag.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2100 is not good enough for top 10 universities. There were plenty of kids from my child's HS with 2300 or better SAT scores, in the top 15% of class with tons of ECs and national recognitions and awards being rejected by top 10 universities unless the applicant happens to be URM.

Absolutely wrong. My own DC got into a Top 5 with a score of exactly 2100. Granted, this score was in the 25% percentile for this Top 5 university, but still well within the range.

Maybe there were other factors such as legacy, athlete or other hook or being in the top 1% of the class etc. Applicant with 2100 SAT score with no hooks, not URM and so so GPA/ranking will NOT be admitted to the top 5 university unless the kid is URM.

Nope. DC is a white girl from the DMV suburbs - two anti-hooks, if anything. DC is not a legacy or an athletic recruit, either. DC does happen to excel, at the national level, in a particular passion. Building a class with kids with many talents is the very definition of "holistic admissions," my friend.

WTF is wrong with you? You have already been told similar facts many times.

For 1 white kid with 2100 score being admitted to the top 5 university without any hooks, there are 1,000 white kids with 2100 score without any hooks but with national recognition being rejected. Thank your lucky star your kid got accepted instead of being nasty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2100 is not good enough for top 10 universities. There were plenty of kids from my child's HS with 2300 or better SAT scores, in the top 15% of class with tons of ECs and national recognitions and awards being rejected by top 10 universities unless the applicant happens to be URM.

Absolutely wrong. My own DC got into a Top 5 with a score of exactly 2100. Granted, this score was in the 25% percentile for this Top 5 university, but still well within the range.

Maybe there were other factors such as legacy, athlete or other hook or being in the top 1% of the class etc. Applicant with 2100 SAT score with no hooks, not URM and so so GPA/ranking will NOT be admitted to the top 5 university unless the kid is URM.

Nope. DC is a white girl from the DMV suburbs - two anti-hooks, if anything. DC is not a legacy or an athletic recruit, either. DC does happen to excel, at the national level, in a particular passion. Building a class with kids with many talents is the very definition of "holistic admissions," my friend.

WTF is wrong with you? You have already been told similar facts many times.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2100 is not good enough for top 10 universities. There were plenty of kids from my child's HS with 2300 or better SAT scores, in the top 15% of class with tons of ECs and national recognitions and awards being rejected by top 10 universities unless the applicant happens to be URM.

Absolutely wrong. My own DC got into a Top 5 with a score of exactly 2100. Granted, this score was in the 25% percentile for this Top 5 university, but still well within the range.

Maybe there were other factors such as legacy, athlete or other hook or being in the top 1% of the class etc. Applicant with 2100 SAT score with no hooks, not URM and so so GPA/ranking will NOT be admitted to the top 5 university unless the kid is URM.

95% certainly seems impressive until you realize that the percentile is of all those taking the test, including some who will never attend college and some middle school students who qualify to take the exam for CTY and other programs.

1900 on the SAT is probably not good enough for any selective school, yet a score of 1900 puts you right at (or near) the 90th% most years.

A seemingly small difference can be significant. I remember being at a conference when some blowhard was going on about the supposed “98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans” only to be deflated when another panelist quipped “I, for one, pride myself on the 2% difference.”

Anonymous wrote:2100 is not good enough for top 10 universities. There were plenty of kids from my child's HS with 2300 or better SAT scores, in the top 15% of class with tons of ECs and national recognitions and awards being rejected by top 10 universities unless the applicant happens to be URM.

Absolutely wrong. My own DC got into a Top 5 with a score of exactly 2100. Granted, this score was in the 25% percentile for this Top 5 university, but still well within the range.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is more complete Harvard information:

http://features.thecrimson.com/2013/frosh-survey/admissions.html

As noted recruited athletes have an average SAT score that is 173 points less than the overall average.

Harvard stop reporting average UREM scores years ago, but at last report the average was about 100 points less than the overall average.

These two categories alone cannot account for the many "non perfect" scores,

25% of those admitted to Harvard scored less than 32 on the ACT. There aren't enough recruited athletes to account for that.

Oh, look! At the very same link above, if you just click on the next tab to the right, you see the average SAT scores of Harvard admits by minority status. (They don't give your ACT stat, so I'm guessing you made that up?)

Hmmm, average AA SAT was 2107. Average Hispanic/Latino was 2167. These are solid 95th percentile scores (http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-2013.pdf) and they translate to over 700 in each of the 3 SAT parts (math, english, writing), with some give or take to get those 2100+ averages.

Bet your SATs weren't as high as any of these! (Back in the day I got a 1580 out of 1600, perhaps that's why I can interpret facts like this for people like you....)

Let me help you out here:

To begin with, 2107 is a terrific SAT score, but it isn't "near perfect" and it is actually subpar for Harvard. According to this site: http://magoosh.com/sat/2013/harvard-sat-scores/
Anyone at 2100 or lower was in the lowest 25% of those gaining admission to Harvard. If the average AA SAT was 2107 then about have scores in the lowest 25%- 2100 would be a strong score for Michigan, not Harvard.

I think 2100 is at or close to 98% and typically is good enough for many top schools, just not Harvard: http://www.collegesimply.com/guides/2100-on-the-sat/#.U3Y2d9JdV8E

2100 is not good enough for top 10 universities. There were plenty of kids from my child's HS with 2300 or better SAT scores, in the top 15% of class with tons of ECs and national recognitions and awards being rejected by top 10 universities unless the applicant happens to be URM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is more complete Harvard information:

http://features.thecrimson.com/2013/frosh-survey/admissions.html

As noted recruited athletes have an average SAT score that is 173 points less than the overall average.

Harvard stop reporting average UREM scores years ago, but at last report the average was about 100 points less than the overall average.

These two categories alone cannot account for the many "non perfect" scores,

25% of those admitted to Harvard scored less than 32 on the ACT. There aren't enough recruited athletes to account for that.

Oh, look! At the very same link above, if you just click on the next tab to the right, you see the average SAT scores of Harvard admits by minority status. (They don't give your ACT stat, so I'm guessing you made that up?)

Hmmm, average AA SAT was 2107. Average Hispanic/Latino was 2167. These are solid 95th percentile scores (http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-2013.pdf) and they translate to over 700 in each of the 3 SAT parts (math, english, writing), with some give or take to get those 2100+ averages.

Bet your SATs weren't as high as any of these! (Back in the day I got a 1580 out of 1600, perhaps that's why I can interpret facts like this for people like you....)

Let me help you out here:

To begin with, 2107 is a terrific SAT score, but it isn't "near perfect" and it is actually subpar for Harvard. According to this site: http://magoosh.com/sat/2013/harvard-sat-scores/
Anyone at 2100 or lower was in the lowest 25% of those gaining admission to Harvard. If the average AA SAT was 2107 then about have scores in the lowest 25%- 2100 would be a strong score for Michigan, not Harvard.

I think 2100 is at or close to 98% and typically is good enough for many top schools, just not Harvard: http://www.collegesimply.com/guides/2100-on-the-sat/#.U3Y2d9JdV8E

See, the mistake you're making is in thinking PP will pay attention to facts like this.

Anonymous wrote:
The mismatch theory was discussed here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/does-affirmative-action-do-what-it-should.html?_r=0

Interesting article, thanks. This was much more balanced than the discussion here had led me to believe. In particular, the mismatch article quoted quite a few people who said the "mismatch theory" is very flawed.

Also, there don't seem to be "many" or "most" studies that find a 300 point SAT discrepancy. The article cites Thomas Espenshade's findings, which are very well-known. This one study isn't exactly a tsunami, however. Nor does the NY Times link, above, cite the Black Journal of Higher Education article that was referrenced earlier, and I'd still be interested in seeing that for myself.

Again, however, if you want to discuss affirmative action, why don't you start your own thread instead of derailing this one. Affirmative action =/= holistic admissions. Holistic admissions includes many things besides race, such as athletic ability, legacy status, artistic talent, the mysterious chemistry known as "building a class," and pretty much anything else that can be slipped under the rubric of, "we want to admit this kid, let's find an excuse." If anything, holistic admissions have been criticized for doing the opposite of what affirmative action does, in that holistic admissions can serve as an excuse to admit rich white kids (like mine).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is more complete Harvard information:

http://features.thecrimson.com/2013/frosh-survey/admissions.html

As noted recruited athletes have an average SAT score that is 173 points less than the overall average.

Harvard stop reporting average UREM scores years ago, but at last report the average was about 100 points less than the overall average.

These two categories alone cannot account for the many "non perfect" scores,

25% of those admitted to Harvard scored less than 32 on the ACT. There aren't enough recruited athletes to account for that.

Oh, look! At the very same link above, if you just click on the next tab to the right, you see the average SAT scores of Harvard admits by minority status. (They don't give your ACT stat, so I'm guessing you made that up?)

Hmmm, average AA SAT was 2107. Average Hispanic/Latino was 2167. These are solid 95th percentile scores (http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-2013.pdf) and they translate to over 700 in each of the 3 SAT parts (math, english, writing), with some give or take to get those 2100+ averages.

Bet your SATs weren't as high as any of these! (Back in the day I got a 1580 out of 1600, perhaps that's why I can interpret facts like this for people like you....)

Let me help you out here:

To begin with, 2107 is a terrific SAT score, but it isn't "near perfect" and it is actually subpar for Harvard. According to this site: http://magoosh.com/sat/2013/harvard-sat-scores/
Anyone at 2100 or lower was in the lowest 25% of those gaining admission to Harvard. If the average AA SAT was 2107 then about have scores in the lowest 25%- 2100 would be a strong score for Michigan, not Harvard.

I think 2100 is at or close to 98% and typically is good enough for many top schools, just not Harvard: http://www.collegesimply.com/guides/2100-on-the-sat/#.U3Y2d9JdV8E