Anonymous wrote:But is there really anyone who can defend with a straight face URM preferences for the sons/daughters of highly successful, affluent professionals?

I'd be happy to. I would argue that it is like applying modern portfolio theory to college admissions. Just as it would be foolish to invest your entire nest egg in one stock, it is foolish for an elite university to not diversify. The top schools have missions to educate the economic, intellectual, political, social, and cultural leaders of the future. I may not like that mission or that elitism, but it is what it is. They explicitly do not seek to educate the best test takers or those with the highest GPA. Since there are many different leadership paths, including some that fall along racial/ethnic distinctions, schools need to pick future leaders from each of those paths. It is extremely useful for elite universities (and society as a whole) to have a part in bringing up these leaders and creating shared bonds with each other and the school. By picking from multiple groups, you make sure you are linked to future Latino and African-American leaders in the same way you have philosophy and lit majors to go with the techies and Wall Streeters and jocks.

It would be absurd for humanities majors to demand that there be fewer slots at Harvard for computer science majors because the comp sci majors are less "intellectual" as evidenced by their preference for graphic novels and the poor quality of their technical manuals and app instructions. It is equally absurd to think Yale or society would be better off if it rejected 100 more African-American or Latino students and replaced them with white or Asian students.

BTW With nearly 30,000 applicants, keeping those 100 students of color out would do absolutely nothing to increase the odds of admission for your child or any other individual white or Asian applicant.

Williams admitted 244 of 593 Early Decision applicants, that's a 41.1% admit rate, filling 44% of the class.

Last year, they accepted 42.8% of ED applicants.

Still a huge boost for ED here. Last year, the overall accept rate was 18% (1150 admits out of 6316 applications).

Anonymous wrote:

Please. I'm just saying the legacy kids are not always the smartest. Who would disagree with that? Last year, Yale seemed to take the legacies who were the brainiest.

Eh, someone's subjective evaluation of the degree of "braininess" of applicants from general impressions of one's child's peers doesn't really mean much. As an observing parent, you don't know what exactly their transcript was (maybe they had the same or lower GPA as someone else, but took much harder courses, or got better grades in harder courses), if they had a brilliant essay that showed a certain intellectual spark, if they had an overwhelmingly glowing rec letter from a teacher that was clearly more substantial than other applicants, etc. that was the tiebreaker. Not saying that being a legacy doesn't make a difference--it certainly does, but it's sounding like there's a lot of sour grapes on this forum with a lot of information that is unknown.

+1 Gotta blame someone for your problems. It used to be the Blacks and the Jews. Now it is the Blacks and the Jocks.

How about you start your own thread to discuss the fascinating and not talked over to death topic of racial preferences?

I'd like to this to stay on early decision news. My child's school - a little off the beaten path for those of you living inside the Beltway - has been finding it a little tough this year. Recruited athletes have been fine, but the "unhooked" kids at the top of the class are mostly getting deferred.

It feels like maybe more people are picking up on the Early Action acceptance rate boost. Here are Harvard's recently released numbers:

Last year's early action: 4692 applied, 992 accepted (21%)
This year's early action: 5919 applied, 977 accepted (16.5%)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please. I'm just saying the legacy kids are not always the smartest. Who would disagree with that? Last year, Yale seemed to take the legacies who were the brainiest.

+1. I get what you are saying. Some people on this site are a little touchy when you point out the obvious. Athletes can have lower stats because they bring something else to the table. Same with legacies. Same with URMs. My child got in early somewhere last week from SFS, but most of his friends didn't. And there were a few shocks among his classmates over kids who were legacies getting in while others in the top percentile were wait listed or rejected. But that's life. Fact is, they'll all end up at good schools and most will just be happy to get away from their parents!!

This still hangs like a cloud for me. The implication of the poster is that the successful URM candidates in this case had weaker stats than those who were deferred. What, if any, support do you have for this statement? How were your successful child's stats when compared to his/her friends who were deferred?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I bet the legacy URM had a weaker profile.

I'm betting you're not too familiar with students from highly competitive schools like SFS. I know lots of URM students there (although admittedly not in this year's senior class), and many of them are some of the smartest kids in the class. If a URM child happens to have Ivy-league parents - and all the financial, social, and genetic benefits that pedigree entails - I'd guess the kid has a plenty strong profile.

It seems you're assuming that URM students and legacies are most often less qualified than their peers at top area schools like SFS. In my experience, your assumption is not accurate.

Didn't Obama once say that children like his (Ivy legacy, affluent, lots of resources, successful parents) didn't need preference (call it URM, affirmative action, whatever) because they already have more advantages than most kids? It seems to me that URM should be superfluous rather than additive when the parents are successful corporate executives, managing partners in Big Law and noted surgeons (not to mention president), and who themselves may be legacies at highly selective schools.

Are you the person who wrote the original "weaker profile" comment? If so, you appear to be changing your tune a bit, from "must be a weaker profile" to "doesn't deserve any preference." The common thread is your negative view of URM students.

Different writer. But is there really anyone who can defend with a straight face URM preferences for the sons/daughters of highly successful, affluent professionals?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I bet the legacy URM had a weaker profile.

I'm betting you're not too familiar with students from highly competitive schools like SFS. I know lots of URM students there (although admittedly not in this year's senior class), and many of them are some of the smartest kids in the class. If a URM child happens to have Ivy-league parents - and all the financial, social, and genetic benefits that pedigree entails - I'd guess the kid has a plenty strong profile.

It seems you're assuming that URM students and legacies are most often less qualified than their peers at top area schools like SFS. In my experience, your assumption is not accurate.

Didn't Obama once say that children like his (Ivy legacy, affluent, lots of resources, successful parents) didn't need preference (call it URM, affirmative action, whatever) because they already have more advantages than most kids? It seems to me that URM should be superfluous rather than additive when the parents are successful corporate executives, managing partners in Big Law and noted surgeons (not to mention president), and who themselves may be legacies at highly selective schools.

Are you the person who wrote the original "weaker profile" comment? If so, you appear to be changing your tune a bit, from "must be a weaker profile" to "doesn't deserve any preference." The common thread is your negative view of URM students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I bet the legacy URM had a weaker profile.

I'm betting you're not too familiar with students from highly competitive schools like SFS. I know lots of URM students there (although admittedly not in this year's senior class), and many of them are some of the smartest kids in the class. If a URM child happens to have Ivy-league parents - and all the financial, social, and genetic benefits that pedigree entails - I'd guess the kid has a plenty strong profile.

It seems you're assuming that URM students and legacies are most often less qualified than their peers at top area schools like SFS. In my experience, your assumption is not accurate.

Didn't Obama once say that children like his (Ivy legacy, affluent, lots of resources, successful parents) didn't need preference (call it URM, affirmative action, whatever) because they already have more advantages than most kids? It seems to me that URM should be superfluous rather than additive when the parents are successful corporate executives, managing partners in Big Law and noted surgeons (not to mention president), and who themselves may be legacies at highly selective schools.

Anonymous wrote:Are Asians considered URMs?

I think ORMs at California schools

Are Asians considered URMs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it that common for 30 Sidwell kids to apply early to two schools? Seems so unwise.

New poster. Isn't this a "damned if you do / damned if you don't" situation? Whether it's Sidwell or some other school, if college counselors encourage students to apply to all the top colleges they might want, the college counselors are criticized for creating a competitive logjam where lots of students get lots of rejection letters. And furthermore, many parents wring their hands about the hyper-focus on Ivy education to the exclusion of all else.

But if college counselors discourage some students from applying to these top colleges (perhaps even because they know there are lots of other better-qualified applicants from the same class), the college counselors are accused of improperly steering students away from their top choices, accused of showing favoritism toward the few students they encourage to apply to the top colleges, and mocked as foolish whenever some student who was discouraged from applying gets lucky enough to be admitted anyway. There's a whole other thread trending right now on DCUM with all these same sentiments. It's a no-win situation IMHO.

+1

Anonymous wrote:Is it that common for 30 Sidwell kids to apply early to two schools? Seems so unwise.

New poster. Isn't this a "damned if you do / damned if you don't" situation? Whether it's Sidwell or some other school, if college counselors encourage students to apply to all the top colleges they might want, the college counselors are criticized for creating a competitive logjam where lots of students get lots of rejection letters. And furthermore, many parents wring their hands about the hyper-focus on Ivy education to the exclusion of all else.

But if college counselors discourage some students from applying to these top colleges (perhaps even because they know there are lots of other better-qualified applicants from the same class), the college counselors are accused of improperly steering students away from their top choices, accused of showing favoritism toward the few students they encourage to apply to the top colleges, and mocked as foolish whenever some student who was discouraged from applying gets lucky enough to be admitted anyway. There's a whole other thread trending right now on DCUM with all these same sentiments. It's a no-win situation IMHO.

Please. I'm just saying the legacy kids are not always the smartest. Who would disagree with that? Last year, Yale seemed to take the legacies who were the brainiest.

Eh, someone's subjective evaluation of the degree of "braininess" of applicants from general impressions of one's child's peers doesn't really mean much. As an observing parent, you don't know what exactly their transcript was (maybe they had the same or lower GPA as someone else, but took much harder courses, or got better grades in harder courses), if they had a brilliant essay that showed a certain intellectual spark, if they had an overwhelmingly glowing rec letter from a teacher that was clearly more substantial than other applicants, etc. that was the tiebreaker. Not saying that being a legacy doesn't make a difference--it certainly does, but it's sounding like there's a lot of sour grapes on this forum with a lot of information that is unknown.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please. I'm just saying the legacy kids are not always the smartest. Who would disagree with that? Last year, Yale seemed to take the legacies who were the brainiest.

+1. I get what you are saying. Some people on this site are a little touchy when you point out the obvious. Athletes can have lower stats because they bring something else to the table. Same with legacies. Same with URMs. My child got in early somewhere last week from SFS, but most of his friends didn't. And there were a few shocks among his classmates over kids who were legacies getting in while others in the top percentile were wait listed or rejected. But that's life. Fact is, they'll all end up at good schools and most will just be happy to get away from their parents!!

Yeah, I heard that the acceptances at the most selective schools were all about legacy and URM status. Please tell me more of what you heard.

My child is part of same class (I guess there are a lot more SFS parents on this site than I realized since their class isn't that big!!). Kids are being pretty quiet, even the ones that got in, so I think a lot of this is guessing and fishing. But yes, if you really, really need to know, two Ivies were URMs, at least one was legacy, and other top schools were combos of two. My child doesn't know anyone yet who isn't either who got into a top 25 school early yet, but lots more decisions are coming out today, plus kids are probably keeping it quiet. I agree with a PP who said they will all end up in good schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please. I'm just saying the legacy kids are not always the smartest. Who would disagree with that? Last year, Yale seemed to take the legacies who were the brainiest.

+1. I get what you are saying. Some people on this site are a little touchy when you point out the obvious. Athletes can have lower stats because they bring something else to the table. Same with legacies. Same with URMs. My child got in early somewhere last week from SFS, but most of his friends didn't. And there were a few shocks among his classmates over kids who were legacies getting in while others in the top percentile were wait listed or rejected. But that's life. Fact is, they'll all end up at good schools and most will just be happy to get away from their parents!!

Sorry lady. Some of the deferrals may have been disappointing, but none of the acceptances was even close to surprising, legacy status or not.