SCOTUS

[a fan]

Opinion: Without the Burden of Affirmative Action, Harvard Now Can Become a True Meritocracy

By Jared Kushner and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Two one percenters from famously rich families lecturing the proletariat about how the playing field in America is level. Awesome.

Meanwhile, in the real world:

According to journalist Daniel Golden, Kushner's father, whose foundation gives away millions of dollars a year to various charitable causes, made a donation of $2.5 million to the university in 1998, along with donations to several other universities, not long before Jared was admitted.

[MDlaxfan76]

So if I get to move past you even though your scores were two orders of magnitude higher than mine, you're ok with that? I went through it at your alma mater with a child who wound up being valedictorian at their final college destination. NHS, 800 math SAT, 24 AP credits, sports (future All-American), volunteer. Legacy and affirmative action was the reason I was given.

Get it to x
Responding on phone to long posts with new.

Was this your child? and who exactly gave you that answer much less that someone with two magnitudes of order lower test scores was accepted instead of this child?

Btw, hope the kid knows what that math would be even if you don’t.

Was the kid not a recruited athlete at Dartmouth yet AA at another D1 school? Or DII or DIII?

EDIT: If one's primary differentiator as 'world class' at something is sports, if you're not offered a slot, it's seen almost as a rejection from the point of view of the Admissions office...they rely on the coaches and AD for those calls. The coach can let Admissions know that the recruit would be a likely walk-on, which can at least keep it neutral rather than negative, but the Admissions office has a limited number of selections to make of "world class" at something else...

Was the kid accepted a recruited athlete, or other special characteristics that would be valuable beyond race?

EDIT: I see that legacy is also mentioned now, didn't notice that when reading on phone earlier...

Legacy would most likely mean that someone with lower test scores was given a leg up over your prospect. Yup, that's been a factor...but gotta remember, only a fraction of legacy applicants get admitted, the cream of that crop so to speak...although there are, reputedly, the exceptions for 7 figure gifts...

But not 2 orders of magnitude...

But it IS why I'm predicting legacy admissions are going to get scrapped, at least at the best endowed institutions like all the Ivies are. But it ain't easy, as the multi-generational families have often been among the most reliable big money donors, new buildings, endowed chairs, etc.

Just below that group has been the athlete corps, also very reliable donor group for annual funds, and the occasional huge gift. On average, higher giving back...

At the end of the day, these institutions are businesses; endowments allow long time horizons, but they nevertheless need to be self sustaining for all of the foreseeable future not just a decade or two or three.

Again...note that this capitalist reality provides an inherent advantage to those predicted to be generous over the long term and those are from families with already accrued advantages.

[Kismet]

So now in America you can legally discriminate in a business you have not even created when the influencers paid you to sue with a wink and a nod that the SCOTUS Majority would take the case.

On the same day, same SCOTUS granted standing to a bunch of GOP controlled states who were not harmed nor involved is Student Loan forgiveness and ruled in their favor.

Welcome to America where the Bill of Rights was just essentially rendered moot. You can serve or not serve whomever you want

Next terms gets even better - these bozos just announced they will consider whether a 30-year-old federal law that prohibits people under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing guns violates the Second Amendment. Swell.

[jhu72]

You guys are mostly missing the point.

At most selective schools, the legacy admits are quite well qualified. Because they are upper SES, they typically have strong test scores.

They are just not super duper stars. But with a smidge of a break/tip they can get in. And the KEY is that their parents usually can full pay. Which means those kids ENROLL at very high rates. Legacy admissions isn't about getting mom and dad to donate a new library. It is about getting mom and dad to stroke the tuition checks.

The game really is not about who can get admitted. The game is about who can ENROLL. And enrollment requires (i) admission and (ii) ability to pay. (i) without (ii) doesn't mean anything to the school or the kid. The game is about YIELD (i.e. enrollment), not about admission.

Most schools (except MIT) have partially/completely moved beyond test scores. Once you do that, you have tons of leeway on who you admit.

But the KEY is how you spend the FA dollars to enable kids to ENROLL. Previously, a top school (relying heavily on test scores) could admit a lot of hi stat kids who a very likely full payors (including legacies). Which conserved a lot of FA dollars for the lower stat and higher need minority kids.

20% of Harvard kids attend for free -- many of them minority. But importantly, a very high 45% of Harvard kids full pay.

Now, the high need pool will have more white, Asian and female kids of modest means. How the schools decide to handle the increased need of their admit pools will determine what the outcome is going to be.

Given that, the impact at Berkeley and UNC (not so many FA dollars) should be expected to be quite different from the impact at the $$$ privates like HYPS.

The difference in legacy admit rates are extremely different from the general admit rate at elite schools.

For example, legacy applicants have an admission rate of 14% at Harvard.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/us/l ... ities.html

That’s about 4x the general admission rate for Harvard, which is around 3.4%.

https://www.crimsoneducation.org/us/blo ... ance-rate/

No elite school that is serious about diversity efforts can justify keeping their legacy preferences.

Johns Hopkins and Amherst have dropped legacy preferences. Let’s see if Harvard, which really f*cked up the struggle to preserve affirmative action, can begin to make amends by eliminating their legacy preference program.

DocBarrister

Doc, how long ago did Hopkins drop legacy?

I've been arguing that it's inevitable for the most selective schools if they're well endowed...
That's right, Bloomberg dough is what made it possible for Daniels to finally implement it in 2020.

I expect Harvard and other Ivies will do so in the wake of this ruling; but you may understand that the admissions folks have been wanting to do it for quite awhile, right?

But it's us alumni...

I agree. Not disputing your points. I also suspect many admissions committees would like to eliminate athletic admission preferences, but recognize that would invite even more blowback.

DocBarrister

Yup, there's going to a lot of pressure...already is... However I also think that a far better argument can be made that athletics, or for that matter any pursuit, which requires grit, determination, commitment, resilience in the face of adversity, has merit in a full educational and developmental experience. I happen to think that athletics provide an ideal opportunity for such characteristics to emerge and flourish.

But that's me. A lot of non-athletes don't recognize that set of virtues as being reasonable to reward over pure academic excellence.

The problem with preference for any one group creates jealousy - humans (at least the bulk of Americans) are incapable of getting beyond their petty jealousies. All preferences have to go. The inability to get past this petty jealousy is what really brought down AA, it wasn't Harvard. It could have been any university.

[jhu72]

... the good news is striking down AA is very unpopular, maintaining AA polls at 65+ %. The loan forgiveness struck down polls 50-50, but for the 50 in favor of forgiveness it is a big deal. This Dem's position for 2024 grows better.

[Brooklyn]

Legacy Preferences

legacy students are economically beneficial to universities, as they are perceived to be more likely to donate to their university after graduation and have parents who are perceived to be more generous donors



That 'plains it all.

[MDlaxfan76]

Legacy Preferences

legacy students are economically beneficial to universities, as they are perceived to be more likely to donate to their university after graduation and have parents who are perceived to be more generous donors



That 'plains it all.

Of course.

And it's more than "perceived", that's been the demonstrated reality...that said, we've seen prior demonstrated patterns, which led to rigid assumptions, be upended over time.

For instance, I recall numerous arguments with older alumni about the "issue" of women making up a large share of the class instead of men..."women give less than men"...it would hurt fundraising, both participation and total $, while increasing costs to serve both genders.

Turned out that participation remained very strong and overall fundraising grew...not at first from those early women alums (strong participation but not big $) but from the families with both daughters and sons, granddaughters etc...and now that the women of that era have hit earning prime ages, the dollars have risen as well...

And yeah, that was part of the argument against "diversity", that students of color (including Asian Americans BTW) didn't demonstrate proclivity to give at the same rate...well, yeah, they didn't typically have the same accrued intergenerational wealth to draw from...but as that changes, the numbers can and will grow...

So, now the argument is against international students...don't give back...

[jhu72]

Legacy Preferences

legacy students are economically beneficial to universities, as they are perceived to be more likely to donate to their university after graduation and have parents who are perceived to be more generous donors



That 'plains it all.

Of course.

And it's more than "perceived", that's been the demonstrated reality...that said, we've seen prior demonstrated patterns, which led to rigid assumptions, be upended over time.

For instance, I recall numerous arguments with older alumni about the "issue" of women making up a large share of the class instead of men..."women give less than men"...it would hurt fundraising, both participation and total $, while increasing costs to serve both genders.

Turned out that participation remained very strong and overall fundraising grew...not at first from those early women alums (strong participation but not big $) but from the families with both daughters and sons, granddaughters etc...and now that the women of that era have hit earning prime ages, the dollars have risen as well...

And yeah, that was part of the argument against "diversity", that students of color (including Asian Americans BTW) didn't demonstrate proclivity to give at the same rate...well, yeah, they didn't typically have the same accrued intergenerational wealth to draw from...but as that changes, the numbers can and will grow...

So, now the argument is against international students...don't give back...

... the answer to your question as to when Hopkins announced they were doing away with the Legacy Preference program, is within the past 3 years IRRC. It is recent.

[MDlaxfan76]

Legacy Preferences

legacy students are economically beneficial to universities, as they are perceived to be more likely to donate to their university after graduation and have parents who are perceived to be more generous donors



That 'plains it all.

Of course.

And it's more than "perceived", that's been the demonstrated reality...that said, we've seen prior demonstrated patterns, which led to rigid assumptions, be upended over time.

For instance, I recall numerous arguments with older alumni about the "issue" of women making up a large share of the class instead of men..."women give less than men"...it would hurt fundraising, both participation and total $, while increasing costs to serve both genders.

Turned out that participation remained very strong and overall fundraising grew...not at first from those early women alums (strong participation but not big $) but from the families with both daughters and sons, granddaughters etc...and now that the women of that era have hit earning prime ages, the dollars have risen as well...

And yeah, that was part of the argument against "diversity", that students of color (including Asian Americans BTW) didn't demonstrate proclivity to give at the same rate...well, yeah, they didn't typically have the same accrued intergenerational wealth to draw from...but as that changes, the numbers can and will grow...

So, now the argument is against international students...don't give back...

... the answer to your question as to when Hopkins announced they were doing away with the Legacy Preference program, is within the past 3 years IRRC. It is recent.

Yes, I knew that when I asked Doc. sorta rhetorical..
Very recent...and largely made 'possible' by Bloomberg.

BTW, my only nit with the wiki on legacies is that so much of the data cited (presumably accurately) is old.

The issue of selectivity has grown far more acute and legacy admissions have felt that as well. But advantages remain.

[get it to x]

So if I get to move past you even though your scores were two orders of magnitude higher than mine, you're ok with that? I went through it at your alma mater with a child who wound up being valedictorian at their final college destination. NHS, 800 math SAT, 24 AP credits, sports (future All-American), volunteer. Legacy and affirmative action was the reason I was given.

Get it to x
Responding on phone to long posts with new.

Was this your child? and who exactly gave you that answer much less that someone with two magnitudes of order lower test scores was accepted instead of this child?

Btw, hope the kid knows what that math would be even if you don’t.

Was the kid not a recruited athlete at Dartmouth yet AA at another D1 school? Or DII or DIII?

EDIT: If one's primary differentiator as 'world class' at something is sports, if you're not offered a slot, it's seen almost as a rejection from the point of view of the Admissions office...they rely on the coaches and AD for those calls. The coach can let Admissions know that the recruit would be a likely walk-on, which can at least keep it neutral rather than negative, but the Admissions office has a limited number of selections to make of "world class" at something else...

Was the kid accepted a recruited athlete, or other special characteristics that would be valuable beyond race?

EDIT: I see that legacy is also mentioned now, didn't notice that when reading on phone earlier...

Legacy would most likely mean that someone with lower test scores was given a leg up over your prospect. Yup, that's been a factor...but gotta remember, only a fraction of legacy applicants get admitted, the cream of that crop so to speak...although there are, reputedly, the exceptions for 7 figure gifts...

But not 2 orders of magnitude...

But it IS why I'm predicting legacy admissions are going to get scrapped, at least at the best endowed institutions like all the Ivies are. But it ain't easy, as the multi-generational families have often been among the most reliable big money donors, new buildings, endowed chairs, etc.

Just below that group has been the athlete corps, also very reliable donor group for annual funds, and the occasional huge gift. On average, higher giving back...

At the end of the day, these institutions are businesses; endowments allow long time horizons, but they nevertheless need to be self sustaining for all of the foreseeable future not just a decade or two or three.

Again...note that this capitalist reality provides an inherent advantage to those predicted to be generous over the long term and those are from families with already accrued advantages.

Admissions officer advised that after athletes, diversity and legacy there were roughly 12,000 applicants for 400 slots. Acceptance rate is around 6% overall but less than 3% for someone not falling into a "special category". Money never came up, although I was told that if she had gone to Severn instead of Annapolis HS she would have likely been admitted. Was that a $$ indicator or a "We like those kids" indicator? Who knows?

Not a recruited athlete. Sailing is a bit different from most sports. Only took it up in her junior year of HS as a club sport. We do not sail. Walked on. All-American, inaugural Academic All-American team and National Champion. She is a quick study.

[a fan]

Not a recruited athlete. Sailing is a bit different from most sports. Only took it up in her junior year of HS as a club sport. We do not sail. Walked on. All-American, inaugural Academic All-American team and National Champion. She is a quick study.

That's really cool. Does she still sail?

[get it to x]

Not a recruited athlete. Sailing is a bit different from most sports. Only took it up in her junior year of HS as a club sport. We do not sail. Walked on. All-American, inaugural Academic All-American team and National Champion. She is a quick study.

That's really cool. Does she still sail?

Not much but will crew if invited. A mom and economist in Brooklyn these days.

[MDlaxfan76]

So if I get to move past you even though your scores were two orders of magnitude higher than mine, you're ok with that? I went through it at your alma mater with a child who wound up being valedictorian at their final college destination. NHS, 800 math SAT, 24 AP credits, sports (future All-American), volunteer. Legacy and affirmative action was the reason I was given.

Get it to x
Responding on phone to long posts with new.

Was this your child? and who exactly gave you that answer much less that someone with two magnitudes of order lower test scores was accepted instead of this child?

Btw, hope the kid knows what that math would be even if you don’t.

Was the kid not a recruited athlete at Dartmouth yet AA at another D1 school? Or DII or DIII?

EDIT: If one's primary differentiator as 'world class' at something is sports, if you're not offered a slot, it's seen almost as a rejection from the point of view of the Admissions office...they rely on the coaches and AD for those calls. The coach can let Admissions know that the recruit would be a likely walk-on, which can at least keep it neutral rather than negative, but the Admissions office has a limited number of selections to make of "world class" at something else...

Was the kid accepted a recruited athlete, or other special characteristics that would be valuable beyond race?

EDIT: I see that legacy is also mentioned now, didn't notice that when reading on phone earlier...

Legacy would most likely mean that someone with lower test scores was given a leg up over your prospect. Yup, that's been a factor...but gotta remember, only a fraction of legacy applicants get admitted, the cream of that crop so to speak...although there are, reputedly, the exceptions for 7 figure gifts...

But not 2 orders of magnitude...

But it IS why I'm predicting legacy admissions are going to get scrapped, at least at the best endowed institutions like all the Ivies are. But it ain't easy, as the multi-generational families have often been among the most reliable big money donors, new buildings, endowed chairs, etc.

Just below that group has been the athlete corps, also very reliable donor group for annual funds, and the occasional huge gift. On average, higher giving back...

At the end of the day, these institutions are businesses; endowments allow long time horizons, but they nevertheless need to be self sustaining for all of the foreseeable future not just a decade or two or three.

Again...note that this capitalist reality provides an inherent advantage to those predicted to be generous over the long term and those are from families with already accrued advantages.

Admissions officer advised that after athletes, diversity and legacy there were roughly 12,000 applicants for 400 slots. Acceptance rate is around 6% overall but less than 3% for someone not falling into a "special category". Money never came up, although I was told that if she had gone to Severn instead of Annapolis HS she would have likely been admitted. Was that a $$ indicator or a "We like those kids" indicator? Who knows?

Not a recruited athlete. Sailing is a bit different from most sports. Only took it up in her junior year of HS as a club sport. We do not sail. Walked on. All-American, inaugural Academic All-American team and National Champion. She is a quick study.

Ahhh, I recall discussing this before...sounds like a terrific applicant; glad she crushed it thereafter!
Great reasons to be proud of her...if not married, let's introduce to my son! EDIT: just saw she's already taken! ahh well..

And I recall the Severn vs Annapolis concern, though my understanding it that the 'tip' actually goes the other way the days, though more for actual socio-economic status implying grit and adversity. But Annapolis demographic isn't really an "adversity" demographic assumption, right? Severn student might be on full scholarship, first generation college, etc, with that "adversity" being factored in along with already excelling in super competitive school, so that could have helped if it had been the case...otherwise the Severn thing would be an issue of "we have so many other kids from elite high schools already who have some 'world class" extra feature, we don't need another one..."

Yeah, sailing probably would be the opposite of a 'tip, no slots, and it implies affluence, even if there isn't such...and Dartmouth, like the rest of Ivies really aren't factoring that as a positive in the same way anymore...legacies cover that...

On the 12,000 for 400, Dartmouth's running about 29,000 now to get to about 1800ish acceptances, 1250-1300 matriculating.

Athletes do make up over 25% but those go ED, so very high acceptance rate for them, rare bump. So, 350 . 900 or so left to matriculate, but 1200 acceptances yet to go . Then non-white, non-asian...12% maybe 150...down to 750 matriculation slots. We''re down to below 10% now, may be even less this year...so, call that another 300 slots (though I read that it was less than 200 now...); most accept, so still over 900 acceptances in play...to fill that last 450 who matriculate...these days these kids try at multiple Ivies, can only choose one...which is why going ED does give an advantage a bit.

Note, some of those athlete spots overlap with non-white, non-asian.

I think what you probably meant by the "two orders of magnitude" was really two standard deviations from the mean. Your gal could definitely have been two such above the admitted legacy, AA, or athlete.

But here's the thing, the last 1800 they reject statistically looks like the ones they accept...lots of perfect SATs rejected.

[get it to x]

So if I get to move past you even though your scores were two orders of magnitude higher than mine, you're ok with that? I went through it at your alma mater with a child who wound up being valedictorian at their final college destination. NHS, 800 math SAT, 24 AP credits, sports (future All-American), volunteer. Legacy and affirmative action was the reason I was given.

Get it to x
Responding on phone to long posts with new.

Was this your child? and who exactly gave you that answer much less that someone with two magnitudes of order lower test scores was accepted instead of this child?

Btw, hope the kid knows what that math would be even if you don’t.

Was the kid not a recruited athlete at Dartmouth yet AA at another D1 school? Or DII or DIII?

EDIT: If one's primary differentiator as 'world class' at something is sports, if you're not offered a slot, it's seen almost as a rejection from the point of view of the Admissions office...they rely on the coaches and AD for those calls. The coach can let Admissions know that the recruit would be a likely walk-on, which can at least keep it neutral rather than negative, but the Admissions office has a limited number of selections to make of "world class" at something else...

Was the kid accepted a recruited athlete, or other special characteristics that would be valuable beyond race?

EDIT: I see that legacy is also mentioned now, didn't notice that when reading on phone earlier...

Legacy would most likely mean that someone with lower test scores was given a leg up over your prospect. Yup, that's been a factor...but gotta remember, only a fraction of legacy applicants get admitted, the cream of that crop so to speak...although there are, reputedly, the exceptions for 7 figure gifts...

But not 2 orders of magnitude...

But it IS why I'm predicting legacy admissions are going to get scrapped, at least at the best endowed institutions like all the Ivies are. But it ain't easy, as the multi-generational families have often been among the most reliable big money donors, new buildings, endowed chairs, etc.

Just below that group has been the athlete corps, also very reliable donor group for annual funds, and the occasional huge gift. On average, higher giving back...

At the end of the day, these institutions are businesses; endowments allow long time horizons, but they nevertheless need to be self sustaining for all of the foreseeable future not just a decade or two or three.

Again...note that this capitalist reality provides an inherent advantage to those predicted to be generous over the long term and those are from families with already accrued advantages.

Admissions officer advised that after athletes, diversity and legacy there were roughly 12,000 applicants for 400 slots. Acceptance rate is around 6% overall but less than 3% for someone not falling into a "special category". Money never came up, although I was told that if she had gone to Severn instead of Annapolis HS she would have likely been admitted. Was that a $$ indicator or a "We like those kids" indicator? Who knows?

Not a recruited athlete. Sailing is a bit different from most sports. Only took it up in her junior year of HS as a club sport. We do not sail. Walked on. All-American, inaugural Academic All-American team and National Champion. She is a quick study.

Ahhh, I recall discussing this before...sounds like a terrific applicant; glad she crushed it thereafter!
Great reasons to be proud of her...if not married, let's introduce to my son! EDIT: just saw she's already taken! ahh well..

And I recall the Severn vs Annapolis concern, though my understanding it that the 'tip' actually goes the other way the days, though more for actual socio-economic status implying grit and adversity. But Annapolis demographic isn't really an "adversity" demographic assumption, right? Severn student might be on full scholarship, first generation college, etc, with that "adversity" being factored in along with already excelling in super competitive school, so that could have helped if it had been the case...otherwise the Severn thing would be an issue of "we have so many other kids from elite high schools already who have some 'world class" extra feature, we don't need another one..."

Yeah, sailing probably would be the opposite of a 'tip, no slots, and it implies affluence, even if there isn't such...and Dartmouth, like the rest of Ivies really aren't factoring that as a positive in the same way anymore...legacies cover that...

On the 12,000 for 400, Dartmouth's running about 29,000 now to get to about 1800ish acceptances, 1250-1300 matriculating.

Athletes do make up over 25% but those go ED, so very high acceptance rate for them, rare bump. So, 350 . 900 or so left to matriculate, but 1200 acceptances yet to go . Then non-white, non-asian...12% maybe 150...down to 750 matriculation slots. We''re down to below 10% now, may be even less this year...so, call that another 300 slots (though I read that it was less than 200 now...); most accept, so still over 900 acceptances in play...to fill that last 450 who matriculate...these days these kids try at multiple Ivies, can only choose one...which is why going ED does give an advantage a bit.

I think what you probably meant by the "two orders of magnitude" was really two standard deviations from the mean. Your gal could definitely have been two such above the admitted legacy, AA, or athlete.

But here's the thing, the last 1800 they reject statistically looks like the ones they accept...lots of perfect SATs rejected.

Sorry, you're right. It's been a long time since I've used mean, median, mode and standard deviation. And we're not sore about what happened. She got a great education and it only cost us her expenses, including grad school. Maybe I should be grateful I didn't have to eat ramen five nights a week to pay a hefty tuition bill.

[MDlaxfan76]

So if I get to move past you even though your scores were two orders of magnitude higher than mine, you're ok with that? I went through it at your alma mater with a child who wound up being valedictorian at their final college destination. NHS, 800 math SAT, 24 AP credits, sports (future All-American), volunteer. Legacy and affirmative action was the reason I was given.

Get it to x
Responding on phone to long posts with new.

Was this your child? and who exactly gave you that answer much less that someone with two magnitudes of order lower test scores was accepted instead of this child?

Btw, hope the kid knows what that math would be even if you don’t.

Was the kid not a recruited athlete at Dartmouth yet AA at another D1 school? Or DII or DIII?

EDIT: If one's primary differentiator as 'world class' at something is sports, if you're not offered a slot, it's seen almost as a rejection from the point of view of the Admissions office...they rely on the coaches and AD for those calls. The coach can let Admissions know that the recruit would be a likely walk-on, which can at least keep it neutral rather than negative, but the Admissions office has a limited number of selections to make of "world class" at something else...

Was the kid accepted a recruited athlete, or other special characteristics that would be valuable beyond race?

EDIT: I see that legacy is also mentioned now, didn't notice that when reading on phone earlier...

Legacy would most likely mean that someone with lower test scores was given a leg up over your prospect. Yup, that's been a factor...but gotta remember, only a fraction of legacy applicants get admitted, the cream of that crop so to speak...although there are, reputedly, the exceptions for 7 figure gifts...

But not 2 orders of magnitude...

But it IS why I'm predicting legacy admissions are going to get scrapped, at least at the best endowed institutions like all the Ivies are. But it ain't easy, as the multi-generational families have often been among the most reliable big money donors, new buildings, endowed chairs, etc.

Just below that group has been the athlete corps, also very reliable donor group for annual funds, and the occasional huge gift. On average, higher giving back...

At the end of the day, these institutions are businesses; endowments allow long time horizons, but they nevertheless need to be self sustaining for all of the foreseeable future not just a decade or two or three.

Again...note that this capitalist reality provides an inherent advantage to those predicted to be generous over the long term and those are from families with already accrued advantages.

Admissions officer advised that after athletes, diversity and legacy there were roughly 12,000 applicants for 400 slots. Acceptance rate is around 6% overall but less than 3% for someone not falling into a "special category". Money never came up, although I was told that if she had gone to Severn instead of Annapolis HS she would have likely been admitted. Was that a $$ indicator or a "We like those kids" indicator? Who knows?

Not a recruited athlete. Sailing is a bit different from most sports. Only took it up in her junior year of HS as a club sport. We do not sail. Walked on. All-American, inaugural Academic All-American team and National Champion. She is a quick study.

Ahhh, I recall discussing this before...sounds like a terrific applicant; glad she crushed it thereafter!
Great reasons to be proud of her...if not married, let's introduce to my son! EDIT: just saw she's already taken! ahh well..

And I recall the Severn vs Annapolis concern, though my understanding it that the 'tip' actually goes the other way the days, though more for actual socio-economic status implying grit and adversity. But Annapolis demographic isn't really an "adversity" demographic assumption, right? Severn student might be on full scholarship, first generation college, etc, with that "adversity" being factored in along with already excelling in super competitive school, so that could have helped if it had been the case...otherwise the Severn thing would be an issue of "we have so many other kids from elite high schools already who have some 'world class" extra feature, we don't need another one..."

Yeah, sailing probably would be the opposite of a 'tip, no slots, and it implies affluence, even if there isn't such...and Dartmouth, like the rest of Ivies really aren't factoring that as a positive in the same way anymore...legacies cover that...

On the 12,000 for 400, Dartmouth's running about 29,000 now to get to about 1800ish acceptances, 1250-1300 matriculating.

Athletes do make up over 25% but those go ED, so very high acceptance rate for them, rare bump. So, 350 . 900 or so left to matriculate, but 1200 acceptances yet to go . Then non-white, non-asian...12% maybe 150...down to 750 matriculation slots. We''re down to below 10% now, may be even less this year...so, call that another 300 slots (though I read that it was less than 200 now...); most accept, so still over 900 acceptances in play...to fill that last 450 who matriculate...these days these kids try at multiple Ivies, can only choose one...which is why going ED does give an advantage a bit.

I think what you probably meant by the "two orders of magnitude" was really two standard deviations from the mean. Your gal could definitely have been two such above the admitted legacy, AA, or athlete.

But here's the thing, the last 1800 they reject statistically looks like the ones they accept...lots of perfect SATs rejected.

Sorry, you're right. It's been a long time since I've used mean, median, mode and standard deviation. And we're not sore about what happened. She got a great education and it only cost us her expenses, including grad school. Maybe I should be grateful I didn't have to eat ramen five nights a week to pay a hefty tuition bill.

[SCLaxAttack]

So now in America you can legally discriminate in a business you have not even created when the influencers paid you to sue with a wink and a nod that the SCOTUS Majority would take the case.

Original post snipped....

Not only was the business a figment of her imagination, so were the two supposed customers!

[Carroll81]

No elite school that is serious about diversity efforts can justify keeping their legacy preferences.

Not really. Just doesn't work that way.

Legacy preferences, of course, mostly admit white, wealthy, suburban kids with good test scores and grades.

But the kids who get squeezed out by the legacy kids are other mostly white, suburban kids with slightly better test scores and grades. And the reason the legacy white kids get in is because their parent are richer and are more likely to full pay the tuition.

The legacy kids do not squeeze out minorities. Because minorities has been its own very powerful tip/hook. The legacy kids (and the recruited athlete kids) squeeze out the highly qualified kids who are unhooked/untipped. If you give some kids a hook, that makes it harder for the unhooked.

If you get rid of legacies and also the minority hook but keep the fetish on high test scores, most of the white legacies would still get in over the now unhooked minority candiadtes.

End of day, it really is all about ability to pay and ability to enroll. Ability to be admitted is not the key aspect. If you want diversity, the school has to throw FA dollars at the diverse kids.

End of day, losing the minority tip in admissions will make diversity more expensive for schools to achieve. And it will require schools to back off of using test scores.

Legacy Preferences

The ultimate legacy:

[a fan]

So now in America you can legally discriminate in a business you have not even created when the influencers paid you to sue with a wink and a nod that the SCOTUS Majority would take the case.

Original post snipped....

Not only was the business a figment of her imagination, so were the two supposed customers!

Wait.....what? There was no business? How the F did this get taken up by the Court?

[Kismet]

So now in America you can legally discriminate in a business you have not even created when the influencers paid you to sue with a wink and a nod that the SCOTUS Majority would take the case.

Original post snipped....

Not only was the business a figment of her imagination, so were the two supposed customers!

Wait.....what? There was no business? How the F did this get taken up by the Court?

Where have ya been? This is how it works now - The student loan case was filed by 7 GOP controlled states who had no legal stake in the issue nor standing - yet SCOTUS took up the case and ruled in their favor anyway. Majority rules

[Seacoaster(1)]

Putting aside the decision on the merits (with which, I think, reasonable people could disagree), the Court majority’s standing decision is astoundingly dishonest and nothing more than an entryway to an outcome one political group wanted. This again inflicts a needless injury to the reputation of a Court and institution already on the ropes.