Post: #26

Just to add to Athlone's post:
I randomly attended a fundraising event for an Ivy League. There was one Asian person, one African American family and maybe 2 Indian families. Everyone else (99%) was white. There was a large poster with the major donors ($2million+), all of them were white.

Post: #27

A big part of those schools is the legacy factor, it's basically nepotism.

Post: #28

Why only blame minorities and not any of the 1-percenters who got in because of networking instead of grades?

Post: #29

(04-05-2013 06:38 AM)jmoney29 Wrote:  Why only blame minorities and not any of the 1-percenters who got in because of networking instead of grades?

The paper I mentioned addresses that. The race premium for being black or latino vs. being white or Asian is greater than that for legacy preferences:

Quote:African-American applicants receive the equivalent of 230 extra SAT points (on a 1600-point scale), and being Hispanic is worth an additional 185 SAT points. Other things equal, recruited athletes gain an admission bonus worth 200 points, while the preference for legacy candidates is worth 160 points. Asian-American applicants face a loss equivalent to 50 SAT points.

I doubt anyone's blaming anyone but admission officers here. Applicants will play the hands they're dealt. Hate the game, not the player, etc.

Post: #30

(04-05-2013 07:44 AM)Kabal Wrote:  

(04-05-2013 06:38 AM)jmoney29 Wrote:  Why only blame minorities and not any of the 1-percenters who got in because of networking instead of grades?

The paper I mentioned addresses that. The race premium for being black or latino vs. being white or Asian is greater than that for legacy preferences:

The numbers do come to that conclusion, but a couple of realities with regard to this topic are frequently overlooked:

1. Those one percenters who gained admission via legacy or networking do significantly outnumber the Blacks and Hispanics as a whole at these schools.

2. One percenters with legacy at Princeton and Harvard have admission rates approaching 40%, higher than all groups save for the recruited athletes (many of whom are also part of the well-connected socio-economic elite). Blacks and Hispanics aren't surpassing these numbers.

These facts, when considered, do shed a more realistic light on critiques of Ivy League admissions. Such critiques tend to focus very heavily on Affirmative Action and its role in benefiting minorities and creating unfair admissions, but the reality is that the blacks/hispanics are getting more attention than they deserve. The largest numerical beneficiaries of less-than-meritocratic preferences at elite schools are, in fact, white people of elite socio-economic standing.

Post: #31

(04-05-2013 08:19 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(04-05-2013 07:44 AM)Kabal Wrote:  

(04-05-2013 06:38 AM)jmoney29 Wrote:  Why only blame minorities and not any of the 1-percenters who got in because of networking instead of grades?

The paper I mentioned addresses that. The race premium for being black or latino vs. being white or Asian is greater than that for legacy preferences:

The numbers do come to that conclusion, but a couple of realities with regard to this topic are frequently overlooked:

1. Those one percenters who gained admission via legacy or networking do significantly outnumber the Blacks and Hispanics as a whole at these schools.

2. One percenters with legacy at Princeton and Harvard have admission rates approaching 40%, higher than all groups save for the recruited athletes (many of whom are also part of the well-connected socio-economic elite). Blacks and Hispanics aren't surpassing these numbers.

You're missing his point. He's not asking what their admission rates are, he's asking what their SCORES are that are getting them admitted. The American college system is supposed to be loosely based on some kind of meritocracy.

If 40% of their legacies get in but half of them objectively deserve it based on competitive scores, but only 5% of the Affirmative Action cases would have made it base on their scores then this isn't a case of legacies being favored more than AA cases.

Post: #32

Athlone, do you think you would have made it to your Ivy league school if you weren't an athlete? Would you have gotten in if you were another race?

For me, in hindsight I wish I didn't slack off a bit in high school. I got good grades and made all the decent colleges I wanted to, but if I was motivated I could have made one of these ivies with the minority bonus they give. What kind of SAT score would a black male need to make it to one of these schools? 1800? 2000? 2100? I can't imagine it being that high.

Post: #33

(04-05-2013 09:19 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:  You're missing his point. He's not asking what their admission rates are, he's asking what their SCORES are that are getting them admitted.

I did not miss Kabal's point. On the contrary, it was fully acknowledged. I simply added to the discussion to give a clearer picture of the reality, which isn't fully displayed by the numbers given.

Furthermore, Kabal did not ask a question, he presented facts.

Quote: The American college system is supposed to be loosely based on some kind of meritocracy.

Such a thing never existed.

Quote:If 40% of their legacies get in but half of them objectively deserve it based on competitive scores, but only 5% of the Affirmative Action cases would have made it base on their scores then this isn't a case of legacies being favored more than AA cases.

The admission rate for legacies and well networked one percenters outpaces not only the rate for under-represented minorities, but also those of groups with similar if not higher scores (ex: asians, non-elite whites). Their scores are quite competitive, but not to a sufficiently greater degree than others to warrant their much higher admission rates.

(04-05-2013 09:52 AM)jammer Wrote:  Athlone, do you think you would have made it to your Ivy league school if you weren't an athlete?

Yes.

Quote:Would you have gotten in if you were another race?

Most of my white teammates had lower scores coming in than I did. My score was in the higher band for recruited athletes regardless of race.
Had I been white, I could have likely managed admission just the same. Had I been white and affluent, I'm very confident I would have done so.

Quote:For me, in hindsight I wish I didn't slack off a bit in high school. I got good grades and made all the decent colleges I wanted to, but if I was motivated I could have made one of these ivies with the minority bonus they give. What kind of SAT score would a black male need to make it to one of these schools? 1800? 2000? 2100? I can't imagine it being that high.

1900 should give you a good shot. 2000 ought to make you a lock for at least one Ivy.

Post: #34

Word has it that Webster's dictionary is considering putting her picture next to the entry for J.A.P.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=J.A.P.

Post: #35

(04-04-2013 11:19 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(04-04-2013 10:36 PM)Kabal Wrote:  2120 might be impressive to laymen, but that's really not all that impressive when you're applying to HYPSW (or even non-Wharton Penn). The average scores there are something like low-to-mid 1400s on the old scale, so 2120 is pretty average.

Average SAT for my class (at an Ivy) was a 2170. 2120 is standout for a minority (black or hispanic), but less remarkable otherwise.

Quote:She is ultimately right, however, about the diversity--which is what drives the PC crowd up a wall. If she were black or latino she would be a shoe-in.

If she were black, her SAT score would be in the 99.9th percentile for her group. The number of blacks who score at that level (north of 2000 on the new SAT scale) is very, very small, much smaller than the number of whites and Asians who manage the same (and that is true even after you account for disparities in population size).

Affirmative Action is most useful for the top .1% of blacks and hispanics. If she were black and among this group (read: able to outdo 99.9% of other blacks), she'd be fine. Anything less and she'd be in exactly the same position barring some sort of other hook (athletics, legacy, etc).

Quote:As discussed in the 2005 Espenshade and Chung paper: Being white is the equivalent of a 230 point penalty on the SATs vs. being black when it comes to admissions at top schools, a 185 point penalty vs. being latino, and a 50 point bonus vs. being Asian. This was on the old scale too. The gaps have only widened since then, according to follow-up work by Espenshade.

I suppose that's a simple way of framing it. The core of it all comes down to supply and demand, which is where the "bonuses" come from. Admissions directors have a rough idea of the kind of classes they want, and admit accordingly. The supply of high-scoring individuals varies by group, which forces the admins to dig deeper into some pools than others in order to create the ethnic "image" they want. That is what creates the "bonus" scenario outlined above.

Why are they so concerned with creating that image?

Politics and money, with a little bit of ideology thrown in. The motives are actually not as charitable as many think.

(04-04-2013 10:53 PM)guerrilla Wrote:  just looked this shit up.

2120 is just slightly above 90th percentile i guess

97th.

(04-04-2013 10:45 PM)MidniteSpecial Wrote:  If she was that smart she would start a website and learn email marketing. College is obsolete.

The truth of this statement varies by individual, field of study, and the institution granting the degree.

(04-04-2013 11:08 PM)HeyPete Wrote:  I will reserve my judgement until I see what she looks like.

Hot = I'm with her.

Fat = she can shut the hell up.

She's a plain Jane. Not unattractive, but not particularly hot either. Like nearly all of the females in her (almost certainly upper-middle/upper class) segment of society, she's in decent shape. The description I gave there is actually quite typical for the kinds of schools she was shooting for, save perhaps for Vanderbilt. She'd have blended right in where I'm at.

Because blacks score less, the top 1% of blacks should be given preference over whites doing as well or better? hopefully the decision against Affirmative Action comes sooner rather than later

Post: #36

(04-05-2013 02:14 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(04-05-2013 09:19 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:  You're missing his point. He's not asking what their admission rates are, he's asking what their SCORES are that are getting them admitted.

I did not miss Kabal's point. On the contrary, it was fully acknowledged. I simply added to the discussion to give a clearer picture of the reality, which isn't fully displayed by the numbers given.

Furthermore, Kabal did not ask a question, he presented facts.

Quote: The American college system is supposed to be loosely based on some kind of meritocracy.

Such a thing never existed.

Quote:If 40% of their legacies get in but half of them objectively deserve it based on competitive scores, but only 5% of the Affirmative Action cases would have made it base on their scores then this isn't a case of legacies being favored more than AA cases.

The admission rate for legacies and well networked one percenters outpaces not only the rate for under-represented minorities, but also those of groups with similar if not higher scores (ex: asians, non-elite whites). Their scores are quite competitive, but not to a sufficiently greater degree than others to warrant their much higher admission rates.

(04-05-2013 09:52 AM)jammer Wrote:  Athlone, do you think you would have made it to your Ivy league school if you weren't an athlete?

Yes.

Quote:Would you have gotten in if you were another race?

Most of my white teammates had lower scores coming in than I did. My score was in the higher band for recruited athletes regardless of race.
Had I been white, I could have likely managed admission just the same. Had I been white and affluent, I'm very confident I would have done so.

Quote:For me, in hindsight I wish I didn't slack off a bit in high school. I got good grades and made all the decent colleges I wanted to, but if I was motivated I could have made one of these ivies with the minority bonus they give. What kind of SAT score would a black male need to make it to one of these schools? 1800? 2000? 2100? I can't imagine it being that high.

1900 should give you a good shot. 2000 ought to make you a lock for at least one Ivy.

The overall unfortunate point, is that a non-connected Asian applicant via comparison, has as much chance at getting into one of these schools as Jamaica does at getting out of the hex in our lifetime.. Now why does the Supreme Court keep pushing back this Affirmative Action case lobbied from that girl from Texas.. the votes are there to get rid of it

Post: #37

Quote:Because blacks score less, the top 1% of blacks should be given preference over whites doing as well or better? hopefully the decision against Affirmative Action comes sooner rather than later

I really enjoy Athlone's posts because he is not a binary thinker.

Post: #38

(04-05-2013 02:58 PM)LoveBug Wrote:  Because blacks score less, the top 1% of blacks should be given preference over whites doing as well or better?

It is slightly more complicated than this. The reasons admissions directs are committed to maintaining "diversity" (read: keeping a decent representation of black and Hispanic students, as well as Native Americans) are political and economic.

This is what leads to the bonus-the low supply of high scoring blacks and Hispanics forces the admins to dip a bit more in order to maintain that diversity, which they are committed to doing for the aforementioned political/economic reasons. Admins are able to do this without hurting their principle cash cows (upper middle/upper class whites, who aren't really hurt by AA) and without compromising the academics of the university significantly (the admitted minorities are still intelligent and still few in number, while the influx of very high-scoring asians and well educated elite whites/jews keeps standards at the school high regardless).

The entire thing is a carefully orchestrated balancing act. The big winners are elite whites. The big losers are lower/middle class whites and, to some extent, Asians (whose pain is softened a bit by the fact that they are still overrepresented at these schools in any case).

(04-05-2013 04:36 PM)LoveBug Wrote:  The overall unfortunate point, is that a non-connected Asian applicant via comparison, has as much chance at getting into one of these schools as Jamaica does at getting out of the hex in our lifetime..

Jamaica escaped the Hex in 1998, which was well within both of our lifetimes (I'll assume you're older than 15).

Quote:Now why does the Supreme Court keep pushing back this Affirmative Action case lobbied from that girl from Texas.. the votes are there to get rid of it

Quote:hopefully the decision against Affirmative Action comes sooner rather than later

Don't get too hopeful. Fisher v. Texas is unlikely to result in a total overturn of Grutter.

Post: #39

(04-05-2013 08:19 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  The numbers do come to that conclusion, but a couple of realities with regard to this topic are frequently overlooked:

1. Those one percenters who gained admission via legacy or networking do significantly outnumber the Blacks and Hispanics as a whole at these schools.

2. One percenters with legacy at Princeton and Harvard have admission rates approaching 40%, higher than all groups save for the recruited athletes (many of whom are also part of the well-connected socio-economic elite). Blacks and Hispanics aren't surpassing these numbers.

These facts, when considered, do shed a more realistic light on critiques of Ivy League admissions. Such critiques tend to focus very heavily on Affirmative Action and its role in benefiting minorities and creating unfair admissions, but the reality is that the blacks/hispanics are getting more attention than they deserve. The largest numerical beneficiaries of less-than-meritocratic preferences at elite schools are, in fact, white people of elite socio-economic standing.

I agree with your overall point, and basilransom's as well (in fact I'd probably have posted the same thing if you hadn't).

But it's worth noting that the best way to clarify and address the point requires data that I don't think is available, which is the "SAT Bonus" that legacies or one-percenters get. Acceptance rate is interesting, but unfortunately doesn't tell us much, it's basically open to the argument "well one-percenter legacies tend to be highly qualified, as a group, that's why their rate is so high."

Post: #40

(04-05-2013 05:07 PM)Blaster Wrote:  I agree with your overall point, and basilransom's as well (in fact I'd probably have posted the same thing if you hadn't).

But it's worth noting that the best way to clarify and address the point requires data that I don't think is available, which is the "SAT Bonus" that legacies or one-percenters get. Acceptance rate is interesting, but unfortunately doesn't tell us much, it's basically open to the argument "well one-percenter legacies tend to be highly qualified, as a group, that's why their rate is so high."

This is an important caveat. I have some anecdotal evidence of my own (I have seen the scores of some of these individuals), but more useful, concrete evidence is much harder to come by. Most are aware of the reality (even the implicated one percenters joke about it), but there is not nearly as much data or academic focus on their situation as there is for minorities.

The reasons for this, of course, are obvious. unfortunately, I don't foresee much change in the near future regarding this situation.

Post: #41

Athlone Wrote:It is slightly more complicated than this. The reasons admissions directs are committed to maintaining "diversity" (read: keeping a decent representation of black and Hispanic students, as well as Native Americans) are political and economic.

This'll probably be an unpopular opinion here but I personally believe that whatever the motivation, at most colleges 'diversity' does improve the academic environment. Interaction with students of different perspectives and backgrounds is a legitimate and valuable part of the experience.

Ultimately I think white people make way too big of a deal about affirmative action. There are hundreds of colleges in this country and anyone reasonably competent and intelligent should be able to find a good fit. With few exceptions nobody needs to attend their top-choice Ivy League school.

Post: #42

Lack of charisma probably has something to do with it.

One of my good friends got into Cambridge University doing English and although he's a smart bastard, he was outshone by others academically who put in more work than him, did more extracurricular activities and that sort of thing but got in over them.

He said they had tests to answer in the interview where they challenge your personality to see what kind of person you are. He's witty and sarcastic as hell, funny as fuck, and aced that bit whereas we both know others that failed despite not dedicating as much time and effort as him who we put down to being just plain boring cunts that perhaps the university didn't see fit in being what they see as the types of people they want in the university.

I may be wrong, hell I may be right, but they don't just look at your academic achievements. It's a bit broader than that. I got rejected by the top university in England for 3D animation even though I was 2 years ahead of everyone else applying and had a better portfolio, boasting the only school in the entire country that did it as an A Level. I was literally THE only qualified person in the country at that time to go ahead and do that course. I didn't get in because I spent all my interview showcasing my portfolio and talking about my work. I thought I'd breeze it but they were obviously looking for more.

Looking at this "chick", she looks like she has a bitch complex, self entitlement issues and a "my way or the highway" attitude. Given her response to getting rejected, I'd say I'm pretty much correct in that assumption and that the universities were right not to accept her. Imagine someone disagreeing with her on something whist she's a student there, I bet it would cause unnecessary shit storms.

Suck it up, bitch. You failed. Try again next year.

Post: #43

(04-05-2013 05:23 PM)MattC Wrote:  Lack of charisma probably has something to do with it.

One of my good friends got into Cambridge University doing English and although he's a smart bastard, he was outshone by others academically who put in more work than him, did more extracurricular activities and that sort of thing but got in over them.

He said they had tests to answer in the interview where they challenge your personality to see what kind of person you are. He's witty and sarcastic as hell, funny as fuck, and aced that bit whereas we both know others that failed despite not dedicating as much time and effort as him who we put down to being just plain boring cunts that perhaps the university didn't see fit in being what they see as the types of people they want in the university.

I may be wrong, hell I may be right, but they don't just look at your academic achievements. It's a bit broader than that. I got rejected by the top university in England for 3D animation even though I was 2 years ahead of everyone else applying and had a better portfolio, boasting the only school in the entire country that did it as an A Level. I was literally THE only qualified person in the country at that time to go ahead and do that course. I didn't get in because I spent all my interview showcasing my portfolio and talking about my work. I thought I'd breeze it but they were obviously looking for more.

Looking at this "chick", she looks like she has a bitch complex, self entitlement issues and a "my way or the highway" attitude. Given her response to getting rejected, I'd say I'm pretty much correct in that assumption and that the universities were right not to accept her. Imagine someone disagreeing with her on something whist she's a student there, I bet it would cause unnecessary shit storms.

Suck it up, bitch. You failed. Try again next year.

Yeah, she is just clueless. A near perfect SAT and GPA are minimums for consideration barring extraordinary non-academic achievements. They are certainly not guarantees of admission.

Post: #44

(04-05-2013 05:23 PM)MattC Wrote:  I may be wrong, hell I may be right, but they don't just look at your academic achievements.

Exactly. This bitch acts--like others have in other high-profile cases--as if the only metrics for getting into college are GPA, SAT score, and a long list of extra-curriculars, as if there's a chart where, if you meet those rather easy measures, you're automatically in. What she's complaining about the admissions process becoming is actually a distortion of the admissions process that, while popular among cynical entitled types, is not the real story.

Your essay and your letters of recommendation play important parts too, as does the school you came from (whether it has a reputation for excellence and has sent students to that elite school before). It's not far-fetched that she came off as an entitled cunt in her essay (like she did in her interview) and that one or more of her recommenders gave her a tepid or back-handed endorsement.

Those things can be the kiss of death in a very competitive admissions process.

Blaming diversity and all this other shit is basically a failure to take personal responsibility. Just like people complain that ghetto people don't take responsibility, those who aren't ghetto need to accept they failed to distinguish themselves--despite having every privilege available.

Schools, in a lot of ways, run their admissions like sports recruitment. Ok, say you're running a track team and, at tryouts, you had two candidates for one spot:

1. Had expensive, private coaching his whole life, has perfect form, ran in a million meets growing up, and is only a step faster that the other guy;

2. Had no coaching, has shitty form, only ran in gym class, and is only a step slower than the other guy.

Who are you going to take? I'd take #2. Why? Because I can coach that guy, polish him up, and make him better than #1--maybe even into an elite athlete. Number one is probably not going to get much better. Now imagine #1 is a cunt who thinks he automatically belongs on the team.

Post: #45

(04-05-2013 05:36 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Blaming diversity and all this other shit is basically a failure to take personal responsibility. Just like people complain that ghetto people don't take responsibility, those who aren't ghetto need to accept they failed to distinguish themselves--despite having every privilege available.

This is the things that irks me more than anything. She's been rejected by four different universities and she's still failing to take accountability. It's not "oh, well something must be wrong so let's work out what it is and improve for next time", it's "don't you know who I am? I've done x, y, and z and it's my parents' fault".

Then it's "well I don't fall into a category where they're looking to fill a certain criteria". I mean, come on. Really?

The worst thing is that we're seeing this more and more in society these days, and with people being subjected to a plethora of attention and adulation at the click of the button on any social media website, society is starting to believe its own hype.

Do you know how she would get in? If she dedicated the next year to working hard on improving her weaknesses, understanding the real criteria she has to meet, growing as a person from her failure and going back to those universities and saying "you rejected me for such and such reason last year, so I've taken x class to better myself in that field to stand out brighter".

However, as we can see from even basic levels of game, women don't like the word "no". If they get it from a man, they really question what the fuck he means. "Seriously? You won't buy me a drink? But I have a vagina..." and this ugliness and self entitlement shows it's nasty ass head in cases like this when they don't get their own way.

It's never their fault, they shouldn't be told "no" because they're women and everything is wrong in the world for not accepting them or letting them trounce around and have their own ways.

It's becoming very, very ugly in this world.

Post: #46

And this is how feminist become.

Post: #47

Today, it is extremely common for people, especially youths, to have a self-righteous attitude which seeks to denounce and right all perceived wrongs. It's a lack of humility, a severe case of self-love, and an infatuation with attention-getting "protests." Nobody accepts their lot in life anymore, or strives to do better. When in doubt, denounce the system, cry 'oppression!' and get the media to talk about your sad plight.

Edited to add: She's a 6 or so. I'd hit it.

Post: #48

I did 3d animation in college. I don't think you need IV league for that at all. I would think it would actually be a worse course since they are NOT known for being that good at art.

Post: #49

(04-05-2013 09:03 PM)kbell Wrote:  I did 3d animation in college. I don't think you need IV league for that at all. I would think it would actually be a worse course since they are NOT known for being that good at art.

That's not the point I'm making. My point is that I'd done 3D modelling for 2 years before and had an A level in it whereas no other applicants did, yet other people got in ahead of me. It's relative to this case.

Post: #50

In another time this chickenhead would be barefoot and pregnant passing on her genes to mail babies where it really matters. I'll be pool side practicing tai-chi sipping tea.