Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Absolutely they will consider test scores they do have; they don't claim otherwise - else, what would be the point of accepting those which are submitted? They simply make it clear they won't penalize any student for not doing so.
To be clear, I never claimed that these schools said that. What I am dubious about is whether students will not, in effect, be penalized for not taking the test. If applicants who took and scored highly on these tests are lined up against applicants who didn't test, I don't buy for one second that these schools aren't going to give the leg up to the applicants who have proven themselves via standardized tests over those who have not. In that sense, those who didn't take the test would, in effect, be penalized.
To be clear, I never claimed that these schools said that. What I am dubious about is whether students will not, in effect, be penalized for not taking the test. If applicants who took and scored highly on these tests are lined up against applicants who didn't test, I don't buy for one second that these schools aren't going to give the leg up to the applicants who have proven themselves via standardized tests over those who have not. In that sense, those who didn't take the test would, in effect, be penalized.
You're missing the point re: an Ivies admission is far more than an outstanding SAT/ACT score, though agreed it certainly plays a part (and will continue to do so this year, despite the fact it's 'optional'). Essentially, all it means is one's application will be accepted sans test scores this year; other factors remain unchanged - and applicants know the acceptance rate/rigorous process. Most have been preparing for it for a few (or more) years - which is why many take the SAT in their Junior Year (so they are able to retake it if necessary).
It is what it is; bottom line, roughly 95% of those who apply (Harvard) are denied.
Income, ethnic / minority status, immigrant status, etc are random, since students don't choose what income class, race, immigration status, etc to be born into. And, in many cases, the people who benefit the most from affirmative action are either affluent minorities (such as Obama's daughters) or white people who are 1/16 minority. Why does either group deserve any special treatment?
Define "random". University administrators don't see those categories as "random" at all. They want their campuses to be diverse; that enhances all students' experience, they believe.
That isn't "affirmative action". All the students admitted need to meet a minimum threshold for grades/test scores. But since admissions are very competitive, having other points in one's favor, such as grades above the minimum set by the university, leadership experience, low-income status, representing one of America's crazy-quilt of ethnic groups, prowess in the arts or sports, etc., increases applicants' qualifications and chances of admission.
What do Obama's daughters have to do with it? Are you against students from an affluent background gaining admission? If so, why?
How are Obama's daughters low-income students. How was my affluent white male 1/16 Hispanic classmate low-income? How are affluent white women applying to STEM-oriented colleges low-income?
Leadership is just code for popularity. They definite leadership as being in a leadership role of extracurricular activities. The elections to choose these leaders is nothing more than a popularity contest. They also discriminate against students from larger high schools, which have fewer leadership positions per student. Since students don't choose the size of the high school that they are zoned for, that's another example of elite college admissions being a de factor random lottery.
I'm not talking about high school leadership, but community leadership. The Somali teen who organizes employment-readiness workshops or cultural programs for her community, for example. The Native student who organizes a language-revival after-school program at her school.
What do you mean, "how are affluent white women applying to STEM programs low-income"? And your other examples of affluent people? Why are you asking how they're "low income"? You don't seem to understand how the admissions process works.
You're missing the point re: an Ivies admission is far more than an outstanding SAT/ACT score, though agreed it certainly plays a part (and will continue to do so this year, despite the fact it's 'optional'). Essentially, all it means is one's application will be accepted sans test scores this year; other factors remain unchanged - and applicants know the acceptance rate/rigorous process. Most have been preparing for it for a few (or more) years - which is why many take the SAT in their Junior Year (so they are able to retake it if necessary).
It is what it is; bottom line, roughly 95% of those who apply (Harvard) are denied.
No point is missed. The schools say that not submitting standardized test scores this year won’t hurt you. I’m just skeptical of such statements and policy. I don’t claim that test scores are the only thing that matter, but all other things equal, an applicant who managed to take the SAT/ACT and score well will be ahead of an applicant who didn’t. At least that’s my suspicion, regardless of what these schools are saying about not being penalized for lacking a standardized test score. And Harvard is only one of eight Ivy League schools.
I am guessing some people are forgetting what makes the Ivies the Ivies, and not talking sports division names.
They gained their status as producing excellent graduates due to their selectiveness, and it was a cycle in combination with recruiting the best instructors who wanted to teach the best students.
You apparently don't understand what (demonstrable) leadership means relative to an Ivies admission; it's certainly not 'popularity'. We're talking (far) more than being senior class president, lol.
Then what does it mean? It probably means either being over 6' tall and male or under 100 lbs and female.
In this context, I'm referring to outside the student's control.
Quote:
University administrators don't see those categories as "random" at all. They want their campuses to be diverse; that enhances all students' experience, they believe.
Ok, but admitting a white student who is 1/16 Hispanic does not make their campus any more diverse. Also, if a mostly minority college wanted to favor white students, or a mostly female college wanted to favor males, there would certainly be an outrage.
Quote:
That isn't "affirmative action". All the students admitted need to meet a minimum threshold for grades/test scores.
Favoring certain races or genders is the very definition of affirmative action.
Quote:
But since admissions are very competitive, having other points in one's favor, such as grades above the minimum set by the university, leadership experience,
Again, leadership experience is just code for popularity.
Quote:
low-income status,
How are Obama's daughter's low-income just because they are African-American? How was one of my high school classmates low-income just because he was 1/16 Hispanic? How are affluent white women applying to STEM schools low-income just because they are female?
Quote:
representing one of America's crazy-quilt of ethnic groups,
But if that ethnic group is European or Middle Eastern it doesn't help, since they are labeled as "white". Ethnic groups only matter if they are African-American, Asian / Pacific Island, Hispanic, or Native American.
Quote:
prowess in the arts or sports, etc., increases applicants' qualifications and chances of admission.
What do Obama's daughters have to do with it? Are you against students from an affluent background gaining admission? If so, why?
No, I feel that admissions should not focus at all on race, gender, or socioeconomic class. My problem with Obama's daughters is that they get special treatment because they are African-American (and, to a lesser extent, because they are female), yet they've never had to deal with any adversity, and they're even more privileged than the average white middle class students who don't get such special privileges.
I'm not talking about high school leadership, but community leadership. The Somali teen who organizes employment-readiness workshops or cultural programs for her community, for example. The Native student who organizes a language-revival after-school program at her school.
Why do you keep saying "her" rather than "him"? Shows your bias. Both of those students would already get special treatment for being a minority and for being a woman, not for any "leadership" qualities. What about the Italian-American who organizes employment-readiness workshops or cultural programs for his community? Or the Irish-American student who organizes a language-revival after-school program at his school? Neither of them would get any special treatment because they are white and male.
Quote:
What do you mean, "how are affluent white women applying to STEM programs low-income"? And your other examples of affluent people? Why are you asking how they're "low income"? You don't seem to understand how the admissions process works.
Some posters, rightly or wrongly, feel that poor students should be given an advantage in admissions. Colleges tend to use race as a proxy for socioeconomic class. I am giving examples of people who can check a minority group on their application even though they are not low income. The biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action are affluent minorities, affluent white women, and white people who are 1/16 minority and can check a minority group on their application.
The schools say that not submitting standardized test scores this year won’t hurt you. I’m just skeptical of such statements and policy.
Obviously, 95% of applicants are going to be hurt/denied; and they are well-aware of the fierce competition (at any Ivy). It's simply an optional requirement for an application due to the pandemic; there is no guarantee it won't 'sting' when the rejection letter arrives (whether they submitted SAT/ACT scores or not).
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
I don’t claim that test scores are the only thing that matter, but all other things equal, an applicant who managed to take the SAT/ACT and score well will be ahead of an applicant who didn’t.
Except - all other things are rarely equal given an acceptance rate below 5% (and such fierce competition academically). Given a near-perfect SAT score, it certainly will weigh in - as it should; that said, it still in no way guarantees admittance in and of itself, not even close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
And Harvard is only one of eight Ivy League schools.
Yeah, not sure what this has to do with anything -lol; but I was (simply) personally speaking to Harvard directly at one point (as an example re: admittance rate), though all are similar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't seem to understand how the admissions process works.
