Discrimination & Hysteria - The College Application Process

[th3kuzinator]

The Issue

1. Is there too much hype, hysteria, and general worry with regards to the application process?
2. Are there unfair factors that play a role in the assessment of the applicant?

Points to Consider

It seems that all the hysteria about getting your child into a good school has not only increased the competitiveness of the application process but also the discontent and stress of the applicant.

1. How do you guys feel about the current college application process and the drama it entails?
2. Do families who are able to afford private college counselors have an unfair edge over those who don't?
3. Are these levels of stress simply unnecessary and unfounded due to the actual experience college entails?
4. Should belonging to a particular race or ethnicity affect your admission application

"Colleges send record number of rejections; competition for admission soaring. Student agony grows along with top colleges’ wait lists. Lack of counselors leaves students adrift, College admissions dance gets longer, more complicated. High anxiety of getting into college, and Families seek counseling for college stress.” more can be found here

"Long considered the land of opportunity, the United States has nonetheless historically denied certain groups the opportunity to obtain an education. African-Americans, women, Jews, Native Americans, and a host of other ethnic, racial, and religious groups have, in the past, found themselves effectively shut out of real educational opportunity.

As a result, during the latter half of the twentieth century, the U.S. experienced a strong push for a more inclusive higher education system. During this rapidly-changing era, race became a factor in some college and university admissions processes. Those who belonged to racial groups that had been discriminated against in the past particularly African-Americans and Hispanics received special consideration. Some schools awarded admissions bonus points for those belonging to a certain race, whereas others instituted race-based quota systems." more can be found here
​

My Stance

• Contrary to the MLG team, families should not "believe the hype" that is associated with this grueling process. Their first priority should be to gauge their offspring's strengths and weaknesses and start setting realistic goals as soon as possible. Though putting pressure on your child to try the best he can is understandable, trying to get your son or daughter who has failed algebra three times into Harvard just creates unnecessary stress and worry.

• Having just completed said Beowulf Saga myself, I found that, even with a private counselor (who was extremely helpful), I had chronically high stress levels throughout the entire procedure. Being able to afford said private counselor helped my chances greatly as I was able to bounce ideas off an educated official as well as submit my essays for revision.

• Most colleges have the same general introductory level lecture courses for the first few years. It is not until the upper grades that the student is really able to take advantage of his or her college's specific facilities. If the main point of attending a prestigious school is name recognition, wouldn't it seem like a smart idea to apply to any old college for the first couple years and then transfer to a more prestigious school later on? As I learned from my private counselor, it is much easier to transfer into a prestigious college than to get in normal decision. If this is the case, the applicant should not have to feel the overbearing pressure of getting accepted upon his first application.

• I have a friend (lacking academically) who was barely admitted to UVM (University of Vermont) last year and has successfully transferred to Dartmouth this year due to his Native-American heritage (Dartmouth was founded upon the goal of training Native-American missionaries). I find this type of favoritism to be unfair and unreasonable. You cannot control the type of race/ethnicity you are born with, and the application process is tough enough as it is for every applicant regardless of background. Although this may have been an effective method to battle discrimination 50 years ago, right now it is failing miserably. "Constantly being asked about race on college applications, job applications, mortgage applications, etc is only serving to raise those tensions."

 

[Ganonsburg]

A lot of the problem is that many students feel obligated to go to college, even if they are not fully capable or their field of preference does not need a degree. Often, students in high school are told only of the benefits from getting a degree and the problems that arise when one does not get a degree, oftentimes like this. The issue there, of course, is that those descriptions are all-encompassing and tell little about the specific fields. In the information technology and science fields, degrees are most certainly necessary, whereas a degree in fields like art may be more subjective. In the more subjective fields, such a difference between degree holders and non-degree holders may not be significant.

So with so many students going to college who may or may not need to go to college, and so many who feel obligated to go to college without regard to the field of interest, the number of applicants denied is already going up. This is similar to when people hand out resumes to anyone and everyone trying to get a job, without regard to the job that the person is interested in or the requirements that all the employers may have (that the person may not meet). Even before the specific universities are involved, the culture involved dictates a higher rejection rate.

In their applications, colleges primarily look at SAT and ACT scores, which measure the few primary skills that are generally deemed to be important. Again, the disposition of the person comes into play. Students who are more inclined toward the science and IT fields will likely be good at the other areas being measured, whereas students looking at the more subjective fields are less likely to put effort into such areas because those areas do not have a huge impact on their field.

Of course, this isn't to say that art majors are completely useless or that they don't belong in a college setting, just that the skills they possess are not the skills being measured by schools and universities. This is all I have for now, and I apologize for the lack of sources.

 

[El Nino]

[*]I have a friend (lacking academically) who was barely admitted to UVM (University of Vermont) last year and has successfully transferred to Dartmouth this year due to his Native-American heritage (Dartmouth was founded upon the goal of training Native-American missionaries). I find this type of favoritism to be unfair and unreasonable.

Dartmouth is a private institution. They are allowed to favor whoever they want to favor. There are some private schools that are all-male or all-female. Other private schools only admit people of a certain religion. They can do this because they are private institutions and not funded by public tax dollars.

 

[Fynal]

• most colleges have the same general introductory level lecture courses for the first few years. It is not until the upper grades that the student is really able to take advantage of his or her college's specific facilities. If the main point of attending a prestigious school is name recognition, wouldn't it seem like a smart idea to apply to any old college for the first couple years and then transfer to a more prestigious school later on? As i learned from my private counselor, it is much easier to transfer into a prestigious college than to get in normal decision. If this is the case, the applicant should not have to feel the overbearing pressure of getting accepted upon his first application.

• i have a friend (lacking academically) who was barely admitted to uvm (university of vermont) last year and has successfully transferred to dartmouth this year due to his native-american heritage (dartmouth was founded upon the goal of training native-american missionaries). I find this type of favoritism to be unfair and unreasonable. You cannot control the type of race/ethnicity you are born with, and the application process is tough enough as it is for every applicant regardless of background. Although this may have been an effective method to battle discrimination 50 years ago, right now it is failing miserably. "constantly being asked about race on college applications, job applications, mortgage applications, etc is only serving to raise those tensions."

discuss away!

I believe your points are not entirely consistent.

You point out, first of all, that students should seriously consider going to any college they can get into for a few years, and should then transfer to a prestigious one. The implication I see here is that a student with very high academic skill need not do so because s/he can get into the prestigious college in the first place, whereas a not-as-gifted student should try this strategy.

You then go on to state that you know someone who fulfilled all of these requirements: academic skill below the maximum, entered an average college, transfered to a more prestigious one. However you argue that his doing so was unfair, even wrong.

 

[Ganonsburg]

I believe your points are not entirely consistent.

You point out, first of all, that students should seriously consider going to any college they can get into for a few years, and should then transfer to a prestigious one. The implication I see here is that a student with very high academic skill need not do so because s/he can get into the prestigious college in the first place, whereas a not-as-gifted student should try this strategy.

You then go on to state that you know someone who fulfilled all of these requirements: academic skill below the maximum, entered an average college, transfered to a more prestigious one. However you argue that his doing so was unfair, even wrong.

There is a difference though, I believe. In the first case, one who is qualified to be accepted is still able to be rejected. This could be because of people like his friend (in the second case), or it could be because there are so many people who are more qualified or equally qualified. The standards for transfers and freshmen are roughly the same, but it is easier for transfers to get in because there are less people in the transfer applicant pool.

And there is also the issue of money. Schools known for their name are often extremely expensive (Harvard is in the area of $60,000/year). Even for people who are able to meet and excel the requirements, money may be a matter of concern and stress, with stress being one of the issues addressed here. Going to a community college or a college close to home would allow a student to earn money through a job at home, keep student debt low due to low tuition, fulfill a few general required classes, and then make the transfer to their goal university with little stress (Community colleges average at about $5,000/year, 1/12 of what Harvard costs.).

While not all colleges and universities cost as much as Harvard, many Ivy League schools are in the same range, and other big-name schools are just as expensive or moreso (such as Johns Hopkins University at $55,000).

 

[th3kuzinator]

A lot of the problem is that many students feel obligated to go to college, even if they are not fully capable or their field of preference does not need a degree. Often, students in high school are told only of the benefits from getting a degree and the problems that arise when one does not get a degree, oftentimes like this. The issue there, of course, is that those descriptions are all-encompassing and tell little about the specific fields. In the information technology and science fields, degrees are most certainly necessary, whereas a degree in fields like art may be more subjective. In the more subjective fields, such a difference between degree holders and non-degree holders may not be significant.

Agreed. However, getting a bachelor's degree is important regardless of your specific field of study. As your article states

"Although a bachelor's degree does not guarantee immediate and continual employment, it won't pose any disadvantage as opportunities arise for a fulfilling and successful career...Individuals who choose not to enter the workforce after earning their bachelor's degree will find that the skills, knowledge, and experiences gained throughout the four or more years they spent becoming educated in an area of their interest will benefit them in other ways."
​

Pursuing said degree gives you a solid skill set that may act as a boon towards unrelated future endeavors

So with so many students going to college who may or may not need to go to college, and so many who feel obligated to go to college without regard to the field of interest, the number of applicants denied is already going up. This is similar to when people hand out resumes to anyone and everyone trying to get a job, without regard to the job that the person is interested in or the requirements that all the employers may have (that the person may not meet). Even before the specific universities are involved, the culture involved dictates a higher rejection rate.

Everyone, except those unable to due to monetary issues, should attend some sort of college regardless of the profession they intend to pursue. If not just for the aforementioned skill set, then to cultivate other areas of interest which could be drawn upon by the student after a change of heart, or an inability to continue his previous vein of interest for whatever reason.

I like your analogy. Though simplified, I feel it accuretly represents what colleges do in order to acquire students.

Could you better explain what I highlighted in yellow? I am having trouble interpreting your use of "culture."

In their applications, colleges primarily look at SAT and ACT scores, which measure the few primary skills that are generally deemed to be important.

These skills are not what are generally deemed "important," but are simply a college's premature indicator of how well you will do when placed into a college setting.

Honestly, in regards to what these tests say they stand for, they are a load of rubbish. Throughout all my preparation for the SAT tests, all I really felt that I learned was the ability to over-analyze and decipher generally easy and meaningless question formatted in a confusing fashion.

Again, the disposition of the person comes into play. Students who are more inclined toward the science and IT fields will likely be good at the other areas being measured, whereas students looking at the more subjective fields are less likely to put effort into such areas because those areas do not have a huge impact on their field.

Simply a restatement of your previous argument.

Of course, this isn't to say that art majors are completely useless or that they don't belong in a college setting, just that the skills they possess are not the skills being measured by schools and universities.

Unnecessary to the support of your position and irrelevant to this particular discussion. I would like to focus more on the actual application process and the nuances that accompany it. If we mention anything about the actual college experience or life beyond college, it should be in more general terms (which I tried to do in my rebuttal). Debating the level of importance and validity of art majors in universities is not a topic I wish to discuss.

Dartmouth is a private institution. They are allowed to favor whoever they want to favor. There are some private schools that are all-male or all-female. Other private schools only admit people of a certain religion. They can do this because they are private institutions and not funded by public tax dollars.

Though it is true Dartmouth is a private institution and thus does have the legal ability to accept the ethnicities it wants, this is unfair. As opposed to all girl/boy or single religion schools, Dartmouth is not barring other ethnicities from applying to the college along with their preferred ethnicity.

For example, a boy applying to an all girls school is simply acting foolishly because there is no chance of him getting accepted. However, multiple types of races, religions, genders and ethnicities are not dissuaded from applying to a school like Dartmouth, and these applicants possess legitimate hopes of being evaluated on their academic, athletic, and extracurricular track records.

Relating this back the example I used, the person I mentioned in the OP is quite literally at the bottom of his class scholastically. When assessed by a highly competitive school like Dartmouth, I have trouble believing he was let in under any other criteria than his ethnicity. At the same time Dartmouth chose to accept him, they also chose to forsake a potentially better candidate (from the rejection pool of 16,613 - statistic taken from here) whose hopes and self esteem may have been discouraged (due to him thinking he had a legitimate chance). This is what I find unfair.


EDIT:

You then go on to state that you know someone who fulfilled all of these requirements: academic skill below the maximum, entered an average college, transfered to a more prestigious one. However you argue that his doing so was unfair, even wrong.

Although I think I answered this above, I will just clarify. I never said that I though students of low academic caliber should be allowed into prestiguous schools regardless of their methods of application. College has become SO selective these days, that there are tons of applicants who do not get in regular decision that are just as qualified or overly-qualified for the school. These are the student who I would suggest applying to other schools first (to save them stress and money), and then switching to a prestigious school after receiving an introductory level education.

What I do not like about situation regarding the person in the OP is that he did not make an effort in school very often and thus did not rank highly in his class. I feel the fact that he was not qualified for the college in the first place, but still was accepted strictly on the grounds of his ethnicity is unfair. He effectively took the place of another potentially overqualified applicant whose rejection was based off of uncontrollable variables.

There is also the monetary issue to discuss which Ganonsburg laid out nicely.

 

[Fynal]

Most colleges have the same general introductory level lecture courses for the first few years. It is not until the upper grades that the student is really able to take advantage of his or her college's specific facilities. If the main point of attending a prestigious school is name recognition, wouldn't it seem like a smart idea to apply to any old college for the first couple years and then transfer to a more prestigious school later on? As I learned from my private counselor, it is much easier to transfer into a prestigious college than to get in normal decision. If this is the case, the applicant should not have to feel the overbearing pressure of getting accepted upon his first application.

If you revise this statement to specifically say that the transfer method is only valid for average qualified applicants (but not over-qualified or under-qualified students), then it would be self-consistent and I would agree with it.

I would like to point out that your statement here specifies only students wishing to avoid stress, not students of a particular academic caliber, and is therefore not implicitly exclusive to your friend.

As for the Dartmouth applicant issue, while I would normally lean heavily on the side of no advantage for specific races, in this case I must argue the opposite point.

I have a friend (lacking academically) who was barely admitted to UVM (University of Vermont) last year and has successfully transferred to Dartmouth this year due to his Native-American heritage (Dartmouth was founded upon the goal of training Native-American missionaries). I find this type of favoritism to be unfair and unreasonable. (...)

First of all, being a private college Dartmouth has every legal right to take whichever students they wish, unlike tax-funded colleges where this right is questionable.

What really changes my opinion, though, is that "Dartmouth was founded upon the goal of training Native-American missionaries." A college which is founded with the specific goal of training a specific group (including boys or girls) has every right, not only legally but also morally, to uphold it's reason for being founded. Training Native American missionaries translates very easily to training Native Americans. A non-Native American should, in this sense, consider it a privilege to attend a college not really meant for their attendance.

 

[th3kuzinator]

I would like to point out that your statement here specifies only students wishing to avoid stress, not students of a particular academic caliber, and is therefore not implicitly exclusive to your friend.

I never said that I though students of low academic caliber should be allowed into prestiguous schools regardless of their methods of application. College has become SO selective these days, that there are tons of applicants who do not get in regular decision that are just as qualified or overly-qualified for the school. These are the student who I would suggest applying to other schools first (to save them stress and money), and then switching to a prestigious school after receiving an introductory level education.

First of all, being a private college Dartmouth has every legal right to take whichever students they wish, unlike tax-funded colleges where this right is questionable.

Though it is true Dartmouth is a private institution and thus does have the legal ability to accept the ethnicities it wants, this is unfair. As opposed to all girl/boy or single religion schools, Dartmouth is not barring other ethnicities from applying to the college along with their preferred ethnicity.

For example, a boy applying to an all girls school is simply acting foolishly because there is no chance of him getting accepted. However, multiple types of races, religions, genders and ethnicities are not dissuaded from applying to a school like Dartmouth, and these applicants possess legitimate hopes of being evaluated on their academic, athletic, and extracurricular track records.

Relating this back the example I used, the person I mentioned in the OP is quite literally at the bottom of his class scholastically. When assessed by a highly competitive school like Dartmouth, I have trouble believing he was let in under any other criteria than his ethnicity. At the same time Dartmouth chose to accept him, they also chose to forsake a potentially better candidate (from the rejection pool of 16,613 - statistic taken from here) whose hopes and self esteem may have been discouraged (due to him thinking he had a legitimate chance). This is what I find unfair.

What really changes my opinion, though, is that "Dartmouth was founded upon the goal of training Native-American missionaries." A college which is founded with the specific goal of training a specific group (including boys or girls) has every right, not only legally but also morally, to uphold it's reason for being founded. Training Native American missionaries translates very easily to training Native Americans. A non-Native American should, in this sense, consider it a privilege to attend a college not really meant for their attendance.

At the current moment, the primary focus of the school is not to train Native American missionaries -_-

Why should this outdated tradition from 1769 (a tradition that has drastically less relevance in the present day) play a factor in the current selection process?

Not to mention this quote from wiki, "It is often pointed out that the charter of Dartmouth College, granted to Eleazer Wheelock in 1769, proclaims that the institution was created 'for the education and instruction of Youth of the Indian Tribes in this Land in reading, writing and all parts of Learning ... as well as in all liberal Arts and Sciences; and also of English Youth and any others.' However, Wheelock primarily intended the College to educate white youth and the few Native students that attended Dartmouth experienced much difficulty in an institution ostensibly dedicated to their education. The funds for the Charity School for Native Americans that preceded Dartmouth College were raised primarily by the efforts of a Native American named Samson Occom and at least some of those funds were used to help found the College."

Once Wheelock realized general support from the Native Americans was low (due to the long distance away from their settlements), he changed his target demographic towards whites.

The only reason Dartmouth is more lenient towards Native American today in the admission process is because the Native American Samson was the main benefactor when the school was first founded.

Recently, in 1970 to be exact, in an attempt to get in touch with its roots, Dartmouth established Native American academic and social programs as part of a "new dedication to increasing Native American enrollment." I will go out on a limb to say that the Dartmouth made this decision primarily for media related reasons to improve their public image. Regardless of the actual reason, the college is certainly not trying to promote Native American enrollment under the same principle with which the school was originally founded for.

Although Dartmouth is obliged to accept and finance more Native Americans in appreciation of the Native American benefactor who helped found the college, it is not required to do so.

 

[Fynal]

To the first part:

If you revise this statement to specifically say that the transfer method is only valid for average qualified applicants (but not over-qualified or under-qualified students), then it would be self-consistent and I would agree with it.

You have, i see now, made this revision. I had read the statement but interpreted it as a defense, not a revision.

To the second part, my information was badly incomplete, which is really my own fault.

I do not, however, see where I stated that Dartmouth would be required to accept more Native American students, I said that they had the moral right to do so.

 

[th3kuzinator]

I do not, however, see where I stated that Dartmouth would be required to accept more Native American students, I said that they had the moral right to do so.

This is true. I am not accusing you of saying this, the statement was just in support of my argument for why the process is unfair.

Since Dartmouth is not required to finance and enroll a larger number of Native Americans than normal and, since it does, I view this type of favoritism as unfair.

As I made a case for previously, although the school has the moral right to do whatever it wants concerning admissions, the fact that it would select a borderline doltish Native American over a legitimately intelligent applicant from another ethnicity, based on an uncontrollable variable, distresses me.

 

[Fynal]

For the specific case of your "borderline dolt," I can agree. If this one case is the point of that part of your argument, I rest my case.

I wonder though what you think of a more general case, a good (but not exceptional) Native American student vs. an exceptional White student applying for Dartmouth.

 

[th3kuzinator]

I honestly feel this quote sums up my feelings of an application at any level.

Though it is true Dartmouth is a private institution and thus does have the legal ability to accept the ethnicities it wants, this is unfair. As opposed to all girl/boy or single religion schools, Dartmouth is not barring other ethnicities from applying to the college along with their preferred ethnicity.

For example, a boy applying to an all girls school is simply acting foolishly because there is no chance of him getting accepted. However, multiple types of races, religions, genders and ethnicities are not dissuaded from applying to a school like Dartmouth, and these applicants possess legitimate hopes of being evaluated on their academic, athletic, and extracurricular track records.

...At the same time Dartmouth chose to accept him, they also chose to forsake a potentially better candidate (from the rejection pool of 16,613 - statistic taken from here) whose hopes and self esteem may have been discouraged (due to him thinking he had a legitimate chance). This is what I find unfair.

By the "him" stated above I mean any applicant who is accepted into Dartmouth on the basis of his ethnicity who has lower credentials than another applicant who was rejected by not possessing this ethnicity.

Of course, if we did a background check on each applicant and learned that because of their heritage and ethnicity there were additional obstacles presented for these applicants that affected their performance in the academic circle, then I would have no objection whatsoever.

 

[El Nino]

although the school has the moral right to do whatever it wants concerning admissions, the fact that it would select a borderline doltish Native American over a legitimately intelligent applicant from another ethnicity, based on an uncontrollable variable, distresses me.

Why? Dartmouth is a liberal arts college. Promoting diversity is part of their mission statement. Some colleges only want students with high grades. Liberal arts colleges tend to be more subjective in their selection process for no other reason than the fact that they are liberal arts colleges and it is consistent with liberal arts thinking to try to promote community values over other things.

Different schools have different purposes for existing. Some intend to turn people into doctors and lawyers, others to turn people into auto mechanics and electricians. And other schools want to provide educational opportunities to people of specific communities that are considered underprivileged. It's like a charity. I don't know why that would distress you. Unless you are commonly distressed by other people receiving charity. I mean, yeah, I have to work for my food, while a homeless guy gets it for free at a soup kitchen. But I'd really rather not switch places with that guy.

 

[th3kuzinator]

And other schools want to provide educational opportunities to people of specific communities that are considered underprivileged. It's like a charity. I don't know why that would distress you. Unless you are commonly distressed by other people receiving charity.

Straw-manning.

Secondly, I come from a pretty wealth background and attend a ritzy private highschool. The example I used in the OP is a kid who went to the same school as me and was not receiving any financial aid. He was legitimately a lazy person, did not care about school much, and was not impoverished. The fact that this student specifically was able to attend such a prestigious school was the turning point that made me want to voice this opinion.

Although I am sure there are plenty of underprivileged kids throughout the United States who legitimately deserve these opportunities and cannot function at such a high academic level due to extenuating circumstances; there are just as many undeserving students, like my example from the OP, getting a free pass for their education at a prestigious school due to an uncontrollable factor.

 

[El Nino]

there are just as many undeserving students, like my example from the OP, getting a free pass for their education at a prestigious school due to an uncontrollable factor.

Some prestigious schools view it as part of their mandate to promote diversity in society. Whether this method is effective or not is another debate entirely. The fact is, they can choose to give charity to whoever they want to. Minorities from upper middle class standings are often in a better position to take advantage of some of these programs than minorities from working class backgrounds, even though some people would say that this isn't the specific purpose of these programs. The overall effect is mostly cosmetic, but if that's what a privately funded school wants to do, then that's what they want to do.

People from wealthier income levels are often in better position to pay to attend a private school generally speaking, regardless of race or ethnicity, even if their grades are poor (some people accused former U.S. president Bush of being one of these, though I can't confirm that). I view buying education the same as buying anything else. I wouldn't try to restrict anyone from buying or selling legal goods and services, including education.

Furthermore, it should be noted that getting into a college is not a guarantee of graduating. It isn't as if people who pay their way in are necessarily getting anything for free. If they can't pass the classes, then they ultimately lose out. High ranked colleges are like a cull that way.

Bottom line is, different institutions have different values. Some people get into schools simply because they have the connections; others get in simply because they have the money. This applies to a lot of other things in life. I don't view the college selection process as being removed from that. If I own a company, and I want to hire a family member, that's my business. You, as a potential hire, might feel slighted that I picked my deadbeat cousin over you. But the fact of the matter is, as the owner of the company, I have no obligation to hire you (or anyone else) in the first place. The same rule applies to a private school.

It's a dog eat dog world, baby.

For a public school though, the rules are totally different.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Bottom line is, different institutions have different values. Some people get into schools simply because they have the connections; others get in simply because they have the money. This applies to a lot of other things in life. I don't view the college selection process as being removed from that. If I own a company, and I want to hire a family member, that's my business. You, as a potential hire, might feel slighted that I picked my deadbeat cousin over you. But the fact of the matter is, as the owner of the company, I have no obligation to hire you (or anyone else) in the first place. The same rule applies to a private school.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you are saying in this quote (because, as I have experienced personally, this is reality). I just don't like flatly accepting it without some debate first.

Everyone keeps throwing the "its Dartmouths' choice in the end" statement at me. As I keep stating, I realize they have the final choice when considering applicants and nothing I can say will change that. I agree with you that these programs are mostly cosmetic and if that's where this privately funded school wants to invest its money, it has that right.

It's a dog eat dog world, baby.

Exactly. In essence, this is the thing that distresses me the most. If I continued on this train of thought, however, I would probably end up somewhere waist deep in a critique of modern society and human morals. Since that is definitely not anywhere I wanted to go when starting this thread, I will state my position for the last time and be done with it.

Although it is a highly impracticable stance, the fact that an educational institution, private or not, can renounce a perfectly qualified applicant based on uncontrollable variables such as race, ethnicity, or heritage irritates me.