Admitting "Less Qualified" Applicants

Applying to College
21

<p>"The purpose of affirmative action is to give our nation a way to finally address the systemic exclusion of individuals of talent on the basis of their gender, or race from opportunities to develop, perform, achieve and contribute. Affirmative action is an effort to develop systematic approach to open the doors of education, employment, and business development opportunities to qualified individuals who happen to be members of groups that have experienced long-standing and persistent discrimination."-<a href="http://www.affirmativeaction.org/about.html"&gt;http://www.affirmativeaction.org/about.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>That is essentially the definition of AA, note the conspicuous lack of any mention about socioeconomic status. Indeed, there is an exception to every rule, there are most definitely black applicants who are well off than many white applicants. But how much of the 12.8% of blacks is better off than the general 80.2%? Not much. Therefore how prudent would it be to evaluate people based on their socioeconomic standing? I contend, not very. </p>

<p>The entirety of your argument is based on the idea that Affirmative Action was created with the intention of extending a hand to the poor and lower income brackets. This is not necessarily true. The idea of Affirmative Action has been misconstrued over time so that many believe that it, like financial aid, aims to aid lower income families. Of course, according to the definition above, this is most certainly not the case. </p>

<p>Affirmative Action is the product of Civil Rights for victims of "persistent discrimination", not the poor. However, due to the obvious background of slavery in the U.S, many African Americans in this day are worse off than they would be if it were not for slavery. Thus AA is meant as an EQUALIZER based on RACE, not INCOME. What you are referring to is financial aid.</p>

<p>I adamantly contend that if Affirmative Action was abolished, diversity levels would drop in top tier schools. Why? Consider:</p>

<p>According to data from the Census bureau
( <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104552.html&lt;/a> )</p>

<p>As of 2005, rough 2,114 black households are within the 35K to 50K bracket as opposed to 13,944 white households within that same bracket. That is roughly a 15/100 ratio. Assuming one child from each of these households, you have 15 blacks competing with 100 whites for x amount of spots. If we adjust for the “Achievement Gap” in terms of Academics, which places those 15 blacks academically lower than the 100 whites in terms of SATs, GPA, etc, the blacks have even less of a chance of competing with 100 whites. The immensity of such a problem is evident, the blacks would no longer have the advantage of being considered based on race; </p>

<p>IF considered based on INCOME, there is absolutely NO ADVANTAGE and with lower average academic scores, there is VERY LITTLE advantage. </p>

<p>Of course, there are blacks who are in the higher income brackets. But the median income for blacks is 17696 less than the median for whites. In addition, there are only 1092 thousand black households with an income over 100K, as opposed to 17,126 thousand white households within that same bracket, a ratio of roughly 54:856. Therefore, for every upper bracket black, there are FAR more upper income whites.</p>

<p>Thus it is clear that for every black of higher socioeconomic status, there are far more whites competing for the same spot of the same status. And for every black of low income there are many more whites competing for the same spot. Adjusted for the Achievement Gap, according to which on average blacks perform worse than whites, without AA and with a system based purely on socioeconomic status, blacks would be present in extremely</p>

22

<p>interesting fact: in certain europian countries, when slavery was abolished, they gave all freed blacks education and/or apprenticeships as well as some money to get started with--said europian countries now do not have any problem with an achievement/income gap between races!--but the US did not follow this smart example. shows the longterm difference one decision can make.</p>

<p>anyways, back to the topic at hand. it seems that you continue to categorize all individuals into two groups: poor blacks, and rich whites. i'm aware that you acknowledge that there ARE rich blacks out there, but you make them seem rare, and you have yet to mention that very low income white people exist.</p>

<p>"for every upper bracket black, there are FAR more upper income whites."
^well, this does seem like it would be the case, seeing as america has FAR more whites for than it does blacks--this applies to everyone, not just the wealthy. why do you even have to talk in terms of 'blank percent of blacks are rich, blank percent of whites are rich'? what are you trying to prove? that if enough whites are have been given a fair upbringing, we should ignore the unfortunate among them solely on the basis of their ORM status? or that if a high enough percentage of blacks are poor, we should just assume that ALL blacks are needy and give them all admissions preference? how oblique.</p>

23

<p>The best and brightest should be admitted over the 'less qualified' because they are the most likely to succeed, and will get higher grades, just as if you were hiring, you would look for the most productive person. The SAT and GPA together are the best predictors of freshman GPA, graduation rates, etc. Of course, a school should decide its mission and then adjust its admissions methodology accordingly, so admitting only the smartest (i.e., those most likely to do well, according to SAT, GPA) may not always be appropiate.</p>

<p>Strictly speaking, admitting the brightest isn't necessarily in the school's best interest. (My analysis assumes that more money for the school and smarter students are intrinsically desirable.) Letting in a few rich kids for the price of oh, a library or research lab is probably ultimately in the university's interest, i.e., it benefits overall everyone else. You get a few dim bulbs but greater facilities. I don't have any numbers about the practice, but it seems small by its very nature; it seems to affect very few cases.</p>

<p>Legacy admissions is more ambiguous. According to an editorial citing the WSJ ( <a href="http://www.newsobserver.com/559/story/564537.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.newsobserver.com/559/story/564537.html&lt;/a> ), they comprise about 10-15% of the Ivy League, and they are given about a 160 point advantage ( <a href="http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/Tje/EspenshadeSSQPtII.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/Tje/EspenshadeSSQPtII.pdf&lt;/a> ). Would legacies give fewer donations if they weren't given a leg up? I don't know, but their quantity and quality (the numbers above) make me think that the trade isn't worth it, though it's fair to ask how many of the legacies would be admitted under a meritocracy. </p>

<p>The only justification I can think of for athletes is that it increases alumni donations, by increasing school spirit. Assume that's true. Most of the athletes would still be pointless, being in teams that no one cares about. You could probably get away with eliminating most of the teams, saving spots and money. Athletes get about a 200 point advantage.</p>

<p>I fail to see any clear benefits of admitting more URMs. The studies claiming to prove its benefits are pretty questionable - they consist of asking people if they think diversity is good. Many people feel bad if the proportion of URMs drastically declines, as if a lower proportion of URMs evidenced undue discrimination. This is an emotional position and, as they say, it was not reasoned into them, and cannot be reasoned out. URMs get about the same advantage as athletes, ~200 points. </p>

<p>"would have terribly boring, unbalanced classes."
You might say the same of professors, that they are terribly boring, unbalanced lot. But you are casting college as a social club (which you should make explicit). If it was indeed academic, judgements like yours would be irrelevant. </p>

<p>You stray from the traditional conception of a university. Should we? I don't have a very convincing answer.</p>

<p>"And maybe...just maybe, the content of your character can be perceived as a far more valuable asset than a 5.0GPA in certain situations."
"the "less qualified" are demonstrating a very narrow view of what qualified might legitimately mean"
Being more qualified or smarter does not make you superior to anyone. I don't recall people arguing for meritocratic admissions (or whatever you like to call them) are saying smart=superior. Speaking for myself, smarter people should be admitted because they are the most likely to benefit from it, as a matter of efficiency, of the best use of our resources. </p>

<p>"in certain europian countries, when slavery was abolished, they gave all freed blacks education and/or apprenticeships as well as some money to get started with"
What are you talking about? To my knowledge, there was very little black slavery in Europe per se. The blacks in Europe are immigrants or their progeny, I believe.</p>

24

<p>Um, I may be misinterpreting the census income data, because I did not read any of it, but shouldn't we account for the fact that there are differences between the number of households with equivalent income mainly because, whites outnumber blacks in more than a 6: 1 ratio within the United States?</p>

25

<p>One thing I have noticed is a proliferation of posts complaining about colleges admitting "less qualified" applicants. My question is, are they not allowed to do so? I was under the impression that private universities could admit whom they please. Is there a rule that says admissions must be a meritocracy?</p>

<p>You're right. They can do whatever the hell they want. And we can give our opinion on it. These elite private univerisities promote themselves as committed to academic excellence and give thousands (who don't really know about the admissions process) the impression that their admissions process is based on merit. In my country, people think that only geniuses go to Harvard/MIT. It's not true, but they're under that impression because those schools like to promote that image of themselves. Therefore, you can be sure that there will be people (like me) who are going to complain - I believe that it's wrong to give the impression that you admit the brightest students when this isn't always true.</p>

26

<p>And keep in mind that "qualified" may take on many forms. Maybe the band needs more oboe players, so oboe players have a leg up in admissioins. Maybe there are a lot of newspaper editor-in-chiefs applying one year, so the captain of the debate team has an advantage. Colleges don't just admit a student, they create a student body. They want a mix of people interested in different topics, which is why some "overqualified" students are rejected every year. </p>

<p>It's impossible to look at "Person A with X stats and Person B with Y stats" because factors such as essays, recs, and ECs must be taken into account, as well as the needs of the college for that particular year. Trying to account for the needs of the college makes these comparisons especially difficult.</p>

27

<p>Yes, after a minimum standard of academic ability and readiness is met, "qualified" becomes subjective. There is some self selection in the college application process, most of the applicants to elite institutions are perfectly capable of being academically successful there. You don't NEED a 4.0+ average and perfect SATs to be successful at Harvard or MIT or anywhere else. I went to an "elite" college and worked at another for many years...an "above average" student is capable of doing the work. </p>

<p>Colleges want a diverse class and NOT just in terms of racial/ethnic/socioeconomic/geographic background. They want a variety of personalities, values, experiences and priorities...a good admissions office is looking at individuals, not quantifiable numbers. Life would be awfully boring if every student were the HS valecdictorian, with 2200+ SATs, football captain and school newspaper editor. Every "elite" institution could fill a class several times over with those folks. </p>

<p>How much would student learn if everyone at their college was just like them? One doesn't learn only about academics in college and even where academics are concerned, diverse perspectives make for a better learning environment. </p>

<p>I've been to college, been to grad school and have been working for a long time. Except in professions that require a very specific, and hard to find, skill set, employers are also looking at more than just objective "qualifications". They look for someone who will fit in with their corporate culture, who may offer an experience of perspective that a particular project is lacking, someone who works well with others, etc...ALL objective criteria.</p>

28

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>.. this give a little info about it. there was a guy who rallied for this act as well as other compensations for the slaves .. don't remember his name.</p>

29

<p>Two remarks on that slavery issue:
Britain abolished slavery throughout its empire (incl parts of Africa, India, Australia and Canada). There probably were a few slaves in Britain, but I have never heard of slavery being a big issue in Britain itself.
And would you mind giving me a source that says that slaves were compensated? I just keep reading that slave owners received a compensation for the loss of their "property", and I found one website that clearly says "Ex-slaves were not compensated."
<a href="http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/slavery/eabolition.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/slavery/eabolition.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

30

<p>mj93, you said: "i'm aware that you acknowledge that there ARE rich blacks out there, but you make them seem rare, and you have yet to mention that very low income white people exist."</p>

<p>I said: "there are only 1092 thousand black households with an income over 100K, as opposed to 17,126 thousand white households within that same bracket, a ratio of roughly 54:856. Therefore, for every upper bracket black, there are FAR more upper income whites."</p>

<p>You think that a 54/856 doesn't make upper income blacks "rare"? Just because you MAY know upper income blacks doesn't mean that they are especially prevalent. </p>

<p>You said: "or that if a high enough percentage of blacks are poor, we should just assume that ALL blacks are needy and give them all admissions preference?""</p>

<p>Again, you fail to read and fully digest what I said-The premise of Affirmative Action is to, (I'm putting this in caps for easy viewing) “[GIVE] OPPORTUNITIES TO QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS WHO HAPPEN TO BE MEMBERS OF GROUPS THAT HAVE EXPERIENCED LONG-STANDING AND PERSISTENT DISCRIMINATION."
Again, note the lack of mention of ANY SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS. It's not about percentages of poor blacks, it's about remedying the skewed demographics inherent in college populations as a RESULT OF slavery, racial injustice, and other factors that have detered blacks and other minorities of ANY socioeconomic standing from applying or getting into these top colleges. </p>

<p>In addition, you completely and utterly ignore the fact that the Achievement Gap is more than just the result of socioeconomic differences, but differences in mentality. Whereas black culture is one that has been constantly exposed to oppresion and bleak prospect, white culture is relatively speaking not the same.</p>

<p>I myself go to a predominantly black school, and I see first hand the differences between black attitudes towards education in my shcool and white attitude toward education. Many of the blacks in my school (yes I am black as well) adopt the "Why Bother Attitude" and it is that same mentality that exerts peer pressure on those who do want to succeed.</p>

<p>For example, when I was a freshman, a black girl confronted me about the fact that I was in Honors classes and going onto AP classes. She said "Why you gonna do that for? Why you gonna act like one of THEM?"</p>

<p>When it is not even encouraged for fellow blacks to be overachievers in schools by their PEERS (meaning this bars adults and organizations like NAACP), the overall "Why Bother?" mentality takes effect. </p>

<p>mj93, you really have to read what I am posting with an open mind rather than with a confrontational mindset. I'm not saying that because of AA, there are no inherent flaws in the system, what I AM saying is that it''s focus on RACE AND NOT SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS is extremely important, and necessary in the status quo. </p>

<p>And please in the future, read what I said before saying that I did not acknowledge a group.</p>

<p>P.S. The $35,000-$50,000 bracket mentioned in my previous post is the Average income bracket, and some Ivy Leagues offer free tuition for those below 40K. Note that I included both whites and blacks of that bracket in my post.</p>

31

<p>"Speaking for myself, smarter people should be admitted because they are the most likely to benefit from it, as a matter of efficiency, of the best use of our resources. "</p>

<p>I think this is the crux of the matter. A traditional university, including the Ivy League schools, are research institutions. Their goal is not only to educate, but to be educated. They are building student bodies they can pull from, as well as give to. Just because those with higher test scores and GPAs may learn faster from the universities, it doesn't mean the universities can learn more from them. </p>

<p>As an example, years agao a company I used to work for had a team of extremely brilliant Israeli engineers working on voice recognition. In an amazingly short amount of time they had a prototype working, and demo'd it for the board. The system understood anything any one of the team members said. However, when the chairman of the board tried it, it didn't understand a thing. The chairman didn't have an Israeli accent, it only understood Israeli accents. So back to the lab they went, pulling in engineers from all the other groups to help them train the algorithm to pick up all types of accents. Six months later they again demo'd for the board, and it understood the chairman perfectly. Other members of the board of directors also tried it out and it understood them also. Until they got to the one female member of the board, who it got hopelessly lost on. Gee, there weren't enough females in engineering to train the algorithm. </p>

<p>For research institutions to do real, internationally acclaimed research they need to fully understand each problem, from all points of view. If their student body is uniform, if they have no diversity, their research will suffer from one sided point of view.</p>

32

<p>I didn't intend to go into affirmative action with this thread; you people have one-track minds. :p

[quote]
I believe that it's wrong to give the impression that you admit the brightest students when this isn't always true.

[/quote]

Thanks for that, because <em>now</em> I can see where people are coming from. If a college promotes itself as completely meritocratic when in practice it's not, I suppose it's not surprising people would complain. I was having a hard time understanding why people would complain about a school that could simply admit everyone who likes the color green, if they so chose. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The best and brightest should be admitted over the 'less qualified' because they are the most likely to succeed, and will get higher grades, just as if you were hiring, you would look for the most productive person. The SAT and GPA together are the best predictors of freshman GPA, graduation rates, etc. Of course, a school should decide its mission and then adjust its admissions methodology accordingly, so admitting only the smartest (i.e., those most likely to do well, according to SAT, GPA) may not always be appropiate.</p>

<p>Strictly speaking, admitting the brightest isn't necessarily in the school's best interest. (My analysis assumes that more money for the school and smarter students are intrinsically desirable.) Letting in a few rich kids for the price of oh, a library or research lab is probably ultimately in the university's interest, i.e., it benefits overall everyone else. You get a few dim bulbs but greater facilities. I don't have any numbers about the practice, but it seems small by its very nature; it seems to affect very few cases.

[/quote]

Very helpful. In other words, although Harvard <em>could</em> admit everyone who likes the color green, they won't because it wouldn't be as good an investment. That makes sense. :)</p>

33

<p>wow like a 60:900 ratio of wealthy blacks to wealthy whites. that means that while the ratio of blacks:whites is about 1:6, the ratio of wealthy blacks to wealthy whites is 1:15. And various statistics show that about 35% of black families are below the poverty line while only about 8.6% of white families are below the poverty line. </p>

<p>-You also have to take into consideration that as you move down the income brackets, racism discrimination and prejudice increases. So an african american below the poverty line is significantly more disadvantaged then a white student below the poverty line. So even if you went with socioeconomic status AA only, blacks would just become even more underrepresented.</p>

<p>A derick makes good points if you take the time to read what he says.</p>

34

<p>tyler and derick, i think you both have a certain mindset that says we should consider all groups of one race to be rich and all groups of another race to be poor. it doesn't convince me that ALL blacks should have an advantage, tyler, when you say that 35% of blacks are below the poverty line, while only 9% if whites are. IMO, the point is this: those thirty five percent of blacks and nine percent of whites should all be compared in the same sphere of standards, because they have been given relatively the same amount of opportunity. i DONT think that the other 90% of whites or the other 65% of blacks should be compared against that same benchmark, because they are on a whole different level alltogether, opportunitieswise.</p>

35

<p>You're doing that thing where you ignore half of what the other person says.</p>

<p>"You also have to take into consideration that as you move down the income brackets, racism discrimination and prejudice increases. So an african american below the poverty line is significantly more disadvantaged then a white student below the poverty line. So even if you went with socioeconomic status AA only, blacks would just become even more underrepresented."</p>

<p>Its true</p>

36

<p>What people don't see to understand is that just because you have better grades and test scores than someone does not mean that you are smarter. Schools use recommendations, ECs, work experience, and essays to determine how smart someone really is.</p>

37

<p>mj93, one of the flaws in your argument is that you assume that if the upper 9% of blacks was compared to the upper 35% of whites, then the amounts of whites and blacks get in would be reflective of the populations. This is just not true. Again, if you took the time to read what I said before (I know it's long, but in order to refute my points, you have to know them) you MUST ADJUST FOR THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP. According to the achievement gap, no matter what, when comparing a white of a certain bracket and a black of the same bracket, ON AVERAGE, the black will do slightly worse. This is because of more than socioeconomic status, it is also psychological. As long as the "underachiever" mentality exists, the need for AA will exist. But as AA puts more and more blacks in the higher levels of academia and makes black achievement more visible, then the mentality will over time diminish.</p>

<p>The argument is about more than just money.</p>

38

<p>I thought we were talking about Income....we were including poor whites/hispanics/asians</p>

39

<p>nope. Income is a form of AA that colleges practice along with race and gender.</p>

40

<p>I'm referring to the benefits of AA. AA targets people based on race and gender, not income. A previous post I made referred to why a system entirely based on targeting socioeconomic status would be detrimental to the whole goal of AA.</p>