I think even if Obama weren’t POTUS Sasha and Malia would have major hooks to Columbia and Harvard at the very least. Full pay, African American legacies who are good students ( even if not extraordinary) are unlikely to be turned away. Especially when they attend Chicago Lab which is where they would have been if he’d never run for office.
In any case, there are some elite universities open to Americans who can’t or won’t use race as an admissions factor. In the Ivy-equivalents tier, those are Oxbridge, CalTech, and Cal. Among Near-Ivies, UMich and arguable LSE, Imperial, & UCL. Also good universities like UCLA, McGill, Toronto, UBC, Edinburgh, St. Andrews, the other ancient Scottish unis & a bunch of others in the UK.
IDK about Oxbridge and famous people. Does royalty, prime minister’s kids, etc not get in if they’re decent students and apply?
@OHMomof2, in the UK, you have a Cambridge alum outraged that Prince William is just taking a 10-week course at Cambridge: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/dec/31/william-at-cambridge-shame.
In the US, not only would no one bat an eye at someone like Prince William entering HBS’s PLD (exec ed) program, but they wouldn’t even if he got in to Harvard College despite being middling.
I think that Americans are so use to unfairness and/or subjectivity in the elite college admissions process that they are inured to it, but to much of the rest of the First World, it is pretty shocking and seems corrupt.
BTW, Cambridge’s admission’s process:
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/10/how-cambridge-admissions-really-work
Note that these days, the profs determine who gets in. Neither William or Harry went to Oxbridge. It was (holistic) St. Andrews and (military academy) Sandhurst for them.
Even when Chiang Ching-kuo was essentially a dictator using terror tactics to rule Taiwan, he was unable/unwilling to bend the rules to get his children in to the top university in Taiwan (National Taiwan University).
“BTW, most students at Ivys are younger than 40 years old. Should we allocate special preferences for people older than 40 (like me) in admission to Ivys? Just for the sake of class diversity …”
If the Ivies wished to diversify by age, why not? They would have every right to decide that they wanted more older students.
Some of the elite women’s colleges have programs like this, where they have x slots set aside for women who are not traditional college age. Wellesley calls the Davis Scholars. I think Smith has this concept too but don’t know what they call it.
You continually fail to see that the colleges serve their own mission, not yours.
Famous people do have a hook in the UK. Case in point Prince Edward who got into Cambridge with three A levels he barely scraped through, English C, history D, politics D. Even back then that wouldn’t have got anyone else accepted.
“Ivys are using diversity as an argument for non-transparent admission. Next, non-transparent admission is used to admit well-connected students, sponsors, VIPs, legacy, etc. All behind the veil of “holistic approach to enable diversity”.”
And yet the admission practices that you decry are exactly what creates the ‘stew’ that you’re so eager to have your kid join. Nothing, absolutely nothing, prevents you from sending your kid to the thousands of colleges in this country that have straightforward admission practices – get a score of X on the SAT/ACT and a GPA of x.x and you’re in.
Princeton crowd thinks their mom is a goddess.
FWIW: I was reading a book where a LAC for one year adopted a policy to only admit students based on stats and the president of that school lost his job the next year because of how poorly that strategy was. Professors complained about students not bringing any discussion to classrooms because they simply cared about getting an A, rather than the journey to getting that grade. Universities reserve the right to create a class based on their desired intellectual environment. If they want students from different backgrounds to help create that environment, that’s fine. It increases the quality of the classroom experience.
And btw, I don’t think there is anything from with a wealthy URM receiving the benefits of AA. We still face discrimination. Despite my SES, this past week, I was called the n- word for the very first time.
It would be a shame if affirmative action was deemed illegal based an a faulty premise similar to the legalization of abortion when Roe lied about being raped.
“France is almost as diverse as the US and yet doesn’t have ethnic preferences in admissions in higher education.”
There are lots of things that France does better than we do, and that the US could learn from. Integrating their most disliked minorities into societal opportunities is not one of them.
Roe v. Wade did not depend at all on Roe being raped. None of the reasoning relies on that premise.
Secret: being older, academically accomplished, and having the right rest of the story can absolutely be a tip, if not a hook. Just look around.
One poster here has some ideas she wishes to prove, without subjecting them to some critical thinking. The limited thinking will yield its own disappointments. And more outrage, I am sure.
“If Ivy League and other elite colleges did not use affirmative action, those schools would be almost entirely comprised of Asians and international Asians.”
Not AA. These colleges would still be using holistic to find the best candidates, which is a matter of the individual’s whole offering, not just scores and a couple of measly hs titles.
And folks, some here need to learn more about what the best of the URMs are producing, not stereotype them, their records, their hs and their opportunities. In many cases, a slightly lower score gets a “So What?” when you look at the energies, commitments and impacts. This continued assumption they’re getting freebie type admissions is a shame.
Some here make too many assumptions.
Why do so many insist the colleges are NOT looking at SES diversity?
And a key element in Fisher was “critical mass.” You can look it up.
@AlbionGirl, though 30 years is a long time when it comes to the history of college/uni admissions. If uni admissions in the UK are anything like college admissions in the US, 30 years ago, it was far easier for anyone to get in to the top schools.
Plus, I get the sense that Oxbridge want to move away from the “bad old days” when your parentage had an influence on whether you got in or not.
Finally, note that Prince Edward’s admittance to Cambridge was controversial in the UK. In the US, no one bats an eye when a subpar student from an influential family like GW Bush gets in to HBS.
Remember, Fisher could have been admitted under UT’s straightforward admission policy under Texas law: Be in the top 10% of your class and receive automatic admission (although UT’s percentage can change year to year to slightly below 10% per the legislature). The top 10% rule in Texas IS a mechanism to diversify public universities in and of itself. The citizens of Texas, for the most part, agree with this policy and is is written into law. A minority student from the least rigorous high school who has lower scores/GPA but in the top 10% has the same chance of being admitted to UT as the top student from the most prestigious high school in Texas. There is no hiding behind this veil.
Over time, though, UT’s admissions were approaching 90% of all students admitted under the law. UT petitioned the state to let them lower the percentage so they could have more of a say on the make up of their student body. The remaining review candidates are most definitely holistically reviewed, from race - to out of state students - to whomever they deem they need more of. Hence, part of the reason for the lawsuit. One question that comes up is: Should UT be allowed to discriminate with its remaining review candidates with this law in place?
So, I guess you could argue that the state of Texas explicitly honors discrimination for the benefit of society as a whole
Not saying this is good or bad, as I have 2 kids who have benefitted under the law. It’s touchy…and evolving…
@Hanna The case would’ve never been taken if she didn’t lie about being raped. The whole premise of her case was that she was raped and she didn’t have access to an abortion.
CaliCash is going to lecture Hanna? This will be entertaining.
@katliamom I’m not lecturing anyone. As a pro life advocate, I have done extensive research into Roe v Wade, written many essays on the topic, and have spoken about it in public forums. I’m not gonna argue with anyone about it or debate it either. It’s tangential to the conversation at hand anyway. If Hanna wants to talk about it with me (which I doubt she does), I would be more than willing to have a discussion about it in private message. However, this thread is not the place for that conversation.
“However, this thread is not the place for that conversation.” Amen to that.
Unfortunately, the diversity fell at UT after the 10% law was passed because those attending the low end innercity schools or border schools choose schools closer to them for financial or other reasons (I see a list of valedictorians and Salutatorians in Houston ISD and notice many attending local colleges instead of going to UT or A&M). On the other end, URMs from high performing schools were being eliminated due to 10% rule when they apply. This is the reason UT got an exemption for about 10% of their admits as meeting institutional needs.
That is really not the question to ask as it --as was shared above-- intimates the use of discrimination as unjust, nefarious, and illegal. The definition of discrimination in the context of education does not espouse that definition. The real question is if a public university is entitled to rely on a holistic system that measures various elements that include race next to SES or other determinants.
The case of Fisher is not about her rejection because of race. She wasn’t rejected because she was white; she was not accepted because her holistic review did not surpass the application of others, including many minorities that had better academic records. She was not accepted because others were better.
This case is all about a school being allowed to use a narrowed set of standards to increase diversity. The reality is that many schools are allowed to use a number of elements that go beyond academic records and test scores. Student with disabilities, mental issues, criminal records, and perhaps poor recommendations are being viewed differently. The question is how this becomes a discrimination with unjust and unfair results.
The reality is that Texas is still concerned about the poor participation of low-end district at their flagship schools. Actually, some are concerned and others would like to see more spaces going to the richer suburban schools at the expense of the poorer and rural district. The 7 to 10 percent rules appears to be a compromise that has become acceptable despite not universally loved. As a little side note, note that the best performing schools would NOT be pleased if the 10 percent raking would need to be confirmed by a 1300 SAT.
In addition, for many of the best performing students, the auto admission is a canard as the prize in Austin is an acceptance in the dedicated programs in business, engineering, and other that require a specific admission.
The admission process that rejected Fisher remains mostly a tool that rewards many Bubbas from very average suburban schools.