are colleges racist?

[woeishe]

<p>^ I would agree with that plan</p>

[TheGFG]

<p>GA2012MOM–I didn’t come up with that SAT number. In post 539 Hunt offered 2020 as an estimate of what a hypothetical URM who is given an admissions boost scores. My own URM kids both had near perfect SAT scores, so I agree with you.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

Students who work hard ought not to be ‘punished’ for working hard. They ought to be rewarded for their ability and work ethic by having equal standards for college admissions.

Unfortunately, there is no test that measures how hard people work. There are tests that measure (supposedly) academic aptitude, and tests that measure knowledge of subject matter. There are also a lot of other criteria that are considered, such as achievement in ECs and community service.</p>

<p>

And the notion that a black or white or Asian or Latino kind might feel “awkward” without “more like themselves” is just completely ridiculous. I don’t think parents or school administrators should be catering to that kind of attitude. We need to get past even noting race when we encounter people. And I honestly think our kids – the best among our kids – have arrived there already.

You may think this is ridiculous, but my observation is that it’s the truth. And I have to say that I’ll find this sort of comment a lot more persuasive when I hear more black, Hispanic, and Native American people saying it.</p>

[sm74]

<p>If you get away from quota driven admissions the focus can get back to what it once was at some of the elite schools which is trying to get at the real intellectual curiosity of candidates. One primary reason for the interview was to determine the intellectual depth of the candidates–can the candidate discuss Russian literature, is that person well read, what are they curious about.</p>

[TheGFG]

<p>Sewhappy, would you please stop implying that it is morally superior to not care about race? It’s much easier to not care when someone is in the majority group or the group which is not victimized by prejudice or bias. That doesn’t make minority kids not a member of the “best of them” group you reference. Are your children non-Asian white by any chance? I can tell you that for however much my kids may or may not care about race themselves, the parents of people they dated did care what their race was and some weren’t happy about their child’s choice of a boyfriend or girlfriend.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

If you get away from quota driven admissions the focus can get back to what it once was at some of the elite schools which is trying to get at the real intellectual curiosity of candidates. One primary reason for the interview was to determine the intellectual depth of the candidates–can the candidate discuss Russian literature, is that person well read, what are they curious about.

What makes you think this kind of thing is absent at elite colleges now? How many truly undeserving and non-intellectual kids are actually getting admitted to these schools (hint: hardly any). This is what is, to me, a bit bizarre about this conversation: to repeat, Harvard and the other top schools are not taking any dumb kids. Even the hooked kids have stats that are far, far above average, and my observations tells me that those kids are also very accomplished in many ways. And they’ve now been practicing AA for decades, with no perceptible decline in prestige–indeed, the number of applications has skyrocketed. From a business point of view, at least, there is no reason for Ivies to change what they are doing in this respect.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

If you get away from quota driven admissions the focus can get back to what it once was at some of the elite schools which is trying to get at the real intellectual curiosity of candidates

</p>

<p>This struck me as a very racist comment. As though it is not possible to admit URMs who have real intellectual curiosity.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>This has got to be a complicated or extremely nuanced issue, at least for me. Or maybe there are just so many peripheral issues. Because every time I think to myself - “What a knucklehead that poster is.” they write something I agree with 100%. And then someone I thought I agreed with says something I think is nonsense, or at least incorrect. Maybe it’s just that I am ambivalent about this whole subject, and don’t have a well formulated position. Plus it doesn’t really affect me personally so it’s easy to drift from team to team.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

Their chief concern should be to go to school with the best minds and most stimulating and challenging classmates they can find.

</p>

<p>…as did this one, too.</p>

[GA2012MOM]

<p>

What makes you think this kind of thing is absent at elite colleges now? How many truly undeserving and non-intellectual kids are actually getting admitted to these schools (hint: hardly any). This is what is, to me, a bit bizarre about this conversation: to repeat, Harvard and the other top schools are not taking any dumb kids. Even the hooked kids have stats that are far, far above average, and my observations tells me that those kids are also very accomplished in many ways.

</p>

<p>EXACTLY!! Most of the schools we are all talking about have extremely high 4 year graduation/retention rates. They are certainly not letting in students who are unable to do the work “just” for the sake of diversity.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

They are certainly not letting in students who are unable to do the work “just” for the sake of diversity.

</p>

<p>I repeat what I said on the previous page. Then there is no point in having racial preferences, is there?</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

Then there is no point in having racial preferences, is there?

You keep asking this question–I guess you just don’t like the answer. The answer is that in order to get representation of URMs, they have to take some applicants who would otherwise be rejected. But ALL of those people are still highly qualified people who can do the work. Harvard gets many thousands of applications from people who could do the work and thrive at Harvard–it rejects most of them.</p>

<p>Note: at some colleges, it is well known that *some *athletes are admitted who really can’t do the work, at least not without a lot of remedial help. This isn’t the case at the Ivies, though. They get so many applications that they generally don’t need to lower their standards all that much to get hooked applicants who can do the work, and they have levels of ability that they just won’t go below. Want proof that this is their approach? They don’t have 13% black students, which is what they’d have if they just admitted as many black students as needed to match the population.</p>

[woeishe]

<p>The best bet is too Eliminate the SAT/ACT, rely more on the GPA and Personal Character, Make It Race-Blind, Make It Need-Aware, Make Interviews mandatory, and put more weight on essays</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

INFO FROM PRINCETON’S COMMON DATA SETS FOR 2006 through 2009:</p>

<h1>of Apps/ # admitted/ # enrolled Percent Asian-American identified:</h1>

<p>*2006: 17,564 / 1790 / 1228 / 13.6%</p>

<p>*2007: 18.942 / 1838 / 1244 / 14.1%</p>

<p>2008: 21,370 / 2122 / 1243 / 15.0%</p>

<p>2009: 21,963 / 2209 / 1320 / 15.9%</p>

<p>*For enrollment years 2006 and 2007, males outnumbered females in applications, admits, and enrollments (52-53% for males, 47-48% for females); for enrollment years 2008 and 2009, gender split has evened out for all 3 categories of data

</p>

<p>Oops–these figures aren’t what I thought they were. Is that percentage the percentage of Asians admitted or enrolled?</p>

[soomoo]

<p>

Racism has no bearing on academic performance.

</p>

<p>woeishe…I’m glad things have worked out for you. I don’t think you can make a huge generalization based on it though.</p>

[GA2012MOM]

<p>

Note: at some colleges, it is well known that some athletes are admitted who really can’t do the work, at least not without a lot of remedial help.

</p>

<p>Umm…yeah. Fabrizio, I’m sure you remember the article about Tech athletes a few years ago in the AJC? I’m not sure but I think it referred to your BBall team. I could take your comments about URM’s a bit more serious if you would address those issues in your own back yard first.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

You keep asking this question–I guess you just don’t like the answer. The answer is that in order to get representation of URMs, they have to take some applicants who would otherwise be rejected.

</p>

<p>See, the impression I got from GA2012MOM’s post is that they WOULDN’T otherwise be rejected. She wrote, “For every URM that may have got a break on test scores, there are many more that are just as competetive in that respect (as my D was.)”</p>

<p>

But ALL of those people are still highly qualified people who can do the work. Harvard gets many thousands of applications from people who could do the work and thrive at Harvard–it rejects most of them.

</p>

<p>Of course you can be highly qualified and still rejected. It happens to thousands of high schoolers every Spring. But if these "URM"s are highly qualified, then shouldn’t they be NO MORE likely to be rejected than, say, 20more?</p>

<p>“Otherwise be rejected,” to me, suggests that they aren’t as good, which as I said would make arguing for racial preferences consistent.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Umm…yeah. Fabrizio, I’m sure you remember the article about Tech athletes a few years ago in the AJC? I’m not sure but I think it referred to your BBall team. I could take your comments about URM’s a bit more serious if you would address those issues in your own back yard first.

</p>

<p>I did not write what you quoted.</p>

[GA2012MOM]

<p>I didn’t say you wrote what I quoted, I am simply saying to you to look at your alma mater’s policies on “underqualified” admissions before attacking certain groups.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I didn’t say you wrote what I quoted, I am simply saying to you to look at your alma mater’s policies on “underqualified” admissions before attacking certain groups.

</p>

<p>I think you’ve misunderstood my position. What makes you think I am attacking certain groups (i.e. "URM"s)?</p>