<p>I do not agree that the SAT is everything, and I think it is a straw man to argue that anyone here feels that way. Even 20more’s post shows that he also listed his SAT II scores and his GPA. Another post shows him referring to extracurriculars.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl tried to trick me into “talking out of both sides of my mouth” by first telling me that she “believed” me when I said I that I don’t think the SAT is everything only to ask whether I thought it would be weird if "URM"s admitted to elite schools consistently have SAT scores 200 points lower than whites or Asians.</p>
<p>I said it was weird, and she proclaimed that she had trapped me. Except I think it’s weird because if "URM"s with score X-200 are “interesting/compelling,” where are the whites/Asians with score X-200? It just so happened to be that the "URM"s with that score are “interesting/compelling” but the whites/Asians aren’t?</p>
<p>All she could say was “possibly.” She didn’t understand my point because she was so intent on tricking me. A white/Asian with score X isn’t necessarily better than a “URM” with score X-200, fine. But why aren’t whites/Asians with score X-200 admitted at the same rate as the "URM"s with the same score?</p>
<p>Because URMs are given preference in the admission process. After 53 pages of comments, I thought this had been established. I believe even Pizzagirl agrees with this.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl is adamantly arguing that a “URM” with score X - 200 is not necessarily less qualified than a white/Asian with score X. I agree. I ask, then, why we don’t see more whites/Asians with score X - 200 at those same schools. You say that the "URM"s are given preference. I agree.</p>
<p>But hold up there. They’re given preference, but does that answer my question? Again, Pizzagirl is saying that X - 200 isn’t necessarily less qualified than X. If true, that has to apply for both "URM"s and whites/Asians. So why is it that we see more whites/Asians with score X than whites/Asians with score X - 200?</p>
<p>I believe you know exactly what I’m thinking, as you previously wrote, “But data show that more 2400 4.0s get accepted than 2200 3.7s. Are you saying that the 2400s are all just more interesting candidates so that’s why they have a higher acceptance rate? That doesn’t make sense to me. I really don’t think that colleges see them as equal. It’s just that they both meet some minimum standard and can do the work.”</p>
<p>Pizzagirl doesn’t know what I’m thinking because she refuses to accept that I don’t think the SAT is everything, even going so far as to trick me with the intention of getting me to “talk out of both sides of my mouth.” I really didn’t appreciate that. If she doesn’t believe me, she should just say so. No need to deceive me.</p>
Holistic admission means no fixed rules. When you don’t have fixed rules, how can you find anything that violates the rules? For example, one of the major criteria for Stanford admission is “intellectual curiosity”. How do you find them violate this?</p>
<p>I did some unscientific research on my own and concluded that among the top schools, any with around 20% Asians like Duke, Johns Hopkins, Emory, Rice, etc except Stanford definitely don’t discriminate agains Asians, it is difficult to say for schools with 15%-20% (this includes most of the Ivys) and schools with less than 15% are suspicious of discrimination, but not many schools fall within the last category. Stanford is the most notorious discriminator against Asians.</p>
<p>Look, URM’s being given preference is an Awful Terrible Injustice if it results in URM’s who wouldn’t otherwise meet the standards for academic admittance. However, if the URM pool is indeed slightly weaker than the Asian or white pool … so what? As long as they are capable of doing the work, I don’t see why a private institution can’t so decree that they want to ensure x% amount of diversity and at least some representation of blacks and Hispanics on their campuses because that’s part of what they see as their mission. Your problem is, you want colleges only to have the mission of admitting-the-very-bestest-academically. That has never been the mission of MOST colleges. They have multiple missions, including filling athletic teams, getting representation from every state, filling other institutional priorities (e.g., ensuring an oboeist or enough Classics majors), making alums happy by admitting their kids at higher rates and yes, providing an environment that has representation of URM’s so that a) talented URM’s feel enough critical mass to be comfortable there and b) a diverse environment is what contributes to the “rich soup.” </p>
<p>Epiphany is spot-on that the top colleges don’t want to be 60% <em>anything.</em> (white, black, Protestant, etc.) Your inability to accept that is why you just don’t get it. </p>
<p>Every school that has “climbed the ladder” in recent years (Vandy and WUSTL are two that stand out in my mind) have done so by increasing diversity. They moved from being “all-the-same” (preppy frat-boy Southern WASP’s, nerdy earnest St. Louisans) to attracting a more diverse base of students – which necessarily encompassed outreach to constituents beyond their historical constituents. It wasn’t just about accepting the highest SAT scores. It was by showing that they play / compete in a broad, diverse world.</p>
<p>epiphany is, seeing as how she still thinks “racial preference” is a straw man, Justice O’Connor’s opinion for the Court in Grutter notwithstanding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think both you and epiphany have done a great job of confusing me as to why racial preferences SHOULD exist. epiphany says all you have to do the get the “UR” out of “URM” is encourage more to apply. You say there’s no qualification gap betwen "URM"s and whites/Asians.</p>
<p>Well, uh, then why have them? If all you have to do to make “URM” just “M” is encourage more to apply, then racial preferences are entirely unnecessary. And if there’s no qualification gap, then a “URM” is just as likely to get in as an unhooked white/Asian, all else comparable; that is, "URM"s are not being shut out. They simply may not get in because there are more qualified applicants than seats. So why single them out? There are many others who may not get in due to an excess of qualified candidates.</p>
<p>Only Hunt’s posts make it clear why we SHOULD have them: without them, there would not be enough "URM"s admits because there is a qualification gap.</p>
<p>With arguments like yours, no wonder more and more states are passing civil rights initiatives. Voters don’t see the reason in your reasoning.</p>
<p>I told Hunt many pages back that there is a reason why Larry Summers is not Larry Samuelson. Times have changed, or have they? Maybe we’ll see more people like Gary LOCKE in the future.</p>
<p>It’s possible that it’s a combination of both. Not enough URM’s who <em>could</em> handle the work at HYPSM (et al) even apply (because it’s not on their radar screen as something for their future) AND there may (or may not be) a qualification gap. </p>
<p>It’s rather hard to tell whether there is a qualification gap, however, when, FOR THE URM’S WHO ARE IN POOR QUALITY SCHOOLS (see, I’m being careful here not to lump in the child of two black physicians who attends a prep school), their preparation may simply not be enough … the playing field isn’t level. Or, maybe indeed if you “uplifted” every poor school, there still would be a qualification gap. I don’t know. At this point in time, it’s rather irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. I’m willing to “allow” a few potentially less-qualified people into the system, because the intent of the system is to create the rich and diverse soup, not only or merely to single out qualifications. Just like I’m willing to “allow” the Olympic winning athlete who only got a 2200 SAT into the system, because she might be an interesting person to have on campus for other reasons. Or the 2200 from the potato farm in Idaho instead of yet-another-2400 from affluent suburban Massachusetts. Or the 2200 oboeist instead of yet-another-2400 violinist.</p>
<p>I don’t know the story, UCBalumnus. The neighborhood kids are getting a baseball team together for a month or so and we haven’t talked with any of the families for a long while. I hope to meet up with this young man’s folks and ask that question. Boys boys (the one at UCLA and the above mentioned one) went to the same high school to play baseball. The one that went to UCLA apparently graduated 2nd in his class. All of us are from the same community. Why the discrenpancy in performance? What can be done about it? </p>
<p>Sorghum, you’re right about my poor wording. I meant groups of students in terms of what’s been discussed on this strand: Mexican American, African American, Puerto Rican, etc. , groups that typically under perform in schools and are typically underrepresented at selective schools or at the selective UCs.</p>
<p>I’m still left pondering the bigger issue. Why are groups of students underperforming and what can be done about it? </p>
<p>One more story to illustrate what we see around here. Another boy from the baseball team received an athletic scholarship from a state uni. not in our city. He’s 1/2 Phillipino, 1/2 white. Right before graduation last year, he pulled a prank at school and was arrested. Of course he lost his scholarship and is at the local CC. What a waste. </p>
<p>My son was glad to be away from this kind of influence for the year (one of the many reasons we homeschool) though we like them and their families and he’s glad to play summer ball for a month or so.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, and maybe by allowing such students into selective schools, these students can be inspirations to others from their communities and some of my questions could be addressed.</p>
<p>Make up your mind. Either there is a qualification gap, which would make sense for us to have racial preferences, or there isn’t one, in which case there is no need whatsoever for racial preferences. This is not a false dichotomy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, please, for the 107th time, I do not view qualifications solely in terms of the SAT.</p>
<p>And you still haven’t answered my question. Why don’t we see more X-200 whites/Asians at elite institutions? They’re really not as “interesting/compelling” as their X-200 “URM” counterparts and significantly less “interesting/compelling” than their X white/Asian peers? Really?</p>
I compared the numbers including geographic and demograhpic data.</p>
<p>Lawsuit is useless because as I mentioned in my last post, there is no fixed rule in holistic admission. (Apparently, you only read the last line of my last post.) Large scale protests and demonstrations on Stanford campus may have better results.</p>
<p>From Stanford’s website:
Stanford 2010-11 Admissions Statistics:
Geographic Origins:
California: 40%; Other US: 53%; Foreign: 7% (89 Countries, more than half of internat’ls from Asia) </p>
<p>Race/Ethnicity: 23% Asian or Pacific Islander</p>
<p>Princeton University 2011 Asian-American admits: 18.1%
Harvard (2010 I believe): 22%
Yale 2011: 15.4%</p>
<p>Private universities, most especially the ‘elite’ ones such as Stanford and the Ivies, are national universities, not regional ones. Stanford will be rejecting lots of highly qualified Californians, as will Princeton, Harvard, and Yale be rejecting lots of highly qualifed northeasterners, every year. And each of those (including Stanford) will be accepting lots of highly qualified out-of-staters, which to each of those institutions represents a huge number of applications.</p>
<p>If you’re disgusted with Stanford’s policies, don’t go there. Why would you want to be associated with such a “racist” University?</p>
<p>^^ Is it a coincidence that Columbia has 14% African Americans while stanford only has 8%? Because New York City area has a larger AA population!</p>
<p>This is a good question. If there is one, I can see how people would think racial preferences are necessary. I still wouldn’t agree, but I would see the justification.</p>
<p>Some may feel that racial preferences would gradually resolve the gap by creating an educated “URM” class which would encourage their offspring to value education. It would take time, but the problem would be fixed.</p>
<p>I feel that is misguided because the beneficiaries of racial preferences are far more likely to be “the child of two black physicians who attends a prep school” than “from the 'Hood.” These students ALREADY come from families that are more likely to value education. Racial preferences did nothing to expand that segment of our society.</p>
<p>But none of that answers your question: how would I address it? It should be clear by now that simply throwing money at the public schools does nothing but burn holes in our pockets.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I would stop wasting time and money on trying to racially balance schools. An all-black school is not bad because it’s all-black.</p></li>
<li><p>I would also discourage hiring teachers whose bachelor’s degrees were earned in education. If you’re going to be a math teacher, better that you were a math major than a math education major. On average, the math major is FAR STRONGER in math than the math education major.</p></li>
<li><p>The 5-10% of the class that takes up 95% of the teacher’s time shouldn’t be in that class. They aren’t learning, and they make it impossible for the others to learn.</p></li>
</ol>
I believe even Pizzagirl agrees with this.</p>