Diversity: Explicit Example

Student Lounge College Life
101

<p>"But of course - just adding points to a candidate's application ASSUMING s/he was underprivileged based on his or her race is a lot easier than helping them earn all those points through natural ability."</p>

<p>Unfortunately, those who are underprivileged on average are those of certain races, so the admissions committee can only assume that one of such race is underprivileged. Of course, this can be offset if the adcoms know an applicant's financial resources (income, etc.), interviews, and essays.</p>

102

<p>Agent of Sense:</p>

<p>There was some study that showed that SAT scores were the worst predictors of a student's performance in college. SAT II scores were slight better, but obviously GPA was the best predictor.</p>

<p>A super majority of students who are accepted to HYP, etc. are in the top 10% of their class so I think it is safe to assume that all these students have rather high GPAs.</p>

103

<p>Well, I was assuming that the SAT test did test what it set out to do: "measure critical thinking skills that are needed for academic success in college."</p>

104

<p>
[quote]
Affirmative Action = Holistic Admissions. If you disagree with it, don't apply to schools that practice it--end of story.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not true at all. UCLA is not allowed to consider race in admissions as a result of Proposition 209. Yet, in 2006, it adopted “holistic review,” which places more emphasis on personal experiences and backgrounds.</p>

105

<p>
[quote]
The people receiving the benefits of AA weren't around when there was segregation and outright racism in hiring practices.... Just adding points to a candidate's application ASSUMING s/he was underprivileged based on his or her race is a lot easier than helping them earn all those points through natural ability.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>chris07, how about a concrete example? I'm white. I have a 2300 SAT and a 4.0 GPA.</p>

<p>My parents both went to college and graduate school - as did my grandparents, and relatives even farther back, when university admissions were restricted for people who were not white. Having graduated from college with advanced degrees, they were able to get competitive, high-paying jobs, many of which were formally or informally closed to people of color. They lived in nice, quiet, suburban neighborhoods which were, likewise, segregated, and sent their children to elite public or private schools that were predominately white because people of color could not afford them. Their access to elite schools and high-paying jobs that weren't available to people of color translated to an economic advantage that was passed down to each successive generation. (And numerous studies have shown that economic advantages correlate with academic success.)</p>

<p>I grew up in a great school district with some of the highest real estate prices in the state. (By the way, 98% of the people who live here are white.) My parents bought me books and brought me to museums, paid for me to take music lessons and participate in sports, sent me to camp and later paid for me to take college courses over the summer. They taught me from the beginning that college was the default option, brought me to visit their alma maters as a kid, made it clear what academic and extracurricular expectations I needed to meet in order to get into college, and helped me navigate the admissions system from their own personal experience. I ended up getting accepted to my dad's college. I'd like to think I didn't benefit from a legacy preference, but I don't know for sure.</p>

<p>This story is also typical of most of my friends (who are white, and going to schools like Yale, Brown, Cornell, Amherst, and Smith). No, I didn't benefit directly from segregationist policies. But I did benefit, undeniably, from generations of accumulated economic and social privilege, made possible in part by my ancestors' race. No way did I get by on "natural ability" alone.</p>

<p>And this isn't even mentioning the psychological impact of racism - the effect of rarely or never seeing people of your race working in the areas that you intend to go into or studying at the schools that you'd like to apply to; rarely or never being taught about their accomplishments; walking into a room to find no one else who looks like you; having to fight (or knowing that in the recent past you would have had to fight) to be part of schools, use public facilities, exercise your rights as a citizen, and protect yourself from systems and institutions that were supposed to be protecting you; and constantly receiving the message (overt or not) that people of your race are not as good as the white "norm".</p>

106

<p>
[quote]
The first, as stated before, is the goal of righting social wrongs. In the past, qualified students of color were barred from universities, or admitted in disproportionately tiny numbers. That has had a marked socioeconomic impact on communities of color. Increasing enrollment of students of color now is a way to make amends for a history of discrimination.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>May I remind you that the Supreme Court has consistently stated that “righting social wrongs” is not an acceptable rationale for affirmative action?</p>

<p>As Justice Powell wrote in Bakke, “Nothing in the Constitution supports the notion that individuals may be asked to suffer otherwise impermissible burdens in order to enhance the societal standing of their ethnic groups…We have never approved a classification that aids persons perceived as members of relatively victimized groups at the expense of other innocent individuals in the absence of judicial, legislative, or administrative findings of constitutional or statutory violations.”</p>

<p>
[quote]

The second is the belief that there is an inherent value in diversity - that people have different experiences in our society based on factors like race, ethnicity, class, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, and ability, and that there is something we can learn by listening to the experiences of people who are not like us.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, as Justice Powell wrote in Bakke, “If petitioner's purpose is to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin, such a preferential purpose must be rejected not as insubstantial, but as facially invalid…Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake.”</p>

<p>There’s nothing wrong for you to use these reasons to justify “diversity” to yourself. Just remember that they are not legally sound.</p>

107

<p>Bourne,</p>

<p>No, I will not “stop being so damn literal.” You are mistaken to assert that there is a “either numbers only or everything considered” classification of admissions policies. Let me repeat my question. How do you classify an application that asks for SAT score, GPA, essays, extracurriculars, and recommendations? Clearly, it is not numbers only (i.e. nothing but merit) as it takes subjective criteria into account. Yet, it is also not a “whole” application because gender and race aren’t factored in. I would really like to know how you classify this type of application.</p>

<p>Please, the term minority barely means anything anymore. Asians are a minority in the United States, yet when it comes to higher education, they’re “over-represented” and thus not treated as minorities.</p>

<p>You can be race-blind and still get “many different types of people from many different areas.” Race-blind is not synonymous with merit-only. It just means “race is not considered.” It doesn’t mean “we don’t care about your essay, your extracurriculars, and your recommendations.” You don’t need race to get diversity.</p>

<p>I oppose gender preferences. According to the CDS, Georgia Tech does not consider either race or ethnicity in admissions. Gender isn’t listed, but I assume that despite being a Tech school, Georgia Tech does not practice gender preferences. If we did, we could easily fix the “ratio.” It’s certainly gotten better in the last ten years, but it’s still 3:1 (c.f. MIT’s 1:1.)</p>

<p>I went to a high school that for a long time offered five APs. Your hypothetical was my reality. We’ve had a student attend Columbia and MIT. I know the student who is at MIT very well, and I believe that he’s every bit as qualified, if not more so, than the California and New England students you claim would dominate under a “numbers only” system.</p>

108

<p>They would dominate if it was a truly numbers process.</p>

<p>I'd respect your opinion if you renounced all forms of non-merit considerations but you haven't. You don't even crusade against other similar issues. Even issues under the same umbrella. You only target minorities/AA.</p>

<p>
[quote]
How do you classify an application that asks for SAT score, GPA, essays, extracurriculars, and recommendations? Clearly, it is not numbers only (i.e. nothing but merit) as it takes subjective criteria into account. Yet, it is also not a “whole” application because gender and race aren’t factored in. I would really like to know how you classify this type of application.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So you admit the criteria is rather subjective. Now the point is, once you agree with a certain degree of subjectivity -- how can you start to dissent when that perspective becomes more and more subjective? And it's not really all that drastic of a problem. </p>

<p>You can't say that subjectivity is valid in some cases, but wrong in others. You can't take into account different factors for one applicant -- and refuse to do the same for another.</p>

<p>Therefore, it's either you're not subjective at all and you collude with the other respective top schools and form a set of standards by which you shall admit applicants to your school -- merit based -- or you use subjective standards to build a class that you deem fit to represent your community. Of course those subjective standards will always be debatable however there are many different advantages given. To debate one is to debate all.</p>

109

<p>And I meant literal as in your blind translations -- disregarding the contextual background the comment lies in.</p>

110

<p>
[quote]
I believe MLK Jr. put my argument very poignantly into a sentence, a line which singlehandedly disproves many pro-AA arguments: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>People come at AA from such incredibly different perspectives. I think most proponents would agree that this quote/sentiment is exactly in line with their goal. They, however, are thinking one step further down the line, seeing AA as a tool for (perhaps among other things) increasing representation, and thus acceptance. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Diversity does not need to be “implemented.” Segregation was outlawed over half a century ago. Thanks to the Supreme Court, diversity today exists everywhere.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In a perfect world, you're absolutely right. But a legal end to widespread segregation does not mean that it no longer exists, at least effectively. This is probably only tangentially relevant to the discussion at hand, but you should still be aware of the fact that in general, today's playing field might not be quite as even as you believe. A drastic change from 50 years ago, yeah, but still a bit of a work in progress.</p>

111

<p>fabrizio:</p>

<p>Holistic admissions and affirmative action are the same thing in that they both have the same goal--promoting diversity. When affirmative action was banned in California, many schools including UCLA chose to adopt holistic approaches to admissions. </p>

<p>As for the Bakke case, Powell said that promoting diversity was a societal good.</p>

112

<p>Bourne,</p>

<p>I don’t need to renounce all forms of non-merit considerations. I can oppose racial preferences and still support the essay, extracurriculars, and recommendations. By the way, you still haven’t classified my hypothetical application. What is it? It’s not merit-based because I included subjective components. It’s not “whole,” either, because I didn’t ask for race or gender. Since it defies your dichotomy, perhaps you should update your system.</p>

<p>
[quote]

You can't say that subjectivity is valid in some cases, but wrong in others. You can't take into account different factors for one applicant -- and refuse to do the same for another.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you familiar with the strict scrutiny standard? Check up on it. You’ll find that your first statement is incorrect. You can say that subjectivity is valid in some cases but wrong in others. The Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s law school admissions policy (Grutter) but struck down Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy (Gratz) in 2003. They stated that the law school used race as one of many factors “holistically” and thus was acceptable. They also stated that while race was also one of many factors at the undergraduate level, it was far more deterministic than its law-school counterpart and was just a fancier quota. Thus, it was unacceptable.</p>

<p>How does my hypothetical application “take into account different factors for one applicant – and refuse to do the same for another?” In both cases, the applicants’ SAT scores, GPAs, essays, extracurriculars, and recommendations are considered. What different factors?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Therefore, it's either you're not subjective at all and you collude with the other respective top schools and form a set of standards by which you shall admit applicants to your school -- merit based -- or you use subjective standards to build a class that you deem fit to represent your community. Of course those subjective standards will always be debatable however there are many different advantages given. To debate one is to debate all.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is very close to being an exhaustive classification. All you need to do is replace “subjective standards” with “at least one subjective standard.” Then, all cases can be categorized. Numbers-only admissions is “not subjective at all.” My hypothetical application uses “at least one subjective standard.”</p>

113

<p>
[quote]

In a perfect world, you're absolutely right. But a legal end to widespread segregation does not mean that it no longer exists, at least effectively. This is probably only tangentially relevant to the discussion at hand, but you should still be aware of the fact that in general, today's playing field might not be quite as even as you believe. A drastic change from 50 years ago, yeah, but still a bit of a work in progress.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then, we’ll just have to disagree on the definition of segregation. I believe it is absolutely imperative to understand that segregation is not the same thing as racial imbalance. I have cited Justice Thomas several times regarding this distinction. However, there is another source which also corroborates my view: the Civil Rights Act of 1964.</p>

<p>Title IV states, “‘Desegregation’ means the assignment of students to public schools and within such schools without regard to their race, color, religion, or national origin, but ‘desegregation’ shall not mean the assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance” (emphasis added).</p>

<p>I’m very aware that the playing field is not even. I don’t pretend that we live in some magical world where all are equal in ability. We can never be all equal in ability. My ability to understand physics is not anywhere near Stephen Hawking’s ability. My ability to hit a forehand is not remotely close to Rafael Nadal’s ability. But, that doesn’t matter. What matters is that we’re all equal under the law.</p>

114

<p>Fabrizio. I'm asking for an elimination of all the "considerational methodology" used by colleges to determine who's qualified and who isn't. If you eliminate "diversity", you must also eliminate other subjective areas -- rural vs urban, gender, the list goes on. Are any of those considerations fair? </p>

<p>Just as it's been proven that there are certain issues that restrict your opportunities for growth in rural environments -- studies have also shown that race can play a part in growth and development. Especially when mired in a society as racially volatile as ours.</p>

115

<p>
[quote]
Affirmative Action = Holistic Admissions

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Holistic admission is considering essays and ECs in addition to GPA and SAT. Affirmative action is considering race. </p>

<p>The history of American whites oppressing American blacks is a tired argument for affirmative action. </p>

<p>Asians have a history of putting down the black man, so the reason why Asians are such strong students is because of the advantages accrued over the years from exploiting blacks. Or was it because Asians are strong students because they tend to be the descendants of the most capable and driven members of their native countries? In that case, I guess we should punish them for being the descendants of the more competent. </p>

<p>
[quote]
How come I don't see you guys railing at the tech institutions that give some preference to women applicants? Do you think that's fair?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nope. Beneficial to the women who get in and the existing male students at the school who get a greater influx of booty, but woefully unfair to the males who get denied because of it. </p>

<p>
[quote]

No one is assuming group 2 would have a stronger "rest of application," but YOU assume that it would have a worse "rest of application" just because of SAT scores. This is where you are wrong. If this were true, then there would be NO need for the "rest of application" because you could admit students based on SAT scores since, chances are, the "rest of application" is stronger. Then WHY have a "rest of application?"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
You can't base your argument solely on SAT scores when college admission committees don't even do that! That's the whole point of the "rest of application" because the SAT scores do not paint the whole picture. Although with higher SAT scores, chances are that group 1 will have a stronger "rest of application" than group 2, it doesn't mean that they do! If it did, then admissions committees would be mechanical rather than human. You have to look at context.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, this isn’t that complicated of a point. I’m going to throw out my theoretical example and use the real world equivalent. We know for sure that Asian applicants have higher SATs scores than blacks, but acceptance rates don’t reflect this difference. We’d either have to say that blacks have higher GPAs, better, essays, and/or better ECs, or that blacks applicants are benefiting from discrimination against Asians to explain this lack of difference. However, we can’t say the former because there’s no reason to assume that there’s an inverse relationship between SATs and [essays, ECs, GPA]; in fact, I’d vouch for the contrary. </p>

<p>I’m not even using a positive correlation between SATs and [essays, ECs, GPA] to make a point. Candidate 1 and 2 are the exact same on GPA, ECs, essays. But candidate 1 has a 2350 and candidate 2 has a 2100. Who is the stronger candidate? </p>

<p>As groups then, we’d say on average then that blacks and Asians should have the exact same GPA, ECs, and essays (in actuality, Asians probably have better GPAs, and perhaps ECs and essays as well, because we all seem to acknowledge a slight to moderate correlation between SATs and everything else). Asians have higher SATs. Even with our conservative assumptions, it’s obvious Asians are the stronger applicants by virtue of their SATs. It’s just as if Group 1 and Group 2 had the same SATs, GPAs, ECs, but Group 1 had much stronger essays. Group 1 would be the stronger applicant pool by virtue of their essays.</p>

116

<p>Bourne,</p>

<p>You said you’re asking for this elimination. I just want to confirm: do you support this elimination? I certainly don’t.</p>

<p>I don’t see why race is such a tremendous “tie-in” factor for you. You say that if we eliminate race as a factor, then we also have to eliminate the other subjective criteria. I find it surprising that you, a Stanford student, would make such a remark. You study in a state that is not allowed to use racial preferences in its public university admissions. UCLA is barred from considering race and gender, yet it is perfectly free to consider geography, essays, extracurriculars, recommendations, and so forth. What do you make of UCLA, since it clearly defies your statement that the other subjective criteria “must” also be eliminated?</p>

117

<p>"As groups then, we’d say on average then that blacks and Asians should have the exact same GPA, ECs, and essays (in actuality, Asians probably have better GPAs, and perhaps ECs and essays as well, because we all seem to acknowledge a slight to moderate correlation between SATs and everything else). Asians have higher SATs. Even with our conservative assumptions, it’s obvious Asians are the stronger applicants by virtue of their SATs. It’s just as if Group 1 and Group 2 had the same SATs, GPAs, ECs, but Group 1 had much stronger essays. Group 1 would be the stronger applicant pool by virtue of their essays."</p>

<p>Whether one is black, white, asian, purple, anything...you are not considering context. ECs, SATs, GPAs, etc. may be the same...but from the circumstances in which they were achieved...now that is NOT the same. Adcoms do not just consider scores (SATs, GPAs) but passion, motivation, potential, etc., all of which are intangible and subjective. Intuitively, one can assume that the higher the SATs means a stronger applicant, which is what you purport. But you don't seem to understand the context of which the whole application is based on. </p>

<p>For example, a person whose family is 100k when compared to one whose family income is 30k. Both have the same SAT scores, same GPA, same everything. Which would you pick? </p>

<p>Now, the same person whose family income is 100k has higher SAT scores, which would correlate to a better "rest of application" but the other person doesn't have equal SAT scores...and therefore, chances are, a worse "rest of application." Is the person with a family income of 100k better qualified just because of a better overall application? Tell me that you wouldn't consider the circumstances? Tell me that with a lower income, chances are, the student's application will be "worse" than someone of a much higher income?
Should we not consider these factors?
Now here, I'm just considering income. There are so many other factors to consider...</p>

<p>Perhaps if you didn't read this post, it'll shed some more light on the topic.</p>

<p>Posted by Quaere</p>

<p>-chris07, how about a concrete example? I'm white. I have a 2300 SAT and a 4.0 GPA.</p>

<p>My parents both went to college and graduate school - as did my grandparents, and relatives even farther back, when university admissions were restricted for people who were not white. Having graduated from college with advanced degrees, they were able to get competitive, high-paying jobs, many of which were formally or informally closed to people of color. They lived in nice, quiet, suburban neighborhoods which were, likewise, segregated, and sent their children to elite public or private schools that were predominately white because people of color could not afford them. Their access to elite schools and high-paying jobs that weren't available to people of color translated to an economic advantage that was passed down to each successive generation. (And numerous studies have shown that economic advantages correlate with academic success.)</p>

<p>I grew up in a great school district with some of the highest real estate prices in the state. (By the way, 98% of the people who live here are white.) My parents bought me books and brought me to museums, paid for me to take music lessons and participate in sports, sent me to camp and later paid for me to take college courses over the summer. They taught me from the beginning that college was the default option, brought me to visit their alma maters as a kid, made it clear what academic and extracurricular expectations I needed to meet in order to get into college, and helped me navigate the admissions system from their own personal experience. I ended up getting accepted to my dad's college. I'd like to think I didn't benefit from a legacy preference, but I don't know for sure.</p>

<p>This story is also typical of most of my friends (who are white, and going to schools like Yale, Brown, Cornell, Amherst, and Smith). No, I didn't benefit directly from segregationist policies. But I did benefit, undeniably, from generations of accumulated economic and social privilege, made possible in part by my ancestors' race. No way did I get by on "natural ability" alone.</p>

<p>And this isn't even mentioning the psychological impact of racism - the effect of rarely or never seeing people of your race working in the areas that you intend to go into or studying at the schools that you'd like to apply to; rarely or never being taught about their accomplishments; walking into a room to find no one else who looks like you; having to fight (or knowing that in the recent past you would have had to fight) to be part of schools, use public facilities, exercise your rights as a citizen, and protect yourself from systems and institutions that were supposed to be protecting you; and constantly receiving the message (overt or not) that people of your race are not as good as the white "norm". -</p>

118

<p>Hehe. That's the point. I don't. I needed to see if you'd disagree.</p>

<p>You do want to eliminate some subjective factors but keep others. Even though many of the subjective factors colleges use to determine who to admit when compensating for lower scores/GPA have been proven to have a detrimental effect on said statistics. Those factors include Geographical location, RACE, Socioeconomic Status, First Generation, Gender in some cases -- I think they're all valid, and limited -- very limited compensation should be given for each, but you only support taking out one or two while keeping the rest around even though all have been proven to have an effect on SAT Scores/GPA.</p>

<p>Therefore, my point becomes -- if you eliminate one of these factors, whichever it is -- knowing that it's been linked to several sociological studies which show that said factor has a negative effect on test scores ... w/e, then you must eliminate them all. </p>

<p>Simplified. It's like this.</p>

<p>Why do the UC's consider geography? Because there's obvious correlation between a lack of opportunities/lower performing demographics and geographical location. Are you saying that such correlation doesn't exist between race? I'm saying it does. Still does. You can not disregard the correlation in one setting, and allow it to stand in others.</p>

119

<p>Bourne,</p>

<p>Yes, I would like to eliminate the consideration of race. It is a factor that is irrelevant to participation in university life. Are there things that I can’t do on campus because of my ethnicity? Absolutely not. Likewise, are the things that I can do on campus because of my ethnicity? Again, absolutely not. The essay, on the other hand, is most certainly relevant. Let’s say that Mary and I both apply for the opening journalist position for the student newspaper. If Mary writes much better than I do, doesn’t it make sense that she has a better chance of getting that position than I do, ceteris paribus? Furthermore, there are so many university classes that require good writing for success. A similar case can be made for extracurriculars. I don’t play any stringed or band instruments, so how can I possibly be a playing member of my school’s symphony?</p>

<p>
[quote]

Therefore, my point becomes -- if you eliminate one of these factors, whichever it is -- knowing that it's been linked to several sociological studies which show that said factor has a negative effect on test scores ... w/e, then you must eliminate them all… Are you saying that such correlation doesn't exist between race? I'm saying it does. Still does. You can not disregard the correlation in one setting, and allow it to stand in others.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Careful. Don’t mix up causation and correlation.</p>

<p>You keep saying that if I’m going to not consider race, then I must also not consider other subjective criteria. What, then, do you make of a school like UCLA or UC-Berkeley? They obviously defy your “if you drop this, then you have to drop that” rule.</p>

<p>What’s more, you still don’t address strict scrutiny. Race, national origin, religion, and poverty are suspect classes. Thus, they are analyzed under strict scrutiny. Geography is not a suspect class. At most, it would be analyzed under intermediate scrutiny, although rational basis is more likely. Race and geography aren’t analyzed under the same standard from a legal standpoint.</p>

120

<p>And I'm not speaking of subjective factors like Ec's and Essays. I'm talking of first generation? Why is that considered?</p>

<p>I'm not mixing correlation and causation. I'm implying correlation in all factors included.</p>