<p>Okay, Hunt, I get what you meant. Thanks for the clarification. I was confused by your earlier post. Anyway, I haven’t thought through my position on this fully, but as of this writing, I think schools should be able to do whatever is legal with any scholarship funds they have to disburse. I think development offices should be, and for the most part are, sensitive to the messages they are sending with the kind of scholarships they make available. But I don’t see a problem with scholarships being set up to reflect institutional strategy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That may be true for landlording, but I was talking in the context of college admissions. Anyway, that is why holistic admissions is so convenient, because it would be hard to argue that race played a factor.</p>
<p>"Suppose the owner of an apartment complex with 50% white residents and 50% black residents faced a pool of new renters that was majority black, "</p>
<p>I thought coops decide all the time who they want to let into their building and no one seems to know how they decide.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What makes the difference? The difference is the compelling interest in diversity, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it’s not hard…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You sue if you find out race is a factor.</p>
<p>And the coops do write out a nice letter saying although you are Will Smith, we just can’t have you here because - you know why.</p>
<p>Its not like they tell you why they are rejecting you. At least Augusta country club is more open about it and still gets away with it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BTW, I think TJ admissions is holistic, compared to Stuy which is pure stats based. I believe TJ considers essays, ECs, teacher recs, etc., so potentially their Asian representation could be higher. However, you cannot ignore the fact that TJ, which uses “holistic” admissions, has 2X as many Asians as the “elite” colleges. Perhaps it is because they are not <em>allowed</em> to use race as a factor in admissions?</p>
<p>Defenders of holistic admissions think colleges should identify applicants who will contribute to campus life and to society, going beyond measures that predict grades and graduation rates, and I have replied that there is no evidence that subjective parts of the college application such as personal essays help to identify such people.</p>
<p>The essay below by Robert Sternberg says a different form of standardized test can identify campus leaders.</p>
<p>[Our</a> Fractured Meritocracy - The Conversation - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2012/12/12/our-fractured-meritocracy/]Our”>The Conversation: Our Fractured Meritocracy)
For Panorama, we drew on Tufts Universitys experience in the Kaleidoscope Project, on which I collaborated with Lee Coffin, dean of undergraduate admissions, when I was dean of arts and sciences there. As summarized in my book College Admissions for the 21st Century (Harvard University Press, 2010), we found at Tufts that items similar to Oklahoma States Panorama prompts improve prediction of academic and extracurricular leadership beyond what we can derive from standardized-test scores and grades.</p>
<hr>
<p>I agree with Sternberg that the SAT and ACT are IQ tests, but he thinks IQ is being overused for selection, while Canuckguy (if I understand him correctly – he has posted about IQ and meritocracy) and I think the opposite. I have not read Sternberg’s book yet.</p>
<p>Well, of course Asian kids are not textureless math drones. But, of course there are “overachieving, ambitious students” of other backgrounds, as well. The idea is to make some nice mix. Not treat some few high schools as feeders. Especially not just some STEM oriented hs.</p>
<p>What makes one feel TJ or Stuy kids are inherently the best choices out there? Stats? Race? Or some combo of assets- which you only see through that one kid’s Common App? (Which, by design, includes more than stats- maybe that’s the heart of the complaint, the root of the problem- the CA!)</p>
<p>We haven’t answered a question yet: how many TJ or Stuy kids “should” be admitted- and others in their areas be damned. Sort of, if you didn’t get into TJ, tough luck? (Like the old euro system where you get tracked from about 14? College-bound or huge hurdles?)</p>
<p>Bel, you have to step aside from the issue of predicting college grades. Adcoms don’t sit around and say, this kid’s profile suggests a 4.0 and that one suggests 3.75 or 3.5. There is more to take- and give- than one’s college grades.</p>
<p>As for what can be identified based on, eg, essays- try it. Take a look at young people you know. Which sorts (and their actions, presentations, etc) impress you more than others?</p>
<p>Defenders of holistic admissions think colleges should identify applicants who will contribute to campus life and to society, going beyond measures that predict grades and graduation rates Not only defenders: it’s the private elites telling you that. Unfortunately, they didn’t ask you. (Or any of us.) It’s their party.</p>
<p>ps. Equal access to housing is so different than looking a a private college. So far, the courts have allowed what privates do, based on their explanations. The largest ongoing scrutiny has gone to publics-</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s suppose that indeed, as well-meaning as college adcoms are, their process doesn’t provide any appreciable difference versus if they just identified a “good enough” floor and instituted a lottery system. </p>
<p>If, indeed, colleges are wasting their time / money coming up with such a selection system when a lottery among the qualified could have done the trick, isn’t it kind of their problem? I have no doubt that college adcom departments are subject to all the same kinds of justify-your-existence, do-more-with-less things that other departments are subject to. If Harvard wishes to waste its time and money employing (say) 30 people to read apps and have endless rounds of discussions when they could toss out everyone below X score and just do a lottery for way cheaper, I don’t see why I should really be upset over that. It’s their money and their process. If I think it’s wasteful and silly, I needn’t apply there. </p>
<p>I guess I don’t get all this philosophy about how Harvard (et al) should twist itself in knots to please us as “consumers” or potential consumers of their services. I have the ultimate power, not them. I can Just Say No and go on with my day. It’s not as though they are some kind of basic necessity in life. They aren’t food, shelter or utilities.</p>
<p>Harvard twisting-- I get the sense some folks have their own knickers in a twist over all this. What business is it of some interested poster how H wants to balance?<br>
I get the fairness part. I think we, as individuals, can do more for our local communities by volunteering, supporting some hs kids other than our own through the app processes, mentoring, doing good for others. Not just the armchair complaining. This is the grassroots effort you want to make? Or you can see more out there that could use your support? (Just as we expect hs kids to get involved, outside their own wants and needs.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, more Asian-American students apply to TJ than any other ethnic group: <a href=“http://www.fcps.edu/cco/pr/tj/tjadmissions0412.pdf[/url]”>http://www.fcps.edu/cco/pr/tj/tjadmissions0412.pdf</a> Asian-Americans are 42.9% of the applicant pool. </p>
<p>Asian-Americans are also the largest single ethnic group (30%) of the students who take the SHSAT in New York: [New</a> York City Specialized High School Complaint | NAACP LDF](<a href=“http://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/new-york-city-specialized-high-school-complaint]New”>http://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/new-york-city-specialized-high-school-complaint) </p>
<p>Unless you know the composition of the pool of applicants to the Ivy League, you do not know whether the Asian applicants are under- or overrepresented in the results. You certainly cannot infer anything from comparing Ivy League admissions results to admissions results for magnet schools.</p>
<p>Right. Everyone keeps ignoring the makeup of the applicant pool to places and focusing instead on the makeup of the accepted pool. The second is meaningless without knowing the first. </p>
<p>BTW, I don’t find the Asian makeup of either TJ or Stuy “unsettling.” Those places are rather meaningless outside the world of students who go to them, so they can be 100% comprised of little purple people for all I care. They have very different missions from what Harvard has set out for itself. If that mission doesn’t include a lot of diversity, well, then so be it. Harvard - or any other elite school - needn’t really concern itself with what two out of the 30,000 high schools in this country do.</p>
<p>There likely are some admissions departments filled with entrenched bureaucrats who are rather set in their ways. The most innovative admissions professionals probably are regularly and systematically evaluating whether their processes yield the results their institutions want. But, just as in any other enterprise, there are probably plenty of adcoms that will do stuff the same way over and over again because that’s how they do it, and there is nothing—like an institutional culture of continuous quality improvement—compelling them to do their jobs any better or any differently. As Pizzagirl says, anyone who is in the college market has the power to choose not to apply if one doesn’t like a particular adcom’s practices. I’ll also add that anyone who has legal standing and cause to pursue a suit, either singly or as part of a group, should do so. </p>
<p>Maybe Harvard and its ilk are going to have to be more transparent at some point in the future. Maybe the affirmative action policies they currently have in place will be challenged in the wake of the Fisher case or some other case yet to be heard or resolved. I’m confident that any admissions dean with a brain is already considering how to respond appropriately in the wake of the Fisher case, even if they’re not compelled to do so immediately. And I’m quite sure admissions officers at Ivy League schools are networking with other admissions professionals to talk about how to do what they do better, just as we all network with people in our respective fields to evolve our approaches to the work we do. </p>
<p>Just as a “for instance,” take a look at the list of attendees at this giant conference, “The Case for Change in College Admissions,” hosted at USC a couple of years ago: [Conferences</a> and Symposia - USC Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice](<a href=“http://www.usc.edu/programs/cerpp/makethecaseforchange.html]Conferences”>http://www.usc.edu/programs/cerpp/makethecaseforchange.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Holistic admissions at TJ has resulted in an increase in students who cannot do the work.
The article below has links to other articles providing more details.</p>
<p>[Fairfax</a> school board debates Thomas Jefferson High admissions - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/fairfax-school-board-debates-thomas-jefferson-high-admissions/2012/07/19/gJQAL011wW_story.html]Fairfax”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/fairfax-school-board-debates-thomas-jefferson-high-admissions/2012/07/19/gJQAL011wW_story.html)</p>
<p>A majority of Fairfax County School Board members said Thursday they would favor changing admission policies for the prestigious Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, addressing a perennial concern about underrepresented minority groups and more recent consternation about a spike in the number of students struggling to meet the schools rigorous academic demands.</p>
<p>We seem to have the worst of both worlds, unfortunately, said Sandy Evans (Mason), speaking before a standing-room-only crowd at the school systems headquarters in Falls Church. Weve got students being admitted now who are not prepared to do the work, and we also have not increased diversity.</p>
<p>“Holistic admissions at TJ has resulted in an increase in students who cannot do the work.”</p>
<p>I think that misstates what has happened at TJ. It would probably be more accurate to say, “the shift in the holistic admissions process away from a primary focus on the candidate’s math ability and commitment to STEM fields has led to the admission of a student body which has a larger percentage of humanists.”</p>
<p>See: [The</a> new Thomas Jefferson? It includes remedial math - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-new-thomas-jefferson-it-includes-remedial-math/2012/05/25/gJQAlZRYqU_story.html]The”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-new-thomas-jefferson-it-includes-remedial-math/2012/05/25/gJQAlZRYqU_story.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and:</p>
<p>[Class</a> Struggle - America’s best high school soft on math?](<a href=“http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2011/02/americas_best_high_school_soft.html]Class”>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2011/02/americas_best_high_school_soft.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems to me the admissions process at Thomas Jefferson has been holistic before and after the recent changes. The earlier holistic process placed a greater weight upon math and science interest and ability, which makes sense in a specialized math and science magnet school. Shifting from trying to find future scientists to trying to find “future leaders in mathematics, science, and technology to address future complex societal and ethical issues" led to a change in the percentage of highly able young scientists in the student body. Holistic admissions, but the criteria for admission made the difference.</p>
<p>Well, here’s the thing. Life is full of complex problems - how to get kids who can do the work, and also get kids who represent a range of diversity (however one defines that). It seems that the people who pride themselves most on their ability to be complex problem-solvers (“look at my SAT scores!”) also seem to want the most simplistic solution (“admit everyone based on SAT scores / other stats, and nothing else”). There’s some irony in that position that I can’t quite articulate, but perhaps someone smarter than I am can do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you KNOW this is what is happening, or are you putting a spin on the information presented? The article Beliavsky shared asserts that teachers and administrators alike are seeing a growing number of kids who need “extra help” in math. How does this—or anything in the articles you shared—add up to “a larger percentage of humanists”? The kids who are not prepared for the rigorous math curriculum may also be unprepared for rigorous humanities work or might be humanities uberstars. No way to tell from the links that have been provided. And even if what you are saying is true, that doesn’t mean that the assertion (which was made by a school board member in Beliavksy’s article) about more admitted kids not being able to do the work is a “misstatement.” Both things can be true at the same time. </p>
<p>I am in favor of affirmative action in schools. But I think that at TJ, and schools like it, administrators ought to figure out a way to achieve diversity while also living up to their stated mission “to provide students a challenging learning environment focused on math, science, and technology …”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said that colleges need to pick from these two schools. I was trying to make an analogy of some of the best public schools and the “best private/pseudo public (because they use government funding)”. I get that different schools/regions need to be represented.</p>
<p>
Yeah, but they won’t share that information. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is there no room for the possibility that an applicant can be hugely disappointed by a rejection and still be happy for their fellow classmates without being a SAT-loving, entitled, FOB who wants things to be like their home country? I agree that a lot of these kids ending up at “lesser” schools will be fine and will succeed in life, but is it wrong to question the current policies where continuing controversy surrounding this issue suggests that something is amiss?</p>
<p>Like I said, as long as they take government money, race should not be a factor in admissions.</p>
<p>^^^So we know how you would rule in the Fisher case if you were a Supreme Court justice, bogibogi. But the jury is still out, as it were, with regard to the applicability to private institutions of the court’s ruling in the Fisher case or any other case involving public schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, it’s not wrong to question anything you feel like questioning. But outside of this website and some other nooks and crannies, there isn’t anything like a “continuing controversy” surrounding holistic admissions practices at elite colleges. 99% of the people couldn’t care less either way, and the vast majority of the people closest to the institutions – their trustees, administrators, faculties, alumni, and students – are strong supporters of the current system (with regular tweaking, of course, to maintain fairness). The “controversy” consists of a handful of people who wish things were different, and who regard Harvard’s admissions department as some sort of community good to be expropriated from private hands, whining incessantly.</p>