<p>Jeez Fabio,</p>
<p>I agree with venkater - you've really sucked this subject dry! And I agree that you seem to be a "lost cause." I hope you are going to use this incredible amount of undue attention and information for your senior thesis or something productive. </p>
<p>AdOfficer - you are a saint!</p>
<p>P.S. This is a public forum, so it is all of our "business!"</p>
<p>No, my mom said that the government needs to lower standards to hire Hispanics. I just looked at the application and wondered why they get their own quesiton.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I remember Drosselmeier saying that colleges have to realize that "the black person had to slog through" so many challenges, etc. Wanna bet? I, as an Asian, have certainly experienced discrimination. Maybe not as much, but how much is a racial slur going to lower your SAT scores?
[/quote]
The issue I have mentioned here is much larger than mere racial slurs. Were blacks largely to have come here as professionals to flood Americaâs elite schools with their children, a few slurs would be insignificant. But of course that was not the case with blacks, and never has been. There was a time, not too long ago where it was illegal for most blacks in America to be free, and when freedom came it was laced with all sorts of social poisons so that many blacks thought it was worse than slavery. It built up a great deal of skepticism and anger in many blacks that I think came to a head in the fifties and sixties. The fallout from this has been, in part, the destruction of the black family. THAT is what lowers SAT scores.</p>
<p>Today, the evidence is overwhelming that the quantity and quality of learning experiences your baby has -- even before he is out of diapers -- can greatly influence how well his brain works all the rest of his life. Scientists have made astounding discoveries about how rapidly a baby's brain grows in the first few years of life -- forming trillions of connections every second that will later serve as the pathways of thought. Learning experiences and loving, one-on-one attention strengthen those connections, actually shaping the neurological structure of the brain. But scientists also know conclusively that without ample, appropriate stimulation, those neural connections will wither and die. In fact, the optimum time for many kinds of learning may already be past by the time a child reaches age six and enters first grade.
<a href="http://www.loc.gov/catdir/samples/simon031/99026646.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.loc.gov/catdir/samples/simon031/99026646.html</a></p>
<p>This is what is killing black children. I know without any doubt at all that the homes that too many blacks are being raised inâfatherless homes full of fear, doubt and stress -- are actually killing our childrenâs minds. And these homes are as they are because of the effects of American history. Asians donât have to slog through this. Blacks do.</p>
<p>And it is even bigger than just home-life. Heritage is a vital part of it. Give me a people with a strong sense of family AND a strong sense of heritage/legacy, and you could literally try to exterminate them by the millions and they would still be standing strong and even thriving long after you are dead. This is intensely important, and yet it is what blacks have been denied, even by law, for as long as they have existed here.</p>
<p>It is much bigger and more complex even than this. Everywhere we turn, we must deal with vulnerabilities that are caused by the apparent and horrific truths caused by our history here. This is why the âN-wordâ has so much power over us when spoken by whites. We are unintelligent, incompetent, and America has tests and statistics to prove it. These âtruthsâ just sit out there like festering sores, influencing opinion against us, influencing the way we are treated, and in many cases even influencing our own opinion of ourselves. Few people make the connection between our problems and our history. They only think we are inferior, and, I do believe many of us fear this ourselves. It all forms a vast and complex system of downward pressure on blacks that kills us everywhere we are. It is directly rooted in our history here. Blacks are slogging through this.</p>
<p>We blacks can protect our children from this mess. But we need to know how this thing looks and why it keeps coming after us. It is after us in a variety of ways. It is relentless and it is shrewed. We see it here, deceptively elevating whites, and trashing blacks:</p>
<p>âI want to roll with,
the gangsters,
but so far they all think Iâm too white and nerdyâ
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJehVbe7Cxs%5B/url%5D">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJehVbe7Cxs</a></p>
<p>Now I've laughed at this just like everybody else. It is funny, and "Weird Al" means no harm by it. He is as much a creature of our society's built-in racism as the black thugs in his video. But I still think we need to see the truth in these things. In this case, nerdiness (smartness, academic brilliance, uncoolness) = whiteness. Gangsterism (thuggishness, academic detachment and disinterest, and all that it means) = blackness.</p>
<p>It is just a gigantic mess that black children have to slog through.</p>
<p>Bay,</p>
<p>Dry as in stripping of political correctness to ensure a straightforward discussion?</p>
<p>If by "lost cause" you mean I'll never support the idea that racial preferences benefit society, oh, you bet! I warmly embrace this comment because I was raised to believe that treating people differently because they look different is wrong.</p>
<p>And, yes, to repeat, I have learned many things here.</p>
<p>For example, you've taught me that supporters of affirmative action make no distinction between diversity and racial preferences.</p>
<p>I can easily reject racial preferences while supporting diversity. Can you?</p>
<p>I don't think you can, especially since you are one of several people who fear an all-Asian UCLA, as if that would ever happen and as if there would be something wrong if that did happen.</p>
<p>epiphany - I don't think you were arguing with me :) I know we're in agreement. I just thought it would be helpful to provide everyone with some research that has been done about "class-based affirmative action". I think you're contributions on here are on-point and well-thought. </p>
<p>fabrizio - glad I could clarify. There are just too many people on here that seem to be freaking out about the Ivies and Stanford when there are so many other good schools out there - like the LACs and flagships - that can offer them amazing educations or, dare I say, perhaps even better educations (although I don't agree with merit-based aid, which you mention...A LOT of schools use merit aid instead of putting the money into need-based aid and going need-blind). It all depends on what they want out of their college/academic experience...if prestige is the most important thing to a student, well, I guess pursuing an Ivy is what they need to do...but I think most of us know what happens to about 85% of the kids who apply to these schools :( </p>
<p>I take well your point about the whole "ideological disposition" thing, and I can certainly see how one could argue that Bowen and Bok are guilty of the same. However, they aren't. Or at least they weren't when they did their research for TSOR. Today I think they are certainly proponents of affirmative action and their current or future research should be looked at quite carefully before jumping to accept their conclusions. Nevertheless, their work in TSOR was groudbreaking and still stands up to most arguments. I still vehemently disagree with the assertion that the work is not academic. But back to Cole and Barber...their bias was actually "checked" when they were funded by Mellon - it was only after they published their work and had strayed so far from their original intent/what the funding was supposed to be for that they were criticized by Mellon. If their work actually did combine both studies (the one they initially proposed to do and the one they actually did), I think Mellon wouldn't have complained. But that's sometimes the problem with grants and research - sometimes you set out to study one thing and find something else more interesting to you and want to do that instead; however, because the money is earmarked for a specific project, ethically you can't do that without reapplying. Also, you mention Dr. Russell Nieli...again, look at his agenda and who is sponsoring his work. The National Association of Scholars funded his work which critiqued TSOR - an organization with truly outspoken political agendas - and also the Declaration Foundation - a neo-conservative group founded by Alan Keyes - he's not an educator, but a politician. That's not to say that Nieli's work is bunk just because the folks who funded him have an agenda...but the extreme nature of the organizations is cause for a large grain of salt. </p>
<p>However, the problem many have with Nieli's work is that his main critique is that there seems to be no causation of making more later in life from attending a more-competitive college; he argues that only those that enter these colleges who are "of a superior caliber" make much more. This argument has also been made by Alan Kreuger (Princeton faculty) and Stacy Dale (of...the Mellon Foundation!) in research sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research...they used the College and Beyond Database, just like Bown and Bok. However, in both studies, methodologies were flawed, namely in that they only used one cohort of students (one entering class). This is why I mentioned Caroline Hoxby's (Harvard econ department) work - she looked at 3 cohorts from 3 different decades (thus controlling for inflation) and controlled for gender (since there is such an earnings differential still between men and women) and found that attending a more-selective/competitive school does actually lead to higher personal economic gains later in life. Hoxby also used the College and Beyond Database and included all students from each cohort; Kreuger and Dale's work and Nieli's work actually did not use the data on students of color (hello! isn't this what he's supposed to be arguing about???) or varsity athletes at these schools, nor did they use the data on students attending these schools who scored below 1350 (two-part test) on the SAT...</p>
<p>I'm not saying Mellon is perfect, but they do have a track-record of supporting educational research and have supported many, many folks who have done groundbreaking work in higher education research - not all of which has been so positive (The Game of Life, for example); they also sponsored Nieli's work. Its philanthropy has funded important research that the federal government has ignored (largely because most higher education research continues to suggest that federal funding of education is abysmal, but I think we all know this already, right?). It is great to see that you have done some readings on this topic fabrizio...I encourage you to continue to do so. But also research who is funding the research you support and really study the methodology...be critical of work with conclusions you do not agree with, but really, really try and understand how they got to their conclusions. Same with research with conclusions you do agree with...</p>
<p>venkater - I am actually enjoying posting on here, learning about different perspectives, "arguing" with fabrizio (just teasing you, fabrizio ;)), and debunking a lot of myths and misinformation a lot of you have. I see part of my work as educating folks on higher education, talking to them about important research on higher education, and helping people understand why we do things the way we do...this is why CC invited me to continue posting as I am rather than simply answer questions in the college I work at's threads...I think fabrizio actually does want to learn and I think he is. This is also precisely why schools should not leave students behind - different perspectives and values are important. And please don't insult me, or anyone, with questions like "Don't you have more productive things to do...?" or question what I, or anyone, does with their time. This conversation is important to me and others; if it isn't to you, that's fine, but don't question its value to others.</p>
<p>Just wanted to mention that I am one of those who are silently reading this thread and enjoying the discussion. Thank you - AdOfficer, fabrizio, epiphany, etc.
I thought venkater's post #399 was rather unnecessary...</p>
<p>AdOfficer,</p>
<p>I support merit based aid on the grounds that some families are in a "buffer" zone with respect to financial aid. Their financial aid package wouldn't be enough to cover all the costs, meaning that their incomes are comfortable. But, their incomes aren't so high that they could afford to pay without any problems.</p>
<p>I contest the belief that merit based aid goes to wealthy students. I believe, but have no data, that most of it goes to middle-class students from "buffer" families. I have no source, but I remember reading that most legacy students at Harvard do not graduate with honors. If they were to attend another institution, would they really have been competitive enough to earn merit aid? I doubt it.</p>
<p>Need based aid is important though because it helps the motivated, high-achieving student who comes from a poor background.</p>
<p>Thanks for the support, and I thank you for taking the time to write with us.</p>
<p>Fabrizio -
Believe me, I totally see where you are coming from! What the US Department of Education and the federal government label "middle-income" and what it actually costs to live in this country and be what most people would consider "middle-income" are very different. My personal situation was such and I sought out a lot of merit aid, though I wound up attending a school that was only need-based (and didn't get a lot...but this was back when you guys were probably in third grade - there's a lot more need-based aid out there now). </p>
<p>There is a lot of research available that talks about who is getting merit aid. Most of the research has indicated that higher-income students do, in fact, benefit most from merit-based aid. Many reasons exist, but because wealthier students have access to better primary and secondary educations (in general) and to things like test prep, etc..., they are at an advantage in the merit aid game, especially when one considers that at many places, merit packages are often times based on having a certain SAT/ACT score. Tuition Rising by Ronald Ehrenberg details this well with great research, as does The Student Aid Game by Mort Schapiro, Donald Heller's work, and Sue Dynarski's work (her work might be of interest to you because she does a lot of research on the effects of merit aid on college access for low income students in Georgia since the Georgia Hope scholarship program started - her work was instrumental in the state adding a need component to the program). Regardless, it is great to graduate college debt-free (can't argue that!) but again, I'm looking at this from a macro perspective. About 25% of all institutional aid awarded nowadays is merit-based (see Dynarski, Schapiro, Heller and friends); there are actually some schools where over 60% of their financial aid budgets are designated for merit-aid while only 20% of need-based recipients have their need met fully. Problem is that federal financial aid programs have failed to keep up with rising tuitions and even inflation!!! Even at privates that cost over $45k, those not receiving need-based aid are still getting their educations subsidized - at my school, for example, the total price (tuition, room, board, fees, etc) is around $43k, yet we spend over $74k per student each year on their educations...</p>
<p>I won't argue about legacies, although I have a very good friend who was a legacy at Harvard and she's brilliant (and now an admissions officer) and know others who are just as interesting and smart as non-legacies at their schools. But some places do bend over backwards for them (not mine :)). Need-based aid is important because it does help a lot of folks - it's just scary how many kids and parents out there don't know about financial aid and how generous schools can be...the information gap is huge (again, see Dynarski's work - she's amazing!).</p>
<p>Fabio, </p>
<p>Please do not slander me on this board by misstating my positions for your own benefit.</p>
<p>Bay,</p>
<p>And, how have I misstated your positions?</p>
<p>You've previously vented about how I am incapable of appreciating the value of diversity, even though I have repeatedly emphasized it is racial preferences that I am against, not diversity.</p>
<p>Hence, I concluded that to you, diversity and racial preferences are synonymous.</p>
<p>It's a simple question, really. Do you support racial preferences? There's no mention about diversity in that question, so it's yes or no.</p>
<p>Fabio,</p>
<p>Since you have chosen to "fab"ricate my position to your liking, here it is in simple terms, from the source:</p>
<p>Racially diverse college campus = good;</p>
<p>100% single-race college campus = not good.</p>
<p>I'm not gonna read all the posts on here, but I think demographics are very important when admitting a class. If it's all one race, it will be too bland. I am Asian and proud of it, however, I have noticed in my AP classes/school that most Asians tend to exclude themselves from exposure to racially mixed groups, and hang only with other Asians.</p>
<p>Bay,</p>
<p>And you have evidence that 100% single-race campuses would occur if racial preferences were abolished?</p>
<p>No UC has such numbers.</p>
<p>Fabio,</p>
<p>No, and I never said it would, but it is entirely possible that it could occur. An LA Times article described the "tipping point" phenomenon in colleges. I.e., once a school reaches a certain percentage of any one profile (race or gender), other students will no longer apply. I don't think this has been proven with any empirical studies, but it makes sense.</p>
<p>fab,</p>
<p>I think in general that the problem with your statements & positions --and why they come into conflict with those of AdOfficer & others-- is that you are arguing from an ideal model that doesn't exist. The "diversity" you claim you support will not just "happen" in a race-blind, economics-blind, geographically-blind admission policy. I actually can't think, offhand, of any other country where diversity would just "happen" without some form of aggressive outreach. Other countries are either heavily homogeneous, or, if there's heterogeneity, there are ethnic & economic pockets on the margins there as well. This is what IsleBoy was alluding to earlier with the majority/minority dynamic. Any other country which seeks to be inclusive in its college admissions similarly has to be work at it & look for it. (For example, the U.K.)</p>
<p>In the U.S. among groups not in the majority,there is generally much more opportunity to qualilfy than in many other countries -- prior to college. (Even though those opportunities clearly are not equalized or uniform.) If there were not a highly hetreogeneous pool (nationally) of qualified applicants, I would agree that admissions efforts to reflect that hetereogeneity would be contortions. But that is not the case. </p>
<p>There is no blanket "racial preference" operative, in the 21st century in the US. This is why it is "easier" for an East Asian from the NE to gain admission to an LAC on the West Coast, than on the East Coast. In this case, the "preference" is geographical. But Momwaitingfornew is correct: in any college in which the number of qualified applicants were overwhelmingly of one or two races, that college would welcome & even "prefer" the exceptional race, including where that exception is Asian. There is no formula, no "standard." It is all relative, within the universe of qualified applicants.</p>
<p>I had been saying for a long time that highly ranked colleges (not just limited to top 20, btw) are hardly reaching & contorting for qualified applicants. They are flooded with them. Then AdOfficer came on & confirmed that fact: the important & governing standard is not diversity; the important & governing standard is excellence. Some colleges are flooded much more with excellence from certain sections of the country, certain racial/ethnic groups, than others. In those colleges one sees less national/international diversity. Other U's, like HYPS, also Georgetown, Rice, and even the U.C.'s -- have a glut of qualified applicants from the 4 corners of the globe and our nation. The more balanced the <em>qualified</em> applicant pool, the less likely there will be a "preference" for one group/segment/category over another, & that "preference" never kicks in until & unless an imbalance presents itself to the committee. It is all real-time and relative, not something abstract. If the primary goal of colleges were diversity, and a reflection of the nation's proportions, the Asian student population at HYP would be about 4%.</p>
<p>American Universities are think-tanks in the broadest sense, & thus breadth within the student body advances the intellectual mission as well.</p>
<p>Fab, do you think that Asian excellence from the Northeast U.S. is more valuable than excellence in students from other groups? Do you assume that a "perfect score" = greater excellence? Because that is not at all what the Universities have <em>seen</em> -- never mind what they do or do not assume.</p>
<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>I?ve frequently expressed support for geographic location as a means to create diversity without looking at race. If the student from Idaho happens to be Black, Asian, Hispanic, White, Native American, so be it.</p>
<p>Aggressive outreach is also fine with me. That?s why I support programs like AVID.</p>
<p>You stated that ?The more balanced the <em>qualified</em> applicant pool, the less likely there will be a ?preference???</p>
<p>I agree. Hence, I support programs and policies that seek to create more competitive candidates.</p>
<p>Answers to your questions as follows:</p>
<p>I do not think that Asian excellence from a certain region in our nation is more valuable than equal excellence in students from other regions and other races. To make sure that there is no misunderstanding, I absolutely do not support racial preferences for Asians. I don?t want my race to count for me or against me.</p>
<p>I do not think that a perfect score (2400, 800, 5, 7, etc.) automatically means greater excellence. While I believe that they are good indicators of performance and should be heavily weighed, I do not believe that they should be the ONLY factors. Essays, achievements in extracurriculars, and demonstrated leadership (e.g. organized a public demonstration) should be considered.</p>
<p>I donât see why gender and geographic location are so much more significant than race, as considered in America, that they should be selected for. If we want to eliminate race, then we should eliminate all non-academic factors. What would happen to our schools and to our nation if we went with something like Chinaâs system? We could simply identify students by social security number. Each hopeful would take the SAT once, submitting that score and their GPA. That would be as robotically âfairâ as it can get. I see no real justification for anything else if robotic "fairness" is what we are after.</p>
<p>A couple of more articles. (And I'm sorry if these have been referenced before in this thread):</p>
<p>LOL, "create more competitive candidates"? They're not competitive enough for you? Well, they ARE competitive enough for the Elites -- in fact, too competitive, we're told. Already, only 10% of the (total) White, Asian, Hispanic, African-American, & "other" applicants to Ivies are not competitive -- according not just to AdOfficer, but to all the traveling reps from Y, P, etc. that we've personally heard. There are just not enough freshman seats for that 90% qualified group: there are 2-3 times as many among that group (of all races) than there are freshman slots. Do you imagine that just the qualified Asians were waitlisted and rejected at Princeton last year? If so, I think you need to examine whether you have some subconsciously racist assumptions there. </p>
<p>If, in a more ideal society, all the minoriites applying to the Elites were all optimally qualified -- as qualified as the majority, do you think all of those qualified minorities would get in? Maybe the very least represented groups would -- say Native Americans, etc. But, given the African American population in the U.S., it would mean that plenty of African Americans would also be either waitlisted or rejected.</p>
<p>...So, my last post was just another way of saying that the Asian acceptance level would more likely <em>decrease</em>, not increase, if non-Asian minorities became "more competitive for college" (among the Privates) than they are now.</p>
<p>Also, regarding "heavily weighing" the scores -- versus "consideration" of "other factors." (Your post 416) The Privates in general, esp. the Elites, have been shown in recent years to reverse that favoritism: scores are considered, e.c.'s/essays/awards/recs are "heavily weighted." Definitely not a "scientific" conclusion on my part, merely an anecdotal observation based on cc results threads as well as comparative conversations about results of friends & acquaintances. Students from a variety of ethnicities, with "perfect" numbers but who didn't have something unusual going for them in the non-quantifiable round, have tended to be rejected or waitlisted much more commonly than those with exceptional achievement in the non-quantitative area + high but imperfect scores.</p>
<p>You will find absolutely nothing in the U.S constitution or the Civil Rights laws providing the foundation for a lawsuit or complaint regarding being waitlisted due to the above paragraph.</p>