<p>^ <a href=“http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/Tje/EspenshadeSSQPtII.pdf[/url]”>http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/Tje/EspenshadeSSQPtII.pdf</a></p>
<p>Sorry to break it to you…</p>
<p>^^ “isnt that why we have all those decisions threads?”</p>
<p>spending time going through the decision threads is not in the interest of those that (for whatever reason) have decided that the “system” is biased against them. It’s much easier to just cling to their (false) beliefs …</p>
<p>yohobroncos.</p>
<p>There is significant evidence that URM applicants are given an advantage in college admissions. This is supported by many admissions officers’ concessions. Please link to a source that contradicts this evidence, and then we’ll have a real debate going. At the moment, you are using weak and isolated anecdotes to contradict the widely agreed-upon and statistically support reality.</p>
<p>OP My son received a call from Harvard yesterday. They asked him if he was a minority and the girl gave him her phone number and email in case he have any question. She also ask him to apply. They probably got his info from PSAT since he is NHRP.</p>
<p>correlation does not imply causation. URMs might have an advantage, but i argue its not because theyre URMs</p>
<p>theres too many minute nuances that factor into college admissions to support that article.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I assume that the Princeton study took into account confounding variables. Moreover, are you really asserting that URM applicants are so much stronger than other applicants that the gap in scores is compensated for? I repeat my request from post #23. Also, what makes you think that admissions officers are lying when they say that URM applicants receive Affirmative Action?</p>
<p>“Sorry to break it to you…”</p>
<p>Is this thread about Harvard TODAY, or is it historical? TODAY $1.25 + being a URM at Harvard will get you a bottle of water …</p>
<p>yes, i am asserting that “URM applicants are so much stronger than other applicants that the gap in scores is compensated for”. i have seen non-URMs be “stronger” in similar ways, thus leading to my own anecdotes.</p>
<p>and nowhere have i seen any admissions officer flat out say that URMs “receive affirmative action”. all ive ever seen come close is that MIT quote (and everything seems to mimic it)</p>
<p>silverturtle,</p>
<p>There is no significant evidence that URM applicants are given an advantage in college admissions. This is supported by many admissions officers’. Several that I have talked to personally. Please link to a source that contradicts this evidence, and then we’ll have a real debate going. At the moment, you are using nothing more than your words and beliefs.</p>
<p>
What are you basing this assertion on?</p>
<p>Look, we have evidence suggesting that URMs are admitted at higher rates than non-URMs with similar test scores. We have a clear statement from an admissions office discussing the importance of enrolling many URMs. Given these facts, I am inclined to conclude that URMs are granted at least some preference in admissions.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean that the preference is massive. That doesn’t mean that the preference is a bad thing. But you are not going to show anything different by offering a few statistically insignificant anecdotes about comparatively low-scoring URMs with amazing qualities other than their race.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have heard dozens of admissions officers say exactly that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please look at the decisions threads all over CC or, if you prefer more scientific sources, please see the link in post #21. Do you have any studies that support your position?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please cite a study that shows that URM applicants are stronger than non-URM applicants if scores are disregarded. I would even appreciate a logical or sociological explanation for this.</p>
<p>silverturtle,</p>
<p>What you are “seeing” in “decisions threads all over CC” is probably the result of some colleges trying to adjust the income bias which is a well documented problem with the SAT. But I suppose to point the finger at URMs is easier for some?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please don’t ask insinuating questions.</p>
<p>Anyhow, income-based Affirmative Action could be a confounding variable. But I ask again: please produce data that show that URM’s do not receive an advantage in college admissions. There is significant data that suggest (and I say “suggest” because of the potential for confounding variables) that your position is wrong, and as-of-yet no data that support your position.</p>
<p>@plumazul/yohobroncos:</p>
<ol>
<li>I am usually the one on this forum who jumps in to complain about hasty conclusions not supported by the data. It is indeed true that correlation does not imply causation, but that catchy phrase uses “imply” in the mathematical sense: ‘suggest as a logically necessary consequence; in logic’. Correlation actually does provide a rather strong sign that causation is present - not enough for rigorous proof, but certainly enough for further investigation. Typically, correlation is present in non-causative relationships when there is a strong lurking variable present. The Espenshade study I provided simulated admissions decisions based on SAT scores both with and without affirmative action and found that the AA version modeled reality far more accurately. I have examined this situation and do not see any compelling lurking variables.</li>
</ol>
<p>So, you tell me. What factors are more likely present in URMs that cause them to be admitted at a disproportionately high rate?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I think you are both very defensive about this topic because of the many CC flamewars on the topic of affirmative action. So, let me be clear: I am not saying that AA is a bad thing. Not at all. All I am saying is that strong evidence exists supporting the hypothesis that elite private colleges practice AA.</p></li>
<li><p>Regarding AA based on wealth, this is possible. However, I would need to see evidence supporting that hypothesis before I reject the conventional wisdom that URMs are advantaged.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the extent of my point as well. In fact, I usually have to debate people to convince them that Affirmative Action is not so significant that unqualified URMs will be accepted, but you two are the first ones that I have ever seen who have claimed that Affirmative Action for URMs does not exist.</p>
<p>“produce data that show that URM’s do not receive an advantage”</p>
<p>I’ll do the same as you and tell you what’s in my gut. What I think is that URMs don’t have to be AS good, they have to be BETTER to receive equal treatment in TODAY’s system. I did not have the REAL advantage of being low income and/or living in a low income zip code. So even though I graduated at the very top of my class (2/650) at a top high school <em>I</em> didn’t get into Harvard … but a non-URM from my school (ranked well below me) DID … WHY didn’t your “affirmative action” save me?</p>
<p>^ I’m not going to respond to that, in the hopes that all other readers of this thread realize the absurdity of those points.</p>
<p><em>sigh</em></p>
<p>While there is significant evidence that URMs are probabilistically advantaged in the admissions process, there are still other factors in play. Most notably, raw chance still has a role. Look, just because something happens more on average does not mean that there will not be some variation on an individual level. This is why anecdotes are unhelpful in this situation.</p>
<p>I will comment on your final question, though, plumazul. Your SAT score is below Harvard’s average, and you are only one-quarter Hispanic. That you didn’t get in is not evidence of the absence of Affirmative Action, nor can one case ever be evidence of that. I await the data.</p>
<p>yeah… i conceded awhile ago. good job people (that still doesnt change my opinion about the phone call being irrelevant though)</p>
<p>final conclusion: being a URM probably helps but in practice there are exceptions to this. good enough?</p>