My Friend got a Phone Call From the Harvard Undergrad Minority Recruitment?

[silverturtle]

<p>

That doesn’t mean that there’s any stats proving that AA solely based on race exists. There are plenty confounding variable which I mentioned above. These can’t be controlled in a real study, because no researcher has the right to tell applicants which school to apply to. Therefore, only simulations can be used. The assumptions these simulations run on may not portray reality.

</p>

<p>Although there are some confounding variables that cannot be controlled for very easily, we should not dismiss the data; we should merely take it with a grain of salt. After all, there is absolutely *no data<a href=“with%20or%20without%20confounding%20variables”>/i</a> that race-based Affirmative Action does not occur.</p>

[justtotalk]

<p>

Actually, the combination lower stats for Hispanic and Africans Americans and their higher acceptance rates does provide compelling evidence for Affirmative Action.

</p>

<p>No there’s not. That only indicates that adcoms prefer the average Hispanic/black profile beyond the quantitative results. Whether (on average) this is because they’re low income, interesting applicants with more life experience, rare and thus favored by adcoms, or are simply black/Hispanic is unclear. You just assume it’s because they’re URM.</p>

<p>^^Yes, okay. I posted after you. </p>

<p>

we should not dismiss the data; we should merely take it with a grain of salt.

</p>

<p>This is my point. We don’t know WHY the data is skewed in favor of URM. We only know it is. Maybe it’s not the race category that affects these decisions in a holistic application review. Keep in mind that there’s FAR less Hispanics/black that are applying. This means there’s a smaller sample size that’s affected by Law of Large Numbers (so the average URM application COULD be more unique than the average white applicant even if minorities aren’t that much more interesting than whites on average). </p>

<p>They could also be self-selecting in their life experiences/extracurriculars because unmotivated URM’s wouldn’t bother applying.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

No there’s not. That only indicates that adcoms prefer the average Hispanic/black profile beyond the quantitative results. Whether (on average) this is because they’re low income, interesting applicants with more life experience, rare and thus favored by adcoms, or are simply black/Hispanic is unclear. You just assume it’s because they’re URM.

</p>

<p>No, I don’t. I have and continue to acknowledge that there are confounding variables in all of these data. Don’t skew my stance.</p>

[xrCalico23]

<p>

“Black” in the race category means nothing when a black student raised by a white family in a rich community.

</p>

<p>I didn’t read the rest of the thread, but I highly doubt favorable economic circumstances nulify the URM advantage. Private colleges everywhere face the political pressure to admit a certain percentage of minority students into the student body—> minority students who have overcome economic hardships are perhaps more readily admitted than those growing up in a wealthy environment but have the same degree of academic and extracurricular achievement, but between, say, a white applicant and an minority applicant of the same background and qualifications, wouldn’t you think that being URM alone would bring somewhat of an advantage?</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

I didn’t read the rest of the thread, but I highly doubt favorable economic circumstances nulify the URM advantage. Private colleges everywhere face the political pressure to admit a certain percentage of minority students into the student body—> minority students who have overcome economic hardships are perhaps more readily admitted than those growing up in a wealthy environment but have the same degree of academic and extracurricular achievement, but between, say, a white applicant and an minority applicant of the same background and qualifications, wouldn’t you think that being URM alone would bring somewhat of an advantage?

</p>

<p>Thank you; I agree fully.</p>

[justtotalk]

<p>

but between, say, a white applicant and an minority applicant of the same background and qualifications, wouldn’t you think that being URM alone would bring somewhat of an advantage?

</p>

<p>Yes, because of adcom bias. They see less minority applicants thus they are more intrigued by them. </p>

<p>Do you think that if the situation reversed–i.e. there were way more black/Hispanic applicants than whites, would we still be favoring blacks/Hispanics? We would favor whites, simply because they are the statistically interesting candidate now. </p>

<p>But if we had a lot of great athletes, we wouldn’t stop recruiting athletes. Each college would still want the best athletes, regardless of relative availability.</p>

<p>I am trying to distinguish athletes/legacies from race. Race does not necessarily put you into a different pile with a different distribution of admits. It simply gives you a leg up because you’re RARE. You are still subject to the fluctuations of the holistic review process, though. You are not a different candidate than the interesting guy who speaks 10 languages. You’re just that–interesting. </p>

<p>I am also trying to point out that there’s no good stats to support ANY of us. I think we’re agreeing on this by now, though.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

Yes, because of adcom bias. They see less minority applicants thus they are more intrigued by them. </p>

<p>Do you think that if the situation reversed–i.e. there were way more black/Hispanic applicants than whites, would we still be favoring blacks/Hispanics? We would favor whites, simply because they are the statistically interesting candidate now.

</p>

<p>I don’t understand your point.</p>

[xrCalico23]

<p>They are… intrigued by them?</p>

<p>

Do you think that if the situation reversed–i.e. there were way more black/Hispanic applicants than whites, would we still be favoring blacks/Hispanics? We would favor whites, simply because they are the statistically interesting candidate now.

</p>

<p>I do agree with you there. In that case, there would be affirmative action for whites just as there are now affirmative action for African Americans, Native Americans, etc.</p>

[dylandlima]

<p>^That’s because he has no point.</p>

[justtotalk]

<p>I’m saying there is nothing INHERENTLY SPECIAL about an URM. If they are not low-income, if they have not faced unique obstacles, if they live in a wealth community, then they are no different than a white applicant. There is no reason that an adcom should prefer them because they add nothing to the school–they are pseudo-diversity.</p>

<p>And yet they ARE favored. Because they are statistically rare and an adcom sits up in their seat when they find an applicant that is black. It wouldn’t make sense to think this is due to AA–affirmative action shouldn’t favor students that don’t add diversity to the school.</p>

<p>This is an adcom’s bias because it’s statistically likely that he/she SAW more white students’ applications. </p>

<p>This is my opinion–and it is intended as an alternative interpretation to the stats showing more blacks get admitted. If I’m understanding your opinion, then you’re saying adcoms see a black applicant and think to themselves: “Man, I can increase Harvard’s stats from 9% black to 10%. And meet my daily quota for black admits. This is great. Finally the political pressure is off.”</p>

<p>That’s fine. We have differing opinions. Don’t pretend like all of you have stats supporting yours to a greater extent.</p>

[xrCalico23]

<p>

I am trying to distinguish athletes/legacies from race. Race does not necessarily put you into a different pile with a different distribution of admits.

</p>

<p>I do think that race, in addition to many other factors, puts you in direct competition with people of specific categories.</p>

<p>An interesting article written by the former dean of admissions at Reed, which was cited elsewhere on ColegeConfidential this afternoon:</p>

<p>

Perhaps the most controversial and high-profile aspect of institutional self-interest concerns the students we admit. Who gets admitted and why? The simple answer to that question is the applicants we want the most. But colleges and universities seem to say, or imply, that only “the best” or “the most qualified” get chosen. Does every (or any) college simply admit the most qualified applicants? Who defines most qualified? During my stints as an administrator at Bennington, Vassar, Duke, Boston College, Oberlin, and Reed, I have seen, in nearly every case, a version of admission by category, with the categories determined by institutional needs and priorities.</p>

<p>Most applicants compete not with the whole applicant pool but within specific categories, where the applicant-to-available-space ratio may be more, or less, favorable than in the pool at large. Categories can exist for athletics, ethnic diversity, international citizenship, institutional legacy and loyalty, musical and artistic needs, component schools or special academic programs, and in some cases, even gender. Students in the selected categories, which vary from institution to institution, have a “hook” because they help meet institutional needs.

[Reed</a> College | Admission | Reed College Admission Office](<a href=“http://www.reed.edu/apply/news_and_articles/admission_messages.html]Reed”>http://www.reed.edu/apply/news_and_articles/admission_messages.html)</p>

<p>I find it interesting and relevant to this current debate; perhaps you would like to check out the issue in greater detail.</p>

[Jersey13]

<p>

I’m saying there is nothing INHERENTLY SPECIAL about an URM. If they are not low-income, if they have not faced unique obstacles, if they live in a wealth community, then they are no different than a white applicant. There is no reason that an adcom should prefer them because they add nothing to the school–they are pseudo-diversity.</p>

<p>And yet they ARE favored. Because they are statistically rare and an adcom sits up in their seat when they find an applicant that is black. It wouldn’t make sense to think this is due to AA–affirmative action shouldn’t favor students that don’t add diversity to the school.

See Gratz v. Bollinger. Although UMich’s previous system was deemed unconstitutional as of 2003, there is no denying the fact that up until 2003, UMich gave all URM applicants a boost simply because of their race/ethnicity. In fact, the ruling even allowed this “affirmative action” to continue as long as UMich discontinued it’s point system.</p>

[xrCalico23]

<p>

This is my opinion–and it is intended as an alternative interpretation to the stats showing more blacks get admitted. If I’m understanding your opinion, then you’re saying adcoms see a black applicant and think to themselves: “Man, I can increase Harvard’s stats from 9% black to 10%. And meet my daily quota for black admits. This is great. Finally the political pressure is off.”

</p>

<p>I do believe that some of that exists. There is no quota for any racial group, but having a reasonably large percentage of minority students is very preferable to the school (especially for schools where URMs are indeed underrepresented). According to many, including MITChris from the MIT forum on CC, racial diversity adds different perspectives to the student population that is especially valuable. (Again, like what you said, are people capable of offering different perspectives merely because of the color of their skin, or does there have to be difference in economic background, cultural background, etc? Where do you draw the line?)</p>

<p>Also, we as the public and as students are inherently hypocritical: how many times have we frowned upon a school because we perceived it to be too much dominated by one race (urgh, so many Asian?? All white upperclass??), but then criticized affirmative action?</p>

[justtotalk]

<p>

See Gratz v. Bollinger. Although UMich’s previous system was deemed unconstitutional as of 2003, there is no denying the fact that up until 2003, UMich gave all URM applicants a boost simply because of their race/ethnicity.

</p>

<p>A lot of large state schools also have GPA/ACT/SAT thresholds above which applicants are auto-admits. This is simply to save time/money in application decisions–it is not the ideal or intended route of the college. It is also not a holistic approach to admissions. Michigan let anyone over 100 points in automatically. </p>

<p>The question (at least that I’m posing) is whether colleges that take a holistic approach to admissions in general intentionally favor URMs simply because they listed “black” or “Hispanic” in the application (i.e. they abandon their holistic practices in favor of Affirmative Action). This is the only way that race alone–without context–could have a factor in admissions. </p>

<p>Schools that don’t practice true holistic admissions (most state schools don’t) are not really good examples of AA. They might be trying to gather low income students with life experiences in a quick way by targeting groups that typically have lower income.</p>

[justtotalk]

<p>

Reed College | Admission | Reed College Admission Office</p>

<p>I find it interesting and relevant to this current debate; perhaps you would like to check out the issue in greater detail.

</p>

<p>This is interesting and it is relevant–it shows that one Dean believes many colleges categorize their applicants before review based on race (among other factors). This doesn’t necessarily prove AA because, again, we don’t know why they’re categorizing based on ethnicity. Whether it’s because these applicants are black or whether it’s because these applicants are dealt with by a certain adcom is unclear. Notice that it could simply be that they realize that black/Hispanic applicants typically have more interesting essays/life experiences and thus they want experienced adcoms taking these applications, etc.,</p>

<p>It certainly is an interesting read, though. I was really into these kind of stats/articles when I was applied to college 3 years ago. I remember The Gatekeepers was an interesting read if you’re going through that process now.</p>

[xrCalico23]

<p>^The Gatekeepers was indeed an interesting read, but I’m also already in college.</p>

<p>

They might be trying to gather low income students with life experiences in a quick way by targeting groups that typically have lower income.

</p>

<p>Can someone provide evidence (or counter-evidence, for that matter) that shows that the minority students admitted pool in general have lower income than the white/Asian pool at colleges that practice holistic admissions? I’m curious.</p>

[noimagination]

<p>@justtotalk: If you are looking for undeniable evidence that purely race-based AA occurs, I agree that there is none to be found. However, most people are looking for some sort of model to bring reason to the process. A race-based AA model fits the available data extremely well. Perhaps a better model will be developed, and five years down the road we will all reconvene and laugh about how silly it was to believe that race-based AA existed. But until a better alternative is presented, I think most people here will choose this theory because quite frankly it describes reality pretty well.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>^ Yes, I agree.</p>

[justtotalk]

<p>Notice that one of these categories was loyalty and musical talent. I don’t think that loyal students or musically talented students are discriminated and thus subject to AA. So there are plenty of categorized students that are not given preference due to preconceived discrimination against them. </p>

<p>We can’t assume URM are categorized due to AA if other students are categorized for other reasons. IMO, both URM and loyal students are examples of unique/uncommon applicants</p>

[justtotalk]

<p>

If you are looking for undeniable evidence that purely race-based AA occurs, I agree that there is none to be found. However, most people are looking for some sort of model to bring reason to the process. A race-based AA model fits the available data extremely well. Perhaps a better model will be developed, and five years down the road we will all reconvene and laugh about how silly it was to believe that race-based AA existed. But until a better alternative is presented, I think most people here will choose this theory because quite frankly it describes reality pretty well.

</p>

<p>Agreed. Although I think that an adcom bias favoring uncommon applicants (such as URM who are not disadvantaged due to other factors) is not a terrible theory.</p>