Princeton answers to Jian Li claims

Parents Forum
321

<p>Fabrizio, Berkeley is a public school; Harvard is an elite private. My guess is that almost all of the hispanic students at Berkeley are in-staters, paying no more than in-state tuition. Harvard and other Ivies give no merit aid, so there is a $25K differential in annual cost of attendance. Hispanics as a group tend to be less affluent than whites & Asians, but better off than African-Americans-- so my guess would be that there is a fairly large segment of middle-class hispanic students at Berkeley who would not qualify for enough need-based aid to eliminate the cost-differential between the schools. </p>

<p>Also, it is easier to get into Berkeley than Harvard, especially when you factor in SAT scores -- that is, a hispanic student with a 1350 SAT has a much better chance of admission at Berkeley than at Harvard. Since hispanics as a group tend to score less well on SATs than whites & Asians (but again, better than African-Americans) -- the admission standards at Berkeley are less discriminatory than at Harvard, not because of non-consideration of race, but because of the lower bar in terms of required SAT scores. </p>

<p>In other words, the SAT is in itself the most racially discriminatory factor in college admissions. If you want to eliminate race awareness from admissions, then I think you would also have to eliminate use of the SAT or other standardized tests. The standardized tests are not administered on a level playing field; therefore, the tests themselves are a major instrument of discrimination. </p>

<p>An analogy: one of the barriers that women have had to overcome in obtaining equal opportunities in employment was to overcome arbitrary height restrictions in many male-dominated careers, such as law enforcement. I can think of many good reasons why you would rather have a 6 foot tall police officer respond to the scene when you are being mugged than to see a 5'4" officer -- but the fact is that if you require that all applicants to the police academy be at least 5'6", then a lot more men than women will qualify. So when police departments want to recruit more women, they have to think about the importance of the physical size and strength of their officers as weighed against the importance of factors like intelligence and communication skills... and they will tend to revise their requirements. </p>

<p>Colleges that want diversity need to think about the value of the test vs. other measures of the merit of the student. Consideration of other factors does not make the system any less meritocratic, it just redefines the elements which constitute merit.</p>

322

<p>Off subject but have to comment.</p>

<p>Quote "try not to forget that Native Americans are the only real "under-represented" minority".</p>

<p>Depends where you live.</p>

323

<p>simba, you assume SAT scores are the sole determination of worthiness. I do not. We agree to differ.</p>

<p>The adcom at these elite schools are thoughtful folks with a mission to meet. If they say that the AFrican American applicant with a score of 1300 EQUALS the Asian applicant with a score of 1500--I am going to go with their judgement. They know how to educate students, I know how to design and construct buildings. They know which applicants will be successful at their universities and as their alumni. You and I don't know that.</p>

<p>I tell you what. The 50 something Ivy-educated African Americans that I know have made enormous successes of their lives. Heck, most of the college-educated 50-something African Americans that I know have made huge successes of their lives. You can shoot me for the anecdotes but that's my opinion and that pl;us my education is my basis for voting and spending and giving.</p>

<p>Fab and simba are against affirmative action and I am completely and utterly supportive of affirmative action for black Americans. </p>

<p>My family arrived in the US in 1642 so I have a long personal American history which includes relatives who fought to liberate the country and relatives who fought on both sides of the Civil War. In my educated and world travelled opinion, contemporary Americans should give the descendants of American slaves an advantage wherever possible--be it a 220 point advantage at an Ivy school or a seat on the Supreme Court or the provost position at Stanford--in order to ATTEMPT to rectify the disadvantages black Americans STILL suffer due to centuries of personal and institutionalized oppression. If a few decades of wobbly affirmative action can make ANY positive impact in raising black Americans to an equal status then halleluia! Give me more!</p>

<p>Why is my opinion so hard to live with? I accept your differing opinon. Fair enough. However, many Americans agree with me, including those who run higher institutions. Hopefully we will continue to outvote and outspend your opposition. That's my hope and I am entitled to it, thanks.</p>

<p>As for discrimination toward Asians, I'm with Alum. It's there and it too needs a solution. I'm curious, Californians. Asian Americans have extraordinary access to elite education in California. Do you find that California is less discrimanatory toward Asians as a result?</p>

324

<p>calmom- Your claim that the SAT is in itself the most racially discriminatory factor in college admissions simply because racial groups have different test averages is bogus. Blacks and Hispanics aren't born with automatically-lowered SAT scores, and Asians and whites don't score higher without working for it.</p>

<p>unregistered- "But until we live in a race-blind society, race-blind admissions seems ludicrous." Answer me this. How can we live in a race-blind society when racism is being held up on a pedestal by our nation's elite universities?</p>

<p>cheers- Ah, good old affirmative action. A nice, easy way to say "sorry" for centuries of oppression. What a revoltingly backwards idea. We can apologize, but we can't make things right by blatantly lowering bars and giving blacks unfair advantages. This is not the solution. Blacks and Hispanics were by no means the only victims of racism and malicious discrimination in U.S. history. The only reason why they are gaining special attention is because they have, on average (and only on average) failed to rise up to the "equal status" you are waiting around for.</p>

325

<p>wupattr -- actually I think that your claim that SAT tests have objective validity is bogus. They have been demonstrated to have minimal statistical correlation with first year college grades -- which is the ONLY thing the College Board claims as justification for the tests; and to have NO siginificant statistical correlation with anything beyond first year college performance.</p>

<p>SATs are not claimed to be an IQ test, but to the extent that claim may be made, the notion of "IQ" or g is in itself an invention of racist individuals in the early 20th century who used testing to further race-discriminatory policies, including the eugenics movement which was ultimately expressed in Hitler's campaign to eradicate those who came from races deemed inferior. So to me, the whole idea of relying on such tests is repugnant, simply because it is rather easy for the dominant group in any culture to create a test which those who are most like them will do better at, and those who are least like them will do worse with.</p>

<p>For that matter, why allow an organization that stands to profit from the test also be the wone who designs and evaluates the test? I don't care if the organization calls itself "not for profit" -- there still is a lot of money flowing around and the top execs are earning huge salaries. College Board makes a lot of money off of the backs of families with moderate incomes in what they charge for testing, test-reporting, and reporting of financial aid data. The more competitive the admissions process becomes, the more they stand to make. So it makes a lot of sense for them to keep the tests difficult enough to be hard to beat with the first testing, but coachable enough so that scores are likely to go up with repeat administrations. Lots and lots of $$ to be made with the testing and test-prep industry. </p>

<p>They could design a test that would eliminate income-based discrepencies, by focusing more on testing aptitudes and areas of knowledge that are less likely to be influenced by income and educational environment -- but I don't think they really want to do that, any more than US News would want to start evaluating colleges by factors such as the level of engagement of their students, the degree of faculty/student interaction, or the value obtained in relation to tuition dollars spent .. which of course might change the lineup of the top 10 somewhat.</p>

326

<p>"A school like Harvard is much more representative of the US population at large."</p>

<p>Bingo. And so is Princeton. The Ivies accept & even to some degree recruit from the 50 states. They want a 50-state representation, + internationals. And they seek to disperse such diversity within the residential colleges, for maximum exposure & mix. As much as I love Berkeley, and I do, it tends to admit a far narrower range of viewpoints & economic class -- being as it is so overwhelmingly Californian. Wider range of economic classes at the Ivies, naturally wider range of regional representation. Those who chose an Ivy over Berkeley report that they are getting much more exposure to a variety of world views, cultures, etc. than they would have received at Berkeley.</p>

327

<p>
[quote]
Those who chose an Ivy over Berkeley report that they are getting much more exposure to a variety of world views, cultures, etc. than they would have received at Berkeley.

[/quote]
How could they possibly know that if they hadn't attended both? Sounds like rationalation to me.</p>

<p>It all comes down to how you define "diversity", but I certainly find Berkeley to be a far more diverse environment. As a transplanted Californian I really have to laugh at those who see an environment conisting mostly of "Californians" as lacking diversity... because Californians come from all over. There are so many families here who are first generation immigrants that is isn't even worth remarking on -- I hear all different languages being spoken every time I go to the grocery store. Definitely, "where are you from?" is a great conversation starter at any sort of social gathering, as there are all sorts of answers to that question.</p>

<p>I am sure that Harvard is diverse, too... but in a very different way.</p>

328

<p>Aaargh. I meant "rationalization" in the above post.</p>

329

<p>"How could they possibly know that if they hadn't attended both?"</p>

<p>Possibly because they have brains & can figure out that the lack of national representation has consequences when it comes to a wide exposure? Possibly because they visited both campuses more than once & figured that out? Possibly because older acquaintances who attended one school as undergrad but the other as a grad, also reported such differences in variety? Possibly because the students who in fact live in CA see how living in CA all one's life does not give one a full range of views -- as much as going somewhere else to colleges which include people from many regions? </p>

<p>My D and all her friends who have switched from CA high schools & CA residences, to East Coast colleges, report that there is a vast difference in the degree of variation there vs. in CA. </p>

<p><em>That</em>'s "how".</p>

330

<p>I am surprised at the ignorance, if not hypocrisy, displayed by some of the posters criticizing the elite educational institutions in the US for their efforts at affirmative action suggesting racial discrimination when no other nation comes even close to the US as far as the treatment of their ethnic minorities and foreign residents in regards to allowing them to attend their most prestigious educational institutions. </p>

<p>I would argue that it is infinitely preferable to be a first or second generation Korean-American than a fourth generation Korean Japanese. In Japan, many Koreans are forced to change their names, abandon their culture and language and try to hide their ethnic origin if they want to have access to education on an equal basis. If you are Buraku, forget it, you are doomed. Similarly, it is much preferable to be ethnically Malay or Indian in the US than in Singapore, which prides itself on its absence of racism. As far as India, I would not even discuss the extreme limitations placed on students who belong to lower castes. If you are one of the more than 160 million Dalits, you are not even part of society, let alone offered access to education. Their situation is simply hopeless. What about being a Tibetan in China! </p>

<p>Asia may be really bad for ethnic minorities, but Europe is not far behind, as many countries apply various forms of subtle discrimination to reduce undesirables among their ranks in their top institutions. France is a good example of a supposedly pure meritocratic educational system gone terribly wrong . France has a system of entrance examinations that is completely anonymous that controls access to the very best institutions. Is it fair? Of course, not. Preparation for the examinations take two to three years in special prep schools. Nobody has ever succeeded passing the entrance examinations without attending these prep schools. The net result is that most of the admitted students are white males from upper middle class families. No minorities except for a trifling of Lebanese, Moroccan or Tunisian students from very wealthy families with the resources to afford the right education since kindergarten. France thought it was doing the right thing by admitting women to its top institutions like the Ecole Polytechnique, Ecole Normale Sup and the ENA in the 70s. At the same they closed or made coed the parallel female institutions which had been training the best women for academia for decades. What happened? The women virtually vanished from the ENS and are barely represented at the others. Not because, they were not good enough. Simply the system was rigged in such a way that mathematics was weighed with an extremely high coefficient (the French are after all the true Cartesians) , and it is simply a fact that at the top levels (3 standard deviations or more out), men will generally outscore women. In the end the women were edged out. </p>

<p>What would be the impact of imposing a raw selection system on the US top private institutions? It would largely depend on what you used for selection.</p>

<p>-First, women would virtually vanish from places such as MIT or Caltech, not because they may not make as good scientists, but at the elite levels, men will outscore them on pure logic tests. You would end with white and Asian males and a sprinkling of other minorities from wealthy backgrounds. Would MIT and Caltech be better institutions under such a system? I don’t believe so, as the students they are trying to enroll are not necessarily the ones that will do best at standardized testing. Einstein, for one would probably have failed to qualify as he clearly did not show any exceptional aptitude at a young age. MIT actually studied the effect of rising SAT scores on the creativity of its student body. As the average SAT rose over a certain level, (about the 99th percentile), creativity actually went DOWN, not up. Over-prepped kids are either too worn out or lack the optimal left brain-right brain combo to come up with the next invention. </p>

<p>-At some other institutions, the reverse may happen. At Yale it is already much tougher to get in as a woman than a man. If they instituted a selection system based on writing and composition, after all key skills of lawyers and many other professions, Yale may become a mostly white women’s college. </p>

<p>-Harvard, always in search of future leaders, may turn into another West Point , with psychological testing to ensure that no effetes qualify. Since it has been shown that taller, athletic looking men earn more on average than their shorter counterparts, they may institute a height minimum, not unlike the police force. You would probably have even more males, athletes and legacies from wealthy families than before. </p>

<p>Each of these highly selective institutions have come with their own screening system that looks for the qualities they feel are the most relevant to their institutions. They are all different and can’t simply be reduced to numbers. We may not see the subtle differences in their admission procedures, and therefore label them arbitrary or discriminatory but they certainly know what they are looking for and how to assemble a cohesive class. </p>

<p>Take the Jiang Li example. Why did he not also sue MIT? Li was not even waitlisted at MIT despite his top SAT scores. Was that unfair? Again, I don’t believe that he exhibited any of the traits of the ideal MIT candidate: heavily lopsided with some extreme passion, bordering on compulsiveness. No math Olympiad or Intel Finalist awards. </p>

<p>Why was he accepted at Yale? I actually believed that his profile gave him a BOOST at Yale, which is seeking to improve its science and engineering standing among the top institutions. If he had been a white female (I know difficult to imagine) with an interest as an English major, he (she) would not have had a chance. In some way, Lin may actually have benefited from the holistic process he decries so much! For Princeton, his profile was simply not that attractive, completely independent of his ethnic background. Science majors are a dime a dozen, and again he had no particular accomplishments to help stand out.</p>

331

<p>"First, women would virtually vanish from places such as MIT or Caltech, not because they may not make as good scientists, but at the elite levels, men will outscore them on pure logic tests."</p>

<p>Wow. That's incredibly sexist, not to mention untrue.</p>

332

<p>"2250 plus SAT score (or old score 1500 combined) + URM Status" </p>

<p>If objective formulas do not matter - then can Harvard, Yale, or Princeton name a single case in the last 10 years where such an applicant having the 2 above described criteria was NOT accepted?</p>

<p>If they have ANY - I would wager it to be less than 5% of such applicants</p>

333

<p>I agree with Calmom that California can be considered one of the most diverse places on the planet. It is one big transplant starting in the late 1700s layering one group with another over the transplanted mongolians of thousands of years before. Of course that may apply to many places on the planet right now. We natives are restless and with airplanes well the sky is the limit.</p>

<p>I believe campuses reflect the communities where they are located. If you are looking for diversity, go West, East, Midwest or abroad young person. Leave your town and visit other places. Live among the local natives and learn from them. </p>

<p>As far as lawsuits, each to her or his own. I think affirmative action is a good thing. I think the SAT could be closed down and we would all survive.
Remember colleges used to be full of men. Times change things.</p>

334

<p>cheers: You seem to be suffering from acute guilt complex and you seem to be on a crusade. A crusader only needs a cause, no reason for a cause. </p>

<p>You need to pay more attention to the problem on why an average black child when he enters KG has lower vocabulary and number sense than a white child. You need to pay attention to the fact that kids from upper middle class black family with an income of $70 K scores less than a poor white kids with an income of $10 K/yr.</p>

<p>Yes SATs are not everything, but it is the tip of the iceberg. I bet that kids with low SAT I scores also score low on SAT IIs, APs, have lower GPAs and class rank.</p>

<p>Don't give me crap about inner city kids in horrible schools. That is a romantic fantasy. A very small fraction of such kids end up at elites. Vast majority of URMs at elites have as good if not better life styles as good number of whites or asians at the same schools.</p>

<p>It is just matter of time and a very short time (I would say about 20 years) that the practice of rewarding under-achievement will go through a major overhaul. The black and hispanic community is wrong to think that a two standard deviation underperformance will be there for eternity.</p>

<p>(Let me be clear before people start preaching me about holistic admissions, I support it. Frankly I think it is a better way of screening students. But race does not belong in holistic admissions).</p>

335

<p>No, inner city students don't generally end up at elites. But they do end up at flagship unis and some LACs because of race-conscious admissions. I mean, really, how does a student with a 2.5 GPA and a 1200 SAT (not an athlete or musician) land a spot at a highly ranked state uni? I've seen it more than once. This is one of the reasons (albeit not the only one) that failing schools don't fix their problems - it's confirmation that what they're doing is working.</p>

336

<p>Because loads of kids don't grow up until college age and have poor study skills. A 2.5 isn't that bad, really. Moreover, they don't bother to prep or be prepped for the SAT. 1200 is not a bad old score, by the way. It was good enough for the prez. Grades and scores are not a very large picture of the person.</p>

337

<p>i absolutely agree with newmassdad. the admissions process is still shrouded in mystery that's closer to a ritual ceremony (akin to choosing a new Pope) with the transparency of a full solar eclipse.</p>

<p>let's face it, the bar for admissions is different for different people. that is the very definition of discrimination IMO.</p>

<p>e.g. if you are an Asian applicant and you are aiming for an Ivy spot, your stats need to be near perfect - because in reality, you are really competing with the other Asian applicants in that pool for that particular year... but why? Shouldn't each application be treated without considering race?</p>

<p>conversely, if one is a true "underrepresented" minority, your stats don't have to be as good as the Asian applicant. now hold your "racist" claims - this is merely fact which is well documented - take a quick look at the demographic statistics of the average Asian applicant vs. other races at the elite universities.</p>

<p>if one could actually achieve an absolutely "blind" admissions process by which the decisions were 100% based on the applicants credentials (i.e. you didn't know their names or race) - you'd be looking at a situation more closer to the UC schools (i.e. many at or near 50% Asian).</p>

<p>This, of course, can be very problematic for many of the elite privates - as the Ivy League's traditional deep pockets (e.g. the Bush's and Kennedy's of the world) want to make sure that their schools remain "traditional" indeed for their future legacies. It seems that diversity is a nice little side dressing - as long as it doesn't get out of control.</p>

338

<p>Fabio:</p>

<p>You're very funny. After stating that you did not want to continue, you infer about my position.</p>

<p>My point, continues to be that socioeconomic AA would necessarily consider ethnicity.</p>

<p>And, since you did not respond to my earlier post here about political gerimandering, about the development of housing projects in poor areas, or answered Hawaii Asian's underperformance, while advocating for economic AA, I can only infer that your belief that Asians are the most discriminated group in America (from the other thread), and your belief in tests as a better, more quantifiable measure of students, are suspect.</p>

<p>Again, you are speaking about my position, without consulting me, and making blanket statements. Funny, but you did not address the questions I raised regarding your posts on THIS thread.</p>

339

<p>

Enlighten us simba. If that is true, and I haven't checked , in your opinion why is that?</p>

340

<p>


I think that's a really ignorant statement about Berkeley. If anything there is a real sense of internationalism on campus. I mean, you can't spent 10 minutes walking around the campus without running into people from all over the world and hearing at least three different languages spoken. California is probably the most ethnically & culturally diverse state in the nation in any event --26% of California public school students come from homes where a language other than English is the primary language spoken, representing more than 50 languages. </p>

<p>So it kind of proves my point -- it's a rationalization by people looking for a reason to justify a choice. There are plenty of reasons to favor going to Harvard over Berkeley.... but I think saying that Harvard is more "diverse" makes about as much sense as claiming that Harvard has a warmer climate. </p>

<p>Maybe your daughter's friends come from some of the less diverse communities in California -- if you live in an affluent area, then it is likely that your daughter's friends who attended California high schools are also in more affluent, homogenous areas. There are a lot of suburban areas in California that lack the diversity of the cities - they are not representative of the state as a whole or of the urban areas where Berkeley draws heavily from.</p>