<p>What would be the most effective way of convincing the vast majority of well-meaning educators and administrators who work at selective college and universities that they are doing a great disservice to under-represented students?</p>
<p>In his just published book, Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students Its intended To Help, Richard Sander says it is morally and logically indefensible for educators to perpetuate a system that they know hurts the very people they claim they wish to help. He provides compelling and substantive data.</p>
<p>Is this book enough to begin a dialogue in which people can honestly use data of some sort to continue to support the use of strong racial preferences in selective admission?</p>
<p>Sadly no. The stock response from defenders of racial preferences is that Sander is an ideological right-wing hack and not a social scientist by any means. Thus, anything he finds or says is suspect and not to be taken seriously. End of discussion.</p>
<p>I just want to make sure I understand what you have said. Do you mean that the critics of the data will dismiss it as inaccurate? Are they providing other data to support this? </p>
<p>Or are you saying that the issue is simply too toxic? If the latter is true, are you then saying that the critics are doing this cynically, knowing full well they are dismissing this work even though it is an attempt to help students perform well? If this is accurate, then they should be condemned morally. </p>
<p>Or are the critics so ideologically committed that they cannot see the value of his work? (My comparison would be of those who dismiss the scientific data on evolution because they believe in the absolute accuracy of the biblical text). If it is a form of what might be called a religious belief that is at work, then you may be right. No amount of data or good will persuade anyone to alter their views. In this case, it is not so much a matter of cynicism as it is a matter of faith. And faith is especially hard to overcome as it is at odds with rational thought.</p>
<p>In either case, are you convinced that disproportionate numbers of under-represented students will again end up at he bottom of the class at the second tier schools that the author focuses on due to the cascade effect? </p>
<p>Dreams dashed. And opportunities missed. And who benefits from this? The racists certainly. Anyone else?</p>
<p>I confess to being very ambivalent about this issue. As a conservative Christian with a very high achieving URM currently attending MIT, I have to say that the energy and mix of students on the campus was probably one of the big appeals to my son, and he ultimately chose it over a couple of Ivies. I can’t say for sure how much his racial background came into play in admissions. He’s an extremely strong applicant coming in with junior level math classes and top scores/ECs, etc.</p>
<p>Maybe he’s not one of the kids addressed in these articles but the blend on campus is certainly appealing to him. </p>
<p>I don’t think schools should be selecting students that can’t do the work. I’m not sure I believe in affirmative action. But, there’s something I really see about the mix of students at MIT that’s appealing to me. His friends are from such a great mix of backgrounds, though most of his closest friends are Asian or white.</p>
<p>What do you suggest? Maybe regional admissions? My son’s roomy is from the Bahamas. That’s pretty cool. </p>
<p>Our particular city seems pretty over-represented at MIT; the math circle in particular seems to be over-represented (and I know all four homeschoolers from our area who applied were admitted), but that turned out well for the kids involved.</p>
<p>I seriously would love to hear your ideas of how MIT (or any other school) could admit the same group of dynamic students without any regard to ethnic background.</p>
<p>I rest my case. For you and likeminded individuals (i.e. almost every supporter of racial preferences), racial classification dominates every other subjective factor in “holistic” admissions. It is not just a tool; it is the tool to achieve so-called “diversity,” which then means nothing more than “mostly white, not too Asian, and just enough ‘URM.’” How superficial.</p>
<p>Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Alito, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas all see this, and that is why Texas will lose in Fisher v. Texas.</p>
<p>I don’t see why extracurriculars, essays, and recommendations are insufficient. I never said MIT (or any other elite school) should only consider high school GPA and SAT.</p>
<p>We both agree that racial diversity within our nation’s top institutions of higher learning is desirable, don’t we? </p>
<p>It just seems that we disagree about how desirable it is, how critical it is for our nation’s future. I’m all for eliminating racialized admissions weighting, but some substitute must there to replace it. </p>
<p>I don’t think race is a “superficial” type of diversity, especially not now, and especially not here. And I don’t think you honestly believe that racial diversity is the only sort of diversity that colleges pursue, or in the way you ironically superficialize it. If you do, then you are incorrect, and a multitude of sources will prove you wrong.</p>
<p>Race does not dominate every other subjective factor in holistic admissions. Boring, dispassionate URMs get rejected along with every other boring person. It certainly has one of the the biggest effects on admissions chances out there, but this is warranted given the current state of things and what is at stake for every institution that sees it as a priority that its campus consist of a variety of ethnic backgrounds and skin colors, as well as of a variety of socio-economic and experiential backgrounds, so that each part of the melting pot can grow to understand and learn from each other part. So that when these parts move on, after college, they are more likely to work together to build a more inclusive world.</p>
<p>You and I don’t seem to agree that racial diversity in these schools is worth maintaining. This is the result of a difference in basic values about what it means for a place to be a “good university”. </p>
<p>I simply don’t think you have the right ones.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to know if these guys would even get into the colleges they attended under modern fair and equitable laws of today? Do you think they appreciate the advantage they recieved when they were admitted? I am guessing, they did not have to compete against the well qualified women and minority candidates in the day these guys were in college. Am I wrong?</p>
<p>Do you think that low income, first gen Asians should be given no special look over more accomplished, wealthier Asian students? What about Asians applying to schools in the south or where they are URMs? Do you think those schools should discontinue using race as one of many factors in admissions?</p>
<p>I guess what I’m wondering is, what if things were in reverse?</p>
<p>I think the case in Texas will be very interesting and you know I support these guys on the Supreme Court. I just think the nature of admissions is more complex than you think it is, but I still don’t know that the current use of affirmative action is the right answer.</p>
<p>I also don’t know if using those things you suggest is enough to get that great mix of smart and enegetic students without using other criteria such as regional admissions, family background (not necessarily racial but income, circumstances), etc.</p>
<p>I disagree. I think diversity - that is, a multitude of ideas, interests, talents, and viewpoints - is very desirable. I see no value in “racial diversity” in and of itself. And more importantly and to the point, I do not see how considering racial classification in and of itself produces a campus that contains a variety of ideas, interests, talents, and viewpoints. The way you ask your questions, however, tell me that you think it does.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not the only kind, but how I characterized it is what they seek to attain: “mostly white, not too Asian, and just enough ‘URM.’”</p>
<p>I don’t think your question is fair. These days, elite admissions is so competitive that if the adcoms were to hypothetically redo two rounds of admissions to produce two sets of “first years,” the two sets could be disjoint (i.e. have no intersection).</p>
<p>I’m OK with socioeconomic preferences regardless of racial classification. I do not think Asians should receive racial preferences at the (few) elite schools where they are underrepresented. I have said repeatedly in the past that if race-blind admissions were to result in fewer Asians being admitted to elites, I would have no problems with that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It may not. But let me be blunt and straight to the point: I do not see how racial classification helps to achieve the mix you’re referring to. Unless only individuals of racial classification X hold viewpoint Y, I don’t see how considering racial classification helps achieve a student body that is diverse in ideas, interests, talents, and viewpoints.</p>
<p>I’ll give a (by definition) non-scientific anecdote, which I’ve given the past. When I was in my freshman year, I sat down for lunch once with a guy I knew and a guy I didn’t. The guy I didn’t know, “Bob,” proceeded to tell a joke.</p>
<p>Bob: “There’s a lot of Jews in Miami. In fact, there’s such a large concentration that they have camps for them.”</p>
<p>I heard “concentration” and “camps,” but I hadn’t made the connection yet, so I said, “Really? I know there are a lot of Cubans in Miami, but I didn’t know there were a lot of Jews.” He ignored me and continued.</p>
<p>Bob: “In these camps, they teach the kids how to do useful things. Like make soap and how to use ovens.”</p>
<p>At that point, I knew that he was telling a Holocaust joke. I’m ethnically Chinese and atheist; I have no Jewish relatives. But I didn’t have to be Jewish to find his joke both unfunny and offensive. So I called him out on it. He didn’t respond other than to stop his joke.</p>
<p>Obviously, we never had lunch together again. My point with my anecdote is that it isn’t true that only Jews would be offended at Holocaust jokes. It isn’t true that only members of racial classification or group X hold viewpoint Y. And so I don’t see how considering racial classification in and of itself gets you different ideas et cetera.</p>