<p>I don’t agree that using economic status would result in more diversity on campus. I do think that this is a direction already in play and one that will become more prominent in time. It will be interesting to see if it creates the type of diversity that exists now. Especially considering the preponderance of people who are low income are Caucasian. You asked me how much is enough. I know as someone who has spent a lot of time on these campuses it’s nice to have a core group, a comfort zone socially and having a certain amount truly makes a difference whether it’s 6% or 10 %. It is subjective as a person of color you know and sense when there is a core group of comfort. The number would probably be higher for most, but I’m not sure it’s realistic to be much higher at all elite campuses. Columbia as it continues to grow in academic prestige is clearly doing the best job and I believe they’re at 12 percent.
Real diversity is having people with different ideas, interest, talents and opinions who are diverse! Whether by race, creed, gender, nationality and so forth. I’m telling you that hodgepodge is an incubator. That’s pretty cool. </p>
<p>Until the middle class learns how to lower that precious EFC, the elite schools will increasingly be the domain of the rich and the poor. </p>
<p>In that sense, economic diversity at HYPSM (et al) and the top LACs will be coming mostly from either end of the economic bell curve.</p>
<p>That is very true. If you’re between 100 and 250 k. It can be a difficult decision to attend these schools. A lot of people do make the sacrifice and figure it out. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Income is only one part of economic status. Nonetheless, on that dimension, many private elites are absolutely abysmal. In Harvard’s case, as of 2011, [“approximately</a> 45.6 percent of Harvard undergraduates come from families with incomes above $200,000, placing them in the top 3.8 percent of American households. Even more shockingly, only about 4 percent of Harvard undergraduates come from the bottom quintile of U.S. incomes and a mere 17.8 percent come from the bottom three quintiles of U.S. incomes.”](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/1/26/diversity-lack-figures-evidence-harvard/]"approximately”>Diversitas? Take a Closer Look | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So we need racial preferences to facilitate self-segregation? Seems the very opposite of what “diversity” is supposed to achieve, no?</p>
<p>@fabrizio keeps pointing out his disagreement with the personal assertions that I and others have stated. But as I mentioned, many institutions AGREE. Your lengthy amount of time spent on the internet antagonizing people who have succeeded in navigating the admissions system as designed resembles a spoiled child who cannot get his way. What is the point?</p>
<p>@anaconda is convinced the majority of URM acceptances are less than qualified, even though data to the contrary has been provided here. The system in play works for the institutions; huge failure to succeed among a subset of the student body would quickly elicit a change in policy. So similarly, he comes off sounding bitter rather than informed of the situation. </p>
<p>Not necessarily but rather I believe that qualified minorities have a way easier time of getting into college than qualified Asians and to a lesser extent qualified whites.
So because these institutions have these policies, we shouldn’t voice what we believe are flaws in their policies? As a bit of an extreme example, by your logic abolitionists should never have voiced their disagreement with slavery because it was approved by (at one point) every state in the country and all the states in the south till the civil war. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you want to call checking a box “succeeding in navigating the admissions system as designed,” by all means, be my guest.</p>
<p>Look high income students are always going to exist in large numbers on the elite campuses. Opportunity breeds opportunity. Better schools better support systems etc… That just how it is and it’s not a negative.
Race is always a difficult topic because people want to see it in a black and white fashion (no pun intended). A minority population cannot self segregate on a majority campus. However when Afro centric parents are looking at schools we want to know that there is a support system for our children. That they will be nurtured, secure and someplace where their culture will be appreciated not just tolerated. I would think that would be true for any culture/race. If I was Asian I would want my child someplace where there were others who had a common experience or Latino or Jewish. This issue can be manifested in something as simple as where my daughters can get their hair done or my son can get a haircut or more serious social issues. We all to a certain extent self segregate. Whether it’s via fraternities, or clubs or church. That’s not a negative it’s a support group to help people achieve and sometimes become more comfortable in a somewhat foreign environment.
High achieving black students do not have an easier time getting into college than high achieving white students.
Blacks do not have an easier time getting into college than anyone else but we are more heavily recruited by the elite schools when qualified. The elite schools desire to do exactly what you are afraid they’re not doing. They want students who will be successful and enhance their campus. If there are less of them applying nationally (obviously since we only make up 8% of the population at elite schools) your going to try hard on those kids who are qualified thus those students do tend to have more options. If your concern is that spots are not being earned you can relax the schools are recruiting the high caliber URM to insure that have the right students on their campus and the graduation rates seem to prove that they’re making the right decisions. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless the population is one student, I don’t see why a minority population can’t self-segregate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ironically, this is true at the schools you deride for having “more numerical” admissions systems - Cal and Michigan. They aggressively reach out to black students before applications are due and then do not consider racial classification during the application review process. It is not true for the private elites whose admissions you are defending and praising. Please, stop being disingenuous. </p>
<p>Hey let’s not call names. Let’s just agree at times to disagree. Self segregation to me means a purposeful attempt on the part of a student or students to not interact with students on a campus who are not of his or hers race. I guess anything is possible but I would think it would be pretty much impossible to attend any elite institution and ignore the vast majority of the population for 4 years. Obviously you believe that this occurs I don’t see how. The Ivy League schools Stanford and MIT recruit contact etc… With great ferocity students of color who are qualified. Having 3 children who attend or have attended top ten schools I have seen the efforts firsthand. All of my children have taken and were offered free trips to campus by top schools pre and post admission. Columbia’s president has boasted of the success and desire they have to recruit URMs. Are you not aware of fly in weekends and pre and post admission fly in weekends that several of the top schools have purposely for minority students? I agree that Cal and Michigan actively recruit students of color. They strongly desire to raise the percentage of URMs on their campus and those applying, I think that is a good thing. The problem they’re having is that they are losing the battle to Ivy League schools and other private institutions that are perceived as more prestigious. </p>
<p>Admissions officers at selective colleges (Duke, Dartmouth) have repeatedly stated that URMs are recruited AND RECEIVE A BOOST WHEN THEIR APPLICATIONS ARE READ. See: A is for Admissions; Admissions Confidential. You can argue for the benefits of giving URMs a boost over Asians all you want, but stop lying to everyone by claiming the boost doesn’t exist. The fact that affirmative action exists at the most selective private colleges is not up for debate. </p>
<p>So you nothing wrong with income inequality leading to educational inequality?
Ok I see nothing wrong with racial inequality leading to educational inequality either then.
I think it’s horrifying that 20% of Harvard’s students are 1%ers, I think that if an “income action” were established this would prove that in America there really is opportunity for everyone to succeed regardless of their background. I also have a feeling this would help to partially raise URM numbers but I’m not entirely sure (after Berkeley weighs socioeconomic status heavily but still has a low URM population).
And you are definitely wrong, qualified URM’s have a way easier time than qualified whites who then have it a lot
Easier than qualified Asians.
Do you think kwasi enin would have swept every Ivy League if he was Asian? He had a very impressive resume, but sweeping every ivy as an Asian? He wasn’t that good. And that’s essentially the crux of affirmative action, an Asian with kwasi enin’s profile (again qualified) would have been lucky to get into 3 Ivy League schools.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone is denying the existence of affirmative action at private elite schools. What I would debate is that some think the use of affirmative action has led to unqualified URMs proliferating Ivy League and other elite campuses. That is not the case. That is my sole argument on that point.
The holistic approach does attempt to balance out that high income students have some inherent advantages. However at many elite schools full payers allow full needers to exist.
I can cede that I may have appeared to be a little cavalier about income advantage. But other than the process in place I really don’t see a clear way to get around it.
If I’m Harvard am I really going to stop recruiting at Exeter, or Harvard Westlake. I don’t think that’s going to happen
I’m not debating that Enin would not have been admitted to all the Ivy League schools if he was Asian. I think it it is more likely he would not have. As I stated earlier highly qualified URMs are more sought after. My only point is that it sounded as if you believe qualified asians can’t get into a good college. I disagree with that. But with the ORM status they have now achieved 5% of pop 20% of campus population at several elite schools. They are simply are not as marketable as individuals from the viewpoint of college admissions. Whereas qualified Blacks and Latinos for the most part are still not approaching numbers that mirror the population. Maybe this is semantics some may say that Enin received a boost, I think he’s simply being sought after because he comes from a section of the population that is severely underrepresented on college campuses which is being a black male. If he was a girl he also probably would not have been admitted to all 8 Ivy League schools. </p>
<p>No, you are being disingenuous when you say that “blacks do not have an easier time getting into college than anyone else but we are more heavily recruited by the elite schools when qualified.” As wchuck pointed out, I also am fine with having a discussion on the merits (or lack thereof) of this practice, but it’s not OK to deny that this practice exists in the first place. There are many misleading arguments used to defend racial preferences, but “it doesn’t exist” is by far the most dishonest of them all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t have to be “purposeful.” As you yourself hinted, it can just happen because you feel “more comfortable” and the opportunity exists. But at least we agree on one thing, even if it’s implicit: self-segregation is probably minimal if an “underrepresented” minority group is at 2-3%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d like to say two things. First, once again, please stop pretending that this is the extent of “affirmative action”: aggressive outreach before admissions and equal treatment during the review process. As I said, that is ironically only true for the schools that you dismissed as having “more numerical” admissions. That is not true for the private elites whose admissions practices you are defending to the point of being dishonest.</p>
<p>Second, if you want to bring up the topic of “pre and post admission fly in weekends,” you’re aware that you’re highlighting that racial preferences are nothing but a middle-class entitlement?</p>
<p>Interesting points but and maybe I’m doing a poor job of being clear. Let’s see if we can agree on this. Blacks with the exception of Native Americans make up the lowest ratio to population of college admissions. Thus I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that it not easier for Black kids to go to school. I am not denying affirmative action I think it is a good thing. However those black students who are highly qualified due to the lack of numbers as a whole are going to be more sought after than ORMs.
It’s hard to continue with this self segregation thing I just have not seen it or heard of it on these campuses. I would think if a student wanted to go that direction he or she would simply attend an HBCU.
When my children attended these weekends there we’re students from all financial background. Also when many of the schools do the fly in weekends they assess your financial standing. If you don’t meet a certain number you can still attend but they will not pick up the tab. This is not hard to validate. The programs are clearly advertised and clearly state that there is a financial component.
THERE IS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. It’s a good thing. People are not getting screwed by only being admitted to 3 Ivy League schools instead of 8. Every private elite school is efforting to improve their programs and all claim that it enhances the college experience on their campus, are they all wrong.
Again AA exists good thing helps the schools. Students are qualified and graduating at higher rates on these campuses than state schools. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are still trying to claim that affirmative action is aggressive outreach before application review and equal treatment during application review. That is true only for the schools you dismissed as having “more numerical” systems. It is not true for the schools whose practices you are defending.</p>
<p>“here is an excel file containing data for the first three years after UCLA implemented a “holistic” admissions system:”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.timgroseclose.com/uclaadmissions/#”>Cheating: An Insider’s Report… The Data Explained;
<p>Lemme know what’s in the data. I haven’t opened the excel file yet-- I’m too engrossed watching USA v Germany. </p>
<p>No I’m not at all trying to say what affirmative action should and should not be at all. As stated earlier I have no problem with how Cal has chosen to institute their policy which is more economically based or the Ivy Leagues which are more racially based. I have no interest in deciding what AA is or should be. I do believe taking into consideration social factors and ethnicity is still a necessary leveler in the admission process. I’m just stating what schools do. They do aggressively interact w URMs they anticipate to be qualified prior to the admission process just as they do athletes, musicians etc… . As a fact several of the elite schools along with testing agencies are involved in programs to increase the amount of URMs who apply. Theory being that several of the top URMs do not apply due to lack of awareness, resources or an understanding of financial Sid. Where we differ is I think the process of filling a class is more categorical than you. Schools are going to balance their classes as they deem fit to create the atmosphere they desire. No question there is AA in the evaluation process. I just don’t think it’s as drastic or far reaching numerically as some would have you to believe on this site. I also think a highly understated part of AA is the recruiting process before and after including the use of financial aid as schools compete for the top URMs </p>
<p>Look the fact is this…these schools were built on the backs of slaves. For Free!! It’s a fact. So if these schools want to admit a handful of blacks, it’s none of your concern. Get over it!! </p>
<p>You all spend so much time whining about race. No one really cares that the so called/ perceived Affirmative Action gets your Hanes in a bunch. Go and do something productive with your lives. </p>
<p>There is rampant racism that still exists today. Racism that our kids will never face. Poverty that our kids will never face. Dysfunction that our kids will never face…</p>
<p>Ever wonder what this world would be like if the whining malcontents of the world rolled their sleeves up & did some real work? </p>
<p>Move along folks! Nothing to see here! </p>
<p>.
</p>
<p>Truth, that.</p>