<p>A news report from today: </p>
<p>[Harvard</a>, Princeton in Discrimination Probe - Bloomberg](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>
<p>
[Harvard</a>, Princeton in Discrimination Probe - Bloomberg](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>
<p>From the soon to appear Op-Ed by Professor Steve Hsu in response to the aforementioned Bloomberg Article: </p>
<p>[Transparency</a> in college admissions](<a href=“http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2012/02/transparency-in-college-admissions.html]Transparency”>Information Processing: Transparency in college admissions):
</p>
<p>This comment from the Bloomberg article catches my attention:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In an earlier post in this very thread, I argued that there is very little diversity in STEM classes even if you have campus-wide diversity, if the Duke data and the GRE data I posted are correct.</p>
<p>The University of Texas and I can not be both correct, so I looked a little further and this is what I found:</p>
<p><a href=“SEAPHE -”>SEAPHE -;
<p>Here is their conclusion:
</p>
<p>Look like somebody is trying to pull something over my eyes, again.</p>
<p>Canuckguy,</p>
<p>The working paper you linked to was co-written by three of the four authors who wrote [“the</a> Duke study”](<a href=“Does affirmative action lead to mismatch? A new test and evidence | The Econometric Society”>Does affirmative action lead to mismatch? A new test and evidence | The Econometric Society) on mismatch. It attracted [brief</a> nationwide attention last month](<a href=“http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-18/bostonglobe/30639995_1_affirmative-action-students-advance-african-american]brief”>http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-18/bostonglobe/30639995_1_affirmative-action-students-advance-african-american) after an apparent fracas occurred at Duke over the Black Student Alliance’s misreading of the paper.</p>
<p>A key takeaway from the paper is that what matters is academic preparation, not racial classification. Unconditionally, blacks are more likely than whites to leave STEM majors for humanities and non-economics social sciences. At the same time, Asians are less likely than whites to leave STEM majors for humanities and non-economics social sciences. It would seem like we have evidence in favor of black inferiority and Asian supremacy…</p>
<p>…except the relation disappears for blacks and weakens for Asians when SAT score is controlled for, and disappears altogether when information about the student from the Duke admissions office is controlled for. You can see [page</a> 25](<a href=“http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/grades_4.0.pdf]page”>http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/grades_4.0.pdf) for that conclusion.</p>
<p>^ Summing up, let’s do our best to ensure that young people of all backgrounds have access to good academic preparation, and support to study their way through a challenging curriculum. Students of any race or ethnicity can step up to be fully prepared for any college if only their precollege education is adequate and genuinely up to “world class” standards.</p>
<p>Hey! The FAQ thread got stickied! Finally!</p>
<p>Thanks, fabrizio, for filling in the details. I dont get information like this here in the Great White North. Then again, why should I?</p>
<p>I find it interesting that students at an elite university can misunderstand a research paper. Lifes little ironies? </p>
<p>This part of the Boston Globe article I find more than interesting:
So, differential admission standards are real. Legacy students are weaker than the unhooked. SAT scores have predictive validity things that a lot of posters swear are untrue are in fact true. There must be a lot of vested interest on CC. What else can I say?</p>
<p>I agree with you, tokenadult. Before anything can be done, we must first stop playing lets pretend. I just dont see it happening any time soon though.</p>
<p>FYI, Toronto established an all black school a while ago, and is reported to be doing well. Until the graduates get into our universities and face other ethnic groups and the brutal Ontario grading curve, the jury, I think, is still out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The universities were not found guilty in court. Right? Does a private university not have the right to set its own admission policies? Can’t they survive and thrive without a single penny from the government but on private donations alone, as long as they are classified as nonprofit organizations?</p>
<p>These are private colleges with multiple missions/agendas, some stated clearly by the institutions, some not, and some erroneously presumed/imputed onto them by others.
Which takes us back to square one on this thread.</p>
<p>Holisitic admissions techniques based on a good amount of performance and activity data and expression from the applicants can be used in MANY ways to compose a student body.
- Most of these colleges never set out to create a competition for the highest scoring or graded to earn admission. Of course, some other cultures and some US colleges DO see things this way, and they do make that clear to applicants (Caltech, for instance).
- They see themselves as providing an education both inside the classroom and outside (social, emotional, physical, cultural, extra-curricular), educating “holisitically”
- They do try to select students who will be able to handle the academics and the outside of the classroom culture, and to be active and connected members of the community.
- They do want to think of the experience they offer as a huge opportunity for the students to develop self-knowledge, knowledge, skills, passions, critcial thinking, social skills, maturity, and, most likely, the potential to be successful or world-changing once graduated.
- Many seem to believe that the education they offer should be available to those with less opportunity but the raw talent to perform there, as is a way to create a more level society.
- Many think their job is to promote understandings and respect among different cultures, ethnicities, gender selections, races, political and religious beliefs both in the experience there as well as in the composition of the student body and the staff. “If not for the college or university, what would challenge the status quo” sort of thinking…
- These schools try to promote a feeling of community for the students while they are there, and once they have graduated-- to varying degrees, in a variety of ways, and for various reasons.
- Branding and PR are now a part of the whole process of running a college. Rankings and such are a part of this. The tail may be wagging the dog, at this point, however.
- Colleges are subject to local and federal laws related to equal opportunity, affirmative action, discrimination. They are also recipients of federal state and local funds.</p>
<p>One point this is being batted about a lot these days is whether creation or maintenance of diversity or reflection of the population as parsed does lower standards for some groups applying, and does raise standards for others, and whether this is fair, and legal, and effective in terms of the college’s own privately-held mission.
Is segregating applicants into groups at all the right things to do? Is it necessary to create the environment a given college endeavors to provide? And is it inadvertently or promoting thinking that these are real groupings?</p>
<p>In conclusion, a given college is attempting to serve multiple and sometimes contrary missions all at the same time. An individual college may prioritize these agenda its own way. And it chooses how explicit or not it will be about this. Outsiders, including applicants, parents and alums may project their own ideas about what the college is doing and why, and what they think it should be doing. But there are expressions that cannot fathom the totality of the truth unless the college is completely transparent and forthright (which is not a requirement but a choice).</p>
<p>Another point I would like to make is that SCRUTINY of the colleges’ practices (by journalists, academics, students, anyone, even US on CC!) is GOOD and USEFUL for the colleges. It is healthy for outsiders to ask questions because, should the colleges be listening or care, they will learn how they appear, what message outsiders are getting, they are affecting others, what inconsistencies they are projecting, etc. However, the colleges are under no obligation to respond or change, unless the law is involved.</p>
<p>This is like a purchase of a product/service where one is not quite sure how to actually be one chosen to buy the product/service, why others were chosen, and what exactly the product/service will deliver.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not wholly or exclusively with regard to being race-conscious in admission. By the federal statutes regulating disbursement of various federal funds for higher education, any college that accepts federal money (which is all but three or four colleges in the entire United States, and all of the colleges people on CC worry about being admitted to) has to follow a nondiscrimination policy. </p>
<p>[Know</a> Your Rights](<a href=“http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/know.html]Know”>Know Your Rights) </p>
<p>Moreover, some states may have antidiscrimination statutes under their broad “police powers” covering all organizations in the state (most states do), so there are other sources of law that give a student the right to expect nondisrimination by race. Dicta in the last few Supreme Court cases on the issue, all of which were about state universities, suggest that if the case came up, the same standard for nondiscrimination would be applied to private colleges, by statute, as is applied to state colleges, by the federal Constitution.</p>
<p>tokenadult,
How is “discrimination” specifically defined, determined, described, measured, demonstrated in all these statutes?</p>
<p>Steve Hsus Op-Ed, posted by StitchInTime (#603), has this intriguing comment from a jaim klein:
</p>
<p>Reads like Michael Youngs Rise of the Meritocracy. I do remember reading how Karabel conceded that the Big Three ramped up the admission of black students almost overnight owing not to some midnight conversion but to terror at the rising tide of black anger and violence… So, it may not be that far-fetched after all.</p>
<p>What does “meritocratic” exactly mean? Is it something that is based purely on test scores? Is it based on the “merits” of extra curricular activities? (Say, a point system for certain activities? And who determines the point system?) Is it based on a formula of test scores, ECs and their “merit”, number of ECs, type of EC?</p>
<p>I guess I don’t really understand how a “meritocratic” admissions would work. Perhaps someone could explain how a school like Caltech works, since they are mentioned a lot.</p>
<p>What about liberal arts college “meritocratic” admissions? How does that work exactly? </p>
<p>And on the topic of Caltech, is it possible that some students (of varying backgrounds) might not apply because they want a more ethnically diverse campus, and therefore, fewer students of certain backgrounds apply in the first place, even if they would merit admission?</p>
<p>^ or they are afraid of feeding by firehose education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think he is wrong that it will make anyone “mad.” What it will do is marginalize the university, reduce its credibility, and ultimately make it less desirable to everyone. How can other Americans take seriously the conclusions of an academic institution that does not include all points of view? Racial diversity is needed to perpetuate a university’s own self-interests.</p>
<p>Interesting thread in HIGH SCHOOL LIFE Forum:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/high-school-life/1285104-race-illusion.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/high-school-life/1285104-race-illusion.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem here is associating a point of view with a racial classification when racial classification is a very imperfect proxy for “points of view.” Youtube “Roger Ebert yelling at Sundance” and you’ll hear Ebert give an impassioned tirade against another film critic for criticizing Justin Lin’s directorial debut (Better Luck Tomorrow) as portraying the “Asian-American community” in an “amoral” light. If you associate racial classification with “points of view,” you would expect an American of Asian descent to embark on the tirade. But that’s not what happened; Ebert is white, and in my personal experience, I have met many Asians who would agree with the other film critic’s views and disagree with Ebert.</p>
<p>When I was in my first year of college, I sat down at a table in the dining hall with a person I had recently met and someone I didn’t know. The latter individual proceeded to tell a joke about Jews in Miami. I soon found that he was making fun of the Holocaust, which I found to be in extremely poor taste. I called him out on it, to his annoyance, and we never spoke again. I’m not Jewish, which isn’t a racial classification anyway, but my point is that I didn’t have to be Jewish to be offended.</p>
<p>If you want points of view, then select on ideas, interests, and talents. Don’t select on racial classification unless you want a campus full of wealthy individuals of different colors who share the same views.</p>
<p>fab,
It doesn’t matter whether there is any truth the to the idea; all that matters is the public’s perception. If the public views mono-racial colleges as by-defintion limited in their points of view, they are going to loose credibility and desirability.</p>