Standardized test scores shouldn’t be used as the be all-end all measure of anything. In this discussion, they’re simply a shorthand way to easily describe a very complicated set of variables (academic preparedness, intelligence, achievement, etc) in a summarized fashion. And yes, the fact that the tests can be gamed diminishes their usefulness, similar to how the gaming of essays brings into question their legitimacy. Lack of standardization and comparable quality of GPAs, test scores, essay writing are all huge challenges in the admissions process. The assertion that AOs at the colleges “know” each high school’s quality and rigor so can appropriately understand how a GPA from one school compares to another is laughable given that there are over 30,000 high schools in the US. AOs may have a reasonable understanding of the rigor of possibly a few hundred HSs, which is yet another source of advantage and disadvantage in the admissions process.
The current system of “holistic” admission is hugely flawed. Garbage in… garbage out. And shrouding it in secrecy doesn’t help.
Don’t be fooled by selectively published statistics. These averages are not meaningful because they’re distorted by many high scores. Many legacies are highly qualified on the basis of test scores (much better than an average non-legacy applicant), and they would have just as good a chance of acceptance as non-legacy applicants without legacy consideration, but their chances obviously are significantly boosted by their legacy status. However, there’re those legacies, and certainly many development cases and athletic recruits, who are academically unqualified, and in some cases, woefully unqualified, as @OHMomof2 has pointed out.
If you’re for meritocracy, you can’t be selective. I’m a graduate of an Ivy and another tippy top that doesn’t consider legacy status. My DS didn’t apply to that Ivy because he didn’t want people to think that he got in because of his legacy status.
@OHMomof2 The 1990 report also concluded that there was no racial bias against Asian Americans when clearly there was. Why were people talking about this in 1990 if it didn’t exist? They have always spoken about the Asian quota at Harvard. Why? The reason is, Harvard has always excluded based on race so they could further their “holistic” agenda. Whether you are for it, or not, is your decision. But, it exists as this case is proving.
I love seeing all the data points the analysis has uncovered then seeing Harvard’s response. LOL.
"Athletes for the main sports like soccer, football and basketball provide a ton of value to the campus. They deserve the boost. "
This makes zero sense to me. The value athletes bring to campus is that certain people (not all, only some) view watching and discussing sports as an enjoyable past time. Sports are not necessary for academics or education. Worse yet, some of the sports are now known to cause brain damage, which seems in complete opposition to anything we’d want to impose on any human being, much less a scholar.
How can you possibly support a preference for something so counterproductive and subjective while being opposed to a preference for something that at least has the redeeming features of addressing past inequities and possibly improving future equality?
Are you really so simplistic that your argument is - I like to watch football so we should let those guys in no matter how dumb, but I don’t care one whit about racial equality so let’s torpedo AA?
I agree that a student’s Pre-K-12 education can really make a difference in the long term academic potential of a student. My point comparing the 1350 untutored kid to the 1500 tutored kid is that regardless of the background they came from, had they swapped tutoring arrangements, the untutored kid might have gotten a 1500 and vice versa and therefore both students might do equally well in college (Harvard, BU, Penn State, wherever they go). My assumption was that the PreK-12 experience was already built into their score potential. Not sure if that makes sense.
And we have had this same debate pages back, but so what if a student with lesser stats doesn’t graduate with as high of a GPA in as hard as a major as the kid they “took a spot from” could have? What’s wrong with a B.A. in English with a 3.2 GPA from Harvard? That kid shouldn’t have had that opportunity because there was someone else who could have majored in Physics and gotten a 3.8? Is that how we are defining fairness? Chances are that kid they took a spot from, if they were indeed the genius-denied-Ivy-acceptance kid that everyone thinks they are (and good chance they are) I’m sure they did JUST fine. It’s not like the kids that aren’t getting these spots are ending up on skid row. They are likely killing it at their sub-Ivies, knee deep in research opportunities, on the dean’s list, etc. Employers would be happy to hire them.
We are never going to be able to define what is fair exclusively with numbers and doing so is going to create so many more inequities in college admissions, IMO. I’ve got one kid left to get into college and when he applies (a year from now, so things probably won’t be that different) we will have a broad list and if he decides to aim high, which he might have every right to, he will know it’s a crap shoot and he definitely will not feel sorry for himself (nor will I) if he doesn’t get in. Lots of great schools out there.
I don’t follow. The report, preceded by a detailed investigation of thousands of admissions files (and a lot more), concluded there was no racial bias. But YOU know there was.
@OHMomof2 If there wasn’t a racial bias then if wouldn’t be revisited again and again. The lawsuit going on right now has been more successful due to access. They were allowed access to files that Harvard has held tight. The statistical analysis is based on thousands of records and includes all of the admin data ( not a limited scope). In the previous lawsuit, there was less access. All of the details released to date (in this lawsuit) support the claim that there is racial bias against Asian applicants. We’ll see soon enough. I’d love to be on the prosecution’s side on this one. Unless Harvard has something else to say, the case has already been played out.
@Happytimes2001 It was a very thorough 2 year investigation, not sure where you get the idea it was limited in scope. Then, as now, Asians were way underrepresented in the legacy and athlete groups, which the DOE found accounted then (and possibly now) for the disparity in their admit rates.
So in that sense, discrimination WAS found, via those preferences.
@OHMomof2 Having a better application and being rejected over someone who is a lesser candidate is not fair. Never was. It has NOTHING at all to do with legacy and athlete groups and everything to do with stats. The recent stats have been released along with a lot more data and the decision will be made. Nothing has changed at Harvard. They used to discriminate and they still do on the basis of “holistic” admissions. Someone has called them on it and all eyes are on them. (There are also a lot more Asian graduates of Harvard than there were several decades ago and still the prejudice remains).
I think it’s very likely this case will go to the Supreme Court and be a litmus test regarding Affirmative Action in the College process. It comes up every decade or two, so it’s likely to be raised again. My monies on the Asian students winning the case.
@Happytime2001 I also believe that the plaintiff will win in the case (with a narrow interpretation affecting only Harvard, but other schools would take notice and start to enact changes proactive of possible lawsuits against their own institutions). I don’t think it is a slam dunk because they chose Harvard. If they had picked a school ranked between 15-25, they would have seen statistical differences between the races in the matriculating students much higher than what is seen at Harvard.
Thinking more about the idea that legacy preference couldn’t be challenged because it’s not illegal… it may not be illegal but it may fall afoul of current tax laws.
The colleges and their related endowments are all organized as nonprofits. The benefits they receive from that nonprofit status are enormous - from zero property tax to receiving tax deductible donations.
Some of the primary rules regarding nonprofit status relate to the idea that that the nonprofit cannot operate for private benefit; similarly for charitable donations to be tax deductible the donor cannot receive a personal benefit from the donation. The data from the Harvard lawsuit are making it clear that the legacy preference in admissions is substantial and represents a benefit for private individuals, many of whom are even donors to the organization. Also, donors are clearly receiving a direct benefit for their donations - admission for their children.
I believe there is a case to be made that legacy preference should both void a nonprofit’s tax exempt status and make all donations to the organization taxable/nondeductible. If a college wants to operate primarily for the purpose of educating the children of alumni at the exclusion of nonalumni US citizens and preserving that aristocracy, that dealing of benefits to not only private individuals but to members/alumni means it is not qualified under the current tax code to receive the benefits of being a tax exempt nonprofit. Similarly, if the donors to a fund reasonably expect a benefit from their donation (increased chances of their child’s acceptance to the college), then that is not a deductible charitable donation.
Maybe the best way to end legacy preference is to start questioning the underpinings of the financial benefits these colleges receive by being tax exempt.
Except that athletes and legacies are taking the spots of those “better applications” that are rejected. Asian students most definitely affected by them the most.
So actually it has everything to do with that, unless you think colleges are primarily made for sports, or to educate mostly rich and mostly white kids whose parents (and grandparents etc) went to the school.
Don’t get me wrong - I see an argument that students and alumni value athleticism and sporting events and are willing to compromise academically to get that, and I see that accepting lots of alumni kids may help those alumni stay engaged and that might balance lower academic ratings. I see how donating huge sums of money to buy your kid a spot benefits several parties. But I also see how racial diversity benefits everyone, definitely including those who have overcome obstacles related to racial and/or socioeconomic hardship but also all the other students, and society as well.
But if the result is a higher number of Asian American kids are shut out by those preferences, then I’d rather see the legacies and athlete preferences cut back partly because they account for so many more seats and frankly, they don’t need the leg up in life.
@ChangeTheGame and @milee30 Both of you have raised the main issue: People are looking much closer at institutions which receive tax dollars. It is no longer going to be fine and socially acceptable for colleges to either reject applicants on the basis of race or accept applicants on the basis of parents without a huge social outcry.
This has been brewing for years. I agree @ChangeTheGame , it’s very likely the current Harvard case will be narrowly applied to just Harvard. But the press it has garnered, proves it’s not good for any school who wants to continue to follow their own rules without a rulebook. “Holistic” no longer cuts it.
Legacy issues are going to get more and more important as students continue to fill colleges in large numbers. If you look 50-75 years down the road and the legacy rates stayed the same. There would be no students EXCEPT legacy students. That just doesn’t make sense at all. I see a tipping point, both for race and for legacy coming very soon.
Some highly selective LACs actually are perceived to be easier for male applicants to be admitted to compared to female applicants (though this perception is reversed for Harvey Mudd that is very heavy in engineering and CS majors), whether or not there is an actual admission preference by gender.
Are there any studies on whether “gender-affirmative-action stigma” (for men at some highly selective LACs, for women at Harvey Mudd) is significant at those colleges or after graduation?
Not that I’m aware of. So what? There are plenty of issues that people observe that have not been formally studied, especially given today’s PC climate that shuts down rather than encourages examining controversial issues.
@milee30 Hitting a school where the money is at has always been a possible solution to get changes enacted when it comes to having transparency and ending preferences in admissions. When folks start to talk about removing tax-exempt status and taxing endowments, elite schools will use all of their connections and capitulate where needed to make sure that doesn’t happen.
@ChangeTheGame You’re right. While there’s probably no way that a university will lose its tax exempt status, shining the light on certain issues can make it change its policies. As an example, Harvard withdrew investing in South Africa due to its politics. If enough people talk about it, a college will start to examine its own interests and try something else.
To me, the most valuable part of the lawsuit is that we have access to some of the secrets the school is hiding. More transparency is always better. I’m an Asian mom+1st gen immigrant, my kid is a Harvard graduate, and I only now understand how she is rated by school admissions officers. I felt so bad for those Asian kids who sought out my guidance on their college admissions – I was not helpful to them at all, and I could not be helpful without knowing the truth. They are all great kids, worked hard for many years. Academic excellence does not come from being in certain racial group, it is a result of sacrifices and dedication. I believe there will be changes due to this lawsuit. I used to doubt Steven Pinker, but not anymore – the world is getting better, not worse.
I think the data from the current lawsuit provides some pretty juicy detail that could be used in the examination of the tax exempt status.
Harvard’s own internal documents make it clear that they will sell an admit for the right price. There is little doubt that the admission has value, so under that theory the “donation” should not be tax deductible. Not-for-profits are not allowed to skirt tax laws by selling products or services to donors - donations must be without benefit for the donor to be tax deductible.
It’s a little less direct, but there’s also a reasonable theory that alums who donate to the college are doing so at least in part because they expect their donations will result in a legacy preference for their children. That legacy preference is clearly real as the data shows and it clearly has value. So connecting the dots… alumni donations to the college confer a benefit to the donor (legacy preference, increased chance of admissions) so should also not be tax deductible.
The same logic especially applies for the development level donations that result in the naming of a building or professorship. It is hard to argue that having your name on a building is not a benefit.