Well, not really. Up until the 1970s, the elites were really a finishing school for mostly upper class white students. And other posters have shown data that suggest that today, poor unhooked white students do very poorly in admissions.
@gallentjill I also believe in diversity and its benefits, but I am just looking for a better way other than using race as a preference, because it divides us.
@hebegebe I believe anyone of any race making it to an elite institution with a low SES (even at the 25th percentile and below) has had to overcome a lot and has earned that spot.
“Up until the 1970s, the elites were really a finishing school for mostly upper class white students.”
And how did these “mostly upper class white students” got to where they were, and how did their parents got to where they were and their grandparents…? Through centuries of AA for the whites. You might want to read the article linked above by picktails, especially on The New Deal and how it has empowered the generations of whites to get to where they’re today.
@ChangeTheGame - “My question for those who believe that AA should continue: How long should AA exist?”
As long as it’s of value in upholding our diverse and multicultural nation.
Well, @TiggerDad, I wrote my comment after reading the article that @picktails pointed me to. I fully acknowledge that the deck was stacked against black Americans for most of its history, and still is today, just less so.
But that is also irrelevant to a poor white person. I feel that one of the most truly tone deaf expressions is “white privilege”. Having grown up in a community that was predominantly comprised of poor white people, most would rightly recoil that they were privileged in any way.
In other words, it doesn’t matter why a family is poor. It could be generations of systematic discrimination. It could be legal immigrants coming over with little more than a suitcase and dreams of a better life. It could be because their parents who were drug addicts or alcoholics who were unable to keep a job. It could be simply that life dealt them a bad hand, in terms of educational opportunities or poor health.
Thinking of it another way, wealth (or lack of it) is net result of opportunities given and taken advantage of by you, and that passed on by your parents. Yes, many white people had more opportunities and were able to take advantage of it, but that doesn’t really help a poor white person.
Well said @TiggerDad
As it relates to poor whites getting in at the 25%…they too absolutely should get a boost. First gens officially get a boost now, not sure how income is taken into account but I think being from a poor communty/having overcome true adversity, etc. is recognized by admissions committees and can, rightfully in my mind, tip the scales.
I think AA should continue, but we monitor it to make it as “fair” as possible…so these debates are good because it might cause the powers that be to rethink the best way to get the diversity we need on campus (and I definitely agree we need all kinds of diversity, especially racial diversity.)
Exactly, a poor white person is still ahead by a lot, still higher on the totem pole than a black or latino, rich or poor. The covert racism that happens is striking even today.
“As long as it’s of value in upholding our diverse and multicultural nation.”
Ok, but half the country doesn’t believe that, whose values are you upholding, yours, the other half?
Today, more than ever in the history of elite institutions, the whole spectrum of SES – whether you’re poor white or poor black – has an equal opportunity to enter the elite’s gates with the implementation of the need-blind admissions policy. These institutions then provide affordability (full ride for those families with the gross of income less than $65,000). At HYPS, for example, about 20% of their student body get a full ride, and I can only see the percentage improving in the future. Sure, these elites are skewed to the wealthy as they always have been, but I see the change and their concerted effort to change. Princeton, for example, announced last year that their FA budget will increase to 7.7% from the previous year, amounting to something like $172 million. They topped the Ivy this year with the largest percentage investment returns with 14.2%, and I wouldn’t be surprised that some of their $2.1B in earnings will go to raising, again, their FA to needy students. So, they’re working hard to recruit the needy, and once recruited, allow them affordability to access the campus.
@theloniusmonk - “Ok, but half the country doesn’t believe that, whose values are you upholding, yours, the other half?”
Sure, half the country doesn’t believe that – all because they don’t understand a simple vocab like diversity and multiculturalism. Diversity means "divers"ity and multicultural means "multi"cultural – meaning ALL. So I can’t answer your question of “whose values” as if I’m taking a racial side here. Not at all.
@TiggerDad Based on that criteria, AA could be going on for a long time. An analogy that I heard in my youth is apt for what I see with AA and how it helps the black community (“It is like putting a band-aid on a gun shot wound”) because AA does nothing to fix the systematic issues that cause bad educational outcomes for African Americans. I believe it even makes societal fixes to those systematic issues harder because most can just say (and I have heard this) that “African Americans have AA, what else do they need”. Pre K for 4 year olds and having more teachers to work with young struggling black readers by a certain point (before the end of 3rd grade) would have a much bigger societal impact for African American outcomes and could lead to more diversity through higher African American achievement. But AA always sucks all of the oxygen out of any room when it comes to how to heip URMs achieve educational outcomes at the level of whites and Asian Americans. Worst of all, we are still not considered as an “equal” because most don’t believe we truly earned admission, even those who support AA for diversity purposes or righting a past wrong.
No one’s naive to think that AA is the solution to all racial ills, but it IS naive to think that eliminating AA is the solution. AA is a highly controversial and a complex topic, but the consequences of eliminating AA for URMs is cogently laid out before us in this article entitled, “What Would Be the Impact of Eliminating Affirmative Action.” If you don’t have the time to read the whole article, just jump to page 319:
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1655&context=faculty_scholarship
@TiggerDad I read the article. Even though it is 20+ years old, it has some valid points, with observations that I live with every single day as a black man in a corporate space (only African American on my particular team of 22 employees). I can see that you believe AA helps us and I wish I believed the same, but I see it as a caste system were we are looked at as a lower group and hear the whispers of division that it sows. It is hard for me to be naive about this issue (if you only knew my entire story) but this will be an issue that divides this country until a better way is found. I have no issues with the goals of trying to be diverse, I have an issue with the way they elite institutions go about it. I want to get rid of AA for a non-race preference based method of admissions. Do you think that is impossible? Because I believe we can have a diverse community of students without having a racial preference.
A Harvard internal analysis showing how low income influences admissions is at http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Doc-421-112-May-1-2013-Memorandum.pdf . A comparison between predicted admission rate without considering low income and actual admission rate is below: The predicated chance of admission nearly doubles for less than $40k income applicants.
Less than $40k income – Predicted 6% admit rate, Low SES hook increases admit rate to 11%
$40k to $80k income – Predicted 8% admit rate, Low SES hook increases admit rate to 11%
What I’m calling a “low SES hook” is Harvard’s “disadvantaged” flag. The reader’s manual says this flag should be given “if you believe the applicant is from a very modest economic background.” So many of the $40k to $80k income applicants appear to be getting this “very modest economic background” flag and corresponding admission boost, as well as less than $40k. In the lawsuit analysis, the regression coefficient for “disadvantaged” was a significant boost, but far less than other hooks, like legacy or URM. The Harvard internal analysis linked above found the overall admit rate for high stat applicants was 16%. If those high stat applicants were also low income, the admit rate increased to 24% – a significant boost but far less than the 55% admit rate for high stat legacies.
In contrast, the lawsuit found the regression coefficient for first generation alone (without disadvantaged flag) was not significantly different from zero. That is, it found no boost for first generation unless they also received the "disadvantaged’ flag for “a very modest economic background.” It’s possible that this has changed since the lawsuit, or first gen might be a more marketing friendly proxy for low income than would occur with a need blind college emphasizing a more direct boost for low income. In any case, Harvard does give a boost if the reader believes the applicant is low income… just not a large one compared to other hooks.
For a lawyer, the constitutional analysis in the link is embarrassing. Vague quotes from Aristotle tell you absolutely nothing about the original meaning of the 14th amendment at the time of its ratification. There is zero attempt to grapple with the legislative history.
Being need blind for individual applicants does not necessarily mean equal opportunity for the poor. Admission policies can (often intentionally) indirectly favor different levels of SES. For example, heavier use of legacy preference shifts the SES distribution upward. Of course, that is in addition to the fact that the poor often have reduced opportunity from K-12 in attaining the base level of academic credentials to be admissible candidates to a super-selective college (or any non-open-admission college, for that matter), since high school quality, test preparation, and other aspects related to parent and school support for academic achievement affect opportunity to a large degree.
It is only for those few students from poor families who overcome the heavy disadvantages that they faced from K-12 to apply as admissible candidates who may benefit from any admissions consideration specifically directed toward disadvantaged applicants or any financial aid they may get if admitted.
@roethlisburger - “For a lawyer, the constitutional analysis in the link is embarrassing. Vague quotes from Aristotle tell you absolutely nothing about the original meaning of the 14th amendment at the time of its ratification. There is zero attempt to grapple with the legislative history.”
If you’re a lawyer, you should know that your response is non sequitur when the issue at hand is what happens to URMs when AA is eliminated. 
@ucbalumnus - “Being need blind for individual applicants does not necessarily mean equal opportunity for the poor. Admission policies can (often intentionally) indirectly favor different levels of SES. For example, heavier use of legacy preference shifts the SES distribution upward. Of course, that is in addition to the fact that the poor often have reduced opportunity from K-12 in attaining the base level of academic credentials to be admissible candidates to a super-selective college (or any non-open-admission college, for that matter), since high school quality, test preparation, and other aspects related to parent and school support for academic achievement affect opportunity to a large degree.”
Yes, and for these reasons I can’t go along with those who argue in favor of eliminating AA and instead rely solely on SES to diversify the campus.
Thanks for the interesting analysis.
SES diversification at the elite private colleges is limited (check the Pell Grant percentages), and probably mainly to keep people from thinking that they are just aristocratic schools for the scions of wealth (which they still mostly are), so that they can remain marketable. Race/ethnicity diversity there has similar marketing motives for the elite private colleges.
In the overall scheme of things, the elites matter much less than the public K-12 schools and universities with respect to educational opportunity for those born into disadvantage. Many states do poorly here.