Just as wealthier white and Asian kids are more likely to have the profile elite colleges look for, so would wealthier black and hispanic kids, no? The pool of poor, first gen kids of any race with the grades and scores and recs and ECs that form the criteria for admission at elites is just much smaller in lower SES groups.
I was looking up the answer to my statement earlier that all that can be considered by colleges is diversity for diversity’s sake, not to correct past wrongs, and came across a few articles of interest…
An argument for affirmative action for middle class and up black students -
that article led me to another -
…and benefits of diversity for all students. Ideally it happens way before college but for a lot of US kids, it does not, because our K-12 schools are so segregated.
“Self-selection of people going into PhD programs and seeking faculty jobs is probably a big factor in partisan affiliation.”
I don’t think @mile30 's assertion about professor politics is possible to examine without knowing the political persuasion of the pipeline, as ucb points out here. It might simply be that politically conservative people don’t particularly want to be college professors and politically liberal people do. If there were a 50/50 split among PhDs looking for academic work, and most of those of one persuasion were simply not being hired, that would be a different situation than there just not being that many conservative PhDs wanting to teach in college.
"Self-selection of people going into PhD programs and seeking faculty jobs is probably a big factor in partisan affiliation. For example, members of the underrepresented party tend to have negative views on college in general. In addition, they are more likely to have political views like creation “science” in biology or that slavery was not a major cause of the US civil war that are not generally considered credible in the face of overwhelming academic research. Also, those who prefer that the US be a “white” country may not want to be in an environment like college full of young Americans who are increasingly non-white. "
This is offensive. Claiming there isn’t more diversity in the views of professors because the less represented party is ignorant and racist is offensive. If you have some data that supports that claim, please share.
“The pool of poor, first gen kids of any race with the grades and scores and recs and ECs that form the criteria for admission at elites is just much smaller in lower SES groups.”
There is no reason to use recs and ECs used by the elite colleges other than the colleges using them to keep their student body privileged. Please show me the studies that show that certain LORs and ECs are linked to achievement at elite schools…they’re not, it’s just a filter. Plenty of studies show grades and scores can be linked to college academic performance - and low SES students often have those. What they don’t have is the recs and ECs because those opportunities are generally tied to the financial contributions and connections of the parents.
Heck, a study by Harvard’s own Avery (done in partnership with Stanford’s Hoxby) shows how few high achieving low SES students even apply to top colleges. https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/the-missing-one-offs-the-hidden-supply-of-high-achieving-low-income-students/ But those missing students aren’t going to have the same recs and ECs the wealthy kids have, so that’s another barrier for them. This barrier is solely established by these colleges, though. If the colleges were interested, they could and would attract low income students as effectively as they hoover up the wealthy scions.
My wife has been on several hiring committees for new faculty and political affiliation has never come up. They are seeking the most talented and accomplished applicants. It’s the pool and not some bias.
As far as homogeneous SES top schools are doing more to admit kids in a lower SES but as I said earlier they aren’t going to go so far as to damage their institutions financially or brand.
“I don’t think @mile30 's assertion about professor politics is possible to examine without knowing the political persuasion of the pipeline, as ucb points out here. It might simply be that politically conservative people don’t particularly want to be college professors and politically liberal people do.”
OK, so using this logic, should we just assume there aren’t more URMs at elite colleges because those URMs just aren’t interested? Taking a look at the pipeline, there aren’t significant numbers of URMs with the grades and test scores that are required of whites and Asians, so do we shrug and say the pipeline isn’t full - no big deal?
Or… do we examine why the pipeline is empty? Why are certain groups not demonstrating interest or ability? Is the ability lacking or is there lack of interest for other reason?
Do we just need diversity that’s PC, such as URM? Or do we really mean true diversity, which will include views we don’t agree with?
“My wife has been on several hiring committees for new faculty and political affiliation has never come up. They are seeking the most talented and accomplished applicants.”
Exactly how it works for the type of diversity that isn’t important for virtue signaling. If that’s the best way to hire or admit - only the most qualified - then why isn’t that how admissions is done? We only recognize that “diversity” is important for skin color but not other beliefs, experiences, perspectives?
But it’s not just skin color. It’s the reason they want kids from different geographic areas and kids from suburbs, cities and rural areas and kids from privates and publics and parochials, internationals, etc.
“But it’s not just skin color. It’s the reason they want kids from different geographic areas and kids from suburbs, cities and rural areas and kids from privates and publics and parochials, internationals, etc.”
Sort of. They want wealthy kids from all those areas, regardless of skin color. And they’ll mix in a few less wealthy kids who have demonstrated that they can mingle in a socially accepted way and have similar values and signaling that the college values. That’s not diversity. That’s carefully curating a group that appears diverse but actually isn’t.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/20/republicans-skeptical-of-colleges-impact-on-u-s-but-most-see-benefits-for-workforce-preparation/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/03/republican-views-on-evolution-tracking-how-its-changed/
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/us150722/CivilWar/McClatchy-Marist%20Poll_National%20Tables_The%20Confederate%20Flag_August%202015.pdf
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/explaining-the-trump-vote-the-effect-of-racist-resentment-and-antiimmigrant-sentiments/537A8ABA46783791BFF4E2E36B90C0BE/core-reader
@milee30 - You are right that the private colleges want wealthy kids, but that is inherent in the fact that they are expensive and want students who pay tuition and who are part of families who are potential donors. I don’t really see a way around that, absent alternative sources of funding for those students. Each college has $X that they are willing to put into their financial aid budget and use to bring in lower-income students. They can allocate that amount in different ways, but in the end they are selling a commodity to a clientele, and they are going to select a clientele that can afford the going rate for that commodity.
Except elite colleges don’t want most of what you just listed. The Ivies are heavily biased toward NE students(low geographic diversity), heavily urban/rich suburbs(rural underrepresented), and heavily elite secular privates(public and religious under-represented).
@milee30, I find it offensive that you say they will take in less wealthy URMs that can mingle in a socially accepted way. Any data to back that up?
@CottonTales - you’re are misquoting me. I wrote that the colleges would take less wealthy applicants that can mingle in a socially acceptable way. You added the URM modifier.
@milee30,sorry, I did add that on. My apologies.
@dolemite that is so true. I love the second base analogy, too. I’m glad your daughter has that perspective.
@ChangeTheGame I really see things very similarly to you, although I do feel there is still a lot of bias against underrepresented wealthy and connected students, too. I still believe we need AA. AA doesn’t mean that students who wouldn’t get in otherwise get in as a “balancer” with the hope that they will level up to their overrepresented peers. It means that kids who should get in based on their achievements get in and right now they don’t always if the admissions folks feel like they’ve “done enough” already or get nervous about the balance of the student body even when applicants are absolutely best-qualified. Bias persists.
The studies I have seen all found a benefit to LORs in predicting nearly any measure of academic success (graduation rate, GPA, not dropping out of STEM, …) However that benefit was generally smaller than transcript related measures, such as GPA and strength of curriculum. For example, the meta analysis of 20 studies involving the predictive ability of LORs at colleges at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ijsa.12060 came to the following conclusion.
LORs and ECs are also not only used by elite colleges. In the NACAC surveys, 40-50% of colleges usually say they are at least moderately important in admission decisions. Several not especially selective publics mark LORs as “Very Important” in their CDS, such as the SUNY system.
@OHMomof2 I love your arguments for diversity in elite college admissions and I have always believed your heart to be in the right place. But you are ignoring the fact that a large swath of that “diversity” is coming from a small subset of good schools while pretty much ignoring possible students from schools in the most URM filled inner cities. That will never sit right with me. I do believe that if politicians could communicate on these issues as we have on CC, more problems would get solved because I believe the ultimate goals are the same.
@CCtoAlaska I agree that there is still bias for middle class and wealthy URMs to overcome. And if there was some objective measure/clear data point that would one day put an end to racial preferences, I would keep my mouth shut (but still would not be comfortable with AA premise because I would love using things like grit/overcoming obstacles as a factor in admissions more than race). It also doesn’t sit well with me seeing some excellent Asian American students getting “slaughtered” in elite college admissions when I have never seen even 1 African American with a similar profile have such paltry results. Elite college institutions do not owe any student admission and I believe that. But as a minority that has been “discounted” many times, I can see that same dynamic occurring.
“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must take it because his conscience tells him it is right”. Martin Luther King
One of my favorite MLK quotes and although I am in the vast minority of thought on racial preferences among African Americans in elite college admissions, I will spend the rest of my life trying to equal the playing field when it comes to educational outcomes for my people. I see that many posters are also led by their conscience on both sides of this issue and I believe we will reach a common ground together.
Merry Christmas CC Family.