Did you misread my post? I specifically remarked that I did not believe that self-segregation was the motivating factor. (“I don’t think it’s a desire to self-segregate”). So it’s unclear to me whether you are trying to take issue with something I didn’t say.
@calmom My mistake… I did misread your post on that point. But I also wanted to make the point that the term self-segregation does not ever come up when speaking about a PWI, only with HBCUs.
Well that language comes up with women’s colleges as well. My daughter attended a women’s college and I probably could come up with a similar lists of the benefits of attending women’s schools. Certainly many distinguished women are graduates of women’s colleges.
When I was in high school the elites were male-only, so women who might have liked to attend HYP didn’t have that option. I wanted co-ed but I didn’t have the option to apply to HYP.
But that changed ---- and after it changed, women now have a much wider array of options.
And yet the elite women’s colleges – and some not-so-elite women’s schools – are thriving. So women have a choice, and they don’t have to isolate themselves or take on roles akin to pioneers to make that choice. They can opt for a women’s college, or they can opt for a co-ed college or university knowing that just about any place they choose will have many other women.
And as others have pointed out already, Cal Tech certainly has made an effort to increase female enrollment, even though it is nowhere close to 50/50.
So that’s why I also think that the elite private colleges also should be making a commitment to diversity. Because I don’t think that a young African American man or woman should be constrained in their choices out of a feeling of being unwelcome or unappreciated or simply an oddity at top schools.
I realize that the situations are different given that half the population is female— but the point is that it is possible and I think desirable to have both options.
@calmom I went to an all male college for undergrad and we were also described as self-segregated from a gender perspective so that description goes both ways. But when it comes to race, that term tends to only go one way (towards HBCUs) when it comes to higher education. It is not the same to me personally, but I am moving on. Looking at females at CalTech in comparison to African American students is hard to do because there are many women with the statistical profile that CalTech is looking for in comparison to a very small number of African Americans with that same profile. I believe that CalTech is very welcoming (but you have to meet the standard whether you a woman, African American, or any other student subgroup).
@calmom Women made up 46 percent of the 2018 Caltech freshman class.
@SatchelSF I actually am in total agreement with you regarding #3655 (I missed a few hours, that’s why I’m adding it here). Who would have thunk?
Now we need to disagree about something or people will start talking…
When Berkeley addressed the covert anti-Asian bias (ie. Harvard) Asian Enrollment shot up and white enrollment went down as would occur at Harvard as Asians overall have higher SAT scores and GPAs vs white applicants.
white enrollment did go down from 34-37% prior to 31-29% after the Anti-Asian bias was addressed by Berkeley and remained steady throughout the 90s even though Trendline analysis would suggest these changes would accelerate… additionally, Asian enrollment was still going up despite the Anti-Asian bias in admissions .while White enrollment was going down which was probably one of the reasons this policy existed in the first place (ie Harvard).
the key metric is white applicants in terms of their numbers and stats (SAT scores and GPA) before and after the Anti-Asian policy was removed not Trendline analysis.
@ChangeTheGame If what you say is correct about the student’s situation, I’d counsel her to not attend Howard. I personally know two students who were guaranteed scholarships there that didn’t come through due to a lack of institutional funding. I have relatives who are alums who sing the school’s praises, but freely admit that they are not and have never been great with their finances.
The last time I looked it up, less than three percent of black Georgia high school students qualified for Zell. Those kids are pretty much guaranteed acceptance at UGA, GSU, and have a great shot at Tech. That has been our experience, anyway. With Pell and Zell, the young lady you’re speaking of would be wise to stay in GA. My two cents.
@indiethoughts We think a lot alike. I told the student to follow the money which was probably going to be best at her state school options. I just wish she would have gotten more guidance early on because she would have had so many options with just a little more guidance. But I am glad that the student has viable options because of Georgia’s higher education funding provided by lottery funds.
The policy change placed a greater emphasis on stats. You’ve mentioned Asians had higher stats, so the expected result is a greater increase in percent Asian. If Harvard placed a greater emphasis on stats, they’d also increase Asian percentage, as occurred at Berkeley. Neither side of the lawsuit disputes that increasing weight on stats increases Asian percentage, but the lawsuit is not about increasing the weighting given to stats. It’s about a claimed bias under Harvard’s existing policy, which considers far more than stats. For example, the Plantiff claims if two applicants had the same hook status, EC rating, LORs, alumni interview rating… a White applicant would have a slight edge over an Asian with identical qualifications.
The specific 1992 Berkeley SAT thresholds for admission and reading the application for fall admission are below, for a 4.0 GPA applicant. The score threshold is an average of the SAT I subsections and 3 SAT achievement tests. Note how narrow the range is for White and non-Filipino asian applicants. There is only an extremely narrow range of 600-626 in this 4.0 GPA example, in which the essays and rest of the application get read in “great detail” in consideration for fall admission. It follows that the vast majority of White and non-Filipino Asians were admitted almost purely based on who has the highest stats (unless low SES or rural). Applicants with highest stats are disproportionately Asian, so is it any wonder that the Asian percentage increased under this admission policy change?
SAT Admit Thresholds for 4.0 Applicant at Berkeley in 1992
Black/Indian/Chicano/Disabled – Auto admit with 450+/800, Review app in “great detail” for all scores
Latino – Auto admit with 500+/800, Review app in “great detail” for all scores
Very Low SES – Auto admit with 550+/800, Review app in “great detail” for 400+/800
Low SES – Auto admit with 600+/800, Review app in “great detail” for 400+/800
Rural or Filipino – Auto admit with 600+/800, Review app in “great detail” for 450+/800
White, Non-Filipino Asian – Auto admit with 626+/800, Review app in “great detail” for 600+/800
CA high school demographics were rapidly changing during this period. The percent Asian high school seniors more than doubled during this period. The percent Hispanic seniors increased at even higher rates than Asians. If admissions policy was unchanged, one would expect the Asian and Hispanic population at Berkeley to have rapid increases in Asian and Hispanic percentage, and rapid decreases in White percentage. Ignoring the trend or other metric that captures changes in CA HS demographic misses what is likely the most influential variable in why the enrollment percentages changed during the 80s and 90s. I’ll list it in a different way that may be more clear. Yes the White enrollment decreased after focusing more on stats, but it was a smaller decrease than occurred in previous years and a smaller decreases than expected based on the smaller share of White HS seniors in CA.
During 6 years prior to Berkeley admission changes to more focus on stats
White decreased from 56% to 34%
Asian increased from 24% to 31%
Hispanic increased from 9% to 21%
Black roughly unchanged
During next 7 years, including the Berkeley admission changes to focus more on stats
White decreased from 34% to 28%
Asian increased from 31% to 41%
Hispanic decreased from 21% to 13%
Black roughly unchanged
@hebegebe those are great points. Do you happen to know if the schools that are test optional include those scores in their admitted students’ profile? So these really competitive schools like U Chicago, Bowdoin, etc., are those numbers inflated because they didn’t have to include in their averages/ranges the scores of the kids that got in TO? I know they usually make the kids submit scores after the fact, but often wondered if allowing kids to apply without scores at the top elite colleges is also a win win, as you put it because it might help recruit the diversity they are looking for without penalizing themselves with their stats.
Wow!!! I did not realize this! Very interesting and enlightening. Thanks for sharing this:
Most do not understand the continued importance of HBCUs today so I pulled a few numbers.
HBCUs are 3% of all US Colleges/Universities
12% of African American College students
23% of all African American College grads
40% of all African American STEM degrees
40% of all African American Health Professionals
50% of all African American Teachers
50% of all African American Laywers
60% of all African American Engineers
70% of all African American Doctors and Dentists
80% of all African American Judges
Asians are the only group that is penalized in the Harvard personality scores… whites are not, in fact, they benefit from it and along with lower SATs and GPAs are given preference over more qualified Asians. Very clear that Harvard is using their personality scores to restrict enrollment of more qualified Asians.
what is the racial makeup of the interviewers who are interviewing Asian students and doing these scores at Harvard?
how else is the bias that only shows up for Asians and not whites or any other racial group in other ways manifesting itself during the admissions process?
these are the questions that need to be addressed to rectify the anti-Asian bias that is evident at Harvard and many selective universities.
The Berkeley data shows that white enrollment went down and Asian enrollment went up as a result of this anti-Asian policy being corrected. We will see the same at Harvard too if this bias is addressed appropriately.
Berkeley was witnessing increasing Asian enrollment and decreasing White enrollment with this anti-Asian policy in place - which is probably why it existed in the first place (ie Harvard).
The key metric is data showing white applicants numbers along with GPA and SAT scores before and after Berkeley rectified its anti-Asian bias.
Interviewers - who are mostly alumni volunteers - have very little to do with it.
There is a “personal rating” assigned by admissions readers.
As OHMomof2 noted, the article you read was talking about the admissions reader ratings, not alumni interviewer ratings. The core admission reader rating categories are academic, extracurricular, personal, and athletic. Unhooked Asians average slightly lower personal ratings and substantially lower athletic ratings. Alumni interviewers also give a “personal qualities” rating. The approximate average admissions personal qualities and alumni interview personal qualities ratings are below for unhooked applicants. The ratings are supposed to be on the admissions reader’s assessment of the “applicant’s humor, sensitivity, grit, leadership, integrity, helpfulness, courage, kindness and many other qualities” . This assessment is based on the essays, LORs, alumni interviewer comments, and the rest of the full file. The rating scale is 1-6 with the following meaning:
1 – Outstanding
2 – Very Strong
3 – Generally Positive
4 – Bland, Somewhat Negative, or Immature
5 – Questionable Personal Qualities
6 – Worrisome Personal Qualities
Admissions Reader Average Personal Qualities Rating
White – 2.79
Asian – 2.83
Hispanic – 2.82
Black – 2.82
Alumni Interviewer Average Personal Qualities Rating
White – 2.19
Asian – 2.21
Hispanic – 2.30
Black – 2.31
Quoting your own post repeatedly does change the problems with your conclusions that have been mentioned.
That most historically black schools are still 80+% black is evidence of self-segregation of non-black students away from schools with large percentages of black students.
Forum chatter also gives hints. For example, most (not all) posters seem unlikely to suggest historically black schools to non-black students, even if a historically black school fits the stated search criteria. Also, there is a college admissions consultant who posts on these forums (though not this particular thread) who has stated that white students generally prefer colleges with white majorities. The term “majority minority” tends to be used with negative connotation, even though it now describes some highly desired schools like Stanford.
Note the implications for colleges’ motivations to manipulate the racial/ethnic mix of their students in order to be marketable to prospective students of each race/ethnicity.
Asian American applicants rank higher than any other group based on the Academic Rating 58.6% of Asian-American applicants receive a 1 or 2, compared to 44.7% of whites
Asian-American applicants likewise have very strong Extracurricular Ratings, again ranking higher on average than any of the other three groups (including whites)
However, on the personal rating, Asian Americans have the lowest share receiving a 1 or a 2 of the four
groups. Yet, for all groups, the share receiving one of these top personal ratings is higher with higher academic indices.
So basically as a whole higher academic indices result in higher personality scores for every group except Asians which had the lowest share.
Asians are the only racial group that is penalized relative to their academic indices with Harvard’s personal ratings.
A Trendline analysis is full of errors and not worth discussing… and as I said the metric that is important is White applicant numbers along with SAT and GPA stats before and after Berkeley fixed its anti-Asian policy. the stats on white enrollment before and after along with Asian enrollment speak for themselves.
AOs are humans. Humans have biases, even with their best efforts to control their biases. These biases can’t be avoided without removing much of the subjectivity in college admission. There’re good reasons why holistic admission is practiced almost nowhere else.
This is an unfocused discussion of the various ratings assigned by Harvard adcoms and interviewers.
The litigation documents contain a useful metric: share of unhooked applicants receiving a “2” or higher on the various attributes, disaggregated by race and by academic decile (scores + GPA). (Unhooked other than race preference or penalty.)
To my eye, there is clearly some mischief going on in the Personal and Final Reader Overall Ratings, with large boosts for URM and modest penalties for Asians. No question Harvard is using soft quotas and playing fast and loose with the legal proscription against race discrimination, but as I said above and as the plaintiff’s models show, the penalties against Asians are small and may be explainable by choice of interest/major and perhaps some narrowness in the range of their profiles. Asians are also a little weak on counselor and teacher ratings relative to other groups, but strong on extracurriculars.
It is worth noting that plaintiff wants to make the strongest possible case for bias. And yet eliminating the Asian “penalty” in plaintiff’s expert’s models would only slightly increase the share of Asians in the class (~1%).
Tables 5.4R through 5.7R are the places to focus on, pages 111-114 here: http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Doc-415-2-Arcidiacono-Rebuttal-Report.pdf
Accounting for race and gender, Asian Americans see their share of the predicted admissions class fall from 26% to 18%. Whites see a decline from 50.6% to 44.1%;
however for Asians the decline is 31%, for whites it is 13%…
If we keep the stats for other affirm action groups steady and eliminated the Asian penalty Asians would gain significant spots from whites.
Harvard’s admissions officers assign significantly lower “personal” scores to
Asian Americans as compared to whites. The difference is notable because
similar ratings by teachers, guidance counselors, and alumni interviewers do
not show nearly as much of a difference between those two groups.11 The use
of personal and extracurricular scores as a whole has a negative effect on the
predicted admission rate of Asian-American applicants, but not on the
applicants of all other races.