"Race" in College Applications FAQ & Discussion 12

[notigering]

@ChangeTheGame wrote:

“I am pretty sure that MLK Jr was not trying to discriminate against another minority group (Asian Americans) just to help African American students. Especially when the boost given to students like my own comfortably middle class black kids is larger than the boost given to low SES white and Asian American kids, I have a hard time believing that anyone truly believes that is right.”

I have no idea how you got there from what I wrote or quoted from MLK. This is not about blacks against Asians and to frame it that way is ignorant at best and perverse at worst. These schools were founded by powerful WASP people for their benefit at the exclusion of all others. To make things right they decided to stop that practice and have representation from all races and socioeconomic classes by encouraging those groups that were being left behind and were underrepresented in their school community to go in and participate there. Because of the schools popularity (or herd mentality is another way to put it…) and their limited number of seats some schools reject the vast majority of applicants from EVERY group regardless if how strong each individual is. Plus looking at applications is not an exact science, just because a individual is particularly overeager to go to a specific school he sees as the end all be all doesn’t makes him a better candidate, in some ways that can be off putting to an admissions officer that is looking for intangibles in a sea of not that important statistics. Meaning that high school and all its trappings (standardized scores, extracurriculars etc…) are fairly easy and they have way too many kids with way more than adequate statistics to chose from. Anyone that thinks of himself as a superior candidate because he hoarded more AP 5s or a few more points on the SAT or some silly extra medals than someone else (regardless of race) should really stop and reflect on what that amounts to for a moment. If he is as good as he thinks he is then it makes no difference whatsoever whether he goes to Harvard or U. Maryland for undergraduate. He will also be in a much better place (on many levels) if instead of glorifying any particular school he puts all that energy into academically succeeding in any of the many great schools he surely be accepted in.

[Data10]

I think it’s important to note that a cohort of 23 is simply too small to draw statistically significant conclusions from – whereas a cohort of 1220 is clearly large enough. So while one can conclude that there is 13% admit rate among top-decile Asian American applicants – one can’t really draw the conclusion of 56% African American --although if you had 230 in the cohort and 130 admitted, then you might have the requisite numbers.

It was a sample size of 138 students over the 6 year period, which is an average of 23 per year. The admit rate for the 138 in the top decile continues the trend reasonably well from the other high deciles, which have larger sample sizes and are summarized below. It’s not a exact value, but I think it’s safe to say just having top decile stats alone is not enough to assume you’ll be admitted, regardless of race.

Admit Rate for Black Applicants in Upper Half of AI Stats: Baseline Sample
Top Decile – 56% Admit Rate
2nd Decile – 54.5% Admit Rate
3rd Decile – 44.5% Admit Rate
4th Decile – 41% Admit Rate
5th Decile – 30% Admit Rate

[gallentjill]

How are the white males in a company supposed to feel when they are trying to move up the ranks and a minority or woman is selected instead? Will they have doubts it was based on merit? Of course, unless they personally worked with the person and were impressed by their skills. After all, the company goal is to decrease the percent of white men in leadership positions.

I suppose they would feel the way female and minority employees have felt throughout history. Somehow all that time when white males were being promoted over highly qualified females and minorities, no one seemed to worry about whether they would be seen as less qualified. I wonder why that is?

[tpike12]

@gallentjill - we will just have to disagree that discrimination by race or gender is okay. I refuse to support it and think it is terribly divisive.

[gallentjill]

@tpike12 I’m not sure how I feel about it discrimination of any kind. I’m just noting that when all the discrimination favored white males, no one wondered whether they would be stigmatized or whether they were the most qualified applicants. Now, suddenly, when the discrimination is falling the other way, everyone is tormented.

[tpike12]

@gallentjill - affirmative action is just a nice sounding word for discrimination. You can try to rationalize its use, but I think it is a huge problem.

Discrimination: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit
*

[OHMomof2]

@tpike12 Some kids may understand the nuance of MLKs beliefs, but I bet most don’t

Are you suggesting we need to cater to those who do not understand context and history and cannot be bothered to learn?

If a kid tells me that I’ll correct them too.

[wyzragamer]

@gallentjill Well obviously people cared a lot when discrimination that favored white males–that’s why those systems were dismantled. And what’s your argument–that two wrongs make a right, that some groups deserve to be discriminated against to make up for it?

[privatebanker]

The difference for me is the size of the populations affected. 3% of the entire 10mm college student universe is enrolled in a school with less than 27% acceptance rates. That universe is further reduced by the AA proportion. Maybe 20% of that number.

So what we are debating only effects .006 of the whole college student population. And some percentage of AA eligible students are fully qualified. So What maybe ,002 of the entire 18 to 21 year old cohort in America.

It stinks for the students involved to some degree. But the white or Asian kid shut out of Harvard isn’t the same as the Jim Crow laws.

This kept Black areas poor and underserved.

It involved an entire population of millions of people.

The white Harvard or Asian shut out group doesn’t have to live in these conditions or that level population level stigma.

Instead they have suffer the indignity of having to attend Georgetown Cal Boston College USC Michigan UVA Tufts Midd and Notre Dame etc. Maybe they can’t live in Beverly Hills but Malibu instead.

There’s no real tort. And it’s too small a percentage of the population to change public policy.

[gallentjill]

Well obviously people cared a lot when discrimination that favored white males–that’s why those systems were dismantled. And what’s your argument–that two wrongs make a right, that some groups deserve to be discriminated against to make up for it?

My point is that many of the comments on this thread seem to be suggesting that because URMs and others are given an advantage in admissions, many people will look at them and wonder if they deserve their spots, their jobs, their positions, etc. I am merely pointing out that this was not the case when women and minorities were actively denied these opportunities. No one seemed to wonder whether the white males were the most qualified or whether they deserved their spots.

I don’t think this is about who deserves to be discriminated against. Children born today are not responsible for wrongs of the past. But in some rare cases, two “wrongs” might make a right. If you have a group that has been actively deterred and prevented from accessing opportunity, it may not be enough to simply say, “Ok, now you can come in.” You may need to tip the scale the other way for a while, not to punish anyone, but simply to give the disadvantaged group a fair shot.

There are other instances where some discrimination is quite helpful. For example, actively recruiting URMs into medical school seems to make sense because often they go back in practice in their own communities – where they are sorely needed. This is also the reasoning behind the many programs seeking to recruit students with rural backgrounds to go back and work in rural communities.

As I have said many times, I am conflicted about affirmative action. Its very easy to see both sides. Thoughtful posters like @ChangeTheGame have opened my eyes to the harm it may be doing. Its a difficult subject.

[CU123]

There’s no real tort. And it’s too small a percentage of the population to change public policy.

The lawsuit is not about the size of the population affected so we’ll see what result comes from it.

[OHMomof2]

@gallentjill If you have a group that has been actively deterred and prevented from accessing opportunity, it may not be enough to simply say, “Ok, now you can come in.” You may need to tip the scale the other way for a while, not to punish anyone, but simply to give the disadvantaged group a fair shot.

As I’ve read a lot of MLK today, a quote of his came right to mind:

…“You’re free,” and it left him there penniless, illiterate, not knowing what to do. And the irony of it all is that at the same time the nation failed to do anything for the black man, though an act of Congress was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the Midwest. Which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.

But not only did it give the land, it built land-grant colleges to teach them how to farm. Not only that, it provided county agents to further their expertise in farming; not only that, as the years unfolded it provided low interest rates so that they could mechanize their farms.

There’s a lot more to his thought there, but I can only include a bit here. MLK makes the case that the scales need a LOT of tipping to come into balance.

https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/publications/knock-midnight-inspiration-great-sermons-reverend-martin-luther-king-jr-10

[privatebanker]

@cu123. This a thread about race and admission.

I was discussing the broader question of whether AA is useful as a tool, at a broad swath of selective schools.

I could give a rat’s butt about Harvard and the lawsuit.

If that is a debate about the tiny number of fully qualified Asian students offset by weaker AA admits. It’s important to them specifically and they’ve exercised their right to sue. I support that and hope it works out.

It has little to do with the social utility of AA, as a national means of redress for the millions of oppressed over decades.

We have to help change the narrative of generational poor, gangs and inner city blight. It will make us a more productive and successful experiment as a unique America version of a democratic republic.

Education is a part of that solution, though not the complete answer.

The obsession with Harvard is so misplaced to me.

There are profound issues in education to address.

This students misplaced by AA candidates are not a broad enough constituency to merit overlooking broader social good.

No one seems to a have a problem taxing the rich more than the poor. I would be shocked to find anyone here to say that’s a problem. That’s the same type of discrimination too.

But it serves a greater good. AA does too IMHO.

[CU123]

@privatebanker that lawsuit will have far more repercussions than on just Harvard, it could have a profound affect on AA as a whole.

[tpike12]

@privatebanker - the problem with accepting a “little” discrimination is that it becomes internalized. The discrimination may only affect a small amount of Asian-American students but they all feel like they are being penalized for their race.

[havesomeheart]

@privatebanker

The only kids in her school admitted to an Ivy League schools were five of her best friends. All Hispanic or AA. … I only tell you this because I think it’s better that they are going than her. And if it was AA we don’t care. We are thrilled for them.

@collegemomjam

“Jimmy will be just fine.”!!!

My black friends deserved their spots at the more elite schools. They were smart and they got through just fine. Just because my WASP friend and I didn’t get in, doesn’t mean our friends didn’t belong there.

When I read posts like these, I think to myself, ‘wow, there are many generous, kind people out there … even on cc’?

Then, I get exasperated.

The reason is because trying to legislate good behavior often backfires. What I mean is that in my opinion, private banker and collegemomjam have the right attitude, and the way they think is a fantastic approach.

But not all things that are potentially good should be legislated. For instance, outlawing candy for overweight teens may be good for them, but it wouldn’t be something that I would vote for.

And for an example that brings race into this… We know from many studies that winning the lottery doesn’t make you any happier. But what if there was a special 10% tax on Powerball winners, just for Asian-americans? Jimmy Wu will be just fine! What’s the difference between $90 million and $100 million? Doesn’t he know that above a certain point, more money won’t make him any happier?

Of course it won’t make Jimmy happier, but it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be fighting to change the rules if they are simply based on the color of your skin.

On many posts on cc, I see comments such as, “If he is as good as he thinks he is then it makes no difference whatsoever whether he goes to Harvard or U. Maryland for undergraduate. He will also be in a much better place (on many levels) if instead of glorifying any particular school he puts all that energy into academically succeeding in any of the many great schools he surely be accepted in.”

Personally, I find this comment to be mostly correct, but it’s also paternalistic. Everyone should be free to smoke cancer sticks, if they so choose. Likewise, telling an immigrant family from china that their hardworking children (with fantastic grades AND great extracurriculars and essays) will have far less chance of getting into a T10 school then an URM classmate with the same credentials, BUT they shouldn’t fight this because they will be “in a better place” at their state flagship is insensitive, even if ultimately true.

@trackcoach79

My wife and I, were both poor, but gifted students. Education is the reason, for the lives we now live. My mother, was a domestic in the 60’s and 70’s, making $25 a week. So, sometimes I stop to marvel at how far we’ve come in one generation. Our kids are a combination of nurture and nature. We read to them daily, and they could read, write, and do basic math, by the time they reached Pre-K. I am/was a bit of a “Tiger Dad”, I researched teachers from K-12, to make sure my kids had the best teachers in the building… They were required to play a sport and an instrument. I believe playing an instrument does wonders for the development of young minds.

Like many of you, I applaud trackcoach79. If more AA parents were like him, I think this entire thread wouldn’t exist. But I think to myself, if trackcoach79 was an asian dad who had stated the exact same things: a Tiger Dad, read to them daily, required to play a sport and an instrument, etc, I wonder how many cc’ers would have assumed that he was too much of a “helicopter” dad and gently [or not so gently] admonished him that his approach to parenting might be improved for the benefit of his children?

@Collegemomjam, I agree with you that Just because we haven’t made ENOUGH progress, doesn’t mean we can’t keep making more progress. But currently college admissions offices seem to think that everything is hunky-dory and no changes need to be made with the status quo. We can’t make any more progress with this type of thinking. We need to have more transparency on the black-box of “holistic” review, and there should be an attitude by Admissions offices that each year, we’re going to tinker away and improve the process. Why? Like @changethegame, I agree that diversity is a good thing. I am just looking for a little more creativity and imagination (other than current AA policy) to help URM children compete.

Also because, legislating even good behavior—if it’s just based on the color of your skin—will ultimately be corrosive.

[privatebanker]

I’m rich. I pay a lot more in taxes than those who make less. Am I being penalized unfairly? And yes, I feel I am.

It’s unequal treatment.

But society feels there is a greater social benefit that overrides this obvious different treatment of fellow citizens.

Millions receiving unequal treatment.

The Asian students left out of Harvard are a tiny percentage.

And yes they are being discriminated upon as are the majority of white applicants.

Like the tax example, I don’t think the ultimate injustice leads to negative outcomes.

It just means not going to Harvard, which isn’t even a public institution.

I can’t play golf at Augusta National either. It’s a private club.

Your discriminated group of white and Asian students are not left with unequal opportunity. You just didn’t get into Harvard. Go to Brown. It will be ok. You’ll survive.

[OHMomof2]

@privatebanker And yes they are being discriminated upon as are the majority of white applicants.

White applicants have athletic recruiting and legacy bumps that (most) Asian and URM students do not. I’ll guess most of the uber-donors/Z list kids are also whit though they are a small portion of the class, as I understand it.

We don’t call those preferences discrimination even though they favor mostly wealthy white applicants.

Some Asian American and URM writers have pointed out that the recent negative attention to legacy preference is coming just as those policies may come to benefit their kids. Hmm.

[privatebanker]

@OhioMom2 The athletes are qualified by their excellence in their sport combined with academics that meet whatever bar is proposed.

They aren’t taking white athletes over Asian athletes because of their race. That’s silly.

And while someone is practicing violin some kids are skating at five in the morning. The schools and society assign a value to it. Some people find it misplaced value. But the majority disagrees.

I’m an for AA. I’m. Not sure what you are trying to say? Is it good or bad. And please try to find something good in a post rather than looking for the one “gotcha” or point of disagreement. I wrote a lot and perhaps look at it in its totality.

[wyzragamer]

@privatebanker

Your discriminated group of white and Asian students are not left with unequal opportunity. You just didn’t get into Harvard. Go to Brown. It will be ok. You’ll survive.

Wow, that is so messed up on many levels. Your whole analogy is flawed too, because people with higher pre-tax incomes still make more money than people with lower incomes even after taxes, and you choose where to work. You don’t choose your race.

@OHMomof2

We don’t call those preferences discrimination even though they favor mostly wealthy white applicants.

Those preferences are bad too, but at least they aren’t discriminating based just on the color of your skin. I would definitely support a social movement to get rid of those preferences, but to me the race-based preferences are much more egregious because they are doing an illegal form of racial discrimination.