As a metric, to be 87th percentile nationally is quite poor for ivy league caliber schools. This definitely has an impact on what type of courses you can take in college and greatly limits what you will likely major in.
At Duke, if you have a math SAT or SAT II score of below 710 or ACT math score of below 30, it is recommended that you start with the very lowest math sequence as a freshman. At Princeton, if you have a math SAT below 670 or ACT score below 28, you basically have to take remedial math, the lowest of 7 tracks that are available for freshman.
Since nearly all ivy+ schools require at least 1-2 math courses to graduate (in any major including nonSTEM) and you will be far below your peer group, there will likely be important effects on self-esteem. No impact? Hardly.
As noted in my earlier post, African-americans with a 5 academic rating had an acceptance rate of 22.41%. Are all these admitted students “almost certainly primarily recruited athletes”? Doubtful.
Even using the class of 2017 data, the gap between AA and asian americans is 51 points per section or 102 points (out of 1600). Your point regarding the trend line after 2014 or so is well taken, however, much of the discussion was whether there was or was not a sizable gap in academic performance over the last 5-20 years - the time period for the current Harvard lawsuit. Additionally, it is highly speculative to assume that the gap will continue to reduce in the future. Academic performance (for good or ill) is correlated with wealth and the wealth gap for URMs is currently growing not decreasing.
You are confusing academic rating with AI stat decile. Academic rating is one of the 4 core ratings given by readers when reviewing student’s application file. 1 is best, and 5 is worst. The reader guidelines describe a 5 academic rating as “Marginal potential. Modest grades and 500 scores (25 and below ACT).” For all practical purposes, nobody is accepted with a 5 academic rating – recruited athlete or not. In the 3 of the 6 years of the sample, literally none of thousands of applicants with a 5 academic rating were accepted. A 4 academic rating is in the range where top athletes can be recruited, but almost anybody else will rejected. Arcidiacono writes:
AI (academic index) is a stat calculated Ivy League athletic conference schools to set rules for how much lower stats athletes can have below the rest of the class. The Ivy League athletic conference permits 2-3 band 1 football recruits to have have an AI >2 standard deviations below the rest of the class. It seems even the minimum >2 SD below class athletes generally had an academic rating better than 5. AI decile is something Arcidiacono arbitrarily calculates to prove his points by ranking applicants according to their AI. A decile 5 AI means an AI that is near the average for the full applicant pool. It is possible for unhooked applicants of all races are admitted with a 5th decile AI, but URM applicants with stats in this range are much more likely to be admitted than unhooked non-URMs.
I can’t read the graph to the that level of precision, but Asian admits averaged ~25 points per section above the average admit, and Black admits averaged ~25 points below the average. However, the reasons for this +/- ~25 point difference from the average are notably different for Asian and Black admits as a whole.
An 87th percentile ACT score corresponds to 27 or below on the ACT. The reader guidelines suggest an applicant with scores in this range would be likely to get a 4 or 5 academic rating. As implied by my earlier posts, there are few admits per year with scores this range, and those few are generally top recruited athletes. I don’t know how those athletes do academically at Harvard other than they tend to graduate. For example, for the past 3 years, the GSR graduate rate for the Harvard football team has ranged from 98% to 100%. As a whole, Harvard athletes seem far more likely than the overall student body to major in economics. They are also more likely to work in finance and consulting (particularly the latter) after graduating,. However, these surveys do not separate by ACT score range. In any case, this is far from the usual score range for URM admits.
Given the statistics of the strength of the African American boost, how does one explain the high stat AA kids who are rejected with scores in the high 1500’s and excellent GPA’s. Kids like that have been mentioned in this thread several times. It seems to me that if the preferance were that strong, those kids would be accepted. Why not fill the class with AA kids primed to succeed?
Does anyone else think this is rehashing the same stuff over and over ?
Black Hispanic and Native students get a boost at wealthy schools. It differs a bit by race.
-the overall statistical quality of that pool is lower the Asian and Caucasian students on average.
-many believe the statistical variance is tied to income and resulting resources, ec opportunities, parental knowledge, coaching or involvement, lousy schools
-many from the urm pool are fully qualified or more, this preference shown to peers with lower academic profiles of the same race creates anger and frustration. It appears that their academic accomplishment or innate brilliance is offset by perceived preference. Ie. It’s doesn't have the same social currency as they move on in life as the same degree earned by the other groups.
-Asian and Caucasian students with higher academic statistics are angry and frustrated by those with less achievement on paper gaining acceptance because of the race or cultural advantage.
-People believe the process should be a pure meritocracy.
-People believe that offering access to POC and historically oppressed to these wealthy schools offer an opportunity for social and economic mobility. Which has social utility for a nation.
-Others believe there should be only preference for income inequality for all races. There are many wealthy urm who have access to all the college prep advantages. This is a defacto double advantage.
-Asians have also been oppressed. But because they have been successful at achieving academically, they are being punished as a group which is a racist practice, in and of itself.
-many Asians have unique talents and personalities but get grouped as one dimensional stem zombies, violin playing premed gunners. Their parents are all tiger parents and they will create a boring environment.
-wealthy white students are viewed as all privileged, test prepped and development candidates. But they are locked out in a
world of reverse racism.
-lower middle class white students and especially girls have to be so much more accomplished than anyone to get an elite seat. And if not they are locked out economically. They are not rich enough or poor enough to get a fair shake. They may have overcome many things but it doesn’t matter because they are white. It’s discounted as privilege even if they are from a mill town and worked two jobs.
I’m sure there are more. But it’s these core issues over and over.
Is it fair? To those who get in it’s fine. To those who get in by perceived preference it’s fine but not perfect
Is it wrong? To those left out. It feels that way.
Is it correctable? What are some solutions or real world examples that could be promoted?
How do we get these changes, if any, to be adopted?
Like in a real way?
That’s perhaps a good thing for the brilliant minds on this thread to consider.
Once we know and agree on the points of contention, negotiation and compromise is possible. It’s not realistic to have everyone with so many embedded belief systems and personal experiences to just say, oh that’s a good point I completely change my mind. That’s doesn’t happen and you reach stalemate.
Maybe we can come up with some great ideas and som ideas on how to start. Political avenues. Social media. Etc.
That’s the only way to move this important thread and topic forward. Or we will be stuck with this circular loop of never ending patterns and data points.
Yes, it’s rehashing the same stuff over and over, but you left out the crux of the issue. This is a legal issue. Were Harvard’s admissions practices legally consistent with federal laws?
@privatebanker I agree that sometimes it seems like the thread is going in circles. But the problem is that people don’t all agree on the facts. Some people won’t even admit that the Asian discrimination is a problem, and some people don’t even think it exists (how they think affirmative action works, then, is something I’d be interested in asking). For some people, the driving force behind AA is so noble it’s beyond questioning (although in my last post I try to argue that in fact it’s not). I think it’s important to try to talk about this until everyone understands.
I am trying to help fix the problem by supporting the SFFA cases and writing about the true face of affirmative action in our schools in various publications. I’m also faculty at a public university and I’m working on organizing outreach for the local community and supporting students from all backgrounds to widen the pipeline to my field and my profession.
And of course I’m on here to learn everyone else’s perspective as well.
Thats an awesome set of things you are doing. your perspective as someone in the trenches, with an advanced degree has a unique view.
And my post wasn’t a complaint. Just there are so many great perspectives. But if we can’t start to find common ground, it will be a constant battle to find supporting data and perspective to win a debate. It’s like collegiate AA “trench warfare”. Tough to move forward.
After 4,440 posts, you are just noticing this now?
Actually, I think that these types of threads seem circular but are actually more like spirals. We go over the same ground but every now and then someone inserts a really astute new observation or set of data points and it nudges everyone’s understanding a bit. My own thinking has evolved after reading about the lived experience of African American families on these pages. Clearly we all enjoy wrestling with these complex issues even if it sometimes gets repetitive. I don’t mind going over old ground because every now and then it yields something new and worthwhile.
Of course it may just be that we are all addicted to this website and are in real need of an intervention.
@gallentjill Ah yeah. I guess you’re right. Lol! I’ve only been part of 500 posts of so.
But you’re observation is so spot on. I came into this firmly against AA. Now I’ve been moved to a new position. But then changethegame and ohiomom and so many others change me back and forth.
The recent posts have been focusing on Harvard’s academic rating, which has a good correlation with stats and AI. However, Harvard admission decisions consider far more than academic rating or stats. Card found that academic rating alone only explained 9% of variance in admission decisions – approximately the same contribution as the EC and athletic ratings, and much less contribution than personal and LOR ratings.
For example, there are 4 core ratings categories – academic, EC, personal, and athletic. The highest possible rating is a 1. Applicants who received a 1 in any category had a high chance of admission. Among the rest, the approximate admit rate by number of 2’s (above average rating among applicant pool) in the lawsuit sample:
Zero 2 ratings – 0.1% admit rate
One or Two 2 Ratings – ~6% Admit Rate
Three 2 Ratings – 43% Admit Rate
Four 2 Ratings – 68% Admit Rate
The high AI stat applicants who only a 2 in academic and no other categories had little chance of admission. However, those who received 2’s in at least two other categories besides just academic had a decent shot of admission. As such, admission decisions are correlated with academic rating and stats, but there are many exceptions. Some kids of all races with top AI stats decile get rejected, while some unhooked kids with substantially lower stats who do well in other categories besides academic will be accepted. The rejection rate for high academic ratings and the top AI decile was as follows. There is a clear preference for URMs, but many of all races in the top stat decile were rejected.
**Top AI Decile Admit Rates/b
43% of Black applicants rejected
65% of Hispanic applicants rejected
82% of White applicants rejected
87% of Asian applicants rejected
The original version of this thread dates back to 2008, so lots of repetition. What has made this thread interesting over the past year is the Harvard lawsuit. A wealth of information has come out of the lawsuit on how Harvard does admissions. The last actual study to look into this was Espenshade and he used data from 1997.
I think part of my issue with this conversation and the going back and forth is that we keep coming back to Harvard. I think I would have more empathy for the anti-AA argument if we talked more about AA overall, and less about how it specifically relates to Harvard. (My hunch is I would still support AA, though.)
I know many of you have posted a lot of great data (supporting both arguments) about AA and race preference that can be applied more broadly, but in my mind I keep being brought back to the specific Harvard lawsuit. And when I think about Harvard and the other schools that have sub 5% acceptance rates I just think what they do is mostly FAIR or FAIR ENOUGH because 95 out of every 100 applicants don’t get in. And it’s not like these kids that aren’t getting in to the Harvard-esq schools aren’t getting in to good colleges (assuming they got good advice and applied to some safer choices).
I also worry that if we do away with AA, we will end up with even more “unfairness”.
With that said, I do think that something has to be done about the Asian issue…I don’t think the solution is to do away with AA, though.
I also think that many of us that are advocates of AA don’t think that a meritocracy should be based only on stats like SAT scores. I realize it’s the most objective measure, but when we are talking about schools like Harvard, there are so many kids with such unique backgrounds and stories that can likely survive at Harvard. We really might be missing something if we leave out these kids just because they have lower SAT scores. Apparently Harvard thinks so, too.
@collegemomjam the Harvard lawsuit is the best place to get AA data, as it is current, complete and broken out in a way to show how AA affects admissions. We can’t get his kind of data elsewhere.
Whether it’s fair or fair enough or whether the rejected students get into good enough schools is the wrong question. The first question should be is it legal?
@roethlisburger I’m really not sure, and I guess we will see what the courts decide. But should other preferences be legal? Where do we draw the line on legal? I feel like there are so many ways to interpret the law (not just in college admissions, but in many other areas as well), and we will have to see what they decide and accept that decision. In the meantime, I feel like Harvard should be able to decide if they want more blacks, hispanics, or whatever, just like they can decide if they want more athletes or more people from Iowa.
@collegemomjam OK, if Harvard should be able to decide, then what if they decide they want less blacks and Hispanics? Is that kosher with you, from a legal standpoint?
@wyzragamer call me Pollyanna, but I think Harvard is truly trying to find the right mix of students to optimize the college experience and campus community. If that’s what they decided, I would absolutely be OK with it.