Other colleges, particularly those which are only moderately selective, are likely to have different admissions processes. Indeed, based on CDS section C7 of colleges, about 63% of all colleges do not consider race/ethnicity (including about 73% of public colleges, 63% of private non-profit colleges, and 36% of private for-profit colleges (though most of the latter have no response to most categories)).
However, out of USNWR top 25 national universities and top 26 LACs, about 92% consider race/ethnicity. There are other differences in what is considered or relatively important at the most selective colleges versus all colleges. Note that subjectively graded factors like recommendations, essay, talent, and character/personal are significantly more important at the most selective colleges compared to all colleges. Also, legacy is generally more important than race/ethnicity at colleges overall, but about similar importance at the most selective colleges.
Sure, why not. The world is already 60% Asian. Some universities are approaching 50% Asian (including a school I taught at) and they seem to be doing just fine, serving their states well and maintaining their elite status.
I think the trust in Harvard or any other institution is misplaced. After all, schools used to think the optimal mix was segregation. We have anti-discrimination laws to protect exactly this kind of thing from happening again. The classes protected by those laws are race, color, religion, national origin, citizenship, sex, age, disability, and genetic information.
It probably does not matter to Harvard what anyone here individually would answer to this question.
What influences Harvard’s decisions and policies is what it thinks potential students, donors, and others in a position to influence Harvard collectively think about this or similar questions.
I’m sure you are right @ucbalumnus. I would assume the potential students would have similarly mixed opinions to those of us on this thread. Not sure about the donors and people in positions of influence…any idea?
“1408 is still higher than 94th percentile. As the mean, there will be higher and lower scores, both. Not sure why you focus on the low. But even the low is 87th %ile.”
The Math section of the SATs cannot really distinguish between the best students in math, I think data10 among others may have pointed that out. A person with a 800 in math and a 700 in math does not mean that it’s just a 100 points or a couple of questions. That’s why Harvard (and MIT, Stanford, Cal Tech) typically want to see AMC/AIME scores, or Math/Science olympiad placement to distinguish among the best. The SAT can distinguish between a 700 and 600 but not at the top. If the first 10 or 15 questions were deleted in the Math section, replaced by 15 harder questions, and maybe the scale was expanded to a 1000, the current 700 student probably gets a 650, the 800 person probably gets a 950, and then you can see the difference. Now imagine a typical math class at Harvard with mostly 950-1000’s, that’s the difference in the class, not 800 to 710.
I’m just curious, if an institution wanted to offer a scholarship to women or hispanics or any specific group, would that be considered discrimination also? So if my white son wanted to apply for a scholarship that was designated for hispanic women, would it be illegal for them to not consider my son because he isn’t the right race or gender?
@Hanna once mentioned in another thread that white students generally prefer white majority colleges (and Harvard presumably can figure this out). While Harvard is (barely) majority-minority, white students are still the largest group among undergraduates, so that may be “close enough” to avoid negative marketing effects from this type of thing. But then Harvard probably has to lean hard on legacy preference to keep white enrollment up.
However, it also likely believes that members of minority groups will be hesitant about attending a college with “too few” of their own group.
Donors and other people of influence are more likely to be from older generations, so what Harvard thinks wealthy and influential people from older generations think about such matters is what likely goes into Harvard’s decision making here.
The trial has concluded. We should expect a decision soon from the judge who heard the case, but that won’t be the end of it. The losing party will likely appeal and a final decision will likely take years.
There’s not really a big area, I think. It’s like saying there’s a big gray area between justifiable homicide and murder. The issue is that the universities are extremely well-funded influential organizations which are quickly able to rally legal power and public opinion to their cause. People trust them, although this trust might not be justified.
Ethnic scholarships have historically also been a contentious issue. I think most states have laws forbidding public entities from awarding ethnic scholarships, although they allow private scholarships. I remember rumblings in the 90s about a federal ban, as well, although ultimately they were allowed to continue.
In Canada, the Ontario Human Rights Commission is strongly against ethnic scholarships. They support scholarships intended to: relieve hardship or economic disadvantage, assist disadvantaged persons or groups to achieve or attempt to achieve equal opportunity, or help eliminate the infringement of rights that are protected under the Human Rights Code. But they do not permit discrimination based on race or other characteristic protected by the Code. http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/attachments/Policy_on_scholarships_and_awards.pdf
And the OHRC reasoning matches mine on this point. I’m all for helping economically disadvantaged people, or people who are suffering from the lasting and historical effects of discriminatory policies. But if the logic for affirmative action is a fear that the university will become 75% Asian, then frankly I think it’s outright racism.
That’s never been the “logic for affirmative action”.
Both of these have, at various points, been the “logic for affirmative action”. Diversity as a benefit to non-URM students is a newer one, and one IMO forced by older supreme court decisions.
Also this thread has a LOT more than 4475 posts. See post one:
…this current one is “12”. The first one began in 2008.
" I’m all for helping economically disadvantaged people, or people who are suffering from the lasting and historical effects of discriminatory policies."
As it relates to college admissions, how would you suggest we help “…people who are suffering from the lasting and historical effects of discriminatory policies?” How would identify these people? Would helping them have better access to college not be part of that equation?
I just wanted to pass on a 20 year old essay by Dr. John McWhorter (was a professor at UC Berkeley when the article was written who is now at Columbia) who breaks down the black achievement gap and his thoughts on AA. This is a very long essay that scares me, because it touches on my worst fears that I have also personally seen (that African Americans as a group can be a detriment to ourselves). Without a Black cultural awaking to fight against being a victim and an almost group African American fear of being like White Americans in any way (including things such shunning academically high achieving African Americans), AA and any other actions taken to help African Americans as a group in society will fail. The only thing on this thread that has ever bothered me over my time following this thread is that some don’t believe their is any achievement gap (standardized testing does not tell anything about students or is culturally biased), and I believe that thinking in that manner is the enemy of black people. My wife sees the gap in her classrooms in general (she has had some great African American students, but many more who are not even scratching the surface of their potentials) and we have to stop pretending that their is no gap.
Great read, @ChangeTheGame . Seems to support the theory that blacks are academically lazy, as shown by persistent achievement gaps despite being on a level playing field.
The culture that AA promotes, that of lowering standards and rewarding mediocrity, persists beyond college.
Blacks make up 10% of private sector employment, where the profit motivation demands excellence, there is no job security, and few pension benefits.
Blacks make up 18% of the federal civilian workforce, where there is no motivation for profit, high job security, and cushy pensions.
Blacks make up 13% of the population. So why do they collectively seem to be choosing the easier path?
It isn’t any wonder how even the best achieving blacks carry the suspicion of being the beneficiary of AA. And that is sad.
Too many have gone overboard with the altruism of AA because at some point, one can no longer make excuses.