If you search through this thread I’ve definitely made those arguments over the years. I am in favor of AA. I think it’s a (limited) way to attempt to right a wrong and remedy some inequality. I also think colleges with kids of different races (and SES and areas of the country and world and religion - meaning, diverse) benefit all, including my not-URM child.
So consider me on the record on that.
I just find it fascinating that those who are most against AA seem to only want that one preference to go away…not the preferences that take far more spaces away from academically deserving students and give them to kids who are already “starting at third base”, if you will.
I acknowledge that there are a couple of posters here who want all non-academic preferences gone - straight stats admissions. (But even of those, few want to say what that college experience would be like, beyond what race(s) those colleges would be).
CT, I’m not that interesting. I’m just trying to sort through the issues like everyone else. Surely you have better things to do than focus on me and my posts. Stay focused on what you think and what you want to contribute to the dialogue.
Not all preferences discriminate against a legally protected class. Race/Ethnicity is a legally protected class. Sex is a legally protected class. Being non-athletic isn’t a legally protected class. Being a non-legacy isn’t a legally protected class. Being a non-dev admit isn’t a legally protected class.
First of all, women get the short end of the stick in most elite college admissions, also men at tech schools. Where’s the outrage? They’re a legally protected class too right? Answer is, nearly everyone favors a gender balance,so that’s OK.
And my point is (and has been) that athletic/legacy/development admissions preferences ARE race-based, just like AA. They just benefit a different race and they hide it better.
@OHMomof2 Thanks for explaining your support for AA.
I don’t know how you arrive at the position “that those who are most against AA seem to only want that one preference to go away.” I don’t see that in this thread, at all – but I admit that I have not plowed through all of the thousand posts. Count me as one that would like to see all preferences eliminated, except for tips for low SES.
@whatisyourquest Helping low SES students is definitely something I support also.
But I also wonder what happens when all the other preferences go away. If alumni get mad at the loss of legacy and the super rich stop giving with an eye to getting their kids in, how does that impact financial aid for the low SES admits, for instance?
The focus here has been on hyper elite universities. (For instance, you provided stats for Ivy athletes to show that they are predominately white.) All of these tippy top universities have ginormous endowments. Providing extra FA for low SES admits would barely make a dent.
This is true. But eventually, it could become an issue.
Especially if some schools went stats-only (+/- low SES) and others kept the current preferences in place. The ones that kept the current system might become more desirable to those with money…?
“This is true. But eventually, it could become an issue.”
Perhaps. But it is also possible that those low SES kids graduate, get fantastic jobs, amass wealth, and, out of gratitude, become donors to the university that admitted them and provided FA. That’s the American dream.
I would encourage you to read some of the court cases, including the minority opinions. There’s a vast difference between discrimination and creating policies for reasons other than race, which may disproportionately advantage certain groups.
But it appears that they mostly do not want to have that many low SES students. Most of them have admission processes and criteria that favor high SES students, with resulting student bodies which have half from the top 2-5% (students who get no financial aid), and only an eighth to a quarter from the lower half of the SES scale (students who get Pell grants).
^ sure. Another way of looking at it is that these places were founded as bastions of the elite, not unlike prestigious prep schools. As such, for most of their history they have been exclusive in nature and that’s an image they want to shed. But they are between a rock and hard place in that their humongous endowments still depend on their exclusivity. It is why they maintain legacy prefences and always seem to find ingenious ways (yes sports…) to be rigged in favor of high SES students. That “50% top 2-5%” is absolutely required in order to keep the wheel rolling. That’s where minority and low SES recruitment comes in, they are there to balance out things and deflect criticism (that they are closer in nature to an elite academic country club than a meritocratic institutions). People can rant and cry all they want about this minority having 2 less points on the act than this other minority (yes black, brown, red and yellow used to be defined as JUST minorities not that long ago) or low SES white but truth is all minorities are capped. If any one given minority group, say Native Americans, were to crack the admissions code and started filling out any one particular hyper elite school with 36 ACT 4.0 UW lacrosse (or crew, swimming, golf, whatever…) superstars you can be sure they will start receiving rejection letters. And that will be only the first step, some other admission formula will be soon invented to keep schools filled with high SES students.
On the bright side once kids are there together it is often hard to distingush them from one another academically or socially regardless of color or SES status. It is a pretty ingenious system really… Bottonline, if anyone wants to fight this I recommend they look at the bigger picture like @OHMomof2 has been saying all along. They will lose anyway but at least they will not be fighting imaginary AA demons taking up the spaces they think belong to them or their kids…
It isn’t just sports that favors high SES applicants. Other admission policies that favor high SES applicants include:
Early decision, which many who need financial aid are not willing to use due to a need to compare financial aid offers.
Large number of requirements (SAT subject tests, CSS Profile, recommendations) that counselors in high SES high schools are more likely to be telling students about early enough to get done for college applications.
CSS Noncustodial Profile, which screens out some financially needy applicants (those with divorced uncooperative parents).
Recommendations, since counselors and teachers in high SES high schools are more likely to be experienced in writing them.
Interviews, where high SES applicants can act as they usually do with high SES alumni interviewers, but low SES applicants need to practice and adapt high SES mannerisms to prepare for such interviews.
Level of applicant's interest, where many of the ways to show that are better known and more accessible to high SES applicants.
@notigering Female Hispanic students is probably a good example of this. There are a lot of high stats female Hispanic students applying to these schools and they have no issue in hand selecting the ones that fit their class need. I know of another ACT 36 female Hispanic that was reject from Princeton but accepted to Stanford and Columbia.
Just because the intent isn’t declared in the open doesn’t make it right, and it is clear that these policies are indeed created to favor one race/SES group - that is the effect and if that wasn’t the intent it would change.
Why does it make a difference to you what the stated reason for the preference is, @roethlisburger if the effect is the same?
In fact, what do colleges say the stated preference for athletes, legacies and development admits is? I don’t think I’ve ever seen an elite college address that question. Plenty have addressed their support for AA in detail.
@OHMomof2 "I just find it fascinating that those who are most against AA seem to only want that one preference to go away…not the preferences that take far more spaces away from academically deserving students and give them to kids who are already “starting at third base”, if you will.
I acknowledge that there are a couple of posters here who want all non-academic preferences gone - straight stats admissions. (But even of those, few want to say what that college experience would be like, beyond what race(s) those colleges would be)."
I am against AA in college admissions because it essentially creates soft quotas which create another kind of discrimination. I think race aware or conscious used earlier is reasonable. I see its benefits more in corporations and businesses, even though it hasn’t really made too much of a dent in silicon valley. However I don’t advocate a stats only application process, ECs, recommendations, essays should also be considered. I also do not favor hooks for athletes, legacies and developmental cases.
As for the experience, admissions probably easier as colleges can’t hide behind holistic to discriminate as was done to Jewish applicants in the early 1900’s and so more straightforward. Athletics would be minimized, like Chicago or Cal Tech, which is ok because I hope football is not played a hundred years from now. At some point mothers will stop letting their boys play such a dangerous sport.
@Dolemite “Female Hispanic students is probably a good example of this. There are a lot of high stats female Hispanic students applying to these schools and they have no issue in hand selecting the ones that fit their class need. I know of another ACT 36 female Hispanic that was reject from Princeton but accepted to Stanford and Columbia.”
Right. And contrary to what some people here believe the above scenario is incredibly common and NOT because of yield protection or any such mythical silliness. I happen to be involved with a school that caters to very high achieving Hispanic kids and I can confidently say this also applies to boys. If the myth passed around here was true I wouldn’t see so many heartbreaks every year at ED and beyond. Just look around here and see how some super high stat URM regulars are being rejected by any given fly-in around now and then later on when the real deal comes up. Schools are responding to their institutional interests and that is NOT a static process, they have a very limited number of seats available and things change year to year, oftentimes drastically. Chicago and Washu for example might be needing to ramp things with recruiting, (I believe Stanford did that years ago btw…) but eventually things level off when every kid out there wants to go to Chicago or Washu… Same is true for many, many other overlooked top schools and that represents a great opportunity for every kid out there. The mentality of Harvard or Stanford or nothing is pernicious for anyone involved. Go to any of the myriad good schools out there that want you and concentrate on your studies and you will do great regardless of color or anything else.
Truth is that at the end of the day the heartbreak kids I know do just fine on whatever school they end up attending…
The likely reality is that colleges, when thinking of their own marketability to future students, probably have desired racial/ethnic representation percentages (which can look a lot like soft quotas), since students commonly have some preferences. Of course, only the most selective colleges with a surplus of applicants with near-maximum academic credentials have the luxury of being able to shape their classes this way, since other colleges have to pay much more attention to differences in academic credentials.
The desired racial/ethnic representation percentages for the most selective colleges that aspire to be nationally desirable are probably something like:
White: probably prefers a majority, or at least a plurality (probably >= 40% or so), since most white students come from majority white areas, and many are not comfortable being a member of a minority group.
Black, Latino, Asian: enough that it does not feel like there are hardly any others around. Probably >= 10% or so for each.
NA and PI: any such students that the college can get to enroll would be a bonus from the college's point of view.
Obviously, the above college desires leave considerable flexibility (if a college targets >= 40% white and >= 10% each black, Latino, and Asian, plus however many NA and PI students it can get, that leaves it up to 30% of flex space), and regional considerations may also be a factor.
Would you find acceptable consideration of race/ethnicity in the context (possibly in combination with SES and 1G) of whether an applicant had a disadvantaged starting line, so that s/he would be more meritous than an applicant of similar achievement who had an advantaged starting line? Note that such consideration could apply to some applicants of any race/ethnicity (e.g. if a white applicant came from a background where s/he was disadvantaged by anti-white racism, s/he would be given such consideration) but would not be given automatically only on the basis of being any particular race/ethnicity. But it could be a component of a theoretical pure-applicant-merit admission process that is not pure-stats.