However, if one believes that cultural/environmental factors have little or no influence compared to innate/genetic factors in intellectual achievement, it should not matter whether the student attends an elite (however defined) college, as long as the college attended has sufficient academic offerings for his/her interests. So, for those who follow this like of thinking, it really does not matter whether college admissions is or is not an intellectual meritocracy, as long as there is some college (which does not have to be elite) with the desired academic offerings and an affordable price available to the student.
This is a strawman. The argument always has been that intelligence creates the environment. So, things like money, breastfeeding, reading to children, having books around the house, etc. - while of course desirable for other reasons - are really likely to have no effect on innate intelligence. Similarly, no one argues that talent should not be nurtured and developed. It’s just that, on average and in aggregate, the talents will be so developed and nurtured according to the innate intelligence of the rearing parents. This view is consistent with, for instance, the transracial adoption studies, MZ-DZ twin studies, the East Asian adoption studies and myriad others. No one study is dispositive, of course, but in aggregate the evidence of innate factors predominating is consilient.
It should be noted that as kids mature, they increasingly choose and create their own environment. Again, this view is consistent with the observed phenomenon that intensive efforts to boost intelligence in early childhood fade by mid- to later-adolescence, as parents lose control of the environment - a truism that will be familiar to any parent out there (myself included!). Also note that these findings are typically misrepresented. Many commentators and authors will try to tout the fact that IQ can apparently be raised in, say, URM children as proof that environment is determinative, which is true up until early adolescence, but will then conveniently omit the later testing results that show regression to the genotypic mean.
You, yourself, @ucbalumnus, have often cited correctly that parental educational attainment seems to be the most important factor in children’s academic success. This is typically because, in a competitive education system, educational attainment is highly correlated with innate intelligence - in fact, it can be considered a proxy. Thus, since intelligence itself is highly heritable, high education parents not only pass on not only their genotypic intelligence, but also nurture those aspects of phenotypic intelligence that are correlated (for instance, a “good” environment). These children are doubly blessed, but we should not lose sight of the fact that it is intelligence driving the outcome, not environment.
This implicit proxy of educational attainment breaks down when race preferences were used to obtain the parental education credentials. High educational attainment can no longer be considered a proxy for high intelligence, for instance. Even though presumably the children of very high SES URM will typically enjoy an appropriately high SES environment (reading to them, private schools, high income, no undue financial stress, etc.), we would expect at least an appreciably higher intelligence than genotypic intelligence of the parents - if environment mattered (because these children are “doubly blessed” as well). But that is not what we see. In fact, what we see in things like SAT data, and in LSAT-GPA data, is that consistently children of high income URM parents who both have graduate and professional degrees display lower stats than of low-income parents without any college and often not even high school degrees. In the case of law school admission, the credential gap is greater than 1 standard deviation (which is huge in these sorts of measures) in favor of the low SES whites. Take a look at Table 10 on page 44 here: http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-72-1-Wightman.pdf. Keep in mind that in those data are the data of many URM students who attended literally the finest prep schools and colleges on earth, often gaining admission on preferences. Again, it is hard to square those sorts of data with a predominately environmental explanation.
Not necessarily. Signal effects are important. Graduates of Ivy League and similar schools - in many fields such as consulting, investment banking, legal practice, etc. - are treated as presumptively high intelligence because the graduate is assumed to have distinguished himself to gain admission, and believe me the hiring process is an order of magnitude easier than for graduates of lesser schools. One of the more subtly pernicious effects of affirmative action and race preferences generally is to negate that presumption. (Nevertheless, URM will still be hired easily out of those schools, but will often suffer from stigma and doubt that preference did not play a huge role in the hiring decision as well; this phenomenon has also been noted and discussed in the literature.)
Employment is even less of an intellectual meritocracy than college admissions. IIRC, Jimmy Cayne got hired at Bear Stearns at least partially because he was a great bridge player and early in his career advanced because he could turn some of his rich bridge partners into clients.
It seems inconsistent for you to claim in this thread where you go to college doesn’t matter when you started a thread about the role of college prestige in hiring decisions.
Interesting article in the WaPo today that examines the lack of progress on narrowing broad black-white gaps after more than 50 years of trying:
The article also notes that although gaps in rates of high school graduation have practically vanished, and rates of college completion have more than doubled for blacks,
And some of the the reasons?
I am not claiming that, but I was just following the reasoning based on some of the claims made here that since environmental effects (which would include schools attended and their signaling effects) are unimportant compared to genetic effects in determining ultimate intellectual-based achievement, so that those who believe that reasoning may want to consider whether such things as schools attended really matter in any significant way for their kids.
What is this racism of which you speak? There are laws providing legal protection against racism, so I assume you are talking about some other kind of racism that laws aren’t able to pin down. Who gets to decide what is racist, and who is a racist?
[quote]
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
^ maybe that’s part of the reason we hear admissions reps take a really close look at those claiming Hispanic heritage @sbjdorlo ?
Yes, but it’s clear that this is a complex issue. This issue affected our family personally, so I have firsthand experience with the struggles of how to identify. This is a 21st century issue in college admissions that needs to be discussed in multiple contexts and circles, IMO.
I can say that colleges are pretty savvy, and more often than not, kids in this situation don’t get the admissions bump they’re hoping for.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Well, it’s not OK with me and I have deleted 105 (almost all of which had nothing to do with Affirmative Action of colleges) posts as a result.
The fact that discussion of Affirmative Action is limited to this thread does not mean that all other rules are suspended in this thread. May I remind users that per the Rules of the Forum:
https://auth.collegeconfidential.com/module.php/hobsonspolicies/policy.php?policy=forumrules
There is already a thread on that article, and I would prefer that that discussion be held there. @OHMomof2
http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/2065232-study-black-boys-raised-in-wealthy-households-dont-become-wealthy-adults-but-white-boys-do.html
I have a question that I’ve kinda been iffy about and i think this is the best place to ask it. I’m half hispanic half white, and while applying for an internship idk what race to to check… white or hispanic? The white box also includes the description of "(not hispanic or latino)… so I just don’t check it right??
Hispanic is an ethnicity; white is a race. Usually, when asked, the questions are split, asking your race, and then asking if you are of Hispanic/Latino origin.
Or you can check both.
Check Hispanic. To the extent the employer grants a preference for Hispanics, you will get the full benefit.
@skieurope so what would my race be? Would I just check off white even though it includes (not Hispanic or Latino)?
If you self-identify and/or are commonly identified by others as both, then you can check both.
Race is what you want it to be. Don’t let others box you in or define you. Anyway, many social scientists maintain that race is only a social construct anyway.
Seriously, you are Hispanic. If the application does not require you to identify as a race or specific ethnicity (or country of origin) within Hispanic, just check the Hispanic box. Don’t overthink this.
If the application incorrectly conflates race and ethnicity and lists them all options together, then check both Latino and White. Or check neither. Or just check one. It’s totally up to you. Agreed that there is no need to overthink.