Look at acceptance rates, not current student demographics.
At UC Berkeley, from 1995 to 1998, the number of admitted California resident African American, Latino and American Indian undergraduates dropped 58 percent. These students went from 27 percent of the admitted pool to 12 percent.
At UCLA, underrepresented minority admissions dropped by 53 percent in that period. They went from 28 percent to 13 percent of the pool.
Also, income has no effect on SAT scores. NONE. It’s all based on IQ.
@SAY, I have some knowledge of the Harvard recruitment process as an alumnus (albeit of the Business School) with friends who were recruited athletes and a nephew who was recruited by Harvard and other Ivies (so had the benefit of learning about the athlete admissions process directly from coaches), and while there is clearly a benefit to being a recruited athlete, the number who actually would not “qualify” under the normal admissions process is not as high as commonly assumed. The big benefit is that in circumstances where all else is equal (within a given cohort) the admission goes to the recruited athlete (which is a very big benefit at a University with a 6% admit rate and a very highly qualified applicant pool). All being said, being in the right URM cohort provides a more substantial advantage than being anything other than one of the very few “most exceptional athletes” in a less advantaged cohort.
@MathHater, merit is an interesting concept and how you go about weighing the various attributes that are evaluated relative to an application influences how the merit of an application is viewed. So while I strongly advocate transparency in communicating SAT/ACT scores, it is not because we should move away from a holistic application process, but, because we can’t address the deficiencies in how URMs are being dealt with by universities unless we are open about the realities.
Generally speaking, URMs are benefiting from lax admissions standards (as it relates to academic competence, not merit as the universities have chosen to define it) and a disproportionate portion of a financial aid pie that comes from wealthy white donors (predominantly those awful 1%!). Also, generally speaking, that URMs arrive unprepared and often graduate unprepared. The result is that many are admitted to graduate schools and/or hired into jobs where they are pushed along as relatively unproductive members of a politically correct diverse body. There are many exceptions to the rule, but these individuals need to fight even harder to overcome the stigma that comes from the generalizations.
So, if the academically elite institutions are going to take large numbers of URMs (which is a necessary prerequisite to building an inclusive and productive American nation and culture), unless they are transparent in outlining the academic (and attitudinal) deficiencies and put in place the remedial coursework and counseling that will have the URMs graduate with the same capabilities as the rest of the class, the creation of a class with the credentials but without the capabilities to succeed will be perpetuated.
As an aside, African-American’s admitted to the elite academic institutions might find it more productive if they started by appreciating what the university/country is trying to do for them and worked toward developing competence, rather than demanding additional unearned entitlements. That way, one day they to can be among those who contribute generously to university and country.
No one asks themselves whether a large amount of transparency would be good for Ivy League universities? I honestly don’t believe the admissions process is as biased as most people think. There’s a reason elite universities operate the way they do. Rich donors help fill the universities pockets and build their massive endowments, while the poor desperate talented students that do get in end up graduating with the highest honors and building the schools reputation with their achievements.
The demand of a completely transparent merit based system may do more harm than good. I believe this is more to do with the development of socialism in this country. This idea that the admissions process has to satisfy everyone to be considered fair.
I’m personally a U.S.-UK dual citizen and can tell you that Harvard aswell as most Ivies are light years ahead of any British university bar Oxbridge.
The academic merit based system and low tuition has done nothing to improve universities reputation or productivity. Most British universities don’t have a $150 million in endowment. They remain poor, less productive and heavily reliant on the government. The only reason universities like UCL or Imperial are notable is because of their high research funds. If there is any cut in funding the universities suffer and so do their reputations. I’ve recently been to an open day at UCL and have heard of students having to sit on the floor in lecture halls due to lack of space. These issues are pretty much non-existent in Ivy League and top us universities. Why should Ivy League schools jeopardise all they have built during the last few decades to satisfy a group of entitled Ivy League obsessed Asian organizations with mostly delusional rejects as members. Even though asians make up almost a quarter of all students it seems they won’t stop complaining till they reach 50%. The Asian-White test score gap is only 30-50 on the SAT so I don’t realize why Asians would have a massive advantage anyway in terms of academic merit.
@Ali1302, there have been two shifts in US undergrad admissions at the elite universities. The first is the shift toward greater racial and economic diversity, and the second is the shift from the well-rounded student toward the lopsided students (outstanding at one thing, but not particularly well rounded).
The first shift, although noble and necessary, is counterproductive in terms of developing a consistently successful alumni body. Generally speaking, the more successful graduates tend to be those that arrived with greater privilege (the progeny of well-educated well-connected upper middle class and wealthy parents), so your hypotheses that it is the “poor desperate talented students that do get in end up graduating with the highest honors and building the schools reputation with their achievements,” is, generally speaking, not borne out.
It is unclear what the eventual impact of the shift from bright well-rounded students to lopsided students will be. However, if I were a college president I would want to know the answer.
On a separate note, Asian American applicants are predominantly the very hard working children of immigrants who were ill-treated when they arrived and never-the-less succeeded on the basis of hard work. It is natural that they would want to succeed and see elite college admissions as an important milestone on that path. I have great sympathy for individuals in that community who face the highest hurdle in elite college admissions simply because they are part of a cohort that has been so successful through exceptional dedication and hard work. The Harvard lawsuit is an aberration, and not reflective of the broader Asian American culture.
I think everyone in this latest rehashing is a high school student so the holier-than-thou “I’m a grownup” line probably isn’t going to get you any points.
That has been shown to be false in several studies.
http://www.msnbc.com/all/sat-scores-trend-family-income
Honestly, that took 10 seconds on a search engine. And since other studies have shown only a weak correlation between IQ and income, it is clear that your statement is false.
I find it weird how Asians are the smallest racial minority at 1% (except for American Indian or pacific islanders) in America, yet they are treated equally to the racial majority(white) in admissions.
Yet African Americans account for 13.2% of the population and are the largest racial minority. So they are 13 times more African Americans but they are still given an edge in admissions to the 1% Asian population.
Yes I know there are still more Asians in colleges but still…
@EYeager The phrase underrepresented minority refers to the fact that blacks, Hispanics, and other such groups are underrepresented in colleges, not in the general population. The fact that Asians are the smallest minority is not relevant because they are over represented when it comes to college admissions.
@fallenchemist He is partially right. This talk by Nathan Kuncel tells it as it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_Cr1a6rj4
What does standardized test measure (2:43), real world application (5:20), job performance (5:55), relationship with creativity and leadership (6:40), (8:55) effect leveling off beyond a certain level? , (9:35) testing at 13 of the truly gifted, (11:15) social class, (comparing to gpa) effect on diversity(13:00).
Here is the data from the Duke study (scroll down half way). It is published in a scholarly journal so the information is peer reviewed. I believe it is still the best “glimpse” we have of elite admission.
What makes you think a simple linear regression is enough to predict the magnitudes of the dependent variables of SAT scores?
How do you account for the fact that IQ would be absorbed by the stochastic process and bias the coefficient of the income variable?
“And since other studies have shown only a weak correlation between IQ and income”
I hope you realize that this statement actually strengthens my argument. Did you not realize that there is also a weak correlation between income and SAT scores? From $20,000, the average SAT score/subject is around 450. At $200,000. the average jumps to 550-600, a very modest jump. The effects of income on SAT scores actually flatline past this income similar to how IQ becomes very bad predictors of income past IQ 110.
The fact is, people with higher IQs have higher incomes. Once you account for IQ in your model, the effects of income become statistically insignificant in the model.
I am not suggesting that all smart people are rich or that all stupid people are poor. I am merely suggesting that the expected values of IQ of wealthier people are higher than that of poorer people.
In econometrics, we call your mistake an example of an omitted variable bias.
Math hater you are wasting your time with most of the people who post here. Go back and read the past few pages and you will see that most of the posters lack even the most basic understanding of statistical analysis. The real problem with the math is that it exposes the ugly truth about IQ and genetics. This discussion however does not help any applicant understand the complex process of elite college admissions.
First, that is not a modest jump. It is a very significant change. Second, if it measures IQ, then why can someone take the test in the spring and score 1900, then take it again in the fall after a summer of test prep and score 2250? That may be a bit on the extreme side, but certainly it and similar increases happen all the time. It contradicts the very definition of IQ if you are saying they increased their IQ that much over a summer simply by taking a course.
This has been studied numerous times and the typical score increase is about 50 points though there are exceptions. But a 350 point increase is quite rare and represents the small group of high IQ people who don’t apply themselves in school. The SAT is not a pure IQ test but correlates very strongly to IQ. But again what is the purpose of your post? All of this has has been studied and published in many books and articles. There is no debate among academics in the field that IQ is largely genetic (once extreme deprivation is removed) and that the SAT exam is largely a modified IQ test. Do you really doubt a group of students with average SAT’s of 2300(H,Y,P,S) aren’t more intelligent than a group of students from state U with an average SAT of 1600? The elite colleges all decry the use of standardized exams and then admit students with an average SAT of 2300. So who is the hypocrite? But again none of this helps current students gain an understanding of how the process of admission works at elite colleges. At almost every elite college being a URM is a major hook.
You haven’t been here long have you?
Also, it’s not a blog. It’s a forum.
Although Kuncel did not say anything about test-retest reliability, psychologists David Z. Hambrick and Christopher Chabris did so in this Slate article:
Here is the quote:
[Furthermore, contrary to what Boylan implies in her Times piece, “preparatory crash courses” don’t change SAT scores much. Research has consistently shown that prep courses have only a small effect on SAT scores—and a much smaller effect than test prep companies claim they do. For example, in one study of a random sample of more than 4,000 students, average improvement in overall score on the “old” SAT, which had a range from 400 to 1600, was no more than about 30 points.]
The old SAT is an excellent substitute for an IQ test, making me suspicious why the influential class is so anxious to make it less so:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/2004/pr040329.cfm
It is important to note that while the above may be true, studies have also proven that IQ is not static but can improve if the mind is constantly stimulated and there is a strong focus on learning and growth.
In other words, there is a valid expectation that children who are stimulated from an early age, are uplifted and encouraged, and persevere on a path of constant learning and growth, can substantively increase their capabilities and IQ.
The correlation between SAT/ACT and income seems to be a red herring.
If income was such an important factor in test scores, than the children of professional athletes and entertainers who earn millions per year should far outpace the children of engineers or college professors who earn on average only a small fraction of pro athletes and top entertainers in SAT/ACT.
Would anyone venture to guess whose children would have the higher test scores on average?
Interestingly, studies of home schoolers have concluded that the performance of students is remarkably consistent across demographics (income, race, wealth of community, etc.). This suggests that environmental factors related to parental involvement, quality of the school environment, and the intellectual stimulation provided within the cultural context could have a greater impact on IQ than genetics per se.
Environmental factors certainly have some input but studies have definitively proven that:1) IQ’s become fixed somewhere around 8-10. 2) that genetics is the predominate factor in IQ
If you want to look at a recent study go read about the Minnesota Twin Study. There is no debate among scientists in the field that genetics plays the predominate though not exclusive role. The data on this is overwhelming.