Speaking of strawmen . . . Prop 209 only impacts public schools, whereas your plan would dictate admission policies at all CA schools, from Stanford to Cal Lutheran, regardless of their educational mission.
But California held no referendum on stripping Scripps and Loyola Marymount (or any other private school) of their ability to set their own admission standards according to their own mission.
And the people of CA most certainly didn’t pass a referendum making it impossible for students to receive a pell grant or other aid if they prefer to attend a college with some semblance of gender balance. Yet under your zealous plan, the court would take away their aid and strip them of their options.
Further, according you, not even the UC’s race and gender neutral approach to admission could survive your court imposed policies. Inexplicably, you insist that the UCs are in violation of your plan, despite Prop 209! As you put it:
For the test score zealots, not even Prop 209 is enough. California state schools can’t pick their own race and gender neutral admission plan, they need to follow your rules. And we all know that means relying on standardized tests.
You frequently tell others not to put words in your mouth, and I will request the same of you.
In previous posts, I have frequently said I have no issue with policies that admit students that are “top X%” from each school, or policies that take SES into account. Both policies will increase diversity without considering race.
I quoted you directly and you are talking about race and gender… University of California and Cal State schools comply with Prop 209. Yet you insist they “actively ignore what taxpayers want, convinced they know better.” It seems it is you who thinks you know better for both the universities and the people of California.
Except this is essentially the UC approach to which you just strenuously objected, threatening to hit them in the pocketbook to bring them into line with your vision.
Only if the ranking is on the same test, and the ranking is across a broader geographical area, like a state, rather than over just a school. Otherwise schools can makeup whatever test they want, and grant whatever grade they want, in which case the grade is meaningless.
It was interesting watching the film “Try Harder” about Lowell HS in San Francisco, because I’d only heard about it as a story of the pressure HS kids are under, not as a film documenting racial discrimination by colleges. There was universal acceptance amongst students, teachers and parents alike that the Asian students would be discriminated against by private colleges because they were just “AP machines”. They were even told that explicitly by the school’s college counselors and apparently by the Stanford admissions rep.
And that was born out by the actual results for the students followed in the 2017 admissions cycle (the Asian students were all rejected by Stanford/the Ivies and almost all ended at UCs, the African American student ended up at Brown, despite having seemingly less good scores - 4.1 GPA/33 ACT).
I find it remarkable that it seems quite easy to target the African-American kid who, despite scoring at the 98th percentile, and has excellent grades to suggest she isn’t deserving of her acceptances. Last time I checked, schools don’t only admit based on these things. I saw the film a long time ago and can’t remember what her interests were but perhaps she didn’t want to pursue the same career route of all her peers? If I recall, she was interested in journalism. Given that these schools only admit about 2000-2500 kids a year, even if they were to only accept those kids with only the highest gpas and test scores, there would still be thousands of kids with perfect scores and grades that get shut out. What then should be done? Something tells me that all the non-black kids who resent the black kids who seemingly get a leg up in admissions would never trade places with a black kid though just for that ‘admissions boost. ‘. Chris Rock has a great joke about how a poor homeless white guy would never trade places with him, and he is rich!!
Also, I believe the white boy got into Stanford despite not having a great SAT score. Given his personal obstacles and story, I absolutely believe he is deserving. I find it interesting however you chose to target the black kid though.
I’m pointing out how the film selected the people it followed and what it chose to include. For example, the African American girl was the only one whose test scores were actually revealed. And her mother was shown saying “that’s still in the 50th percentile” at Brown. Early in the film the girl is shown with her published article about how she doesn’t want to choose “one or the other” (in terms of ethnicity). Then she says later on that she’s not going to omit her ethnicity on her application.
Yes the film concludes with the homeless white kid getting into Stanford. But I don’t think that changes the filmmaker’s narrative that everyone appears to take it for granted that the Asian kids are discriminated against by colleges. For example some comments in the film reference a superstar Asian violinist at the school (who apparently did get into Harvard), but the film chose to follow Asian kids who applied to Ivies but had to “settle” for UCs.
What I found surprising was that the narrative I’d heard about the film here in the Bay Area (before seeing it) was that it showed how much pressure kids are under to get into a good college and they shouldn’t be put under pressure by high schools and parents. Perhaps that came from people who have wanted Lowell to stop being a selective “pressure cooker”.
But after seeing it, I don’t think that was the filmmaker’s intention at all. It seemed to me much more intended to garner public support for the current lawsuit in the Supreme Court and/or Prop 209.
I find the argument troubling that private institutions should be allowed to do what public institutions aren’t based on race. Because of the fixed number of spots for admissions at each college, the mere act to “affirm” someone based on race is to discriminate against someone else based on race. Discrimination based on race is not only wrong but illegal, whether the institution that practices it is public or private.
Every poor kid, of any race, deserves an opportunity to reach her/his potential. It’s way too late by the time s/he reaches college age. We need to reform the way we fund K-12 education (instead of relying on local property taxes) so that smart but poor kids aren’t stuck in underfunded and often dysfunctional schools. One of the ironies that Kahlenberg pointed out in his piece in The Atlantic is that students who received preferential treatments under Affirmative Action at elite colleges were often relatively well-to-do. The other irony is that the advocates for preferential treatments in college admissions are often themselves choosing to live in largely segregated neighborhoods because of their “better schools” funded by their local (and higher) property taxes.
My oldest saw this up close and I believed it influenced her thinking. She heard the “whispers” of an African-American friend in the class ahead of her who got into 4 Ivys because of her race (despite having all of the “stats” and extracurriculars). The top students at the high school my kids attended all get into very selective schools regardless of race. My oldest decided to not apply to any top 25 schools despite having the resume to do so and saw an even worse example of that with a good friend (African-American whose parents were immigrants) in her class that got into every school that she applied to, including 5 Ivys. It was tough for my kid to see a friend with an above 50th percentile SAT score at every school applied to, top 10 ranking, and state and national level awards hear that she was not worthy of her results from a couple of students ranked below her in the class. I understand that an Asian-American student with those same stats and accomplishments probably would not have had the same level of success during application season, but some of the comments overheard were particularly harsh. That “unworthy” student ended up being a campus leader and just graduated with a 3.8 GPA from HYP school in a STEM major.
Do you think those “whispers” would stop (or at least it would be easier to push back against them) if the colleges were legally forbidden from considering race?
I don’t know anyone who would suggest that the UCs discriminate within a school on grounds of race (or could give any example of this appearing to happen), even if there might be a relative boost (for example) to under-represented parts of the state or students from poor schools.
And as I said above what stood out to me from “Try Harder” (at least as the filmmaker portrayed it) was that even Lowell teachers were apparently telling the Asian students they would be discriminated against which presumably gives license for such comments to be made.
I think it would stop some of the “whispers”, but I don’t think it would stop them all. The number of African-Americans attending UCs and the University of Michigan have dropped a lot since Proposition 209 in California and Proposal 2 in Michigan have been put into law. I have had family attend the University of Michigan since Proposal 2 became law and the “whispers” are still there (or it is assumed that they are Michigan athletes when they were not). The easiest way to push back from my own experience has been to achieve at the highest level, but it is hard to push back to people who believe that schools prohibited from considering race are still finding loopholes to still consider race in admissions.
does everyone who is white mark that in their application? our feeling has been to be as up front and honest with everything as we can, so we have our daughter mark white (and Jewish when religion is asked).
and how hispanic is Hispanic? like a kid who is born and bred in the US, with no socioeconomic disadvantages, but who has one parent or grandparent born in Cuba or Brazil, would probably mark Hispanic or Latino, right? what if both parents were born in the US, but some Aunts and Uncles and cousins live in, say, Argentina?
Is the question of race is intended to find the kid who truly has a different background and cultural heritage, and will bring a certain level of diversity to college? does it accomplish that at all?
What little polling on Proposition 16 (the one to undo Proposition 209) there was found that voters of each of the non-White groups were about evenly split, while White voters were strongly opposed.
It looks like the students they chose to follow were chosen before college admission results were known. The violinist was not one of them, but apparently was well known as the top student in the school, based on at least one scene (was it Harvard or Stanford or both that he got into?).
Of the three Asian students that they followed closely, the Alvan and Sophia (with apparently tiger parents) went to UCB and UCLA, while Ian (with apparently non-tiger parents) went to Emory. Rachael (with apparently tiger parent) went to Brown and Shea (one class later, with no significant parental attention at all) got into Stanford.
No. Long after Proposition 209 was passed, many people (including some commenting on these forums) still believe that UCs and/or CSUs consider race/ethnicity in admissions. I have seen similar comments on these forums regarding other colleges (e.g. Florida publics) on these forums.
Regarding this, do LDC students at private colleges ever face similar stigma? Or do they easily avoid it because LDC status is invisible?
Well I was talking about the “whispers” in high school about rival students getting in despite being supposedly “less smart” than their peers. I heard plenty of such comments about the kid getting into Stanford because a parent worked there or into Georgetown because they were an athlete. Those students may or may not have regarded that as a “stigma”.
I wanted to make everyone one aware of this zoom webinar with education and/or AA experts this Tuesday Nov 1, that will unpack what happens on Monday (registration link in James Murphy’s tweet): https://twitter.com/James_S_Murphy/status/1586076405565386752
Given that Asians make up over 40% of SAT scores >1400, I suggest that Asians are still underrepresented.
DS recently graduated from law school. They touted how diverse his class was, >42% POC. I was able to find the breakdown of the statistics by race and gender once he graduated.
This looks fairly represented by race and gender, until you break it down by race AND gender:
White Men: 32%
White Women: 22%
Black Men: 2%
Black Women: 6%
Asian Men: 7%
Asian Women: 8%
Hispanic Men: 3%
Hispanic Women: 4%
International Men: 7%
International Women: 6%
So, essentially, the class was still dominated by white men at 32% of the class. There were very few men of color. The school brought in diversity by admitting women of color while still maintaining the white male dominance.
Test scores are but a small part of the admissions decision at many schools, and not part of the decision at all for the many test optional applicants (many of whom are being accepted to highly rejective schools, which I assume you are talking about).
I’d be interested to know how much this gender split correlates with performance in college. Isn’t law school admission supposed to be highly stats driven?
S just graduated in a classic law school feeder major (Public Affairs) and out of 14 students graduating Summa Cum Laude, he was the only male. Frankly I’m surprised any law school has a preponderance of males nowadays.
As a general rule women average better grades than men, and men average slightly better scores than women. For example, the chart below shows LSAT score distribution by gender. Looking at the LSAT score distribution, one wouldn’t wonder why there are a lot of male students.
This pattern occurs at all levels, including college. Women average higher grades in college than men and average higher graduation rates. I’d expect women also average higher grades in law school. This can contribute to why there are often more female URMs than males at selective colleges. If admission is predicting which lower score kids have the best chance of being academically successful in college, more often than not it will be women.
URMs average a larger score differences than the gender differences pictured in the graph above. For example, in the same year pictured above, the mean scores by race were as follows. Many law schools give a strong boost to URMs in admission, often more significant than undergrad. Without such a boost and with a score focused admission process, there would often be few URMs.
Did Not List Race – 154.4 (Female = 152.6, Male = 155.6)
White – 153.2 (Female = 152.4, Male = 153.9)
Asian – 152.8 (Female = 152.6, Male = 153.2)
– gap –
Native America – 146.2 (Female = 142.8, Male = 147.0)
Hispanic – 145.8 (Female = 144.8, Male = 147.4)
Hawaii / Pacific Islander – 144.5 (Female = 142.9, Male 146.5)
Black – 141.7 (Female = 141.3, Male = 142.5)
Puerto Rican – 140.8 (Female = 140.1, Male = 141.6)
