<p>Another take on 10-years post Prop 209: [Prop</a> 209: Ten Long Years](<a href=“http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061211/ocamp]Prop”>http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061211/ocamp)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you have a source for this? There was a well-known study done on the earning ability of people who got into ivy league schools, comparing those who accepted the offer to those who spurned them for state schools. There was no difference in income. Also, there was no difference in academic achievement for those who went to academia. Why would it be different for minorities?</p>
<p>collegealum314, I think you are referring to the Krueger-Dale study, which is an outlier among studies of the effects of attending elite colleges. Most studies of attending elite colleges have the intuitive result that such alumni fare better after graduation, and at least one study has criticized the methodology of the Krueger-Dale study. (Google up Avery and Hoxby’s paper “Do and Should Financial Aid Packages Affect Students’ College Choices?” for more details.) Anyway, even Krueger and Dale concluded that low-income students benefit from attending the most selective colleges that will admit them, so that study too would tend to support the premise Tyler09 argues from to reach his conclusion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My assertion would be that those that come from disinfranchised backgrounds carry heavier expectations and motivations much like immigrants, thus they are more driven and determined to take advantage of an elite opportunity, moreso than others from more privileged backgrounds.</p>
<p>Tyler09,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, even if you’re only talking about the black students in UC post Proposition 209, you still cannot say “each black student had the same chance of graduating.” Some are more prepared than others for the workload, some major in “easier” fields while others major in “harder” ones, some are more able to afford tuition, and so forth. Consequently some have better chances of graduation; each black student does NOT have the same chance of graduation.</p>
<p>Again, you seem to be supporting the point of my source, namely, that many students who were accepted at certain UCs pre Proposition 209 should have not been accepted because they were “less like [sic] to graduate.” However, just because you’re less likely to graduate from Berkeley than an average peer doesn’t mean you’re less likely to graduate from another UC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with this is that you are one person; you are not ten people. As you noted, people who were less likely to graduate than others at a given school were not admitted to that school post Proposition 209. We’re talking about many individuals, not just one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is very poor reasoning.</p>
<p>If we’re talking about learning in the classroom, how can a student who drops out and wasn’t even close to graduation learn more than a student who graduates? Unless the former has a strong, strong entrepreneurial spirit, how can he earn more than the latter?</p>
<p>Not only is it denial to keep asserting that fewer blacks graduated after Proposition 209, but it’s also factually incorrect. There are far more blacks graduating now than before.</p>
<p>You don’t know how significant “lack of black students” is in influencing black students’ decisions to try to enter UCLA. It’s a statistical question, and considering how Dr. Groseclose’s requests for data have been met, I doubt I could obtain access to the data necessary to answer that question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Madville suggests one possible reason for a difference in effect of highly selective colleges for minority students rather than majority students, that being that the minority students may enter that challenging environment with more motivation. I agree that that is quite possible. </p>
<p>I’ll suggest one more reason that first comes to my mind when I read the Krueger-Dale study: maybe young people from resource-rich environments can succeed wherever they go to college (and maybe whether they go to college or not), precisely because their families are so resource-rich. If someone wants to found a business, having capital helps. If someone wants to advance himself in a profession, having influential friends helps. In general, starting out life rich helps as contrasted with starting out life poor, maybe even more than going to college helps. So poor young people get the most benefit from going to the most elite colleges for which they are qualified, because their college educations make up such a large part of their total resource package. </p>
<p>Note that madville’s suggestion could be true (as I think it is) whether or not my suggestion is true. Each suggestion of a mechanism for differences in the effect of highly selective colleges on some people rather than other people might lead to different conclusions about what a desirable college admission policy would be. Note too that madville specifically addressed the question of “minority” students, by which I presume he means ethnic minorities, while I am specifically addressing low-income students, of any ethnicity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d have to disagree a bit on this point. Here in Ohio, nearly half of the 18,000 or so vouchers go unclaimed. They are given if I’m not mistaken on the basis of having a child in a failing school regardless of income. As Cosby said, “what good is Brown vs Board of Education if no one wants it.”-Come on People!</p>
<p>Part of the factors contributing to educational disparities among people of color are obvious and subtle institutionalized obstacles to preparedness and opportunity. The other large problem is a self inflicted apathy and indifference to higher education. Where I disagree with Fabrizio and some others is that the intervention has to be on every level, public and private, with allowances made for race, just as they are for other arbitrary groups.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is why the elite school admission policies are so coveted and challenged. In these institutions, the human, economic, social and political capital is enormous. The post graduate results that Tyler09 allude to bear this out. Those with the drive that come from environments with less forms of these types of capital are going to make the greatest strides. Similar results are seen from minorities in independent secondary schools. Elite schools have the abundant resources to facilitate success from even those minorities considered marginally qualified. There is a direct correleation and causation of minorities doing well in environments that actively recruit and support their commitment to diversity initiatives, IMO.
Too much beauracracy and limited resources keeps successful models of success from being implemented more widespread, IMO.</p>
<p>BTW, tokenadult, I do appreciate you streamlining the various threads about this subject. The topic of race in admissions is relevant and necessary. Thank you for moderating a healthy and civil discussion on this important issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I posted this earlier and no one responded. I think that classifying legacy as a qualification instead of a preference opens a pretty big can of worms, but I’m open to hearing opposing views.</p>
<p>Higher performance in what? EC accomplishment, academic, other ? Trying to better understand your question.</p>
<p>GPA and/or graduation rate.</p>
<p>Link to the Daily Princetonian’s beginning of the school year article on news from the summer about Princeton’s admission practices being under investigation: </p>
<p>[Department</a> of Education expands inquiry into Jian Li bias case - The Daily Princetonian](<a href=“http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/09/08/21307/]Department”>http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/09/08/21307/)</p>
<p>Specific data from one state about in-state minority student applications, admission, and enrollment. </p>
<p><a href=“http://apa.wisc.edu/Diversity/2008_Pipeline_Update.pdf[/url]”>http://apa.wisc.edu/Diversity/2008_Pipeline_Update.pdf</a></p>
<p>From what I’ve been reading on these forums, namely the chance’s forum, people are saying that being asian can actually you hurt you because asians are overrepresented at colleges.</p>
<p>Would it be better for asian applicants to not mark their ethnicity on the app?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s rather hard to give a definitive answer to this question. I’ve merged your post into the main FAQ thread because you indicate that earlier you were reading threads mostly on the What Are My Chances? Forum, so that you may not have seen the first few posts of this thread. </p>
<p>As far as I know, all colleges in the United States claim to desire diversity, that is that they don’t want all their students to be alike. They hope that their students come from various places, have various childhood experiences, and, yes, some from various ethnic groups. But it’s not at all clear how most colleges regard information about student ethnicity when making admission decisions–perhaps not all colleges use that information in the same way. </p>
<p>There is some evidence to suggest that at some colleges it has been disadvantageous in the admission process to be categorized as an “Asian” applicant rather than as a “white” applicant. That might suggest that it is expedient for some Asian applicants to leave unstated their ethnicity. But that’s not a sure conclusion about all colleges, and certainly most highly desired colleges still end up enrolling quite a few Asian students. </p>
<p>Feel free to ask follow-up questions after reading the first few posts of this thread, which lay out some basic facts. Good luck in your applications, whatever you decide to do.</p>
<p>Lets say we all have 95 GPA and 2400 SAT. What race is usually given more leniency when it comes to decisions? Which race has it the hardest?</p>
<p>easier for African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans… harder for Whites, East Asians and South Asians… probably hardest for East Asians … easiest for native american i think..</p>
<p>How would anyone know if one ethnic group or another is favored by a particular college?</p>
<p>Re: #514</p>
<p>The practice of treating Asian candidates worse than equally qualified white candidates is “negative action.” Several prominent scholars and advocates for affirmative action (viz. Jerry Kang, Frank Wu, William Kidder) have recognized its existence and called for its elimination. Sadly, these three seem to be in the minority; far too many affirmative action supporters either don’t care about negative action or worse, don’t think it exists. (That is immensely ironic since these supporters often cited Kidder’s paper as a definitive rebuttal to Espenshade and Chung’s research.)</p>
<p>Regarding Espenshade and Chung’s research, the two found that being Asian is worth the equivalent of a 50 point reduction in SAT scores. Their paper was published in 2005 in a peer-reviewed journal and despite its obviously controversial findings has met only one reply by the aforementioned Kidder. It is important to understand that Kidder did not refute E&C’s statement about the 50 point reduction. Instead, Kidder criticized E&C for conflating negative action and affirmative action; that is, Kidder argued that E&C drew the wrong conclusion from the facts.</p>
<p>As tokenadult has said, no one is legally required to disclose his “race.” Moreover, admissions officers are discouraged from guessing based on last names.</p>
<p>“The practice of treating Asian candidates worse than equally qualified white candidates…”</p>
<p>^ = a completely false statement. The E&C paper, as commentators have noted, is based on a false premise: namely, that higher scores were “needed” by Asians. They were not needed. They merely <em>were</em>. Students can take tests to their heart’s content. Some (including non-Asians) get a 2400 on their first try. Others are anxious about “how a BAD score will look,” so they retake. (“Bad” often being defined as 2300.) There was no and is no, “negative” action. It’s a fabrication.</p>