But lots of rural kids would never make the cut because they don’t have the same access to APs as urban/suburban kids. That’s not fair either.
FWIW, I’ve long called for a two-prong approach to UT admissions. Top 10% plus a 1300 on the SAT or equivalent. Nothing about being a rural kid keeps them from getting a 1300. The local context of the 10% still comes into play, but the nationally normed test results make sure the local context is enough to be successful.
I have seen that someplace else:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-to-fix-college-admissions/
It’s a valid idea, but that validity may be in question because the author might have appeared on Fox News or accepted money from the Koch Brothers at some point in the past. If he is guilty of either of those two deeds, we have to scrub it from our memory banks. [-X
John McWhorter is an eminent linguist, but this is not his finest work. He isn’t even giving me anything to rebut here. He’s just saying he read the responses and they’re wrong. He’s not even telling us which responses he read, other than the weak Bazelon article. He’s not going to convince me he is right by vigorous assertion with no proof. This is McWhorter the conservative columnist, not McWhorter the academic. I wish the academic had shown up.
McWhorter says, *UCLA law professor Richard Sander conclusively showed in 2004 that “mismatched” law students are much more likely to cluster in the bottom of their classes and, especially, to fail the bar exam. *
Well, no, Sander didn’t conclusively show that. That was already known. Sander’s novel claim is that those black students would be better off at lower-ranked schools.
McWhorter goes on to say, * However, Emily Bazelon’s widely read critique of it was hasty in claiming that the responses published along with Sander’s piece refuted his claims. Rather, anyone reading them with an open mind would see that they left Sander’s basic point standing tall and this applies to any other critique I have seen: there has been no “smackdown.” Rather, anyone reading them with an open mind would see that they left Sander’s basic point standing tall and this applies to any other critique I have seen: there has been no “smackdown.”*
His argument is that anyone reading the responses (which responses are those?) with an open mind will agree with him, so he doesn’t even have to make an argument. I should just trust him. Well, I don’t, and I have read some of the arguments against Sander. I don’t see how McWhorter is dismissing them so cavalierly. It shows contempt for his readers.
What is McWhorter’s response to Widener’s claim that ““[T]his study has shown that regression analyses of the kind conducted by Sander are incapable of producing credible estimates of causal effects” (in other words, Sander can’t possibly make the claim he makes)? Crickets.
What does McWhorter say to Chambers’ “The conclusions in Systemic Analysis rest on a series of statistical errors, oversights, and implausible assumptions?” Silence.
What of Ho: “[T]he [Sander] study draws internally inconsistent and empirically invalid conclusions about the effects of affirmative action. Correcting the assumptions and testing the hypothesis directly shows that for similarly qualified
black students, attending a higher-tier law school has no detectable effect on bar passage rates.” McWhorter has no response.
What of the eminent statisticians’ systematic dismantling of Sander’s study in the Empirical Scholars brief, as making invalid comparisons, improperly adjusting for outcomes, and failing to adjust for the differences between law school tiers? McWhorter says nothing.
And there is plenty more where that came from, but according to McWhorter, we don’t have to look at any of it. We should just trust McWhorter.
McWhorter asserts without evidence that Sander’s basic point is uncrushed by the mountain of evidence piled upon it. I’m not going to believe him if he doesn’t even give an argument, and you shouldn’t believe him either.
tl;dr McWhorter says that black law students at elite law schools have lower academic credentials than their classmates, which is undisputed. Then McWhorter asserts, with no evidence, that Sander is right that those students are worse off than they would have been if they’d been at lower ranked law schools. I see no reason to accept his unsupported word.
As I have said before, I know bupkis about college admissions. My supposition is that looking at a person’s race, sex, ethnicity, economic background, geographical region, hobbies, etc is probably a good idea when you are talking about trying to build an interesting cohort from a larger pool of qualified individuals. But I will defer to you and others in the business to judge that.
What I am saying is that your point that UT is not just making decisions based on race is as a matter of law immaterial to the question in Fisher II. If race plays a role in the decision at all, it is discriminatory, period. The point being that there is no sliding scale where if you do something a little bit it is ok, but if you do it a lot then it is unconstitutional. It is a yes or no question.
You may be able to construct a pretty good argument that purely holistic admissions views so may factors that race is simply a minor consideration, and hence the use of it is a “narrowly tailored” means to the compelling end of a diverse classroom. But I haven’t heard anyone make that argument in Fisher yet. Probably because so much of the class comes in through the straight percentage admits that this kind of “tweaking” argument becomes difficult to sustain.
On the other hand, I think it will be interesting to see whether Harvard’s lawyers head down that path when that case gets rolling. We will have to see.
@hebegebe No not everything McWhorter says should be ignored but he definitively has an agenda and that is to promote conservative ideas. The funding sources for a lot of the places he has worked tells alot
One issue with relying on either the common media or the comments of other posters is that certain bullets become accepted without vetting. An argument then builds, based on what may not be accurate.
I don’t see how some posters here can show the holistic phase is solely based on race.
“After giving “strict scrutiny” to UTAustin’sadmissions process, the Fifth Circuit ruled in the university’s favor, finding that it (the court) had “verif[ied] that it [was] ‘necessary’ for [the] university to use race [as a positive factor in holistic admissions] to achieve the educational benefits of diversity,” in accordance with Supreme Court precedent. 758 F.3d at 644, citing Fisher…”
“Continuing to rely on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Fisher, cited above, the Fifth Circuit further stated, that in the context of a challenge by a reverse discrimination case brought by a white applicant: it remains a university’s burden to demonstrate and the court’s obligation to determine whether the “admissions processes ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual, and not in a way that makes an applicant’s race or ethnicity the defining feature of his or her application…”
And that, folks, is where we are. The SC allows for consideration of race, under certain conditions. The U is beholden to show it matches those conditions. The presence of some lawsuit, the willingness of a court to hear it, are not some final pre-packaged indication of wrong-doing.
My quotes above are from https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/utsfiles/documents/outside-reports/investigation-admissions-practices-and-allegations-undue-influence/investigation-admissions-practices-kroll-2015-02.pdf There is also info about “The 18 specified factors for holistic admissions.”
No, not a simple case.
Yes indeed.
Does this apply to the money David Koch spent on supporting gay marriage too? Should we look critically at those organizations as well?
I don’t want to get into the middle of y’all’s fight, but “follow the money” always is good advice, regardless of from where the money comes.
It seems there’s a desire for the university to present more data. But do they have that data to hand, for the year 2008 (or thereabouts)? Do they retain records? If they didn’t retain records from that season’s applications, any attempt to answer more detailed questions would risk the charge of manufacturing data.
GPA: entirely school- and teacher- dependent. I can think of many great teachers who are/have been tougher graders than their peers. In my opinion, the importance of GPA in admissions single-handedly explains much of the grade inflation in K-12 and college.
AP tests: Scores dependent on quality of instruction, thus not in student control. Access to AP courses can be limited by school. (Thus, strongly tilts the field toward high-SES districts.)
Extracurricular: Entire category correlates with family wealth.
Varsity sport: Wealth. (Fees, equipment, transportation, summer camps, private coaching, parents able to volunteer, parents not in the workforce able to oversee children’s sports careers.)
While such a system may bill itself as “fair,” it includes all the problems of the existing system. People who worry about the admissions rat race are likely to be able to supply tutoring, extracurriculars, and a home in a good school district, thus to prefer such a system.
I suggest an alternate system. A proctored essay, written at test centers, not to last longer than 1.5 hours, on a set topic not known in advance. Those who wish to apply for STEM majors must add a math exam.
The admissions teams are not to know anything about any extracurricular, no GPA, no other tests, no recommendations, no sports, no community service, no photo, no interview. The only question is whether the applicant can write an essay on a topic within 90 minutes, using standard English.
Frankly, I’d expect most high school students not to qualify.
I am sorry, but who is saying that?
I haven’t read this entire thread, but because of the top 10% rule, I don’t think any of my sister’s kids will get into UT (their HS is very competitive). My son went briefly as OOS, but had to drop out after he fell ill. So that means none of the next generation of my family will be a Longhorn graduate. My grandmother, uncle, aunt, father, husband, cousin, and I all have UT degrees. Kind of bizarre!
The suit against Harvard is a different animal; to my mind, completely different, as a private school, not aiming to serve its state constituency. If it comes to it, a Harvard, with the vast pool of competitive candidates, can explain why one kid was accepted over another. And they leave no smoking guns.
A state school, in contrast, should be offering various opportunities to state kids.
The 10% Law is bold. The problem it deals with is the inconsistency of education in TX public schools. I think adding a stats expectation or floor is tricky, at best, considering the many reasons a kid may not fare well with std tests. There are many fine hs in Texas, even in less notable areas, serving the best of their students better than one might realize. But not the uniformity that would make all “top X applicants” equally prepared, as a group.
“If race plays a role in the decision at all, it is discriminatory, period.” I think your issue is with Grutter, first. And maybe after that, with the breadth of what holistic means. ? And then, at least for some, with what the education opportunity is meant to be. It’s not all rigid and performance based, not all about who gets what gpa or goes on to complete what specific major.
Actually, what bothers me at the very core of top 10% is an acknowledgment that our schools are highly segregated and that a kid’s education is quite variable because of it.
O’dad, I’ve quoted back at least several posters stating admits are on the basis of race.
Periwinkle, while I agree your suggestion would be a higher bar, why exclude the rest of what a kid offers in energy, impact, accomplishments, his judgment and other things? Colleges are not just cinder-block buildings where the point is all study/all the time. They’re communities and growth comes from more than the classroom. Achievement, in life, even in hs life, is (and requires) more than nose to the grindstone.
I am the furthest thing from an expert on mismatch theory. But from what I can tell, although Sander raises some interesting questions, the analysis he’s done isn’t nearly rigorous enough to draw the conclusions that he claims to have drawn.
In particular, I think three things:
Let me pose the following hypothetical about “mismatch theory”. Let’s take race out of it. Suppose your son is on track to attend a perfectly wonderful school like Boston University or Lehigh, where he’ll fit right in as the quintessential average student who earns A’s and B’s. Suddenly, he gets a call from Harvard. They want him to attend next year because they have a top-secret program where they randomly pick one student from across the nation and give them an admissions offer.
You call your buddy in the admissions office at Harvard to get some off-the-record, perfectly candid advice. He lays out these pros and cons:
Cons:
Pros:
He’ll almost certainly graduate with (say) a 3.0 or better. There are plenty of classes and majors where he’ll be able to get a B (Huzzah's for grade inflation !)
He’ll be able to take advantage of whatever Harvard can offer him, in and out of the classroom.
He’ll have a Harvard degree, and that will open doors for him. Grades aren’t everything.
Here is the question: Do you think it’s a wise decision for your son to accept Harvard’s admissions offer?
If I had to guess, 95% of parents would say yes. Even parents in this thread. If they’re right, this contradicts a lot of “mismatch theory”.
Does your opinion change if instead of winning a lottery he’s given the offer because he’s (say) a recruited athlete?
Been done before. From wikipedia on Imperial Chinese Civil Service exams.
Making the 7% at a suburban high school can be tough.
My daughter would be the type of URM student UT would like who didn’t make the 7% at her high school.
Her high school has 600 kids, so the first 42 would make the list. My daughter is 43rd. ACT score of 33, will have completed 8 AP test, now taking Calc III and DE her senior year.
Two Bs her freshman year have doomed her. :))
Is she applying?
While I find much of your post appealing, I disagree with this part. Wanting to go to Harvard, even if unqualified, does not contradict mismatch theory. On the contrary, it is exactly this that allows a mismatch to happen.
@Youdon’tsay, no.