<p>"Facing outrage over preferential treatment given to some well-connected University of Illinois applicants, school officials pledged to clean up an admissions system they acknowledge was sometimes subjected to outside influence.</p>
<p>"To the extent some problems were pointed out, we can and will correct them," said U. of I. President B. Joseph White.</p>
<p>The reaction came the day a Tribune investigation revealed that some students with subpar academic records are being admitted to the university's Urbana-Champaign campus after interference from state lawmakers and university board members.</p>
<p>The Tribune reported Friday that about 800 undergraduates have landed on the clout list -- known internally as "Category I" -- since 2005. About 160 students were placed on the list this year after trustees, lawmakers and others in powerful positions sent e-mails or placed calls on their behalf."</p>
<p>Yes, public schools should be held to this scrutiny. All state residents deserve the same treatement. Private schools give all types of preference, including legacies, athletes etc. State officials are in effect demanding a bribe. In a private school, development cases are spending THEIR money. Public officials are spending OUR money to get special treatment. </p>
<p>Its not the school thats the issue – it is the public officials’ misuse of public trust.</p>
<p>Private universities should be able to use whatever admissions standards they choose that are legal. Public universities are funded by the public and should have admissions policies that aren’t based on things like clout.</p>
<p>Unethical behavior in the state of Illinois? Say it’s not true? </p>
<p>“To the extent some problems were pointed out, we can and will correct them,” said U. of I. President B. Joseph White." Wow. Don’t go overboard with the promises, Joey - - that basically reads, to the extent we’ve been caught, we are sorry we were caught. What a bunch of scum. Admitting some stiff in June, so that the kid’s school won’t get tipped off about this scam. Just awful stuff.</p>
<p>Yakyu Spirits and Ctyankee- So true. IL’s state government is one of the (if not THE) most corrupt state governments out there. This one just happens to concern colleges.</p>
<p>Swissmiss is from Texas, where UT-Austin needed to take any student that was in the top 10 percent of their class, even if a high school was just handing out A’s for making it to class. Of note, Texas just passed a law to (at least) limit the handcuffs on UT, so they could consider a student’s academic record. </p>
<p>Regardless, this thread is about those in political power using influence to get undeserving students into the University of Illinois. It has nothing to do with athletes or underrepresented minorities.</p>
<p>One of the problems with finding data to support a claim of URMs being admitted with “subpar academic records” is that those universities which employ affirmative action to increase diversity are extremely reluctant to explicitly disclose their admissions policies for fear of a lawsuit, such as for UMichigan’s law school (the Gratz & Grutter cases). Opponents of affirmative action seek this data to find evidence that URM status is not being used holistically as claimed by some universities. The whole holistic idea being squishy by definition, and implemented by individuals with their own ideas of what it means, makes for the sort of philosophical disagreement which invites lawsuits.</p>
<p>While I think the choice of “subpar” wasn’t entirely correct (URM candidates usually are qualified, just in some cases not to the same degree as other candidates), the idea that some URM candidates are admitted with lesser qualifications is almost universally accepted and is the reason opponents of the practice want it eliminated. An example of what happens when this happens is the U of C system as noted below:</p>
<p>Whether or not one believes in the practice, to imply that the statement by swissmiss3 is not based in fact disregards that affirmative action in college admissions exists at some universities. By definition, this would mean that some class of applicants is being judged by a different standard to increase their representation beyond what would occur without considering their differing class.</p>
<p>“Sometimes they get preferential treatment and are admitted with ‘subpar academic records.’”</p>
<p>“to imply that the statement by swissmiss3 is not based in fact disregards that affirmative action in college admissions exists at some universities”</p>
<p>This is not true. The fact that some colleges choose to diversify (even actively) their student bodies does not mean that those with subpar academic records are admitted. </p>
<p>I do not disregard that affirmative action exists. I intended to point out that smissmiss’s statement, which was written as if fact, is not proven and may therefore be false. </p>
<p>“idea that some URM candidates are admitted with lesser qualifications is almost universally accepted”</p>
<p>I do not accept this idea. The average SAT score of those from well-represented backgrounds may be higher than that for under-represented minorities. However, the SAT has been shown to have less accuracy in predicting college success for under-represented minorities.</p>
<p>There are few, if any, measurementss that can reliably distinguish between the qualifications of high acheiving applicants. Therefore, one cannot responsibly claim that, as you are, minority applicants are generally less qualified than whites and Asians to perform well at a given college.</p>
<p>If the differences in qualifications between URM admits and white and Asian admits was meaningfully great, the graduation rates (which indicate at least a moderate degree of success and presumably an initial degree of qualification) at top colleges wouldn’t be much greater than the percentage of white and Asian applicants attending the college. This is not the case.</p>
<p>It’s not that you don’t have some valid points, but when a black kid going to a very competitive high school with a better G.P.A. while taking tougher classes can be passed by to take a black kid going to a non-competitive high school, something is dreadfully wrong. </p>
<p>Using class rank while ignoring the strength of the school attended is a joke.</p>
<p>silverturtle, I happen to agree with much of what you say, particularly about how it reaches a point where “measurables” poorly differentiate between high achieving applicants. That’s where the holistic admissions enter the picture. However, my point is that schools generally make their decisions on who to admit based on, first, some objective data as to which applicants meet their selection criteria. From the remaining “qualified” pool, adcoms try to fashion a class which is diversified in any number of ways.</p>
<p>If the process eliminated consideration of URM status, as the UCs did, their selection process would result in a lower percentage of URMs. That isn’t to say that the criteria used are more valid in predicting future college success. It DOES say that using their “colorblind” selection criteria, less URMs get admitted because under those criteria, more URMs have “subpar academic records” compared to those selected (regardless of how little below they might be). There are “X” spots, and they top “X” applicants are in. Those below that number, even though “qualified”, are “subpar”. That is the context I use for that word.</p>
<p>Thus, affirmative action allows the use of a certain status to include “subpar” applicants in the admitted class. This is a legally protected basis for choosing members of a class and serves the purposes of the school, as long as those admitted still meet the qualifications of the school (and as you state, graduation levels generally bear out how well the process works). I think we are, for the most part, in agreement, and are arguing more about the semantics of words like “qualified” and “subpar”.</p>
<p>I agree fully with the points in your first paragraph. The point I am trying to make is that, once the initial hurdle of academic qualification is passed, no applicant should be considered subpar academically. This is because of the aforementioned imprecision in the measures.</p>
<p>Agreed. However, proponents of 100% colorblind admissions then leave adcoms with a diminished toolbox with deficient tools to make their choices.</p>
<p>Still waiting for the day when selective colleges set their bar and then draw their class out of a hat (possibly more fair than current practices, but would LOVE to see the uproar on CC’s boards if that ever happened!). That, or use a system matching levels of interest between colleges and applicants (believe med schools use something like this?).</p>
<p>I guess with sports and talent auditions/board selections (ex. music, acting, film etc.) aside, it could work - as long as there was a cap per school/program within the university. Obviously, the football coach can’t have the luck of the draw lose him a star quarterback or give him four punters, when he needs (at best) one. Nor would it be fair for six flutist to be offered admission, when there are only two chairs available. Another exclusion would be scholarship recipients.</p>
<p>Awhile back there were some articles in the Wall Street Journal which detailed the higher failure rate of black law students compared to those who are a different race. One article mentioned that these law students were accepted into prestigious law schools with lower credentials because the schools, in California, wanted more diversity. From examining the graduation rates, the writer of the article determined that more black law students drop out than those of other races, and it was believed that if these law students had gone to other, less demanding, law schools, they might have been more successful and graduated, becoming successful black lawyers.</p>
<p>Here in Texas, high schoolers who ranked in the top 10% of their graduating classes are guaranteed admission to the public college of their choice, regardless of SAT, ACT, or GPA. The only thing that matters is rank. As you know, all high schools are not created equal. Students from rigorous high schools might rank lower than the top 10% of their classes, score phenominally on tests, and not get admitted to UT because UT has to accept the top 10% from ANY high school, strong or pathetic. Supporters of the top 10% law scream very loudly about helping the minority students and try to convince politicians of the need for the law to have equality. </p>
<p>Athletes often score lower than other applicants because they sacrifice a lot of study time to the practices for their sport. Sure, there are lots of athletes who don’t fit this mold, but there are more that do. Recently I read about the poor academic performance of college athletes and the NCAA was concerned. I drew the conclusion that the athletes in question must have had subpar grades and scores.</p>
<p>My point in posting about athletes and URMs was that preferential treatment is rampant in college admissions and doesn’t exist solely for friends of politicians.</p>