@lookingforward
Your entire post is eloquent but this part really nails it:
Alternatively or in addition,
(1) their psyches may be weak (“delicate egos,” indeed, but also distorted ones --resisting the very possibility that strangers in the universe could exist with accomplishments greater than their own), which is embarrassing to begin with;
(2) it’s a failure in imagination when a student and/or a parent cannot conceive of application contents and letters of recommendation which exceed what the student or parent is familiar with. Imagination is relevant to intellectual potential.
Such denials of admission speak for themselves, when they are protested in this ^ manner & on these grounds.
@GMTplus7
Im not sure the Housing secision will make much defferemce. A showing of disparate impact in housing does not automatically mean the zoning laws are discriminatory or illegal. It just raises the level at which the rationale for the zoning laws are judged. They don’t just have to be reasonable, they now need to further a very important goal, and there be no other way to get there.
My county got sued for this. HUD is pretty unreasonable, saying that single family zoning has a dispate impact = discrimination. The he!! with the fact that most people left the city and moved here to get away from being surrounded by apartment buildings…in the end they settled, but the courts still had to reign in HUD’s expectations.
From Nolo “When a facially neutral policy disproportionately affects one group, this can be the basis of a discrimination lawsuit if the group affected is protected by discrimination laws (such as race, sex, or age). For example, an employer’s policy requiring all employees have the ability to lift 50 pounds could disproportionately affect women. Unless the employer had a good reason for such a policy, it could be discriminatory, even though it doesn’t explicitly exclude women.”
In the case of holistic colleges, I don’t see how this can apply to a group represented at more than their proportion in the national census. They can’t make the core argument that they are excluded or limited. The beauty of the law is how it is both simple and requires understanding of the breadth and complexity.
Some groups apply in numbers greater than their proportion in the national census, but the admit rate for that group can still be lower than the admit rate of other groups w comparable qualifications.
But the law, aiui, doesn’t begin to cover “demand” (number of apps.) And again, a casual observer can’t state “comparable qualifications,” unless focused on stats.
I think the reason H attracts lawsuit attention is that they represent a pinnacle. But you have to ask yourselves how many 17 years olds, who’ve done well in hs, have any sort of national perspective (or even within their area) about the competition- and about the values/attributes the very top colleges seek.
“Omg, just applying to a college that rejects X times more kids than it admits opens cans of worms. People are going to fret endlessly about what went wrong. And then point fingers. And then look for self-serving proofs.”
I think a lot of these people are just arrogant. They look at the top colleges with acceptance rates of, say, 15%, 10%, 5% and they STILL think they “deserve” to get in and if they don’t, someone else “stole” their spot. They’re simply too arrogant to stare those numbers in the face and understand that the odds are overwhelmingly against them getting in, end of subject, and if they get it, they should consider it a lucky star extra, not an entitlement.
I wondered about the effect of this decision also. It could be argued that GPA and SAT scores have a disparate impact in that URM tend to have lower scores. It could go even further into licensing exams like the bar or the boards for medicine. But I don’t know if the disparate impact rule applies to cases of that type.
Part of the point of affirmative action is to correct disparate impacts prior to college, however – to acknowledge that the “playing field” is not level.
Yes, i wondered about that. If disparate impact can be claimed over qualification exams for firefighters, then why not for lawyers or other professions.
I did read the same article, @GMTplus7
I am troubled by it, but I think there’s a difference between licensing people representing a profession and admitting students to obtain an undergraduate degree. One category is credentialing, which is an affirmation of qualification; the other is an opportunity for a high-level education, and one can reasonably assume that a diploma will not be granted to a student who hasn’t met graduation requirements. (Nor should a license be given to teachers not passing licensing! Race irrelevant.)
@fallenchemist The post starts off by asking whether racial biases are present in admissions. The affirmative action thread is, literally, titled ‘Race in admissions.’ Why would @Dave_Berry have made a thread in which we aren’t allowed to discuss the initial post?
No, it asks (through the article cited) if holistic admission is a euphemism for, essentially, keeping Asian student populations at many universities below the disproportionately high percentage they already are, relative to the overall population. It also certainly begs the discussion about whether universities are using holistic admissions to go back to (many would say continue) the days where there is a lot of wink. wink, nod, nod in admissions for what the article calls people with “tags”. That is not the same as a discussion as to the merits or lack thereof of affirmative action as a policy. One could apply affirmative action policies in their admissions process or not and still use this “holistic admissions” mantra to discriminate against certain students for the purposes of admission. Depending upon how it is applied, holistic admissions can be the opposite of affirmative action. Affirmative action is designed to increase underrepresented segments of the population; holistic admission is designed to decrease the representation of a certain segment of the population so it isn’t further overrepresented. Or at least that latter statement is the hypothesis for debate in this thread. One can talk about that hypothesis without rehashing affirmative action.
With respect, holistic is not purposely exclusive. To argue it decreases certain pools of high stats kids misses what these sought-after colleges look for in an individual candidate. It circles endlessly back to, "But he’s got higher stats!! "
Anyone who looks at a blank app and supp can see the range of questions to learn more about how a kid thinks, made choices, and proceeds. This goes beyond stats. There is no one group more likely to present a flat picture. But it is common.
Just look at most CC advice. I could give examples. But if you spend time actually looking at what the elite colleges say they like, want and need, it’s different.
And yet, when some say, you need to look at this from the college’s perspective, read what the colleges say and show, there’s blowback.
The elites have higher standards than the high schools. Holistic. It’s not all about stats.
Totally agree, @lookingforward. One can always accuse these schools of not taking students of a certain race or heritage to “control” the numbers, but it seems to me that unless you find the memo that says “We need to cap Asian enrollment at 20%” or, of course, learn to read minds, all one can do is speculate as to these motives and for many people that means assuming the worst. Even beyond the stats, schools are looking to enroll a mix of people that are into acting, sports, music, art, debate, rock climbing, needlepoint, gaming, cooking, etc., not to mention economic and other kinds of diversity to the extent possible. I am exaggerating as to the specificity in some cases, but only to make the point that, as you say, it goes way beyond stats and some stereotyped activity list. At least at the most selective schools that have that luxury of student admit choice.
I know it’s been said before, but there are a lot of URMs that have really high stats. I hope my son, 2320 SAT 4.0/4.84 GPA, a number of national level awards and achievements, and a URM, never felt disapproval from those around him that he somehow got into college simply because of his racial background/skin color. Holistic admissions is complicated, I’m sure, and I don’t know that I’m settled on how I feel about it, but both my children benefitted from having more than just their SATs and GPAs looked at as the determining factor for admissions.
