“These aren’t just elite institutions, they’re elitist institutions”

Parents Forum
421

Harvard is the home of the Implicit Association test, which is designed to reveal unconscious bias. People who take the test are presented with two groups, black/white, young/old, or some similar pair, typically in photos. They are also given good terms/bad terms. Reaction times are recorded. While I don’t know the specific algorithm, I believe that if it takes longer to classify a good term as good, after seeing a photo from a category that is discriminated against, that is an indicator of unconscious bias. The location of the people and the terms is scrambled from sub-section to subsection to avoid irreproducibility due to right hand/left hand dominance or other irrelevant causes.

What I would like to see is a similar legacy/non-legacy Implicit Association test taken by members of Harvard’s Admissions Office.

422

“is the less compelling, average excellent white kids.”

Agree, they may be the most hurt, esp if they’re middle class.

“You have to consider the wide range of factors that play in decisions. (Including, their apps, themselves.)”

A lot of the research and findings on legacy includes a lot of factors, as data10 and others have pointed out.

"In 2011, research on 30 elite schools from the higher-education expert Michael Hurwitz found that the children of alumni saw a 45 percentage-point increase in their chances of admission compared to otherwise equally qualified candidates who were not legacies, controlling for factors such as SAT scores, athlete status, gender, race, and “many less-quantifiable characteristics.”

423

Looking- you are starting to tilt at windmills!

I don’t think ANYONE is going to lose sleep over the “average excellent” white kid who is shut out of Harvard and ends up at CMU or JHU or Duke or Vanderbilt. Godspeed, kid. The issue is that the first Gen/Low SES kid who DOES get crowded out at one of the elites often does NOT end up at the Wash U/Northwestern type of college, and DOES end up at a directional state U with lousy freshman retention rates, or a local commuter college with an abysmal 6 year grad rate.

Why? Money, money, money. There is no question that the Harvard’s of the world have both the deep pockets AND the wherewithal to even the playing field just a tiny bit once the kid is admitted and shows up. Emergency plane ticket home to see a dying grandparent, bus fare to stay with a roommate over Thanksgiving break because home is too far away. The Master or Dean has a slush fund to pay for broken eyeglasses, the copay on an antibiotic when the kid gets a bronchial infection but has no cash and the parents can’t send a check.

Bravo. But so many poor kids with sky high stats who DID get outreach from one of the elites but don’t end up getting in have college lists that look like this:

Reach- Harvard
Match- my flagship, which my family cannot afford with just Pell because it’s 300 miles away and we can’t pay for a dorm
Safety- Local directional type college- I can live at home, Pell covers 2/3’s of tuition. If I keep my HS job and work 35 hours a week I can just about swing it.

This kid is going to major in Aero/Astro engineering working 35 hours a week folding sweaters at Old Navy? Or major in Chem AND have the “right” kind of EC’s to be a credible pre-med applicant squeaking by with an almost full time job for four years?

The best kid I ever interviewed for Brown had two colleges on his list- Brown, because he got a postcard and his HS history teacher had heard of it, and his local CC to become a respiratory technician. First gen, rural poor, took a Greyhound bus and then two more buses to get to my office which almost made me cry because when I called to set up the interview, it had not occurred to me to ask if he had transportation. My privilege was showing that day. But Brown was affordable if he got in; his flagship or one of the merit schools, or need based aid until we run out schools would not have been.

This is the narrative you seem to be missing. Nobody cares that the average excellent kid is getting shoved aside. It’s that our public flagship U’s with a few exceptions no longer can afford to educate the poor residents of their states with the type of financial support these kids need, AND the next tier of college down from the elites are too busy playing with $5K and 10K merit awards which go to affluent suburban kids to be bothered with enough need based aid to educate the talented poor kid. And of course- “working your way” through college is no longer viable in most parts of the country.

424

Well, QM, the courts define this, not individuals. So you’re offended by discrimination, but it remains to be seem how you are directly harmed, as tey define it. (Let’snot get into a sidebar about that.)

And you can go back to the Fisher case (albeit, for a public,) and see how strict scruntiny is applied on behalf of certain groups, per standards, how the rulings summarized.

And the point isn’t whether we associate… I believe you are assuming this is a factor in reviews- or wouldn’t mention it. But assumptions are the first thing one is supposed to strip from scientific exploratio and reasoning.

See, without digging deeper than ratings schemes, admit numbers, etc, folks have no idea what adcoms’ reaction ARE, to certain sub groups, styles of apps, included or omitted info, and more. No idea, just info from the lawsuit or some studies.

425

This has to be the first time anyone has suggested that the exhaustive discovery and expert analysis in the Harvard case was inadequate to yield sufficient data to understand the admissions process. Even Harvard didn’t think that.

426

You want to “dig deeper” to understand the legacy advantage? Like there’s some spot on the application for “please explain the meaning of life” that only legacy kids can see?

Starting to get icky. Yes, I’m willing to bet that MOST legacy apps are more highly refined and polished than the app from the kid in rural Kentucky. Yes, I’m willing to bet that most legacy apps have better/more impressive/more sustained EC’s than the same kid from rural Kentucky. And I’ll also stipulate that the teacher’s recc’s are better/more tightly focused, and the GC’s letter uses the correct buzzwords and adjectives.

But you really think that there is something substantive-- other than what can be explained by sheer affluence or at least proximity to affluence-- that can explain the admissions differentials?

427

Lets say that there is a US college who would just like to admit 40% of its class based on some consideration of applicants parents’ power and influence in the society and in the world, would we have a problem with that? Probably not. Lets suppose that among this group of parents 35% are alum of “elite” colleges vs 5% of non-“elite”, would we find that problematic? Probably not either.

Lets suppose some schools would like to give strong preference to Supreme Court justices kids. Well, in that case you end up with: H, Y, P, S, Cornell and Holy Cross, an overwhelming legacy presence at those “elites”.

428

Of course we’d have a problem with that, college admissions are supposed to accept kids right, not their families? Even if colleges admit families, which of course happens, they should just say, hey 30% of the class is for kids with powerful, wealthy, legacy families.

429

Then let’s suppose those colleges were transparent in their process, disclosing the actual acceptance rate for applicants in each bucket. That would be an improvement. And we could leave for the IRS to figure out whether tax benefits should continue to accrue to such a college.

430

I realize stats are only a small part of the application and a small part of the admissions decision, but the linked Duke study does compare the different distributions for applicants among the top 10% by stats (top AI stat decile), and the results are interesting. Non-ALDC applicants were slightly more likely to be in the top stat decile than LDC, but that difference had notable racial correlation. Non-ALDC Asians were more likely to be in top stat decile than LDC, while LDC URMs were far more likely to have top stats than non-LDC URMs.

Distribution and Admit Rate for Top Stat Decile Applicants at Harvard
Overall – 8.7% of LDCs (61% admit rate), 9.8% non-ALDCs (15% admit rate)
Asians – 13.2% of LDCs (63% admit rate), 17.9% non-ALDCs (13% admit rate)
URMs – 4.2% of LDCs (90% admit rate), 1.5% non-ALDCs (44% admit rate)

431

@blossom - your Brown applicant story is it exactly and it is what so many espousing here seem to be unable to grasp. Go ahead and lecture how being “disadvantaged “ is now in vogue and how 2 years of college is only the price of a Honda Accord . Or keep telling us that being immersed in ECs from the age of 3 is just a different way of life and not really an advantage? How the playing field will never be leveled? Reading through all this is really eye opening.

432

I can’t fathom why H didn’t go further and describe more about the apps, themselves. Perhaps they thought the info they did release was sufficient, in terms of this specific case and strategy. BUT, others now look at the pieces they did reveal and make a process out of it. Not.

It’s an app process, you give them what they want or not. (Not the meaning of life.) Then they see if they can use you, for one reason or another. Maybe they can’t.

Maybe you’re one of those stem greats applying along with 500 other stem greats in your area. Not all will get the nod, no matter how many have top ratings. Not how they form the class, at the end, with respect to various institutional needs.

Is there an assumption out there that you just apply and are good enough and get in? When there are in the neighborhood of 40k kids who will be rejected by Harvard?

No, a legacy does not necessarily hit the bullseye. (Nor boarding school kids.) Yes, that kid from KY or Alabama or border Texas might. (Don’t mean the rich doctors’ kids.) No, you cannot assume about LoRs. (I’m not going into detail, but you can imagine, right?)

Blossom, as a former interviewer, did they tell you to look for affluence? Or in contrast, look for kids you feel, with your knowledge of the college, would most contribute, be most likely to fit and thrive? Were you asked to flag legacies and rubber stamp them?

Do I for a moment believe who ultimately gets into H has to do with “sheer affluence” or near? NO. I don’t get why people think privileges like repeat test prep or vacations turn an ordinary kid into a must-have.

Over the years, when posters get a chance to review apps during a visit (some exercise some top colleges share, where you get to play adcoms for an hour, not real apps, but representative,) they comment that it’s enlightening. They can then see the differences among kids, sometimes major, sometimes minute, how the significance can add up and play in decisions. Any two or 220 kids who get a top rating are not all equal, in all ways, or fit into the instutional goals.

“Then let’s suppose those colleges were transparent in their process, disclosing the actual acceptance rate for applicants in each bucket.” Sigh, back to looking at figures, eh? Does that then prove anything, in the absense of the other details?

We’re never going to agree on all this.

433

Results matter. No, we won’t agree, @looking.

434

I am somewhat familiar with the Greenwich, CT public school system. For those of you outside the Northeast, Greenwich is filled with mansions and the rich people who live in them. It also has “middle class” type houses- capes and small ranches, even though they may cost $800K. AND- it has a surprising number of kids on reduced and free lunch; the groundskeepers at the country clubs often live in town, the household staffs for the enormous homes have school aged children; etc. There are sections of town with modest apartments and subsidized housing.

So yes- there are first gen and low SES kids who live in Greenwich- an otherwise affluent (incredibly affluent) town. But the proximity to rich people has an incalculable benefit-- phenomenal public schools, savvy guidance counselors, teachers who care and understand how to work the system. And a strong network of private schools, who also have diversity targets and big endowments and rich donors who can pay tuition for talented and promising kids from low income homes who might benefit more from private school than the excellent public ones.

I hate to sound callous- but I don’t worry about these kids. I know several of them, and they’ve achieved phenomenal things coming out of low income homes, oftentimes as the only person in their household who speaks English. But the proximity to wealth pays off, even if the kid is on free lunch. There is social capital to having the savvy GC who can pick up the phone and call an Adcom at an elite school, and social capital when your history teacher figures out how to get you to Model UN tournaments with no parent to pick you up, and social capital when your gym teacher gets you on the swim team at the Y because it’s the cheapest sport to participate in outside of school. And the math teacher who can get a strong but not superstar level math student to a special summer program where that “strong but not a superstar” kid CAN become a superstar.

But this social capital falls apart in much of the country, where the poor kid doesn’t have proximity to rich people, and the resources that their towns and communities have. Those GC’s are testifying in court for an abuse case for one of their students, and the math teacher doesn’t know about special summer programs and how to apply for a scholarship, etc.

That’s why the insistence that the legacy kids for sure must be “stronger” and that we are all morons who can’t see their applications and understand their special sauce is so maddening. You’d be special too if you’d started Mandarin at age 3, Suzuki at 4, and had a private soccer coach since age 5. And a stay at home parent (who left a job as a litigator at a top firm) to drive you around…

435

Yow, so black and white.

I don’t say rich kid or legacy apps are stronger, though I do say you should see apps, see what does make relative “stronger” vs not. Don’t fling down the gauntlet that someone thinks others are “morons” just because there’s more in an app than it’s rating. More to who gets chosen than who has a top rating (or all top ratings.) Or more to building a class than taking all the top rated (as if they would fit.)

Nor is anything in MY experience about any admit advantages for starting Mardarin at 3. Who cares about anything before 9th and the person the applicant has become, the choices one makes, within his own power? How they self present, how activated they are, as individuals, whether they think. I.e., how they match. Not what Mommy and Daddy accomplished (with rare exeptions- and still vetted.)

In fact, the highly accomplished poor kids are so often involved in things much more significant than what parents offer rich kids. Much more stretch (by choice,)and more impact around them. And more. Including high schools and/or teachers who do stand behnd them. Did that comeout in the trial? Lol.

436

Looking- I think you are intentionally misconstruing. The kid who starts Mandarin at 3 is the kid who is fluent by freshman year and has an internship at a major museum helping to catalog ephemera from the Communist era. Yes, that cool internship could go to the kid from the Mandarin speaking home, but that kid spends afternoons taking grandma to the doctor and translating, and doesn’t know that if you pick up the phone and get a curator on the line and say “I’m in HS but I have native fluency in Mandarin and love signs and posters and buttons from the Mao-ist era” he ALSO could get that cool internship.

No gauntlet. And I don’t believe that talent is evenly distributed among the population, and that elite college’s classes are EVER going to mirror society at large. They are educational institutions at the end of the day, and not every kid (poor, middle class or wealthy) wants to translate Herodotus in college or write a 60 page paper on Anarchy with footnotes and primary sources.

But you seem to be ignoring- y’know- actual evidence in favor of defending various practices- legal, for sure- which have the “dirty little secret” consequence of favoring squash as an EC vs. taking grandma to the doctor. No, Harvard is not looking for more squash players (at a recreational level). But I’m willing to be that there are more kids who play squash in a random bucket of 1,000 Harvard legacies than there are squash players in a random bucket of kids from Chicago’s South Side, South Bronx, and Newark NJ. I’ll buy dinner if you prove me wrong.

437

This data is presented in http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/legacyathlete.pdf Table 6, page 45.

438

That table is staggering. For those students in the top academic decile, admit rates vary from 12 percent to over 95 percent depending on race and LDC status. But Harvard didn’t want anyone to know that.

439

So I think what you are saying is that “stronger”, “more accomplished” kids who also happen to be legacy should be overlooked because these kids had access to (and took advantage of) these programs as a kid and adcoms instead should favor the kid that is not as accomplished because they didn’t have the same upbringing and privilege? Defacto affirmative action, QuestBridge candidates?

I actually think the “elites” have come a long way in the last couple of decades with their admissions processes while still maintaining their institutional needs. We also forget that the student body of these “top” private colleges only make-up a very small percentage of total undergraduates (less than 2%).

Lastly, it’s really difficult to reconcile statements by some posters who are outraged by “elite” colleges having some preferences for ALDC applicants and yet in the same breath state that it doesn’t matter where you go to college, the instituions are essentially all the same?

440

The point of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) that I mentioned in #420 is to uncover unconscious bias–that is, bias that many times affects people’s actions, but bias of which they are not consciously aware (and would probably deny).

I would like to see a legacy/non-legacy IAT developed for the members of Harvard’s Admissions Office to take. It is rather trivial to develop.

If you are not familiar with the IAT, its results can be somewhat illuminating. You can find the site by Googling Implicit Association Test.