Top public universities are becoming disproportionately whiter & richer

Parents Forum
61

<p>Well, UF has since cut the national merit $$ to recruit students. Florida State found out years ago that it's better to spread the merit money around to a larger number of talented students, rather than to just 'buy' a few nm kids.</p>

<p>Provost Abele of FSU wrote concerning this subject:</p>

<p>"Merit scholar students are highly recruited by many universities and receive many offers of scholarships. Our admissions/enrollment group has debated the value of recruiting these students. The question is: do we commit scholarship funds to Merit scholars on a non-need basis or do we recruit some very good students who have need? (Only a very small percentage of Merit scholars have need.) On average, it is about the same cost to recruit two very good students for each Merit scholar. You should also know that not all Merit scholars are "equal" since the criteria are state specific.</p>

<p>In the late 1990s we recruited Merit scholars and we ranked first in the state and very high nationally. Did this make us a better university? Not really, as the difference between a very good student and a Merit scholar is not that great. After considerable discussion we decided to focus on recruiting a very good class with both strong high school performance and standardized test scores and to commit funds on more of a need basis.</p>

<p>Our goal is to provide our students with a rich educational experience that includes academics as well as extracurricular activities such as service learning, leadership skills and many cultural experiences. The evidence is that we are successful and always working to improve. To cite just two examples, this past year we established a leadership center for our students and an office of National Fellowships and Awards to assist our students in their applications for such national awards as Fulbrights and Goldwater scholarships.</p>

<p>A university is far more than a single statistic and I am proud of the commitment of everyone here to creating an environment of success for our students."</p>

62

<p>How many toadys children can assume to study under kerosene lamp (lantern or candle light) light and passing high school exams when there was no electricty in my home. I still remember using candle light to study high school and then went on my way to study in a college. I was not alone there were many like me who studied in candle light and came to usa. </p>

<p>But I was lucky as I have caring parents who told me life only respond to me the way I will work towards it.</p>

63

<p>*I disagree, Emeraldkity. The majority of successful low income students I know, and I know many, have very supportive families. Many of them are high in education, and just low in money. Some are the old hippy families, some are student families where the parents never really got out of the post grad grind, and some just never found a job that paid well, or had trouble keeping jobs and handling money, but the focus on education and love and nurturing for their children rang through nontheless. *</p>

<p>I guess I should have been more clear-
I don't see successful students who come from a background of educated parents and extended family- who happen to be low income.
Those kids- don't need me to help them find a college or to encourage them to take SATs.They already have had a lot of resources, just because their parents have shown to have education as a value.</p>

<p>There are also kids, whose parents arent educated, or haven't been educated in this country, who feel that education is important and ride herd on their kids to do their homework and keep up on what is going on in school.</p>

<p>The kids I see - may be the only ones in their family working-whose parents don't have good experiences with the school or the district, who may be very overwhelmed with their own life, let alone that of their children, and just can't be as supportive as they might be under happier circumstances.
I know how difficult it is to figure out the district system- Im not judging anyone- I had to quit my job- to help my daughter in the district, because it took all my time and energy to do that. We barely squeaked by, but I certainly don't expect that to be used as a solution- they don't make it easy for parents- and they change things all the time.</p>

<p>I don't usually see the immigrant students- only because we have parents and district staff who help them, and are able to communicate with their parents, better than I can, because they can speak their language-</p>

<p>There are often other mentors, in the church, or the community that have helped students, but even when you have outside mentors, if your parents aren't happy with the idea of you going onto college, let alone far away to college, it is really a tough situation.</p>

64

<p>I'll be happy to see affirmative action gone in favor of preferred treatment based upon class/income measurements. There are many more poor white children in this country than those of other races. Why is the focus always on race and not on class?</p>

<p>This reminds me of bussing in the 1970s in Boston. In order to offer equality in education to black students, poor white Irish and Italian kids were bussed from their horrible schools to the horrible schools in the poor black neighborhoods and the poor black kids were bussed from their horrible schools to the horrible schools in the poor white neighborhoods. None of these kids benefited. ALL of the schools were inferior. It was a complete failure and only served to fuel racism. </p>

<p>The poor children of ANY race already have the cards stacked against them. What is the difference between a poor white child and a poor hispanic or poor black child? If money or preferred selection goes to a child of color, doesn't that perpetuate racism?</p>

<p>The argument that we are making amends for past discrimination only continues the mindset that non-whites are inferior. It is incredibly insulting to minorities.</p>

65

<p>The schools that take a holistic look at the applicant, very much do take into account class/income measurements. They want to know how well the parents are educated, and if you are applying for financial aid , and if you qualify for fee waivers. They are very interested in the challenges applicants have overcome. Someone who does very well in school with a disadvantaged home life verified by someone who writes a rec informing the school of such, will get favorable admissions treatment. </p>

<p>There are not that many of such kids. The "poor" kids who tend to get the required grades, courses, test scores usually have proactive parents behind them. And when you then look at the minority count, you end up with very, very few URMs. When one of the pressing problems in our society is the opportunities or lack thereof for URMs, the way to jumpstart the solution is to include them in the institutions that will be making much of the social policies in the future. Put bluntly, it isn't very cool having a bunch of white rich kids discussing the problems and solutions regarding minorities who have historically been treated poorly by the system. It did not work that way, which is part, why we have the situation today. Including faces that represent the issues at hand is a step towards inclusion of URMs in those circles that have historically had a large number of policy makers. It also gives URMs role models of their own ethnic/racial types. By doing this you are building legacy and precedent in groups that have little. </p>

<p>The simmering anger about URM preferences are not because poor URMs are preferred over poor non URMs. The most vociferous group about affirmative action are those who have family support who are resentful that the advantages they had are being "held against them" in terms of selective school admissions. Unless the college has an activity on the wishlist, the adcoms tend to have a pretty sharp nose in being able to see what was "bought" for the kid. The awards that these colleges seek are those that require demonstration of initiative and hard work from the student.There are certain flags of parental involvement in some ecs.</p>

66

<p>Post #65: 100% correct, i.m.o. (Esp. first paragraph, re: attitude of colleges regarding overcoming challenges, rewarding that with admission & aid.)</p>

<p>Also agree with the perspective on URM inclusion on the college level -- the importance of that.</p>

67

<p>In regards to Shelby Steele, I've not read his new book WHITE GUILT, however I have been reading his columns for years and have seen a number of recent interviews he has given - and no doubt Bill Cosby has adopted or agrees with much of what Mr Steele has long been saying.</p>

<p>On the issue of breaking free of the ghetto life and the importance of family and education Mr Steele made the following comments in an interview at AMERICAN ENTERPRISE live</p>

<p><a href="http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.19044/article_detail.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.19044/article_detail.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>STEELE: "Well, when you have an illegitimacy rate of 70 percent--which is what black America has today--then you're going to have serious social problems, and they're going to last for generations. </p>

<p>But what can white America do about that? If black parents don't take the time to educate their child, get their child ready for school, introduce him to cultural life, and develop his mind, then that child will never catch up. At that point, there's very little that schools can do to make up for the deficit that's already there. </p>

<p>Simply put, the illegitimacy rate consigns blacks to decades and decades of backwardness and inferiority. You need two parents to help you compete in today's world"</p>

68

<p>"The simmering anger about URM preferences are not because poor URMs are preferred over poor non URMs. The most vociferous group about affirmative action are those who have family support who are resentful that the advantages they had are being "held against them" in terms of selective school admissions. Unless the college has an activity on the wishlist, the adcoms tend to have a pretty sharp nose in being able to see what was "bought" for the kid. The awards that these colleges seek are those that require demonstration of initiative and hard work from the student.There are certain flags of parental involvement in some ecs."</p>

<p>The above paragraph is completely anecdotal. Where is the evidence of any this? What are your sources for all of these comments? Regarding "the most viciferous group"...what group?</p>

69

<p>Baseballmom, if you just peruse this site, including the archives, you'll see some very strong negative feelings about URM preferences. They become so heated, that there are times the moderators have had to close the threads. Also, in a number of books, articles, interviews, this subject has come up. The issue is that skin color, ethnic background is a "hook" for elite schools admissions if it signifies URM status, and that situation exists even if the student is not only not disadvantaged, but very, very advantaged. Any of the books, (the most well known, probably "A is for Admissions by Michelle Hernandez) written by adcoms will outright state that students are examined in light of their advantages. A student who has all of the advantages, a supportive family, a great school behind him will be judged in the light of this. Also ECs are assessed in terms of the competitiveness of the activity, and the dearth of "buying it for him factor". This is brought up most strongly in "What It Takes to Get into the Ivy League", probably the most comprehensive book in assessing the value of activities and awards for admissions to the top schools. Written by a former Harvard adcom. Not at all anecdotal, in that I really cannot related any true anecdotes from my personal experience to support the statement. I truly got this from the pros in admission and discussions, arguments, essays, lectures, articles all regarding the current state of admissions in this country, highly selective admissions, that is.</p>

70

<p>cptofthehouse,
I've read both of the books you mention and I don't recall either book dealing with simmering anger of any groups, advantaged or not. I was questioning the definitive blanket statements you made in your post, not the practices of adcoms as described in any book.</p>

71

<p>I understand what you are questioning. The statement are blanket, but I believe accurate. You disagree. It's as simple as that. If you do not think that URM status without a challenging home life being considered a strong hook in admissions to elite colleges is not causing a simmering resentment among those who do not have that status, then you disagree with my observation and conclusion. I hold to it. If you have read a number of books on the subject of selective college admissions, read the numerous articles and discussions on the subject, seen the posts on this board as well as other college admission discussion boards, and feel that most people are hunky dorey about affirmative action, then I am not going to convince you. I happen to believe that it is a hot issue, particularly among those who are qualified for an ivy league or like college seat, and know that it is an unlikely go just for number reasons. It is known that being of URM ancestry does boost the chances enormously, given all other things equal, and I have read laments from many about that. It has been taken to court, so hot of an issue it is. But I cannot define for you or for anyone, at what point the evidence is sufficient to come to a conclusion. I am stating my conclusion, and I still feel it is so. If there is evidence to the contrary; that most applicants and families of applicants are not bothered by the preferences that make it harder for them to gain admittance to a highly desiraable school, I would welcome seeing it. I guess I personally am such an example, since I agree that URM preference should continue in light of how things are in our society today. I don't believe I am in the majority in my beliefs, and those who disagree with my view tend to be more vociferous and adament than I am. But I am not doing a scientific appraissal of these conclusions anymore than most of the statements made on this forum. I don't know if any accurate poll exists in agreement or disagreement with affirmative action, but if you just include those groups who are adversely affected by the action, I don't think I am making a huge leap of faith saying that the concesus there would be that it is unfair, and I don't think there those who think thus are happy about the existance of affirmative action.</p>

72

<p>To me, there's a slippery slope with employing terms like "under-represented" and "over-represented."</p>

<p>It's used in academics, but where does it end? If there's a push for "proportional representation" in university campuses, why not on university athletic teams? How about professional athletic teams?</p>

<p>The very idea of "over-representation" is absurd. It is tantamount to a quota system, which has been ruled by the Supreme Court as illegal.</p>

<p>In addition, it creates a bad incentive. Notice how there exist threads where users ask if they qualify as "under-represented minorities." Would they bother asking such questions if the system did not have group preferences? I don't think so.</p>

<p>It is inherently racist to assume that an individual can bring diversity to a campus because of his race. Now, if he grew up in a different location, that's fine. If he has different interests, also fine. Matter of fact, geography and personal interests are great ways to select for diversity. Race? Ridiculous.</p>

<p>Race is the sticking point. There's no reason for diversity to be based on race at all. It shouldn't be a factor, period. Such a policy is *rac*ist.</p>

73

<p>It's not inherently racist that a person can bring diversity because of their race.</p>

<p>Many people only know people of their own race, so, to have the kind of close interaction with others that one gets on a college campus is a big deal.
Even if the only difference between them is skin color, that still provides an important learning opportunity. </p>

<p>For instance, I have been around some adults who clearly haven't before been around black people because they seem at a loss about what to say to me. This occurred, for instance, when one of my sons was the only black person in a Tiger Cub scout troop. The meetings were at people's homes, and parents attended. The mothers tended to talk to each other and virtually ignore me. </p>

<p>It took me a while to figure out what was happening, but after a while, it dawned on me that they probably hadn't been around black people before, and consequently, assumed we are so different that they were afraid to converse with me.</p>

<p>A similar thing happened recently when I was meeting a new white woman acquaintance for a restaurant lunch.We decided that whomever got their first would get a table. I told her that when she came, she should describe me by race because I have had experiences when I was meeting a white person for lunch, went to the restaurant, asked if the person whom I was meeting was there, and was told "no" even though the person was there. Why? Apparently, the restaurant staff assumed that since I was black, I had to be meeting a black person.</p>

<p>Anyway, when I told my new friend to describe me by race, she asked if that was OK because her son had told her it was rude to notice people's race. I told her that of course, it was OK to notice people's race just like it's OK to notice hair color. We had a good laugh over that. </p>

<p>People who are fortunate enough to go to school with people from diverse backgrounds don't have to learn these kind of basic things in middle age.</p>

74

<p>
[quote]
The mothers tended to talk to each other and virtually ignore me.

[/quote]

This happened to me when I used to take my then young D to gymnastics lessons. The moms didn't seem to know what to do with a male in their midst.</p>

<p>I think it's weird (and downright rude) that people would have treated you that way because of your race. It's difficult to comrehend what was going on in their heads.</p>

75

<p>Fabrizio's argument is the crux of the argument against URM affirmative action. And it can get hot and nasty, not just a slow simmer, I 'm afraid but real fire.</p>

76

<p>I still can't believe that none of you people who claims to be interested in the issues of class, race, and success has read John Ridley's seminal essay in the December 2006 "Esquire" magazine (the one with Clooney on the cover). This guy has the guts to cut through the B.S. and lay it all on the table. People who discuss race in the U.S. without reading this article are like people discussing world geography while still thinking the world is flat.</p>

77

<p>A former Seattle school board member while being interviewed on a radio talk show mentioned that the board had commissioned a study on the effects of single parent families on a kid's performance in school. They found no difference when income was factored in. Low income regardless of number of parents did worse than higher income, and higher income did better regardless of the number of parents. Stated differently, once the proper controls for income were used, number of parents did not correlate with academic performance. Any study that purports to be investigating the effects of single family homes on academic performance must clearly show that low income is not the real culprit.</p>

78

<p>
[quote]

It's not inherently racist that a person can bring diversity because of
their race.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If race is the factor that determines diversity, then I have to say that a policy which promotes diversity by focusing on race is racist.</p>

<p>Let's take a hypothetical example.</p>

<p>Who is going to bring more diversity to an urban campus with a predominantly wealthy student body? Is it going to be the son of a lawyer in the city or the son of a farmer in the countryside? I would say that the son of the farmer would give more diversity to the campus.</p>

<p>Now, what if these two students were both black? Is the former student going to give equal diversity to the campus? They're both black, so according to the people who tout diversity via increased racial representation, the former student should provide every bit of diversity as the latter student.</p>

<p>There's just one small problem. The former student comes from a similar background as most of the student body. How is he going to contribute when he's already very similar to begin with? Is he going to provide diversity simply because of his race? I don't think he would.</p>

<p>In this case, geography would be a better way of promoting diversity, if that is the goal. I would say that a White student who came from a rural farm would help create a more diverse campus than the Black student who came from the upper middle class.</p>

<p>Some people have suggested that if Asian applicants had passions that separated them from the "crowd" (e.g. having an interest in the humanities as opposed to mathematical sciences) and applied to institutions where Asian enrollment was low (viz. LACs), then they would have a much, much better chance of getting in.</p>

<p>Wait a minute. While sciences are popular majors at LACs, haven't humanities been big there since the creation of the LAC? Why would an Asian who enjoyed literature and language offer diversity to a place where most people like literature and language simply because he is Asian? In this case, I would say that the stereotypical Asian student that some users here think represent all Asian students would fare better in admissions. The race is the same, but the interests are different.</p>

<p>Every individual is unique by definition. A person does not bring diversity to a campus on account of his race. He brings himself, his unique individuality, and diversity is automatically created. Race-blind.</p>

<p>The character creates the campus, not the skin color.</p>

79

<p>When I was in college, I took a research statistics course while completing my teaching certification requirements. At that time, every major study that tracked the effect of various elements on the academic success of the children, income was the trump card. </p>

<p>Because we have so many (too many) low income families in the US, we do not pull out a very interesting group within the low income group. That group is comprised of highly educated, very involved families who make the education of their children a high priority and are proactive and knowlegeable in how to be effective in this area. Their kids tend to to exceptionally well and they do skew the stats in selective college admissions that do give some preference to economically challenged families. These are often post grad families, or families where the wage earner prefers jobs that they like to earning much money, the old hippy families, the very Christian families, and many of the Asian immigrant families who would pay their last dollar to the SAT tutor and have the whole familiy working two jobs and live in a cramped, sub standard apartment so that they can sent their kids to a good school and get master music lessons on a good instrument. All of us associated with universities have seen this phenomona, and some adcoms do adjust for the heavy parental involvement these kids get. It is a whole different story than the poor kid who has a dysfunctional family as well as no money, and no one is interested in his school work or needs. That is what truly needy is. In fact, I dare say that such a kid, even without the low economics is going to have a tough time doing well in school when the home environment does not support and encourage academics, and there is no information given about college at home. THose kids are the truly unusual ones when they can rise above all of this and do the college search on their own. WHere I have seen the most signs of this rare creature is here on CC.</p>

80

<p>Northstarmom, your last post brought to mind an experience that I had years ago when I was working in a big law firm in NYC. There was a black woman from Grenada on the cleaning crew team. She was a single mother, raising two kids on her own. We used to talk, shoot the breeze, laugh whatever. She was funny and fun to talk to. One time after she walked away, one of the paralegals said to me," How do you know what to say to her? You're so easy and relaxed with her." I said, "Let me get this straight: you went to a public high school in Berkeley and don't know how to talk to a black person? I went to an Episcopal girls' boarding school and do? She's a PERSON who's FUN to talk to....a person! What we have in common is that we're both humans!" I'll never forget that.</p>