<p>I'm not discussing the methodology of the other study, as it is O-T, as they say, and I've discussed it abundantly in the past. I'm interested in the debate about THIS article posted by the OP, which is what others are talking about, exquisitely.</p>
<p>Fine. They still aren't living in Anacostia, not commuting on the metro, not parking at $12-$20 a pop in downtown DC to work in the mailroom of some company. The whites to which I referred were just examples. I could have mentioned Idaho if it would have pleased you. Same essential difference.</p>
<p>Need to hop off here. I suppose you'll just have to take the last word.</p>
<p><a href="AdOfficer:">quote</a>
based on every conversation i have had with peers at other most selective schools, this has been the case. at many elites, women make up 60-65% of the applicant pools (and the majority are white), yet they hover only around 50% of the incoming classes (and again, the majority are white). men - of any race - are doing well in the admissions processes at the elites.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This new study could be replayed for the men vs women issue, which is also highly SAT-influenced. Men outperform women at the top range of the SAT, both in math and (more surprisingly) the verbal. Women outperform men in high school grades, and for much the same reason, in college grades and graduation rate. The greater the weight of SAT the more it favors men; the more weight on high school transcripts, the more the admission will be of women. In particular, this means that gender balancing is inconsistent with the elimination of SAT as an admissions factor.</p>
<p>Siserune,</p>
<p>Nice point!</p>
<p>I read the article in the full text and am still unimpressed though less so. They still seem trapped into the notion that graduation rates are a good proxy for academic quality. Even USNWR uses differences from predicted graduation rates as its criteria rather than graduation rates. Presumably becuase it reflects how difficult the school is to graduate from, other things being equal. I'd hate to see what would hapen to grade inflation in the US if graduation rates were a commonly accpeted notion of quality.</p>
<p><a href="epiphany:">quote</a> I'm not discussing the methodology of the other study, as it is O-T, as they say, and I've discussed it abundantly in the past. I'm interested in the debate about THIS article
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, THIS article talks about that other article you call "specious".<br>
Is that on-topic, in your opinion? In fact, the new article claims to confirm key results in the Espenshade et al study, so I'm sure that the sociologists at Princeton would love to hear the reasons why both these studies (it can't be just one) are just garbage:</p>
<p>Page 498 (p.15 of the PDF file):
"That none of the [interactions] between race and merit are statistically significant indicates that minority students' admissions advantage is uniform across the test score and class rank distributions. [footnote:] Our results corroborate those of Espenshade, Chung, and Walling (2004) and M. Long (2004) but are at variance with Blau and colleagues (2004) who find flatter SAT slopes for blacks' college attendance."</p>
<p>Note that any criticism of the earlier study would also apply to the current study, since the principle is the same. Actually, methods are cleaner and more reliable in the Espenshade et al study, but the idea is the same as it concerns the models and the counterfactual simulations. It is not possible to attack the methodology of the earlier Princeton study and not the new one.</p>
<p>It's easy to repetitively post the opinion that the race in admissions study (and therefore this study even more so) is hogwash with "deeply flawed methodology". It's quite another thing to indicate any specific flaw. No academic critic of the Espenshade et al study has tried to challenge the methodology; the criticism has assumed that the models are valid and objects only that additional calculations (white vs Asian admissions battle) should have been made using those presumed-correct models.
If the users of the College Confidential discussion boards have a withering criticism of the "specious" methods of Espenshade et al, let's hear what it is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
hmmm, well if we do "prefer" specific candidates for admissions based on race over others, that must mean we DO NOT "prefer" black/African American and Latino students as compared to white and asian american students in the admissions process at elite colleges. after all, black/African American and Latino students are grossly under-represented at most elite institutions when compared to their numbers in the american population.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nice logic, but it isnt supported by empirical research from Espenshade and Chung, which showed that being black had the same effect has having 220 more SAT points. (No students score was artificially increased or decreased. It was all about effects and *as if*s.)</p>
<p>Drosselmeier,</p>
<p>Ah, long time no see. Ive missed your point of view regarding affirmative action. Youre similar to Tim Wise in that you focus primarily on social justice instead of the gospel of diversity.</p>
<p>I strongly disagree that poverty-level Asians and whites have access to educational opportunities that upper middle class blacks do not. These poor families must find a way to feed, clothe, and house themselves with less than $10,000 per year. Theres no way they could possibly afford the fees Kaplan, PR, and the like charge for their sessions and still be able to survive. Even a $12 book is expensive since its opportunity cost is so high. By contrast, a family that earned above $70,000 in 1995 dollars was quite wealthy. They could feed, clothe, and house themselves comfortably. They would not have to make much of a sacrifice, if any, to send their children to private tutoring services. A $12 book is negligible for them.</p>
<p>Theres really no excuse for how students from wealthy black families scored a mere twenty-five points higher on average than students from poverty-level Asian families. No excuse at all.</p>
<p>Im surprised that you brought up White Jesus again. Im not so surprised that you castigate the greatness of American literature. If its any consolation to you, one of my favorite books is Black Boy. I read it in three days because it was so good and so powerful. I believe it is every bit as worthy of the title of greatness in American literature as the myriad other books you dismiss.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I still think AA should be used to train attention upon these black kids to minimize the likelihood of their getting overlooked.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What kind of affirmative action are we talking about? If youre talking about aggressive outreach and tutoring to train attention upon these black students, Im all for that. You know I am. But, if youre talking about racial preferences, sorry.</p>
<p>That the Espenshade and Chung study is still cited speaks volumes about its supposed speciousness.</p>
<p>Why would academicians cite a "rebutted" and "flawed" study without explicitly mentioning that the study was, in fact, both rebutted and flawed?</p>
<p>Either it's common knowledge that the study is trash or the notion that the study is trash is a patent falsehood.</p>
<p>I lean more toward the latter, especially since the only paper that any pro-affirmative action user can post</p>
<p>
[quote]
In my opinion eliminating the SAT in admissions would work against URM's not for them. You would have entire freshman classes with GPAs at or above 4.0. Because it is the upper middleclass kids who go to the schools that offer the most AP and IB classes they are the ones who come out witht he ridiculously weights GPAs.</p>
<p>Oh you want to not weight AP and IB classes? Good that will help. We will be have cutoffs at 3.995 for Harvard and Yale and Williams and Swarthmore. Who is then going to tale challenging courses in HS?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is a very well written post that covers all the bases.</p>
<p>If grades become the big numbers factor, then it still benefits the wealthy since they are more likely to attend schools that offer challenging AP and IB classes.</p>
<p>If grades arent weighted and are still the big numbers factor, then it just encourages students to take easier classes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your challenge is patently ridiculous, which is why few, if any, will take you up on it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Interesting. You went off on a tangent before finally coming back and making this remark.</p>
<p>You see, I can accept the possibility of fewer Asians as a result of race-blind admissions. Why? Because I believe in fairness, not entitlements.</p>
<p>By contrast, you cant accept the possibility of fewer blacks as a result of race-blind admissions.</p>
<p>You say its because Im issuing an unfair challenge. I say its because youve got a double standard. More is OK, but less isnt; screw fairness. I, on the other hand, am happy with either more or less as long as fairness is maintained.</p>
<p>"That the Espenshade and Chung study is still cited speaks volumes about its supposed speciousness."</p>
<p>Not cited by me, not cited by many others who have studied this issue & looked at different studies over a number of years.</p>
<p>Anyway, both siserune & fabrizio can keep talking to themselves or to each other about this. It is O-T. I'm interested in what others have to say, though, about THIS study.</p>
<p>I must admit that social science methodology is not my natural thought-world, and so I would not have anything of any worth to contribute to a discussion of the validity of the study. The points I wish to make are more general. 1)Money is not the only resource that encourages higher academic results, both in terms of GPA and SAT scores. A long cultural tradition that stresses the importance of learning and advancement through academics is a resource as well, and differences in cxultural backgrounds imnpact students as much as differences in economic backgrounds. 2) It benefits society to avoid large groups of haves and have nots.</p>
<p>"It benefits society to avoid large groups of haves and have nots."</p>
<p>I am not sure that is an empirically provable point. Economic stratification may well be a marker of economically dynamic societies. Certainly in China and India increasing economic stratification has accompanied rapid economic growth. </p>
<p>You cannot get from a backward economy to a modern one without being able to raise large amounts of capital so it is available now to build social infrastructure and there is no place to raise capital if some are not allowed to accrue large surpluses. I cannot build a school or a hospital or a road or a sewer system if I cannot get right now enough money to pay the workers and buy the materials. There has to be somewhere to raise that money and unless there is a middle and upperclass that has sufficient extra capital that they can invest it or be taxed you have a proble.</p>
<p><a href="curious14%20wrote:">quote</a>
Your long post seems to aspire to victim hood.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I hope you realize, or come to understand, that the postings of Drosselmeier, AdOfficer, etc severely understate the case as it concerns the general situation of blacks. Please stop the silly use of the words "victim" and "victimhood", as though any pointer to the obvious state of things is a battle cry of the oppressed.</p>
<p>It is in general a disadvantage in the United States to be black. Contexts where it is an advantage are much more limited and usually less valuable than the contexts where it's a disadvantage. Most people at (and below) the age of adulthood who have lived in the United States recognize this.</p>
<p>That is a different discussion from whether admissions preferences exist (obviously they do), whether they are accurately estimated by 100-200 virtual SAT points, whether you personally favor or oppose AA policies, and so on.</p>
<p><a href="epiphany:">quote</a>
I'm interested in what others have to say, though, about THIS study.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One of those others, namely you, has said that a methodology essentially the same as the methods of THIS study is "deeply flawed" and "specious".</p>
<p>If true, that would discredit THIS study entirely. A pretty important point for discussions of the new study, is it not? If they are using incompetent methodology, that would be quite the bombshell, as the methods are standard orthodox social science.</p>
<p>
[quote]
admit rate for alumni children: 39%
percent of class: 14%
these students only represent 3% of their applicant pool</p>
<p>admit rate for minority students: 13%
percent of class: 37%
these students represent 36% of their applicant pool
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are we sump dealing with the academic version of Studio 54?</p>
<p>The best quote I have seen is from the Economist:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The central thesis that Mr Karabel draws from this history is that the universities have always determined their merit criteria according to the admissions outcomes that would suit their institutional interests, rather than the other way around. Although he credits the three universities with becoming more accessible to the underprivileged, he notes that even today, the wealthy are still vastly overrepresented among their student bodies. This is partly due to the donation-friendly admissions preferences still given to athletes and children of alumni, which he concludes should be abolished. </p>
<p>But eliminating these practices won't turn these institutions into a meritocratic mecca because, as Mr Karabel argues, the concept of meritocracy itself is strategic and flexible, and often in outright conflict with egalitarian aims. Those who are able to define merit', he writes, will almost invariably possess more of it, and those with greater resourcescultural, economic, and socialwill generally be able to ensure that the educational system will deem their children more meritorious. Even today, efforts at Harvard to place more emphasis on the sciences (potentially replacing some wealthier white students with nerdy Asian-Americans) have attracted criticism that they might make the student body too one-dimensional instead of iconoclastic and well-roundedexactly the same style of disparaging argument used to justify the Jewish quotas of yesteryear. As the book concludes, the unsettling lesson to be learned from a century of purported Ivy League meritocracy is that the ideal of a meritocracy...is inherently unattainable. </p>
<p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If mini's study is to be believed, "more accessible to the underprivileged" is not even true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is in general a disadvantage in the United States to be black. Contexts where it is an advantage are much more limited and usually less valuable than the contexts where it's a disadvantage.
[/quote]
Well, clearly if being black gives you the advantage equivalent to 220 extra SAT points, college admissions is one very valuable area where it pays to be black.</p>
<p>The "are you better off being black (and get a bump in the college arena) or white (and get a bump in the ??? arena" discussion reminds me of the type of exercises we used to have to do in sociology class...where you <em>decide</em> whether you'd rather be beautiful, smart, rich, etc.</p>
<p>I do believe that being white is only an advantage if accompanied by a certain socioeconomic status. Being labeled "trailer trash" is certainly not an advantage in society.</p>
<p>"Do you deny that if you had two identical applications in front of you one with the Af. Amer. box checked, the other with the Casucasion box checked (and you could take only one) that you would pick the AA candidate 100 % of the time?"</p>
<p>This would be a valid illustration only if half the applicants were African-American and the other half were Caucasian. The fact is, there is never a one-on-one comparison. You have, say, five percent African-Americans applying, and (again, hypothetically) eighty percent Caucasians. Which ethnic group "wins out"?</p>
<p>I found Drosselmeier's post #45 very interesting. I have long felt that affirmative action is perfectly appropriate for blacks in the United States, but I have never understood why it should be extended to include any other "minority" - including Mexicans or other Latinos or Asians. It is probably completely un-PC to think this, but I figure Latinos and Asians have the same disadvantages every other immigrant group has ever had - so deal with it. I do think African Americans are in a completely different situation, much of which is well described by Drosselmeier.</p>
<p>An important point made by AdOfficer has not been discussed much, and that is, if I am understanding it correctly, that the number of African American applicants (to selective colleges) is so tiny that it is almost absurd to make a big deal out of whatever "preferences" they might be receiving. Honestly, if there were an equal furor over that problem I could almost understand the anti-affirmative action folks.</p>
<p>Anyway, I see black kids at our community college working their tails off - but they never even consider applying to far-away, "highly selective" colleges. I think to myself: If only an admissions person from X College walked through this lounge at 8:30am and saw these kids studying and focused, they'd know they've missed a lot of opportunities. But how would they know? When is the last time they recruited at the local urban high school? Ha. Never. A lot of these kids miss good high school preparation, but a few of them manage to make up for the old fashioned way - hard work and few hard knocks.</p>