Which candidate has better stats for Harvard?

[neltharion]

<p>@ beatlesdisturbed: Before we start wrangling about definitions, I consider a family (two parents) to be middle-class if its household income is 50k or higher. For an individual, 35k+ is middle-class.</p>

<p>Question #1: Where on the application does it actually ask you for your socioeconomic status? And if they don’t know, then how in the world can they possibly judge you based on your socioeconomic background? Maybe the Common App has changed since I applied two years ago, but this is a serious question. The only questions I can remember that were related to my socioeconomic background would be the queries into my parents’ education levels and current occupations. Maybe my memory is faulty - very possible - but if you can point this out to me, I’d be thankful.</p>

<p>Question #2: What type of students apply to top, private universities?
Answer: Middle- to upper-class students.</p>

<p>Question #3: Who then benefits the most from AA?
Answer: Middle- to upper-class URMs. Because they are the ones who even actually consider applying to top universities.</p>

<p>

Peter Robinson: Quote again, “Benefits to black millionaires are far more demonstrable than benefits to blacks in poverty.”</p>

<p>Thomas Sowell: Yes.</p>

<p>Peter Robinson: Explain that one.</p>

<p>Thomas Sowell: Oh, black millionaires have an advantage over white millionaires when it comes to buying radio station licenses. Now the kid living in poverty in Harlem or Watts is not likely to be up for a radio station license, you know, and similarly with medical school benefits and so forth. All of that is for people who already have a certain amount and this puts them over the top. It enables the sons of black doctors to go to Harvard, you know, more easily than the sons of white doctors.

</p>

<p>From [Uncommon</a> Knowledge: AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 WAYS: Affirmative Action around the World | Hoover Institution](<a href=“http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/27014]Uncommon”>http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/27014)</p>

<p>If you want hard, fast data, you’ll either have to root it out of private sources. Or you can turn to the Hoover Institution (which has published a number of studies on AA), in particular Thomas Sowell (who I quoted above) and his book “Affirmative Action Around the World”. He makes some incredibly insightful claims. (And before you scream “bias!”, Thomas Sowell is actually a URM. Black, if you want to be more specific.)</p>

<p>[Affirmative</a> Action around the World | Hoover Institution](<a href=“http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/8108]Affirmative”>http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/8108)</p>

<p>To be clear: I don’t actually care about whether or not AA is racist. I have no horse in the race anymore, and even in HS, I didn’t really give a crap. My mentality was more of a “Well, I’ll be held to higher standards, so you know what? I’ll just work harder!” type of mentality, and it worked great for me. Having said all of that, AA just doesn’t make sense logically and should rather be replaced by a purely socioeconomic policy. If, in fact, what you claim is true - that AA already considers circumstances when making decisions - then nothing of value will truly be lost.</p>

[woeishe]

<p>Race and gender AA should be taken away.</p>

[Bay]

<p>Using race as a factor in admissions has nothing to do with socio-economic status. Race and wealth are two separate and distinct variables used in the admissions process. Top colleges want Black rich kids and they want White poor kids. Get it?</p>

<p>Once again, the purpose of AA is NOT to benefit the recipient or correct some social injustice. It is to benefit the students attending the university - so that they can learn, live, eat and socialize among students from a variety of backgrounds. This is the rationale upon which the US Supreme Ct upheld the practice; it specifically did NOT sanction the use of AA as a remedy for social injustice.</p>

[mtnmomma]

<p>

Once again, the purpose of AA is NOT to benefit the recipient or correct some social injustice. It is to benefit the students attending the university - so that they can learn, live, eat and socialize among students from a variety of backgrounds

</p>

<p>I think the purpose is to benefit the university. The university wants students that are more likely to achieve extraordinary success. Unfortunately SAT scores and AP scores do not predict this very well. These scores may predict intelligence but not sure how much else. There are plenty of very intelligent people walking around who have not attained extraordinary success–hmmm…</p>

<p>Once the university is able to determine that the student has the minimum level of competency to succeed a 2350 is no better than a 2250 and 13 AP’s are no better than 9. So how do they pick? They look for students that show drive and determination (which predicts this type of success more accurately than natural talent). They are looking for something in the applicant that shows dedication and hard work outside of just academics.</p>

<p>So why so many high stats? Well people that are dedicated are more likely to do well on standardized tests–the converse however is not true! Often the very best students in a high school are not the ones with the highest SAT scores-gasp! So it behooves the adcoms to look at context if they want the real superstars.</p>

<p>The added benefit of this practice is that it is more appealing to the students who are accepted to be around diverse people from multiple backgrounds. These kids crave to learn about different perspectives–it is a must if they are to be true leaders.</p>

<p>The downfall–the system is far from perfect and there are so many potential superstars that get passed by. Not every student is able to accurately “show” themselves to the adcoms and this is unfortunate. </p>

<p>The sole focus on numbers is so simplistic. Have that many people seriously not thought beyond the numbers?</p>

[LoremIpsum]

<p>

Often the very best students in a high school are not the ones with the highest SAT scores-gasp!

</p>

<p>So what constitutes “best students”? GPA? Those with the highest unweighted GPAs are the ones most diligent in doing all their homework assignments and any extra credit opportunities and most determined to curry a teacher’s favor and attention. Such students may not understand the subject material well enough to ever ace a test, yet can manage to squeak out a near or perfect 4.0 through long hours of sheer endurance.</p>

<p>The brilliant students often daydream in class because they understood the material the first time it was presented, days or sometimes even weeks ago. The homework is repetitive and not of much practical use to them, so they sometimes forget to do it. They don’t feel the need to raise their hands in class for every obvious question, but tend to wait until they have a novel perspective to offer. Such kids may or may not be at or near the top of their class – it all depends on if they’ve learned to play the grades game – but they will almost invariably outscore their peers on standardized tests.</p>

[beatlesdisturbed]

<p>I honestly haven’t seen rich black kids that are less qualified get in over middle class white or Asians. Sorry, I completely disagree.
“Question #2: What type of students apply to top, private universities?
Answer: Middle- to upper-class students.
Question #3: Who then benefits the most from AA?
Answer: Middle- to upper-class URMs. Because they are the ones who even actually consider applying to top universities.”
This argument might have worked 20-25 years ago. Now, everyone can apply because the Ivies and others are more need-blind than ever before.This is a misconception.
Gender based AA is much harder to stop and much easier to work than economic/race AA. It’s also totally different than the other types.
I say we all stick to our opinions. No matter what we say, colleges will still make decisions the way they want. Let’s agree to disagree.</p>

[MarinebioSax]

<p>People who say “I’ve seen tons of [actually, no you haven’t. please stop lying to yourself] Asians with 4.0s, 2400s and 36s get rejected over that rich black kid in my class with a 3.8, 1900 and a 29. AA is racist!” need to come up with a better argument than that ridiculous crap.</p>

<p>Carry on, everyone. Just my 2 cents.</p>

[Haddon1267]

<p>This tread is depressing to me.</p>

<p>The most frequent theme occurring here is to tell the Asians to “get over it!”
That is, the Asians are facing institutionalized discrimination in elite college admission, but they cannot, should not, or otherwise not allowed, to voice their dissatisfaction and ask for equal treatment. </p>

<p>They may not have much choice other than to “get over it”, because they are a small minority with little political power. The day of judging someone by “the content of his character, not by the color of his skin” is still far from us.</p>

[neltharion]

<p>@ beatlesdisturbed: Please explain this.</p>

<p>

In reality, during the period from 1967 to 1992 - most of this being in the affirmative action era - the top 20 percent of black income-earners had their income share rising at about the same rate as that of their white counterparts, while the bottom 20 percent of black income-earners had their income shares fall at more than double the rate of the bottom 20 percent of white income earners. In short, the affirmative action era in the United States saw the more fortunate blacks benefit while the least fortunate lost ground in terms of their share of incomes. Neither the gains nor the losses can be arbitrarily attributed to affirmative action, but neither can affirmative action claim to have advanced low-income blacks when in fact those blacks fell behind.

</p>

<p>From Sowell’s book. (Which, again, I heavily recommend. Especially if you want a broad look into affirmative action outside of the borders of the US. If nothing else, it provides some perspective.)</p>

<p>@ Bay: Could you point me towards the case?</p>

[20more]

<p>Haddon1267</p>

<p>You are right!
Asians are not allowed to voice their dissatisfaction in college admission.</p>

<p>What goes around comes around!!!</p>

[Bay]

<p>Oh barf, if there’s anything I hate more than hypocrisy, it is victimhood.</p>

<p>If you are being denied your rights, then bring on the lawsuit. Or are you too politically weak or “not allowed” to do so?</p>

<p>neltharion,
See Grutter v. Bollinger</p>

[Southlandguy]

<p>No kidding–no one’s being prevented from voicing their opinions. There’s absolutely no way college admissions could ever be completely fair anyway. There are over 2,000 colleges each with their own (often changing) policies and millions of students (and others) with their own ideas of what ‘fair’ means. </p>

<p>In this way, as in many others, college is indeed good preparation for the real world.</p>

[Haddon1267]

<p>@Bay: “hypocrisy” and “victimhood”? No kidding! Any level-headed person knows what those terms are referred to nowadays.</p>

<p>I have no lawsuit to file, because I am personally not a harmed party --but that does not prevent me to see what is rotten. Don’t worry, if this keeps up, there will be (more) lawsuits. And when that happens, I will have a modest donation to make.</p>

[LoremIpsum]

<p>

Oh barf, if there’s anything I hate more than hypocrisy, it is victimhood.

</p>

<p>So do I. The cry of victimhood is what established affirmative action in the first place. Too bad the plan didn’t come with an expiration date. It’s been more than two entire generations, shouldn’t that be long enough?</p>

[neltharion]

<p>@ Bay: Thanks! Didn’t have enough time to go trawling through wiki pages too much, so I appreciate the link!</p>

<p>However, in response to that ruling (again from Sowell): </p>

<p>

The Bowen-Bok study of the effects of affirmative action in colleges and universities credits this program with the fact that 56 percent of white students in the institutions studied report knowing two or more black classmates “well,” despite the fact that 86 percent of whites in American society at large report having black friends and 54 percent reported having five or more black friends. Diversity has added nothing.

</p>

<p>So it still doesn’t work. In fact, in the ruling itself, it was even suggested that AA should be discontinued in twenty-five years, at which time it would be (or should be) considered “illegal”.</p>

<p>Additionally, from Wiki, which I trust is accurate enough on this subject:</p>

<p>

Another criticism raised by Justice Thomas compared Michigan Law to the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, where California’s Proposition 209 had barred Berkeley Law from “granting preferential treatment on the basis of race in the operation of public education.” Despite Proposition 209, however, Berkeley Law was still able to achieve a diverse student body. According to Thomas, “the Court is willfully blind to the very real experience in California and elsewhere, which raises the inference that institutions with ‘reputations for excellence’…rivaling [Michigan Law’s] have satisfied their sense of mission without resorting to prohibited racial discrimination.”

</p>

[Bay]

<p>Yup, there is criticism and conflicting opinion, but the ruling stands. Unless and until someone brings a lawsuit with a sufficient argument to persuade the US Supreme Ct to reverse its opinion, using race as a factor in admissions is a lawful practice.</p>

[mtnmomma]

<p>LorenIpsom–do you really have no idea what makes the best students? You have been drinking the all I need are high stats koolaide for way too long. </p>

<p>The best students are those that can bring something interesting to class everyday. Already know it all but have nothing to add–no thanks, too good for everyone else. The best students are those that are able to bring a positive vibe to the class and help “lesser” students feel more comfortable participating. Busy daydreaming–guess their not into interacting with others. They learned to play the grades game? Are you kidding? The best students are intrinsically motivated and their passion is contagious. The best students are able to take an ordinary situation and find something new and novel in it. The best students always have some outside reading or activity that they have done beyond the level of the class that they are willing to share with everyone else. The best students are missed when they are absent. The very best students can do all of this AND get really amazing SAT scores.</p>

<p>The bored, know it all you described who can’t put forth the effort to raise their hand in class is what we call a “doormat” a “wet-blanket”. Their there, but know one would know (or care). What does this student have to offer?</p>

[harvard521]

<p>

It’s been more than two entire generations, shouldn’t that be long enough?

</p>

<p>I don’t know! If you’ve suffered for over 300 years do you think that’s enough. I can honestly tell that you have not witnessed the effects of the racism African Americans have faced. I’ve seen so many people suffer because they believe they are not able to succeed because of the issues they’ve suffered in the past. I understand your issue is that the wealthier African Americans are being benefitted through AA, but what issue your neglecting is how the poorer African Americans are being benefitted. I attended a Harvard informational session for minorities and they played a video of students talking about being minorities at Harvard. There were several students who spoke about how they grew up in harsh realities and were able to strive at Harvard. That is why there is AA because of those issues. I even was watching an episode of Oprah (yes I watch Oprah every once in awhile) where an African American female who suffered immensely during high school and was admitted to Harvard. Harvard and many other top schools want to help people like this strive. If admitting a few people from wealthier families will allow them to help several more strive, they will gladly do it to make their school as diverse as possible. Diversity is what makes a student able to lead remarkable lives. If there was an issue with AA wouldn’t it show in the type of alumni the school yields. Harvard has still had remarkable alumni and is still able to be placed as one of the top schools in the country. If the students they’ve admitted were that under qualified they would not be such a top school.</p>

[harvard521]

<p>

The bored, know it all you described who can’t put forth the effort to raise their hand in class is what we call a “doormat” a “wet-blanket”. Their there, but know one would know (or care). What does this student have to offer?

</p>

<p>I completely agree! If they are sitting in the corner not answering questions, even if they feel the answer is obvious, they are not adding any value to the class. Harvard wants students who not only excel, but cause other students to excel with their wisdom. That is a true leader! Intelligence is contagious! Who wants someone sitting around adding nothing of value?</p>

[LoremIpsum]

<p>

I understand your issue is that the wealthier African Americans are being benefitted through AA, but what issue your neglecting is how the poorer African Americans are being benefitted.

</p>

<p>Harvard, I agree schools should give an edge to students from poor socioeconomic backgrounds who overcome great odds to succeed. URMs who come from families with 100k or more in income, however, should be able to compete without special preferences. Socioeconomic class, not race, should be the preference variable, which will still continue to weigh in favor of current URM groups.</p>