Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-16-2015, 09:32 PM
Hector_St_Clare is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...ions/27438565/
But admissions have to be based on objective and non-racial criteria.
Why?

If it were up to me, I'd support strict racial quotas, like they have in India.
  #52  
Old 05-16-2015, 09:37 PM
Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 3,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
And I don't blame them.
I think you should. In my generation, we all had it drummed into our heads that the US is a meritocracy, education is sacrosanct etc. Why does education have to be a place where things other than ability are necessary? If somehow the "elite" institutions confined elite more to what it should be confined to in education - that is to perform, learn, etc. do you really think that would be a bad thing for society? Would somehow the rich kids not be able to give themselves advantages in life without meeting at university?

Not following that principle kind of sucks - education should be something separate from social privilege. But really, I think this is all a tempest in a teapot - its not as if a few less than worthy individuals really prevent others from succeeds. Eventually the cream rises to the top - undergraduate is just the starting point.

And on the other hand, having lots of money going to elite institutions that can further advance technology and science is a good thing - even at the cost of allowing a certain amount of unfairness in the system.

But it's still not fair

Last edited by Mr. Nylock; 05-16-2015 at 09:38 PM.
  #53  
Old 05-16-2015, 09:41 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by even sven View Post
Admissions are not thinking about "what will this student benefit from our school?" They are asking how they will benefit . . .
Given that most of the applicants are still minors, this is, if true, borderline child abuse. A school should help students be the best they can be, not exploit them for its own benefit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by even sven View Post
They have spots to fill on obscure sports teams.
Here is a much better alternative:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/sp...f-fitness.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by even sven View Post
They want someone who can organize a good alternative spring break. . . . Above all, they want people with compelling vision and a compelling story, who will continue to do compelling things (ideally while still students) that will bring attention and prestige to the university.
These friggin' compelling visions were often concocted by admissions consultants. The self-serving school you describe should lose its accreditation.

IMHO, a university has two basic missions: Education, and advancement of knowledge. Prestige should come from a high graduation rate and making scientific discoveries, not from being known for (I can't believe you mentioned this) fun school dances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by even sven View Post
A class of 400 mid-level managers at Intel is a failure. They want inventors, entrepreneurs, researchers, writers, politicians, TED talkers, and teachers.
Even if I bought this, you have zero evidence that admissions officers can tell this by reading possibly ghost-written essays and looking for the upper-middle-class pattern of heart-tugging extra-curriculars.

Last edited by PhillyGuy; 05-16-2015 at 09:43 PM.
  #54  
Old 05-16-2015, 09:50 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by even sven View Post
Admissions are not thinking about "what will this student benefit from our school?" They are asking how they will benefit from you
What if a university looks at the racial composition of its student body and says, "We need more white people," and admits more white students just because they're white?
  #55  
Old 05-16-2015, 09:51 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,799
But the truth is that stuff like "fun dances" makes a school attractive to students who have money. Money that is used to hire top-rate professors and all the other educational fixtures of a university.

"Fun dances" also keeps the brainiacs from jumping off a bridge during final's week.

As long as universities continued to fashion themselves as self-contained mini-societies, they're going to be interested in creating balanced populations--however they want to define that. Which means that someone who looks deserving on paper is always going to be rejected.

I don't think the rejection burden should fall on Asians or any other group, though.
  #56  
Old 05-16-2015, 11:55 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
This holistic review shit was simply a fantasy that existed in the mind of Justice O'Connor in 2003. It has no real difference from a racial quota. Assuming the composition of the Supreme Court remains the same when they take on the next case, it will go into the dustbin of history, as it should.
  #57  
Old 05-17-2015, 04:56 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,200
The practices being described here aren't new, and they aren't unique to Harvard. They go back to at least 1905, when Harvard adopted a principally merit-based approach to admission based on College Entrance Examination Board tests, and can be traced to at least some becoming alarmed, at that time, by the disproportionately large number of Jews being admitted.

But while those particular concerns had racial overtones, even then the idea of racial quotas was rejected in favor of what has since come to be called the "holistic" approach, which really goes back to the early 20s when Harvard, Princeton, and other Ivy Leagues started assessing candidates in terms of everything from extracurricular activities to athleticism, physical appearance, and (perhaps most importantly) family background, especially valuing success and belonging to the exclusive club of Ivy League alumni.

The rationale is that while most schools are concerned with admitting students who will do well in school, Harvard and the other Ivy Leagues are most concerned with admitting students who will do well in life. Wilbur Bender, Harvard Dean of Admissions during the 1950s, pointedly asked, "should our goal be to select a student body with the highest possible proportions of high-ranking students, or should it be to select, within a reasonably high range of academic ability, a student body with a certain variety of talents, qualities, attitudes, and backgrounds?". This, in turn, creates a self-reinforcing system where Ivy League grads tend to be more successful than others because they've been pre-selected for exactly those criteria, and because they go through life with the imprimatur of having been thus selected, benefiting both themselves and the legacy of the schools that bestowed it.

It seems to me that whether one is opposed to this or not seems to depend on whether one believes in pure academic meritocracy and general egalitarianism or whether one believes that schools have a right to foster -- and perhaps are even fulfilling an important societal function by fostering -- a kind of elite superclass. The biggest argument against it, I suppose, is that many of these alleged virtues arise from a wealthy upbringing and, in essence, can be bought in many ways for the children of the wealthy while the less fortunate are denied, even if they meet the "holistic" standards as well as the academic ones.

So while they've really been quite open about their criteria, and have assiduously avoided quota systems, accusations like these naturally arise as a result of those policies -- Asian groups launched similar complaints against Harvard back in the 80s, to no avail and with no consequences AFAIK.

There's a good article in The New Yorker about this from ten years ago, by Canadian author and journalist Malcolm Gladwell, with lots of fascinating insights into the Ive League admissions culture, from which much of the historical information above was summarized.

Last edited by wolfpup; 05-17-2015 at 05:00 AM.
  #58  
Old 05-17-2015, 07:36 AM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Ah. So your declaration that they were actually imposing quotas is speculation, while you declared it to be fact.
There is racism in the Ferguson police department because its effects are observed by anyone paying attention, whether the police department comes out and says "we are racists" or not. There was anti-Semitism at Harvard in 1930 because its effects were observed by anyone paying attention, whether Harvard came out and said "we have a Jewish quota" or not. There is an Asian quota at Harvard in 2015 because its effects are observed by anyone paying attention, whether Harvard comes out and says "we have an Asian quota" or not.

Burying your head in the sand only makes you look like a spin doctor. Everyone else is acknowledging the plainly apparent fact that Asians are given an artificial disadvantage in the Harvard admissions process and either criticizing or defending reality.
  #59  
Old 05-17-2015, 07:39 AM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
The rationale is that while most schools are concerned with admitting students who will do well in school, Harvard and the other Ivy Leagues are most concerned with admitting students who will do well in life.
Asians who go to Harvard in 2015 and Jews who went to Harvard in the 1930s tend to do very well in life, financially (I assume that's what we're talking about.) It's more that the people who have already done well, the old-money whites, may not wish to donate to the school right now if they don't get what they want, which is an artificial leg up for their kids in the process or, more starkly, a white supremacist culture on the campus.

This is somewhat orthogonal to the issue of affirmative action for blacks and Hispanics, and may illuminate an important difference in the issue for private v. public colleges.
  #60  
Old 05-17-2015, 08:03 AM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash View Post
Burying your head in the sand only makes you look like a spin doctor. Everyone else is acknowledging the plainly apparent fact that Asians are given an artificial disadvantage in the Harvard admissions process and either criticizing or defending reality.
I asked for evidence. You provided evidence. I did not challenge or even dismiss your evidence. Attacking my person because I did not roll over and claim "Oh, that must be a fact" does nothing to persuade me that you are correct.

Last edited by tomndebb; 05-17-2015 at 08:04 AM.
  #61  
Old 05-17-2015, 08:37 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,473
I've got a lot of on-the-ground, anecdotal experience with this: I've taught in urban education for years, in very strong programs, and I've helped craft a lot of "elite" college applications for all kinds of kids. Just from my observations, I'd say there's no question that upper-middle class Asians with a STEM focus have a LOT of trouble distinguishing themselves. They aren't the only group like this--upper middle class white girls who focus on dance and journalism are also often rejected by schools you'd think they'd get into.

For whatever it's worth, it really does seem to be more "holistic" than "quota"--again, totally anecdotally, the Asian refugee doesn't seem to have a disadvantage compared to the African refugee. But the upper middle-class African-American is going to have an edge over the upper middle-class Asian-American, just because they want variety, and there are so many more qualified Asian applications.

For those of you arguing that it should be pure merit, "merit" is really hard to get at. There's a kid I heard about this year who got into like 4 Ivys with a 30 ACT and a handful of passing AP scores. Compared to most of the kids at those schools, that's incredibly low. But this kid did that without access to any significant educational resources--crappy school, no prep, no guidance, no understanding of the system. You look at his application, and you think 'This kid must be crazy brilliant, and worked his butt off, to do this". Does that kid have less merit? Because what I am thinking is "Once we get him in an environment that's working for him instead of against him, who the fuck knows what he can do?"

A lot of people would look at this kid, and at all the literally thousands of applicants with higher scores who were rejected, and they might say "That's not fair, people with more merit were rejected". But I think that's a hard call. Merit is not the same as "achievements at 18".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
Yes, the students will know, before filing an application, that such an essay/topic would not be acceptable. They would know that the application process is gender- and ethnicity-neutral and such an essay would be gaming the system.
Probably the single best college essay I've read in recent years was a Nepali kid talking about the impact of being low-caste in a refugee camp, and especially it's impact on women. How do you make that race and gender neutral? How do you prevent that kid from telling his story and call that fair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGuy View Post
Even if I bought this, you have zero evidence that admissions officers can tell this by reading possibly ghost-written essays and looking for the upper-middle-class pattern of heart-tugging extra-curriculars.
It's a lot more complex than that: it's an essay and rec letters from teachers and counselors and test scores and an interview and a personal statement and a supplement essay and a school profile.
  #62  
Old 05-17-2015, 09:17 AM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash View Post
After California eliminated affirmative action in public university admissions in the 1990s, everybody won. The number of black and Hispanic students accepted to Berkeley and UCLA went down, but the number graduating stayed the same. In other words, former AA-benefitting students were correctly steered to the university they could handle and emerged with degrees instead of wasted time and debt, and no one of any race who was real material for the top tier was excluded.
How did everyone win when students graduated with "lesser" degrees and students at Berkeley and UCLA didn't have the benefit of diversity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
A class of students is much less of a "team". There is some cooperation in specialized classes/labs, but most of the time students work on their own (or, if they form teams, those teams are not university-organized) with their instructors to advance their education. The analogy fails because the two situations are not comparable.
First, they are directly comparable as neither is a strict meritocracy. That was the basic point. Second, the point is you cannot, strictly speaking, "earn" a job just due to your sheer qualifications, yet people feel entitled to a spot at a given school but not a given job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I realize that professional sports and higher education aren't the best analogy, but IMHO, the notion that there is such a thing as an "overrepresented minority" is problematic. You don't see the NBA or NFL saying that there needs to be a cap on the number of African-American players (the NBA and NFL are overwhelmingly African-American, despite the fact that African-Americans are a minority in the United States.) Why? Because those African-American players rose to the NBA and NFL through their own individual merits.
This is a bad point because sports teams don't generally improve based on racial and social diversity as a college class likely does. Sports teams benefit from a diversity of skills, athletic attributes, specific specialization, etc. A basketball team, for example, might want a diversity of height and size within a given range. No team would hire 12 point guards who are all six feet tall regardless of how talented they all are. This is why many teams don't draft the "best player available" but rather the one that is the best fit for their team.

Second, almost every league makes an effort to reach out to underrepresented minorities and nationalities when there is an access issue. For example, the NBA has programs like Basketball Without Borders where they actively reach out to under-served communities in a similar fashion to how colleges actively court diversity. The issue with there being a disproportionately few White players in some leagues is not an access issue. It's largely an issue of White Americans having generally better options than attempting to play professional sports.

Lastly, anyone who follows sports knows there are plenty of examples of White players in Black dominated sports getting preference and accolades due to their race (eg. Steve Nash's MVP trophies, The Utah Jazz having both a largely White fanbase and relatively White roster), so it's not strictly true that athletics are race blind.
  #63  
Old 05-17-2015, 09:22 AM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
How did everyone win when students graduated with "lesser" degrees and students at Berkeley and UCLA didn't have the benefit of diversity?
Because having a degree from UC-Davis is better than having debt, the stigma of failure, and no degree after two years at Berkeley? I think the black applicants who are now earning six figures because of their degrees from the second tier of the UC system instead of working in non-college-degree jobs after failing out of Berkeley appreciate it more than they would being set up to fail so that "the benefit of diversity" can be achieved.

The top tier of the UC system is still 16% black and Hispanic, by the way. It's not like there aren't plenty of minorities capable of achieving under a race-blind system.
  #64  
Old 05-17-2015, 09:54 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash View Post
...Everyone else is acknowledging the plainly apparent fact that Asians are given an artificial disadvantage in the Harvard admissions process and either criticizing or defending reality.
Actually we are not. The evidence presented is pretty weak actually. We can believe it as reasonably likely to be true that some higher scoring Middle class Asians are turned down in favor of some who are in other various ways underrepresented as part of the class body. (And that may be indirect evidence of the implicit stereotypes we have of overachieving Asians.)

Debating the reality of an actual "quota" and the lack of quality of the evidence is just not the interesting discussion to have, compared to the question of whether or not a college is within their rights to choose a class that is a wide mix of sorts of backgrounds, all of whom are well qualified to succeed academically, even if one scored marginally higher on the SAT than the other.

Choosing not to have that debate on the lack of evidence for the claim as it is uninteresting does not equal acknowledging such as a plainly apparent fact.
  #65  
Old 05-17-2015, 10:26 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,789
Here is the list of concentrations at Harvard. It begins with African and African American Studies moves to Anthropology and then Applied Mathematics ... includes Classics, Comparative Literature, and Computer Science in the Cs, so on.

Is it reasonable or unreasonable for Harvard to want to have a mix of students (all of whom are able to excel academically) whose particular expressed and demonstrated interests will be spread across that table?

IF (and I accept this as provisionally true for discussion as I provisionally accepted the de facto quota, despite that it also is based on implicit stereotypes) highest achieving Asian students are disproportionately demonstrating interests in STEM and Econ concentrations and Harvard admissions decides that they want some who will take their Linguistics and Romance Literature classes too, some who are expressing a desire to go into Philosophy rather than Physics, should they sued as being discriminatory?

Last edited by DSeid; 05-17-2015 at 10:26 AM.
  #66  
Old 05-17-2015, 10:28 AM
Mr. Nylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Bed
Posts: 3,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Here is the list of concentrations at Harvard. It begins with African and African American Studies moves to Anthropology and then Applied Mathematics ... includes Classics, Comparative Literature, and Computer Science in the Cs, so on.

Is it reasonable or unreasonable for Harvard to want to have a mix of students (all of whom are able to excel academically) whose particular expressed and demonstrated interests will be spread across that table?

IF (and I accept this as provisionally true for discussion as I provisionally accepted the de facto quota, despite that it also is based on implicit stereotypes) highest achieving Asian students are disproportionately demonstrating interests in STEM and Econ concentrations and Harvard admissions decides that they want some who will take their Linguistics and Romance Literature classes too, some who are expressing a desire to go into Philosophy rather than Physics, should they sued as being discriminatory?
They could have different admissions criteria for different departments, could they not? It's fairly common in academia AFAIK.
  #67  
Old 05-17-2015, 10:37 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,789
Like most elite liberal arts institutions you do not enter Harvard in a department. They don't even call them "majors" ... they are "concentrations." No that is not an option.
  #68  
Old 05-17-2015, 10:42 AM
Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Like most elite liberal arts institutions you do not enter Harvard in a department. They don't even call them "majors" ... they are "concentrations." No that is not an option.
Again, my suggested method of removing names, ethnicity and gender and all related items from the application would not intrude on the school's selection for various "concentrations" from the applicants.

Also - today what prevents a future STEM major from expressing great interest in Philosophy or Romance Literature in the application and then "concentrating" in a STEM field?
  #69  
Old 05-17-2015, 10:51 AM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash View Post
Because having a degree from UC-Davis is better than having debt, the stigma of failure, and no degree after two years at Berkeley? I think the black applicants who are now earning six figures because of their degrees from the second tier of the UC system instead of working in non-college-degree jobs after failing out of Berkeley appreciate it more than they would being set up to fail so that "the benefit of diversity" can be achieved.

The top tier of the UC system is still 16% black and Hispanic, by the way. It's not like there aren't plenty of minorities capable of achieving under a race-blind system.
In terms of places like Harvard, the problem is not that kids who cannot succeed are supplanting kids who can; the problem is the mind-boggling glut of qualified applicants. On paper, the "elites" each accept 1200-1800 freshmen. But a good chunk of those slots will go to "development". Then there are the hyper specific niches--the Tuba player even sven talks about. Then there are the absolute rock stars--the Olympic athlete, the MacArthur fellow, the patent-holder, the A-list actor. Once you place all those kids, the number of slots left for just solid, high-performing geniuses is shockingly small. According to College Board, 159,779 kids qualified as "AP Scholars with Distinction" last year (report is called "Data on AP Scholars". That means they've passed at least 5 AP exams and averaged a score of 3.5 on all the ones they've taken. Those are solid kids--virtually every one of them could handle any undergraduate curriculum. Tens of thousands of kids had SAT scores above 2150. For every available slot, there are tons of kids who would be willing and able to make the most of the education offered. You don't have to take unqualified kids in the name of diversity.
  #70  
Old 05-17-2015, 11:09 AM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
As I've said, we're talking around two different, sort of related problems:

*affirmative action for blacks and Hispanics at public universities that causes Asians, Jews, and whites to be discriminated against
*attempts to preserve a baseline level of "old money whiteness" at Harvard by discriminating against Asians directly

Certainly there are many top students of all races who don't get admitted to Harvard, but Harvard needs to make its decisions as to which top students to prioritize on some basis other than a racial quota. Right now there's plenty of reason to believe they are using quotas against Asians, just as they historically did against Jews for the same reasons.

At Harvard, "we want diversity" is becoming an excuse for artificially excluding nonwhites in order to create more places for less qualified white students. Even the people who think ordinary affirmative action is justified in the name of "diversity" should be able to see how absurd that is.
  #71  
Old 05-17-2015, 11:36 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
I've never really fully understood the "diversity is good" argument in favor of these holistic reviews/quotas. I mean, I understand that diversity is good in the sense that it exposes you to different cultural backgrounds and makes you understanding of these cultures. For example, when I finished by undergrad in South Florida, I was exposed to people who came to this country from South America; they described what life was like under hyperinflation and under military coups and whatnot that I would never have known about.

Likewise, they were exposed to a guy who grew up in rural West Virginia and learned things about my culture that they would have never known otherwise.

Such a thing is certainly good in my opinion, but to place such a high importance on it strays from the fundamental purpose of higher education. The admissions process is to determine which applicants can handle the course load and also for the school to brag about their success stories.

I think it is absurd to say that turning away a qualified applicant and putting in place a lesser qualified applicant solely to have after class banter about Brazilian inflation in the 1980s places far too much importance on the latter. As I said, it is nice, but not so nice that students should be bumped just for these stories.

And why does a school that is giving me a degree in business give a shit if I am exposed to other cultures? Yes, it is a global world, but that could be covered in one class session: When dealing with Brazil pay special attention to their fears over inflation.

In short, the "diversity is good" is true for minor and irrelevant levels of true. It is not the sine qua non of a quality education to the extent that qualified students should be bumped in favor of less qualified students.
  #72  
Old 05-17-2015, 11:44 AM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash View Post
Because having a degree from UC-Davis is better than having debt, the stigma of failure, and no degree after two years at Berkeley? I think the black applicants who are now earning six figures because of their degrees from the second tier of the UC system instead of working in non-college-degree jobs after failing out of Berkeley appreciate it more than they would being set up to fail so that "the benefit of diversity" can be achieved.
The research on this subject might surprise you:

"The study, published in the journal Social Forces, shows that while a degree from an elite university improves all applicants’ chances at finding a well-paid job, the ease with which those jobs are obtained is not equal for black and white students even when they both graduate from an institution such as Harvard University. A white candidate with a degree from a highly selective university, the paper suggests, receives an employer response for every six résumés he or she submits. A black candidate receives a response for every eight."

Where you go to collect doesn't matter all that much. Except if you are black, Hispanic, or the child of parents who didn't receive a college education. In those cases, you will earn more money by attending a more selective university.

A black student who shoots for the stars by attending Berkley is making a wise decision. A degree from Berkley will provide a rare opportunity for him to offset the stigma of his racial background. If he has to drop out, he can always transfer to another school. No harm, no foul. But it would be foolhardy for him to not even try.

I'm not ashamed to say I was admitted to my undergraduate alma mater with a below-average SAT score. How ballsy was I to enroll in an engineering school without even taking pre-calc in HS! Perhaps I'm not ashamed because I ended up graduating with honors, which is a lot more than I can say for most of my more "elite" classmates. But alas, those guys are probably making a lot more money than I am. A shit ton more. Which just goes to show how little academic merit matters in the long run.

Personally, I'm glad my university recognized this by taking a chance on me and not reducing my worth to a bunch of numbers.

Last edited by monstro; 05-17-2015 at 11:45 AM.
  #73  
Old 05-17-2015, 11:47 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
Again, my suggested method of removing names, ethnicity and gender and all related items from the application would not intrude on the school's selection for various "concentrations" from the applicants.

Also - today what prevents a future STEM major from expressing great interest in Philosophy or Romance Literature in the application and then "concentrating" in a STEM field?
So Jenny Ye should not have been able to mention her work with a China-town tenant organizing group? Dalumuzi Mhlanga should not have been able to discuss his background and desire to help others in the Zimbambwean immigrant community (which he then followed up on)? If some of Allan J. Hsiao's undergraduate accomplishments were similar to his college ones, Editor in chief of Harvard Asia Quarterly, so on ... such should not have been allowed on his application?

Nothing prevents someone from trying to pretend to be that which they are not. But when your undergraduate record is AP Math and Physics, your extracurricular accomplishments are designing programming and awards for Science, your claim of wanting to study Slavic Languages might come off as a bit disingenuous.

No not every high achieving Asian student is math and hard science or econ; some are philosophers ... but relatively few.

Elite colleges have to choose between those within the huge universe of students more than qualified to excel academically; suggesting that they are are better off for having information about the whole of the person censored from them seems a bit off.

Haberdash at Harvard it is the confluence of the two with the difference being that it isn't "Black" or "Hispanic" that is the marker but life story of challenge (which may correlate to some degree) that gives one candidate extra consideration out of the universe of those also otherwise academically stellar. Hence Dawn Logans might have been accepted with an SAT lower than average for Harvard, because of her story, as possibly would have David Boone.

These students are not "less qualified" even if hypothetically (and it may or may not be true) their SATs were on the lower end of Harvard's range or their GPA less impressive when weighted by the competitiveness ranking of the High School.

As for the other category, the point is the money, not the Whiteness. Legacies of the 20% of Harvard graduates who are Asian will get the same preferential treatment, especially if those graduates have themselves gone on to become major CEOs or owners of teams. Endowments are Harvard's lifeblood more than tuition.

Last edited by DSeid; 05-17-2015 at 11:48 AM.
  #74  
Old 05-17-2015, 11:56 AM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
A degree from Berkley will provide a rare opportunity for him to offset the stigma of his racial background.
The same number of black students are receiving degrees from Berkeley now as they were during AA.
  #75  
Old 05-17-2015, 12:13 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash View Post
The same number of black students are receiving degrees from Berkeley now as they were during AA.
But were these black students admitted based on SAT and grades? Or could it be that some of them are excellent tuba players in addition to scholars? Could it also be that some black applicants were actually rejected simply because the school had filled its tube player quota? Is it possible that tuba players were disproportionately represented in the "reject" pile, and that black students were disproportionately represented in the "tuba player" pile?

Removing race-based AA does not equate to a policy where everyone is admitted strictly based on quantitative metrics. It may be that the rubric Berkley uses now to choose students is just as holistic as it was before, just in a different way. Since we aren't able to be a fly on the wall when the admissions officers select students, how would we know?
  #76  
Old 05-17-2015, 12:27 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,016
Y'know, yes, considering an education at UCDavis "lesser" to one at UCBerkeley is odious, but we'd have to reform society itself to fix that; however, at the same time, having the top-tier schools and campuses self-reinforce their own "bubble", whether of pure academic achievement or social exclusivity, does no favors to anyone either way. And like monstro states, how do we know what "invisible hand" is at work? In any case it's easy to hit at Harvard as a place that privileges legacies and fellow Old Boys Network types, while at the same time then extending it to a wider argument that all of Higher Education should be tiered strictly on academics achievement scores and that life experience and background should be irrelevant. That can be just as self-perpetuating of privilege.


Terr seems concerned with there being many ways of "engineering" your way in -- I'm sure the elite schools have seen all the tricks and account for them. As Manda JO states, when it comes to places like Harvard, virtually everyone who applies outside of the "legacies" is already way up in the high-achieving natural-born-leader orbit for their particular background. "Neutralizing" specific life experience and background, especially by forbidding any reference that would identify ethnicity/gender/socioeconomic status, would leave you with a couple thousand virtually identical application packets. Which I suppose some people would say "excellent: at that point, admit the top 600 highest GPA/AP/Test scores strictly numerically. Voilá! Merit! Unimpeachable!" Well, I'm not sold on that being the wisest approach either.

Once out of school society very quickly lets you know your test score and GPA are NOT #1 on the list of what they are looking for you to bring to the table. At the end of the day, it is a myth, a pious lie, that in America "if you work harder and score higher than anyone" then you'll get whatever it is you aspire to. It's not so in college admissions, in the workplace, or in general society, and on top of that, some people start the race half a lap ahead, and some others have to run it with only one shoe. It should have been obvious for decades now that going to Harvard is more about becoming recognized as part of the elite group than a source of an education actually academically superior to a score other colleges and universities -- and isn't that really what many students applying to Harvard or any of the Ivies or top-tiers are looking for? A foot in the door to that special privileged club of Powers That Be, that society won't open for you solely because you work hard and get high grades?

Last edited by JRDelirious; 05-17-2015 at 12:29 PM.
  #77  
Old 05-17-2015, 12:27 PM
Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
So Jenny Ye should not have been able to mention her work with a China-town tenant organizing group?
No, but should have been able to mention her work with a tenant organizing group. Is the fact that it is a Chinatown group extremely important?
Quote:
Elite colleges have to choose between those within the huge universe of students more than qualified to excel academically; suggesting that they are are better off for having information about the whole of the person censored from them seems a bit off.
"The whole of the person" can be exposed to the admissions committee - except the irrelevant part like the name and the ethnicity.
  #78  
Old 05-17-2015, 12:34 PM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
Y'know, yes, considering an education at UCDavis "lesser" to one at UCBerkeley is odious, but we'd have to reform society itself to fix that
UC-Davis is a good school. The hierarchy within the UC system is an established fact of how the state of California itself has chosen to handle application and placement.

Quote:
Once out of school society very quickly lets you know your test score and GPA are NOT #1 on the list of what they are looking for you to bring to the table. At the end of the day, it is a myth, a pious lie, that in America "if you work harder and score higher than anyone" then you'll get whatever it is you aspire to. It's not so in college admissions, in the workplace, or in general society, and on top of that, some people start the race half a lap ahead, and some others have to run it with only one shoe.
In the case of admissions to Harvard, the group of people that "starts ahead" includes blacks and Hispanics, who can get into Harvard with qualifications that would not get a white, Jew, or Asian into a good public school like North Carolina, as well as legacy whites who are trying to keep Asians out in order to preserve their spots. It's not a perfect mirror of ordinary American racism by any means.

Quote:
It should have been obvious for decades now that going to Harvard is more about becoming recognized as part of the elite group than a source of an education actually academically superior to a score other colleges and universities -- and isn't that really what many students applying to Harvard or any of the Ivies or top-tiers are looking for? A foot in the door to that special privileged club of Powers That Be, that society won't open for you solely because you work hard and get high grades?
I don't disagree with any of this, and I have lots of opinions about the problems with Ivy League culture, but they're not really relevant -- "Harvard is overrated so they should be able to racially discriminate against Asians' is a non sequitur along the lines of "I don't think governments should sanction marriages, so they can bar gay marriages for now."
  #79  
Old 05-17-2015, 12:42 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Has the legacy system ever been challenged in court as de facto racism? It seems to me that only whites benefit from this.

Yes, it is race neutral on its face, but so were grandfather clauses related to voting. I don't see any relation between the fact that your father went to Harvard and your potential performance there. Many parents have idiot kids and many smart kids come from terrible homes.
  #80  
Old 05-17-2015, 12:54 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,016
I dunno jtgain... the legacy system (and privileges such as reduced tuition for employee families) is used in so many schools and is so long-ingrained in US Higher Education I think many would rather not challenge for fear of unintended consequences...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash View Post
In the case of admissions to Harvard, the group of people that "starts ahead" includes blacks and Hispanics, who can get into Harvard with qualifications that would not get a white, Jew, or Asian into a good public school like North Carolina
And you know Harvard will tell you that these were the ones who started life behind by a half a lap, and Harvard's just making up for that. Let's not pretend we do not know that's their side of the argument, whether we buy it or not.

"Blacks and Hispanics are privileged over whites, Jews and Asians" has a very hollow ring outside the ivory tower.

Quote:
I don't disagree with any of this, and I have lots of opinions about the problems with Ivy League culture, but they're not really relevant -- "Harvard is overrated so they should be able to racially discriminate against Asians' is a non sequitur
Which is nobody's argument. If the plaintiffs can prove that this is a case of actual racial discrimination, I'm with them all the way. But let's admit this is not only about quantitative academic meritocracy on either side.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 05-17-2015 at 12:57 PM.
  #81  
Old 05-17-2015, 12:56 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash View Post
Asians who go to Harvard in 2015 and Jews who went to Harvard in the 1930s tend to do very well in life, financially (I assume that's what we're talking about.) It's more that the people who have already done well, the old-money whites, may not wish to donate to the school right now if they don't get what they want, which is an artificial leg up for their kids in the process or, more starkly, a white supremacist culture on the campus.
I'm always leery of simplistic explanations to complex phenomena. While it's true that children of alumni have a far better chance of admittance than others under equal conditions, the reasons really have a lot more to do with the historical legacy of success I talked about than with any direct quid pro quo. Nor do I buy this "white supremacist culture" nonsense. How do you reconcile that with the accusations of "liberalism" that the right likes to hurl at all of academia? The reality is that the Ivy League culture will always favor the existing power base, whatever its color or racial makeup happens to be at any point in history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash View Post
There was anti-Semitism at Harvard in 1930 because its effects were observed by anyone paying attention, whether Harvard came out and said "we have a Jewish quota" or not. There is an Asian quota at Harvard in 2015 because its effects are observed by anyone paying attention, whether Harvard comes out and says "we have an Asian quota" or not.
It might be useful to look up the word "quota" in the dictionary and then see if Harvard is doing anything that matches the definition. "Quota" does not mean "admissions practices that I, personally, disagree with".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash View Post
Right now there's plenty of reason to believe they are using quotas against Asians, just as they historically did against Jews for the same reasons.
Except for the fact that there isn't, they aren't, and they didn't, respectively. Otherwise, perfectly correct.
  #82  
Old 05-17-2015, 01:11 PM
Manda JO is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 11,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post

Terr seems concerned with there being many ways of "engineering" your way in -- I'm sure the elite schools have seen all the tricks and account for them. As Manda JO states, when it comes to places like Harvard, virtually everyone who applies outside of the "legacies" is already way up in the high-achieving natural-born-leader orbit for their particular background. "Neutralizing" specific life experience and background, especially by forbidding any reference that would identify ethnicity/gender/socioeconomic status, would leave you with a couple thousand virtually identical application packets. Which I suppose some people would say "excellent: at that point, admit the top 600 highest GPA/AP/Test scores strictly numerically. Voilá! Merit! Unimpeachable!" Well, I'm not sold on that being the wisest approach either.
As I mentioned before, it's not even clear that does give you the most academically talented kids. The kid who has done almost as much with much, much less may well be more impressive on every axis--work ethic, native ability, intrinsic motivation--and may well be much more suited to make the most of an Ivy League education.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
No, but should have been able to mention her work with a tenant organizing group. Is the fact that it is a Chinatown group extremely important?
"The whole of the person" can be exposed to the admissions committee - except the irrelevant part like the name and the ethnicity.
It really can't. How do you write about your decision not to wear a headscarf without talking about your race and gender? How do you explain how you balanced your parents' expectations against your own dreams if you can't contextualize those expectations? How do you talk about the discrimination you've faced, or the bigotry you've learned to recognize in yourself, or whatever without talking about race and gender?

I do this professionally. I literally review and advise kids on dozens of these things each year. For probably 50% of kids, the events that have shaped their lives, that have changed their perspective and way of thinking, are rooted in race and gender. One of the best essays I saw this year was "How being a fat gay Mexican kid in a white middle school taught me to get over myself". It was funny and heartfelt and showed a kid who was deeply insightful and had powerful gifts for analysis and language. There is no way any of that would have come out if he'd had to avoid all mention of race and gender.
  #83  
Old 05-17-2015, 01:29 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
It should have been obvious for decades now that going to Harvard is more about becoming recognized as part of the elite group than a source of an education actually academically superior to a score other colleges and universities -- and isn't that really what many students applying to Harvard or any of the Ivies or top-tiers are looking for? A foot in the door to that special privileged club of Powers That Be, that society won't open for you solely because you work hard and get high grades?
Yikes. Such a painful truth!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash
In the case of admissions to Harvard, the group of people that "starts ahead" includes blacks and Hispanics, who can get into Harvard with qualifications that would not get a white, Jew, or Asian into a good public school like North Carolina.
I hear this complaint a lot, but I don't hear a lot of folks with this view coming up with solutions that address the fact that blacks and Hispanics are so disadvantaged after graduation. A black college graduate is less likely to be hired for a job than a white high school drop-out. I'm all for getting rid of race-based AA in education, but not until there's fairness on both sides of the equation.

And you can preach the virtues of second-tier universities, and I'll be right there joining you. But as long as black people are associated with the "second tier", someone will have a good reason to discriminate against them. "Sorry, black dude. We can't hire you. Your degree is from UC-Davis. We only hire from Yale, Harvard, and MIT. Come back when you meet those qualifications!" And then the black guy busts his hump to meet those qualifications, and suddenly the bar has been raised yet again. The playing field isn't going to be level just with everyone saying it is. For all its faults, AA is the only policy we have that recognizes this.
  #84  
Old 05-17-2015, 01:31 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manda JO View Post

I do this professionally. I literally review and advise kids on dozens of these things each year. For probably 50% of kids, the events that have shaped their lives, that have changed their perspective and way of thinking, are rooted in race and gender. One of the best essays I saw this year was "How being a fat gay Mexican kid in a white middle school taught me to get over myself". It was funny and heartfelt and showed a kid who was deeply insightful and had powerful gifts for analysis and language. There is no way any of that would have come out if he'd had to avoid all mention of race and gender.
And I guessing the white kid who talks about being the only white guy on the basketball team also comes across as special, right?
  #85  
Old 05-17-2015, 01:50 PM
Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
It might be useful to look up the word "quota" in the dictionary and then see if Harvard is doing anything that matches the definition. "Quota" does not mean "admissions practices that I, personally, disagree with".
Is your position that the idea that Ivy League universities had "quotas" against Jews until the late 1960s is wrong?

That the many academics, scholars, and historians who refer to "Jewish quotas" are wrong and that they don't know what the word "quota" means?

I honestly ask because when Peter Novick points out that Harvard deliberately started trying to give preference to students from the Midwest because they were less likely to be Jewish than applicants from the Northeast then it seems to me rather pointless semantic arguing to claim it's not a clear case of discrimination and trying to impose quotas.

I'm reminded of people trying to insist that the birthers aren't motivated by racism.

Edit: I should add that there is not meant to be any implication that you're engaging in anti-Semitism and I'm not even aware of your ethnicity other than being Canadian.

Last edited by Ibn Warraq; 05-17-2015 at 01:54 PM.
  #86  
Old 05-17-2015, 01:52 PM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Except for the fact that there isn't, they aren't, and they didn't, respectively. Otherwise, perfectly correct.
The historical existence of the Jewish quota is really not up for debate.

Anti-Semitism in the U.S.: Harvard's Jewish Problem

Quote:
In 1922, Harvard's president, A. Lawrence Lowell, proposed a quota on the number of Jews gaining admission to the university. Lowell was convinced that Harvard could only survive if the majority of its students came from old American stock.

Lowell argued that cutting the number of Jews at Harvard to a maximum of 15% would be good for the Jews, because limits would prevent further anti-Semitism. Lowell reasoned, “The anti-Semitic feeling among the students is increasing, and it grows in proportion to the increase in the number of Jews. If their number should become 40% of the student body, the race feeling would become intense.”
  #87  
Old 05-17-2015, 01:53 PM
even sven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: DC
Posts: 19,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
I've never really fully understood the "diversity is good" argument in favor of these holistic reviews/quotas. I mean, I understand that diversity is good in the sense that it exposes you to different cultural backgrounds and makes you understanding of these cultures. For example, when I finished by undergrad in South Florida, I was exposed to people who came to this country from South America; they described what life was like under hyperinflation and under military coups and whatnot that I would never have known about.

You are thinking about it too literally. It's not about hearing one interesting story-- it's about the questions it would have never occurred to you to ask, the idioms and expressions you've never heard before, the concerns that wouldn't have been concerns to you, and the connections you wouldn't have made otherwise.

Think of it like a dinner party. WIth a group of similar people, it will be fun but the conversation will be predictable. With a more diverse group, the conversation can end up anywhere, and more new ideas will come in to play.
  #88  
Old 05-17-2015, 01:54 PM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
I hear this complaint a lot, but I don't hear a lot of folks with this view coming up with solutions that address the fact that blacks and Hispanics are so disadvantaged after graduation.
Quote:
And you can preach the virtues of second-tier universities, and I'll be right there joining you. But as long as black people are associated with the "second tier", someone will have a good reason to discriminate against them. "Sorry, black dude. We can't hire you. Your degree is from UC-Davis. We only hire from Yale, Harvard, and MIT. Come back when you meet those qualifications!"
Again, in the case of the UC system, there are just as many blacks getting Berkeley and UCLA degrees as there were before, so none of this applies.
  #89  
Old 05-17-2015, 01:56 PM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
Quote:
Originally Posted by even sven View Post
Think of it like a dinner party. WIth a group of similar people, it will be fun but the conversation will be predictable. With a more diverse group, the conversation can end up anywhere, and more new ideas will come in to play.
Where does the conversation go at pre-1996 Berkeley when you are constantly having to get some of your classmates up to speed on things they should have learned in 9th grade, and all of those classmates have something physical in common? Nowhere good.

Everyone who gets into a California public university now belongs there and anyone who has a problem with their black classmates in 2015 is a racist, because black students met the same objective criteria as anyone else. I think the "conversation" this produces is superior to the problems of the old one.
  #90  
Old 05-17-2015, 02:03 PM
Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
I hear this complaint a lot, but I don't hear a lot of folks with this view coming up with solutions that address the fact that blacks and Hispanics are so disadvantaged after graduation.
Do you think that may happen *because* their degrees are perceived, because of these admission practices, to be worth less?
  #91  
Old 05-17-2015, 02:17 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash View Post
Where does the conversation go at pre-1996 Berkeley when you are constantly having to get some of your classmates up to speed on things they should have learned in 9th grade, and all of those classmates have something physical in common? Nowhere good.

Everyone who gets into a California public university now belongs there and anyone who has a problem with their black classmates in 2015 is a racist, because black students met the same objective criteria as anyone else. I think the "conversation" this produces is superior to the problems of the old one.
I had a white classmate in college who said out loud, in front of the whole class, that OF COURSE white people were the first humans, since white people are the most numerous on the planet.

There were others who were just as stupid, who said similar things through the years.

But you know? I didn't hold it against them. Their K-12 educations had obviously been inadequate, through no fault of their own. I learned just as much about them through their ignorance as they did from me and my superior knowledge.

I'd have to question the educational background of someone who'd have a problem sharing their classroom environment with black people harboring certain educational deficiencies. I'd hope that any educated, intelligent person would understand the history that accounts for this and that they'd not take it personally. I certainly would consider them racist if they thought there wasn't a good explanation other than "lazy, shiftless, stupid".
  #92  
Old 05-17-2015, 02:21 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
Do you think that may happen *because* their degrees are perceived, because of these admission practices, to be worth less?
Do you think the average black college graduate is less qualified than an average white high school drop-out?

Do you think AA gives black people that much of a boost?
  #93  
Old 05-17-2015, 02:30 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haberdash View Post
The historical existence of the Jewish quota is really not up for debate.

Anti-Semitism in the U.S.: Harvard's Jewish Problem
Correct, it's not up for debate, because there weren't any. As I alluded to earlier, " ... while those particular concerns had racial overtones, even then the idea of racial quotas was rejected in favor of what has since come to be called the "holistic" approach, which really goes back to the early 20s ..."

From your own link! ... (emphasis mine) ...
Lowell received a great deal of public criticism, particularly in the Boston press [for having proposed quotas]. Harvard's overseers appointed a 13-member committee, which included three Jews, to study the university's “Jewish problem.” The committee rejected a Jewish quota but agreed that “geographic diversity” in the student body was desirable.
The rejection of quotas was really the whole basis for the "holistic" approach being discussed here, whether or not one agrees with it. From the cite I provided earlier:
Lowell’s first idea -- a quota limiting Jews to fifteen per cent of the student body -- was roundly criticized. Lowell tried restricting the number of scholarships given to Jewish students, and made an effort to bring in students from public schools in the West, where there were fewer Jews. Neither strategy worked. Finally, Lowell -- and his counterparts at Yale and Princeton -- realized that if a definition of merit based on academic prowess was leading to the wrong kind of student, the solution was to change the definition of merit. Karabel argues that it was at this moment that the history and nature of the Ivy League took a significant turn.
  #94  
Old 05-17-2015, 02:43 PM
Haberdash is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 980
Right, and if you believe that the quota was actually withdrawn and the immediate decline in Jewish acceptance to Harvard was a coincidence, then I have a holistic bridge to sell you.
  #95  
Old 05-17-2015, 03:03 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,200
What?? I'm not claiming that some form of discrimination did not and may not now exist in Harvard admissions. In the broadest sense of the word, a selection process is by definition discriminatory, whether it discriminates on intelligence, academic achievement, social status, race, or anything else. We can argue whether the particular form of selection as it presently exists at Harvard represents an unfair bias. We cannot argue, as you have been doing, that it's based on a quota system, because it isn't. Unless you have some evidence you haven't shown us yet. The last link you posted directly contradicts your own claim.

This is what bothers me about the complaint of the Asian group. They claim racial discrimination, but in point of fact Harvard is applying a set of long-standing criteria which may disadvantage them as a group, as indeed it may disadvantage many other groups on the basis of many other criteria. The question is, is this actually a problem, and why?

Last edited by wolfpup; 05-17-2015 at 03:07 PM.
  #96  
Old 05-17-2015, 03:12 PM
Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstro View Post
Do you think the average black college graduate is less qualified than an average white high school drop-out?

Do you think AA gives black people that much of a boost?
You do understand that perception does not have to equal reality, right? But perception is the thing that decides, not reality. And the perception may very well be created that because the admission practices required 450 points less on SATs from an African American than from an Asian, then the African American's degree is worth less.
  #97  
Old 05-17-2015, 03:15 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
The problem with advising student applicants not to give away their race in their admissions essays is that it puts the onus on the student to prevent racial discrimination, rather than putting it on the admissions staff to stop their own racial discrimination.
  #98  
Old 05-17-2015, 03:16 PM
monstro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 20,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terr View Post
You do understand that perception does not have to equal reality, right? But perception is the thing that decides, not reality. And the perception may very well be created that because the admission practices required 450 points less on SATs from an African American than from an Asian, then the African American's degree is worth less.
Before there was AA, before everyone and their mother was trying to get into Harvard, black people were discriminated against.

There has never been a time in this country when there has not been racial discrimination against black people.

AA is not the cause of this "perception" you speak of. The perception preceded AA by almost 300 years.
  #99  
Old 05-17-2015, 03:18 PM
Terr is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Houston
Posts: 12,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The problem with advising student applicants not to give away their race in their admissions essays is that it puts the onus on the student to prevent racial discrimination, rather than putting it on the admissions staff to stop their own racial discrimination.
I will post it again then, since you seem to have misunderstood. What I am suggesting is both advising student applicants not to write anything in the essays that suggests what their ethnicity or gender is, AND have a pre-processor for the applications that removes all such mentions.
  #100  
Old 05-17-2015, 03:18 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,674
I think the elephant in the room is this: Many people talk about the virtues of "diversity," but they don't mean just any kind of "diversity," they mean a very specific kind of "diversity."


They're picturing a student body something like this: 50% white, 40% black or Hispanic, and 10% Asian and other races.

What they don't want is something like this: 50% white, 30% Asian, and 20% black, Hispanic and other races. That's not the kind of "diversity" that they want. They would think that that ratio is out of whack.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017