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.
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”.
Except for the fact that there isn’t, they aren’t, and they didn’t, respectively. Otherwise, perfectly correct.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
