Your answer is a quota system.
in your case the qualification is a team quality of race.
It’s based on the same blind civil servant test concept. The best qualified get the job. You want the job, do well in school. Unlike your quota system it’s color blind.
You’re just making excuses to make yourself feel good about racial discrimination.
A large part of this also has to do with the very American idea of what an elite college “should” be - not just a building with the best possible scholars, but a sort of self-contained mini community of mutual growth, creativity, yada yada. Building a campus with a wide variety of perspectives, talents, and whatnot is all an effort to create a better experience (that they can then market to future customers, if you want to be cynical about it). The question is whether diversity of race is important enough to accept one student and deny another.
And it’s not just race, either - being from an underrepresented state is a big booster, as is being the first in one’s family to attend college or, conversely, being a legacy. All of these are accidents of birth, but they help because admissions officers believe they create a better environment for everybody else. (Well . . . except legacy. That’s pretty much just about alumni donations).
Qualification includes diversity of experience. One type of diversity of experience is being a minority. There are others–I mean, assuming a student’s test scores and grades qualify them, I expect universities to also like people who have had a tremendous variety of experiences.
And, as I’ve said above, I’d make sure to take some Very High Scoring Kids. Those kids do have a unique perspective, because they are very talented in exactly the skills the test is looking for–they are efficient and precise and nuanced and well-read. But 1200 freshman all with 2300+ would be a terrible class, and the next year no one would want to go to that school. Because they’d all be the same kid, and what fun is that?
I have a former student at an Ivy right now. He made a 2250 and passed 18-19 AP exams and had a 3.8, so it wasn’t just the fact that he’s Hispanic, first generation American, first generation college student that got him here (and he was WAITLISTED). What’s interesting, though, is that at this Ivy, his main reaction is that he feels outclassed. Very few of those kids have better test scores than he does–tests just don’t go that much higher–but he does feel like he’s surrounded by people who are better educated than he, because they’ve done so many things he hasn’t (and he brings some unique stuff to the table, too, but he undervalues that). If they just focused on test scores, it wouldn’t be like that.
Except doing well in school is imperfectly measured, at best, by the test. It’s a little better than the “civil service” tests in Imperial China, where your ability to write poetry was used to determine if got the job of supervising the drainage ditches, but not much.
For example, I promise you that if you took the old SAT ( and probably the new one) and added 25% to the time limit for all kids, you’d get a meaningfully different arrangement of scores. Quite a few of the high scorers would stay in the same range, but many lower scoring kids would move up past them. If you took away the calculator, the same thing would happen–meaningful reordering. Same thing if you gave them access to a dictionary, or cut time by another 25%. Change these artificial limits, and some kids would bloom and others would falter. So which kid really “deserves” to go to a selective school?
I’m not saying the tests are useless. They certainly measure something, and that something is related to college success. But it’s an uneasy, imperfect relationship–especially at the higher end-- and it’s foolish to think that somehow that’s an objective way to find the kids who are the most qualified.
You’re just making yourself feel better about institutionalized racism and classism.
“Diversity of experience” is a nonsense phrase created for the singular purpose of discrimination.
Entry by SAT score is colorblind. every single student could be black, Hispanic, Native American or any other group.
Your process is specifically designed to bring in students based on the color of their skin.
What exactly is the lower standard of achievement? What is the measurable difference in outcome (college success, say) between students who score 1750 and ones who score 2200? Is this analogous to scoring 70% free throws versus 80%, or 79.999999999999% vs 80.0%?
The SAT scores are colorblind if and only if the “thing” that the SAT measures is itself colorblind, and the tests are measuring it in a colorblind fashion. What do you think the test actually measures? How do you define “Scholastic Aptitude”?
How so? Schools select students for diversity of location, background, coursework, extracurricular experience–is that all nonsense invented as a blind? Why does it seem plausible that schools would authentically want all those types of diversity, but when they say they want diversity of racial/ethnic background, then it’s a lie?
Well, you’re a lot more likely to be a member of the upper middle class and/or be from a family that put you in prep classes, and that makes you much more likely to be White or Asian. And if that higher score still very authentically predicted who would perform the best in college and contribute the most to campus life, then maybe you could make an argument that the cause doesn’t matter, just taking the best suited kids. But it doesn’t. It often represents access to informed prep courses, and even when it doesn’t, it represents a pretty narrow band of skills.
And in what away does the child of poor Asian immigrants have better opportunity than blacks or Hispanics born in this country? In what way do they have preparation advantages (other than by virtue of, you know, actually preparing).
In what way do the children of Asian immigrants have an advantage over whites born in this country?
I’m sure its not intentional but no one seemed to really mind the uselessness of testing until Asian minorities started to become over-represented among high test scorers. Nobody seemed to want to “de-emphasize” the role of test scores when white kids were getting all the high test scores.
Of course they are. They are not the ONLY measurement of qualitative differences but before we move to a system where admissions officers make decisions based on inarticulable subjective differences, I think you need to make an argument that this would be an improvement.
Because running a mile at high altitudes in the noonday sun is not the same thing as running a mile on the downslope of Bel Air.
A lot of people think that good schools are the gateway to economic and social mobility. If you want to move away from a system that rewards merit and ability towards a system that rewards wealth and membership in the dominant race/culture in society, I think you need a pretty good argument that society is better off if we admit underqualified white males over better qualified Asian females.
Who said anything about getting rid of those things? But we are at the point where subjective criteria are starting to crowd out the objective criteria. We are moving the scales towards a more and more subjective method.
That doesn’t sound like gaming. That sounds like differences in preparation.
This is in fact the EXACT argument that mayor DeBlasio was making in NYC regarding admission to the NYC science high schools. DeBlasio tried to portray test prep as an advantage of wealth. He argued that the test was set up so that the magnet high schools became bastions of privilege. Then people pointe out that most of the school was on free or reduced lunch. The rich kids in NYC don’t attend the science high schools, rich parents don’t want their kids to rub shoulders with the children of dry cleaners and mailmen, they send their kids to places like Trinity.
When Berkeley went race blind the biggest drop in admissions was among white students. The Berkeley admission staff probably didn’t realize that they were favoring white students as much as they were.
Considering the gatekeeperish role that colleges play in social and economic mobility, people are interested in their objectivity.
I don’t know for sure, but there are multiple possibilities – teachers might subconsciously treat black children differently; black children might receive different messages on role models and peer influence from media and their local community; they might experience day-to-day bigotry in qualitatively and quantitatively different ways; there might be differences in parenting; or a host of other possibilities.
It’s possible that it’s entirely coincidental that the two groups treated by far the most abominably in American history – black people and native American people – have the lowest average outcomes in so many statistical measures, whether educational, financial, criminal, or other. But it’s also possible that this abominable treatment, and remnants of this oppression and brutality that remain in modern society, culture, and even law, are partially or wholly responsible for these differing outcomes.
I lean towards the latter possibility, though I withhold certainty.
I don’t think black kids are getting into MIT with significantly lower test scores. MIT and Cal Tech don’t really seem to give much of a shit about diversity.
The problem that has existed for many many generations is that we have shitty elementary, middle and high school systems for the poor and we keep trying to fix it at the back end in college admissions. In what way are Hispanic immigrants uniquely burdened by poverty in ways that immigrants from other parts of the world are not?
Texas 10% method works pretty well. It also happens to help poor white kids so there is that.
I think most Asians are on board with this depending on how high those quotas are.
The bigger impact of race conscious admissions for Asians is the advantage that white students have over Asian students because the test sores there are smaller but significant and persistent but the admissions preference for whites more than neutralizes that test score difference.
In the race blind California system, the total population of black students has largely recovered from Prop 209 but the center of gravity has moved away from the top end UCLA and Berkeley towards more middling Irvine and Davis. A side effect of this shift in center of gravity is that blacks in the UC system have improved graduation rates.
Not at schools in the UC system. The blacks at UC Irvine scored just as well as the whites at UC Irvine. The whites at UCLA scored just as well as the Asians at UCLA.
You’re not implying that a 450 point difference on the SATs translates into a 0.0000000001% difference in ability, are you?
So the test makers are setting up a system to help out the Asian kids?
I think this debate has drifted. The article in the OP is about ASIAN students that feel that they have to outperform WHITE students to get the same opportunities. Is THAT fair? Why do we need more white students? How many Asians is too many?
Asians don’t really feel they are put in the same basket as white kids. I think most Asians would be OK with affirmative action for blacks if they had the same opportunities as whites.
As I have said in multiple threads on this general topic. I think there are good and defensible reasons why we should have some sort of affirmative action for blacks and American Indians. But why is there so much for Hispanics? In what way have they suffered or been oppressed that Asians have not?
I also take issue with the extent of the affirmative action for black students. When average black SAT scores are more than a standard deviation below the schoolwide average, I think you are going too far.
At some point I think you are pushing a rope in an attempt to get immediate results.
I don’t know, but there are several possibilities (that could be similar to the others mentioned) – teachers may treat them differently, there may be different media influences and role models, day-to-day experiences may be different, parenting may be different, etc.
But it is getting immediate results – more black students. Affirmative action is meant to get immediate results, even if it’s not a perfect balance, due to past and present discrimination and unequal treatment.
I’m not implying any such thing; I’m outright stating that I don’t know how much difference in ability is represented by any particular point spread, and without some concrete evidence as to what a 450-point spread really translates to in the real world, I’m not comfortable asserting that a kid who scores 1750 (which is still in the upper quartile) is necessarily much less able than one who scores much higher. Do you have any citations for differences in the average level of achievement by SAT score for scores well above average? (Obviously there is a difference between average in the the top quartile and the bottom quartile, but within that top quartile, how much difference does an extra point, or 50 points, or 450 points, make?)
No, and in fact I think the test makers are going to great lengths to try to be colorblind (and SES-blind, and gender-blind, and otherwise have an equal playing field). The question is to what extent they are successful? To what extent are they measuring innate ability, and to what extent are they merely measuring the effects of teachers and schools and environments that are not colorblind?
How much do you know about the history of Hispanics in America?
Most Asian immigration to the United States has occurred since 1965, and most Asians are concentrated in urban areas. (There are certainly exceptions, but these are general trends.) While Hispanic/Latino immigration has surged since the 1960s, a substantial percentage of that has been illegal, and perceptions of “those brown people” remain far more prevalent, particularly in rural areas. There is also quite a bit of overlap between Hispanic and Native American communities, especially in the Southwest; around 15% of all American Indians are also Hispanic, e.g.
Damuri Ajashi, AA not only serves to correct for past discrimination, but also current discrimination. Hispanics are victims of workplace and educational discrimination.
Hispanics also suffered from past discrimination.
By way of the fact that they are voluntary immigrants to this country who, often by virtue of their ethnicity and/or skin color, society deems worthy of more respect, of whom society has higher expectations, and who typically come with cultural norms that typically hold education in high esteem. This is largely true of lots of immigrant groups including non-Asian groups like Cubans and Nigerians.
They don’t in the vast majority of circumstances. They typically only do better in testing because of selection bias and the culture that most voluntary, legal immigrants come here with.
The above is complete bullshit. First, the vast majority of people seeking to “de-emphasize” testing have no issues with Asians being over-representing at elite colleges. Second, the validity of testing has been an issue since it’s inception. It was largely embraced by academia to erase the biases that prevented Jews from getting into good schools, but even then, people questioned the validity. This is why IQ tests are almost never given in schools anymore. Your supposition is just plainly false.
Even if you limit the scope to the most recent forms of standardized testing that occur in schools, almost no one is primarily motivated by anti-Asian sentiment. It creeps in of course because there is a lot of racism in this country, but arguing it’s an animating force let alone the rationale for questioning testing is completely false, and not at all related to the historical facts.
Actually, they are not. Once again, even college board does not claim they are extremely predictive of future college success. This backs a number of studies which also back this claim.
Have you ever read about the history of higher education in this country? This has ALWAYS been the system. The main change is that vague, dog-whistle subjective differences were often used in the past as a means of exclusion, and now, more defensible subjective differences are typically used as a means of inclusion. Broadly, solely using “objective” criteria has NEVER been the norm.
You misunderstood the question. IF you believe “objective” criteria are all that matter, why even bother considering anything else?
Who is making that argument? Even if you are going to argue that such a thing is a byproduct of holistic admissions, I am not particularly moved by this. Some Asians just face the same problem kids in any homogeneous, over-represented group face. It’s harder to get into an elite school if you are merely a great student who happens to live in Fairfax, Palo Alto, or Manhattan too. It sucks, but if your solution is to overvalue something that Asians happen to be good at, I don’t think that makes things more equitable.
There is no such thing as objectivity in admissions. Besides, plenty of organizations and companies play similar roles, and they are not subject to the same scrutiny generally speaking.