Affirmative action has failed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's way past-time to end race based affirmative action, and in time the Supreme Court will end it. If you're going to have a preference, have it be socio-economic. The latter would obviously benefit a lot of socio-economically disadvantaged blacks and Hispanics. But please explain why the African-American, private school offspring of a Big Law partner or surgeon should get a "URM" preference in college admissions over the kid of an Asian dishwasher or of a white unemployed coal miner. Makes no sense at all.

It makes no sense because this is not what happens. Idiots. All of those groups you listed get preferences in admission especially with schools that take a holistic approach. It's not the URM over others. If you want to end affirmative action - you need to end all hooks and preferences - legacies and athletes in particular. You idiots who rail against affirmative action don't even realize that is where the majority of the advantage lies in college admissions, along with the ability to pay full freight.

You're missing an important point. URMs receive well documented allowances in the evaluation process in the for skin color.....250 points on the SAT if you're black, 180 if you're latino, etc. Legacies and athletes receive a benefit in the admissions process as well but it doesn't come in the form of handicaps, it comes in the form of an extra (albeit heavily weighted) credential in their application. You're assuming athletes and legacies aren't qualified to gain entry on their own merits but that's erroneous. Any elite college will tell you that >90% of applicants are qualified, based on their statistics, for admittance. The challenge of course is standing out with non-quantifiable attributes. Athletics and legacies are great ways to stand out but by no means a guarantee of admittance.

Bullshit especially at places like Tufts and Amherst. I've seen this for myself first-hand. Legacy and athletics impact admissions way more than the points given to URMs on tests- which by the way is just one metric for admission. You don't know anything about their grades, talents, recommendations or ECs.

I think you're half right; Athletes get very large bumps if they're good. As much as being AA? Perhaps, perhaps not, but significant all the same. The legacy bump is much less significant most places unless the parents have thrown a ton of money at the school. I've seen many, many cases of legacy children with stats above the median getting rejected.

I'd be perfectly happy removing all of these preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, if AA students are over-represented in admissions but under-represented in matriculations (which they consistently are, based on your population stat and the last column of the chart), all that means is that the yield rate is lower for AA students than for the pool of admitted students as a whole. Lots of reasons why that could be true -- more offers, different preferences, financial issues.

Elite schools are desperate for even reasonably qualified URMs which is why every year you see the stories about the black kids that were admitted to all 8 ivies. So of course yield is lower because the reasonably qualified URMs get into every college to which they apply.

[Anonymous]

I notice that we talk about getting rid of legacy and athletic preferences, the vehemence disappears. In the NESCAT, over 40 percent of admits are athletes, nearly all white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's way past-time to end race based affirmative action, and in time the Supreme Court will end it. If you're going to have a preference, have it be socio-economic. The latter would obviously benefit a lot of socio-economically disadvantaged blacks and Hispanics. But please explain why the African-American, private school offspring of a Big Law partner or surgeon should get a "URM" preference in college admissions over the kid of an Asian dishwasher or of a white unemployed coal miner. Makes no sense at all.

It makes no sense because this is not what happens. Idiots. All of those groups you listed get preferences in admission especially with schools that take a holistic approach. It's not the URM over others. If you want to end affirmative action - you need to end all hooks and preferences - legacies and athletes in particular. You idiots who rail against affirmative action don't even realize that is where the majority of the advantage lies in college admissions, along with the ability to pay full freight.

You're missing an important point. URMs receive well documented allowances in the evaluation process in the for skin color.....250 points on the SAT if you're black, 180 if you're latino, etc. Legacies and athletes receive a benefit in the admissions process as well but it doesn't come in the form of handicaps, it comes in the form of an extra (albeit heavily weighted) credential in their application. You're assuming athletes and legacies aren't qualified to gain entry on their own merits but that's erroneous. Any elite college will tell you that >90% of applicants are qualified, based on their statistics, for admittance. The challenge of course is standing out with non-quantifiable attributes. Athletics and legacies are great ways to stand out but by no means a guarantee of admittance.

Bullshit especially at places like Tufts and Amherst. I've seen this for myself first-hand. Legacy and athletics impact admissions way more than the points given to URMs on tests- which by the way is just one metric for admission. You don't know anything about their grades, talents, recommendations or ECs.

I think you're half right; Athletes get very large bumps if they're good. As much as being AA? Perhaps, perhaps not, but significant all the same. The legacy bump is much less significant most places unless the parents have thrown a ton of money at the school. I've seen many, many cases of legacy children with stats above the median getting rejected.

I'd be perfectly happy removing all of these preferences.

I'm PP I think its difficult to determine how significant any of these advantages are. My main point is that I believe in terms of sheer numbers there are more students gaining admission due to legacy and athletic admission than there are URMs, simply because more white students apply to these schools. I don't think many URMs apply to these top schools in the first place. Freaking Tufts has 5% black students.

[Anonymous]

I say the same thing every times these threads come up. But, as I have learned from the current environment in this country, people often keep long-held beliefs, even when they fly in the face of facts.

Most of the schools my DC applied to, among the top fifty schools, were less than 8 percent African American. The numbers are miniscule. We were looking for a diverse culture but it was hard to find.

Some numbers. A few years ago, the African American males at UCLA did a video. At that time, there were 43, yes, 43, of them (AA males) that were not athletes in the ENTIRE freshman class.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/ucla-black-enrollment-freshmen_n_4242213.html


I visited several highly selective colleges this past year and it was the same. For example, at most of the top schools, the international student percentages exceed those of African Americans, with most top schools taking over 10 percent international students. Yet I do not hear an outcry about these students.

Often, this blog starts off from this premise, every AA candidate has lower stats than every other race. That is not true. But I believe that this is founded on the underlying societal belief of white superiority.

This past year, I saw most kids, black and white, rejected from Ivy League and other highly selective schools. Most of these kids had tip top stats. I know students that got into Ivy League stats, black and white, that had other hooks, mostly athletes, legacies, money and fame. Almost all of these applied ED. I know very few kids that got into Ivy League regular decision, ED increases your chances of getting in exponentially at some schools but no one on DC Urban moms seems to think that as an unfair advantage.

[Anonymous]

How about free college for everyone and anyone can attend any school to get a diploma. Online classes, you pass all the tests, you get the diploma. Only reason education hasn't changed to this is because it's a business now. It's all about making money.

[Anonymous]

I agree. My DC got into a couple of the most selective schools but could not attend because of money. I suspect that this is the case with many minority students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I notice that we talk about getting rid of legacy and athletic preferences, the vehemence disappears. In the NESCAT, over 40 percent of admits are athletes, nearly all white.

Your ignorance is astounding. Simple math will tell you that your 40% figure is ludicrous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's way past-time to end race based affirmative action, and in time the Supreme Court will end it. If you're going to have a preference, have it be socio-economic. The latter would obviously benefit a lot of socio-economically disadvantaged blacks and Hispanics. But please explain why the African-American, private school offspring of a Big Law partner or surgeon should get a "URM" preference in college admissions over the kid of an Asian dishwasher or of a white unemployed coal miner. Makes no sense at all.

It makes no sense because this is not what happens. Idiots. All of those groups you listed get preferences in admission especially with schools that take a holistic approach. It's not the URM over others. If you want to end affirmative action - you need to end all hooks and preferences - legacies and athletes in particular. You idiots who rail against affirmative action don't even realize that is where the majority of the advantage lies in college admissions, along with the ability to pay full freight.

You're missing an important point. URMs receive well documented allowances in the evaluation process in the for skin color.....250 points on the SAT if you're black, 180 if you're latino, etc. Legacies and athletes receive a benefit in the admissions process as well but it doesn't come in the form of handicaps, it comes in the form of an extra (albeit heavily weighted) credential in their application. You're assuming athletes and legacies aren't qualified to gain entry on their own merits but that's erroneous. Any elite college will tell you that >90% of applicants are qualified, based on their statistics, for admittance. The challenge of course is standing out with non-quantifiable attributes. Athletics and legacies are great ways to stand out but by no means a guarantee of admittance.

Bullshit especially at places like Tufts and Amherst. I've seen this for myself first-hand. Legacy and athletics impact admissions way more than the points given to URMs on tests- which by the way is just one metric for admission. You don't know anything about their grades, talents, recommendations or ECs.

I think you're half right; Athletes get very large bumps if they're good. As much as being AA? Perhaps, perhaps not, but significant all the same. The legacy bump is much less significant most places unless the parents have thrown a ton of money at the school. I've seen many, many cases of legacy children with stats above the median getting rejected.

I'd be perfectly happy removing all of these preferences.

I'm PP I think its difficult to determine how significant any of these advantages are. My main point is that I believe in terms of sheer numbers there are more students gaining admission due to legacy and athletic admission than there are URMs, simply because more white students apply to these schools. I don't think many URMs apply to these top schools in the first place. Freaking Tufts has 5% black students.

And that's with affirmative action but so what? Is there some magic number that you'd like to see?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I say the same thing every times these threads come up. But, as I have learned from the current environment in this country, people often keep long-held beliefs, even when they fly in the face of facts.

Most of the schools my DC applied to, among the top fifty schools, were less than 8 percent African American. The numbers are miniscule. We were looking for a diverse culture but it was hard to find.

Some numbers. A few years ago, the African American males at UCLA did a video. At that time, there were 43, yes, 43, of them (AA males) that were not athletes in the ENTIRE freshman class.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/ucla-black-enrollment-freshmen_n_4242213.html


I visited several highly selective colleges this past year and it was the same. For example, at most of the top schools, the international student percentages exceed those of African Americans, with most top schools taking over 10 percent international students. Yet I do not hear an outcry about these students.

Often, this blog starts off from this premise, every AA candidate has lower stats than every other race. That is not true. But I believe that this is founded on the underlying societal belief of white superiority.

This past year, I saw most kids, black and white, rejected from Ivy League and other highly selective schools. Most of these kids had tip top stats. I know students that got into Ivy League stats, black and white, that had other hooks, mostly athletes, legacies, money and fame. Almost all of these applied ED. I know very few kids that got into Ivy League regular decision, ED increases your chances of getting in exponentially at some schools but no one on DC Urban moms seems to think that as an unfair advantage.

Where did you see this?

[Anonymous]

I think you're half right; Athletes get very large bumps if they're good. As much as being AA? Perhaps, perhaps not, but significant all the same. The legacy bump is much less significant most places unless the parents have thrown a ton of money at the school. I've seen many, many cases of legacy children with stats above the median getting rejected.

I'd be perfectly happy removing all of these preferences.

Where and how have you seen this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's way past-time to end race based affirmative action, and in time the Supreme Court will end it. If you're going to have a preference, have it be socio-economic. The latter would obviously benefit a lot of socio-economically disadvantaged blacks and Hispanics. But please explain why the African-American, private school offspring of a Big Law partner or surgeon should get a "URM" preference in college admissions over the kid of an Asian dishwasher or of a white unemployed coal miner. Makes no sense at all.

It makes no sense because this is not what happens. Idiots. All of those groups you listed get preferences in admission especially with schools that take a holistic approach. It's not the URM over others. If you want to end affirmative action - you need to end all hooks and preferences - legacies and athletes in particular. You idiots who rail against affirmative action don't even realize that is where the majority of the advantage lies in college admissions, along with the ability to pay full freight.

You're missing an important point. URMs receive well documented allowances in the evaluation process in the for skin color.....250 points on the SAT if you're black, 180 if you're latino, etc. Legacies and athletes receive a benefit in the admissions process as well but it doesn't come in the form of handicaps, it comes in the form of an extra (albeit heavily weighted) credential in their application. You're assuming athletes and legacies aren't qualified to gain entry on their own merits but that's erroneous. Any elite college will tell you that >90% of applicants are qualified, based on their statistics, for admittance. The challenge of course is standing out with non-quantifiable attributes. Athletics and legacies are great ways to stand out but by no means a guarantee of admittance.

Bullshit especially at places like Tufts and Amherst. I've seen this for myself first-hand. Legacy and athletics impact admissions way more than the points given to URMs on tests- which by the way is just one metric for admission. You don't know anything about their grades, talents, recommendations or ECs.

I think you're half right; Athletes get very large bumps if they're good. As much as being AA? Perhaps, perhaps not, but significant all the same. The legacy bump is much less significant most places unless the parents have thrown a ton of money at the school. I've seen many, many cases of legacy children with stats above the median getting rejected.

I'd be perfectly happy removing all of these preferences.

I'm PP I think its difficult to determine how significant any of these advantages are. My main point is that I believe in terms of sheer numbers there are more students gaining admission due to legacy and athletic admission than there are URMs, simply because more white students apply to these schools. I don't think many URMs apply to these top schools in the first place. Freaking Tufts has 5% black students.

And that's with affirmative action but so what? Is there some magic number that you'd like to see?

My point in bringing up the 5% is that people complain about black students taking spots, but they are basically non-existent in many of these spaces.

If you are a parent who has sent your kid to a diverse school for most of their lives, these numbers are disappointing as another PP noted. White students at our high school want diversity in their college experience and are disappointed when they go on college visits.

It's not about percentages, it's about wanting diversity of thought and experiences - not just AA students, but students of all types. So the point I think people miss is that the goal is to try and build diverse classes, that is stated clearly in the materials for all of the top schools we are talking about. All of you who are so up in arms about affirmative action should actually read the materials from these colleges, they are committed to building diverse classes - that goal is not going away. And you are paying money to those colleges to help them fulfill that goal.

If affirmative action isn't working then how do you get to a diverse class? Models have been run to see what happens if its based on socio-economics and that fails. Diversity is what students want and that is what the colleges want, the question is how to get there without doing harm to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think you're half right; Athletes get very large bumps if they're good. As much as being AA? Perhaps, perhaps not, but significant all the same. The legacy bump is much less significant most places unless the parents have thrown a ton of money at the school. I've seen many, many cases of legacy children with stats above the median getting rejected.

I'd be perfectly happy removing all of these preferences.

Where and how have you seen this?

DP but I've seen this anecdotally with a number of friends. One couple was a HYP double legacy and their very qualified child was deferred and then denied admissions. Legacy admissions is by no means a slam dunk even for high stat kids.

[Anonymous]

Again NESAC does have huge amount of athletic recruits.

http://www.gazettenet.com/Amherst-college-assesses-athletics-in-report-7871942

[Anonymous]

Here is more.
http://www.uvm.edu/~rgriffin/BowenLevin.pdf