College Acceptance/Matriculation Stats: NCS/STA, Holton/Landon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The last question is irrelevant to this post. What is very relevant is that you are the paranoid woman with both auditory and visual hallucinations who for lack of argument seeks refuge by accusing others of calling your a racist (in your own unadulterated words). One wonders how much about the Ivy League or the Seven Sisters you really know? Did you even attend university?

You can go now. The kindergarten class is down the hall.

[Anonymous]

What ever happened to the original topic of this post... college stats at STA, NCS, HAS, Landon? Somewhere we got off course. We should have a separate forum about the impact of affirmative action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The last question is irrelevant to this post. What is very relevant is that you are the paranoid woman with both auditory and visual hallucinations who for lack of argument seeks refuge by accusing others of calling your a racist (in your own unadulterated words). One wonders how much about the Ivy League or the Seven Sisters you really know? Did you even attend university?

It looks like absolutely everybody here supports affirmative action -- but only for AA kids today, and not for the George Bushes of the past. Including Vanilla mom, who holds no grudges at all.

But honestly, posts like the ones above probably detract from that support. This poster comes off as defensive. Or maybe this poster feels that the past justifies an absolute entitlement to preferences -- to the point where nobody is allowed to even mention that the preferences exist.

I'm interested -- can we mention that affirmative action works against white kids today? Or is all discussion of the topic verboten?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last question is irrelevant to this post. What is very relevant is that you are the paranoid woman with both auditory and visual hallucinations who for lack of argument seeks refuge by accusing others of calling your a racist (in your own unadulterated words). One wonders how much about the Ivy League or the Seven Sisters you really know? Did you even attend university?

It looks like absolutely everybody here supports affirmative action -- but only for AA kids today, and not for the George Bushes of the past. Including Vanilla mom, who holds no grudges at all.

But honestly, posts like the ones above probably detract from that support. This poster comes off as defensive. Or maybe this poster feels that the past justifies an absolute entitlement to preferences -- to the point where nobody is allowed to even mention that the preferences exist.

I'm interested -- can we mention that affirmative action works against white kids today? Or is all discussion of the topic verboten?

You could, but it wouldn't be an accurate statement.

[Anonymous]

To vanilla mom:

Great, I am happy for you and your daughter.

I cannot get into the head of the poster you are referring to and answer the question of another poster struggling to come to grips with the longstanding practice of preferential treatment and affirmative action by Ivy league instituions. She prefers to state erroneously and unfairly that my post refers to her as a racist. It's unclear from what hat, or post, she pulled that allegation from.

My AA niece, at a prestigious NY prep school, was also tops in her class (academic perspective). She, like your daughter did not get into Ivy League. Her parents like you went to Ivy League institutions. She, like your daughter, was fortunate to attend another fine institution. Since she is only a freshman I have no longterm follow-up. The moral to the story is getting admitted to Ivy League is not guaranteed from prestigious private schools anymore whether you are AA, Asian or White. There are so many other demographic variables (e.g., socioeconomic status, region of country, religion, unique abilities, accomplishments, ability, aptitude, pedigree, leadership potential) in addition to confidence intervals around grade point averages and SAT scores. There are too few seats for the huge demand (both here and abroad). In the old days, it seems it was much simpler or easier to get into Ivy, particularly if you were the beneficiaries of affirmative action and preferential treatment.

There literally was a time when attending an elite private school was all but a shoo-in for admittance to the Ivies. Not any more. Attending an elite private school is not a guarantee to Ivy admission these days. When our children don't get in it is natural to think that someone else (e.g., white from Montana, American Indian, All-American athlete, George W. Bush, budding novelist, AA raising younger siblings from the inner city) took their seat. No imposter took their seat only another American that got the nod. Witness the animus in the posts of mothers who are watching as their children don't get into the Ivy League --- as if this is the measure of their child's worth or success in life.

Your daughter's story simply proves the point!

[Anonymous]

I don't think we will get a direct answer to the question about whether it's OK to talk about affirmative action today (as opposed to the kind that existed 50 years ago, which seems fine to talk about).

But there seems to be enough evidence on this thread to draw your own conclusions. If you mention affirmative action today, the following will happen:

- A number of people will jump on you.
- Somebody will make mean-spirited jokes at your expense, offering your loser kid a job.
- Somebody different will question whether you went to college, and accuse you of having hallucinations.
- Somebody will point out, correctly, that there is a broader point that lots of highly qualified kids don't get in, whether they are AA or any other race. Although this is quite clearly true, and a well-reasoned point, it doesn't get at the question of different admissions odds for various races and whether we're allowed to mention these odds.

So unless you're ready to be criticized by the quite sane and the apparently insane, it's probably safer not to stray onto the topic of the different admissions odds that exist today.

[Anonymous]

Please tell us about the differences between affirmative action yesterday and today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm interested -- can we mention that affirmative action works against white kids today? Or is all discussion of the topic verboten?

You could, but it wouldn't be an accurate statement.

Could you explain why? Isn't this the exact point of affirmative action (and one that I'm OK with)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please tell us about the differences between affirmative action yesterday and today?

We've all already agreed that they favored different groups -- white boys versus minorities. This was a red herring to begin with, and now we've moved on.

The question is, can mention that it exists today without getting pounced on with snarky remarks? Or is it wrong to mention it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please tell us about the differences between affirmative action yesterday and today?

The difference seems to be, apparently, that you can mention that affirmative action benefited rich white boys in the past. But you can't say that it benefits minorities today.

[Anonymous]

I presume you are the same poster accusing others of calling you racist. You seem fixated on racial odds and statistics regarding admission to Ivy university. Since you find this so important:

Today, how would you define African American, White, Asian, Hispanic, Latino, American Indian, Pacific Islander, Asian Indian etc (and mixed)? Will this be self report on application? What about those who do not report?


Will genetic contribution from different races to a child be assigned a weight? Scenario: Parents are mixed from any of the above combinations? What would you call their child? If you are from a metropolitan area (e.g., New York, San Francisco, Washington, D.C.) you may undertand my question. If a White is married to an Asian or an AA to white how would you racially classify their children applying to Ivy? Genotype, phenotype, eyesight, Passport?

Eighty - 90 years ago, even you would be capable of determining the racial statistical odds of getting into Ivy institutions?

Provide us your insights regarding affirmative action today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What ever happened to the original topic of this post... college stats at STA, NCS, HAS, Landon? Somewhere we got off course. We should have a separate forum about the impact of affirmative action.

I agree, let's move on. The posts here about affirmative action speak for themselves -- mention it at your own risk and only if you don't care about digressions into history and/or getting accused of having hearing problems and loser kids.

I think a separate thread on colleges would be helpful.

[Anonymous]

I do believe affirmative action still benefits rich white boys to this day!

[Anonymous]

I'm not Vanilla Mom or the Hearing Impaired poster. But I'm also really frustrated with all these digressions and red herrings. Doing genetic tests on college applicants? Give me a break.

Can you just answer the question? It's a question of verifiable statistical odds. Can we talk about them without getting slammed on DCUM, or not?

For the other poster (or maybe the same one). No, affirmative action doesn't benefit rich white boys today. But they effectively get the same thing through (a) legacy preferences, (b) wealthy donor preferences, and (c) participating in recruited sports like equestrian sports, fencing and crew that require lots of money. You can read Goldin's book The Price of Admissions for more on this. And I'd argue that affirmative action is good and should continue not just because of historical affirmative action for white boys, but because it offsets these other types of preferences today.

So to that extent, Vanilla Mom was spot-on when she mentioned recruited athletes in the same breath.

But the question remains, can we talk about ALL these preferences today? Or just preferences for recruited athletes and not affirmative action, without getting slammed?

[Anonymous]

What is the difference between preferential treatment for legacies, the wealthy, preppies and affirmative action for minorities? Preferential treatment is preferential treatment. The affirmative action you are referring to in 2009 is preferential treatment (there is no legal requirement for this). Let's call a spade a spade. Rich White boys still benefit from affirmative action even today!