SCOTUS to hear another Affirmative Action Case.

[Anonymous]

Supposedly scotus will issue a ruling on Fisher v. Texas very soon.

And now has decided to hear ANOTHER Affirmative Action Case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/us/justices-take-new-case-on-affirmative-action.html?ref=us&_r=0

Interesting times. Next few admissions cycles may (or may not) be wildly different.

[Anonymous]

Hopefully at some point the affirmative action that boys enjoy over girls at most colleges will be considered by our courts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully at some point the affirmative action that boys enjoy over girls at most colleges will be considered by our courts.

agreed. especially white girls. Them and asians of both genders get fucked in the process at t25 schools.

I think the only way you'll ever mitigate this is by having a version of the UCAS system here like the do in the UK or how AAMC centralizes med school applications.

You would have a central system where everyone sends their info, but all schools can see is a proprietary identification number, essays, recs, test scores, gpa/grades but no name, race, or gender on any piece of information. Schools would have to instruct recommend-ers to refrain from identifying the student by name, race, or gender as well so Adcoms never know.

For example the teacher writing the recommendation would have to refer to the student as "the student, the individual, the person...." i.e. neutral pronouns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully at some point the affirmative action that boys enjoy over girls at most colleges will be considered by our courts.

agreed. especially white girls. Them and asians of both genders get fucked in the process at t25 schools.

I think the only way you'll ever mitigate this is by having a version of the UCAS system here like the do in the UK or how AAMC centralizes med school applications.

You would have a central system where everyone sends their info, but all schools can see is a proprietary identification number, essays, recs, test scores, gpa/grades but no name, race, or gender on any piece of information. Schools would have to instruct recommend-ers to refrain from identifying the student by name, race, or gender as well so Adcoms never know.

For example the teacher writing the recommendation would have to refer to the student as "the student, the individual, the person...." i.e. neutral pronouns.

This post is idiotic. The UK does not have the same racial history that exists in the United States. They did their dirty work through colonization. The entire idea of college is to have a diverse class. Diversity means everything from race, gender, interests, region, type of high school, etc. Do you complain this much when UVA excludes so many people from NoVa?

[Anonymous]

Why is no AA a bad thing? If poor, foreign minorities who don't speak English can come to the US and do well or their children do well academically to get ahead, why can't other groups do the same?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully at some point the affirmative action that boys enjoy over girls at most colleges will be considered by our courts.

agreed. especially white girls. Them and asians of both genders get fucked in the process at t25 schools.

I think the only way you'll ever mitigate this is by having a version of the UCAS system here like the do in the UK or how AAMC centralizes med school applications.

You would have a central system where everyone sends their info, but all schools can see is a proprietary identification number, essays, recs, test scores, gpa/grades but no name, race, or gender on any piece of information. Schools would have to instruct recommend-ers to refrain from identifying the student by name, race, or gender as well so Adcoms never know.

For example the teacher writing the recommendation would have to refer to the student as "the student, the individual, the person...." i.e. neutral pronouns.

This post is idiotic. The UK does not have the same racial history that exists in the United States. They did their dirty work through colonization. The entire idea of college is to have a diverse class. Diversity means everything from race, gender, interests, region, type of high school, etc. Do you complain this much when UVA excludes so many people from NoVa?

UVA should be color-blind like cal and ucla, yes.

The only "AA" i am somewhat ok with is AA based on class/income.

However that is NOT what is used today. Plenty of studies have shown at HYP that non-athlete URM's many times come from upper-middle class/wealthy backgrounds. As many recent studies have shown, poor whites really get the short end of the stick, along with white girls of all classes and asians of all genders and classes in relation to their scores/gpa vs. the general distribution in a particular income class at HYP or another top school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is no AA a bad thing? If poor, foreign minorities who don't speak English can come to the US and do well or their children do well academically to get ahead, why can't other groups do the same?

I think you are oversimplifying the issue and it is just not an AA issue. Do you think that college classes should reflect the diversity that the rest of the population reflects? Or do you think that only certain people from certain schools should go to top schools? Who decides who deserves an education.

Asked another way. Race aside.....do you think the 3.5 student from a poorer school who had to work to help the family is more or less "qualified" than a 3.5 from a richer school district? What if you have two 3.5 students...one from in state and one from out of state...applying to a state school. Who is more "qualified"?

My point is that people on BOTH sides of the issue oversimplify it to make their point.

It is interesting that people want to go to a more "formulaic" approach to admissions. Becuase in the private school forum, people often state their hope that the admission officer takes the individual attributes of the student into account. So...maybe it is just the timing and age of the student.

Plus, what folks do not realize is that the admission criteria can still be re-written to achieve diversity. The scope of the review is narrow and SCOTUS will not mandate that the schools use test scores and grades only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is no AA a bad thing? If poor, foreign minorities who don't speak English can come to the US and do well or their children do well academically to get ahead, why can't other groups do the same?

I think you are oversimplifying the issue and it is just not an AA issue. Do you think that college classes should reflect the diversity that the rest of the population reflects? Or do you think that only certain people from certain schools should go to top schools? Who decides who deserves an education.

Asked another way. Race aside.....do you think the 3.5 student from a poorer school who had to work to help the family is more or less "qualified" than a 3.5 from a richer school district? What if you have two 3.5 students...one from in state and one from out of state...applying to a state school. Who is more "qualified"?

My point is that people on BOTH sides of the issue oversimplify it to make their point.

It is interesting that people want to go to a more "formulaic" approach to admissions. Becuase in the private school forum, people often state their hope that the admission officer takes the individual attributes of the student into account. So...maybe it is just the timing and age of the student.

Plus, what folks do not realize is that the admission criteria can still be re-written to achieve diversity. The scope of the review is narrow and SCOTUS will not mandate that the schools use test scores and grades only.

but ivies already pretty much use formulaic assessments such as AI. No one on this thread has said anything about income/class. But income/class is NOT what is being used as much as it should be right now as race is being used as a inaccurate and lazy proxy for it.

As for your second part about oos/instate, because of tuition impact of the differing tracks (and even some state laws in some states stipulate what mix of oos/instate is allowed) there are explicit quotas set that are more transparent to the applying public.

UC's have moved to more 'holisitic' reading of apps after prop 209, but the basics of prop 209 have worked in making the UC's more transparent in who gets in.

Personally, if Ivies and other private top 25's want to have 'unwritten quotas' like they do now, I'm ok with it...AS LONG AS THEY ARE TRANSPARENT.

In their common data sets every year, along with the demographic data of the student body, and the overall class percentiles for scores and gpa, schools should be forced to release the breakdown of apps received by race, gender, and household income.

Also medians and percentile ranges of ACCEPTED and ATTENDING students by race, gender, and family income should be released.

Schools love touting diversity in their class, but refuse to release the same granularity in demographics about their applicant, accepted, and attending pools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is no AA a bad thing? If poor, foreign minorities who don't speak English can come to the US and do well or their children do well academically to get ahead, why can't other groups do the same?

I think you are oversimplifying the issue and it is just not an AA issue. Do you think that college classes should reflect the diversity that the rest of the population reflects? Or do you think that only certain people from certain schools should go to top schools? Who decides who deserves an education.

Asked another way. Race aside.....do you think the 3.5 student from a poorer school who had to work to help the family is more or less "qualified" than a 3.5 from a richer school district? What if you have two 3.5 students...one from in state and one from out of state...applying to a state school. Who is more "qualified"?

My point is that people on BOTH sides of the issue oversimplify it to make their point.

It is interesting that people want to go to a more "formulaic" approach to admissions. Becuase in the private school forum, people often state their hope that the admission officer takes the individual attributes of the student into account. So...maybe it is just the timing and age of the student.

Plus, what folks do not realize is that the admission criteria can still be re-written to achieve diversity. The scope of the review is narrow and SCOTUS will not mandate that the schools use test scores and grades only.

but ivies already pretty much use formulaic assessments such as AI. No one on this thread has said anything about income/class. But income/class is NOT what is being used as much as it should be right now as race is being used as a inaccurate and lazy proxy for it.

As for your second part about oos/instate, because of tuition impact of the differing tracks (and even some state laws in some states stipulate what mix of oos/instate is allowed) there are explicit quotas set that are more transparent to the applying public.

UC's have moved to more 'holisitic' reading of apps after prop 209, but the basics of prop 209 have worked in making the UC's more transparent in who gets in.

Personally, if Ivies and other private top 25's want to have 'unwritten quotas' like they do now, I'm ok with it...AS LONG AS THEY ARE TRANSPARENT.

In their common data sets every year, along with the demographic data of the student body, and the overall class percentiles for scores and gpa, schools should be forced to release the breakdown of apps received by race, gender, and household income.

Also medians and percentile ranges of ACCEPTED and ATTENDING students by race, gender, and family income should be released.

Schools love touting diversity in their class, but refuse to release the same granularity in demographics about their applicant, accepted, and attending pools.

PP here. Thanks for the response. Your income/class argument is somewhat compelling. But even if the SCOTUS comes out the way you think it should come out, it would not impact the Ivies or any of the top 25 privates. I mean the stale law in Michigan impacted U of M, but they have already figured out how to comply with the state law AND have a diverse admission class.

[Anonymous]

None of these cases will affect private schools.

I have a DD in 11th grade who is at the beggining of the process and I absolutely want schools to use "affirmative actIOn" for boys. I can't imagine a more unhealthy social dynamic than one where the girls far outnumber the boys and therefore the boys can treat the girls badly because they will still be in demand. This is an example of how affirmative action helps everyone. I feel the same way about other forms of affirmative action. I do not want my daughter going to a monolithic school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of these cases will affect private schools.

I have a DD in 11th grade who is at the beggining of the process and I absolutely want schools to use "affirmative actIOn" for boys. I can't imagine a more unhealthy social dynamic than one where the girls far outnumber the boys and therefore the boys can treat the girls badly because they will still be in demand. This is an example of how affirmative action helps everyone. I feel the same way about other forms of affirmative action. I do not want my daughter going to a monolithic school.

considering that SCOTUS is picking up another AA case just after fisher v. texas, the atmosphere seems ripe for a broader AA ruling...i.e. affecting private schools if they get federal dollars/funding...which they get hundreds of millions in the form of research and grant money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of these cases will affect private schools.

I have a DD in 11th grade who is at the beggining of the process and I absolutely want schools to use "affirmative actIOn" for boys. I can't imagine a more unhealthy social dynamic than one where the girls far outnumber the boys and therefore the boys can treat the girls badly because they will still be in demand. This is an example of how affirmative action helps everyone. I feel the same way about other forms of affirmative action. I do not want my daughter going to a monolithic school.

considering that SCOTUS is picking up another AA case just after fisher v. texas, the atmosphere seems ripe for a broader AA ruling...i.e. affecting private schools if they get federal dollars/funding...which they get hundreds of millions in the form of research and grant money.

The new case the Supreme Court is hearing is a ridiculous one where the Sixth Circuit held that a state was not allowed to ban affirmative action via a referendum. (I.e., that it is unconstitutional for a state to have a law requiring it to treat people of all races equally.) It is such a bizarre result that the court's taking it doesn't say very much about where it is going in Fisher or on AA more generally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of these cases will affect private schools.

I have a DD in 11th grade who is at the beggining of the process and I absolutely want schools to use "affirmative actIOn" for boys. I can't imagine a more unhealthy social dynamic than one where the girls far outnumber the boys and therefore the boys can treat the girls badly because they will still be in demand. This is an example of how affirmative action helps everyone. I feel the same way about other forms of affirmative action. I do not want my daughter going to a monolithic school.

Come back and tell us how you feel when your daughter with better grades and test scores is rejected while a slacker boy is admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


but ivies already pretty much use formulaic assessments such as AI. No one on this thread has said anything about income/class. But income/class is NOT what is being used as much as it should be right now as race is being used as a inaccurate and lazy proxy for it.

As for your second part about oos/instate, because of tuition impact of the differing tracks (and even some state laws in some states stipulate what mix of oos/instate is allowed) there are explicit quotas set that are more transparent to the applying public.

UC's have moved to more 'holisitic' reading of apps after prop 209, but the basics of prop 209 have worked in making the UC's more transparent in who gets in.

Personally, if Ivies and other private top 25's want to have 'unwritten quotas' like they do now, I'm ok with it...AS LONG AS THEY ARE TRANSPARENT.

In their common data sets every year, along with the demographic data of the student body, and the overall class percentiles for scores and gpa, schools should be forced to release the breakdown of apps received by race, gender, and household income.

Also medians and percentile ranges of ACCEPTED and ATTENDING students by race, gender, and family income should be released.

Schools love touting diversity in their class, but refuse to release the same granularity in demographics about their applicant, accepted, and attending pools.

I think we agree that diversity based on income/class is a good thing. I also like your idea of transparency.

I do wonder, however, if publishing SATs and GPAs for students for race/gender/income will make things worse, not better. No school wants to reveal a 200-300 gap between one subgroup of students and another subgroup of students, if nothing else because of the questions it raises about admissions practices. So to close this gap, because income and SATs/GPAs are highly correlated, schools are going to accept more high-SES minorities, not more low-SES minorities. I guess if you released family income by subgroup this would help a bit, but I'm not sure it solves the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


but ivies already pretty much use formulaic assessments such as AI. No one on this thread has said anything about income/class. But income/class is NOT what is being used as much as it should be right now as race is being used as a inaccurate and lazy proxy for it.

As for your second part about oos/instate, because of tuition impact of the differing tracks (and even some state laws in some states stipulate what mix of oos/instate is allowed) there are explicit quotas set that are more transparent to the applying public.

UC's have moved to more 'holisitic' reading of apps after prop 209, but the basics of prop 209 have worked in making the UC's more transparent in who gets in.

Personally, if Ivies and other private top 25's want to have 'unwritten quotas' like they do now, I'm ok with it...AS LONG AS THEY ARE TRANSPARENT.

In their common data sets every year, along with the demographic data of the student body, and the overall class percentiles for scores and gpa, schools should be forced to release the breakdown of apps received by race, gender, and household income.

Also medians and percentile ranges of ACCEPTED and ATTENDING students by race, gender, and family income should be released.

Schools love touting diversity in their class, but refuse to release the same granularity in demographics about their applicant, accepted, and attending pools.

I think we agree that diversity based on income/class is a good thing. I also like your idea of transparency.

I do wonder, however, if publishing SATs and GPAs for students for race/gender/income will make things worse, not better. No school wants to reveal a 200-300 gap between one subgroup of students and another subgroup of students, if nothing else because of the questions it raises about admissions practices. So to close this gap, because income and SATs/GPAs are highly correlated, schools are going to accept more high-SES minorities, not more low-SES minorities. I guess if you released family income by subgroup this would help a bit, but I'm not sure it solves the problem.

PP here; you bring up some good points. I certainly would require schools to release family income/weath statistics for the applicant, accepted, and attending pools. Recently there have been articles talking about elite uni's struggling to reach "Low-income/top student" cohort when it comes to apps. See: http://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168889785/elite-colleges-struggle-to-recruit-smart-low-income-kids

This has been written on by libs and cons writers and is a big deal.

I cannot speak to the populous, but personally it would not bother me seeing those 200-300 point gaps because we know they exist already. Transparency just makes everything more palatable.

I would rather see schools embrace the 200-300 point gap and gpa deficiencies but make it a point to show that this gap is due to bringing in LOW INCOME/LOW SES students and be proud of that.

I wouldn't complain and I hope those who are anti-affirmative action(the way it is used now) feel that way as well.

These less-wealthy students require the support and resources that the top uni's can give instead of the 'grade by the curve, sink or swim' culture of a large public state uni.

That said, if the data show that after controlling for income/class, that there are still gpa/point gaps between race and gender....well that is something that the public is right in pressuring school to rectify.