Top 10 Universities - Holistic Admissions Fact or Fiction

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are many qualified applicants that are denied admission. Every individual is different, so an individual who has a lower than average (for the class) test score may do just fine. However, research shows that "on average" URM perform better when they are matched with classmates having comparable scores. There are now many URM graduates of top schools, but we aren't seeing that translate into success outside of government and politics.

There are also many studies that show that test scores are much less effective predictors of college success than grades. I have no idea where you live, but where I live there are many very successful people of color in every profession. I just was treated for cancer at Memorial Sloan Kettering in NYC, and all there was not a single white resident. The highly trained nursing staff was about half AA. Every good college or university has a number of extremely successful URM professors, many of whom attended Ivy League schools. I could go on and on, but I am not sure you are interested in dialogue.

[Anonymous]

That may be true, but it is also true that those other qualities might not have been enough to tip the scale if your son had had a different skin color. Doesn't that seem wrong to you?

Sonia Sotomayor in her memoir describes dealing with the assumption that she was an affirmative action admit to Princeton and people using that to dismiss her accomplishments. She talks about saying to someone that she was not on the admissions committee, so she does not know, or have any control over why she was admitted. However she managed to graduate summa cumme laude, so whether she was an affirmative action candidate or not, does it matter?

I think the keyword in the statement above is might. In any individual case, since we can't make a white clone of the PP's son, there is no way to know whether or not the other qualities would have tipped the scale had he not been a minority. I don't see what good suggesting this does--the only thing it serves to do is undermine the PP's son's accomplishments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That may be true, but it is also true that those other qualities might not have been enough to tip the scale if your son had had a different skin color. Doesn't that seem wrong to you?

Sonia Sotomayor in her memoir describes dealing with the assumption that she was an affirmative action admit to Princeton and people using that to dismiss her accomplishments. She talks about saying to someone that she was not on the admissions committee, so she does not know, or have any control over why she was admitted. However she managed to graduate summa cumme laude, so whether she was an affirmative action candidate or not, does it matter?

I think the keyword in the statement above is might. In any individual case, since we can't make a white clone of the PP's son, there is no way to know whether or not the other qualities would have tipped the scale had he not been a minority. I don't see what good suggesting this does--the only thing it serves to do is undermine the PP's son's accomplishments.

Justice Sotomayor also writes that she quickly realized at Princeton that her English and writing were deficient and began reading the classics and studying proper grammar to independently improve her skills — she was able to overcome those challenges to her credit, but she had the chance to overcome those challenges at Princeton because of affirmative action.

[Anonymous]

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, has compared affirmative action to slavery and segregation. The lesson of history is clear enough: Racial discrimination is never benign. Good intentions cannot excuse its outright racial discrimination any more than such intentions justified the now-denounced arguments of slaveholders and segregationists."

Affirmative action hurts those black and Hispanic students who are admitted more than those who are not. He blamed Yale Law School's affirmative action program for making his degree worth "15 cents" and has said he had difficulty finding a job after graduation.

"I learned the hard way that a law degree from Yale meant one thing for white graduates and another for blacks, no matter how much anyone denied it,'' Thomas wrote in his memoir, My Grandfather's Son. "I'd graduated from one of America's top law schools, but racial preference had robbed my achievement of its true value."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, has compared affirmative action to slavery and segregation. The lesson of history is clear enough: Racial discrimination is never benign. Good intentions cannot excuse its outright racial discrimination any more than such intentions justified the now-denounced arguments of slaveholders and segregationists."

Affirmative action hurts those black and Hispanic students who are admitted more than those who are not. He blamed Yale Law School's affirmative action program for making his degree worth "15 cents" and has said he had difficulty finding a job after graduation.

"I learned the hard way that a law degree from Yale meant one thing for white graduates and another for blacks, no matter how much anyone denied it,'' Thomas wrote in his memoir, My Grandfather's Son. "I'd graduated from one of America's top law schools, but racial preference had robbed my achievement of its true value."

Nobody forced him to attend Yale Law School. He could have attended a lower ranked law school if he wanted to. He still benefited from AA and he had more options due to AA. He should stop complaining since he did well for himself. I doubt he would have made it to the Supreme Court if he had graduated from place like GMU law school.

[Anonymous]

Justice Sotomayor also writes that she quickly realized at Princeton that her English and writing were deficient and began reading the classics and studying proper grammar to independently improve her skills — she was able to overcome those challenges to her credit, but she had the chance to overcome those challenges at Princeton because of affirmative action.

Yes, but this has to do with her lack of exposure to opportunities to hone her writing abilities, and has nothing to do with her innate potential (as evidenced by her accomplishments later on in college and in her career). So is it any fairer to have kids who have had every advantage in life and who are 100% prepared be the only people who benefit from attending elite universities? Because a lot of people on this board support affirmative action for lower income individuals--but the issue of preparation will exist any time people from disadvantaged backgrounds attend elite schools, regardless of race. How is it any more just to solely rely on people's test scores outside of the context of their whole self? To be honest, I have also heard of white people from poor rural areas who get into Harvard with a 28 or 29 on the ACT. Is this bad too?

As far as the race argument goes, I agree (and to be honest, Justice Sotomayor has said the same) that we should be helping disadvantaged people of all races. But there is some evidence that if there are only minorities on a college campus who come from completely disadvantaged backgrounds, that is problematic too--it makes people think that all minorities are poor people to whom the generous white ruling class is lending a helping hand and reinforces stereotypes. The notion of a class containing minorities from a variety of socioeconomic strata is sometimes termed "diversity within diversity" and there is a lot of argument as to whether or not it is beneficial. As a PP mentioned, even though her son went to a prep school, he experienced all kinds of subtle discrimination like having different grades on his essays when graded blindly, being told he couldn't be a supreme court justice because he was black, and almost being blocked out of accelerated math. But then you run into the issue that we are not a society that has resolved its race issues, and proportionally more minority families are in poverty than white families for historic reasons. So the population of upper middle class kids raised by professional parents of color is a relatively small pool--and if you want to create "diversity within diversity" this sometimes means letting people in with slightly lower test scores.

And then if you want to talk about injustice, what about Asian students? There was a long thread about the "Asian quota" on this forum recently, but it is true that Asian students need to have higher test scores, grades, and accomplishments than their white peers to get into Harvard and the like. And in California, they did away with race-based admissions, and now UC Berkeley is now nearly 40% Asian, whereas Asians comprise 13% of the overall population of California. Now you see a lot of white parents whining about the robotic asians taking the place of their creative white kids.

I don't know where I stand on how colleges should be doing their admissions. I see both sides--on one hand social engineering can seem a hopeless endeavor that causes unforeseen consequences, but on the other hand I also don't think you can judge a person's accomplishments outside of the environment from which they grew up. Often if you put people who haven't had the opportunity to push themselves in a top environment, it will really allow them to excel...if fact there was a study reported in the New York Times last year that minority and poor students benefit the most from an ivy education--and Justice Sotomayor and Thomas are examples of this. I don't like the idea of your opportunities being dictated by the socioeconomic status of your parents, and test scores most strongly correlate to that. I don't know where you draw the line, hence the reason why colleges have very complicated formulas in terms of how they let students in, weighing their accomplishments, their backgrounds, and yes--their race and class.

Life resides in shades of gray, and there is no such thing as a pure meritocracy. But I do think it is wrong to question individuals who make it to Harvard, or a competitive job or whatever and wonder if they got in due to affirmative action. There is no way you can possibly know unless you were on the admissions committee if a boy of color with a marginally lower test score than average got in because he was black, or because his other impressive credentials would have pushed him over the edge regardless of race. There is only making assumptions. And it is really not fair to judge someone by an arbitrary decision that is not under their control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, has compared affirmative action to slavery and segregation. The lesson of history is clear enough: Racial discrimination is never benign. Good intentions cannot excuse its outright racial discrimination any more than such intentions justified the now-denounced arguments of slaveholders and segregationists."

Affirmative action hurts those black and Hispanic students who are admitted more than those who are not. He blamed Yale Law School's affirmative action program for making his degree worth "15 cents" and has said he had difficulty finding a job after graduation.

"I learned the hard way that a law degree from Yale meant one thing for white graduates and another for blacks, no matter how much anyone denied it,'' Thomas wrote in his memoir, My Grandfather's Son. "I'd graduated from one of America's top law schools, but racial preference had robbed my achievement of its true value."

Nobody forced him to attend Yale Law School. He could have attended a lower ranked law school if he wanted to. He still benefited from AA and he had more options due to AA. He should stop complaining since he did well for himself. I doubt he would have made it to the Supreme Court if he had graduated from place like GMU law school.

Some people put society's interest instead of their own. Very rare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Justice Sotomayor also writes that she quickly realized at Princeton that her English and writing were deficient and began reading the classics and studying proper grammar to independently improve her skills — she was able to overcome those challenges to her credit, but she had the chance to overcome those challenges at Princeton because of affirmative action.

Yes, but this has to do with her lack of exposure to opportunities to hone her writing abilities, and has nothing to do with her innate potential (as evidenced by her accomplishments later on in college and in her career). So is it any fairer to have kids who have had every advantage in life and who are 100% prepared be the only people who benefit from attending elite universities? Because a lot of people on this board support affirmative action for lower income individuals--but the issue of preparation will exist any time people from disadvantaged backgrounds attend elite schools, regardless of race. How is it any more just to solely rely on people's test scores outside of the context of their whole self? To be honest, I have also heard of white people from poor rural areas who get into Harvard with a 28 or 29 on the ACT. Is this bad too?

As far as the race argument goes, I agree (and to be honest, Justice Sotomayor has said the same) that we should be helping disadvantaged people of all races. But there is some evidence that if there are only minorities on a college campus who come from completely disadvantaged backgrounds, that is problematic too--it makes people think that all minorities are poor people to whom the generous white ruling class is lending a helping hand and reinforces stereotypes. The notion of a class containing minorities from a variety of socioeconomic strata is sometimes termed "diversity within diversity" and there is a lot of argument as to whether or not it is beneficial. As a PP mentioned, even though her son went to a prep school, he experienced all kinds of subtle discrimination like having different grades on his essays when graded blindly, being told he couldn't be a supreme court justice because he was black, and almost being blocked out of accelerated math. But then you run into the issue that we are not a society that has resolved its race issues, and proportionally more minority families are in poverty than white families for historic reasons. So the population of upper middle class kids raised by professional parents of color is a relatively small pool--and if you want to create "diversity within diversity" this sometimes means letting people in with slightly lower test scores.

And then if you want to talk about injustice, what about Asian students? There was a long thread about the "Asian quota" on this forum recently, but it is true that Asian students need to have higher test scores, grades, and accomplishments than their white peers to get into Harvard and the like. And in California, they did away with race-based admissions, and now UC Berkeley is now nearly 40% Asian, whereas Asians comprise 13% of the overall population of California. Now you see a lot of white parents whining about the robotic asians taking the place of their creative white kids.

I don't know where I stand on how colleges should be doing their admissions. I see both sides--on one hand social engineering can seem a hopeless endeavor that causes unforeseen consequences, but on the other hand I also don't think you can judge a person's accomplishments outside of the environment from which they grew up. Often if you put people who haven't had the opportunity to push themselves in a top environment, it will really allow them to excel...if fact there was a study reported in the New York Times last year that minority and poor students benefit the most from an ivy education--and Justice Sotomayor and Thomas are examples of this. I don't like the idea of your opportunities being dictated by the socioeconomic status of your parents, and test scores most strongly correlate to that. I don't know where you draw the line, hence the reason why colleges have very complicated formulas in terms of how they let students in, weighing their accomplishments, their backgrounds, and yes--their race and class.

Life resides in shades of gray, and there is no such thing as a pure meritocracy. But I do think it is wrong to question individuals who make it to Harvard, or a competitive job or whatever and wonder if they got in due to affirmative action. There is no way you can possibly know unless you were on the admissions committee if a boy of color with a marginally lower test score than average got in because he was black, or because his other impressive credentials would have pushed him over the edge regardless of race. There is only making assumptions. And it is really not fair to judge someone by an arbitrary decision that is not under their control.

I support helping out people from low SES backgrounds regardless of skin tone. I don't support giving the children of upper middle class African American parents a bump over poor white or Asian children. Legally sanctioned racial discrimination is always wrong, but giving a lift to those of low SES is the right thing to do. Using skin tone as a proxy for low SES is not only wrong, it is racist. Schools are equipped to distinguish those, like Justices Sotomayor and Thomas, from low SES backgrounds from the children of a well to black couple living in Bethesda and attending Sidwell at full freight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Justice Sotomayor also writes that she quickly realized at Princeton that her English and writing were deficient and began reading the classics and studying proper grammar to independently improve her skills — she was able to overcome those challenges to her credit, but she had the chance to overcome those challenges at Princeton because of affirmative action.

Yes, but this has to do with her lack of exposure to opportunities to hone her writing abilities, and has nothing to do with her innate potential (as evidenced by her accomplishments later on in college and in her career). So is it any fairer to have kids who have had every advantage in life and who are 100% prepared be the only people who benefit from attending elite universities? Because a lot of people on this board support affirmative action for lower income individuals--but the issue of preparation will exist any time people from disadvantaged backgrounds attend elite schools, regardless of race. How is it any more just to solely rely on people's test scores outside of the context of their whole self? To be honest, I have also heard of white people from poor rural areas who get into Harvard with a 28 or 29 on the ACT. Is this bad too?

As far as the race argument goes, I agree (and to be honest, Justice Sotomayor has said the same) that we should be helping disadvantaged people of all races. But there is some evidence that if there are only minorities on a college campus who come from completely disadvantaged backgrounds, that is problematic too--it makes people think that all minorities are poor people to whom the generous white ruling class is lending a helping hand and reinforces stereotypes. The notion of a class containing minorities from a variety of socioeconomic strata is sometimes termed "diversity within diversity" and there is a lot of argument as to whether or not it is beneficial. As a PP mentioned, even though her son went to a prep school, he experienced all kinds of subtle discrimination like having different grades on his essays when graded blindly, being told he couldn't be a supreme court justice because he was black, and almost being blocked out of accelerated math. But then you run into the issue that we are not a society that has resolved its race issues, and proportionally more minority families are in poverty than white families for historic reasons. So the population of upper middle class kids raised by professional parents of color is a relatively small pool--and if you want to create "diversity within diversity" this sometimes means letting people in with slightly lower test scores.

And then if you want to talk about injustice, what about Asian students? There was a long thread about the "Asian quota" on this forum recently, but it is true that Asian students need to have higher test scores, grades, and accomplishments than their white peers to get into Harvard and the like. And in California, they did away with race-based admissions, and now UC Berkeley is now nearly 40% Asian, whereas Asians comprise 13% of the overall population of California. Now you see a lot of white parents whining about the robotic asians taking the place of their creative white kids.

I don't know where I stand on how colleges should be doing their admissions. I see both sides--on one hand social engineering can seem a hopeless endeavor that causes unforeseen consequences, but on the other hand I also don't think you can judge a person's accomplishments outside of the environment from which they grew up. Often if you put people who haven't had the opportunity to push themselves in a top environment, it will really allow them to excel...if fact there was a study reported in the New York Times last year that minority and poor students benefit the most from an ivy education--and Justice Sotomayor and Thomas are examples of this. I don't like the idea of your opportunities being dictated by the socioeconomic status of your parents, and test scores most strongly correlate to that. I don't know where you draw the line, hence the reason why colleges have very complicated formulas in terms of how they let students in, weighing their accomplishments, their backgrounds, and yes--their race and class.

Life resides in shades of gray, and there is no such thing as a pure meritocracy. But I do think it is wrong to question individuals who make it to Harvard, or a competitive job or whatever and wonder if they got in due to affirmative action. There is no way you can possibly know unless you were on the admissions committee if a boy of color with a marginally lower test score than average got in because he was black, or because his other impressive credentials would have pushed him over the edge regardless of race. There is only making assumptions. And it is really not fair to judge someone by an arbitrary decision that is not under their control.

But everyone does. I taught labs and graded tests at a very selective university during graduate school. I was a very strong supporter of affirmative action before that experience. The bottom 5-6 students in the classes I graded were always African-american students, and often their grades were WAY below the grades of other students in the class. These kids simply didn't belong at the school, and their performance was radically worse than other students. Of course, they still got Cs and the (very) occasional D. Nobody really flunks out of prestigious universities, and the majority of these kids were passed through and got a degree which I honestly question if they actually deserved. Once you experience this disparity it's hard to look at affirmative action as a positive thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But everyone does. I taught labs and graded tests at a very selective university during graduate school. I was a very strong supporter of affirmative action before that experience. The bottom 5-6 students in the classes I graded were always African-american students, and often their grades were WAY below the grades of other students in the class. These kids simply didn't belong at the school, and their performance was radically worse than other students. Of course, they still got Cs and the (very) occasional D. Nobody really flunks out of prestigious universities, and the majority of these kids were passed through and got a degree which I honestly question if they actually deserved. Once you experience this disparity it's hard to look at affirmative action as a positive thing.

There's a big difference between the 400-point SAT gap in the Texas study somebody posted above, and the 100- or 150-point gap that PPs have pointed out for Harvard. A 400-point gap probably speaks to a meaningful difference in abilities. The Harvard difference between 2100 and 2250 is not going to affect academic performance quite so drastically. Also, 2100 is probably high enough to ensure competency at pretty much any college in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But everyone does. I taught labs and graded tests at a very selective university during graduate school. I was a very strong supporter of affirmative action before that experience. The bottom 5-6 students in the classes I graded were always African-american students, and often their grades were WAY below the grades of other students in the class. These kids simply didn't belong at the school, and their performance was radically worse than other students. Of course, they still got Cs and the (very) occasional D. Nobody really flunks out of prestigious universities, and the majority of these kids were passed through and got a degree which I honestly question if they actually deserved. Once you experience this disparity it's hard to look at affirmative action as a positive thing.

There's a big difference between the 400-point SAT gap in the Texas study somebody posted above, and the 100- or 150-point gap that PPs have pointed out for Harvard. A 400-point gap probably speaks to a meaningful difference in abilities. The Harvard difference between 2100 and 2250 is not going to affect academic performance quite so drastically. Also, 2100 is probably high enough to ensure competency at pretty much any college in the country.

PS. Should add that the thread is about "Top 10 Universities." So we're *not* talking about students with SATs of 1500 and who are 400 points below the university average SATs. Instead, at the Top 10, we're talking about maybe a 100-150 point gap and SAT scores that are highly respectable 2100s. The latter kids are perfectly capable of doing the work at any university in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Justice Sotomayor also writes that she quickly realized at Princeton that her English and writing were deficient and began reading the classics and studying proper grammar to independently improve her skills — she was able to overcome those challenges to her credit, but she had the chance to overcome those challenges at Princeton because of affirmative action.

Yes, but this has to do with her lack of exposure to opportunities to hone her writing abilities, and has nothing to do with her innate potential (as evidenced by her accomplishments later on in college and in her career). So is it any fairer to have kids who have had every advantage in life and who are 100% prepared be the only people who benefit from attending elite universities? Because a lot of people on this board support affirmative action for lower income individuals--but the issue of preparation will exist any time people from disadvantaged backgrounds attend elite schools, regardless of race. How is it any more just to solely rely on people's test scores outside of the context of their whole self? To be honest, I have also heard of white people from poor rural areas who get into Harvard with a 28 or 29 on the ACT. Is this bad too?

As far as the race argument goes, I agree (and to be honest, Justice Sotomayor has said the same) that we should be helping disadvantaged people of all races. But there is some evidence that if there are only minorities on a college campus who come from completely disadvantaged backgrounds, that is problematic too--it makes people think that all minorities are poor people to whom the generous white ruling class is lending a helping hand and reinforces stereotypes. The notion of a class containing minorities from a variety of socioeconomic strata is sometimes termed "diversity within diversity" and there is a lot of argument as to whether or not it is beneficial. As a PP mentioned, even though her son went to a prep school, he experienced all kinds of subtle discrimination like having different grades on his essays when graded blindly, being told he couldn't be a supreme court justice because he was black, and almost being blocked out of accelerated math. But then you run into the issue that we are not a society that has resolved its race issues, and proportionally more minority families are in poverty than white families for historic reasons. So the population of upper middle class kids raised by professional parents of color is a relatively small pool--and if you want to create "diversity within diversity" this sometimes means letting people in with slightly lower test scores.

And then if you want to talk about injustice, what about Asian students? There was a long thread about the "Asian quota" on this forum recently, but it is true that Asian students need to have higher test scores, grades, and accomplishments than their white peers to get into Harvard and the like. And in California, they did away with race-based admissions, and now UC Berkeley is now nearly 40% Asian, whereas Asians comprise 13% of the overall population of California. Now you see a lot of white parents whining about the robotic asians taking the place of their creative white kids.

I don't know where I stand on how colleges should be doing their admissions. I see both sides--on one hand social engineering can seem a hopeless endeavor that causes unforeseen consequences, but on the other hand I also don't think you can judge a person's accomplishments outside of the environment from which they grew up. Often if you put people who haven't had the opportunity to push themselves in a top environment, it will really allow them to excel...if fact there was a study reported in the New York Times last year that minority and poor students benefit the most from an ivy education--and Justice Sotomayor and Thomas are examples of this. I don't like the idea of your opportunities being dictated by the socioeconomic status of your parents, and test scores most strongly correlate to that. I don't know where you draw the line, hence the reason why colleges have very complicated formulas in terms of how they let students in, weighing their accomplishments, their backgrounds, and yes--their race and class.

Life resides in shades of gray, and there is no such thing as a pure meritocracy. But I do think it is wrong to question individuals who make it to Harvard, or a competitive job or whatever and wonder if they got in due to affirmative action. There is no way you can possibly know unless you were on the admissions committee if a boy of color with a marginally lower test score than average got in because he was black, or because his other impressive credentials would have pushed him over the edge regardless of race. There is only making assumptions. And it is really not fair to judge someone by an arbitrary decision that is not under their control.

But everyone does. I taught labs and graded tests at a very selective university during graduate school. I was a very strong supporter of affirmative action before that experience. The bottom 5-6 students in the classes I graded were always African-american students, and often their grades were WAY below the grades of other students in the class. These kids simply didn't belong at the school, and their performance was radically worse than other students. Of course, they still got Cs and the (very) occasional D. Nobody really flunks out of prestigious universities, and the majority of these kids were passed through and got a degree which I honestly question if they actually deserved. Once you experience this disparity it's hard to look at affirmative action as a positive thing.

+1

This is what Supreme Court Justice Thomas referred to in his memoir, My Grandfather's Son, when he wrote: "I'd graduated from one of America's top law schools, but racial preference had robbed my achievement of its true value."

An AVERAGE difference of 150 points on standardized tests can't be dismissed as irrelevant - that AVERAGE naturally includes some above the average and some below the average, but the overall impression is evidenced by the former teacher quoted above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But everyone does. I taught labs and graded tests at a very selective university during graduate school. I was a very strong supporter of affirmative action before that experience. The bottom 5-6 students in the classes I graded were always African-american students, and often their grades were WAY below the grades of other students in the class. These kids simply didn't belong at the school, and their performance was radically worse than other students. Of course, they still got Cs and the (very) occasional D. Nobody really flunks out of prestigious universities, and the majority of these kids were passed through and got a degree which I honestly question if they actually deserved. Once you experience this disparity it's hard to look at affirmative action as a positive thing.

There's a big difference between the 400-point SAT gap in the Texas study somebody posted above, and the 100- or 150-point gap that PPs have pointed out for Harvard. A 400-point gap probably speaks to a meaningful difference in abilities. The Harvard difference between 2100 and 2250 is not going to affect academic performance quite so drastically. Also, 2100 is probably high enough to ensure competency at pretty much any college in the country.

PS. Should add that the thread is about "Top 10 Universities." So we're *not* talking about students with SATs of 1500 and who are 400 points below the university average SATs. Instead, at the Top 10, we're talking about maybe a 100-150 point gap and SAT scores that are highly respectable 2100s. The latter kids are perfectly capable of doing the work at any university in the country.

I think you're giving way more credit to the self reported scores from an email survey from Harvard then it deserves. Most studies show about a 300 point boost on a 1600 point scale when all other things are equal.

The journal of blacks in higher education did an analysis of SAT scores (Google jbhe.com sat scores) which detailed that about 1200 AA students get over 1400 on the SAT and ~250 get over 1500 each year. To have a SAT score average of 1400 for AA students at Harvard they would need to get a large percentage of these students, which is obviously not happening. Or if it is happening, what does this mean for the other 10-15 schools with similar SAT ranges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But everyone does. I taught labs and graded tests at a very selective university during graduate school. I was a very strong supporter of affirmative action before that experience. The bottom 5-6 students in the classes I graded were always African-american students, and often their grades were WAY below the grades of other students in the class. These kids simply didn't belong at the school, and their performance was radically worse than other students. Of course, they still got Cs and the (very) occasional D. Nobody really flunks out of prestigious universities, and the majority of these kids were passed through and got a degree which I honestly question if they actually deserved. Once you experience this disparity it's hard to look at affirmative action as a positive thing.

There's a big difference between the 400-point SAT gap in the Texas study somebody posted above, and the 100- or 150-point gap that PPs have pointed out for Harvard. A 400-point gap probably speaks to a meaningful difference in abilities. The Harvard difference between 2100 and 2250 is not going to affect academic performance quite so drastically. Also, 2100 is probably high enough to ensure competency at pretty much any college in the country.

PS. Should add that the thread is about "Top 10 Universities." So we're *not* talking about students with SATs of 1500 and who are 400 points below the university average SATs. Instead, at the Top 10, we're talking about maybe a 100-150 point gap and SAT scores that are highly respectable 2100s. The latter kids are perfectly capable of doing the work at any university in the country.

I think you're giving way more credit to the self reported scores from an email survey from Harvard then it deserves. Most studies show about a 300 point boost on a 1600 point scale when all other things are equal.

The journal of blacks in higher education did an analysis of SAT scores (Google jbhe.com sat scores) which detailed that about 1200 AA students get over 1400 on the SAT and ~250 get over 1500 each year. To have a SAT score average of 1400 for AA students at Harvard they would need to get a large percentage of these students, which is obviously not happening. Or if it is happening, what does this mean for the other 10-15 schools with similar SAT ranges?

"Most" studies look at a broad range of universities, not just at Harvard. The data from Harvard that was linked to earlier shows a much smaller range.

Also, source? I actually went to that Journal and couldn't find such an article. I did find a number or articles arguing that SES and educational disparities, not race per se, are responsible for the SAT score gap.

I was under the impression that this thread, per the header, is a discussion of holistic admissions at the top 10. Not a discussion of affirmative action at every school across the country, on average. If you want to talk about affirmative action, which is different from holistic admissions, why don't you start your own thread. Then we can contain the racism there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But everyone does. I taught labs and graded tests at a very selective university during graduate school. I was a very strong supporter of affirmative action before that experience. The bottom 5-6 students in the classes I graded were always African-american students, and often their grades were WAY below the grades of other students in the class. These kids simply didn't belong at the school, and their performance was radically worse than other students. Of course, they still got Cs and the (very) occasional D. Nobody really flunks out of prestigious universities, and the majority of these kids were passed through and got a degree which I honestly question if they actually deserved. Once you experience this disparity it's hard to look at affirmative action as a positive thing.

There's a big difference between the 400-point SAT gap in the Texas study somebody posted above, and the 100- or 150-point gap that PPs have pointed out for Harvard. A 400-point gap probably speaks to a meaningful difference in abilities. The Harvard difference between 2100 and 2250 is not going to affect academic performance quite so drastically. Also, 2100 is probably high enough to ensure competency at pretty much any college in the country.

PS. Should add that the thread is about "Top 10 Universities." So we're *not* talking about students with SATs of 1500 and who are 400 points below the university average SATs. Instead, at the Top 10, we're talking about maybe a 100-150 point gap and SAT scores that are highly respectable 2100s. The latter kids are perfectly capable of doing the work at any university in the country.

I think you're giving way more credit to the self reported scores from an email survey from Harvard then it deserves. Most studies show about a 300 point boost on a 1600 point scale when all other things are equal.

The journal of blacks in higher education did an analysis of SAT scores (Google jbhe.com sat scores) which detailed that about 1200 AA students get over 1400 on the SAT and ~250 get over 1500 each year. To have a SAT score average of 1400 for AA students at Harvard they would need to get a large percentage of these students, which is obviously not happening. Or if it is happening, what does this mean for the other 10-15 schools with similar SAT ranges?

The mismatch theory was discussed here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/does-affirmative-action-do-what-it-should.html?_r=0