Reply to Can a 3.6 get into Harvard?

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Can a 3.6 get into Harvard?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]       NP here.  Thank you 16:59 for reporting the statistics - very informative.   There is no doubt there are many qualified applicants from many racial, ethnic, socio-economic, religious, international and other unique backgrounds.  I think the frustration often seen on these boards from parents of self-described otherwise unhooked white students is that the within the overall elite group of students applying to these colleges from which admissions committees look to find standouts, being of any race other than white (or probably Asian these days because of the high number of applicants) "counts" as one standout factor. I don't believe that is seriously in question, yet I do believe that is exactly the point that aggravates some unhooked parents.  Race will not get anyone into a highly selective school, but it is a plus factor if you are an underrepresented minority -- including AA -- and not if you are white.

In a world where white people - as if there is some monolithic group like that -- had all the breaks and advantages  by a huge margin over people of color (as if that too is a monolithic group), this may be -- or at least in years past by may have been -- a rationale tool to consider in admissions.  There are many aspects of an application a student can control or at least influence - grades, test scores, ECs, etc, and some they cannot -- parental socio-economic status, race, disabilities, etc.  I think for many people the consideration of factors unrelated to student effort seems unfair (note a student born into poverty, a poor school system, etc. who outperforms his/her peers to overcome the odds would be a student recognized for effort).   At the same time, schools are committed to diversity as an inherent good itself.  In a world of "all other things equal" taking factors into account a student does not control, such as race, to achieve another goal of diversity, is something that I believe would draw relatively few objections from majority/non-diverse groups (if there really is such a thing - but for simplicity, we'll call them white people).  The perceived problem is that admissions decisions sometimes are made in favor of minority applicants when all other things are significantly unequal in terms of test scores, GPA, etc.   This may or may not be true.  But I believe most schools release no such detailed statistics about the issue so this feeds skepticism.

Holistic admissions has its benefits, but transparency is not one of them. I was a strong proponent of affirmative action in the 1970s and 1980s, [b]but have come to conclude that at this point the societal benefits of taking race into account in college admissions in any instance other than when "all other things are essentially equal" in order to achieve diversity objectives are outweighed by the societal negative consequences. [/b] Granted, defining what "essentially equal" is will be subject to wide interpretation, but as has been pointed out elsewhere, for example, few people would seriously question that a 50 point difference in SAT scores, for example, is meaningful but those same people may view a 200 point difference as material.  But absent transparency, it seems inevitable  that many students of color will often feel on college campuses that many of their white peers question their  right to be on campus, their academic prowess, etc.  and -- as seen in the past year -- this is one of many concerns students of color have voiced on many college campuses.  Diversity does have important benefits, but good policy must take into account the means of achieving it is just as important as the ends.
  [/quote]

But if 17:09's stats are correct (I have no idea where they came from), then the biggest impact of ignoring race in admissions decisions will be a very sharp decline in the number of black students at elite colleges. Are you, former supporter of affirmative action, okay with that? Is the change in "means of achieving" worth that particular end?

I find your assumption that few people would think a 50-point difference in SAT scores is meaningful to be very quaint.

I'm not in any way associated with Harvard, nor do I harbor any hope to be. I am not in a position to benefit from affirmative action, nor are my children. So I've got no particular fish to fry here. But honestly, all this protestation about the evils of affirmative action? It seems like people protest just a bit too much. I don't believe for one minute this is about relieving students of color from the burden of having white peers question their competency.[/quote]

Fair question whether I'd be ok with a drop off in the number of black students.   That did happen I understand in one system -- I think it was the  University of California -- which banned racial considerations.  My answer, not surprisingly, would be yes -- at least to some extent.  As a society, we needed to increase the number of college educated AA in our country in order to open up rising socio-economic opportunities for a significant portion of the population relatively quickly (compared to the long durations of slavery and Jim Crow), and we have done this now for several decades  Different commentators will point to different statistics to argue that affirmative action has been more -- or less -- successful.  But it is now very clear that many accepted minority students (and others who were socio-economically disadvantaged) were not -- and today many still are not -- prepared for the most rigorous college programs.  In recent years, colleges have responded with a number of summer programs before freshmen year and other outreach efforts to help get them ready but I have read many students themselves at ivy league schools write about how unprepared they felt.  If one looks at the broader society, I suspect this problem is far worse as one goes down one or two tiers below the ivy league.  Now look at the broader economy.  While some Presidential candidates push for free college education, other commentators are questioning whether too many children are attending college without realistic cost-benefit analyses and a need to increase our numbers of technically skilled employees.  In other words, while a ticket to an "elite college"  may still open many doors, there are relatively few slots there and the vast majority of students attend other colleges.  And while these schools do turn out tens of thousands of very well prepared students each year, they also turn out many who are unemployed or underemployed.  In other words, in today's economy the ticket to the middle class may sometimes lie in gaining technical skills but not necessarily four year degrees unless they are in majors like engineering, comp science, nursing, etc. or the students go on to graduate school.   So you ask if I am ok with a decline in certain groups of students on college campuses (assuming you are correct for the moment that ending affirmative action would have this result), and I would begin an answer by asking why do we have affirmative action still?  What are its goals /benefits?  What empirical evidence do we have over the past few decades and -- importantly -- since the Great Recession.  And what are the outcomes?  I suspect that a larger share of URM students who had very strong SATs/grades -- comparable to their Asian or white peers -- end up in majors along the same percentage breakdowns as their non URM peers (whether STEM, Econ/social sciences, etc.),  But is this true for students admitted with noticeably lower stats (whether because of an admission boost base on URM status, athletics, rich parents, etc.) or do they tend to avoid more rigorous majors?  If universities want to participate as laboratories in the social fabric of our society, they should be looking at these issues in the context of examining their admissions policies.  What about integration on campus?  Is that a goal of a diverse student body?  How well is it working?  What policies need to be in place to foster integration.  What role does affirmative action play in helping or hindering that effort?  Too many of us spend too much time either complaining about or defending affirmative action and diversity policies without a deep dive into the empirical questions as well as questions of fundamental fairness.   It is a tough issue, and both defenders and critics of current policies should acknowledge that.    
  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics