Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will just change the admittance criteria to ensure that they can select a diverse community before each incoming class. This is the mission they want to accomplish.

Exactly. They will just pick names out of a hat before they give up affirmative action, legal or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would it be impermissible discrimination if a university chose to mimic the demographics of the United States in their freshman class?

Yes racial quotas are (and should be IMO) illegal.

We don't have racial quotas.

If racial quotas were REALLY in place we wouldn't have URMs, would we?

Colleges would be artificially represented by demographic percentages.

Umm, yes, I was responding to a PP who asked about the possibility of matching a class to demographics. Leaving side the reading comprehension issues, though, I’d prefer honest racial quotas to deceptive “holistic” admissions criteria where people have to burn so much energy trying to work a process that really only exists to provide a fig leaf for demographic balancing exercises.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would it be impermissible discrimination if a university chose to mimic the demographics of the United States in their freshman class?

Yes racial quotas are (and should be IMO) illegal.

We don't have racial quotas.

If racial quotas were REALLY in place we wouldn't have URMs, would we?

Colleges would be artificially represented by demographic percentages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would it be impermissible discrimination if a university chose to mimic the demographics of the United States in their freshman class?

Yes racial quotas are (and should be IMO) illegal.

Anonymous wrote:Would it be impermissible discrimination if a university chose to mimic the demographics of the United States in their freshman class?

Anonymous wrote:What happens on applications? Do they just stop asking race?

Anonymous wrote:They will just change the admittance criteria to ensure that they can select a diverse community before each incoming class. This is the mission they want to accomplish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I have really bright students who score very high on standardized tests. They are smart and work very hard. I am sure in the future, they will have high SAT scores. However, I don't know if they will be as high as children from college educated parents due to life factors.

I am ok with admitting some students with slightly lower scores when considering these factors. That would include students of all races. I do not think tests should be eliminated. My experience is that 95% of students score within the range of their abilities.

Abilities is one thing, but these tests measure the willingness to prep as much as they do abilities. Some kids can hack it on their own (yours truly, way back when), but others do get a leg up via paid help. I would love for colleges to start require to disclose any prep, paid and unpaid, received, with severe punishments for not being truthful. And putting a firewall between them and college consultants - no private convos, public information only. But they'll never do that because that's how those underpaid junior admission officers hope to make money in a few years.

PP. also, one can very easily design a multiple choice test for math that eliminates most educated guesses, rendering the strategies taught at prep classes useless. I've taken these types of tests, it's much harder when you can't really guess. I wish the SAT math would go that way.

Are you referring to a guessing penalty? Earlier versions of the SAT penalized had a guessing penalty, but test prep was still effective.

A lot of the moms who's kids are good test tskers want the tests renormed around a much lower mean. Looks like the College Board et al have decided against that. (And if they do it, it won't be for the math section only.)

No, I am referring to a different design. On SATs (and most other standardized tests in US), there is the right answer and the wrong answers are the results of the common mistakes. Very often you can deduce how they are trying to catch you, i.e. the stupid thing they did to get 3 of 5 answers, and even if you don't know how to get to the right one, you now have 50% chance of getting it right. Prep teaches you to spot those stupid answers. Another great one is the geometry problems where the figures are drawn to scale. If you just measure with a ruler and scale it, you are likely to eliminate a few wrong answers as well, sometimes all 4 of them.

In an alternative design, all the answers are given as ranges, so you can only guess on the magnitude, if it helps (it may not). E.g., the correct answer is 14, and the answers are given as a) less than 5, b) [5, 10), c) [10, 15), d) [15, 20), e) 20 or more. You need to answer c). But the ranges given for each question may or may not correspond to the true magnitude of the answer. In the example above, you know that if you calculated it multiple times and you are still getting a 1014, you may be right, the answer doesn't have to be between 0 and 25. Those ranges sometimes do capture the common mistakes, e.g. dividing by 100 instead of multiplying, but the bottom line, you don't get that many hints by just looking at the answers.

I went through a math exam system where the first few exams are done the SAT way and then there are a few with ranges. There is a noticeable drop off in scores among very smart people once they encounter the ranges. You can argue that educated guesses also allow you to demonstrate your knowledge, but when the prep courses spend lots of time on "strategy", it's better to use the range based answers to equalize the outcome for the non-prepped ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very likely SCOTUS will ban affirmative action in late June 2023 decision.

Once that happens -affirmative action will immediately be banned as a factor.

So what happens then for HS classes of 2024 onward? Will private colleges voluntarily ban legacy preference? I have heard a number of Ivies are discussing this to have ready to announce.

Will more public schools offer the Texas model of guaranteed admit for top 10% of each high school in the state?

Would love a sober discussion of this here....

While SCOTUS may ban affirmative action and/or the use of race in college admissions, it will not ban using first generation and lower income backgrounds as factors. And since a disproportionate share of URMs are either first generation and/or lower income, there may not be that big of an impact. Plus, colleges can always consider how an applicant has overcome adversity as expressed in a personal essay (e.g., overcame discrimination).

Nope, by headcount, there are many, many more poor whites than poor URMs. I think it's a fallacy of people who live in liberal urban areas on the coasts that the poor people are overwhelmingly black. Rural poverty actually looks very different.

NP: Yes, numerically, the majority of first gens are white. However, the majority of first gen applicants to the top 100 schools are URM or Asian American. Rural first gen white students apply to regional public universities / community colleges. There is also greater skepticism regarding elite universities as they are more likely to be conservative. URMs in urban areas are more likely to be exposed to programs like Questbridge and exposed to progressive messages emphasizing education as a means of social mobility.

PP: as someone who's been poor (and white), this is also because until a very recent past, colleges just didn't give a damn about this population. There were scholarships and outreach programs for URMs, but nothing much for others. Now there is a big emphasis on first gen, and I expect the poor white kids will follow the money; they are not stupid.

But it’s not about being stupid or not. The skepticism about the value of a college degree has significantly increased amongst white students, especially low income males. Or else elite colleges culturally change and become less left leaning, the demographic composition of first gen students to top 100 schools will not change. I do think there will be an increase in first gen white girls and Asian American students.

*slight increase

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I have really bright students who score very high on standardized tests. They are smart and work very hard. I am sure in the future, they will have high SAT scores. However, I don't know if they will be as high as children from college educated parents due to life factors.

I am ok with admitting some students with slightly lower scores when considering these factors. That would include students of all races. I do not think tests should be eliminated. My experience is that 95% of students score within the range of their abilities.

Abilities is one thing, but these tests measure the willingness to prep as much as they do abilities. Some kids can hack it on their own (yours truly, way back when), but others do get a leg up via paid help. I would love for colleges to start require to disclose any prep, paid and unpaid, received, with severe punishments for not being truthful. And putting a firewall between them and college consultants - no private convos, public information only. But they'll never do that because that's how those underpaid junior admission officers hope to make money in a few years.

PP. also, one can very easily design a multiple choice test for math that eliminates most educated guesses, rendering the strategies taught at prep classes useless. I've taken these types of tests, it's much harder when you can't really guess. I wish the SAT math would go that way.

Are you referring to a guessing penalty? Earlier versions of the SAT penalized had a guessing penalty, but test prep was still effective.

A lot of the moms who's kids are good test tskers want the tests renormed around a much lower mean. Looks like the College Board et al have decided against that. (And if they do it, it won't be for the math section only.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't realize the supreme court had a band.

I was thinking the OP meant there was a ring around something to mark it.

I think this explains why my DC's English 101 prof is teaching grammar one day a week.

I think your post highlights why most first grade teachers teach about "context clues" when teaching the six-year-olds how to read Typos happen. D and S are right next to each other on the keyboard- probably meant to type "bans" not band. But common sense is not so common these days!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very likely SCOTUS will ban affirmative action in late June 2023 decision.

Once that happens -affirmative action will immediately be banned as a factor.

So what happens then for HS classes of 2024 onward? Will private colleges voluntarily ban legacy preference? I have heard a number of Ivies are discussing this to have ready to announce.

Will more public schools offer the Texas model of guaranteed admit for top 10% of each high school in the state?

Would love a sober discussion of this here....

While SCOTUS may ban affirmative action and/or the use of race in college admissions, it will not ban using first generation and lower income backgrounds as factors. And since a disproportionate share of URMs are either first generation and/or lower income, there may not be that big of an impact. Plus, colleges can always consider how an applicant has overcome adversity as expressed in a personal essay (e.g., overcame discrimination).

Nope, by headcount, there are many, many more poor whites than poor URMs. I think it's a fallacy of people who live in liberal urban areas on the coasts that the poor people are overwhelmingly black. Rural poverty actually looks very different.

NP: Yes, numerically, the majority of first gens are white. However, the majority of first gen applicants to the top 100 schools are URM or Asian American. Rural first gen white students apply to regional public universities / community colleges. There is also greater skepticism regarding elite universities as they are more likely to be conservative. URMs in urban areas are more likely to be exposed to programs like Questbridge and exposed to progressive messages emphasizing education as a means of social mobility.

PP: as someone who's been poor (and white), this is also because until a very recent past, colleges just didn't give a damn about this population. There were scholarships and outreach programs for URMs, but nothing much for others. Now there is a big emphasis on first gen, and I expect the poor white kids will follow the money; they are not stupid.

But it’s not about being stupid or not. The skepticism about the value of a college degree has significantly increased amongst white students, especially low income males. Or else elite colleges culturally change and become less left leaning, the demographic composition of first gen students to top 100 schools will not change. I do think there will be an increase in first gen white girls and Asian American students.