fabrizio

Shinkrap,

The paper was published in 2005. That was the best data available to the researchers at the time. To my knowledge, the only “refutation” of Espenshade and Chung’s paper comes from William Kidder. I found Kidder’s paper interesting in its own right but utterly inadequate as a refutation. Espenshade et al. used data from undergraduates. Kidder used data from law schools to try to prove Espenshade wrong. He apparently forgot about how meaningful it is to compare apples to oranges.

fabrizio

That’s just plain duplicity.

You’re trying to tell me that a black student doesn’t receive preferential treatment because he’s black, he receives it because there aren’t enough blacks. Well, if there aren’t enough blacks and you want more blacks in the student body, then on what basis do you grant preferential treatment to rectify this problem? Race.

BeKindRewind

Hispanic isn't even a race....

Newjack88

In most cases this happens with people of the same race. I know an Asian kid who meets the profile of the first student and another Asian who meets the profile of the second. The first was rejected by Harvard while the second was accepted.

Anyway, there is no such thing as being "more qualified" than another applicant. People who buy into this thinking do so because it is a way for them to rationalize/justify their sense of entitlement. So yes, the person is truly disgruntled because they thought they were more deserving of the spot.

Newjack88

Haha. I thought I said not to conflate the two? You seem to be oblivious to the fact that people can say the same thing about whites and legacy and athletic considerations, so what's the point of even arguing about this?

Easy

Oh yeah. Everyone is equally special. We're all equally smart, attractive, and deserving! No one's "more qualified" than anyone else!

I get what you're saying, that qualification is a boolean value where you're either qualified or not, but if you know that candidate A has 2400 SAT and 4.0 GPA and candidate B has 2100 SAT and 3.6 GPA with everything else equal, you can say that A is "more qualified" as in A is a stronger student. And would it be so wrong to say that people who display stronger merit are more deserving?

Yup, I believe some students are stronger than others and thus better qualified. Must be my way to rationalize my sense of entitlement.

fabrizio

You thought correctly; you did say not to conflate the two. My point is that there’s nothing to conflate. All you did was call a pig a swine and proceed to act like there’s some huge difference.

OK, let’s assume that it is a fact that people can “say the same thing…” I will replace my paragraph accordingly as follows:

You’re trying to tell me that a legacy student doesn’t receive preferential treatment because he’s a legacy, he receives it because there aren’t enough legacies. Well, if there aren’t enough legacies and you want more legacies in the student body, then on what basis do you grant preferential treatment to rectify this problem? Legacy status.

Wow, you’re right. My statement is just as accurate, and in both cases, you are wrong. Blacks receive preferential treatment because of their race, and legacy students receive preferential treatment because they’re legacies. Thank you.

Newjack88

You are arguing a few different things. I am not saying that when Affirmative Action is applied in cases to increase the representation of certain racial/ethnic groups that race/ethnicity are not considered, so you do not have you waste your time arguing about that.

Anyway, you are saying that ultimately underrepresented groups receive preferential treatment because of their race/ethnicity not simply because they are underrepresented. Well, ultimately whites are more likely to benefit from legacy and athletic consideration because they are white. Whites are more likely to be legacies because historically only whites were regularly granted admission. Whites are more likely to benefit from athletic consideration because whites are more likely to go to a school with a good athletic program.

fabrizio

You did not say “race is not considered.” I’m not arguing about “that.”

You did say that “African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics do not receive preferential treatment because of their race. They receive it because their races are underrepresented.” I am criticizing you for claiming a difference when there is not one. If the race is “under-represented,” then race is the factor upon which preference is granted. That is, blacks, Indians, and Hispanics do receive preferential treatment for being black, Indian, and Hispanic, respectively.

“More likely to benefit” is not the same thing as “benefits.”

arachnophobia12

No one "deserves" to get into college. Either way, the top-tier colleges, especially, don't have a minimum standard by which they accept applicants (i.e. no min. SAT/ACT score, GPA, number of AP classes, etc.)-they take whoever they want for whatever reason, and not one of those acceptees is more "deserving" than the others.

fabrizio

No one? Not even the hypothetical poor black student from an inner-city high school who lives in a single-parent household, works part-time to help his family, takes care of his siblings, and still manages time to study for his classes and the SAT?

ANCooky

Not even the hypothetical rich white kid from the suburbs who lives in a household with two parents who each work 80 hour weeks, leave him with a nanny who barely speaks English, rarely sees siblings because they're over-involved activities preparing them for college, and still manages time to study for his tough private school classes and score 240 points better on the SAT than^^^^^ to compensate for being white. Who has it worse? Because I can point to numerous examples of this coming from my school. Stereotyping doesn't work. That is all AA is, stereotyping.

BeKindRewind

Awwww, poor rich upper class white male! He has to receive a privileged education and a nanny who acts on his every whim, what hell is this...

thirdfloor

I'd also just like to point out again that numbers aren't the only thing admissions officers consider. SAT and GPA are important, but they're not everything. One of the things schools like HYP are on the lookout for is passion--if that means that you devote your time to your art studies and excel at them, at the expense of chemistry or math scores, or you devote your time to studying biology beyond what your school offers and requires at the expense of your English grades, then admissions officers can recognize that. If you've struggled with your education, or overcome large challenges to succeed--say in urban or rural America--then they recognize that, too.

There are so many different ways to define intelligence that it does applicants a disservice to claim that the SAT is any kind of accurate predictor of intelligence, or even of aptitude. Test prep, AP classes, dedicated teachers and extracurriculars are privileges that many students--black and white--are not exposed to. Kids at good public schools, not even necessarily elite private schools, go into college admissions already having an "edge" over urban or rural applicants. Why get so upset over AA, which compensates students who (for the most part) don't have access to many of the facilities other students get to take for granted? Elite schools have thousands and thousands of "well rounded" applicants, and they also have the luxury to choose applicants who don't fit into a wealthy, privileged, homogenous role.

I'll just say that some of the smartest people I know didn't even go to college. Some of the most driven and successful people I know worked their way through community college with multiple full-time jobs. A lot of the people I admire the most are recent immigrants who worked harder than I can imagine to acquire the English language. I'm pretty sure that if they took the SAT, they wouldn't score in the 2200+ range, but I'm 100% confident that it doesn't make them any less intelligent than a student at Exeter or Andover who scored a 2400. And I'm also certain that if I were an admissions officer trying to compose a freshman class, I'd want more of the former type of students than the latter.

Easy

The latin phrase ceteris paribus just about handles your entire post. I'll explain further tomorrow if no one else takes the ball to run with it.