Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

"Race" in College Applications FAQ & Discussion 12

1257258260262263277

Replies to: "Race" in College Applications FAQ & Discussion 12

  • ChangeTheGameChangeTheGame Registered User Posts: 608 Member
    @DeepBlue86 I do agree that a 3% gap in graduation rates is still a meaningful difference, but @Data10 posted some 6 year graduation data between a group of schools and those gaps shrank. I found the old post so I wanted to repost it because it gave me a perspective that I had not considered. Thanks again for this post back from Sept 2018 @Data10.

    The 6-year graduation rate gap between races are often even larger at the few highly selective colleges that apply lesser racial preferences. Specific numbers from the most recent IPEDS year are below.

    Lesser Racial Preference
    Caltech -- 92% White, 80% Black
    Michigan -- 92% White, 80% Black
    Berkeley -- 91% White, 71% Black

    Average -- 92% White, 77% Black


    Greater Racial Preference
    Harvard -- 98% White, 94% Black
    Yale -- 98% White, 100% Black
    Princeton -- 98% White, 97% Black
    Duke -- 95% White, 95% Black
    Swarthmore -- 95% White, 95% Black
    Cornell -- 94% White, 92% Black
    Williams -- 94% White, 95% Black
    Amherst -- 94% White, 89% Black
    MIT -- 93% White, 88% Black
    Johns Hopkins -- 93% White, 88% Black
    Harvey Mudd -- 92% White, 100% Black

    Average -- 95% White, 94% Black
  • SatchelSFSatchelSF Registered User Posts: 1,385 Senior Member
    edited February 12
    Getting back to the the question of the academic qualifications of legacies and development applicants, we often hear that they are much stronger than the overall applicant pool, presumably because they had the double-whammy benefit of smart parents and high SES. Additionally, the implication is that these applicants are fairly self-selected, in that weaker candidates know enough not to apply.

    Well, in the case of Harvard (and presumably the rest of the elites), that does not appear to be the case. The distribution of academic qualifications of the white legacy and development group is roughly equivalent to that of white applicants generally. This might be surprising to some, as the general applicant pool contains low-income and low-SES candidates, but not to people who understand that SES advantage has basically little or no independent influence on intelligence, which of course is the single biggest driver of accomplishment. (Obviously, smarter parents tend to be higher SES and so pass that along together with their genes - the double whammy.)

    I looked only at white legacies and development, to eliminate (i) race effects (but there are frankly few that I can see), and (ii) small sample sizes for the other race groups, as legacy and development preference almost by definition reflects relevant demographics of 30+ years ago.*

    Harvard bins all its applicants into 10 deciles by academic index, constructed largely based on HSGPA and test scores. The Arcidiacono data include ~61K white applicants, of which ~4K are (i) legacy, (ii) development, (iii) faculty brat (very small), or (iv) some combination thereof (pure development w/o legacy appears small, roughly 1K though that is an estimate).

    Here are the respective shares of the white preference groups as a percentage of all white candidates in those deciles (note that recruited athletes are not included here). Decile 10 is the highest.

    Decile10 -- 6.4%
    Decile 9 -- 7.2%
    Decile 8 -- 6.7%
    Decile 7 -- 6.7%
    Decile 6 -- 7.7%
    Decile 5 -- 6.6%
    Decile 4 -- 6.9%
    Decile 3 -- 6.2%
    Decile 2 -- 6.1%
    Decile 1 -- 4.3%

    Overall, white legacies/development candidates are slightly stronger than white applicants generally. 55.1% are in the top half. But if you eliminate the bottom decile (presumably Harvard legacies know enough to know that they would be at the bottom), the distribution is roughly flat across remaining deciles, as can be seen.

    Hope that helps to focus the discussion, and of course I would welcome additional eyes on this. I'd especially welcome any quantification of what the median academic qualification actually is. My assumption is that it represents something around 1450SAT and 3.7ish HSGPA (UW) in a moderately rigorous curriculum (keep in mind that all low-SES, URM, first gen, rural schools, inner city schools, etc. are included in the aggregate prior to binning).
    ________
    * All data are derived from comparing the numbers of applicants by decile for the baseline and expanded datasets in the Arcidiacono rebuttal report. See Tables 5.1R and B.5.1R on pp 108 and 147 here: http://samv91khoyt2i553a2t1s05i-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Doc-415-2-Arcidiacono-Rebuttal-Report.pdf
  • DeepBlue86DeepBlue86 Registered User Posts: 962 Member
    @LadyMeowMeow - you are willfully misunderstanding me and attempting to put words in my mouth. As explained at length, here and elsewhere, universities are businesses, based around teaching and research. Their ability to fulfill that mission is based on their ability to grow, sustain themselves and obtain access/influence in many areas of society. They admit their classes with that in mind, responding to various constituencies that help them achieve those objectives and seeking students who will be beneficial in that regard, be they pure intellectuals, athletes, the most promising members of various ethnic racial groups, people with special talents, etc. I don't characterize that as "nakedly transactional" or "amoral", it's just the entirely logical and appropriate way these institutions pursue what is fundamentally a laudable purpose.

    I've never said that your kid "better be grateful", although I think if you're so convinced that she's attending an institution that's corrupt in a fundamental way, perhaps you and she should have made a different choice of college (maybe the honors program of your state flagship, where you might feel more secure in your virtue). I will speculate that you and she chose Yale because of the fantastic range of opportunities it offers, made possible by generous alumni, some of whom - I shudder to admit - may have been motivated in their support at least in part by the hope that their children might also have the opportunity to share the experience of attending there.

    Of course, many alumni donate to these places simply because they love them, and your daughter and her classmates are benefiting from that. One could argue that it's unfair that Yale students enjoy the privilege of this alumni group and the opportunities their involvement provides, but you seem to be OK with it. It may perhaps come to pass that your daughter will be looking for a job when she graduates and will contact an alumnus for an introduction; there's certainly a very extensive network of alumni who will be happy to be helpful just based on that shared tie - not because they view it as an "investment". I hope she'll take advantage of this - that is, if you and she don't view it as a corrupt perpetuation of status-quo elitism.

    Longer-term, I hope your daughter achieves success in her chosen field and thinks back fondly enough on her "bright college years" and the benefits that she's achieved from being part of the Yale family that she's motivated to give back by donating time and money (if she's able). If she has children, I'd forgive her for hoping that they might also attend Yale and that she'd have that shared bond with them, and also for hoping that her involvement could help make that possible. I hope you could also forgive her.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 12,294 Senior Member
    @DeepBlue86 - On the one hand, this represents a lot of progress; on the other, there's still a meaningful difference (for which undoubtedly there are many reasons).

    That 3% is not far off the roughly 2% difference between men and women's grad rates at HYPS (women having the higher rate). What does that say about the difficulties men have in college, as a group?
    I wish more statistics were available from which one could draw clearer conclusions.

    Indeed.
  • SatchelSFSatchelSF Registered User Posts: 1,385 Senior Member
    edited February 12
    LOL, I always get a laugh about how everyone tries to couch all this in "moral" terms. The system just... is.

    Remember, the exact same "amoral" system that grants the legacy and development preferences also grants the URM preference. Isn't that just as "amoral"? Do people really think that the same, amoral people doing the choosing suddenly get religion when it comes to URM?

    Someone above got it right: "amass social capital and build brand." That's applicable to both legacy/development preference (money and connections) as well as URM preference (virtue signaling points to build the brand). Both are consistent expressions of an amoral system designed to benefit the school.
  • DeepBlue86DeepBlue86 Registered User Posts: 962 Member
    That 3% is not far off the roughly 2% difference between men and women's grad rates at HYPS (women having the higher rate). What does that say about the difficulties men have in college, as a group?
    I have no idea - sounds like it's meaningful enough to be worth looking into.
  • hebegebehebegebe Registered User Posts: 2,488 Senior Member
    Re the 2% rate male to female difference, it would be worthwhile determining how many of those men left to pursue startups in the hopes of being the next Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. My nephew, when he was at Yale, considered leaving for a startup as well. My brother ended that discussion quickly.
  • 1NJParent1NJParent Registered User Posts: 845 Member
    I too see legacy preference and URM preference to be the two sides of the same coin. It's hard to justify being for one and against the other. I generally don't want to describe these preferences in moral terms, but it will be much harder for the colleges to justify, morally, the existence of their legacy preferences without their URM preferences.
  • Data10Data10 Registered User Posts: 2,713 Senior Member
    edited February 12
    Your data presentation is highly selective and misleading. First of all, to compare MIT/Caltech, as schools that don't consider legacy status, with a single school, Harvard, that considers legacy status and that happens to have the single largest endowment, is just disingenuous. Most elite colleges, including the Ivies, have legacy preferences. For a fairer comparison, you at least need to include schools like Brown, or Penn, or Northwestern, or Hopkins
    The quote I replied to claimed MIT and Caltech were "just as generous when it comes to financial aid," The claim did not say MC were only more generous than Northwestern, Hopkins, or similar selectivity and not HYPS. Instead the previous post and vast majority of comments in this thread have focused on legacies at HYPSMC... in particular at H. I chose H over YPS because their NPC at https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/net-price-calculator is far faster to use than the others, getting results within seconds. However, YPS aren't exactly lacking in endowment compared to H. YP have a greater endowment per student than H. S is approaching quite close and may have surpassed H in 2018, due to H's relatively poor endowment performance in recent years.

    In any case, as listed in my post, there are often huge differences in the FA received by specific families at different highly selective private colleges, It's not just a matter of HYPSMC... all have the same FA, as I've seen suggested multiple times on this forum. Use of legacies in admission is one contributing factor to this difference, but far from the only one. It's easier to be generous with FA for middle and lower income families when a relatively small portion of the class come from middle and lower income families, and a large portion of the class come from wealthy families who will claim little aid. Legacies tend to be the latter.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 12,294 Senior Member
    @hebegebe Re the 2% rate male to female difference, it would be worthwhile determining how many of those men left to pursue startups in the hopes of being the next Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg.

    Honestly I doubt that's much of a factor. But certainly it's not as simple as "men are less qualified". It's also not as simple as "URMs/First Gen/Low Income are less qualified".

    That's more or less the point I was making when I quoted @DeepBlue86 : "I wish more statistics were available from which one could draw clearer conclusions."
  • roethlisburgerroethlisburger Registered User Posts: 2,438 Senior Member
    edited February 12
    @1NJParent

    I too see legacy preference and URM preference to be the two sides of the same coin. It's hard to justify being for one and against the other.

    It’s not hard at all to justify, although I’m not a big fan of legacy preferences. The Constitution bans racial discrimination. It says nothing about legacies.
  • DeepBlue86DeepBlue86 Registered User Posts: 962 Member
    edited February 12
    I wasn't suggesting that "URMs/First Gen/Low Income are less qualified", @OHMomof2 - just that many of them may be less-well-positioned to *succeed at college*, with all that that entails. I believe this is a different and much less controversial point.

    My argument several pages ago was that legacies are generally well-positioned to "succeed at college", in and out of the classroom, and transition successfully to the next stage of their lives. This isn't so much about relative "qualifications"; it's because of the advantages the legacies generally enjoy (including high-quality high school training, relative familiarity with the institution, less concern about financial circumstances and strong support networks). I believe the colleges consider this when they evaluate them for admission, because kids who succeed at college and transition well to the next stage of their careers are seen as success stories for the college.

    Without having enjoyed many of these advantages, and possibly coming from a background where much of the college environment is unfamiliar and potentially alienating, it's more of an uphill climb for members of the other groups, which is why the colleges are devoting such substantial resources to attempt to ensure that they too can succeed.
  • ucbalumnusucbalumnus Registered User Posts: 74,588 Senior Member
    - diversity (the average rich person is more diverse than the average non-rich person. rich people have the time and money to have diverse experiences, that's the hard truth).

    However, a large number of scions of wealth comparing prep schools, golf courses, and first class or private jet trips around the world does not add as much overall diversity in the class, compared to the aggregate of people from ordinary backgrounds (including blue collar ones) who attended neighborhood public schools.
  • tpike12tpike12 Registered User Posts: 305 Member
    @roethlisburger said:

    It’s not hard at all to justify, although I’m not a big fan of legacy preferences. The Constitution bans racial discrimination. It says nothing about legacies.

    —————-

    If most legacies are the same race, wouldn’t that be considered racial discrimination and legacy is just a clever way to hide it?
  • ChangeTheGameChangeTheGame Registered User Posts: 608 Member
    @roethlisburger What Constitutional Amendment bans racial discrimination? Does it say that, because if it does, it has done a pretty bad job of banning it over the years. Some of the amendments (13-15) banned slavery, equal protection under the law (the amendment that is being used in Harvard lawsuit) and addressed certain civil rights (like the right to vote) but to ban racial discrimination? I wish that it banned racial discrimination like slavery was banned, but not quite. Those amendments were passed in the 1860's and there was a full 100 years of blatant racial discrimination under its watch. So it is hard for me to trust the interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to that topic. It is actually the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (good old regular old law passed by Congress) which has come closest to trying to ban types of discrimination (missed LGBTQ however), but it is also used as the reasoning used behind AA. I don't believe in using discrimination to help others overcome discrimination, but the fight (over maybe 300+ URM spots a year at Harvard from those 40,000+ applicants who were rejected) is going to end up with a lot of students still upset year after year.
Sign In or Register to comment.