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.
Please take a moment to read our updated TOS, Privacy Policy, and Forum Rules.

"Race" in College Applications FAQ & Discussion 12

1686971737484

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

  • whatisyourquestwhatisyourquest Registered User Posts: 598 Member
    The focus here has been on hyper elite universities. (For instance, you provided stats for Ivy athletes to show that they are predominately white.) All of these tippy top universities have ginormous endowments. Providing extra FA for low SES admits would barely make a dent.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 10,139 Senior Member
    edited September 13
    This is true. But eventually, it could become an issue.

    Especially if some schools went stats-only (+/- low SES) and others kept the current preferences in place. The ones that kept the current system might become more desirable to those with money...?
  • whatisyourquestwhatisyourquest Registered User Posts: 598 Member
    edited September 13
    "This is true. But eventually, it could become an issue."

    Perhaps. But it is also possible that those low SES kids graduate, get fantastic jobs, amass wealth, and, out of gratitude, become donors to the university that admitted them and provided FA. That's the American dream.
  • roethlisburgerroethlisburger Registered User Posts: 1,659 Senior Member
    @OHMomof2 And my point is (and has been) that athletic/legacy/development admissions preferences ARE race-based, just like AA.

    I would encourage you to read some of the court cases, including the minority opinions. There's a vast difference between discrimination and creating policies for reasons other than race, which may disproportionately advantage certain groups.
  • ucbalumnusucbalumnus Registered User Posts: 62,859 Senior Member
    All of these tippy top universities have ginormous endowments. Providing extra FA for low SES admits would barely make a dent.

    But it appears that they mostly do not want to have that many low SES students. Most of them have admission processes and criteria that favor high SES students, with resulting student bodies which have half from the top 2-5% (students who get no financial aid), and only an eighth to a quarter from the lower half of the SES scale (students who get Pell grants).
  • DolemiteDolemite Registered User Posts: 1,587 Senior Member
    @notigering Female Hispanic students is probably a good example of this. There are a lot of high stats female Hispanic students applying to these schools and they have no issue in hand selecting the ones that fit their class need. I know of another ACT 36 female Hispanic that was reject from Princeton but accepted to Stanford and Columbia.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 10,139 Senior Member
    There's a vast difference between discrimination and creating policies for reasons other than race, which may disproportionately advantage certain groups.

    Just because the intent isn't declared in the open doesn't make it right, and it is clear that these policies are indeed created to favor one race/SES group - that is the effect and if that wasn't the intent it would change.

    Why does it make a difference to you what the stated reason for the preference is, @roethlisburger if the effect is the same?

    In fact, what do colleges say the stated preference for athletes, legacies and development admits is? I don't think I've ever seen an elite college address that question. Plenty have addressed their support for AA in detail.
  • theloniusmonktheloniusmonk Registered User Posts: 850 Member
    @OHMomof2 "I just find it fascinating that those who are most against AA seem to only want that one preference to go away....not the preferences that take far more spaces away from academically deserving students and give them to kids who are already "starting at third base", if you will.

    I acknowledge that there are a couple of posters here who want all non-academic preferences gone - straight stats admissions. (But even of those, few want to say what that college experience would be like, beyond what race(s) those colleges would be)."

    I am against AA in college admissions because it essentially creates soft quotas which create another kind of discrimination. I think race aware or conscious used earlier is reasonable. I see its benefits more in corporations and businesses, even though it hasn't really made too much of a dent in silicon valley. However I don't advocate a stats only application process, ECs, recommendations, essays should also be considered. I also do not favor hooks for athletes, legacies and developmental cases.

    As for the experience, admissions probably easier as colleges can't hide behind holistic to discriminate as was done to Jewish applicants in the early 1900's and so more straightforward. Athletics would be minimized, like Chicago or Cal Tech, which is ok because I hope football is not played a hundred years from now. At some point mothers will stop letting their boys play such a dangerous sport.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 10,139 Senior Member
    @theloniusmonk
    colleges can't hide behind holistic

    No? Why couldn't they hide behind
    ECs, recommendations, essays

    That's what they are accused of doing now.
  • ucbalumnusucbalumnus Registered User Posts: 62,859 Senior Member
    edited September 14
    I am against AA in college admissions because it essentially creates soft quotas which create another kind of discrimination.

    The likely reality is that colleges, when thinking of their own marketability to future students, probably have desired racial/ethnic representation percentages (which can look a lot like soft quotas), since students commonly have some preferences. Of course, only the most selective colleges with a surplus of applicants with near-maximum academic credentials have the luxury of being able to shape their classes this way, since other colleges have to pay much more attention to differences in academic credentials.

    The desired racial/ethnic representation percentages for the most selective colleges that aspire to be nationally desirable are probably something like:

    * White: probably prefers a majority, or at least a plurality (probably >= 40% or so), since most white students come from majority white areas, and many are not comfortable being a member of a minority group.
    * Black, Latino, Asian: enough that it does not feel like there are hardly any others around. Probably >= 10% or so for each.
    * NA and PI: any such students that the college can get to enroll would be a bonus from the college's point of view.

    Obviously, the above college desires leave considerable flexibility (if a college targets >= 40% white and >= 10% each black, Latino, and Asian, plus however many NA and PI students it can get, that leaves it up to 30% of flex space), and regional considerations may also be a factor.
    I think race aware or conscious used earlier is reasonable. I see its benefits more in corporations and businesses, even though it hasn't really made too much of a dent in silicon valley. However I don't advocate a stats only application process, ECs, recommendations, essays should also be considered. I also do not favor hooks for athletes, legacies and developmental cases.

    Would you find acceptable consideration of race/ethnicity in the context (possibly in combination with SES and 1G) of whether an applicant had a disadvantaged starting line, so that s/he would be more meritous than an applicant of similar achievement who had an advantaged starting line? Note that such consideration could apply to some applicants of any race/ethnicity (e.g. if a white applicant came from a background where s/he was disadvantaged by anti-white racism, s/he would be given such consideration) but would not be given automatically only on the basis of being any particular race/ethnicity. But it could be a component of a theoretical pure-applicant-merit admission process that is not pure-stats.
  • jzducoljzducol Registered User Posts: 141 Junior Member
    edited September 14
    ^^@notigering "Truth is that at the end of the day the heartbreak kids I know do just fine on whatever school they end up attending.."

    What's the big deal? well, Rosa Parks was told the same thing--- what's the big deal? why cannot you just sit a couple rows back, the bus will get you where you are going, the seat is reserved for certain skin color...
    After all its about people being treated as an individual, not as a racial group. And as someone said earlier one's race is a protected trait from discrimination under the constitution.
  • notigeringnotigering Registered User Posts: 105 Junior Member
    ^ Rosa Parks? Foir the life of me I can't conceive how that is a valid analogy to anything I wrote..
Sign In or Register to comment.