Any statistics to show that minorities due worse in college?

kk19131 · June 27, 2007, 9:38pm

At any rate… I’ve said my piece here. It’s time to go back to being a spectator.

Big_Brother_1984 · June 27, 2007, 10:06pm

Nice try on a Math Olympian here.

Assume that all schools are meritocracies. Consider MIT’s Marilee Jones’ admitted racial preferences for under-represented minorities. She admitted that 15% of the class would not have gotten in under strictly meritocratic practices. Therefore, MIT is not strictly a meritocracy, and NOT ALL schools are meritocracies. QED.

Note that for my proof by contradiction, I only needed to find ONE example to debunk your “ALL schools are meritocracies” statement. In contrast, you would’ve had to go through each and every case brute-force style.

That’s not a rigorous proof :-p. That’s like circular reasoning. It’s like “dividing both sides” to prove Fermat’s Little Theorem instead of using a combinatorial or NT argument. You’re basically saying, “I’m going to decide what a triangle is. Now, THIS is a triangle.” Nope, sorry.

It’s conduct btw. You see no reason for mine or fabrizio’s posts? Then fine, don’t read them. Nobody has a gun to your head. Allow us to practice our freedom of speech.

You’re throwing that word around again. Tell me, what does “diversity” mean to you?

Yeah, I guess that’s why we still have slaves and such in Georgia.

And there was no moral connotation attached to the institution of slavery?

I must thank you though for giving me additional strength to my arguments. It is very economically and politically beneficial to accommodate the specific ethnicities hindered by racial preferences, wouldn’t you say so?

Like I said, I don’t need to convince anybody.

fabrizio · June 27, 2007, 10:20pm

kk19131,

Can admissions still be holistic if race is not considered? UCLA, for example, is barred from considering race due to Proposition 209. Yet, it claims to use holistic admissions. Are they misleading prospective applicants?

Math is used in every engineering discipline, and physics is used in almost every one. Chemistry is applied in chemical engineering, and biology is applied in biomedical engineering. Though these four fields are used in engineering, they themselves are not “engineering.” Engineering students at Berkeley do not take their prerequisite math, physics, chemistry, and biology courses at the College of Engineering. They take them in the math, physics, chemistry, and biology departments, which are separate from the CoE.

You are correct that living in a crime-ridden neighborhood, having few close relatives, and being in a single-parent home could happen to students of any race and any economic status. There are a few differences, though. For wealthy students who happen to live in crime-ridden neighborhoods, they can move out. They have the finances to do so. For wealthy students with few close relatives, the thought of being parentless is still scary, but they don’t have to worry as much that they’ll be on their own with little or no money. For wealthy students who live with one parent, they don’t have to work to supplement their parent’s income. Do you see the differences?

cghen · June 27, 2007, 11:59pm

The bold part is simply not true - you’re inferring too much from the article. From my understanding, it’s more about recruiting/advertisement as well as making the application itself less biased towards males (like having more emphasis on essays instead of lists of extra-curricular activities).

As for the argument about whether or not Caltech constitutes a true university or whatever, it all seems pretty semantic to me: Caltech is what it is. Is Caltech more narrow than MIT or Harvard or Stanford in it’s offerings? Absolutely. Is Caltech more broad than RISD or Julliard (your favorite examples)? Also, definitely.

So it’s somewhere in between an overall good school and a specialty school, and so then it just comes down to where you (arbitrarily) draw the line. In the end, it hardly matters or affects anything - no one is going to attend Caltech to study journalism or Sanskrit or whatever just because it’s ranked highly as a national university, so what’s the point in bickering over it and denouncing it? It seems like you just have a chip on your shoulder to me (and I’m not sure why).

Also, I thought I’d point out that while the Caltech humanities professors aren’t the most famous in the world, they still offer a reasonable education with TONS of student-faculty interaction that even the top schools can’t match. The history of science professors are especially good, though that probably doesn’t mean anything to you.

Tyler09 · June 28, 2007, 7:37am

ok, wow u guys have posted a lot.

The first thing i have to say is: Big Brother, you have no CLUE of what you’re talking about. Luckily i’m managing to see you and fabrizio as separate because you actually SUBTRACT from his argument. While fabrizio has managed to articulate an opinion quite nicely, you have just stumbled around randomly with your ignorance showing. Like when you claimed women don’t receive any benefit at specialty schools, what was that? I think even fabrizio knows that thats false, he was just sparing your feelings. Until you can get your act together, i’m not really going to take what you say as more than a grain of salt.

I believe that you should allow private institutions, even public ones really, to decide after a student is already qualified, yale estimates that 3/4 of it’s applicants are qualified, what constitutes “merit”. It’s simply ignorant to try to impose our definition on them unless we can prove that their end goal is not desirable. I believe in all of those forms of AA because racial, socioeconomic, gender, and geographical diversity are all desirable goals.

Now if a college decided to admit everybody whose favorite color is green, thats not necessarily a desirable goal in a college.

As for socioeconomic. What about the middle class. Most of them don’t have the opportunity to afford all of those prep classes and camps either. Or they simply dont have parents who care about that enough to invest in those things or know how. So socioeconomic AA is not ALWAYS FAIR. But i do think that it should be consider as a means of producing more desirable socioeconomic diversity.

kk19131 · June 28, 2007, 9:17am

“Assume that all schools are meritocracies. Consider MIT’s Marilee Jones’ admitted racial preferences for under-represented minorities. She admitted that 15% of the class would not have gotten in under strictly meritocratic practices. Therefore, MIT is not strictly a meritocracy, and NOT ALL schools are meritocracies. QED.”

-You have only proven that MIT varies in what it believes merit to be. All that is required for an applicant to be ‘meritorious’ of admission to a certain college is that he or she is actually ADMITTED to said school. All other information is irrelevant. Since all colleges decide what constitutes ‘merit’ (the qualities or actions that constitute the basis of one’s deserts- in this situation, admission to the school) anyone who is admitted to a school is ‘meritorious’ of being there, despite whether you want to believe it or not. So, I still submit that all schools are meritocracies.

“It’s like “dividing both sides” to prove Fermat’s Little Theorem instead of using a combinatorial or NT argument. You’re basically saying, “I’m going to decide what a triangle is. Now, THIS is a triangle.” Nope, sorry.”

<ul>
<li>Does it make you feel good to throw around random obscure mathematical jargon? If so, then good for you. :)</li>
</ul>

“The bold part is simply not true - you’re inferring too much from the article. From my understanding, it’s more about recruiting/advertisement as well as making the application itself less biased towards males (like having more emphasis on essays instead of lists of extra-curricular activities).”

<ul>
<li>The school is taking affirmative steps toward its admission policy. Using more ‘subjective’ factors in its admissions policy is clearly taking an affirmative step toward getting a more desired student body. The ONLY reason that the school would change ANYTHING about the way its application is created is if it believed something was ‘wrong’ with it in the first place. Like I said, you don’t form ‘task forces’ unless you believe something is wrong and needs to be changed. Am I saying that Caltech will use full on racial and gender preferences? No, most likely not, but is it possible that these things will play a larger role in admissions? Sure, but that’s up for the school to decide.</li>
</ul>

“Is Caltech more broad than RISD or Julliard (your favorite examples)? Also, definitely.”

-And here is where I disagree. Just because people hold more value in engineering and science than the fine and performing arts doesn’t mean that they are less relevant. I see little reason why Caltech and RISD can’t be compared. It may sound far fetched, but it is still quite relevant.

RISD has 2282 students. Caltech has 2171. RISD has a faculty size of 482, Caltech 278. Both schools are highly specialized, great at what they do, and both are about the same size. I submit that if Caltech is a top ‘university’ then RISD should be too, despite whether or not people believe the fine arts to be sufficient academic disciplines.

“Now if a college decided to admit everybody whose favorite color is green, thats not necessarily a desirable goal in a college.”

-See I agree with this, but I also believe that the ‘market’ for admissions at that place will correct itself. If the school starts arbitrarily conducting admissions in that manner, then potential applicants and their parents will take heed, and in the end, there will be some kind of equilibrium that is reached.

collegealum314 · June 28, 2007, 11:26am

<h2>tyler: I believe that you should allow private institutions, even public ones really, to decide after a student is already qualified, yale estimates that 3/4 of it’s applicants are qualified, what constitutes “merit”.</h2>

Do you really think that Yale considers 3/4 of its candidates equally qualified in its eyes for admission? It’s unlikely that 3/4 of their candidates are likely to make roughly equal contributions to their respective fields. This concept of declaring 3/4 of its candidates “qualified” is basically a useless concept. It’s pretty hard not to graduate from an ivy league college. It’s almost like saying, “3/4 of our candidates can write in complete sentences.” There may be reasons to support AA, but this is not one of them.

Maybe it’s because many of you haven’t been to college, but you guys grossly overestimate university leadership. These guys are basically politicians with PhD’s. They will go along with whatever the status quo is in terms of ideology.

Tyler09 · June 28, 2007, 1:37pm

Nah, yale said itself that it estimates over 3/4 of its canidates are qualified. If you disagree with that then you’re disagreeing with Yale, not me.

Sure its a reason. If 3/4 of the applicants are qualified, then the university should be able to build its class out of those 3/4 depending on whatever its goals are, so long as those goals are desirable and reasonable.

Obviously all of those 3/4 would get in by merit would they be admitted, but to decide who has “more” merit is up to the university.

I think that if the Ivys were admitting students who weren’t qualified, they would have a hard time graduating. The fact that their graduation rates are among the highest goes to show that almost all people admitted are qualified.

collegealum314 · June 28, 2007, 3:46pm

“Nah, yale said itself that it estimates over 3/4 of its canidates are qualified. If you disagree with that then you’re disagreeing with Yale, not me.”

I believe you that Yale said this. I’ve heard so many adcomms say this type of thing it has become a cliche’. If you are really to believe what they say, then effectively there is an initial cut where 1/4 of the unqualified candidates are rejected. The remaining candidates are chosen from the remaining 3/4 by factors that have nothing to do with talent or work ethic.

If they mean by qualified that 3/4 of the candidates are capable of graduating from their university, then I think that’s a bizarre use of the word.

collegealum314 · June 28, 2007, 4:31pm

“Obviously all of those 3/4 would get in by merit would they be admitted, but to decide who has “more” merit is up to the university.”

I agree that merit can be judged in different ways. However, merit doesn’t mean anything the university may want unless you re-define the meaning of the word “merit.”

Big_Brother_1984 · June 28, 2007, 4:34pm

To kk19131 first:

I’ve proven that MIT is not strictly meritocratic. The former Dean of Admissions at MIT Marilee Jones fully acknowledges that fact, and that’s fine with the institution. Relative to other admissions practices, it’s fine with me too.

Unless you’re saying that Ms. Jones incorrectly assessed her own admissions.

But notice that’s all I had to do: Find one example to refute your statement that ALL schools are meritocratic. Let’s face it, you went too far when you said that ALL schools are meritocratic. I probably would’ve accepted your argument had you claimed that NO schools are meritocratic, but that’s not what you said.

That’s circular reasoning. You claimed an arbitrary definition and distorted the true meaning of the word ‘merit’, and then used that as your argument. Nope, sorry. By your reasoning, Harvard could start accepting people with rainbow suspenders and without any academic prowess, and still call its admissions ‘meritocratic’. When you invoke the term ‘merit’, you have to go by the actual definition. Not what you think serves as an acceptable benchmark.

Look at fabrizio’s old posts to see what he quantifies as merit in college admissions. Notice that no top USNWR college claims that its admissions are purely ‘meritocratic’. It’s a very loaded word.

Really? Even the lower end of students that will go on to drop out of the school? How very convenient of you to claim that.

Listen, nobody is claiming that ALL colleges are a meritocracy. It’s just you.

You’re a pretty bold person. Nobody else here will admit this.

Mostly, it was just a shout-out to collegealum314, who knows what I’m talking about. At least, I would hope so. Really, you think I would arbitrarily yell out jargon without a reason?

Before you even bother to continue that argument, I would suggest you look at cghen’s user handle. He’s a student from Caltech, and he obviously knows more of what he’s talking about than you do. Stop trying to infer from the article - that argument is over.

Big_Brother_1984 · June 28, 2007, 5:03pm

Nice front on attack. I would argue that it’s not me, who doesn’t have a CLUE.

But how very convenient of you to point out my flaws, and none of kk19131’s blatantly incorrect statements. This tells me that you have a specific bias in this debate.

Let me guess, I know what you’re thinking: That I’m trying to pick sides with fabrizio?

Nope, sorry. I don’t play that game. I don’t agree with everything fabrizio says, for example - his condoning of legacy admits. I don’t pick sides and try to conveniently overlook other posters like kk19131, just because he seems to support your side. If you’re going to call out “ignorant” statements, you have to do that for all posters. What’s fair is fair.

Maybe you think this is an emotional battle Tyler. But fabrizio is smarter than you think. He’s not going to touch that argument because he can’t argue it as well. I’ve noticed that a lot of fabby’s posts are well researched, backed up with multiple legal and political accounts. He’ll argue what he argues best.

This isn’t about “feelings” Tyler. And this certainly isn’t about fabrizio picking sides with me. This isn’t a 2-sided match like you think it is.

Thank you for at least revealing your own ignorance Tyler. You should realize by now that your baseless cognitive biases are worthless without any specific information. Listen, I backed up my statement with the idea that women already have low preferences towards technical professions, and that women already do well on their own. See my Caltech point. At this day and age, I highly doubt that women in general need any sort of a ‘boost’ from any sort of college admissions.

Now, if you’re not going to provide anything to back up your claims, then I would say that it’s not me who’s the ignorant one.

Then don’t. Nobody has a gun to your head. You don’t have to read my posts. You can live on with your biases. Nobody is stopping you.

Nobody is imposing anything. We’ll let the voters decide. If the voters feel that there is a grave injustice, then these institutions will basically have to change with the times. It’s like the Old South’s cotton economy. It had to change with the times as well.

How convenient of you to overlook the bigger picture. I think there’s little doubt that the middle class have it better than the lower classes. But what about the wealthy? There’s very little doubt that the wealthy students have it pretty darn good.

cghen · June 28, 2007, 5:15pm

It’s not that “people” hold more value in engineering and science so much that national universites and their students hold more value in science and engineering than say the visual arts or music. This is indicated by a couple things.

1) The possible majors between schools like Harvard overlap much more with Caltech than they do with RISD or Julliard. Harvard, for example, has two majors related to art (“visual arts and environmental studies” and"art history") and one major related to music (“music”), while Harvard feels the need to delineate science and engineering into: applied math, astronomoy/astrophysics, biochemical sciences, biology, chemistry and physical biology, chemistry, chemistry and physics, computer science, earth and planetary science, economics, engineering sciences, math, molecular and cellular biology, physics, and social studies. (<a href=“http://webdocs.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/ugrad_handbook/current/index.html[/url]”>http://webdocs.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/ugrad_handbook/current/index.html</a> )

2) A heck of a lot more people at ‘national universities’ major in science/engineering/social science related fields than it art (or in music). For example, in 2005, Harvard physics alone had 74 students (<a href=“http://webdocs.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/ugrad_handbook/current/chapter3/physics.html[/url]”>http://webdocs.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/ugrad_handbook/current/chapter3/physics.html</a> ), while the entire music program for the same year had 15 (<a href=“http://webdocs.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/ugrad_handbook/current/chapter3/music.html[/url]”>http://webdocs.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/ugrad_handbook/current/chapter3/music.html</a> ). Likewise, there were 90 students in the visual arts program which is lower than the number of engineering students (111) alone.

Hence, you’re much more likely to be able to take someone (at random) from Harvard, Stanford, etc., and find a similar course of study at Caltech than doing the same at RISD or Julliard - I think that’s a pretty good indication that Caltech is much more broad than those schools.

Big_Brother_1984 · June 28, 2007, 5:20pm

I don’t think you’ve ever sat in an Ivy League class have you? I would say that almost everyone I know is “qualified” enough to attend an Ivy League. Let’s face it, it doesn’t take much to actually do the work and graduate. You don’t have to be a prodigy, or some sort of a genius.

I think an article mentioned one time that a high school graduate with a 1200/1600 SAT could survive at Harvard. If that’s what you mean be “qualified.”

That’s where you’re wrong. ‘Merit’ is a strict term designating the absolute best that could’ve been admitted under strictly meritocratic practices (see Cambridge, Oxford, Todai, SNU, etc. for other mostly merit-based institutions). It’s an unequivocal definition, and it has nothing to do with the specific goals of the colleges. Like collegealum said:

Like I said, none of these places we’re talking about claim to be a meritocracy.

This is a fair statement. But don’t distort the term ‘merit’ here.

The Ivies all have exceptionally high graduation rates, oh right. But wait. What about those who don’t graduate?

Tyler09 · June 28, 2007, 5:29pm

what about them?

<ol>
<li>i said almost all. No college as large as an ivy is going to have a 100% graduation rate, too many variables.</li>
<li>Yale, for example, should have the right to decide who is the absolute best to admit. Who is the strongest, who will contribute the most, who will create the best environment. </li>
</ol>

Students have too many intangibles to impose what makes one student more “meritorious” than another.

kk19131 · June 28, 2007, 5:36pm

“When you invoke the term ‘merit’, you have to go by the actual definition. Not what you think serves as an acceptable benchmark.”

-No, I think it is you who are using what YOU think to be an acceptable benchmark.

My definition of merit is quite relevant in this discussion. In fact, here is how Merriam-Webster defines merit:

“The qualities or actions that constitute the basis of one’s deserts c : a praiseworthy quality : VIRTUE d : character or conduct deserving reward, honor, or esteem; also : ACHIEVEMENT”

Clearly if a college ADMITS an applicant it has found him worthy of said admission- there are REJECTIONS for a reason. Here is the definition of merit…. Are you telling me that being admitted to college does not consist of “the qualities or actions that constitute the basis of one’s deserts”? Are you saying that colleges admit people who are not ‘virtuous’ of being admitted? Face it, you’re wrong.

“But notice that’s all I had to do: Find one example to refute your statement that ALL schools are meritocratic.”

-You STILL have not done this. If you find me a school wherein there is no admissions committee, and applicants decide whether or not they get accepted to the school, then I will drop the “ALL” from the statement. For now, ALL schools are meritocracies.

“By your reasoning, Harvard could start accepting people with rainbow suspenders and without any academic prowess, and still call its admissions ‘meritocratic’.”

If you see the ACTUAL definition of merit- and not just what you believe it to be- then yes, Harvard could do just that. Just because you believe something to be true doesn’t make it so.

“Look at fabrizio’s old posts to see what he quantifies as merit in college admissions.”

-So because you agree with him, his definition is correct? No thank you. I’ll stick to my own- at least it’s backed up by actual dictionaries.

“Stop trying to infer from the article - that argument is over.”

It’s not over just because you say so. If you don’t like what I’m posting, then don’t read it:

“Nobody has a gun to your head. You don’t have to read my posts. You can live on with your biases. Nobody is stopping you.”

“But how very convenient of you to point out my flaws, and none of kk19131’s blatantly incorrect statements.”

-Now you attack me? How about the fact that you lack a sound understanding of history, law, and in general, Affirmative Action? I agree with Tyler, you did come and just stumble your way through your arguments. Stick to math proofs, Mr. ‘Math Olympian.’

collegealum314 · June 28, 2007, 5:49pm

“The qualities or actions that constitute the basis of one’s deserts c : a praiseworthy quality : VIRTUE d : character or conduct deserving reward, honor, or esteem; also : ACHIEVEMENT”

So was Martin Luther King wrong when he said he wanted to be judged by the “content of my character and not the color of my skin”? Obviously he makes a distinction between the definitions of character and skin color.

kk19131 · June 28, 2007, 5:58pm

“So was Martin Luther King wrong when he said he wanted to be judged by the “content of my character and not the color of my skin”? Obviously he makes a distinction between the definitions of character and skin color.”

That’s good for Martin Luther King… Could I say the exact opposite? Sure I could- I’m not going to (at least not now)- but I most definitely could. Just because Martin Luther King said something doesn’t make it so- and most certainly doesn’t make his beliefs any more correct than anyone else’s. In short- race could definitely be a part of one’s ‘character’.

Big_Brother_1984 · June 28, 2007, 6:08pm

I never attacked you. I attack the statements. Oh wait, but look here:

A direct ad hominem. Game, set, and match.

Reread what I wrote. This has nothing to do what WE think. This has to do with the actual, strict meaning of ‘merit’. See below.

Now, are you 100% sure that every single admit to a certain college is higher achieving, more virtuous than some of the others who were rejected? Every single one of them?

This is why I don’t talk in absolutes I know I can’t back up. But you seem pretty confident that ALL colleges are meritocratic.

That’s precisely what I’m saying. The actual act of colleges admitting a certain threshold of applicants does NOT make it a meritocracy. You are distorting the unequivocal definition. I am not advocating a certain benchmark here. ‘Merit’ has to do with terms that are external to college admissions. You are blatantly incorrect in your assessment that ALL colleges are meritocratic because they accept such and such students.

Uh…YES. You’d be hard-pressed to say otherwise.

You’ve certainly done a poor job of proving that.

Maybe you should actually read what I posted. Marilee Jones says that MIT admissions is not meritocratic. Are you going to disagree with the former dean of her own admissions?

Hey, I’m not forcing you to drop the “ALL” word. You can use it if you want. I should warn you that you’re just making yourself look less credible.

Really? Even MIT?

According to your Merriam-Webster’s definition, such people without academic prowess would hardly be “praiseworthy” or deserving of “reward, honor, or esteem.” You’re basically claiming that just because a student gets into a college, he basically had the merit to do so. Nope, not always. What about those development admits who, according to Dan Golden’s “The Price of Admissions,” would’ve been rejected under normal circumstances? That’s right, rejected.

I never said his definition is correct, but you should take a look to see what a perceived ‘merit’ could be taken as.

Hey, your dictionary definition is pretty good too. It actually backs up my points more than it does yours. How convenient.

It’s over because there’s no basis to talk about Caltech further. Let’s face it, you have NO IDEA what you’re talking about when you referenced Caltech. But hey, if you want to keep getting owned by cghen, who’s an actual Caltech student, then by all means.

Big_Brother_1984 · June 28, 2007, 6:15pm

First you’re bold enough to make absolute statements, now you’re bold enough to question one of the greatest Americans of all time.

kk19131, it seems like you like to equivocate between strict meanings and definitions. But you can’t do that. What’s right is right. There’s no room for distortion.

Any statistics to show that minorities due worse in college?

CONNECT WITH US