Mind you, I’m supportive of Oxbridge’s recent efforts of considering applicants who are low-SES or have not had advantages in life with a sympathetic eye. Shocking as it may seem to some, they manage to do so without explicitly considering race or parentage.
I don’t oppose affirmative action. There are pros and cons. But I think racial preference is a charged issue that should be dealt with as transparently as possible. The obfuscated reasoning of Grutter does exactly the opposite. I would like to see affirmative action stand on its merits, not hide behind a veil of holistic admissions as if institutions need be ashamed of programs that may well do great good. Just my 2 cents.
Trump has nothing to do with AA and everything to do with money. As soon as colleges don’t need donations I guess we’ll see the preference for full pay kids, and kids whose families will build a stadium, go away.
No, PT, I didn’t characterize women’s equality as “going forward.” Nor did I predict. I did say AA has been going forward for a few decades. Anyone can see the positive results in our society of various programs. Perhaps you have a different perspective on the gains certain segments have made.
You’ve tried to re-interpret my words, whether or not you see it as logicial. You need to understand and accept that race is not a rubber stamp in holistic admissions.
Colleges are not considering “race” so much as ethnicity and there is a huge difference between those two things.
The problem with considering only the merit of an applicant is very problematic for several reasons. First and foremost there are already an incredible number of qualified students for an incredibly small number of spots. Then of course, you would have to define merit. Test scores? perfect SAT’s do not equate to a successful college student or even a successful person in life. Grades? There are high schools where one can get an A in AP Spanish and still only have incredibly basic language skills. AP scores? Many students do not have access to AP courses or cannot afford the exams, many students are ill prepared for the exam due to crappy curriculum which is beyond their control.
Minority students and low income students face struggles in their education that privileged people will never face. It is not fair to hold an inner city Chicago student to the same level of merit as a trust fund child at Phillips Exeter.
When was the last time you were not hired because of the implied heritage of your last name? When was the last time when instead of answering your calculus question your teacher asked about whether your parents were legal residents? When was the last time you had to work to put food on your table instead of studying for the SAT? When was the last time you were harassed by Police officers for being suspicious on your way to school?
Colleges consider ethnicity because in this country race and heritage still effect the daily lives of thousands of students across this country. Low income students struggle to pay rent for their families while their peers drop twice that much on SAT prep.
You imply that affirmative action is unfair? What is unfair is penalizing students who have overcome huge adversity to be 50 points lower on the SAT than some other applicant. Getting a 750 on the SAT while worrying about what you will have for dinner is far more an accomplishment than an getting an 800 while having the luxury of being able to focus solely on school. Considering race is not racist, it is affirming the truth that racism still impacts the lives of students. Considering ethnicity is by definition considering diversity. Considering income is a way to gauge the tenacity of a student and the indomitable attitude they will exhibit throughout their life.
I fail to understand why people still keep talking about how holistic admissions is the best thing since sliced bread, how AA has changed lives, and how only admitting high academic performers to Harvard would be oh-so-boring. Those are all beside the point.
The point here is one of law. Is it OK to discriminate based on race in college admissions by entities that receive Govt funds? The SCOTUS is going to decide that soon. Everyone else should fall in line as the SCOTUS is God.
That is rich! Perhaps you ought to start reading a tad more critically. Your statement simply illustrates you missed the point entirely.
But still less than with following statement:
Would it help you if I were to point to the inherent advantages a rich student such as being a Trump scion has without having to be a development admit? Have you looked at the SES distribution among the top 200 or so colleges? Where do the lower quartile lives or which schools do they attend? And where would the Trump little Barons go?
What does a reduced or eliminated holistic review bring? A focus on GPA and test scores without much attention to how and where the scores are obtained. Does the comparison between the people attending Trinity – that little Friends school in DC start to make sense-- with that shrimp farming community in the bayou start to make sense? How does a 1450 SAT from Mobile or Detroit compares to one earned in Manhattan?
How hard is it to understand that a holistic review that measures a great number of elements is better than a paint-by-the-numbers system based on that illusory meritocracy of test scores. How hard it to understand that a fuller review permits to ascertain how someone did when compared with his or her peers and in his or her environment.
The Common Data Set does not split out SE Asians from northern asians from southern asians (indians). In terms of overall asian head count, it’s one number for “asians”.
^
A huge problem in quantifying–or even qualifying–privilege, advantage, oppression, etc., is that there are so very many dimensions on which someone can be privileged or oppressed. For example, I was recently talking to a mentor who I really admire about being in academia as a visible minority (I’m visibly disabled, and she’s non-White). I was thinking of myself as a fairly privileged White girl who’s never faced any significant hardship and honestly felt bad for even asking her the question. She said, “You know, I don’t really think I’ve faced any discrimination in academia, but I think that you will, and I’m sorry that that’s the case. I really admire that you’ve achieved so much with all the things you’ve had to overcome.” Meanwhile, I was thinking of her as someone who’s had to deal with far more discrimination and difficulty than I have and considering how much I admired her strength in overcoming all of it to be so successful! So, we both saw each other as “more disadvantaged.”
So, in admissions, who’s “disadvantaged”? The high SES African American kid? The low SES White kid? The high White gay kid? The low SES Hispanic kid? The middle SES African American trans girl? The high SES Native American disabled kid? The high SES, White, straight, able-bodied guy who lost his mother and father as a child? I’m not necessarily against given consideration to the context of disadvantage in admissions–it is can be very impactful–but quantifying and qualifying who is “disadvantaged” or “more disadvantaged” is really complex and really subjective.
Which is why a lengthier and more exhaustive list of reviewable “ingredients” is a better alternative that one that is more narrowly defined by politics.
Those factors can be considered, psych. And ime, they are. But none of this is simple labels. It’s not the simple fact of being disadvantaged. It’s accomplishment and context.
“Your statement simply illustrates you missed the point entirely.”
And your statement illustrates that you’re blindered and can’t put together coherent arguments (but I expect that from you, @xiggi).
“How hard is it to understand that a holistic review that measures a great number of elements is better than a paint-by-the-numbers system based on that illusory meritocracy of test scores. How hard it to understand that a fuller review permits to ascertain how someone did when compared with his or her peers and in his or her environment.”
How hard is it to understand that those people doing the fuller review have to be “pure” and devoid of biases and incentives that would pull them away from meritocratic ideals (in other words, not be human) for people to trust that they would do a better job of rewarding merit (however you define it) than some objective system? And asyouyourselfnoted, this holistic system that you seem to believe does a better job of determining merit is filling elite privates with tons of kids who’s families can afford to be full-pay (so by definition are upper-middle-class or above). So just how much better is this system than a purely objective one?
Women are like a model minority I guess. AA was so successful for us that we now outnumber qualified men as hs grads. More of us go to college than men. How is that not a success story?
…on the Hmong, etc thing, under holistic review colleges can consider a student under represented if s/he is, and they are, in college.
@lookingforward: "No, PT, I didn’t characterize women’s equality as “going forward.” "
Yet you asked this:
“Would you go backwards with equality for women and the disabled?”
Am I not to assume that you regard equality for women as “going forward”, then? What then am I suppose believe about your viewpoints concerning equality for women? Do you believe that equality for women is akin to going backwards, then, and inequality for women is akin to going forward?
Granted, I suppose that would be one way to interpret your original statement, though not one that had occurred to me.
PT, I wonder if you know what the fuller meritocratic ideals really are for various highly competitive elites.
Asking if you would erase the wins of AA (for women and others) is NOT “Implicitly, [assuming] that AA is going forwards.” It reflects the successes to-date. I said, " AA has been going forward, for a few decades. We now have parents and grandparents now influencing the present and next generations (all of us.) (Same for women, the disabled, those of minority religions, gays, etc. One might say, progress begets progress.)
For a few of us, it seems you are twisting words.
There’s a kid on another thread who is arguing he/she is disadvantaged because absentee father impacted on his/her tennis career.
MODERATOR’S NOTE: We already have a thread to discuss AA. This thread has disintegrated into an AA debate, so I am closing it.