Not really. We haven’t shifted the topic to differences between Jewish and Asian parenting. I only brought up those issues to consider if there aren’t plausible explanations besides racism for those acceptance rates.
Because you already have made up your mind. You are convinced that certain admission patterns are caused by discrimination (racism). I’m not convinced that they aren’t, but I think other explanations are believable at this point.</p>
<p>I’m not suggesting that Jews broke through a ceiling because their cultural patterns (career goals, etc.) changed. I agree there was real antisemitism. This changed. When it did, Jews entered elite universities in greater numbers, and they did so across the whole spectrum of academic fields, as full participants and leaders in academic life. </p>
<p>
I’m not so sure about that. Besides, financial compensation isn’t the only pay-off risk-takers seek. A bright kid takes a risk when he blows off a boring, unproductive homework assignment to read Dostoevsky, fix a car, or talk a friend through a psychological crisis. So maybe he’ll get a B in that course instead of an A. That does not mean he’ll be less successful in a challenging college environment, let alone a less engaged citizen, than a kid who completes every single assignment on time. Elite colleges leave themselves a little room to take these differences into account, even though their choices are still largely driven by grades and scores (and even though the subjective factors they favor are not always the ones I would).</p>
<p>Yeah, that’s the basic idea; endowment and gifts bridge the gap between what most elite colleges charge for tuition and what it actually costs to run the college. And, FWIW, there isn’t a huge difference between what someone would learn at a top LAC and the comparable arts and science division of Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, Penn or Columbia; they just do it with fewer grad students.</p>
<p>My recollection is that the Bakke case determined that quotas were illegal, but that colleges could use it as a plus factor. Quoting wiki because it’s convenient:
<p>Those rulings are pretty contradictory.
I dunno- holisitic admissions sounds great constitutionally, but how do you build a racially diverse class without keeping count of these groups? Racial diversity seems to be an agenda that is ok with with Supreme Court, but not quotas.
Fine line to me…</p>
<p>What texas and others say- the actual sameness of the race percentages is fishy…</p>
<p>What is a “quota” as referred to by the Supreme Court? The precise methodology seems very important- setting aside a pre-determined number of spaces for each race is verboten, but ending up with that is ok??</p>
<p>Knowing a candidate’s race and using it to “advantage” an applicant is ok, but how does that not disadvantage an applicant of another race??? </p>
<p>And doesn’t the often used (thus legal) term of “representation” really smells a lot like
quotas…? </p>
<p>Just catching up on some old posts, and in no particular order:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How much you want to bet? ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the tactic favoured by Pizza Girl and Bay. I used the term guerrilla tactics to describe it. Indianparent is a fast learner. Yes, it is annoying. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There was a Canadian documentary called *The Corporation *that argued corporations, if they are people, would be deemed psychopaths. To me it is a no brainer. If the leadership have psychopathic tendencies, how can the corporations they manage arent?</p>
<p>This is where a lot of theories fail. My power relations between major social groups theory would not even miss a beat. I cannot help but notice the defensiveness whenever this topic is mentioned though. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the grand scheme of things, personal self-interest trumps all. I remember when I was young, even the most conservative oldsters turn into raving socialists once the topic moves around to government pensions.</p>
They do … but at wider gross levels … not at a precision that would allow strict rank ordering … more like giving A/B/C grades versus percentage grades (4 point scale versus a 100 point scale).</p>
However they are NOT trying to claim a numerical level of precision that is not there … they are splitting applicants into pools of similarily qualified candidates and then deciding which of these similarily qualified student make the most interesting/best incoming class … they are not coverting everything into numbers and claiming the 95.4002 is a better candidate than the 95.4001 candidate.</p>
<p>Another analogy … a lot of NBA teams have modified the way they run their draft process. In the past a lof of teams did one of two extremes they picked the highest rated player (IP’s method) or ignored the overall rating and picked the best player for the position of most need (ignored overall ranking and picked the highest in any hook category). Overtime this has turned into a hybrid … the possible draftees are split into bands … and then within a band they draft by need. So they do not just pick the players in order they have them rated … they do not believe the precision of the process is that good and that within a band the possible draftees are similar enough that picking how they help fill a team is a better election process … however they also do not ignore overall quality and totally ignore the overall quality of candidates either. Sounds pretty familiar to me.</p>
I’m still with you … the geek in me has always tried to get my firms to standardize the core interview questions … and to develop a common summary/rating form. That said I have never been in the place that then strictly ordered the candidates with a numerical rating and then hired the highest rated candidate by this number process … and I’m glad they did not … in many cases this would not pick the best candidate.</p>
<p>And yes you could say that indicates something was wrong with measurement system … and that is probably correct … but that was one of my earlier points … with so many variables to be measured and weightings across these variables maintaining the measurement system as the be all selection method as opposed to input in the process is just not realistic or doable.</p>
<p>I have seen a place where this is done not just for new hires, but for reviews and promotions as well, and it works superbly well. The intellectual capacity of the people are astounding - out of world really.</p>
<p>As long as they pick one over another they are following a ratings scale of some sort. All I am asking is that they write it down and make it public. Then, follow it strictly.</p>