are colleges racist?

[IndianParent]

<p>

Now that made me pretty mad.</p>

<p>A 2000 on an SAT is not “underperforming” and that’s what my kid got, along with her 4.0 unsighted GPA. Hard work on grades md EC’s, but no tax prep… And she did not apply for any Ivy’s. Not asking for anything,</p>

<p>Shaking my head.

</p>

<p>Don’t take this personally, please. My comment was about the URM community at large, and AA promoters.</p>

[Shrinkrap]

<p>You implied my child, my family, chose to “underperform”, not just om the SAT, but at school, because I wouldn’t have my child study an hour a day for a year, for a test you say is meaningless… Did I get that wrong?</p>

<p>I don’t care about Ivy’s. Most people don’t care about Ivy’s. I get that you do. I’m sorry.</p>

[skrlvr]

<p>

My point was to demonstrate a simple thing. The bias against Asians and STEM is so profound that even if it was choosing the end of the world on one hand and admitting 50% Asian STEM kids to Yale on the other, many on this forum would rather choose end of the world.

</p>

<p>I don’t think you actually have shown that ‘many on this forum would choose to end the world’.</p>

<p>You presented an unrealistic dichotomy: You can have racial and academic diversity at an elite instituion, and that racial and academic diversity will lead to the end of the world or you can have a majority of introverted Asian STEM majors and their attending and graduating from an elite institution will save humanity. </p>

<p>Most people played along by denying parts of your either/or statement. So, some said that an elite institution with racial diversity can save humanity, as in this post</p>

<p>

I’ll answer. I still wouldn’t take all of them, because in the other pile I have a brilliant writer, an outstanding Latin scholar, a kid who started a charity that helped thousands of people, and people who are likely to be outstanding in many other fields, all of which I think are important. No matter what the crystal ball says, if I’m Harvard, I believe that humanity needs a lot of different kinds of leaders.

</p>

<p>Or they rejected the idea that an introverted Asian STEM needed simply needed no other attributes (other than graduation from an elite institution) to save humanity, as in this post:</p>

<p>

I would buy the kid the book “How to win friends and influence people” and tell him/her to read and practice it. I would also tell the “kid” that it is important to learn how to speak to and interact with adults. I would tell them to get out of their comfort zone and to challenge themself to do things that scare them. I would do all I could to expose them to situations that could help them grow as a person.

</p>

<p>I think most people are really answering in the following way:</p>

<p>If I were an adcomm, and I really had a crystal ball, and knew which applicants would save the world by attending and graduating from my institution, and which applicants would not, I would only accept those applicants who the crystal ball would say that they would save the world. </p>

<p>Importantly, the resulting class of admittees would not be mostly introverted Asian STEM majors.</p>

<p>And I don’t think this shows a strong bias against Asians or STEM majors or Asian STEM majors. I think it demonstrates the reality that one particular ethnic/racial group or one particular academic field or mode of inquiry, does not have a monopoly on producing the next group of saviors.</p>

<p>We have seen, historicallly, what happens when one particular ethnic or racial group or one particular mode of inquiry takes over, and the results overwhelmingly are the total opposite of ‘saving the world’.</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>

Quote:
“I know this is hard to believe, IP, but, Harvard doesn’t give a tat’s bass whether you make hundreds of millions of dollars.” </p>

<p>You mean, they only care about hundreds of millions of dollars of donations, but turn their nose when the donor actually earns that kind of money?

</p>

<p>You have a knack for non-sequiturs. Why would Harvard care how a donor earned his or her living?</p>

[sorghum]

<p>

Harvard doesn’t give a tat’s bass whether you make hundreds of millions of dollars.

</p>

<p>This may be one of the most profoundly false statements ever made on CC …</p>

[Canuckguy]

<p>

Why are you so concerned with the percentage of Jews at selective schools?

</p>

<p>For me, the percentage of Jews vs. The percentage of Asians in the elites reveals, just a little sliver, of the calculus of power in society.</p>

<p>

We do need better schools and better jobs for parents, but as the experience from the example that Fabrizio posted, African American kids in upper-middle class districts and top-notch school districts still do worse than their peers from other races.

</p>

<p>According to OECD, we Canucks have one of the top four school systems in the world, yet we are also utterly helpless in closing this performance gap.</p>

<p>

fyi, the are more psychology degrees awards per year than all engineering degrees … so it sure appears that a much larger percentage of all students are interested in liberal arts, business, and education than in STEM majors.

</p>

<p>I believe most students cannot handle STEM majors, rather than liking the liberal arts and the like.</p>

<p>

I dated some real losers, but DIDN’T MARRY THEM OR HAVE CHILDREN WITH THEM. Again, knowing what I know, that is the luckiest part of all. And the guy I married is way more than I deserve.

And I was probably born at just the right moment in history to make the best of all of that. Sure, I take advantage of opportunities; for me, I learned early enough that even a modicum of effort can pay off in a pretty big way.

</p>

<p>This is where IP and I differ. I believe hard work is important, and few of us worked to our full potential. Ability and luck, however, also play important roles in one’s success in life. The ability to see oneself objectively, and the ability to exploit one’s strength and conceal one’s weaknesses seem to be in short supply. I have always been amazed by people who don’t even seem to know what is in their own personal best interest. As I have said many times before, we do not live in Lake Woebegone.</p>

<p>

I wish you and Fab would stop repeating that. Not sure what the technical name is, for doing that in a debate; can I just call it annoying?

</p>

<p>I think it is some type of dialectics. There is such a tradition in India.</p>

[tega]

<p>

@IndianParent

I fully agree. Asians would pick up most of those seats and Asian enrollment would go up by another 15 points or so (as Hispanics would be displaced too).

</p>

<p>Why Do you think that Asians will pick up most seats? Like I wrote earlier, the number of White kids with almost close to perfect score is far more than the number of Asians with close to perfect scores, so it is highly probable that most of the available spots will go to White students not Asians.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

You have a knack for non-sequiturs. Why would Harvard care how a donor earned his or her living?

</p>

<p>I didn’t say that Harvard cares about the how. Are you a lawyer?</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

This is where IP and I differ. I believe hard work is important, and few of us worked to our full potential. Ability and luck, however, also play important roles in one’s success in life. The ability to see oneself objectively, and the ability to exploit one’s strength and conceal one’s weaknesses seem to be in short supply. I have always been amazed by people who don’t even seem to know what is in their own personal best interest. As I have said many times before, we do not live in Lake Woebegone.

</p>

<p>Merit, to me, is 99% hard work, and 1% ability. Success, to me, is 50% luck, and 50% merit.</p>

<p>What a kid cannot control is the household culture that (s)he is born into. That’s where the luck factor comes in. A kid born to Tiger Parents has an immediate advantage.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

I thought the whole point of holistic admissions was that test scores aren’t everything. Granted, that doesn’t mean test scores are nothing, but your argument is only valid if test scores are weighed as heavily as stereotypical Asians “who don’t get it” think they are weighed.

Not at all. The sad fact is that URMs (especially black students) don’t just have lower scores than whites and Asians, they have much lower scores. There are very, very few blacks in the higher echelons of scorers. There are only about 10,000 blacks students who scored over 600 on either CR or math SAT. There are almost that many whites who scored 800. As I noted before, there were 21,000 Asians who scored over 750 on math. As you note, scores aren’t everything, nor are they nothing. But if they’re anything, colleges are going to have trouble recruiting black students. That’s why they need AA to do it.</p>

<p>So, yes:

You’re saying that holistic admissions (i.e. the consideration of subjective criteria) is not enough to staunch the reduction in “URM” enrollment.

I am saying that, unless you are going to play games with holistic admissions–which, of course, is OK with me.</p>

<p>

That can only mean one thing: "URM"s are getting in solely because of their racial classification. They are not getting in because they have something to offer in terms of interests and talents. They are getting in just because they can claim a certain group membership.

Sure–but it’s not because of what they “claim,” but because it’s what the college wants.</p>

<p>

I have no problems with admitting a “URM” who may have lower SAT scores than average if he demonstrates a genuine interest that “HYPSM et al” feel is uncommon in the applicant pool or if he demonstrates a “Wow!” talent. No problems at all. I don’t care that his SAT might be lower than average.

I’m tempted to say, “that’s mighty white of you,” but it might be misunderstood. In other words, you think the URM should only be admitted if he’s really “better” in some way.</p>

<p>

But I have a lot of problems if you want to admit him just because he’s a “URM” and there aren’t “enough” of them. That is a violation of Bakke: “If petitioner’s purpose is to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin, such a preferential purpose must be rejected not as insubstantial, but as facially invalid.”

It’s too bad for your point of view that the Grutter court gave colleges a blueprint on how to do it anyway.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

You presented an unrealistic dichotomy

</p>

<p>OK, let’s turn this thing around. You have 1000 extroverted WASP LA majors with clearly demonstrated leadership skills instead, and the crystal ball is giving multiple thumbs up when asked if these guys would change the world. What would you do?</p>

[Hunt]

<p>If an infallible crystal ball told me that decision X was better in overall terms than decision Y, I would make decision X.</p>

<p>Next question?</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>

Quote:
“You have a knack for non-sequiturs. Why would Harvard care how a donor earned his or her living?” </p>

<p>I didn’t say that Harvard cares about the how. Are you a lawyer?

</p>

<p>How do you separate the milk from the “how”? Aren’t you the philospher?</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>You know Hunt, your position on this is the most rational, honest and lucid. While we are totally on different sides on the debate here, I can respect where you are coming from. </p>

<p>You are quite clear that there is racism going on in the colleges, because otherwise there wouldn’t be enough URMs. Colleges do want a certain ratio of URMs, and since there is no way they can achieve that ratio based on either academic success or other holistic merit, or even a diverse socio-economic background, they must use skin color. That may mean admitting kids of recent immigrants instead of descendants of slaves, but at least the campus looks like a rainbow. This may be illegal per the 1970’s USSC, but not the 2000’s court, so anyone opposing it should just shut up.</p>

<p>Now, I think that this position is ethically bankrupt, but highly laudable because of the honesty and lucidity. I wish other posters - like xiggi for example - would come out and say the same.</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

How do you separate the milk from the “how”?

</p>

<p>That has nothing to do with the point you earlier made, and to which I responded.</p>

<p>To recap, I claimed that people do not need leadership skills to succeed in the USA - raw smarts is enough. I gave an example from the recent housing crisis.</p>

<p>For some reason, that rubbed you the wrong way. You said that Harvard doesn’t care how much money someone makes. Which, by itself, had nothing to do with what I said.</p>

<p>But, I just couldn’t pass up the opportunity to expose the hypocrisy here. So I said that oh, so they don’t care how the money is made, but they only care that the money comes back to them in the form of donations? How noble of them.</p>

<p>Now, you decided to take the discussion on a different tangent. You asked why would Harvard care how the money was earned? Which, once again, had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion so far, and not something I talked about anyway.</p>

<p>Now you are taking it in yet another direction. Seriously my friend, are you a lawyer? Do you think this way you can somehow prove that leadership skills are important for success, and everyone can be a leader?</p>

[IndianParent]

<p>

If an infallible crystal ball told me that decision X was better in overall terms than decision Y, I would make decision X.</p>

<p>Next question?

</p>

<p>I love your trust in the crystal ball when it comes to extroverted WASP LA majors with leadership skills, but not when it comes to introverted Asian STEM majors with academic brilliance.</p>

<p>What is your ethnicity?</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

You are quite clear that there is racism going on in the colleges, because otherwise there wouldn’t be enough URMs. Colleges do want a certain ratio of URMs, and since there is no way they can achieve that ratio based on either academic success or other holistic merit, or even a diverse socio-economic background, they must use skin color. That may mean admitting kids of recent immigrants instead of descendants of slaves, but at least the campus looks like a rainbow. This may be illegal per the 1970’s USSC, but not the 2000’s court, so anyone opposing it should just shut up.

My only real quibble with this is that this isn’t “racism.” At least in the history of this country, racism means belief in the superiority and inferiority of races, with the resulting oppression of the “inferior” race. Affirmative action is certainly a race-based practice, but it is not “racist.” I can understand why Asians, in particular, have questions about affirmative action–after all, it is a practice that has arisen as a result of historical discrimination by whites against URMs. Asians really had nothing to do with it (other than those who were also the victims of discrimination.) But as I’ve noted before, dealing with these past issues is just one of the costs of living in this country, just as being taxed to pay down the national debt is.</p>

[mathmom]

<p>^I wouldn’t accept all of them (1000 WASPs) either. I still believe diversity is better. I chose my town so my kids could live with people of all races and incomes not so they could live in the town with the highest SAT scores. In my kids’ schools they were never part of the majority and in fact there was not a majority of any race. Interestingly, Asians for the most part do not choose to live in our town. I could speculate as to why, but would probably be accused of racism.</p>

<p>And while I stand by my statement that I don’t think it would be a good thing for Harvard to be 50% Asian, I’d like to qualify it by saying “at this time”. If the Asian population of the US increases, I would expect the Asian population at Harvard to increase as well. But until we are all brown, which I hope will happen in the not too distant future, I’d like to see everyone represented at the elite schools.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

What is your ethnicity?

Unclear, but probably Swiss.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

But if they’re anything, colleges are going to have trouble recruiting black students.

</p>

<p>Again, if we trust Bay’s recollection that according to Harvard, a 600 on the CR is all you need to do the work, 10,000 is enough for a lot of top schools to have their “critical masses” met. Divide 10,000 by 40 (20+20), and you get 250. In the [last</a> year](<a href=“http://www.yale.edu/oir/cds.pdf]last”>http://www.yale.edu/oir/cds.pdf) for which Yale had data, “only” 106/1305 blacks entered. It was the same at [Harvard[/url</a>]; 127/1666 blacks entered. Ditto for [url=<a href=“http://registrar.princeton.edu/university_enrollment_sta/common_cds2010.pdf]Princeton[/url]:”>http://registrar.princeton.edu/university_enrollment_sta/common_cds2010.pdf]Princeton](<a href=“http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/Provost_-_CDS2008_2009_Harvard_for_Web_Clean.pdf]Harvard[/url”>http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/Provost_-_CDS2008_2009_Harvard_for_Web_Clean.pdf):</a> “only” 96/1312 blacks came in. How about non-Ivy Stanford? [No</a> difference](<a href=“http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2010.html#enrollment]No”>http://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/2010.html#enrollment); 128/1672 blacks entered. And just to fill in the “HYPSM” acronym, [url=<a href=“MIT Institutional Research”>MIT Institutional Research]MIT[/url</a>] had 67/1067 blacks come in.</p>

<p>At top LACs, the magnitudes are even smaller because the class sizes are also smaller. [url=<a href=“http://www.swarthmore.edu/Documents/administration/ir/cds2010.pdf]Swarthmore[/url”>http://www.swarthmore.edu/Documents/administration/ir/cds2010.pdf]Swarthmore[/url</a>] “only” had 22/388 blacks enter. So, no, Hunt, I’m not buying your argument at all. None of these schools even came close to having 250 blacks in their incoming classes, and in the case of LACs, 250 black freshmen would suggest that the LAC was an HBC. 10,000 blacks nationwide with SAT CR scores of at least 600 is enough for “critical masses” at a LOT of schools to be met.</p>

<p>

I am saying that, unless you are going to play games with holistic admissions–which, of course, is OK with me.

</p>

<p>I find this hilarious and sad at the same time. You’re painting yourself as a great defender of “less fortunate” blacks’ interests. Yet YOU are the one who is arguing that without racial preferences, they’re screwed because there aren’t enough of them to match whites and Asians on “quantitative, scaleable” criteria, and they cannot best whites and Asians on subjective criteria either!</p>

<p>YOU are the one who is dismissing their abilities; I am not.</p>