<p>Pizzagirl, you seem to have something of a direct communication line to the top admissions committees in the land? Are you a HYPS admissions person? Just curious what your sphere of expertise actually is in all of this.</p>
<p>FWIW, our older kid got accepted SCEA at Yale and then accepted regular round at HPS and a number of other very fine schools with merit offers. So yeah . . . I kind of think he had an inkling of what the whole process was about and to some extent so did his parents. </p>
<p>I mention this just to help you understand that those who disagree with you are not always the embittered rejected types who are too dense to grasp the subtleties of the admissions process. Some of us who have kids who got accepted quite handily still have the temerity to ask whether the current system could be more fair and more consistent with the needs of an evolving society.</p>
<p>It doesn’t tell me much. My take was that Conley’s theory is just a theory, and nobody is, or ever was, opposed to socio-economic preferences anyway. In order to get to the point of even considering Conley’s ideas, you need to agree with the premise that the elite college’s admissions job is to solve the wealth-gap problem in the United States. I do not agree that it is and the Court doesn’t agree that it is. Admissions officers are simply composing an interesting class of students who benefit from each others’ presence and possess high potential to make the college look good in the future.</p>
<p>What is this “Asian” parent of which you speak? I thought race and ethnicity were artificial constructs from which one could draw no generalizations.</p>
<p>Those who think race is not meaningful should not check the race box. Those who think race is meaningful will check the race box. The vast majority of college applicants check the race box.</p>
<p>Bay, I really don’t agree with you. I think kids are afraid their application will get tossed if they don’t check the box. And surely we all realize how politically incorrect it would be for any applicant to indicate they don’t think race is meaningful.</p>
<p>I give kids much more credit than you do. The Common App uses the word “Optional” in red letters, followed by “The following items are optional. No information you provide will be used in a discriminatory manner.” You must think the kids assume that the colleges are lying, that the kids are cowards, and surprisingly, that most people think race is meaningful.</p>
<p>There seems to be an undercurrent at the moment about not flagging race among high school students. I was shocked to hear my kid state that the kid’s college application will need to leave out that information. I had to point out that I have no idea how to amend the transcript to reflect the same (since the systems had that information from 1st grade) and so the plan may not meet the desired effect. However, I am certain the idea was an outcome of discussions among the kid’s classmates.</p>
<p>I do not think there is any intrinsic biological connection between say, the pigmentation of one’s skin and one’s attitude or behavior. To think such a thing is patently absurd. However, the unfortunate historical application of truly horrible mistreatment based on skin color has led to different cultural expriences by people of different hues. I personally know of no individual I would identify as “Caucasion” by appearance who would tell me stories of suffering under Jim Crow, or being addressed with certain expletives by authority figures. I know from my own youthful experiences that I was treated differently by police than my Hispanic friends. It’s my experience. Maybe that’s changed, but I don’t think these types of inequities have been completely eradicated. Apparently you do.</p>
<p>Do you believe there is such as thing as an “African American” culture, or only an “Asian” or “Asian American” culture? And do you believe there is a monolithic “Asian” culture? If not, why not describe the behavior without giving it such a label?</p>
<p>I would love to see a time when these types of cutural and experiential differences were either fond or unfortunate relics of the past. But I don’t see this true color blind, equitable society that you apparently envision. When I ride the train into work I can start where I live and basically see the physical appearance of the riders change noticeably as I approach the city and travel through the less desirable portions of town. I just think that’s strange. As you say, these are individuals with nothing necessarily in common with the exception of some minor biological traits, yet here they all are, grouped together in the same places. Why is that, if we truly live in this race blind paradise?</p>
<p>Oh good grief. Stop being so one-dimensional about it.</p>
<p>An Italian-American student who grew up in a heavily Italian neighborhood in Joisey (and yes, I know no one says that, I was born in NJ) brings a different perspective to things than a High WASP of Anglo-Scots ancestry who grew up in Greenwich and summered in Kennebunkport. The Irish kid from Southie brings a different perspective than the Native American kid from Northern Minnesota. Heck, I can even see on these boards different perspectives that are gained from living in, spending time or going to school in different parts of the country, which have different orientations when it comes to the importance of name-brand schools, aspirations in life and strategies / approach for how to reach one’s goals. No one is being reductionist and saying race = culture, but there are a heck of a lot of different cultures in this country and race certainly impacts it.</p>
<p>Let me point out one other thing that seems strange to me. Many of the same people who seem horrified at the notion of any race based affirmative action, under the grounds that racial diversity is unimportant, seem to welcome admissions based at least in part on the parents income and wealth level – or lack thereof. This seems to imply that merely because a student comes from a wealthy family, they have not had to be self motivated, or that wealthy parents are necessarily more directing, encouraging and involved in a student’s education than poorer parents.</p>
<p>I speak from personal experience that there are plenty of wealthy parents who really have little interest in their child’s education – they would just as soon the kid enter the family upholstery business, and what do they need all that school for anyway, and don’t bother me I’m going to Europe. Or worse yet, dad’s rich but drunk all the time and not too pleasant to be around. Those kids face obstacles that while different, can be just as significant as a kid from a poor neighborhood whose parent gets them a scholarship to the local religious school. Yet nobody seems to question giving preference for checking off the “low income” box.</p>
<p>And BTW, I’m all for socioeconomic considerations in admissions. I know kids can explain all this stuff in essays. I just don’t see why people are so accepting of these blanket assumptions, but it always seems to be racial preferences that get people up in arms over “unfairness”.</p>
<p>“the temerity to ask whether the current system could be more fair”</p>
<p>what does fair have to do with anything? nothing in life is fair, there’s no such thing as fair.</p>
<p>and pizzagirl is correct admissions at schools such as HYPS and a few others fill slots based on the unique profile of the kid, and what the kid is passionate about aka excellent at! Their stellar gpa/SAT is just the baseline. HYPS is looking for tomorrows leaders, not tomorrows followers.</p>
<p>The other 3,500+ universities and colleges in our country are just filling slots based on gpa/sat and some EC’s. Do you think UCLA with 75,000+ application and a skeleton admissions staff with zero budget does much more than stack apps based on gpa/sat…that’s how most school admissions operate. What HYPS and a few others are doing is very unique, just like their students are:)</p>
<p>Me neither, and I think I know why. My generation (and my kids, for that matter) grew up with the constant, “Let’s celebrate our differences at Diversity Day!” mentality, where we were asked to bring food, traditions, music, etc. from our own “unique cultural backgrounds” so we can learn about, appreciate and “tolerate” our differences. There was not much emphasis placed on comparing our similarities.</p>
<p>“the temerity to ask whether the current system could be more fair”</p>
<p>Fair, in this context, implies that there is no overt discrimination - that is, adcoms don’t just toss all the (black / Hispanic / Asian / Jewish / Catholic / Protestant / whatever) students into a pile and say, “Sorry, we don’t want your kind around here.” (Exceptions given for when such things are relevant to the mission, such as women’s colleges, Yeshiva University, Wheaton College, etc.).</p>
<p>Fair does not mean that other things cannot be considered and that all elite schools are required to care about or consider them at the same levels. Stanford values athletic prowess and ability far more than Caltech does, for example. Is that “fair”? espeically to students who are either unathletic or physically disabled? Many elite schools have a specific mission to serve their immediate communities or nearby cities, such as by instituting outreach programs to those areas. Is that “fair” that Harvard explicitly tries to help underserved kids in Boston, or that NU does the same in Chicago, etc.? After all, students can’t control where they live and how much money their parents make any more than they can control the color skin they were born with.</p>
<p>"I speak from personal experience that there are plenty of wealthy parents who really have little interest in their child’s education – they would just as soon the kid enter the family upholstery business, and what do they need all that school for anyway, and don’t bother me I’m going to Europe. "</p>
<p>I fail to see how it impacts a kid’s education if the parent is uninterested. Does the parent stop them from spending any money on improving their resume? On the other hand, if the kid is poor, they can’t pay for anything that allows them to get better standardized test scores, get coaching, do activities that cost money (as simple as having camping gear for being part of scouts).</p>
<p>I’m not surprised that this discussion has spent so much time talking about preferences for URMs, because at least most people can recognize that they exist, and the discussion is about whether they should or not.</p>
<p>I hate to be tiresome, but I still don’t feel that there has been an adequate answer to the question of why, exactly, some people believe that the most selective privates, like Harvard, discriminate against Asians in favor of whites on the basis of race. As far as I can tell, the support for this belief is the following:
If decisions at these schools were made on the basis of grades and scores alone, there would be a higher percentage of Asian students than there is now.
People are aware of anecdotal cases (including Jian Li’s) when apparently highly qualified Asians were rejected at Ivy League schools, while (apparently) less qualified whites were admitted.
Princeton refused to publicly release data about admission of Asians.
When the UC system eliminated all racial preferences, the percentage of Asians went up as compared to whites.
In one study at Duke, Asians were about as qualified as whites on a specific set of “soft” factors beyond grades and scores.</p>
<p>Have I left anything out?</p>
<p>And here, from my point of view, are the considerations that cut against the idea that Asians are being discriminated against vs. whites at these schools:
The schools deny it.
Asians are overrepresented at all of these schools compared to their presence in the overall population.
Asians (apparently) are more likely to select a more limited number of potential majors than white students.
Asians are less likely to be recruited athletes than white students.
Asians are less likely to be legacies than white students.
Asians are likely to be negatively affected by efforts to get geographical diversity.
Asians (apparently) tend to choose a more limited set of extracurricular activities than white students.
Jian Li’s case has not produced any results.
Nobody has produced a “smoking gun” document from any college anywhere, as far as I know, showing this kind of preference.
Admission to the UC schools is primarily stats-based, as opposed to the Ivies.</p>
<p>One note: when I refer to “Asians” above, I note that this refers to Asians who are interested in obtaining admission to the most selective schools. As with whites and URMs with similar ambitions, they probably differ from a lot of other Asians. There are probably not many in this group who are looking for a Home Ec or Communications major, for example.</p>
<p>The only fair thing to do would be to admit students based only on scores. Diversity is a red herring; everybody’s different, and to suggest otherwise is offensive.</p>
<p>Is it fair to admit students based on scores only? Maybe not, but that’s just a problem with how we do scoring, not with the idea of an objective and standard measure of academic merit.</p>
<p>If students want to go to a place with a diverse student body, fine; let them apply to schools with diverse student bodies.</p>
<p>that’s right “fair” has nothing to do with it. and if admissions wanted to be more “fair” they wouldn’t ask for your race on the app. If anything, asking about an applicants race is an attempt to be unfair. </p>
<p>“wealthy parents who really have little interest in their child’s education” ya, and they’re thought of as selfish and ignorant.</p>
Are you serious? Parents who don’t value education don’t spend money on it. Period. Whether they are rich or poor.</p>
<p>Do you honestly believe that all parents add to a child’s educational upbringing is based on finances? Or based on their financial situation? I know parents poor parents at my church who spend every night going over homework with their kids, or sacrificing to buy them extra tutoring. I know wealthy parents who wouldn’t release a nickel for anything educational, have never spent a second going over homework with their kids. </p>
<p>You honestly believe that it’s easier for a kid to negotiate their educational life with an abusive alcoholic rich dad than a poor caring dad?</p>