are colleges racist?

[Bay]

<p>

What I want to know is whether this whole idea that Harvard et al are biased against Asians is, itself, a straw man. Perhaps that argument has to be included because otherwise it seems a bit unattractive for a highly overrepresented group to be complaining about the “unfairness” of putting a thumb on the scale for URMs.

</p>

<p>Hunt,
My impression is the reverse. Since the evidence of discrimination against Asians vis-a-vis Whites is so thin or non-existent, then the thinking is that if we completely eliminate using race as a factor in admissions, all opportunities for colleges to discriminate on any racial grounds disappear. Colleges cannot ask about race anymore, URMs no longer take other peoples’ spots, and thus spots open up for more Asians and Whites, and presumably Asians will get most of those spaces because of CA post-Prop 209. Colleges cannot use the race factor to unfairly add more Whites, either. They need the entire thing blown up in order to get to the “just” result.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

Your demand for the proof is, in my view, just a little disingenuous. There can be no proof until the process is completely transparent, ie, all applicants’ complete applications - scores, gpa, hs courseload, ECs, and race as well as some sort of indicator of the “readability” of the application - is disclosed from the past five or so years. That is not going to happen so the proof is unattainable. And I think you both are completely aware of that.

Well, sure–but what is the strong reason, if there is one, that this particular form of discrimination is suspected? We aren’t looking to see, as far as I know, if Jews are getting as many slots as they should, or whether people with Italian surnames are disadvantaged. As best I can tell, this is primarily a case of a group with higher than average scores getting somewhat less representation at highly selective schools that look at a lot of factors other than scores. The schools say they don’t discriminate against this group on the basis of race, and there is no smoking gun suggesting that they are lying.</p>

<p>And the colleges make no bones about the fact that the process isn’t really transparent, even to them. It includes significant subjectivity. They don’t (as I understand it) generate numerical scores for every aspect of the application and then accept those with the highest scores. Rather, after they’ve narrowed down the pile, they sit around in a room and say things like, “Well, I don’t know about this kid–he just doesn’t seem *sincere *to me.” It’s certainly possible that this could result in Asians or others being unfairly disadvantaged, even unconsciously, but how are you ever going to show it? It seems to me that those complaining about this must really face the fact that they don’t want “holistic” admissions, but rather something based on quantifiable criteria.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>Sorry, I meant to say on this site as opposed on to on this blog. Here is a recent thread in which MITChris (adcom) participated. His points are well stated and he is crystal clear about what they look for. See posts 61, 63 and 74 explicitly. But he’s been a contributor and he has said versions of what he says here repeatedly. I have no reason to believe he’s a liar when he says he doesn’t care about 2400 vs 2300, and he evalutes everything in context. Do you? </p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1162499-nytimes-race-question-apps-perplexes-multiracial-students-2.html#post12795517[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/1162499-nytimes-race-question-apps-perplexes-multiracial-students-2.html#post12795517&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Hunt]

<p>To switch to the URM issue for a second, I thought I’d bring back a little hypothetical dialogue I put into a similar discussion a few years ago:</p>

<p>Joe: I’m thinking about starting a club for business owners in town. My idea is to have 20 members, and to ask the 20 sole proprietors who employ the most people.
Jim: If you do that, you’ll have only white members. I happen to know that although there are quite a few black-owned businesses in town, the largest of them has only about six employees, and there are 30 or more white-owned businesses that have more.
Joe: Really? That’s a problem, then, because one of my goals was to increase networking between the black and white business communities, which I think would both benefit from better cooperation and understanding.
Jim: Well, you could set a quota, and let in the four or five largest black business owners.
Joe: Gosh, I hate to do that. Some people will say it’s discrimination, and some white business owner might complain.
Jim: Well, you could change your criteria–perhaps look for the business owners that have done the most to help the community.
Joe: But that’s kind of subjective, isn’t it?
Jim: Well, yes, but it allows to you to take into consideration that the black business owners have fewer resources, and that they may help the community in ways different from the white business owners.
Joe: Yes, I see…
Jim: And I suppose you could also ask them to write an essay…</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>MITChris is Chris Peterson, presumably. His title is “Admissions Counselor for Web Communications at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.” He describes his job thus:</p>

<p>

My job is to help make the Internet go for the Admissions Office.

</p>

<p>Sorry. This seems like a wonderful man but he is a spokesperson for MIT. He does not make admissions decisions for MIT. It’s interesting that he doesn’t care if the SAT is 2300 or 2400 but he does not seem to be in the position where his view on this actually matters to applicants.</p>

<p>He is a spokesperson. He is distributing the MIT “policy” that is intended for the digestion of the masses. This is not really what I would call an insider view of the process.</p>

<p>Hunt - the average scores and gpa for Asians who get admitted to the top Ivy schools are consistently higher than for other applicants of other racial groups. Sure, sure. I know MITChris and Epiphany and Pizzagirl will claim forever that a 2150 is the same as a 2250 is the same as a 2350. That is called the party line. The schools claim they do not care if the scores are over a threshold and thus the holistic criteria kicks in and thus there can be no racial discrimination. </p>

<p>What I do not believe and have never believed is that there is truly no difference between a 2200 and a 2350 if you happen to be Asian or white. For those kids, the scores and gpa better be sky high if they aren’t hooked in some manner.</p>

<p>That is the point of the Flanagan piece that was so disparaged on here. I think it is completely true and I think that it does, in fact, constitute a racist process. That is, a different level of academic achievement is required of applicants depending upon their race. </p>

<p>In fact, HYPS and other top schools care enormously about the 2400 v the 2300 because they care intensely about their score averages for their admitted classes. That goes to their ranking and it matters to them. In order to get their legacy+athlete+race mix they have to impose a substantially higher bar for on the non-preferenced race applicants.</p>

<p>The “line” is that they make no distinction. The truth is that they can’t possibly be achieving the score averages that go into their rankings unless they do make very careful distinctions on the group of kids that power up their score averages. </p>

<p>That is my take. I’m not positive that it is good or bad for them to be doing this although I’m not slavishly going to say it’s a good thing because it’s all couched in such politically correct themes.</p>

<p>It would be refreshing for a little honesty about it, though.</p>

<p>Edit:</p>

<p>Also, it is a bit cynical in that the more applicants apply the lower the admission rate and the higher the ranking for the institution. If HYPS came out and said, hey the non-hooked (by race, athlete, legacy) needs on average a 2350 – then you would probably see a LOT fewer kids putting the $60 on mom’s mastercard to apply. By telling the world that they use the threshold model in looking at scores, they encourage a great many applicants with virtually no chance.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

He is distributing the MIT “policy” that is intended for the digestion of the masses.

I think “policy” is a key word that hasn’t been discussed enough in this thread.
Do some people think that selective schools have a policy that explicity limits the number of Asians, such as a reverse quota? I find it very difficult to believe that any of the schools have such a policy in writing, and am also skeptical that any such policy is communicated from admissions leaders, either. Indeed, they say that their policy is to the contrary.
As I’ve pointed out, they do have policies that (in my opinion) disadvantage Asian applicants, such as a tip for legacies, athletic recruiting, and geographical diversity.
But it seems to me that the complaint here is not so much that there are anti-Asian quotas that you could find out about by bugging the admissions committee meetings, but more likely that individuals on the admissions committee have subjective biases that result in their rejecting Asian applicants who “should” be admitted. How would you propose doing away with that, short of doing away with the subjective elements of holistic admissions?</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

I hope you are not implying Dr. Sowell is not telling the truth.

Of course not. He is also not making any statement about Professor Karabel. I am merely implying that Professor Sowell’s experience with polls or groups of faculty says absolutely nothing about the position of any particular professor or admissions officer. </p>

<p>Might I suggest a quaint notion to you. Why not simply explain your opinion rather than linking to tangentially relevant posts. Perhaps what you interpret as reverential silence when you state your opinion is merely your acquaintances trying to play mentalist since you never really explain anything.</p>

<p>Let me try to make it simple for you, and see if you can actually respond to what I write.</p>

<p>I posted that Professor Karable was an ardent supporter of AA. It is fairly well known he put a version of AA into his plan for Berkeley, and he has defended it in numerous public fora.</p>

<p>You proceed to post the comment “Not necessarily.” I assume you mean that to imply that Professor Karabel does not necessarily actually support diversity measures. Well, the world won’t necessarily exist tomorrow, but all existing evidence indicates it will. Similarly, all existing evidence indicates that Professor Karable supports AA.</p>

<p>After which, you point to some quote from Thomas Sowell about his general experience and the results of some polls. I assume you intend this as some sort of “evidence” about Professor Karabel’s clandestine opinoin. Otherwise, why did you post it in response to my comment?</p>

<p>Even assuming Dr. Sowell is correct I fail to see how this is even relevant to the true opinion of one particular professor. If you believe you can make specific assumptions about any single member of a population from general data on that population, then don’t bother to reply. That’s too absurd to even consider.</p>

<p>

Karabel, whose role in redesigning Berkeley’s admissions policy in the late '80s in order to pass constitutional muster is described in The Big Test, and who remains one of the most thoughtful advocates of affirmative action, candidly concedes that the Big Three ramped up the admission of black students almost overnight owing not to some midnight conversion but to terror at the rising tide of black anger and violence—owing, that is, to racial blackmail.

As far as your notion about this snippet not being a reviewer’s interpretation. Did you forget to add the quotation marks around the excerpts from “The Chosen”? Because otherwise I have no idea if this is the reviewer’s interpetation or not. I could write “CanuckMan candidly concedes he is wrong about everything.” Without actual quotes nobody would know what you actually wrote. </p>

<p>It could be an accurate representation, but even so, to me it merely says that the universities in question did not abandon their elitist tendencies without severe external pressure.</p>

<p>Oh, and FYI - I don’t get emotional over this stuff. I don’t really care much one way or the other.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>One note about Sowell’s point: while he refers to “poll after poll,” he cites only one disputed study, which was funded by two conservative groups opposed to affirmative action. So, like everything else Sowell writes, I take his claims on this point with a large grain of salt.</p>

[Bay]

<p>Maybe if colleges disclosed the racial makeup of the admissions committee, it would make a difference to those who are suspicious.</p>

[sm74]

<p>I think MITChris has been to the Harvard Summer Institute on College Admissions.</p>

<p>I just received the high school paper from one of the top private schools in the Country and they interviewed some of their their cum laude students. What strikes you about these kids(roughly 75% white/25% asian/indian) was that virtually all of them excelled because they had an incredible curiosity and desire to learn how things work–they loved to learn. Not one was going to HYPSM and its not stated why that is the case. But they will clearly excell wherever they do go. It’s pretty clear to me that the elite schools don’t value this as much as I believe they used to, and the way colleges in virtually every other country does. They will say they do but they don’t and I think that’s really unfortunate.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>MITChris does play a role in admissions from what I understood.</p>

<p>He also does admit in the thread related to NYTimes article that race does play a role in choosing candidates, albeit with the expectation that they don’t admit anyone who can’t do the work.</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>

Do some people think that selective schools have a policy that explicity limits the number of Asians, such as a reverse quota?

</p>

<p>Heck no. I can’t imagine this is an explicit policy. I think there are “practices” that are very entrenched that result in a selection process that is inadvertently racist.</p>

<p>The whole issue is that </p>

<p>(1) These schools care intensely about their rankings
(2) rankings are driven in large part by low admissions rate and high sat averages
(3) when you preference legacies, athletes, the super rich and certain races then you are forced to impose higher sat/gpa requirements on unhooked applicants. Those meeting that criterion are largely Asian and white. </p>

<p>So the “policy” is that they don’t care if the SAT is above a certain threshold. Here I do think they are being less than truthful. I think it matters enormously if you are not an athlete, legacy or member of a preferred race.</p>

<p>There is a lot of “soft” rhetoric around the “interesting candidate” who is chosen over the robotic standardized testing drone. I think this is hot air. Sure, the applicant has to be able to write an essay with some flair and cast their life in an interesting light. But really, if you happen to be Asian or white and unhooked – your first and foremost hurdle is to score over 2300 and be val.</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>

Maybe if colleges disclosed the racial makeup of the admissions committee, it would make a difference to those who are suspicious.

</p>

<p>If you mean me, Bay, then I can tell you that I have absolutely no interest in the race, gender or religion of the admissions committee. And I’m cynical enough to believe that even these committees are not really responsible for the situation. I think all the intentions are pure of heart. I really do. I think the committees are faced with a Herculean task and that they have a lot of parties to satisfy - the legacies, the boosters who want a good rowing team, the endowment that needs big donor families to get their kids admitted – and yes the “diversity” contingent that is going to make a lot of noise if every race isn’t represented in acceptable numbers.</p>

<p>I would never want that job.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

In fact, HYPS and other top schools care enormously about the 2400 v the 2300 because they care intensely about their score averages for their admitted classes.

</p>

<p>I agree that they must care, but it still doesn’t guarantee that any particular 2400 scorer will be a desirable admit. Look at Jian Li, he had a 2400 and was rejected by Princeton and Harvard but admitted to Yale. The Princeton admissions officer publicly stated that his ECs were not impressive. Apparently Harvard agreed. Princeton and Harvard must have concluded that they didn’t need this particular 2400 scorer to keep their place in the rankings. They probably already had enough. On the other hand, maybe Yale needed more high scores to secure its USNWR ranking, so Yale took the 2400 scorer because of his 2400 score. Jian Li was exactly what Yale needed, but Princeton and Harvard did not need him.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

There is a lot of “soft” rhetoric around the “interesting candidate” who is chosen over the robotic standardized testing drone. I think this is hot air. Sure, the applicant has to be able to write an essay with some flair and cast their life in an interesting light. But really, if you happen to be Asian or white and unhooked – your first and foremost hurdle is to score over 2300 and be val.

I don’t disagree with this at all–but I don’t see how this translates into discrimination against Asians vs. whites in that pool of unhooked candidates. And I would just point out that these schools have the luxury of taking people who scored over 2300, had top GPA AND have something more “interesting” on the resume. And what would be the solution if this is the problem? Make the schools stop recruiting athletes and giving tips to hooked candidates? Why, exactly, should these private schools want to stop doing those things?</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

@sewhappy

the average scores and gpa for Asians who get admitted to the top Ivy schools are consistently higher than for other applicants of other racial groups.

What is the evidence that supports this?</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

the average scores and gpa for Asians who get admitted to the top Ivy schools are consistently higher than for other applicants of other racial groups

The Espenshade study is evidence for this, although we don’t know what specific schools were included. But that study doesn’t tell us what the difference was in stats, if any, between *unhooked *whites and *unhooked *Asians, as far as I can recall.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

The schools claim they do not care if the scores are over a threshold and thus the holistic criteria kicks in and thus there can be no racial discrimination.

</p>

<p>Yes. You say “claim,” with a sneer, as though they are lying and they really care passionately about the difference between the 2400 and the 2300, and boy is that 2400 so much more qualified.</p>

<p>ALL the elite schools say some form of - that there is no real difference between the 2400 and the 2300. Moreover, tons of CC threads are of the “I got a 2400 and didn’t get in …” nature. So why not believe it? Why sneer at it as a claim? If elites wanted to accept all the 2400’s who applied, they could have. But they don’t. How much more evidence do you want that they don’t care about the 2400 vs 2300 to the extent that you <em>want</em> them to, or think they should?</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Also, it is a bit cynical in that the more applicants apply the lower the admission rate and the higher the ranking for the institution. If HYPS came out and said, hey the non-hooked (by race, athlete, legacy) needs on average a 2350 – then you would probably see a LOT fewer kids putting the $60 on mom’s mastercard to apply. By telling the world that they use the threshold model in looking at scores, they encourage a great many applicants with virtually no chance.

</p>

<p>Admit rate is 1.5% of the rankings, you know. It’s not that big of a deal.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>I suspect 1.5% is a big deal at the top since they are all one or two points apart (that and yield). It does seem to make a lot of difference to Harvard that they stay on top since they matched Princeton in AID when Princeton introduced a much better FA package and Harvard dropped below them.</p>