<p>Here’s an interview with Karabel from April of last year:
<a href=“http://equality.frenchamerican.org/sites/default/files/karabeltranscript_en_0.pdf[/url]”>http://equality.frenchamerican.org/sites/default/files/karabeltranscript_en_0.pdf</a>
It’s pretty interesting–he favors more class-based affirmative action, but maintains that race-based affirmative action is still necessary. Of course, he could be lying about what he thinks. But so could we all!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the reasons I explained earlier, it is impossible for Princeton (in the case of race-blind admissions having really been the case) to defend itself <em>statistically</em> without performing and disclosing a much higher-resolution study than Espenshade performed. The accusation is based on the study results, that being Asian correlates with lower admission rates at a range of universities including some in the Ivy League – a correlation that also exists for having higher ACT and SAT-II and AP results (in the 2009 study, in some ranges), or for being male. Princeton, however, would have to show that being Asian does not cause admissions rate reduction, and the only statistical approaches to this would require more detailed modeling of the admission process. Whereas Espenshade’s regression gives an approximation to how admission across a range of schools sort-of works, Princeton would need to disclose a model that is close to describing how admissions <em>actually does work</em> at Princeton. This would then lead to applicants gaming the procedure with a new and improved predictability of results. It would also disclose aspects not included in the original complaint, such as discrimination in favor of women, the exact degree of sports or donor preference and others. It’s understandable that people who are not part of the Princeton enterprise might want transparency or elimination of athlete, legacy (or female, black, etc) preferences. But the complaint was not about a lack of transparency or too many women being admitted. </p>
<p>The disclosures would have to be public, of course. For Princeton to say that the government had seen their statistical counter-study and deemed it an exoneration, would not satisfy anyone.</p>
<p>I think that using classifications based on certain under-represented races/groups to allow admission preferences gives people permission to question what the effects are. </p>
<p>Non-whites and non-Asians are considered over-represented. Applicants of other races as well as those with the other hooks (recruited athletes, legacies, development/celebrity) are given some sort of a boost because… they are under-represented and are needed at some magic level to create diversity in the class [they come from under-priveged financial and educational backgrounds, their cultures do not mesh with the mainstream, they were subject to mistreatment… who knows, such generalizations…] Gender is also managed: where the number of male applicants is under-represented, males receive a boost, and vice versa for females. At some colleges, geographic under-representation can lead to a boost. </p>
<p>The class is crafted and shaped in many ways. Not too many applicants are ever admitted from any single classification: a given school, a gender, a geographic area, an interest, a sport, even a personality type, private school, a certain school, etc. etc… This is how holistic admissions works.
Am I wrong? But all this is openly described by AdComms. </p>
<p>However, when the classifications are “racial”, and they involve boosts for some, and not others it is hard not to feel that the system is not somehow racially “discriminatory” or “racist”.
Holistic admissions is far from a stats based system, but it does feel strange to see how many top scoring candidates are not admitted. Of course, questions will be asked!!!</p>
<p>The AdComms are not open about how they attain the percentages of races year after year. Are the accepted numbers similar to the pools? In relation somehow to these pools? Or to the nation? Or are they a pre-determined portion??? What are the average stats for each segment of the pool?</p>
<p>I agree with sewhappy:
Racial boxes are out of date.
To wit, so many are having a hard time even filling them out!
(It also becomes a way to “game” the system, rather than accomplish its original purpose. I agree with Fabrizio that wealthy, educationally privileged URM’s should not receive the boost- sorry if this offends anyone.)
That is a sign of progress and racial inter-marriage and cultural inter-mixing.
It is reaching a point of saturation so as to make these classifications unnecessary. Using holistic approaches should now be enough to create a globally diverse and interesting mix of students for each class. Kids are really starting to define themselves in ways beyond race- hooray! The colleges should embrace this and move on.</p>
<p>There are still huge divisions in the US socio-economically, however. The actual K-12 schools vary so much from community to community, not just the families. It is considered scientifically valid to think that socio-economic status corresponds to better tests scores and a stronger academic opportunity. For that reason, just change the classification to SOCIO-ECONOMIC, and BE FAIR ABOUT IT. An income and asset base in one region will go a lot further than it will in another. The complexity of evaluation socio-economic indexing may seem daunting at first, but just set up a COLA based on a basket of goods and services for each area. </p>
<p>It is time.</p>
<p>IMO globalization has recently created a ground swell in the number of “qualified by stats” Asian applicants. The schools do not appear to be adjusting to this. But unless I get actual percentages and scores and holistic attributes for all the applicants, it is irresponsible for me to cry “racism.”</p>
<p>pizzagirl, I do hope that you can admit that racist decisions MAY be being made in these AdComm rooms. Holistic admissions CAN cover this, even if it usually is not the case. And that some of these techniques may be mis0guided and unfair, in spite of their original intention.</p>
<p>Let me state this differently: even if one was racist enough say Asians are X but not Y enough, or something to that effect (which I am NOT), that is not all that different from saying URM’s are not Q enough. These are both generalizations about groups- OMG!</p>
<p>It seems politically correct to say that certain URM’s are, by definition of their race and as a group, x or y (not given same educational opportunities), but it is politically incorrect to say that a group like Asians is alike or would benefit in some way from a college education more than a URM.</p>
<p>Isn’t it time to stop looking at the world as a group of races?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you, performersmom. My question, as well. And even the NY Times seems to be wondering about the current status quo.</p>
<p>It is a Pandora’s Box to go down the slippery slope of trying to advantage one or two particular “races.” I think we are seeing that. The intentions were certainly pure but the results are getting very awkward.</p>
<p>And I will go ahead and say the unthinkable re: Karabel and his study and all these studies and what their authors are willing publicly to say. There is an enormous political correctness hammer over all these discourses. It is seriously uncool in our land to question AA in any shape or form. Can we really go on pretending that this is not a very big factor in all of this?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There was a post, I think on the Harvard thread, that alleged that 235 legacies were admitted to Harvard this year (about 30% of the legacy applicants). If this number and Hunt’s number are accurate, then approximately 435 of Harvard’s 1700 students are legacies and/or athletes. While it might constitute a “small share of applicants,” it is a significant share of admits and enrolled students. I do not know how this figures into Epenshade’s study.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the American people have spoken, at the highest possible level, that they want URMs around.</p>
<p>Bay,</p>
<p>Are you suggesting that we elected Obama as part of an AA policy? Seriously?</p>
<p>I think that is an insult to the candidate and to the land, quite frankly.</p>
<p>Well I don’t think AA is insulting. I think it is likely that Obama benefitted from AA (as I did as a woman in the '70s), and in the end, no one really cares.</p>
<p>
TYpical, zero evidence, just question somebody’s integrity. It’s not like Karabel is forced out to say these things. He actively defends affirmative action of his own volition. It’s one thing to disagree with someone, it’s another to accuse them of dishonesty merely because you disagree.</p>
<p>How about this. I have zero evidence but I suspect all the people so vehemently opposed to these preferences are really only worried about the effect on their own progeny. Including people who may have had success with one child but now are worried about a second child. Or people already upset because some kid of their’s didn’t get in everywhere they wanted.</p>
<p>I have no evidence, I’ll just declare it so.</p>
<p>Bovertine,</p>
<p>Do you have any sense at all of how that last post of yours makes you look?</p>
<p>I just shake my head.</p>
<p>At anti-AA people - just stop arguing with the pro-AA people, and go do something about it!</p>
<p>You aren’t going to change their minds.</p>
<p>Bay, OUCH!
Not getting personal, but asking you what your words mean: What are you saying? That YOU benefited and that in the end YOU do not care? Or that you benefited, but no one else cares that you got a boost…
Why do you say that all “want URM’s around”??? I was, for example, NOT saying that the individuals that are now classified as URM’s should NOT be around!
Are you assuming that without these boxes, URM’s would not “be around”?
Or did you mean that URM “classifications” are wanted to be around??? If so, please explain.
Thanks.</p>
<p>
With what? That you mentioned a man’s name and accused him of dishonesty about his opinion without any specific evidence? I respectively don’t think there’s any other interpretation of your post.</p>
<p>If you’re disagreeing with the second portion of my post, that’s fine because I don’t really believe it. I actually respect that peopple can have differing opinions, including academics and authors, wothout accusing them of lying in order to succumb to some tyrannical political correctness.</p>
<p>“The AdComms are not open about how they attain the percentages of races year after year. Are the accepted numbers similar to the pools? In relation somehow to these pools? Or to the nation? Or are they a pre-determined portion??? What are the average stats for each segment of the pool?”</p>
<p>That is the key. How does a holistic process always end up with the racial percentages within 0.5-1.0% of previous year?</p>
<p>“Doing something about it” = changing one person’s mind at a time, in addition to identifying those who agree with it
p.s. I am not sure it is yet time to be completely anti-AA, but that the classifications of educational disadvantage need to be changed.</p>
<p>
Hilarious. How much of this thread have you read? Over 1700 posts and the few people who have changed much have become more entrenched in their opinions as a result of the debate.</p>
<p>And I get the impression that for many of them, this is merely one of many thousand-plus page AA related threads here and on other websites they have engaged in over the years.</p>
<p>“Doing something about it” means sacrificing some of your time or treasure to bring about change.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, a few seconds. That must be your record for respectful disagreement.</p>
<p>If you’re shaking your head, I feel fine.
I have never even come close to questioning anyone’s integrity. I merely comment on their posts.</p>
<p>You are the person who called a young man “Uncle Tom” because he was satisfied with his admisisons results, aren’t you? Because he didn’t lash out in anger at not being accepted to Harvard, as you said you would have?</p>
<p>I feel in good stead. THanks for your thoughts.</p>
<p>“Do colleges factor in where students go to school and where students live when considering admissions? I just googled average SAT scores for California high schools and I see that our local high school is somewhere near the bottom of scores. It’s a high school that’s broken into 3 different subschools. The average SAT scores for the three schools (with the science school being the highest) are 1376, 1283, and 1279. I would guess most of these students would have no concept of the types of scores and activities discussed on CC.”</p>
<p>SDJ - The averages for a high school are not a reflection of the school but the pool of students. If the school has 500 students, about 50-100 do well on the tests and the rest bring the average down. It is not a reflection of the school but the law of averages.</p>
<p>
Some people may think this is a rhetorical question, but it isn’t. No, it isn’t time. There are still too many negative effects just from being black, Hispanic, or Native American independent of class (as Karabel said in the interview I linked). You can’t make that go away by just waving a magic wand.</p>
<p>Hilariously disrespectful post. How the H do you know what people are thinking who are reading this thread but not posting?
Why do you assume that everyone is more entrenched? There is a serious debate going on here. The posters are working hard to defend and embellish their positions, in and of itself an opportunity for them to see or display weaknesses in their own arguments or opinions, and to display information that might not be known by many.
I appreciate the time that the posters put into their thinking and their research, whether I agree with them or not, or interpret the data the same way, or have the same experience of the world as they do. It enriches me and all the readers to hear all sides.
Thinking needs to be diverse, too. Opinions will never be all the same. I am not on a soap-box; my mind is open, but I do reserve the right to have an opinion, which I humbly hope is always evolving.
I realize I am not a convincing and influential poster by means of research citations and lots of data. I just want to blurt out a little basic common sensical stuff from time to time. You seem to enjoy squishing my words LOL- that IS funny!</p>