<p>I always thought the boost legacies got was NOT because of predicted academic performance but rather the money the university would receive in terms of alumni donations…</p>
<p>I think they use the whole “predicted academic performance” thing as an excuse.</p>
<p>The article is misleading because it lumps all minorities together. Asians don’t really get a boost in admissions, so including them in the minorities in this study is a huge flaw. Asians will bring up the average GPA, the other minority groups will bring it down. </p>
<p>What they should have compared is minority groups excluding Asians, who don’t get unfairly because they don’t benefit from AA, and that group would have performed the worst, as other studies have shown.</p>
<p>How do you know Asians were included as minorities in the study? I refuse to believe that two Princeton researchers could be that stupid.</p>
<p>As for why people always focus on URMs rather than legacy or athletes, well, the latter two groups bring tangible benefits to the university. Legacies come from alumni who donate $$$ to the school every year. Athletes can bring the school money either directly (for example, if a school makes a BCS bowl, they get millions) or indirectly by giving the school more exposure. URMs bring this abstract quality we call “diversity.” It’s hard to quantify the benefits (if there are any at all) that we get from this diversity. As I noted before, most of the URMs going to top schools came from the same kinds of social classes as the ORMs. While I’m sure the experience of a rich black person is different from that of a rich white person, I personally think a poor white student brings more diversity than a rich black student or a student from a rural area would bring more diversity than a URM from an urban area.</p>
<p>What I would like to have is for colleges to publish average college GPAs by race. I don’t think graduation rates are sufficient. At grade inflated schools, the great student, the good student, and the mediocre student all graduate. It tells you nothing about how much they’ve actually learned. Heck, to fail a class, you’d have to be in the bottom 10% of a class. Just because you didn’t fail the class, doesn’t mean you learned a lot. Pro-AAers love to point to high URM graduation rates as a sign of “progress” but I think grade inflation masks the central problem with admitting students with subpar academic backgrounds: they can’t handle the courseload of a Harvard or a Cornell. We should be focusing on improving education at the elementary and secondary levels and raising URM SAT scores up to the level of ORM’s instead of lowering our standards for URMs.</p>
<p>BTW: Anyone have a link to the actual research paper? I’m very skeptical about their research methods. For example, average SAT scores of Duke basketball players is approx. 1000-1100. I have a hard time believing that they would perform just as well academically as the rest of the Duke student body. Even logic should tell you that with the time commitment D1 sports demand and the physical toll that it places on the body (you feel like studying after running for 10 miles?), athletes would perform worse than the normal student body. </p>
<p>Studies of graduation rates at schools with actual rigorous academic standards (Cornell, Michigan, Berkeley, etc.) have already shown that URMs graduate at a much lower rate than ORMs.</p>
<p>The findings of this paper contradicts previous studies.</p>
<p>further exposes the hypocrisy of people who complain to no end about URMs but say nothing about legacies.</p>
<p>you’re such a jerk norcal!</p>
<p>“As for why people always focus on URMs rather than legacy or athletes, well, the latter two groups bring tangible benefits to the university…URMs bring this abstract quality we call “diversity.” It’s hard to quantify the benefits (if there are any at all) that we get from this diversity.”</p>
<p>Norcalguy. I have no idea about your background or the content of your other 2000+ posts but this comment is so far out of the mark that I don’t even now where to start a reply.</p>
<p>I do have a suggestion and that is for you to visit the nearest city and look around, or for that matter check what is going on in small towns all over the country (say Princeon, NJ). Unless you live in a really remote place, you will not be able to avoid realizing that diversity is a fact of life in the real world. If you don’t think having diversity in a college population brings a value to an education that is your choice. For me it is an essential ingredient.</p>
<p>By the way, unlike other people in this board, I agree with you that athletes and legacies indeed have an intrinsic value.</p>
<p>What was interesting about this though, was that Yale Admissions said otherwise in the article :0 (At least for Yale)</p>
<p>I’m looking at a copy of “Affirmative Action Programs and Academic Performance” as I type.</p>
<p>On page 101, the authors describe the current refutations of the mismatch hypothesis. They point out that “blacks who attended selective institutions were more likely to graduate than their counterparts at less selective institutions” (Bowen and Bok 1998). In addition, “minority students thrive at selective institutions, whatever their origins” (Alon and Tienda 2005).</p>
<p>As norcalguy has said, some selective institutions are notorious for having loose grading policies, better known as “grade inflation.” This is not mentioned in the paper “Affirmative Action Programs and Academic Performance.” In addition, there is another factor that could be helping these students “thrive,” which I mention later on.</p>
<p>Curiously absent from Massey and Mooney’s response to the mismatch hypothesis is the natural experiment that happened in the late 1990s in California. Why is it that they did not mention the change in graduation rates of Black students at UCSD? Or the increase in Black students graduating with Honors? Hmm, I can only guess why…oh, that’s right, if this happened more often, lots of folks in affirmative action departments would lose their jobs. Not good!</p>
<p>One of the most damning papers against racial preferences is “A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Shools,” by Dr. Richard Sander. It concluded that black students were markedly less qualified than whites and thus often wound up at the bottom of their classes, dropped out at higher rates, and failed the bar exam more often. Massey and Mooney briefly state that Chambers and others have addressed this two years ago. Not having read their paper, my initial guess is their response focuses on the qualitative advantages that Black students provide when placed in environments of elite institutions. “Diversity” rears its ugly head yet again.</p>
<p>Massey and Mooney mention that a forthcoming paper by Fischer and Massey provided further evidence against the mismatch hypothesis. They found that “likely beneficiaries actually earned higher grades than other minority students, other things equal. That is, black and Hispanic students with SAT scores below the institutional average earned better grades than minority students generally…” (101).</p>
<p>My take on this? Remedial classes and conditional acceptances. The user JHS has mentioned that a Black student was admitted to Harvard under the condition that he enroll in summer remedial classes. (That is, had he said no, there would have been no acceptance.) Intensive private tutoring can certainly help black and Hispanic students with SAT scores below the institutional average, especially when the school pays for it. They’ll “THRIVE” when they get academic support for classes that they should have taken in high school. Needless to say, the grades rise, too. Algebra II versus Modern Algebra, take your pick.</p>
<p>A thought. Maybe the reason why legacies do less well than would be expected is that it’s an “anti-fit” criteria for admission. In the case of URM’s the preference is granted at almost all colleges so it does not interfere with the student’s ability to go to an institution that fits them. Athletes are often recruited by multiple institutions, they too have some degree of choice that allows them to pick the best fit. A student is a real (parental) legacy at one or at most two institutions. So legacy candidates often end up attending places that, all things considered, they would have preferred to pass on. This could easily explain underperformance.</p>
<p>What I’m curious to find out is whether “development cases” can qualify for merit-based aid at other institutions.</p>
<p>My hunch is they won’t (qualify).</p>
<p>Ok, I get tired of this “legacies are rich” kind of thing…I’m a legacy at Yale but believe me, my parents are decidedly middle class and don’t donate “tons” of money to Yale. In fact, most legacies I know (there are a lot at my public school) don’t get in. Maybe development cases are different, and tend to underperform, but most legacies who do manage to get in (in my limited experience) don’t seem any different grades-or-test-score-wise from other applicants.</p>
<p>artiesdad, I was simply addressing the question of why people choose to pick on URMs rather than legacies or athletes. While there may be benefits to diversity, they are not as readily tangible as the benefits that are brought on by college athletics and by the legacy system. </p>
<p>My concern is with presupposing diversity simply on the basis of race. This is stereotyping and a most dangerous kind at that since it paints URMs in a negative light: “well, they must need an SAT boost because they grew up poor, went to crappy high schools, had to overcome drug dealers and drive-by shootings, etc.” Not only is this kind of stereotype inappropriate, it’s not even accurate! I think previous studies of Yale URMs have shown that most of them came from middle/upper class backgrounds. I’m not saying they’re necessarily as rich as the ORM’s but most of them certainly didn’t come from the ghetto. We need to stop pretending that URMs are these helpless, passive creatures that we need to give handouts to. I currently mentor underprivledged kids in the Ithaca area (many of whom are minorities) and these kids have the enthusiasm and drive to attend extra classes outside of school in order to improve their SAT scores. In other words, we need to offer more programs aimed at raising URM scores by helping them help themselves rather than affirmative action which accepts URMs with substandard scores. Education must be improved at the lower levels BEFORE college admissions. </p>
<p>This quote is overquoted and cliche, but I think it is appropriate for this discussion: “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.”</p>
<p>As for my background? My family’s income growing up was under $10,000. I went to an elementary and intermediate school that was 80%+ black (and remains so today). The school was shut down and totally revamped a few years ago because of severe underperformance. I tutor 3 biology courses as well as organic chemistry for the Cornell Athletics department (so I know that athletes get access to tutors that aren’t available to other students). I tutor in the summers for a charter school filled with JobCorps members (most of whom are hispanic) who are going back to earn their GEDs. And, as mentioned before, I tutor and mentor local disadvantaged kids in the SAT’s and college application process. I am quite familiar with poverty, crappy elementary schools, bad neighborhoods, and the rigor of college education (I’m a graduating senior at Cornell with a 3.93 GPA). I simply don’t think affirmative action is the best way to prepare URMs to succeed in college.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This might be true all the way to the White House.</p>
<p>I agree with jgonzo220, all the little perks reallly don’t matter, legacy and/or race is only a last resort. I have the same excellent credentials as a white friend and I am black and we were both rejected by Duke.</p>
<p>The Chronicle of Higher Education only provides abstract for non-subscribers, so I cannot read the article. According to people who had read the article, it contains the paragraph:</p>
<p>“On the whole, legacies fared better than the other two populations studied in terms of grades; their mean grade-point average at the end of two years of college was 3.26, compared with 3.12 for athletes and 3.05 for students categorized as black or Hispanic. In terms of their retention rates, legacies were in the middle: 5 percent of athletes, 7 percent of legacies, and 11 percent of black or Hispanic students had dropped out by the end of their junior year.”</p>
<p>How does the authors justify their conclusion with their data, maybe it is explained in the article. Since I cannot read the article, I am going to reserve my judgment until I can read the explanation.</p>
<p>The reality is that many students who fall below a school’s reported range would be successful at that school. The over-abundance of qualified applicants permits a college to pretty much fill an incoming class w/ students presenting the full package (grades, test scorec, recs, ECs, etc). </p>
<p>Sadly, students and parents feel that the student w/ the “best” set of credentials is entitled to admission. The colleges, however, are forming a community - - and if the need a hockey goalie, your piano virtuoso son may be out of luck. </p>
<p>Anyway, I don’t hear many complaints about the unfair advantage boys are getting these days as colleges struggle to retain some degree of gender parity.</p>
<p>“you will not be able to avoid realizing that diversity is a fact of life in the real world”</p>
<p>rewarding based on performance is an even larger part of the real world. quite frankly i doubt any potential patient would rather have a diverse but underqualified heart surgeon than an undiverse but skilled one. public relations propoganda aside, do bosses at major companies care about the pigmentation of someone’s skin- or about their actual abilities? do nfl players really care what color the skins of the players on their teams are, or do they care about their abilities?
if colleges really seek to adequately prepare students for the real world, they should realize that in professional fields it is extremely rare for people to automatically and yet legally get advantages based on skin color.</p>
<p>that being said, what kind of “diversity” does affirmative action bring to the table? for affirmative action, only skin color is considered, and personal circumstances are irrelevant. the only diversity they obtain is diversity of skin color- but maybe that’s what they want. if they truly wanted to expose students to new ideas, they would be using personal circumstances, interests, and beliefs to achieve “diversity”, not skin color.</p>
<p>“A lot of the URMs at my school don’t do or try as much because they know that as long as they can get a decent score or grade, they’ll get into nice schools for their status.”</p>
<p>This is the most annoying type of thought. URMs don’t work hard, BS. What about the plethora of white people who don’t work hard? I didn’t get into a single school where my SAT score was in the middle 50%, not one. Please explain this to me, especially since my scores put me in the top 10 percent of the US. For you to say that URMs don’t work hard because they can get in with less difficulty is nothing but BS.</p>