Diversity. Why is it good? Why is it a goal of Universities?

Skills where one’s skill level and/or achievement is easy to evaluate or test, and where greater skill level means significantly higher productivity, would be examples of the above in terms of selection of applicants to hire for a job.

However, where skill level beyond the minimum is more difficult to evaluate or test, or where skill level beyond the minimum is not valued, personal connections (the employment analogue of legacy in college admissions) and other factors of that nature matter more. Such other factors could include illegal discrimination, although it is often unobvious and difficult to prove or disprove in an individual case.

Personal connections also affect whether a job applicant knows the existence of a job opening to apply to, regardless of the above effects on selection of applicants to hire for a job. A college admissions analogue would be the knowledgeable college counselors at prep schools telling students about more colleges than just HYPMS and in-state publics.

1 Like

I note there have always been jobs available for people who are not great at networking, group leadership, persuasion, and other social skills, who instead primarily add value by doing their own individual tasks very well.

But I very much doubt that the importance of networking, group leadership, persuasion, and other social skills is going to go away generally. Humans are still social animals, the people in control of money are still going to (often) make decisions about who to trust with that money based on trust relationships, groups full of different personalities are still going to need effective leaders, unaligned decision-makers will still need to be persuaded, and on and on.

And as with any other skills, the people best at those sorts of things usually have a combination of some natural talent, some passion, and many, many years of deliberate practice.

So when I see kids at the HS level being told by parents and such that sort of thing doesn’t really matter anymore, that time spent practicing such skills is wasted, that the only important thing is that they learn how to do some specific individual tasks really well . . . I guess for some kids that will work out, but I think that is really boxing them into only being well-prepared for a relatively small subset of jobs, and not necessarily the ones they would be best at doing.

2 Likes

We have a lovely politics forum where users can discuss all all sorts of political implications, including, but not limited to, SCOTUS rulings. Outside that forum, such discussions are prohibited.

3 Likes

Just because you dont agree with a decision doesnt mean they werent transparent. They gave you a clear answer, you just didnt like it.

Diversity matters to my daughter. She does not need to explain that to anyone. She likely would not be able to convince someone else to put diversity as a pro of a college if they didnt at their core feel the same way. It doesnt mean her feelings are less valid.

Many kids consider how a college “feels” or non academic experiences when choosing a college. One can argue that academics should be the priority or the only thing that counts but it simply isnt. (This is not unsimilar to actual work environments as well in the real world post graduation.)

I think most highly academic kids rejected by t20s are still going to do just fine. So I dont understand how “diversity” admissions hurts those high stat or high achieving kids.

So I guess the opposite question is why is “diversity” bad? Because all I have heard is that it decreases the chance of a high stats white kid from getting into certain universities yet doesnt impact that kids overall future success.

6 Likes

And that clear answer is what? What is diversity? 20% athletes, 50% athletes, 20% legacies, 30% strong students? 50%?

You must have a lot more clarity than I. And yes, adjusting those percentages hurts some and helps others. Who? It’s unclear because the rules change at the whim of the year and the administrator.

Should academics be of utmost importance for schools? It seems that the vast majority of foreign elite schools think so. To what degree do our highly selective colleges value academics? I wish I knew.

For a great complete factual example, take the case of Bergen Academies. A magnet academic high school in NJ on par with Stuyvesant and TJ. Between 2015-2017, a three year time period, 5 students went to Harvard, 4 to MIT. Between 2019-2022, a four year period, 24 students went to Harvard and 17 students went to MIT.

Did I miss an announcement as to the “clarity” as to why that happened? Or did someone somewhere change the scales? Was the number admitted “right” before or is it “right” now? Or is it always right because of the infallible wisdom of the Admissions apparatus? What happens when the AO decides to go back to the 2015 numbers? No cause for unnecessary anxiety for the students at BCA who aren’t already busy enough winning the Regeron and IMO gold.

1 Like

Who cares except the kids of those schools? Are those the only kids that matter? Are they somehow superior to others?

Diversity in the true meaning will be unclear to you as there is no minimum data set a college is asking for and it will change every year. Numbers and percentages simply change.

For those who like math and concrete numbers, a college stating a bare minimum of 2.5 gpa to get in works well for their brain. Are colleges and students less successful in the real world now that many colleges went test optional because a single number on a single test wasn’t giving them a full picture of the student?

Are highly selective colleges less successful and less sought out if they include diversity in admissions? With the super high number of kids getting 4.0 plus gpas and near perfect or perfect test scores, how should a college choose applicants? Harvard simply doesn’t have the space to accept every 4.0 student. And yes, even the academic scales have changed for many highly selective universities. More kids go to college now than they did decades ago.

I think the lack of clarity comes from the fact that some people equate gpa or a test score as the only indicators of high intelligence or success. Perhaps highly selective colleges should start using the MSCEIT and WAIS but it likely still wouldn’t make numbers people happy as it would still likely flex based on the year.

I think instead of looking to explain diversity, perhaps we need to look at the obsession with T20s.

2 Likes

Don’t keep us in suspense. I’m sure your contacts with the BCA college counselors are at least as good as they are with mysterious “Top 10” universities.

1 Like

Please review again the moderator note that was posted above:

Due to all the flags, I’m putting this thread on slow mode for the next 24 hours.

Just to be clear you are talking about academic qualifications of students at the point they are applying to college? All colleges value academic preparation, similar to how they value the academic experience that each has designed and offers to their matriculants.

To help you understand what colleges value, perhaps start with their mission statements? Best to go right to the source…where each school is literally telling you who they are and what they value.

There is some variability among these mission statements. Not many highly rejective schools (I assume that’s the small subset of schools you are mostly concerned with) state they are limiting their mission to educating only the ‘best’ academic performers (however one might define that.) Some mission statements directly state the desire for a diverse student body and community.

Our mission to educate future leaders is woven throughout the Harvard College experience, inspiring every member of our community to strive toward a more just, fair, and promising world. The mission of Harvard College is to educate the citizens and citizen-leaders for our society.

Princeton University advances learning through scholarship, research, and teaching of unsurpassed quality, with an emphasis on undergraduate and doctoral education that is distinctive among the world’s great universities, and with a pervasive commitment to serve the nation and the world.

Dartmouth educates the most promising students and prepares them for a lifetime of learning and of responsible leadership through a faculty dedicated to teaching and the creation of knowledge.

Columbia University is one of the world’s most important centers of research and at the same time a distinctive and distinguished learning environment for undergraduates and graduate students in many scholarly and professional fields. The University recognizes the importance of its location in New York City and seeks to link its research and teaching to the vast resources of a great metropolis. It seeks to attract a diverse and international faculty, staff, and student body, to support research and teaching on global issues, and to create academic relationships with many countries and regions. It expects all areas of the University to advance knowledge and learning at the highest level and to convey the products of its efforts to the world.

Cornell’s mission is to discover, preserve and disseminate knowledge, to educate the next generation of global citizens, and to promote a culture of broad inquiry throughout and beyond the Cornell community. Cornell also aims, through public service, to enhance the lives and livelihoods of students, the people of New York and others around the world.

Northwestern is committed to excellent teaching, innovative research and the personal and intellectual growth of its students in a diverse academic community.

Established in 1789 in the spirit of the new republic, the university was founded on the principle that serious and sustained discourse among people of different faiths, cultures, and beliefs promotes intellectual, ethical and spiritual understanding. We embody this principle in the diversity of our students, faculty and staff, our commitment to justice and the common good, our intellectual openness and our international character. An academic community dedicated to creating and communicating knowledge, Georgetown provides excellent undergraduate, graduate and professional education in the Jesuit tradition for the glory of God and the well-being of humankind. Georgetown educates women and men to be reflective lifelong learners, to be responsible and active participants in civic life and to live generously in service to others.

Yale is committed to improving the world today and for future generations through outstanding research and scholarship, education, preservation, and practice. Yale educates aspiring leaders worldwide who serve all sectors of society. We carry out this mission through the free exchange of ideas in an ethical, interdependent, and diverse community of faculty, staff, students, and alumni.

The mission of Brown University is to serve the community, the nation, and the world by discovering, communicating, and preserving knowledge and understanding in a spirit of free inquiry, and by educating and preparing students to discharge the offices of life with usefulness and reputation.

I especially like how Bowdoin addresses choosing students with ‘varied gifts’:

It is the mission of the College to engage students of uncommon promise in an intense full-time education of their minds, exploration of their creative faculties, and development of their social and leadership abilities in a four-year course of study and residence that concludes with a baccalaureate degree in the liberal arts. At the root of this mission is selection. First, and regardless of their wealth, Bowdoin selects students of varied gifts; diverse social, geographic, and racial backgrounds; and exceptional qualities of mind and character. Developed in association with one another, these gifts will enable them to become leaders in many fields of endeavor.

Lastly, this quote from Williams college, found on their mission page, directly answers your question that started this thread:

Diversity is not an end in itself, but a principle flowing from the conviction that encountering differences is at the heart of the educational enterprise—differences, certainly, of ideas and beliefs, but also differences of perspectives rooted in the varied histories students bring with them.

6 Likes

Typical devil is in the details situation. Do they value academics 20% one year, 50% another year? That’s the devil in the “diversity”. And no one is announcing anything there. Definitely makes all the difference if you’re #5 in the class at BCA. And if a school decides one year that “diversity = tennis” it’ll matter if you’re #3 in your region. And I’m missing the part of these mission statements that talk about sailing and golf, Squash or fencing. So there’s that.

And to help you understand that mission statements and reality aren’t always aligned, the mission statement of Enron was “Respect, Integrity, Communication and Excellence”.

No contacts with BCA. That’s just data available to you on the good 'ol internet. And no clarity whatsoever about why admissions of this cohort would increase 500% over 2 years. For virtually all schools routinely discussed on CC as “Top 10” or “highly selective”. And why would the admissions numbers for these kids all shoot up astronomically and simultaneously among multiple highly selective schools? Not even a little bit suspect?

And yes “diversity” as a fig leaf for all kinds of inconsistent preferences matters most at schools that actually make admissions decisions and quite a bit less so at schools that admit virtually all applicants.

I highly recommend the Yale Admissions Podcast. I think they have been very informative on this subject, including as to what they are looking for academically at their relatively new initial screening stage.

Dartmouth’s Lee Coffin has similarly been very informative in his Admissions Beat podcast.

That being said, the SCOIR data provided by our high school was also quite clear when it came to the most selective colleges. It was usually not at all hard to tell in what range of GPAs and SAT/ACT score combinations you would be competitive, and in what ranges you would not be competitive (absent some sort of hook).

2 Likes

And if your grades are in that range, you then have a good chance at admission? Or if your grades are better than that range, does that help? Or how good do they have to be for it to help? Or does having truly exemplary grades mean that you must be a “boring academic drone” and that’s actually a presumption you’ll have to overcome? If your scores are below that range, you have very little likelihood of admission. No one wants to talk about the case where your scores are in the range. Then it’s all about rejecting students with 1600 SAT’s and Valedictorians. What could tip the scales in your favor? Oh yeah… go win the Olympic Gold Medal in solo kayak and that’ll probably help.

If you’re happy being brought the 40 yard line and dropped off there with a shifting array of “factors” and “diversity” factors that change with no transparency responsible for getting anyone to the end zone… That’s were the student and parent anxiety and the institutional hegemony and lack of accountability live.

1 Like

Yes, I get that you feel you are missing things.

So, let’s try this…It’s not about sailing or golf or squash or fencing, it’s about building a community of diverse backgrounds, interests, and achievements. Colleges obviously want students who can fill their athletic teams, and colleges are paying coaches to field successful teams (because the college values having said athletics teams.) No coach is going to keep their job if they persistently have losing seasons, and if they were being set up to fail (for example, not allowing coaches to recruit a portion of their teams…and it is only a portion of student athletes who are recruited via a preferred admission process), it would be difficult to for the school to hire competent coaches.

Recruited athletes in the specific sports you list tend to have strong academics, on par with incoming student averages. It tends to be the helmet and/or revenue sports where one might find some subset of students whose stats are in the bottom 25% of GPA and/or test scores. (no data, just coach/AO anecdotes over the years.)

Recruited athletes often bring other skills that colleges value…leadership, grit, perseverance, etc. I’ll stop there because CC has beat athletic recruiting to death on many threads…bottom line is highly rejective schools are not going to get rid of athletics. Some haven’t even had much success in getting rid of certain sports…see Brown, Stanford, Dartmouth misfires in the the last 5 years or so.

Are you saying having the goal of a diverse community is bad or should not be a goal? It seems reasonable that different schools would build classes in different ways…and this may morph from year to year. Their prerogative.

4 Likes

HNH

meet, HNH

Would you mind answering your own question?

2 Likes

Because graduates of these schools hold disproportionate power --economic, social, political, every type of power. So yes, only 0.053% of graduating seniors go to Harvard for undergrad. But 22% of current Supreme Court are undergrad alums of Harvard. When the ruling class is largely launched from a teeny tiny subset of schools, it behooves the common citizen to keep a close eye on what these places do and to keep asking plenty of questions.

4 Likes

Less a close eye being kept on the ‘wheels of power’ and more a “why not meeeeeeee?”

4 Likes

As to athletes, there is a lot of data. First, a book by the former President of Princeton University talking about how current athletic recruiting is undermining the educational mission of Colleges. The thesis is simply that these athletes just don’t “fit in” either academically or socially. Link provided for your convenience so you don’t feel that you’re missing out.

Also this paper endlessly cited right here on CC that talks about a really quite large gap between recruited athletes and the academic norm at highly selective colleges - In case you missed it - It’s the “Chetty” paper. Also talks about how these athletes with the incredible leadership and other academic excellence that you purport somehow end up with subpar jobs, academic credentials and likelihood for innovation. https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CollegeAdmissions_Paper.pdf

Highly selective renowned colleges world wide are confident that selecting superstar students will generate a vibrant and healthy college environment. Many have been admitting great classes of students for thousands of years without the help of rowing stats or cello recordings. Just because many colleges in the United States want us to believe that only they have the ultimate wisdom to pick the right balance of “diversity” doesn’t mean that diversity hasn’t been happening very nicely on its own at much more storied universities than our own for centuries. Manufacturing diversity or diversity as an end goal presupposed at some level that all people of a certain group or who do the same thing well are the same. John McEnroe was the same as Bjorn Borg because they were both really good at tennis right?