<p>Far be it for me to speak for someone else but let’s assume the answer is yes. Does that change your mind? Consider another question. For you, what level of preference is too large for race, class, athletic, or legacy preferences: 300, 500, 700, 900 pts. on the 1600 scale? If you answer any of these you and Juxta are just arguing over the number, not the principle. And Juxta made it clear that he had no objection in principle to affirmative action (race or class) just the magnitude of the preference. By the way the student was not a Rhodes Scholar nominee when he received the preference.</p>
<p>The articles has been discussed in cc a number of times. Of course people agree with it, but I am not sure how many has really read about the reason.</p>
<p>They argue that there are no shortage of high ability low income students than what is suggested in the enrollment figures of elite schools. They divide students into 5 equal groups by family income, so the groups are lowest, lower middle, middle, upper middle and high. Then using various SAT cutoff as admission criteria, we see the student population percentage in each subgroup. We can then compare with what is in the elite schools.</p>
<p>Here is a simplified list of results.</p>
<p>Family income lowest lower-middle middle upper-middle high</p>
<p>SAT 1420 or above 3.4% 7.8% 12.6% 22.5% 53.6%
SAT 1220 or above 5% 10.8% 16.7% 25.2% 42.2%
elite school actual 5% 5% 7% 11% 70%</p>
<p>So the paper argues by using merit as indicated by SAT scores, the elite should increase the student enrollment of the bottom 40% income.</p>
<p>People have been arguing that using SAT score is unfair because SAT score goes up with family income. However, the data indicates that holistic admission used by elite colleges favors the rich even more than SAT score does.</p>
<p>It looks like you did, along with almost everybody else. Maybe I’m not communicating my ideas effectively enough?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would you take his word over mine? Curmudgeon wrongly lumped me with the “SATAPGPA crowd,” which doesn’t make any sense considering that I’ve twice emphasized the value of more holistic approaches to the admissions process over formula-driven systems that stress GPA and SAT scores. His “it’s up by Saratoga” remark was equally misguided; the inference here is that since Saratoga is, on the whole, a fairly prosperous community, my polo-playing parents must have infected me waspish classism. </p>
<p>I’ll just submit here for the record that I live with a single mother who makes less than $45,000 / year. We’re not impoverished by any means, but we’re certainly not anywhere near wealthy either. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I said affording one-size-fits-all allowances to students solely on the basis of their race or class rather than evaluating their applications in a truly holistic fashion was essentially unfair, not the entire admissions landscape.</p>
<p>
I got into the three schools I applied to, so I’m not some disillusioned valedictorian bitter about my rejection from Harvard. Neither did I feel “entitled” at any point during the process; the whole thing was a nail-biter from start to finish.
…and again, here:
</p>
<p>That’s fine, so long as the college explicitly states that year’s preference in plain terms. I would have much less of a problem with Amherst’s policies if they were truly “upfront” and made clear to the public, rather than shrouded in idealistic language. I would much rather the school be frank than vaguely utopian: “hey, as part of our holistic approach to the admissions process, we’re willing to accept applicants that score far below our median SAT range on the basis of their race or economic status” actually lets students know what they are dealing with when they apply, compared to: "at Amherst, we work to promote social mobility.” </p>
<p>*Oh, looks like somebody actually beat me to it:</p>
<p>
I think so too.
I also think there is a happy middle ground between making 222-point exceptions and using a formula to determine whether a student will be accepted.
A couple other things:
</p>
<p>If hip-hop culture has managed to touch white kids from Middle America, why wouldn’t it influence Caucasians at its epicenter? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>….in those neighborhoods? Definitely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is hugely subjective and dependent on each individual’s circumstances. The amount of resistance each student encounters– whether minimal, significant, or negligible – depends on their means, their family, their friends, their teachers, and their school system. You’re drawing a clear distinction between Jack’s circumstances and Jim Hong’s… </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…specifically because Tony Jack is black, and Jim Hong is not. Seriously, people, think about this: alchemy is explicitly suggesting that all “young black men,” in trying to excel academically, encounter such significant cultural resistance that their test scores must be considered more positively in light of their “adverse circumstances.” Never mind that the strength of this tide that all blacks must fight is empirically immeasurable; never mind that students’ circumstances will differ from school district to school district, from town to town, from support system to support system; no, by checking “African American” before taking your SAT, you’re * really* confirming your terrible history of educational oppression. All young Asians, meanwhile, may never be afforded exceptions during the admissions process – regardless of their means or economic status, since “Jim Hong can’t be 222 behind the curve…even if he is poor” – because by checking “Asian/Pacific Islander” before taking their SAT, they’re implicitly reporting that their academic careers have so far been guided by their overbearing but well-meaning parents. If a black kid scores low, it’s because he’s fighting a cultural tide; if an Asian kid scores low, it’s because his parents made him study for the SAT – no exceptions, since all blacks and Asians are the same. </p>
<p>Seriously, dude?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, word? That almost sounds like…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Their lives?” Like, all African-Americans’ lives? I had no idea that the entire black community was totally homogenous. </p>
<p>I think people are totally overlooking this fact:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ll say it again: the degree to which a student is “disadvantaged” is determined by a number of factors and will differ from person to person. This guy gets it:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Skin color alone doesn’t imply or deny that someone is “disadvantaged.” In what way? To what degree? It depends on the person – not all blacks are necessarily “disadvantaged;” not all whites are necessarily “mommy and daddy’s…rich kid[s].”</p>
<p>I stand by everything I’ve said so far, and I’m not the one hurling insults.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How can you rail against kids’ senses of entitlement and not manage to see the irony in Malishbka’s “definitely expect[ing]” Amherst 2 admit her wit a 1200 SAT and writen habitts like theese? I took one sentence to playfully address her many technical and structural errors; I wasn’t critiquing her typos, nor would I ever bother to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I appreciate your taking the time to spell my own opinions out for me, but your characterization was inaccurate. I pretty fully understand that universities are private institutions with their own agendas and admissions policies.
Sorry about that. I wasn’t replying to you specifically; I just overlooked your question.
222 points, actually, and yes, I would.
I think I remember having some more things to touch on, but I’m all written out.</p>
<p>I find this discussion fascinating because I’d interpreted Jack’s story differently.
To me, it was about the willingness to look beyond past achievements (GPAs, SAT scores) and see some promise of future achievements. Adcoms do so all the time with applicants who do not fall into legacy/athlete/URM categories, bypassing students with very high scores in favor of some with lower scores, but presumably some inkling of promise. This is where we need to keep in mind the importance of the holistic review. Mr. Jack must have shown some promise and the school took a gamble on him; and it paid off. But perhaps the extent of the gamble was not that great.</p>
<p>I think Jack’s mother did everything right and so did Jack. We know his SAT score is on the low side, but we do not know his GPA and other academic stuff. It may be that his GPA does show that he is a good student. So it is difficult to make a judgment.</p>
<p>Uh, folks. From the NYT article: “Mr. Jack, who is black and had never been on a plane until he flew to Amherst for his first visit, arrived as an A student, and with a steely focus.”</p>
<p>Accordingly, I would surmise that Jack’s HS grades were, you know, A’s.</p>
<p>There was an article about 4 years ago about a UCLA program that was created to try to get more Hispanics accepted to UCLA. They could first of all qualify for a summer program that gave them points for admission, but one could only attend from specific low-performing schools. </p>
<p>In addition, the essays were judged heavily, so an applicant with lower scores and grades who was from a poor Hispanic family and worked to support her family that included an ill mother would get extra consideration. However, a student from an Iranian family who had immigrated, had a sick mother and a job during HS did not get the extra consideration, because his father was a doctor. Even though the student had not grown up with English as his first language, this was not considered as a hardship when looking at his very high grades and SAT scores. </p>
<p>The Hispanic students, however, had the fact that English was not their first language counted for them in admissions. So the Iranian student was accepted at some UCs, but not Berkeley or UCLA, and the Hispanic student, with much lower grades and SATs, was accepted to UCLA. The hook was hardship, and the Iranian student did not have that for UCLA purposes, even though it had been a great struggle for him in HS to achieve what he did.</p>
<p>There were many Hispanic students accepted in that admissions program, and I always wondered how they did, coming into UCLA with much less of an academic background, or if the profs had to lower grading standards to accomodate them.</p>
<p>The article also made a point that the essays were not verified, so the backgrounds of adversity were not checked. The essays would only seem to work, however, for certain groups.</p>
<p>juxtaposn, I just want to clarify what I mean by students feeling “entitled” in the admissions process. My definition in this case has nothing to do with money, class, etc. I refer to students who feel that because they achieved a good test score & had good grades in a challenging curriculum, they “should” be accepted before someone with lower stats (or “significantly lower” stats). What I keep noticing in posts is that many — certainly NOT all — students somehow feel that scores & grades is what “entitles” them to admission. </p>
<p>I think some people still miss the point. There is much more to evaluating an applicant than test scores & grades. The elite colleges ARE very clear about this. They cannot possibly tell you what they are looking for, because their process is, as was mentioned earlier by another post-er, holistic. Unless the colleges state a minimum score cutoff, they are not being dishonest in any way when they accept a candidate with a score below what someone not on the admissions committee thinks should be the cutoff. Mathmom is correct; the schools don’t lie on their published ranges. But people need to realize that these are ranges … and like mathmom says, there are 25% below the range. Anyone who thinks a person is “too far below” is imposing a value judgment on the process that may not be shared by the admissions committee!</p>
<p>This is a heck of a long thread and (due to my short attention span) I haven’t read all of it. So, much of what I’ll say has probably been said, addressed, and argued repeatedly, but I sorta want to vent. </p>
<p>Firstly, in response to what Kelsmom said: I’m not disagreeing with the SAT score range bit (many students are simply poor test-takers) and it makes sense for colleges to compromise and accept some students who other characteristics which makes up for the missing points. But, I don’t feel that race/socioeconomic conditions should count as that extra special something. A student who runs his own business and gets a 1200 should have an advantage over a URM student with a 1200. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the part of the article that bugs me. Call me cold-hearted/racist/ignorant/your choice, but I don’t care what your economic background is or what your race is, in high school, everyone has the same chances. Every student faces the typical laziness and peer pressure; who’s to say that if Mr. Jack tried a little bit harder, he wouldn’t have done better on the SAT?</p>
<p>It’s really unfortunate that affirmative action/quotas are still part of the college admissions process. People can sugarcoat it and say they’re “maintaining a diverse environment” or something other politically correct nonsense, but that doesn’t change what this actually is. It shouldn’t be about helping that minority candidate, it should be about giving everyone an equal chance. I know I was rejected from several colleges and I’d hate to know my spot went to a lesser qualified student accepted to keep the percentages “just right”.</p>
<p>-The Sugarcoated Coot66</p>
<p>PS And the article’s title “** Elite Colleges Open New Door to Low-Income Youths” **… I never realized the door was closed before…</p>
<p>After reading the article, I had a big smile on my face. Maybe I’m too sensitive but whatever it was, I felt like shedding a tear. Why? It’s because I understand the type of situation Mr. Jack was in. I grew up with food stamps until the end of elementary school. My family can’t afford private health insurance since we make less than $18,000 annually. I’m very fortunate to be going to a school where the policy is to not provide loans to low-income students whose families make less than a specific income bracket. If I have been given loans, I don’t know what I would have done. Sure, I would work hard but there are so many things I already have on my shoulders. I’ve been trying to save money to help my mother and brother pay off their hospital bills (one dating back to several years ago). </p>
<p>To read an article about the accomplishments and opportunities Mr. Jack had at Amherst truly leaves a smile on my face.</p>
<p>The article is nice and all, but it only portrays the difficult life of a low-income, black student trying to get into a good college. My family is also poor, and although I haven’t received the opportunities that many rich kids have, colleges will most likely ignore my case, unlike they did Mr. Jack. Why? Because I’m also Asian. I’m underprivileged, but I’m also Asian and because of that, colleges will expect much more of me. Mr. Black was given a chance but will I? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>The whole point of the article is that colleges are aiming more of their “affirmative action” at students of low income, irrespective of ethnic group. Many people replying in this thread are replying on the basis of the example most prominently mentioned in the article (which is a characteristic of how human brains work, by seizing on anecdotes) rather than on the basis of the general statements in the article on new college policy initiatives.</p>
<p>That is because generally this type of heavy recruiting is done for minorities, and if it was truly for economic disadvantaged, then the children of poor and working class whites would also be heavily groomed and recruited. The catch-phase “economic diversity” has come about because there are now so many legal issues involved with minority recruiting, special programs for minorities, and dual-standard admissions policies targeting minorities (and resentments.) Also, as mentioned in the article 85% of blacks now at some of the elite schools are from middle-class or upper-middle class families. So this is an attempt to get lower income minorities.</p>
<p>in response to we<em>tard</em>it, I’m asian and also come from a low-income family and I have to disagree w/you. I have met many disadvantaged students such as myself, both urm and orm, who have blessed with so many opportunities that the article addressed. Programs such as TASP, QuestBridge, GATE, etc, are only a few examples that seek to reach out to high-achieving low-income students and provide students, such ourselves, invaluable resources for college and beyond. If you feel like you’ve been “overlooked” b/c “you’re Asian” I’m sorry that was the case b/c many of us who “fit your description” have reaped many benefits and are eternally grateful for their help.</p>
<p>That’s a defeatist attitude. If you feel you are in the ballpark for admission into top colleges, you should apply. The surest way to not be admitted is to not apply (I’m sure this syntax is mangled). Many years ago, before AA came under fire, I met a white student from rural Appalachia who was at Harvard on full scholarship. Even then, top schools had an interest in different kinds of diversity, not just racial diversity.
Crossposted with Crazed Junior. Congrats, Crazedjunior, and also to Redenbacher. Those are great schools.</p>
<p>Wow, now I feel as though I should have applied to more top schools just for the heck of it. lol, just kidding. But in all honesty, I know I am likely one of 8 people at Tufts who has ever seen a food stamp, and I’m white…oh well, interesting article.</p>
— students somehow feel that scores & grades is what “entitles” them to admission. </p>