<p>"The latter for the most part try to look at the tangible measures that are used - be it scores, rigor, ECs, volunteering, whatever, and try to get an edge in areas over which they have an opportunity to exercise control. "</p>
<p>The words 'try to get an edge" are very revealing about one’s mentality. I encouraged my kids to develop themselves as people, and college admissions would flow from that. Apparently other people see a win/lose, zero sum game mentality.</p>
<p>It’s that, too.</p>
<p>Hunt said: </p>
<p>“It’s interesting that people who think America is about individualism and self-determination want to take autonomy away from private institutions.”</p>
<p>When a private school is ready to stop accepting federal aid, such as federally subsidized student loans, Pell Grants, and the like, I will be the first to defend their right to admit whoever they want. </p>
<p>However, when these federal funds make up much of the aid given to their students, the public has an absolute right to demand lack of discrimination.</p>
<p>It’s very easy to tell your children to grow as individuals and invest in them as such when you have money. For many poor and immigrant families, education is the gateway to success-so that their children will live in better economic circumstances and have better lives than the parents themselves have. </p>
<p>My father’s father lost his job when he was 10 years old. My dad taught himself English from reading trashy magazines, borrowed textbooks, won scholarships that are worth maybe 10 dollars now (and that were subsequently confiscated by his mother so the family would have enough money to buy tea) and taught his wealthier peers to get into a top university in India. Unlike America, however, he received very little guidance and gave up on opportunities for personal growth to help his family
and is now stuck with a job that is far beneath him, though it is (with God’s grace) enough for to sustain our family. </p>
<p>When you have lived and suffered like that, you can hardly be faulted for wanting your children to succeed, no matter what that takes. My mom once said- this is how we express love, because we never want you to suffer like we suffered- we want you to be able to give your children what we could never give you. The sacrifices that my parents have made for me are impossible for many to even comprehend- why hurt your chances of retiring happy just for your kids? </p>
<p>This still moves me to tears even now, when I think about it. You can call it terrible or whatever, but to me- this is the greatest gift anyone could give me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But, you believe the stuy student should receive a significantly better educational opportunity based on test scores at the expense of taxpayers who do not have access to the same?</p>
<p>This is the problem with this type of “ive got mine, you get yours” arguments.</p>
<p>Nobody in this country isn’t getting something from the taxpayers, even us 1%ers get roads, fire, police, things we do not want to do ourselves, or can’t. There are research grants, and even those on wall street receive a financial bail out when they need one.</p>
<p>The final analysis is: that is a good argument as long as nobody benefits from taxpayer funds. As it stands, why should only one set receive a hand up? </p>
<p>Not out, but up. </p>
<p>Both the immigrant stuy student and the pell student at Yale are receiving the same gift, on us. I, for one, begrudge nobody a chance to make their lives better. There’s enough to go around.</p>
<p>“This still moves me to tears even now, when I think about it. You can call it terrible or whatever, but to me- this is the greatest gift anyone could give me.”</p>
<p>Beautifully said ecouter11. </p>
<p>I think that all anyone could ask for is, no in fact has a right to demand, is a level playing field. </p>
<p>Poetgrl, a hand up for those who grow up in distressed economic circumstances is absolutely fine. But if you have two students with equal credentials and equal SES, there is no justification for giving one preference over the other based upon race.</p>
<p>If you can prove to me that they bring nothing else to the table, nothing that is different, no other skill set, or creative set, nothing else that would make them more attractive, including the fact that schools have no desire for a uniform student body made up of all people who are good at the same exact thing, then yes, I concur.</p>
<p>However, I don’t think you can.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, there is. And this has been studied and proved to the satisfaction of the US Supreme Ct, that racial diversity does, in fact, benefit all students on campus.</p>
<p>Ecouter11 - Well said…</p>
<p>My father had a sixth grade education because he had to go to work to help his family. My mother also didn’t graduate from HS. To be honest I never noticed we were poor because I had a wonderful family full of love. All of my siblings went to college and had opportunities because education was what my family valued.</p>
<p>Diversity comes in different forms. I think that colleges benefit from having a variety of experiences. </p>
<p>This is such a personal topic for many of us. I think we all have our views which is good because it provides a diversity of opinions which is what I like to hear to think of the world differently. I want my children to benefit from this type of diverse inputs.</p>
<p>“Actually, there is. And this has been studied and proved to the satisfaction of the US Supreme Ct, that racial diversity does, in fact, benefit all students on campus.”</p>
<p>Given that the Supreme Court decided to revisit the issue, it will be interesting to learn if they continue to see it that way, or if they now decide that separate and unequal treatment is discriminatory.</p>
<p>Artrell wrote:</p>
<p>“Anyone who is using the argument that America is the land of equal opportunity and admission to college should be solely based on test scores has not read the thread about women earning less out of college. Take the blinders off people!
We do not live in the land of fair, we live in the land of the Bottom Line.”</p>
<p>Well which is it? Is America the land of sexism, or of the bottom line? It can’t be both. If it was the land of the bottom line, a wise business person would staff his entire company with bright women, pay them the going rate, and drive his competitors out of business. </p>
<p>My MIT statistics professor was sometimes called into these discrimination cases as an expert witness. He mentioned that the common mistake by the plaintiffs was to compare the average earnings in a corporation, rather than the earnings for men and women doing the same job, having the same years of experience and working the same hours. When looked at that way, he saw that the disparity disappeared and sometimes even reversed, with women earning more.</p>
<p>“But are selective colleges discriminating against Asian applicants–that is, are they rejecting applicants who would have been admitted if they had been white? There is enough evidence to ask the question …”</p>
<p>Hunt’s being diplomatic here. OF COURSE the admission game is stacked against Asians. Duh. Every game is stacked against some group or another. (Ever hear of Home Field Advantage?)</p>
<p>The real question … asked but not answered (so far as I can tell) … is whether top schools are doing a reasonable job of choosing their freshman classes. Some on this thread espouse “make test scores the sole admissions criteria.” Sorry, but those posters haven’t thought through the consequences of such a policy for Undergraduate admissions. (And please, spare me the rhetoric of how excluding blacks, hispanics, american indians, athletes, musicians, theater arts majors, etc. from top colleges is good for society “and not discriminatory at all because everyone took the same test.”)</p>
<p>I think that Universities are doing a good job ef ensuring diversity within colleges.</p>
<p>I would love it if someone would answer the question I asked before. Are people bothered by athletes with lower scores being admitted to prestigious universities? Or the offspring of major donors?</p>
<p>sally - Yours was the “asked but not answered” question I was referring to. I should have referenced your post. Sorry.</p>
<p>Thanks. I would also like to hear from some of those who take issue with the idea of minorities getting a hand up. I am not sure I have ever seen a post on this site that complained about the different admissions standards being used for certain “acceptable” reasons, such as wealth or athletic ability. Race seems to be the only factor that gets people’s knickers in a twist.</p>
<p>Sally, if we hear from more who are bent by supposed hand ups to minorities, this thread risks becoming more pro and anti AA and hit by the mods.</p>
<p>I’m uncomfortable with how recruited/recruitable athletes are viewed by admissions, except in cases where they clearly are sufficiently academically successful to master the college’s academic work.</p>
<p>Not the least bit uncomfortable that the left haded bassoonist might have an edge. Again, as long as he/she is academically competitive.</p>
<p>No general problem with developmental admits- ime, these are small proportion, it’s an institutional need, they are usually qualified.</p>
<p>
It depends on how the “leg up” works. If a poor kid goes to a school with fewer AP classes available than at more affluent schools, he obviously cannot be expected to take as many as the affluent kids. If his class rank is treated on equal terms with the class rank of students at better schools, he is already getting an indirect leg up. Being the median student at a bad high school signifies less academic achievement than the same rank at Stuyvesant. Studies have not found that SAT scores underpredict the college grades of low-income students, so I don’t think they should be adjusted for family income.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These questions have been discussed ad nauseum on CC. In a nutshell, the usual contingent who pray at the alter of SAT/gpa, are against these special admits. Others acknowledge the financial value to the college and FA students, in accommodating the children of large donors. Still others are fine with athletes because they have <em>done</em> something (as opposed to being born with a certain skin tone) to earn their spot. Others do not want any recruited athletes at all because they think athletics are not consistent with colleges’ academic missions.</p>
<p>
The latter tends to lead to the former. A business that discriminates against female employees puts itself at a disadvantage versus competitors who do not discriminate.</p>