Mismatch caused by racial preferences

Parents Forum
281

<p>Notyourbusiness-- as a woman, I’ve been paid less than men since I began to work, though I doubt that’s the case, now, given where I’ve gotten to over the years. But, entering the workforce in the 80’s, trust me, the discrimination was palpable and if you couldn’t handle yourself with the boys, sexual harrassment and all, you were pretty much run out of the workforce.</p>

<p>Not very long ago, as a young woman, if you went to buy your own place, they would ask for a cosignor, regrardless of your income level. </p>

<p>Women continue to be discriminated against, even now, and we are one half of the population. And we have to MARRY these guys, too! :eek: </p>

<p>You learn to let a little bit slide off your back. You get sense of humor, and you find the places where you can do well. We do better every year.</p>

<p>And we learn to “get” that everyone is doing the same to a large extent, even if we can’t “see” it… Men who miss so much of their children’s lives, or die younger. There’s no “perfect” situation.</p>

<p>Look at it this way. Forget race, forget individuals. Just institutions:</p>

<p>when they bailed out the too big to fail banks, they let all sorts of banks in this country go under and many lost their jobs. There is always going to be something like this that is happening.</p>

282

<p>

</p>

<p>This is so true that parents and students should take it to heart. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try your best to get into the best college possible, however you define it. No one denies the existence of discrimination, which in 60 years we’ll see clearly. Don’t believe me? Look at 60 years ago. Many kinds of discrimination, those in power discriminate against those who lack it.</p>

283

<p>

</p>

<p>So poetgrl, do you not agree that the Jews in the 1920s should have sued the Ivies from keeping them out since there were so many other universities that they could have attended?</p>

284

<p>@notyourbusiness
If it eere impossible for me to purchase a home because of bigotry in a neughborhood I would certainly not want to live there. Whether it should be legal or not is a different discussion but I would not want to live among such ignorant fools when there are plenty of wonderful places to live… Just as I would not want to attend a bigoted school. Would you like to attend.a school run by bigots or live with a bunch of racists? Because apparently that is what you think of the so-called elite schools. you completely miss rhe point wirh your fatuous questions.</p>

285

<p>

</p>

<p>@cbreeze-- were the jews represented in the ivy classes at more than 3x their rate of population?</p>

<p>Look, I’m not trying to deny that this is a challenging situation for many students who grow up believing the only valid measure of worth is test scores and gpa. I’m not either trying to deny the fact, which I have already stipulated to earlier, that it is harder for an asian woman to get into an elite university than it is for anyone on the continent. no question.</p>

<p>But, what I disagree with is the idea that URMs are “taking the spots” of other students, when this is simply not the case. </p>

<p>Anyway, I’ve said it all, at this point.</p>

<p>carry on.</p>

286

<p>

</p>

<p>^^Ah, so you are a proponent of the quota system.
I’ll let you look it up.</p>

287

<p>cbreeze, I don’t have to “look it up.” try to stay civil.</p>

<p>what I believe is that you can go ahead and sue the ivy league if you want. Feel free. See where it gets you.</p>

<p><a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;

<p>this is an even more in depth article on these investigations:</p>

<p><a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?;

288

<p>This is just getting sad now.</p>

289

<p>

</p>

<p>The situation was basically the same as with the Asians, only a bit worse in that there were explicit quotas to limit the number of Jews. Read Karabel’s book, “The Chosen.”
At Harvard, they put in an entrance exam that was the sole factor for admissions. But there was a panic when the admitted classes started to be more Jewish. The response was the invention of “holistic admission” and “diversity”–the terms, not just the ideas, were borne during that time. The interview, recommendations, and even a picture were used to determine if they were getting people of the right gentry. The picture was used to see if the person looked too Jewish. Harvard President Lowell claimed the process wasn’t anti-semitic, arguing that if it got to be Jewish then even Jews wouldn’t want to go there. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t believe I or others are that simplistic. There is a lot which goes on in admission, and given the lack of transparency, one can always make a logical argument as to why something happened by filling in the gaps. For example, I am told that the people admitted to MIT from Thomas Jefferson High School (IMO the most talent-laden in math/science) were not the top academically in their high school. That is, MIT took plenty of people, but they were not the smartest. You can invent some scenario to make this make sense–that is, the top people were low in character or had high GPAs but were not creative, but in reality this is is not likely. And I think TJ people are savvier than, just as most CCers are savvier than that. </p>

<p>I’d venture to guess that no one on this thread would have a problem with admitting Yo Yo Ma regardless of an unspectacular GPA. However, I’d say there is a lot less quality control in determining the quality of non-academic candidates vs. the academic stars. (The exception is athletes and musicians, which are vetted on their abilities pretty rigorously.)</p>

<p>Going back to the purpose of this thread, when people defend a sacred cow such as affirmative action, they make the calculus of the argument work out exactly from any angle. So the top TJ people were rejected? Well, that’s because the underpriveleged guys were of the same talent but had less opportunity–and there were 1500 people like that apparently. In reality, there is a tradeoff of individual fairness to larger institutional goals, noble or not. However, I will say that despite all the cries of social justice from university admin, it is unlikely that it is strict adherence toward this policy which keeps a lot of top academic performers out (though there will be an impact.) In reality, I think a bigger impact is made by an effort to appease the power elite. </p>

<p>For instance, why are they taking the sons and daughters of senators and foreign dignitaries automatically? Why not find people in the lower classes which have leadership ability. I know they try to do this, but what’s the point of admitting George W. instead of one more kid who actually cared about school–or…something besides getting drunk?
It’s only when people discuss academic stars that people look at it with a magnifying lens and try to creatively find flaws.</p>

290

<p>@bovertine</p>

<p>You can call my questions silly, but to me it is silly to say that there is no damage if an institution exercises racial preferences in admission, because applicants can go somewhere else. They “do not ‘miss out’ on anything”. This is silly.</p>

<p>Look, there may be some defensible reasons to defend affirmative action, but let us not use arguments that are clearly incorrect. The “no damage” argument can be easily ruled out. It can be ruled out by saying that the SCOTUS agree that there is reason to claim damage, so much that they are considering the Texas case (if there was indeed no damage, they would throw out the case). The merit of the case is not if there is no damage or not, but whether the benefit (the benefit of “critical mass”, as Texas defends it) is reason enough to overpower the damage.</p>

<p>I wanted to give examples (employment, housing) because it makes clear to everyone that arguments such as “you do not ‘miss out’ on anything” are fallacious. When one accepts that it is okay for some group of people to have less preferences in one area, why not accept that it is okay to have less preferences in any other area?</p>

291

<p>

</p>

<p>poetgrl, jeez, I was just asking for some clarification on your quote.</p>

292

<p>Guys, seriously. Stahp.</p>

293

<p>Diversity is a desirable thing to have at any institution that advocates free thought, but I take issue with schools that try to achieve that diversity by having blanket racial standards for students.</p>

<p>As a significant number of URM are socio-economically disadvantaged, what is the big deal about striving for diversity by outreach to kids on the basis of family income? </p>

<p>A scheme that aims to increase student body diversity without explicitly exercising different admissions standards for different racial groups, is Texas’s automatic admit for the top 10% of HS graduates. Poor kids can’t help it if they have to attend a lower performing school, but at least the 10% scheme recognizes the kids who work hard and take the initiative to make the most of their lesser opportunities. What appeals to me about this scheme is that the kids EARN their place through their own efforts, rather than getting an automatic bump up simply on the basis of their race.</p>

294

<p>Wow. I’ve read through some of the pages on this thread and I’m staggered. I was lured in by the “mismatch” notion because I wanted to see if there was mention of this mismatch when it comes to athletes, celebrities, and development cases. That bothers me a great deal because it’s hard for me to accept the value that those preferences add. But I don’t run these universities and I don’t set their rules or craft their visions. </p>

<p>As for affirmative action: It’s so much more than providing an individual underserved kid an opportunity; it’s about creating new role models and communities and yes, diversity. Whether it puts more colorful faces in places of power, to the point that it becomes a norm, or helps a young woman I met (who probably needs no helping) to return to her reservation and continue her efforts to preserve the oral language tradition of her tribe, there is value to all of us. It may be one of the few things that these schools do right (IMO).</p>

<p>Here’s what gets me though. What is so danged fantastic about Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and the like that makes people think they are the only game in town? I think we’ve all clearly established over 15 + pages of discussion that we are not dealing with an academic or intellectual meritocracy. These schools are not seeking a class filled only with the most brilliant, high IQ kids they can find and admit. Their mission is to collect a group of kids based on varied criteria, much of it nonacademic, known only to them at any given time. So what keeps those of you who are fighting so vigorously for admission to these schools so fixed on just those schools? Is it simply bragging rights? Is it some misguided belief that that name will take you further as you go forward? Do you really think it’s a step down to attend a top 10 or 20 university or a top LAC? (I’m deliberately refraining from naming names.) Their populations are as smart or smarter than the HYPS group. Don’t you realize that there may be greater opportunity for excellence and post-grad placements/scholarships at the non-HYPS schools?</p>

<p>Honestly, rather than focusing on the unfairness and following the same strategy that’s sure to disappoint, adapt to the fantastic choices out there. Use your backgrounds and intelligence to your advantage: There are still top colleges that want and favor Asian students!</p>

295

<p>You’d think from reading some of these posts that there are only 10 or so reputable universities in the world. And actually, that is pretty much how it seems on CC sometimes. It’s either “elite” or “top-tier” or nothing for their precious offspring.</p>

<p>A lot of posters in this discussion seem to think their children “deserve” a spot at one of these institutions. They go to prestigious boarding schools that they competed mightily to get into. Or they are the children of industrious immigrants who have sacrificed everything to secure a better future for their kids. Or they are just “special.” But as GMTplus7 says, “there is NOT enough to go around. Spots in schools are fixed.” So they are sort of frantic. It seems to be too much for some to take. They’ve done everything right…and it still might not work out. Everyone who isn’t their child who gets in is a threat. </p>

<p>No wonder they are freaked out about the prospect of a few minorities taking “their” kids’ spots.</p>

296

<ol>
<li><p>Collegealum: how do you know top TJ kids are rejected in favor of less qualified? Or do you just mean stats?
You ever read an app from TJ? Or speak with an adcom about TJ? Are you sure kids of senators and dignitaries are auto admits? (Remember, JFK jr didn’t get into Harvard, despite legacy, family fame and money.)</p></li>
<li><p>UT is a public. It has responsibilities to its population. That’s why it makes sense to run 'em through a wringer to test their fairness.</p></li>
<li><p>How does one prove “racial discrimination?” or racial prefrences? Especially in a context where a private U states its criteria extend well beyond stats? And, 85-90+ percent are rejected? How do you hold up one kid with higher stats and claim to know specifically why he got rejected?</p></li>
</ol>

297

<p>

Give the choice of a black kid who’s the daughter of a doctor and was on the same Lacrosse team as all her suburban peers, and an inner city Sri Lankan boy whose family fled here and didn’t speak English, the university would much rather have #1 on their poster to demonstrate diversity. So while there are some who’re candid to say they want to provide preference purely on the basis of race, many take the less controversial way out by using the socio-economic argument to justify a preference, and then replace it with a racial implementation.</p>

298

<p>@sally305,</p>

<p>Can we please refrain from the personal attacks and just discuss the topic of this thread?</p>

<p>For what it’s worth, I would rather my kid NOT go to Harvard, because Harvard does not grant merit scholarships, we probably would not qualify for FA, and I would like to retire before age 80. </p>

<p>Also, I have advised my over-privileged boarding school kid, that if one plans to continue on to a professional degree, no one really cares what undergrad school was attended as long as it is a solid school. The objective of graduate school admissions seems to be more focused on academic merit rather than on redressing the social injustices of the last 2 centuries.</p>

299

<p>GMT, I quoted you directly. I would not call that a personal attack. And I happen to agree with you about specific undergrad institutions not mattering much (in most cases) to grad school admissions committees.</p>

300

<p>

</p>

<p>According to one parent at TJ whose kid ended up at Caltech, there was a a general consensus that the many of the top cohort of kids in terms of intelligence did not get into MIT. This person did not seem to care, it was just an observation. I’ve seen this from MIT before, so it’s not just one isolated quote. </p>

<p>I’m pretty familiar with TJ and its graduates, as I went to a similar high school and MIT (my alma mater) has many TJ graduates. People are not likely making a determination on whether the “best” got in on the basis of stats, because realistically probably half the school had 750+ on each subsection of the SATI and SATII. There tends to be a small group of people who rack up most of the academic awards and are stars in class. </p>

<p><a href=“Remember,%20JFK%20jr%20didn’t%20get%20into%20Harvard,%20despite%20legacy,%20family%20fame%20and%20money.”>quote</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you sure about that? I thought he chose to go to Brown to avoid all of the Kennedy hype surrounding Harvard.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Considering some of the people who got in, it sure seems so.</p>