<p>I am all for having the same criteria for men and women. Let the chips fall where they may. FWIW, I have one son and one daughter</p>
<p>Re the geographical skew, I think you will find that the quality of applicants from South Dakota and Mississippi are fairly well matched with the New York applicants (my brilliant MIT educated boss was from Montana for example) However the number of applicants from the outlying areas is low. Even here, I would say let the chips fall where they may.</p>
<p>Universities should NOT be giving preferential treatment to legacies either. But that they do, speaks volumes about their ethical priorities. It’s all about donor money: you admit my kid, and I open my checkbook during annual fund campaign season.</p>
<p>I understand why colleges consider being male a “hook”, or people from far away states with low NM score thresholds. I completely understand not wanting to attend a school that is 75/25 women, or whatever it might be if all that was considered was GPA/score. I get wanting kids from all over the country, and world, on campus. I also get wanting different races and ethnicities on campus. To me it’s all the same thing and it’s perfectly valid.</p>
<p>And I have a son and a daughter. I know S benefited from being male just as D will be at a disadvantage, unless perhaps she applies to STEM programs where gender is often out of balance in the other direction. I’m OK with that because I too think that a campus with lots of different kids, including lots of different race kids, is ideal.</p>
<p>GMT, so then they should ban that practice, and also stop accepting students with below-average academic records who until now have been admitted because they can run fast or row hard or whatever other thing their bodies can do…right?</p>
<p>Let’s face it: it’s all about the money. Wealthy donors bring in vast sums for new buildings and endowed chairs. Great athletes lead to competitive teams that generate ticket revenues and alumni pride (which they demonstrate with financial support). Striving toward a race or gender balance that reflects our population seems a lot more altruistic and beneficial to society as a whole.</p>
<p>My point is that there will never be a process that is acceptable and considered fair to all parties involved. A diverse college campus is very important to the college learning experience. Diversity should be present in all forms: socioeconomic, geographic, and race etc. The admission process will be an argument that will continue until the end of time.</p>
<p>What about an all-state 3000m runner? Or a bassoon player the year after the last one graduated? Or the first person ever from Mauritania to apply to the university? Assuming each of these students is at least barely within the range of acceptable academic qualifications, what constitutes an appropriate “preference”?</p>
<p>“the geographical skew, I think you will find that the quality of applicants from South Dakota and Mississippi are fairly well matched with the New York applicants (my brilliant MIT educated boss was from Montana for example) However the number of applicants from the outlying areas is low. Even here, I would say let the chips fall where they may.”</p>
<p>You might say that. But elite schools don’t want to say that. They want kids from all 50 states, yada yada. Should the umpteen thousand kids in MA who apply to Harvard cry discrimination if Harvard admits a kid from New Mexico with lower SATs?</p>
<p>If all of us go back to the book quote highlighted in the OP’s original post”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it is interesting to study the effect of Proposition 209 in California, which prohibits state government institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting or public education. </p>
<p>URM graduation rates in CA increased after Prop 209 was implemented because of better matching of students to colleges.</p>
<p>"Harvard et al doesn’t want to model itself that way. And thy don’t have to. They can reject a perfect stat student of ANY race who bores them, and that’s how it goes.</p>
<p>If you want revisit the reason Harvard went to “holistic” admissions, it was not for any noble reason. It was to exclude Jews who were scoring high on entry exams."</p>
<p>We KNOW why Harvard went to holistic admissions. Old news. But that’s not why they do it TODAY.</p>
<p>Unless your argument is that they specifically don’t rack-and-stack scores explicitly to keep the number of Asians down because they consider them undesirable / not welcome. Is that your position?</p>
<p>"I cannot believe you are still trying to defend the “no damage” argument Pizza. The argument that “there is not damage” was presented to the Supreme Court and ruled out. Every applicant from a non-preffered demographic profile who applies to a selective university who uses AA sufferes damages. "</p>
<p>Even those applicants who weren’t going to get in anyway? They suffer damages too? How so?</p>
<p>In the case of HYP etc the pool of applicants is large enough that no students with hooks - race, gender, sports, whatever - are going to be below a certain standard. There is no reason that a 2000/3.8 or whatever can’t do the work at those schools.</p>
<p>There are likely other things going on with race in college that have nothing to do with high school stats.</p>
<p>But numbers-based people can’t STAND that. They can’t handle the concept of - above a certain minimum, scores don’t matter all that much. They want so, so desperately to believe that scores should count for so much more, and that the 2400 is more deserving than the 2200 based on that fact alone.</p>
<p>As is an applicant’s: first gen status, high school, income level, parental education level, citizenship, and resources with regard to taking SAT prep, piano and tennis lessons…</p>
<p>Yet all of those are considered in admissions, along with race and gender.</p>
<p>Race is an issue only because the US Supreme Ct has dubbed it a “suspect class” that is not allowed to be considered unless there is a “compelling interest” in considering it, such as that it provides a compelling benefit. So far, the Ct has found one. This may change or it may not.</p>
<p>Yes, I agree that because of the ginormous applicant pool, HYP are going to have the best of the best, regardless of race. That’s is why the discussion should not be about HYP, but about the next tier down.</p>
<p>OK so what are we talking? How much spread is too much? And why is it OK for HYP to use race and not for, oh, Tufts or Denison? Simply because their applicant pool is smaller so to get as many URMs as they’d like they have to go TOO far down in scores/gpa? How far is too far?</p>
<p>Most colleges want diversity; they also want high average scores and a great football team and other measures of quality and popularity. But one assumes the desire to protect the grad rate and keep incoming stat averages high acts as a hedge against taking oboe players with a 2.0 gpa or black kids with a 1200 SAT.</p>
<p>Colleges can only rely on the tax return info families report. If the families are lying on their tax returns, then that is the jurisdiction of the IRS to investigate & prosecute. </p>
<p>The U.S. govt defines poverty levelsarent we talking about giving disadvantaged (i.e. poor) kids, not middle-class kids, a bump-up?</p>
<p>Ive stated repeatedly that legacies should NOT get preferences.</p>
<p>You can’t cherry pick one portion of my argument. Again middle class income varies across the US. Who is going to decide what is low income, lower middle income, middle income, high income? That is just one of many subjective factors. Tell me how you can remove the subjectivity from the equation?</p>
<p>Do you think $80,000 for a family of four is middle income in NY? Do you think $80,000 for a family of four is middle income in Montana? I bet you property taxes are a whole lot higher in New York. Don’t come back and say the family chose to live there. Many cannot just up and move and ensure they will have a job to provide for their family. Do you understand where I am coming from? Subjectivity will always be part of the equation.</p>
<p>What they want is a guarantee. That if they do everything right–giving their kids the best chance at success, starting with Mozart in the womb and the top preschools and Kumon and the best music teachers and coaches and tutors and enriching experiences money can buy–that their investment will pay off. They can accept a kid with a 2400 having more options than their kid with the 2200, although they might not be happy about it. But they can’t abide the subjective things that all their hard work and financial commitments can’t ensure. They want a guaranteed ROI from doing everything “the way you’re supposed to.” It is simply not fair that a kid with a good-enough GPA from a mediocre school district in flyover country (or from a minority family), decent-but-not-75th-percentile scores and middling ECs gets into a top school when theirs doesn’t–when, in fact, theirs is PENALIZED for having done everything the exact same way leagues of students before him (even from their same prestigious school in a very high-tax district) have done successfully. It’s just more than they can stand…because it leaves the entire outcome to chance.</p>