<p>Yes. It frosts them whenever any kid with lower scores than their own kid gets in. It’s “unfair.” Because they think these places owe them admission slots.</p>
<p>“Since 2003 the small, elite liberal-arts school in Brunswick, Maine, has boosted the proportion of so-called underrepresented minority students (blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans, about 30 percent of the U.S. population) in entering freshman classes from 8 percent to 13 percent.”</p>
<p>So is the problem that minorities are being discriminated against? Or is it that whites and asians are over-represented due to institutional favoritism? Gotta be one or the other. And a follow-up question if I might … Is this the year SCOTUS says universities are legally required to reduce the proportion of minority students from “way under-represented” to “way, way under-represented?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This subjectivity is a reason to avoid SES preferences. Another complication is that to the extent family income has affected educational opportunities, it has done so since birth, so you would really want the tax returns of the parents for the last two decades. The latest tax return would be a misleading snapshot, especially once parents knew it was being used in admissions and thought about how to game the system. There would be lengthy threads on CC on how to make your children look deprived on paper.</p>
<p>My wife has thought about quitting her job so that she can spend more time with our children and involve them in (even more) activities. We can afford to live on my income. If she did quit, our family income would go down and our children would be less “privileged” on paper, but not in reality. Should a two-income couple with income of $80K be considered more “privileged” than a single-income couple of income $50K?</p>
<p>Another reason to oppose income-based preferences is that they would effectively act as another income tax, penalizing people for being more productive.</p>
<p>Another thing that is often forgotten is - geographically, Asians are clustered in a few areas. (There was a post on this on CC, but I don’t have it readily available.) Any “crunch” of applicants from the same geographic area is going to “suffer” as colleges simply don’t want too many from one area. In that regard, any racial/ethnic group heavily concentrated in a few areas “suffers,” but that’s not discrimination.</p>
<p>Personally…I’m pretty excited about elite schools offering preferential admissions to minorities. I’m a white, heterosexual, monogamous, conservative male. Pick just about any co-ed college environment in the country and I DEFINE minority and diversity!! It only took me 30 years after HS to become HYPSM material!! :)</p>
<p>Lighten up people. Whether or not you like preferential admissions (based on ANY criteria other than test scores and unweighted GPA) is immaterial. Universities will ALWAYS find a way to admit whomever they want for whatever reasons they want, and someone will complain about the process while others will laud it. Who gives two hoots in Hades? If you think someone’s “success” or “failure” in life is pre-determined based on the university they attend…I think you need to re-evaluate your definitions of success/failure. HYPSM won’t admit you? That “fill in the blank” kid got preferential treatment and took my spot. Boo fricking hoo!! Take the best opportunity you DO have available to you and make the most of it. If you truly are better than the “fill in the blank” kid then your performance will win out in the end and they’ll be fetching your coffee soon enough. Life is too short to dwell on perceived slights.</p>
<p>Beliavsky,</p>
<p>There are many camps out there complaining about affirmative action. It must be done away with. This same group believes bumps should be given based on socioeconomic status. You assert that can be gamed therefore we cannot give a bump based on socioeconomic status. How do you propose admission should be determined? </p>
<p>What ever your equation is, it will be determined to be unfair by at least one group. The admission process is not perfect and it will never be. Subjectivity will always be part of the equation.</p>
<p>Two decades of tax returns??? You are not being serious. The IRS only requires 7 yrs.</p>
<p>@smileygerl,</p>
<p>As per the guidelines defined by the U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services, the 2012 U.S. poverty line for a family of 4 isn’t anywhere close to $80,000.</p>
<p>$23,050 Lower48
28,820 Alaska
26,510 Hawaii</p>
<p>Would some of the posters here like to comment on the graduation outcomes for students affected by California’s Proposition 209?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As it is now, but excluding race from consideration.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand that.</p>
<p>GMT,</p>
<p>Your sidestepping the argument. The problem is that subjectivity is always part of the equation. You surely don’t expect a student (family of four) whose household income is 80,000 can compete with a student whose household income is 250,000. It is easy to complain about the process. How about providing a solution. I am sure I will be able to find a flaw in whatever solution you attempt to provide.</p>
<p>Beliavsky,</p>
<p>I guess your okay with the legacy bump?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see no reason why not. A good example would be admission into the elite NYC public HS like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science. There are lots of poor immigrant kids who seem to compete OK, as per the recent article in the NYTimes</p>
<p>Your claim is unsubstantiated. I have not seen any publications documenting household incomes of the students attending those schools.</p>
<p>In addition you know as well as I that money is hidden. </p>
<p>Provide exactly how to determine admission. Don’t say that way it is now without affirmative action. You simply do not know the process nor do I.</p>
<p>@Pizzagirl,</p>
<p>Do you think Oxford University or UC Berkeley are “viewed as boring and not the places that inspire creativity and leadership”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think racial preferences are unconstitutional and should be struck down. Several Supreme Court justices agree, and we will soon find out if a majority do. I’d prefer that legacy preferences go away but think that should be left to the universities. I’m against SES preferences but here too think schools should have leeway.</p>
<p>Your argument is flawed. If you are against preference it should be across the board. </p>
<p>Again admission is and always will be subjective.</p>
<p>@smileygerl,
There is distinction between preferences that are merely unfair and preferences that are both unfair and unconstitutional.</p>
<p>As far as admission always being subjective, it isn’t subjective in the rest of the rest of the world, and the sky hasn’t fallen there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your question was not directed at me, nor do I know anything about Oxford, but I am a CA resident and have an opinion about Cal, that granted is not based upon personal experience on campus but as an interested outside observer with several college-aged applicant children. As Cal does not consider teacher or counselor recs or interviews, and admission is difficult but largely stats-based, my impression is that yes, it is perceived as more of a competitive study-grind environment than other similarly ranked private universities in CA, like Stanford and USC, which communicate a desire to attract a more interesting, varied applicant pool.</p>
<p>That said, I am fairly confident that Cal continues to provide an excellent education.</p>
<p>Just not to very many Black people.</p>
<p>@Pizza:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For someone who has Math training you certainly hear about Expected Value. Everyone who has a non-zero probability of being admitted suffers damage. It seems that Supreme Court justices can see this very clear, even though you cannot.</p>
<p>The merit of the question in front of the Supreme Justices is not whether AA causes “damage” to some groups of people or not. They already established that it does. The merit of the question is whether the benefits of AA overpowers the damages.</p>