Mismatch caused by racial preferences

collegealum314 · October 28, 2012, 11:43pm

I agree. Income didn’t seem to have any impact on who the high achievers were at my (magnet) high school as long as they were at least middle class.

I wonder how many low income admits there really are anyway. It’s seems like sort of a red herring, even though I think I people get carried away with saying that a decent score on the SAT from a low income area means they are equivalent to some of the top performers in the country (not just SAT, but other harder measures such as math olympiad or equivalent). An 1800 SAT-scorer who got into Harvard from an inner city school was described as having a “perfect score” in the newspaper, for instance. In general, it is apples and oranges. But there are some people I’ve seen up close that it’s hard for me to imagine that they could get that low on the SAT.

collegealum314 · October 28, 2012, 11:55pm

There is a certain group of relatively high achievers (some 2250+ valedictorians, for example), that want to believe that what they have done is equivalent or better academically to everyone else in the world. Everyone above that number is the same, so they are the best there is. It seems like it is driven by ego gratification. If you are the best jock in your class and are captain of the basketball and football teams, it doesn’t mean that you are like Bo Jackson or the kids who make the McDonald’s All-America team.

Just because I think there are people better than someone with A’s and a 2250 doesn’t mean I worship the SAT. There are other ways to show academic strength once you get to that level.

However, again using a sports analogy, sometimes numbers make you a suspect candidate. No one drafts an NFL player with a 5.0 sec 40yd dash and a 150 lb bench press. There’s a lot more to football than raw athleticism, but someone with these numbers likely can’t compete, no matter how much a feel for the game they have.

collegealum314 · October 29, 2012, 12:02am

It seems the argument is that no matter what school they go to, it still gets them where they need to go (i.e., allows them to maximize their potential.) It gets them from point A to point B. So maybe they don’t ride in first class.

So I guess their argument is that it’s ok for some people to sit at the back of the bus since they will get from point A to point B? Is that the argument?

Pizzagirl · October 29, 2012, 12:21am

“xpected Value. Everyone who has a non-zero probability of being admitted suffers damage.”

Huh. So non-athletic kids “suffer” because colleges recruit for athletes and want to fill teams… Populous-state resident kids “suffer” because schools want to make sure they get at least one kid from New Mexico. American kids “suffer” because schools wish to recruit internationals. What’s the difference?

lookingforward · October 29, 2012, 12:48am

*For the third time I repeat: that is way the SCOTUS is hearing the case and not trowing it out. *
Again, that’s PUBLIC U’s. Imo, the Court SHOULD review how states meet their constituents’ needs. No one can be assured this will impact privates, one bit.

Someone said privates should somehow screen for academic strengths beyond stats- and, from my perspective, that is exactly what they do- not academic, per se, but intellectual strengths and inquisitiveness, depth as well as breadth, ability to identify, take on and master challenges, and a willingness (gee, Yale says this in print) to step outside themselves- and a certain maturity. And more, including that thing MITChris says about kids who will engage and make good roommates.

As for kids who are “damaged,” that argument has spun around and I can’t catch it. Roughly 33,000 kids were rejected by Harvard, last year. Even if you say only half were highly prepared, does that mean 17k were damaged because the school didn’t have space?

One other thing, for now: lots of chance me kids and families focus on “I want.” Or, dream school. Or, how they just adore school X and it meets every need they can imagine. Admissions is not about how much kid “wants” a school. It’s how much those adcoms want that kid.

And the only vehicle, again, that you have, to present yourself as a candidate, is the CA and supps. Instead of fussing over other groups, kids should focus on their applications and what comes across, in toto.

NotYourBusiness · October 29, 2012, 1:07am

The difference is that athletic, regional, etc. are race-blind approaches. The Supreme Court sees no issue with admitting athletes because it is also race blind. Schools recruit athletes based on performance, not race/ethnicity. Regarding the Texas case, the Supreme Court is okay with the Texas 10% approach (which is one form of regional approach and is race blind). What the Supreme Court is deliberating is whether it is okay for Texas to adopt racial preferences (which are clearly race aware) on top of the 10% system. For instance, some judges in the Supreme Courte clearly do not like the idea that Texas may pass on a poor 12%er in favor of a rich 20%er of a certain race, just because of race (12% and 20% are my own arbitrary numbers, just to put things in context).

Since you want to argue by asking questions (some not well concocted I may say), let me ask you this question: Did you read anything at all about the Texas case? If yes, I do not understand why you keep arguing with invalid arguments. If no, then perhaps you may try reading about it from two or three different sources, get informed, and then come back with valid arguments. If you want detailed information, you can get lots of stuff here: [Fisher</a> v. University of Texas at Austin : SCOTUSblog](<a href=“http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fisher-v-university-of-texas-at-austin/]Fisher”>Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin - SCOTUSblog)

3girls3cats · October 29, 2012, 1:22am

Well said lookingforward. You have a choice: complain about the unfairness of the admissions process and the unfairness of the outcomes or take control of what you can control and move forward. Most of all, keep your eye on the long view. I happen to agree that the college application process is not only unfair but that it’s warped teenage life in a way that I think is unhealthy and damaging to the future of these kids, maybe to all of us. I have tried in every way I know to steer my kids on a path that doesn’t let them fall prey to the heightened anxieties and pressure to be false superkids.

I would add that the Supreme Court is a political entity whose conservative justices would love to see an end to affirmative action. They took the case because certain powers that be think they have a chance to impose an agenda. These are the people who appointed George W. Bush president. We need not use the fact that the court chose to hear the case as proof that affirmative action is evil.

3girls3cats · October 29, 2012, 1:34am

NotYourBusiness, the people who have responded to you about the Texas case have shown themselves to be very well informed and dare I say seem to have a better grasp of the law and the Supreme Court than you do. For one thing, as has already been pointed out, this ruling would apply to PUBLIC SCHOOLS only. For another, the case may actually be decided on very narrow grounds since (1) Fisher really has no standing to bring the case–she’s graduated and has no wrong that can be righted at this point and (2) the University asserts that Fisher would not have been admitted even if there had been no affirmative action program in place. What’s happening here is that O’Connor has resigned from the court and several conservative justices see an opportunity to get a ruling contrary to what they ended up with in Michigan.

I’m surprised you think it’s ok to allow an athlete, whose accomplishments are nonacademic, a space in favor of a higher performing student. Are you aware that there are schools where as much as 30% of the class is made up of recruited athletes?

NotYourBusiness · October 29, 2012, 1:39am

Lookingforward. I agree with you that no one can be assured that this will impact privates… Even though many people argue that it probably will. In any event, the validity of the issue that some people suffers “damages” because of AA is clearly spelled out in the Texas case. U.Texas argued that case should be dismissed because there was no damage to Fisher, but this was ruled out, and the court decided to hear the case. The decision to hear the case means that the case had merit. Also, it would be disingenuous to think that only applicants to state schools are displaced because of non color-blind policies. In addition, many private universities filed Amicus Briefs in support of Texas? Why? Clearly because they are concerned that the decision my affect their admissions policies.

In addition, the current law (Grutter v. Bollinger) recognizes that some groups will “suffer damages” because of AA. However, the Grutter decision was that such damages were justified in name of the benefits of diversity. Again: Grutter, the current law, do recognize that there are damages. I cannot see why would anyone argue that “there are no damages” (unless the person was misinformed or had an agenda).

NotYourBusiness · October 29, 2012, 1:51am

3Girls:
It is not what I think. It is what the court thinks. The court thinks that race-blind approaches are okay. Also, at this point no one can be sure whether the decision on the Texas case will apply to Public Schools only.

Regarding if AA is evil or not. This is a different question. Everything in society has some degree of negative and positive aspects. I believe that there are good arguments that one can make in favor of AA. But to say that no one is prejudiced by it… This is false, so it is better not to use this argument.

lookingforward · October 29, 2012, 1:53am

I agree that, all too often, the defendent just points to the fact that the kid is now at some other school. Ie, questions just what damage.

I also find that there’s a cycle to these sorts of cases, that they get on the Court docket because they should, in the interest of reviewing current law and practice- not because the specific case is earthshaking. So, the “merit” of reviewing the case is not a hint that the plaintiff is right, but that the issue bears consideration.

The Amici Curiae from the Jesuit schools is good- so many of the others are from interest groups, it seems. Grutter is also about a public, this time law school. (Btw, I suspect law school admissions may, in fact, be severely out of whack- that needs to be separated, I feel, from UG.)

As to damages, my point is sort of this: if H rejected 17k or 33k qualified kids, each of them could feel damaged. If H threw out all (what is it? about 500?) minority admits, replaced them, that would still leave 32,500 (or 33k, dep on how you view it) disappointed- maybe damaged- kids. How do we bring the notion of “damaged” to some workable discussion?

Also, in Grutter, “The court held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor “underrepresented minority groups,” but that also took into account many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant, did not amount to a quota system that would have been unconstitutional under Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke.”

GMTplus7 · October 29, 2012, 3:16am

@3girls3cats,

People can CHOOSE to pursue activities. They can CHOOSE to pursue basketball or crew. They can CHOOSE to move to an underrepresented state (even if it may be difficult to do). They can CHOOSE to pursue an interest in math. The can CHOOSE to play the trombone. The ability to CHOOSE to pursue an activity, academic or otherwise, is race-blind.

People CANNOT choose their race nor gender, so why should colleges give preferences on the basis of it-- hence 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.

Though I may find it irritating (@#$%&*!!!) that they do so, I don’t perceive anything unconstitutional about colleges granting admissions preference to athletes & musicians over kids with higher academic performance.

So only conservative justices have political agendas?

Philovitist · October 29, 2012, 3:49am

First off, the fact that race and gender can’t be chosen has no bearing on the validity of AA. That’s a false correlation.

Hell, if I could choose my ethnicity and have the cultural endowment that possessing a family of that ethnicity entails, I’d go Asian or White lickety-split.

GMT, you don’t seem to get it. Being part of an underrepresented minority is not an activity. It’s not going for sports, it’s not playing a musical instrument or participating in some competition. It’s definitely not living in a state. It’s a factor that, by itself, all else excluded, makes one very significantly less likely to succeed academically, or at all.

Because of the way the dominoes have fallen, because of evil and negligent decisions in the not-so-distant past, people by virtue of the artificial construct that is race, alone, are academically stunted at birth by their social (and often economic) environments.

URMs who succeed have to literally go against the current to do it. Whereas Asians and many Whites are pushed to succeed by their families and by their peers and their available role models, URMs are discouraged by these people and encouraged to pursue less academic routes. They are stuck in a cycle of poverty that requires immense drive and devotion to get out of.

I just don’t see how basketball or crew participation can even compare to the obstacles that high achieving URMs overcome. That is why I think the fact that they are URMs is considered a hook.

Colleges should give preferenceby race and gender so that they can work as they were created to do: Change society through education.

This is the compelling interest that exists that explains why AA still exists in colleges today. URMs need role models who can make a difference, who can help offset through their influence the destructive elements of their culture. URMs need advocates in the upper strata of society who work passionately for the political change required to fix problems of race in our nation. URMs need heroes.

And as long as racial differences equate to huge educational differences, huge socioeconomic differences and huge welfare differences, they equate to a huge compelling interest, also.

Philovitist · October 29, 2012, 3:54am

Tell me, how much do you think the average white 2200-er’s chances of getting into Harvard would increase if AA there ended? Or at a second tier college? Or Texas?

Philovitist · October 29, 2012, 3:59am

And then, how much a given infant’s chances of ever getting into Harvard are affected if he/she is born to black parents in the US instead of white.

NotYourBusiness · October 29, 2012, 4:07am

Lookingforward:

I do not understand what you mean here. The defendant for Texas indeed attempted to say that there was no case. They asked for a dismissal. However, the Supreme Court thinks that the case has merit.

Think about this situation: Suppose you are passed for promotion at your first job because of race/gender/ethnicity. Your life goes on and you apply for a job at some other company and goes to work there. Does this mean that it was okay for the first company to discriminate against you? Sure not.

Any discriminated-against applicant who, at time of application, had a non-negative probability of being accepted has a good reason to feel that he/she “suffered damage”. This is one of the consequences of AA that we need to live with, but that we cannot deny that it exists.

Indeed. Because Gutter recognizes that this is a valid tradeoff. But the court also recognizes that this is not an ideal situation. The decision in Gutter also said that “race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time… The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” This demonstrates that the court knows there is a tradeoff in operation here. If there was not tradeoff, no negative repercussions to anybody, why would the court be concerned about limiting the duration of the law?

NotYourBusiness · October 29, 2012, 4:31am

Lookingforward:

I noticed that you are trying to move the discussion forward in a positive way. I recognize this and I think this is great. Sorry if I appear to “hang up” on the issue of damages. I do feel, though, that some posters here are trying to negate the costs of AA: show all the positives, no negatives. Good arguments will recognize both aspects.

I do believe that a truly diverse class (not limited by diversity as prescribed by the Census) is beneficial to all students. But I also think that diversity is used in many institutions just as a mindless way to fill some quotas (although they would never admit this). For instance, if you consider two cousins who come from Latin America. One gets a green card, and the other only a workers visa. Then suddenly the one who have the GC counts as diversity and the other does not. In this type of situation, the intention is clearly not to increase “diversity”. It is instead to look good on the reports that the school fills according to the guidelines of the IPEDS.

Pizzagirl · October 29, 2012, 5:14am

"People can CHOOSE to pursue activities. They can CHOOSE to pursue basketball or crew. They can CHOOSE to move to an underrepresented state (even if it may be difficult to do). They can CHOOSE to pursue an interest in math. The can CHOOSE to play the trombone. The ability to CHOOSE to pursue an activity, academic or otherwise, is race-blind. "

Again, high school students can’t just up and move to Montana for admissions edges. And they cannot just choose to pursue activities. Can an inner city kid pursue water polo? Can the rural kid work in a cutting edge research lab when none exists within 500 miles? Can the kid who needs to work in his parents’ store or on the farm do extracurricular activities? Can the poor kid take up the trombone? You are exceedingly naive if you don’t think that a lot of the activities that “look good” for colleges aren’t already highly linked to parental income (not to mention a parent who can chauffeur kid or the kid having his own car).

GMTplus7 · October 29, 2012, 5:20am

@Philovitist

I always enjoy reading your insightful posts.

I agree with you that URMs need more role models. But is admitting a less academically prepared applicant of any race into an intensely academically environment the most effective path to achieving that end? URMs need to get the educational support MUCH, MUCH earlier in the process, and not when they are entering college.

Culture, as you point out, is a big issue. I am dismayed that the civil rights leadership that professes to advocate for the URM community will not address the destructive elements of the underclass culture that you mention. I was so very hopeful in 2008, that a black Leader of the Free World would be the role model to help poor black children see that being smart and succeeding in the mainstream culture is not “acting white”.

I pose to you, would the URM community not be better served by graduating MORE students, especially in the STEM fields?

The Duke admissions data shows that while URMs entered Duke with significantly lower overall stats (test score, GPA, essay, etc, etc), the URM students initially had a lower GPA at Duke which converged the white GPA by graduation time, but at the expense of the URMs dropping out of STEM majors.

In California, the effect of Proposition 209 was that students were better matched to UC schools according to their academic preparation, such that the graduation rate of URMs increased, and the number of URMs graduating in STEM majors also increased. These graduates are the role models the URM community needs to spark a virtuous cycle.

And yes, I don’t care for athletic recruits nor legacies either. But unlike football players who go on to multi-million dollar contracts or legacies with trust funds, the non-athlete and non-leagacy student of any race actually needs to excel in college, as a springboard to economic success.

Pizzagirl · October 29, 2012, 5:23am

“And yes, I don’t care for athletic recruits nor legacies either. But unlike football players who go on to multi-million dollar contracts or legacies with trust funds, the average URM student actually needs to excel in college, as a springboard to economic success.”

Straw men. What percent of athletic recruits go on to turn pro / ultimately earn money from their sport? Very few. What percent of legacies have “trust funds”? Don’t know, but there’s little evidence to suggest that legacy admits are from families that are SO rich that the kids don’t have to go find a job like everyone else.

Mismatch caused by racial preferences

CONNECT WITH US