<p>SG, I actually think this argument is about perspectives, not the issue itself. Some are so certain, others advocate a broader view.</p>
<p>Many feel the “solution” seems to be to offer more, better education, gradually yield better economic circumstances and, yup, role models, mentors and programs that offer a leg up.</p>
<p>The irony is that community role models (adults) ARE going to be those who achieved something, the bright lights, accomplished students who were capable of pushing further, were given a chance, were not relegated to cc or whatever, because of their initial circumstances. </p>
<p>Oops, isn’t that a big part of AA’s original intention? Build success on top of success?</p>
<p>The situation now at top schools is as fair as it can be. No solution is going to be completely satisfying to everyone. But, any complaint, which rests mainly on the idea that disparities in test scores is a reason to not admit a kid who did some other really valuable remarkable things over a kid who did…welll… better on a standardized test…</p>
<p>The likelihood of a high scorer on the SAT being “left behind” is really so slim as to be not worth discussing. The likelihood of a school becoming less than it is now because it can only admit based on test scores is very high. </p>
<p>The situation, now, is fine. some of these schools which admit at or less than 10% of applicants. There’s not some way to make all 90+% rejects feel happy and well-served.</p>
<p>I just thought moving towards a solution might be a good thing. I guess it feels better to voice perspectives rather than voice possible solutions. Carry on…</p>
<p>smileygerl-- what solution are you asking for? The situation, right now, is considered to be a solution by the admissions teams at most schools. This IS the solution. </p>
<p>Did you have some other idea? The best minds have been working on this one for quite some time, now. This is what they came up with. What would you add?</p>
<p>Since this has been an ongoing topic since the Bakke decision, the clear answer is that there are absolutely no ways to accomplish the goal, smileygerl. There have been literally thousands, if not hundreds of thousands or really smart people working on this issue over the past 50 years. Clearly, no epiphany has occurred.</p>
<p>Would you also hide addresses, Pablo? States of origin? zip codes, in particular denote certain socioeconomic class. Would you hide the name, also, of the high school attended?</p>
<p>I mean, the race is not the only thing that is differentiating kids, here, by a long shot.</p>
<p>^^not to mention, hide those so-called country-club ECs, such as lacrosse, swimming, fencing, drama, etc… (Kinda hard to be a top-ranked swimmer from an inner city high school that doesn’t even have a pool open for practice.)</p>
<p>Yes. If you tell me the name and location of your high school and I have your grades and EC’s? I can reliably tell a lot about your background from that, as well.</p>
<p>ETA: Are there people on this thread with legal backgrounds who can comment on the possible repercussions for private schools in the event the Supreme Court finds in favor of the plaintiff in the Abigail Fisher case?</p>
<p>Pablo, I dont want to not respond to you, because I think that would be rude. I know about the Stuy situation. I don’t think it is as “objective” as it sounds when kids with no prep are competing with kids who have had extensive prep. </p>
<p>However, it is what it is, and I have tired of the conversation. It will be interesting to see the new iterations that come about in admissions between now and when my grandchildren are applying to college. I’m sure that it will be interesting to see what our new conservative supreme court decides. They have not been nearly as predictable as people predicted they would be. </p>
<p>There is an interesting book called The Nine about the supreme court, and, in particular the way O’connor moved over time, and the history of this movement among different justices and different courts through time.</p>
<p>I do celebrate the achievements of all. Way back on page two or three I made it clear I am not in the camp to denigrate the accomplishments even of those “born on third base.” Hard work is hard work.</p>
<p>However, I’m not sure how it is an objective measure of a “students” potential that the “parents” had differing priorities. At best, it is an objective measure of the parent’s priorities. The student is still at an advantage or disadvantage having nothing to do with objectivity.</p>
<p>Using the term “quota” implies more than the situation necessarily includes. Sensitivity to achieving diversity does not mean a fixed target (quota) of x number of Blacks, Hisanics, etc. That achieving that number supercedes all the other interests of the institution.</p>
<p>Pablo, so much of life is not transparent. Why try to quantify something that is about quality? So, some posters return to the idea that, for many competitve colleges, your kid does not, in fact, have a statistically favorable shot, to begin with. </p>
<p>I wonder how many parents realize that high stats doesn’t always correlate to a well put together CA?</p>
<p>Actually, overcoming hardship may be the criterion with the strongest argument other than purely academic criteria (courses, grades, test scores) in finding individual merit, in that if two people got to the same finish line (similar courses, grades, test scores), the one who had to jump more hurdles of hardship is probably the one with higher ability, motivation, and merit.</p>
<p>Of course, this cannot be evaluated by just looking at the race/ethnicity check box or anything like that, since hardships may or may not be racism related, and if they are, they can affect people of any race/ethnicity.</p>
<p>But that does make such a criterion different from other non-academic criteria, in that it is about finding actual individual merit, not about giving an individually “unearned” bump based on the race/ethnicity check box or legacy status or whatever. But then both side of the affirmative action debate ignore the difference, and may lump overcoming hardship with the latter type of criteria.</p>
<p>Although you can probably tell that I support AA, I agree that at many colleges “holistic” in the case of blacks may not actually be holistic but closer to a soft quota . That is one part of Sanders’ paper in the Stanford Law Review that is very persuasive (the graphs showing what admissions would look like depending on holistic reviews or other types of reviews, including quotas, and then his survery of seven law schools showing that their admission graphs resemble the ones showing soft quotas).</p>
<p>Pablo, this is what I think on the “parent issue:” my post #739.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think a lot of other things on the subject, as well. Most of which is on this thread somewhere or other. I appreciate your thoughtfulness on the subject.</p>
<p>But you have to remember: if people are motivated, they can do anything. In NYC, there are free prep sessions. There are books you can check out from the library. It’s your choice whether you study or not. If Stuy and similar schools admitted students who were unprepared, the students would not be able to cope and the classes themselves might be dumbed down. Poorer high schools should get more resources so that students can attend and still be in a position to succeed, but there is absolutely no point in admitting unqualified students to high schools where most students are already well prepared.</p>
<p>College admissions are different, obviously, but I think the NYC system is excellent.</p>
<p>Okay, so this is one example on how people can use conditional probabilities.</p>
<p>Poet, you and other people here argued that AA does not influence stigmatization. But if it is true that you can “reliably tell a lot” about one’s background by considering the student’s high school, then you should also “reliably tell a lot” about one’s background by considering whether the students’ college practices preferences in admissions or not.</p>
<p>This thread spent a lot of early time on SES challeges and even AA naysayers somewhat agreed that it represents a hurdle.</p>
<p>My stand is that holistic does not simply look at the check box. There can be more than a dozen pages to the CA, when you add in school report, LoRs, any interview report, any supps. Do we really think an adcom sees that box and goes no further? Or takes that app and throws it into an auto-admit pile?</p>
<p>Clearly, some think that’s what happens. And, as some argued earlier, that their kids would have been in the “highly deserving” piles, also auto-admits, if that darned URM pile weren’t going to get seated first.</p>
<p>NYB- not that AA doesn’t influence stigma. But that stigma exists outside any basis for it. It’s a prejudicial assumption or using anecdotes to project for a whole category.</p>
<p>If “you” assume some Black kid got in because of AA, it’s still only your assumption, no?</p>
<p>Nobody escapes stigmatization. My daughter has perfect SAT scores, for whatever that means, she is also blonde and jaw droppingly beautiful. There has not been one STEM class where at least someone, including at times, the professor, has not assumed she wasn’t as bright as somebody else in the room who “looks the part.”</p>
<p>We all have our situations. I don’t think this stigma is nearly as bad as you portray, or nearly as important as getting in the students who have differing experiences and differing situations and differing perspectives. I’ve been clear. I believe diversity benefits all students on the campus. Not only the URM. </p>
<p>I’m signing off folks. Hope you find your solution. :)</p>
<p>Without deferring to the US Sup Ct on the subject, I am interested to hear exactly why some people object to using race as a factor in admissions, when so many other immutable characteristics are acceptable - like gender, geography, parental income and educational attainment, age, citizenship, high school attended, and ECs when not every hs offers them. I am not interested in hearing from people who think admissions should be stats-based only.</p>