Mismatch caused by racial preferences

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@absweetmarie

I read lookingforward’s post as taking issue with assertions about bad parenting in URM households.

</p>

<p>When fathers don’t contribute financially or spend much caring for their children, isn’t that bad parenting? We know that such behavior is more common in some groups than others.</p>

[sally305]

<p>@GMT, I think you were meaning to address me (that was my quote, anyway).</p>

<p>I think you are putting too much stock in that Duke study. The reason URMs drop out could be similar to my own reason for dialing down my interest in mathematics once I got to college (see post #901). Maybe they get there and don’t think they “fit in”? Or it could be that kids who went to a terrible high school are more often overwhelmed (in a positive way) by the richness of course offerings they find when they get to HYP, etc. My kids’ high school has classes in philosophy and psychology and science fiction and art metals and all kinds of other outlets for intellectual and creative exploration. Presumably the schools the typical URM is coming from do not have such things, so experiencing them for the first time in college could be exhilarating. Also, is it possible that some of the groups that are more likely to stick with STEM, such as ORM Asians, are less likely due to family or cultural pressures to switch out of those majors even if they secretly wanted to?</p>

[GMTplus7]

<p>@poet,

Well, I suspect that Public schools have to balance several things. For one thing, at some point, places like Stuy may simply be shut down if people continue on this track. You have to really examine the unintended long term consequences against the intended consequences of what it is your are asking for. How does one justify giving special, exclusive, public school educations and still argue for equal protection under the law?

</p>

<p>There is equal protection under the law because ANYONE is eligible to compete. The SHSAT is race blind. The Pythagorean Theorem has no race bias. NY has gone out of its way to be inclusive by offering free prep courses. URMs do not take seize the free opportunity in numbers proportionate to their population. 43% of the attendee in the free classes are Asian (reported in the NYT article). </p>

<p>ANYONE is eligible to compete to earn a place on the U.S. Olympic Team. By your reasoning, let’s also shut down the U.S. team if not enough whites qualify to make it onto the 100m track team.</p>

[warbrain]

<p>With regards to the athletics analogy, I found this post - <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/massachusetts-institute-technology/205635-problem-looking-stats-alone.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/massachusetts-institute-technology/205635-problem-looking-stats-alone.html&lt;/a&gt; - from the MIT forums pretty interesting, specifically this part -</p>

<p>

When I was a middle-school cross country and road runner, I used to get recruited by high school coaches. I didn’t understand why they all seemed so interested in me. I was a very good young runner, but I wasn’t one of the best, and I had poor form and was clumsy and didn’t pace myself very well. Why were they talking to me instead of the girls who were a little faster and had better form to boot? I think it was my mom who explained it to me. She pointed out that a top middle school runner with perfect form and pacing wasn’t very coachable, but that the coaches figured that with proper coaching, I could become a much better runner.

</p>

[GMTplus7]

<p>@warbrain,</p>

<p>Yes, the coaches were offering the girl more coaching so she could have a better chance to compete in a race, just like NY is offering more coaching for the SHSAT test so poor kids have a better chance to compete on the SHSAT.</p>

[NotYourBusiness]

<p>

Oh, criminy, NYB. Here’s a link to Grutter, for any interested. It’s an easy read. Again, that refers to a public law school.

</p>

<p>Lookingforward. Are you trying to imply that Grutter does not apply to college admissions? Grutter is the current SCOTUS decision that allows the withstanding of race-aware policies in admissions for not only Law schools, but College, Graduate School, Medical School, you name it.</p>

<p>Don’t trust me. No problem. This is what the UCLA’s Civil Rights project stated when Grutter passed:

America’s colleges and universities were big winners in Monday’s Supreme Court decisions, and now have the opportunity to pursue appropriate measures that take advantage of those victories. The rulings, which recognize the educational benefits of diversity and validate reasonable means by which to achieve that diversity, reaffirm support for affirmative action and endorse university rights to consider the full range of qualities that promising students bring to the table.

</p>

<p>

And it has some generous things to say.

</p>

<p>It does, and I fully agree that there are benefits to affirmative action. The benefit of diversity in higher education being the key.</p>

<p>Nevertheless. In line with my previous posts, notice that Grutter is well aware that there is a cost to adopt race-aware policies. And the cost is that race-aware admission policies do not conform with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. In fact, these types of issues are so serious that they need to be subject to Strict Scrutiny, which is the most stringent judicial review process adopted in U.S. courts when they weigh the government’s interest against a constitutional right or principle.</p>

<p>The decision in Grutter, after Strict Scrutiny (i.e. after weighting the benefit of diversity in higher education versus the cost of non-compliance with the constitutional principle of Equal Protection) found that the government interest of “diversity” was compelling enough. Therefore, the court allowed race-aware admissions.</p>

<p>So Lookingforward, do you still see no cost here? What do you think that court was weighting? The interest of diversity in one side versus “zero” on the other side?</p>

[mathmom]

<p>My son might have gotten admitted to MIT if he’d been a woman, but I am fine with the fact that he didn’t, because you know what? MIT is a more attractive place because it’s M/F ratio is better than most of the tech schools. My son had good choices, he’s graduated and has a great job. We don’t go around feeling bad because he didn’t get into the school he thought was his first choice. Really.</p>

<p>Love the track kid analogy.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>

Love the track kid analogy.

</p>

<p>Yes, it’s the “fatal flaw” explanation. Candidate A was performing better than candidate B, but there was something wrong that was hidden. He/she wasn’t coachable in this case. Sometimes there is no flaw–they just decided to take the guy which didn’t perform as well. </p>

<p>

My son might have gotten admitted to MIT if he’d been a woman, but I am fine with the fact that he didn’t, because you know what? MIT is a more attractive place because it’s M/F ratio is better than most of the tech schools.

</p>

<p>Incidentally, the gender AA at MIT is one reason to argue for transparency. MIT is pretty transparent, but there is no indication how much AA is at work in admitting women. My guess is it’s pretty slight, but the fact that the stats of incoming women and men aren’t released means that people year after year and speculate that the women are much less qualified stat-wise, something which is almost certainly false.</p>

[Shrinkrap]

<p>Bookmark 1080</p>

<p>" The sense that I get from reading these posts is that the higher SES URMs don’t really care about improving K-12 education for low SES URMs. They just want equality of results, not equality of opportunity."</p>

<p>Which posts seem to be suggesting that? Is there someone speaking for higher SES URM’s on this thread ? I remember wishing there were “enough” on CC. I sure don’t want it to be me. That might feel like those 400 black kids with math scores above 740, and we have not agreed that they have anything unique to add beyond there scores. So maybe URM’s DO have a perspective, even if they are higher SES? </p>

<p>I DID say that I question how often would it pay off to focus on SAT scores in random fifth graders especially if only scores over 750 “count”. I suspect my husband feels differently, and I finfTHT interesting. He also thinks elie schools are a big deal. . I also said if folks were looking for solutions, folk might look to what historreally black fraternities and sororities weeding. Maybe you did, and learned studying Sunday time Sunday was not the mission. I can believe that .</p>

[Shrinkrap]

<p>^ Sorry for the typos. I tried to edit and it was too much, too late. All we need is a high SES URM, speaking for the “talented tenth” with typos!</p>

<p>BTW, now that we are “high SES”, we get to vote with $$$, and “diversity” was worth a lot. A “win win” for the privates. For the UC’s, not so much. I DO think the UC’s are an awesome choice for those who can get in, and greatly respect the choices California voters made.</p>

[3togo]

<p>

I don’t think the English paper analogy entirely works. Admissions committees at Ivy League or other super-selective schools are dealing with thousands of people who submitted A papers. Getting an “A” is not a guarantee of anything. And one “A” paper (i.e., admitted student) doesn’t necessarily have the same ingredients as another. Look at the common data set for any school and you can see roughly how much weight a particular factor has. But you are not going to be able to figure out if you are going to get into Harvard by exactly adhering to a rubric. There is no one rubric. Isn’t this obvious? If you get in, you are fortunate. You should be happy. If you don’t, the least productive thing you can do is obsessively read tea leaves.

</p>

<p>I actually think the English paper example works pretty well … at least if we add a few elements to it.<br>

• First, let’s say it’s a creative writing assignment so a lot of the elements of of the rubic are qualitative and there are either/or options (if you use humor then this applies … if you use irony then this applies
• Second, of the 30 kids in the class about 24 (about 80% of candidates are qualified for admission) complete the assignment in a fashion that compared to the grading rubic their paper could be considered an A paper.
• Third, the teacher is only allowed to give out 3 As (10 percent acceptance rate) </p>

<p>Now the teacher is giving 3 As to 24 A quality papers. Does the grading rubic answer grading questions now … or is it about as usefull as the guidance colleges give about what they consider. In addition …the folks who wrote short stories are complaining about those who wrote poems … the folks who had to write by hand complain about those who had computers … etc.</p>

<p>If extended I think the analogy works pretty well.</p>

[NewHope33]

<p>“The point of the argument was whether AA practiced by U.Texas can cause people to “suffer damage”.”</p>

<p>This is a joke, right? You’re not serious that AA should be thrown out because some unnamed individuals “suffer damage.” You do realize that if this argument flies, that there is no hope that admission will be done by standardized tests. I can already hear the opening argument “Your Honors, the effects of using standardized testing as the sole determinant of merit is clearly biased against URMs, as proven by its effects, and continued use of this method damages URMs.”</p>

[NewHope33]

<p>“Now the teacher is giving 3 As to 24 A quality papers.”</p>

<p>No problem! As a teacher that knows his/her students, I’m aware that half the class won’t be applying to competitive colleges. Those kids get C’s. Three of the papers are on Hip-Hop … and I don’t like Hip-Hop, so those get D’s. Let’s see, how many more papers do I need to degrade? </p>

<p>I don’t envy Adcom’s their task of selecting “the anointed 9%.” But like much of life, it’s very much a human endeavor. Past efforts to reduce that endeavor to a simple calculation have always disadvantaged some applicants (and ALWAYS decimated sports teams!).</p>

[NewHope33]

<p>All bluster aside, I believe the time is coming when AA (as a formal program) can go the same route as “don’t ask, don’t tell” … that is, a temporary measure that permits a bit of hamstrung justice while society catches up socially. I’m unsure that the time is now, given the strong sentiment on this thread of “Let’m sit at someone else’s table.”</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@NewHope33

“The point of the argument was whether AA practiced by U.Texas can cause people to “suffer damage”.”</p>

<p>This is a joke, right? You’re not serious that AA should be thrown out because some unnamed individuals “suffer damage.” You do realize that if this argument flies, that there is no hope that admission will be done by standardized tests. I can already hear the opening argument “Your Honors, the effects of using standardized testing as the sole determinant of merit is clearly biased against URMs, as proven by its effects, and continued use of this method damages URMs.”

</p>

<p>The SAT does <em>not</em> underpredict the college grades of URMs, as several studies have shown. It is not biased.</p>

[sally305]

<p>For some reason I am reminded of this awful story…</p>

<p>[New</a> York mom sues elite preschool for being one big playroom | Reuters](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/14/us-lawsuit-preschool-idUSTRE72D7FA20110314]New”>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/14/us-lawsuit-preschool-idUSTRE72D7FA20110314)</p>

<p>

A Manhattan mother is suing her 4-year-old daughter’s preschool, calling it “one big playroom” that deprived the child of the edge needed to get into an elite elementary school.</p>

<p>Caught up in New York City’s “insanely competitive” nursery school scene, Nicole Imprescia said she paid $19,000 annual tuition to York Avenue Preschool and wants it back, according to her lawsuit. A toddler who takes the wrong first step could ultimately trip up his or her chances for acceptance into an Ivy League college and for earning a higher income, it said.

</p>

<p>These are the people who seem most upset here, including the OP. (It’s not about regard for the greater good at all, but about ensuring a predictable path to lifelong happiness for their kids based on admission into a small set of “elite” colleges.) Very, very sad.</p>

[NewHope33]

<p>“The SAT … is not biased.”</p>

<p>Yes, that is the fundamental assumption of your argument. The assumption is ridiculous.</p>

[absweetmarie]

<p>

@collegealum314

Incidentally, the gender AA at MIT is one reason to argue for transparency. MIT is pretty transparent, but there is no indication how much AA is at work in admitting women. My guess is it’s pretty slight, but the fact that the stats of incoming women and men aren’t released means that people year after year and speculate that the women are much less qualified stat-wise, something which is almost certainly false.

</p>

<p>I do not object to more transparency, per se, though I suspect we disagree on whether private universities would be serving a compelling public interest by providing the comprehensive data you and others would like to see. </p>

<p>You “guess” that women at MIT get a “pretty slight” affirmative action boost. Say it turns out that boost is bigger than you suspected. What then? </p>

<p>Frankly, when you say “speculate” I hear “gossip.” Can you tell me how this speculation is something other than gossip? And why it MATTERS? Assuming some of the people speculating are current MIT students, do they not have more interesting things to discuss? And more pressing tasks than figuring out whether any given classmate got an affirmative action boost? I have to think any student who got into MIT (whether it was a woman who benefited from AA, a woman who didn’t or a man weighed down with all the math contest medals hanging around his neck) has plenty of real work on his or her plate.</p>

[lookingforward]

<p>*The SAT does <em>not</em> underpredict the college grades of URMs, as several studies have shown. It is not biased. *</p>

<p>All studies have the potential for bias. Few studies are truly acclaimed as “definitive” by a range of peers and not subject to revisiting, over time. It is quite challenging for researchers, even in their choice of angles and processes, to eliminate their personal inclinations, ideas or bias. (And, some start with a point to prove.) Any quotable reports may simply be, in many cases, all we have so far, to go on. Espenshade said not to make assumptions based on his study. Few studies range broadly and deeply enough to account for all factors and yield explanations for all findings. All tests have the potential for bias. We need to accept that specialists may be working on better understanding how that bias manifests. Not hang our hats on any one hook. Sorry, that is annoying. But think it’s more intellectually defensible.</p>

<p>The idea isn’t to dumb down tests, but to better understand just what they test and what we mean to test. The danger in the web IS the ease of access, while one may or may not be able to broadly evaluate. A trade off. </p>

<p>Shrinkrap, it’s not you. It’s some wild thing floating here that folks can look at a complex situation from the outside, make a few pronouncements and bingo, their fingers are on the pulse. Then, cry for transparency. A hint that anything less is suspicious. </p>

<p>The air in the room got thin for me when folks ignored, missed or diminished the fact that many parents, of all sorts- all colors, levels of ed, economic rungs, religions, urban, suburban, rural- are encouraging their kids to move forward. And finding ways. Many school districts, even lousy ones where the bulk of the kids are not college material, are identifying bright lights and encouraging them. You have to be involved beyond your own corner to see this, how it happens and what’s in place. Not perfect, no.</p>

<p>The fact that some Asian parents do it one way, does not make their style “one size fits all” - or even the standard all families should aspire to. Or even, on balance, admirable. Yes, but it gets them into Stuy; yes, but they may have higher SAT scores. Yes, they may fill more STEM seats. That should not denigrate the educations others receive or the strides they make. Or, the very real accomplishments of many of those kids and their impact.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>Darn them Ivies. They take away everybody’s right to an education by giving all their seats to URMs, legacies, athletes. When will it all end? :p</p>