<p>Oh, no, “Geek Post of the Day” is a genuinely admirable post by bovertine on the thread “Argument with a professor about a problem on an exam,” . . . although technically it might have been a few days ago.</p>
<p>NH, you’ll be stigmatized. Go for cc. Or a trade program.</p>
<p>Bov is a college student? How were the prof’s SATs?</p>
<p>No, bovertine is a parent. The student who posted the complaint was an engineering undergrad. Based on the information in the thread, I’d say the prof’s SATs were not so hot.</p>
<p>
That poor kid. If it was me, I might have pitched myself off the nearest building after seeing the answer key to that exam.</p>
<p>A couple of interesting briefs in the Fisher case caught my attention. The first was filed by the Eight Ivies and several other prestigious schools, including Chicago, Stanford and Duke, favoring “holistic” AA. This brief notes that although the 14th Amendment of the EPC requires state action and tusis does not directly apply to these private institutions, but that federal civil rights statutes containing similar protections to the EPC do apply and that the Supreme Court decision will likely impact the private’s process of evaluating applicants.</p>
<p>The other brief was by the 80-20 foundation, an asian american organization arguing that “holistic” is just a substitute for soft quotas and ends up hurting asians. The first brief talks about the value of diversity and very generally touches on the different factors comprising a “holistic” analysis but does not tell about the typical or even any of the holistic processes used at any of these private institutions. In contrast, the 80-20 brief describes two very different types of holistic processes. </p>
<p>The 80-20 brief cites a recent study in the spring of this year by Rachel Rubin (a doctoral student at Harvard) in which she surveyed 75 admissions offices at the most competitive private universities, including the Ivies (and received 62 responses), about how their holistic admissions process works. Rubin finds that most of the elite universities attempt to follow some semblance of the original Harvard Plan approved by the Supreme Court in the Grutter decision (very generally, examine all applicant groups together (not separate groups for AAs, asians etc), focus first on academic criteria setting general boundaries for admission, and then at the next stage focus on the composition of the class by looking at non-academic holistic factors (fit) including race, SES, special talents, geography, athletics, legacy, etc. </p>
<p>This also appears to be the primary means used by the nation’s most selective LAC’s according to a separate brief filed in Fisher by Amerst, Williams, Oberlin and about 25 other selective LACs. Among other statistics, the LAC brief notes that based on this first holistic method Amherst, since 2003, has had widely fluctuating numbers of AAs in its classes ranging from 22 to 61 (with overall admissions ranging from 95 to 179). </p>
<p>According to Rubin, however, a separate “holistic” process – basically the inverse of the one described above – is used at the elite of the elite universities. These universities compose the non-academic holistic (fit) portion of their class first and then focus on the academics aspects second. The two most prized holistic attributes are race and special talents, and the students in each group are compared against each other and not the entire applicant pool as a whole. </p>
<p>Per an article in Inside Higher Education by Jasick in April of this year:</p>
<p>“Most Important Variables in Determining Institutional Fit (for Those Who Start With Focus on Fit)
Factor % Viewing as Most Important
Underrepresented race/ethnicity 42%
Exceptional talent 42%
Recruited athlete status 7%
Likelihood of enrolling 7%
Fund-raising potential 2%”</p>
<p>“Rubin’s paper says that whether the first cut is done through academics or fit, most colleges then report a more formal system in which two readers review the application portfolio, with a third reader or an entire team involved in difficult calls. At this stage, academic issues are discussed at institutions that started with “fit” issues, and “fit” is discussed at places that started with academics.”</p>
<p>"One of her findings here could be controversial in light of the Supreme Court discussion of affirmative action in higher education. Rubin writes the following, based on her interviews and surveys:</p>
<p>When an applicant has an exceptional talent (e.g. music, athletics) or is part of a severely underrepresented group at the institution, the applicant may not compete for admission against the larger applicant pool. Instead, he/she may compete only among those with the same talent or within the same group. In these circumstances, sets of applications are considered separately based on a universitys institutional needs. As a result, disparities may arise between the levels of academic merit of certain subgroups of students."</p>
<p>Read more: [New</a> research on how elite colleges make admissions decisions | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“New research on how elite colleges make admissions decisions”>New research on how elite colleges make admissions decisions)
Inside Higher Ed</p>
<p>This second holistic method may run afoul of Grutter’s approval of the Harvard Plan, which called for comparing all applicants in a single pool and using race and other non-academic holistic factors as plusses. </p>
<p>Interestingly although named after Harvard, the Harvard Plan (first type of holistic method) does not appear to be followed by Harvard at this point in time. Instead from 2007 to 2016 for example, and unlike Amherst, Harvard has had a very tight range of AA matriculants, never under 10% that decade and ranging between 10.2 and 11.8% of the class. Narrow bands, although not as tight as for AAs, have also existed for Hispanic and Asians. Harvard’s matriculant percentages over this same time span (2007 to 2016) for Hispanics has been between 8.8 and 11% and for asians between 17.8 and 21%.</p>
<p>So, if AA falls one factor may be that the top elites did not follow the Harvard plan approved in Grutter, and I suspect that one thing that may stand out to the Supreme Court is that the Ivy brief never attempted to explain the holistic process used at the elite of the elite universities, thus reinforcing the suspicion that race trumps all in at least some admissions decisions.</p>
<p>Interesting analysis, mucksdogs!</p>
<p>I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the use of Questbridge as a marketing arm of the elite schools to attract more underrepresented groups – URMs of course, but also members of all groups who are low income (especially Pell Grant recipients) and first in family to attend college?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not a big sports enthusiast, but I would think it’s even tougher to raise an Olympics contender. Sharp young minds, in my experience, seem to work in frantic “burst” modes followed by low-key periods of knowledge acquisition. One can walk away from learning math for a year or more and become immersed in it again in short order. One cannot do the same in gymnastics or swimming or tennis and not have lost one’s hard-won edge.</p>
<p>I think the Fisher heat has moved over to GMT’s new opinion thread.</p>
<p>Re: RR. 75 “most competitives” is a huge number that takes us well beyond the Ivies or “top 20” U’s and LACs. Because she does not reveal the colleges, you don’t know what her pool was comprised of. We can guess what 75 she contacted, but the missing 12 could have included many of the sort of “elites” we have been discussing here.</p>
<p>*Almost all of the colleges that provided information first do a winnowing of one of two sorts that yields the group that gets a more thorough review. * That refers to the first weed, or first round or first cut, the elimination of kids who, for various reasons, cannot go further in the process. 48 used some measure of academic merit, 13 went with institutional fit. Which 13? Which, out of 75 “most selective?” At the top or where? </p>
<p>I don’t find conclusions about the actual admit evaluations. What gets a kid though to an admit? She does use the word “may” several times. But, she also notes that schools that first look at i-fit, that 13 in her study, later look at academic fit. And the reverse. Last spring, I could not find an original version of her report. There was a brief summary of what she would present at some conference-- if you have a link to her report, please post it.</p>
<p>I wonder if that survey of holistic admissions practices included any public schools like Berkeley and UCLA, whose practices and goals are somewhat different from what are described.</p>
<p>So apparently there are 19 black people in Jackson, Wyoming. Not 19 percent; 19. Not sure if they are well off, or if they had SAT prep, but if D goes, I want her to meet them. She probably won’t get paid, but wouldn’t it be legitimate journalism?</p>
<p>^I hear they have some pretty good skiing at Jackson. I assume that is the attraction?</p>
<p>Fairness is the reason why we are so passionate about our chances, for URMs, ORMs and white. Keeping saying lower IQ or over preped sounds like excuses to me. As a nation we are the leader in pushing for fairness. It still prides me to have a chance to cast a vote to make this country a better place still, for all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But if you compare the achievements of athletes (broken records and gold medals) to those of really intelligent people (theories of the universe, the next big technology, successful resolution of some political issue), athleticism just doesn’t seem like a very…important domain of success.</p>
<p>Lookingforward,</p>
<p>Good points re possible limits of Rubin’s analysis and not suggesting it is the end all or be all, just that it is interesting. So far after a quick look all I find re this study is the article about it I cited in the post from Inside Higher Education and other articles citing to the IHE article. I will keep looking when I get more time as I have to believe someone has put this on the web. </p>
<p>In any event, what surprised me as much as the purported “first tier” holistic process were the tight band of Harvard numbers for AA’s, asians, and Hispanics over a ten year period and the failure of the elites’ brief in Fisher to detail any of the holistic processes actually used by them. The S. Ct. loves to cite what is happening at Harvard (see Grutter) and at least I find this a big omission from their brief.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In general I agree, Philovitist. However, the number of people who truly change the world are less than one in a million and a lot of factors beyond intelligence come into play – often being in the right place at the right time is an major one. As a parent, I would never want to burden my children with the idea that they have an obligation to accomplish something truly extraordinary in life – it’s enough to be happy, to make an adequate living, and to able to follow your own path if possible. Anything else is a bonus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wonder if math is that different from the sports you mentioned.</p>
<p>My son should be ready for AP calculus, the traditional terminal high school math class for good students, well before 12th grade, say 10th. If that happens, I would not let him “rust” for two years but would find some way (AOPS or EPGY, for example) for him to take multivariable calculus, differential equations, and other math classes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With so many people out there suffering and in despair? That just seems like a really selfish way to spend your life to me. :/</p>
<p>I understand where you’re coming from (i agree that you don’t want to put undue pressure on people to succeed on a grand scale) and I don’t mean to sound so condemning (I really dont!), but for those capable of making any difference at all it should not be “enough to be happy, to make an adequate living, and to able to follow your own path.”</p>
<p>This atomized way of thinking, the idea that life is just about getting by and being happy and anything else is just a bonus — that’s apathy to the gravity of our situation, the reason the world’s worst problems go unsolved and people’s cynicism about the notion of progress goes vindicated.</p>
<p>The extraordinary might be out of reach, but it certainly should be pursued — by everyone. And I use “should” to say this because I do think everyone has an obligation to everyone to do their very best in life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which begs the question - what is “making a difference”? Too many seem to believe it’s about finding the Big Next Technology That Will … (Cure cancer, prevent earthquakes, ensure potable drinking water, reduce dependence on foreign oil, take your pick). And that’s where you get the STEM focus.</p>
<p>However, what about the nurse’s aid who compassionately holds someone’s hand while they die from cancer? Or the second-grade teacher who recognizes a good heart in a troubled kid and gets him to believe he’s somebody, too? </p>
<p>That’s the kind of stuff that isn’t measured by SAT scores, but that’s just as important in this world, if not more. Completely missed by the “but top schools neeeeeeed to reward the 800 math SAT’s of the world else it’s not faaaaaaair!” crowd.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So now you think elite admissions should be an award for those who are the most important in the world?</p>
<p>Top schools are geared specifically toward educating the future elite, a group of people with higher (the highest) abilities compared to the rest of the population. </p>
<p>If you’re willing to follow the reasoning that each person should contribute to the best of his ability, then you might agree that those with the greatest ability should be making some of the most difficult and needed strides. </p>
<p>Top schools emphasize having top ability (stop focusing on SAT scores) for this reasons. Harvard’s role in our society is different from the University of Iowa’s. Each tier in our college system serves a different, though similar (and occasionally overlapping) function.</p>