<p>
</p>
<p>Is Chang more adept at making good throws? Is he a better motivator? Is his relationship with his players and coaches stronger?</p>
<p>If so, pick him.</p>
<p>If not, don’t.</p>
<p>StickerShock,</p>
<p>Great responses. Thank you.</p>
<p>As the NFL is an example of a working meritocracy, I see no reason why higher education cannot also become meritocratic.</p>
<p>"As the NFL is an example of a working meritocracy, I see no reason why higher education cannot also become meritocratic.'</p>
<p>Why do you think that higher education is <em>not</em> meritocractic?<br>
(Hint: It already is.) When institutions of higher ed are finalizing the freshman class composition, they are choosing from among the meritocracy, not outside it. Why do you keep on insisting that it’s either/or, unless you believe that under-represented races cannot qualify for selective U’s. (Another hint: there are some that do qualify, and every year.)</p>
<p>A lot of applicants who are URM’s also do not qualify; they apply but are never considered in the final round, or are considered in the final round & ultimately rejected versus better candidates. You just <em>assume</em> that every URM who applies for an elite U is automatically accepted. Au contraire. Some apply but never make it to the final round. Others make it to the final round but are ultimately rejected because similar or different candidates are stronger. Others make it to the final round & are chosen because they are considered by the U to be BOTH as qualified or in some cases MORE qualified than those who are not URM’s but also make it to the final round.</p>
<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>If higher education is to become meritocratic in the manner of the NFL, then the only thing that should matter is excellence. This can be manifested through grades, standardized tests, essays, recommendations, extracurriculars, and community involvement. Noticeably absent in that manifestation is skin color, which has not a single thing to do with excellence.</p>
<p>I most certainly do not believe that “under-represented” races cannot qualify for selective universities. In fact, it is the redemptive liberals and grievance elitists who hold such a false idea, as they are so reluctant to abandon preferential treatment.</p>
<p>Of course many “under-represented” applicants do not qualify. The acceptance rate is not 100%. It is, however, curiously higher at each standardized test range when compared to students of non “under-represented” groups. I wonder why…</p>
<p>I have yet to hear a straight answer from supporters of affirmative action telling me why preferential treatment is right. I’ve read many, MANY evasive and long paragraphs but no answers.</p>
<p>Once more, what is wrong about refusing to grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin?</p>
<p>“It is, however, curiously higher at each standardized test range when compared to students of non “under-represented” groups. I wonder why…”</p>
<p>You can stop wondering now. It’s because standardized test “range” is not as important to the colleges & U’s as it is to <em>you</em>. They, unlike you, evaluate the academic merit & academic potential of each candidate using a variety of measures for that. Some of those measures are cross-referenced, and you never see those reference points because you’re not looking at the apps. A 3.1 GPA URM student (for example) who doesn’t have some other measure of intellectual ability will tend not to be considered at an Elite. However, some other measures can be: </p>
<p>Demands of the high school he has attended, including what the course content is (some URM’s, for example, attend elite boarding schools in the NE; they are there on scholarship from various locations, including the West Coast); some such schools graduate very few seniors with 4.0’s, btw.</p>
<p>Special academic projects, efforts outside of the school campus.</p>
<p>Content of teacher recommendations regarding the intellectual product of that student and his observable ability to handle demanding classroom work. (Extremely imp. for an upper-level U.)</p>
<p>Academic awards.</p>
<p>Results of tests outside of the SAT I, such as AMC, AP’s, National Latin exam, etc. Some students (& not just URM’s) have done quite well in tests other than the SAT I. Other students have done quite well in SAT I but not so well on the other standardized exams.</p>
<p>SAT II’s.
SAT I’s.
ACT’s.</p>
<hr>
<p>Beyond academics, there are URM’s who have excelled in competitive extracurriculars well ahead of non-URM’s, while nevertheless remaining in the qualified range for the academics. I can think of someone I know right now who is a competitive dancer in the midwest who always makes Top 10 in international competitions. Most non-URM’s cannot touch her in ability. Yet she has about 15 times the amount of drive of even the typical CC-er. And in this activity, she is even more extremely under-represented than she would be, ethnically, for any Elite U. Yet she has overcome those cultural barriers. The Elites would be extremely interested in her, & hopefully she has applied.</p>
<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>Were you expecting me to disagree with the measures you wrote about? Most, if not all of them, were included in my other examples of excellence in Post 984. We have no disagreements about those.</p>
<p>Are we to assume that each and every “under-represented” minority has so much more creativity, spark, and leadership skills than non “under-represented” minorities at each score range? Hmm.</p>
<p>I do have one small problem with your last example. Why does her race matter? You’ve described a talented, hardworking dancer who performs well and is just plain good. In other words, she demonstrates excellence. Her not being White has nothing to do with her skills.</p>
<p>By the way, you haven’t answered my question.</p>
<p>What is wrong about refusing to grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin?</p>
<p>“I do have one small problem with your last example. Why does her race matter? You’ve described a talented, hardworking dancer who performs well and is just plain good. In other words, she demonstrates excellence. Her not being White has nothing to do with her skills.”</p>
<p>It may “not have anything to do with her skills” (per se), but it has very much to do with her persistence in a very, very white activity, & where a certain style of appearance counts, a style which by definition in this activity favors Nordic Whites. You see, U’s most definitely care about Drive, not just excellence. There is a difference. The latter may demonstrate achievement, but the former demonstrates an ability to persist. The more barriers have to be overcome, the greater Drive is necessary.</p>
<p>But the fact that you do not understand this explains, and has always explained, why you do not understand the importance of race in college admissions, the importance of race in this country, esp. its economic & opportunity aspects, & why you continually ask that last question in your recent post.</p>
<p>And yes, to the earlier question in that post, I was expecting you to disagree because (once again) the ONE element that you mentioned in the <em>previous</em> post was range of standardized test scores. Not the content of the teacher recommendation (which would be esp. important when evaluating the ability of a student to handle demanding academics among peers who have received excellent educations). Not the other items I mentioned. No matter how you spin your answers, the bottom line is that it’s transparent to me & to some others on CC that you yourself prioritize SAT scores as hierarchically more important than other measures of achievement & promise. When anyone looks at posted admissions results + accompanying posted profiles on CC for the last 3 rounds, it’s clear that when push comes to shove, those who achieve phenomenally in extracurricular areas edge out those who don’t achieve but have higher SAT scores. When you read further about the history of Ivy admissions, you understand why. It’s because they see much more carryover in & beyond college, for such candidates, than they see for those with high scores but mediocre e.c.'s. I didn’t make up the rules. I just understand them.</p>
<p>Epiphany, I think fabrizio understands the rules very well. Just doesn’t agree with them. Mainly because other than test scores & grades, the measures are so subjective: The same essay, recommendations, ECs, & level of community involvement could be given different excellence ratings by every member of the admissions committee. It’s really not a true meritocracy. It can’t be if subjective standards are applied. But you can’t piece together an interesting, vibrant campus without using subjective evaluations. A Catch-22. URMs do get an edge. Agree or not with the mission, it is a big priority on virtually every college campus.</p>
<p>Even if every URM admitted is qualified, there will always be questions & resentment from those who were also qualified, but left out. </p>
<p>A pure meritocracy, like the NFL, doesn’t give a hoot if the team leader who is the heart & soul of the team drops a tenth of a second in his speed stats. He’ll be replaced in a NY minute, even if he comes with an inspiring life story & movie star charisma.</p>
<p>I actually do not agree with you, SS.</p>
<p>While obviously subjectivity is involved in the inclusion of non-numerical factors, it is not nearly as fluffy as you make it out to be – with the references to “movie star” and “charisma” and all that. I kind of resent that, because it implies --as many students have not only implied but stated on CC-- that URM’s do not get in based on ability, but based on some questionable, fuzzy ability to charm, versus having The Right Stuff. As I mentioned in my post, and I will mention one more time, because I didn’t make it up and people gloss by this time & again – the Ivies (for example) have followed the post-college lives of their graduates. They have determined that there is a measurable correlation between extracurricular performance pre-college and life success. Undoubtedly it’s not a 100% correlation, but the connections are strong enough for them to consciously choose for such factors.</p>
<p>Also, URM"s get “an edge,” but not nearly the edge that you imply and that fabrizio has stated for several months now. There is no benefit to a U, whether public or private, to admitting a student who cannot do the work. No, it is not a “pure” meritocracy. It is a version of a meritocracy, a meritocracy with different measures of merit than the NFL (which I think is also an extremely poor comparison, for a variety of reasons). </p>
<p>Yes, lots of capable & generally “qualified” people get rejected from Elites. HOWEVER, that group of rejects INCLUDES:
*urm’s – depending on whether sufficient numbers of competitively qualified URM’s also apply that particular round, with the appropriate quantitative factors as well
and
*non-urm’s; some of the non-URM’s will have higher score #'s than the URM’s admitted; some of those non-URM’s will have lower scores than the URM’s offered acceptance.</p>
<p>I’ll second a lot of what epiphany said. Top colleges are looking for extraordinary kids (along with some really talented ordinary ones). Because race, income, and parental background affect kids in hundreds of ways, before and after college, and because colleges feel a moral and educational imperative to include all elements in American (and sometimes world) society, those factors are relevant to admission decisions. A URM – especially a URM who does not come from a privileged family – who achieves at a high level in ways most similar kids don’t is extraordinary. Much more extraordinary than a kid with 2300 SATs who comes from a background where everyone is educated and school performance is rewarded. That URM kid has beaten incredible odds, and represents not just a “talented 10th” but a “talented 10,000th”. And he or she will have opportunities to lead and to contribute to society in the future that go way beyond those of the average high-test-scorer.</p>
<p>A couple years ago, there was an article in the papers here about an African-American kid who was the best student in decades at his pretty horrible neighborhood high school. Straight As, president of everything, wore the school mascot costume at sports games, active in church and community groups. He had been accepted at an Ivy League school ED (the only kid in the city to go to an Ivy from a public school that was not one of the three public schools that regularly send kids there), although they were requiring him to do some remedial coursework and preparation over the summer.</p>
<p>My daughter knew him from a program they were in. His SATs were sub-1200, way out of the normal range for the school that accepted him. But my daughter said he was the greatest kid ever – an hour after meeting him, everyone respected him, it was clear he was a magnetic leader and a tireless worker. And he just shined. Every school wants kids like that.</p>
<p>Thank you, JHS.</p>
<p>SS, Arguments on other threads & forums over the last several months demonstrate that fabrizio does not seem to understand entirely <em>why</em> race is factored into college admissions – not that it is factored; obviously he understands that. But it is clear to many of us who have argued with him, that he does not fully appreciate why or how race carries with it in some cases a denial of opportunity, or at least a challenge in opportunity, and why challenge cannot always be surmounted equally with hard work by the student (resulting in supposedly equal outcomes with those of other races). He also seems to reduce the inclusion of race to the aspect of “redemption” or “payback,” when this is not the principal motivator on the part of the colleges – regardless of how this may be viewed by particular minority races.</p>
<p>As to the agreement aspect, he understands, but does not agree with the concept, that race plays & should play (the colleges have determined) a role in <em>diversity</em>.</p>
<p>
Sounds like movie star charisma to me. I don’t see how this could be interpreted as a slight. EVERY leader has charisma. It really can’t be quantified. Leadership & charisma are intangibles. Thus, an admissions committee has to rely on the subjective ratings of leadership supplied by recommendations or see a pattern of assuming leadership roles (such as QB) to consider a kid to be a leader.</p>
<p>It’s interesting that you use the term The Right Stuff. Remember Tom Wolfe’s novel by the same name? There were plenty of qualified military pilots with all the required degreees & test scores required to be astronauts. But charisma was a HUGE factor when picking those guys from a rather large field. </p>
<p>I used the NFL because it is a pure meritocracy & it is very easy to select who will make the cut. Quantifiable measures are used. If colleges used only SATs & GPAs, it would be just as easy to understand the selections. </p>
<p>I never implied in my post that admitted URMs were not qualified or unable to do the work. I think there are no doubt at least 10 times as many elite school candidates who could do the work as there are candidates accepted. No doubt rejected URMs would fit that description, as well.</p>
<p>I’ll tell another story, one even closer to home. My son has a friend at school who is Mexican-American. (Only recently has our city had any kind of significant Mexican population. The Hispanic community, which is small, is overwhelmingly Puerto Rican.) The two boys have virtually the same GPAs, both with single-digit class ranks. My son has higher test scores, because he does better on writing and humanities-type tests, and he has more impressive ECs. </p>
<p>But my son is painfully aware that his next truly independent achievement will be his first, and that he has spent his life following cues that have been carefully placed for him. Also, that he comes from a community where academic achievement is valued and rewarded, and he has lots of friends who have similar values and who are just like him. And he knows that teachers see themselves in him, and he feels comfortable talking to his teachers because he knows dozens of people like them.</p>
<p>His friend, in contrast, is the only Hispanic kid in the top group of students in his class, although there is one similar Puerto Rican girl in the next class. He has received a lot of encouragement and help from teachers over the years, and his family is supportive, but everything he has done has been outside the norms of his home community. There isn’t a single Hispanic teacher in the school. If he’s lucky, there may be a dozen other Hispanic kids with interests like his at the college he attends, but (apart from the one girl) he doesn’t know anyone now.</p>
<p>My son has performed up to expectations. His friend has gone so far beyond expectations that he might as well be in outer space. Despite their similar stats, there is no question who is the more impressive kid.</p>
<p>Thank you, JHS and Epiphany.</p>
<p>I want to reiterate that giving a URM an “edge” is not the same as “preference.” They get that edge not from adcoms subtracting from their SAT scores, but by being pulled from the stack to be given more thorough consideration. Yes, you might say that this isn’t fair, that every applicant deserves more thorough consideration, but most don’t need it. Scores, grades, essays, and ECs give a solid portrait of most applicants. In the case of URMs, however, SAT cultural bias must be considered, as well as other factors, such as beating the odds, persistence despite societal pressures, and school curriculum/difficulty, among others. As AdOfficer has said many times, a student taking advantage of what is available to him is a crucial part of admissions. A URM (or first generation or poverty-level student) may not appear on paper to be as competitive as the “standard” applicant until a closer look reveals his extraordinary achievements.</p>
<p>Nor do I, SS, like you and Tom Wolfe, not understand how/why “charisma” in the right context & with a deeper understanding than “charm” can be important, even crucial, to success in college & beyond (whatever the field or subject or career role).</p>
<p>Please understand that my post needs to be read (again, as I mentioned) in the context of the many threads & posts in College Admissions which addressed the X factor, shall we say. In those cases, there was not much favorable attached to that factor. But more importantly, it was seen as a tradeoff. </p>
<p>In some cases, it may be that – whether recounted in a local newspaper, or known firsthand by someone – a college is “trading” charisma for a certain rarefied level of academics. In other cases, it may be both/and. It may not be great newspaper stuff to mention the upper-academic level URM who gets admitted to several elites with straight academics & a non-splashy personality, but those examples <em>also</em> exist, & they exist every year. Some of them are posted on CC, & alternatively their parents post their stats on CC. Further (& more importantly) for every URM admitted with a “charm” or “personality” factor as an enhancement (but without stellar scores), one can probably find two white Anglo admittees who are large donors without fab academics but who, & whose parents, know how to “charm” plenty of people in life with their money, including the “right” colleges. Money talks, more than race in this country.</p>
<p>As to leadership, it’s a separate (sometimes) concept from charisma, but is also important. I interviewed for leadership candidates last year & will again this year. Some were charismatic; some were less charismatic but equally leaders. There can be an overlap, but there can be one without the other.</p>
<p>I want to make clear, re my two examples: </p>
<p>The kid in the first example clearly had “charm”, but he backed it up with a lot of achievement, including the highest academic achievement available to him in his context. In absolute terms, it might not have been very impressive; in relative terms, he was “the best student anyone here has seen.” And his non-academic achievements were legion, and attested to his follow-through as well as his charisma. Charm was part of his story, but only part.</p>
<p>The kid in the second example can barely get a sentence out of his mouth in the presence of people he doesn’t know. He is a science geek, pure and simple. He doesn’t need any breaks on his stats. If he were Jewish, or Chinese, he would have a perfectly good chance of getting into the toughest schools, but there would be three other kids in his same class who looked exactly like him on paper, maybe a little better. As a Mexican-American in a northeastern city, he’s one in a million.</p>
<p>Harvard admissions is a zero-sum game; education isn’t. There’s room for all of these kids, including my son, to learn and to see how far their talent can take them. But I understand, and agree, why schools don’t see them as only the sums of their test scores and EC points.</p>
<p>Good point about the trade off, epiphany. I don’t think that’s the case. As you said, neither the school nor the URM benefits if he can’t do the work.</p>
<p>I think we just had a different definition of charisma. I just looked it up, because I was afraid I had misused it: “A special quality of leadership that captures the popular imagination and inspires allegiance and devotion.” That’s what I had in mind. Let’s call it the X factor, & agree that it would be a very desirable quality in a college admissions candidate.</p>
<p>epiphany,</p>
<p>“You see, U’s most definitely care about Drive, not just excellence. There is a difference. The latter may demonstrate achievement, but the former demonstrates an ability to persist. The more barriers have to be overcome, the greater Drive is necessary.”</p>
<p>As they should. I don’t know about you, but to me, Drive can be evaluated without making blanket assumptions about race.</p>
<p>If you’re not going to answer my last question, just say you won’t. At least your evasive paragraph wasn’t as long as they once were. I thank you for that but I’m left disapointed that you just won’t answer a simple question.</p>
<p>To me, that demonstrates that your concept of racial diversity relies on preferential treatment. Think I’ve misstated your opinions? Then answer the question.</p>
<p>What is wrong about refusing to grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin?</p>
<p>Fabrizio, why waste your energy. You are not going to win them over. </p>
<p>I am curious though whether your “Fabrizio” comes from Lampedusa’s Il Gattopardo. It is one of my favorite books.</p>
<p>I’ve answered it many times over, fabrizio. And most recently actually, momwaitingfornew answered it for you, too, right here in this thread. You pose a question that cannot be “answered” in the terms in which you phrase it. It’s not “preferences,” but you insist on that term, & then berate posters for not agreeing to your terms.</p>
<p>Drive should not necessarily be evaluted without regard to race, because race is one of the “circumstances” and “environment” factors that plays into the variable, Drive. </p>
<p>Again, as I stated earlier, you either do not understand or have not yet enough experience to accept, that race plays into perceptions of the individual and how the individual is perceived by those not of his race. Think about your lunchroom episode you recounted a few weeks ago on CC. As you know, I do not countenance the behavior of the students you describe, if your portrayal is accurate. But their behavior came from somewhere. Unfortunately it will not get them very far in life to have the attitudes they have, but it manifests their understanding of how they are perceived, & what tools they believe they do & don’t have to cope as minorities. (Nor are they Elite U material, however, as you describe them.) There are other URM’s who have had similar experiences to them, but do not share the attitudes & behaviors of the students “on display” or “acting out,” and are also quite accomplished. It is those that Elites may be interested in admitting if they have significant academic assets.</p>