<p>xiggi, the links you posted all have one thing in common: Black students have the lowest grades and worst graduation rates. The REASON for this is debated. Some think it’s due to mismatch, others cite SES or academic prep…</p>
<p>If we can find the reason for poor performance, perhaps we can address it and find solutions to combat it. Instead of fixing what is broken, the currently strategy employed seems to focus on creating fluff courses accompanied by massive grade inflation everywhere. </p>
<p>Harvard happens to have some of the highest grade inflation in the country. You have to try extremely hard and try to fail to completely fail out of Harvard. Last I checked, their average GPA is nearing the 3.7 mark for most non-STEM classes. Under such conditions, you’d probably find that virtually everyone graduates. The one thing going for it, however, is no fluff courses pass muster there even without the existence of a faculty senate. </p>
<p>Yes. But why did blacks change their minds at higher rates than whites, and why did blacks who were as qualified as whites change their minds at the same rates? I’ve asked this multiple times now; none of you has answered the question.</p>
<p>OHMom You are correct, but Howard University average SAT is about 500 points lower than the average SAT of Blacks at Harvard. For the average Howard student to have a comparable average SAT of a Black student at Harvard, you would have to go to the top 5-10% of Howard students. These students at Howard are the ones who are receiving the graduate degrees. Given your numbers of students at the respective schools, Howard’s top 10% would approximate the Black class size of Harvard.
Howard produced 220 PhDs vs 71 for Harvard.</p>
<p>dstark The above answers your question. And no the STEM issue is not stupid. Billions are spent in an effort to get URM to obtain STEM degrees. But it seems that URM are wanting to get these degrees, but because in part to academic mismatch, URMs are dropping out of STEM programs rates that are twice as high as Whites and Asians. This is a problem because, in our current economy, STEM fields are where the well paying jobs are and STEM companies have such low URM representation because URMs without STEM degrees aren’t qualified for those STEM jobs.</p>
<p>Table 14, 15, 16 and page 26 of the paper says that Blacks switch out of STEM majors at Duke because of the difficulty. The AAMC link I posted at the PF showed that Blacks failed out of medical school at 9-10 times the rate of Asians and Whites due to poor academic performance. </p>
<p>OHMom What are you saying??? Are you saying students who score 1400-1500 on the SAT are going on to graduate school over those who score 2000+? Do you truly believe the top merit scholarship students at Howard are not the high achievers at Howard? If you are, I’m not sure why you are saying this? Please clarify.</p>
<p>You said Howard produces more black PhDs than Harvard didn’t you? It could be because many more many black people graduate form Howard, as I pointed out, or it could be because Howard does a better job than Harvard at educating them. Or I suppose there could be some other reason.</p>
<p>Actually what’s striking to me about that link - the list - is that Spelman, with an undergrad poulation of around 2,000, has almost as many PhDs as Howard. And their SAT averages are lower by 20 or so points.</p>
<p>That would certainly suggest that HBCUs are doing something very right by their students.</p>
<p>To be clear, your list is only Science and Engineering PhDs, not any other field? I wonder what the numbers are for all PhDs…</p>
<p>Good lord VOR, STEM is not the end all. MY BLACK daughter wemt to Amherst and .was not mis matched…if I have to her you use that term one more time, I will scream. She is Black, but did not pursue a STEM degree…that wasn’t her passion. Yet she is strong enough in her STEM classes to get into 9 med schools…so get off your bull crap of black kids, mismatch and all kinds of crap. Some kids just want to do their own thing, not what their Tiger Mom or dad wants them to do.</p>
<p>Sorry, I should have said that none of the defenders of racial preferences here has answered this. Yes, Arcidiacono et al.'s answer was that they switch out at higher rates unconditionally because on average, black students are less qualified than white students. But after controlling for qualifications, they switch at the same rates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t think it’s a bad thing that blacks switch out at higher rates than whites? Do you understand the point I’m making? I’m not saying that blacks switching out is evidence of mismatch; I’m saying that blacks switching out at higher ratescompared to whites is evidence of mismatch. </p>
<p>Some people switch, for whatever reason. Why should this vary systematically by racial classification if qualifications are constant? </p>
<p>GAMom You realize, that not one person stated that every single Black student was a mismatch to Harvard. This discussion was about the data that URM students were transferring out of STEM degrees at an alarming rate compared to Whites and Asians.</p>
<p>You realize that the case of your daughter is anecdotal. Was your Black daughter at the bottom, middle, or top of the profile of Amherst Freshman Admitted Class? If she was at the bottom of her class then she is one of the lucky ones who overcame the academic mismatch. Good for her. If she was in the middle or top of her class then this entire thread and our entire discussion does not apply to her.</p>
<p>No one ever stated that being Black was an academic mismatch except for you. Academic mismatch is when your level of academic achievement is substantially below that of the average profile of student body. It is a relative to your peers and not on an absolute basis. Black students at Harvard are on all accounts compared to ALL college students, high achievers. However, Black students as a whole at Harvard compared to other Harvard students are at the bottom of achievement.</p>
<p>OHMom concludes from the number of PhDs data that it is the result of “many more many black people graduate form Howard, as I pointed out, or it could be because Howard does a better job than Harvard at educating them. Or I suppose there could be some other reason.”</p>
<p>If graduation rates are any indication of quality of institution then, Harvard’s 97% graduation rate trumps Howard’s 64% . I hardly doubt that you will find anyone include Howard administrators who will conclude that Howard is a better school than Harvard. </p>
<p>As I explained it is not the size of Howard that explains the discrepancy of why Howard produces more PhDs than Harvard it is something else. Your “I suppose there could be some other reason” is ACADEMIC Mismatch and relative deprivation theory pretty much explains why this is the case. Why is it so difficult to see this for you and the likes of dstark, GAMom and even the resident SAT guru xiggi et. al. to see this.</p>
<p>It’s not crap. Unconditionally, at least for those years at Duke, black students switched out of STEM majors at higher rates than white students. But black students as qualified as their white peers switched out at the same rates. Leaving is not evidence of mismatch; leaving at a higher rate compared to another group is evidence of mismatch. Either you, @OHMomof2, and @dstark don’t see the difference because you don’t understand it, or you do understand the difference, but you don’t want to admit that this is indeed evidence of mismatch. The sad part of this is that it is actually a very positive result; it is evidence that qualifications matter, not racial classification.</p>
<p>And it isn’t just that paper either. In other work, those researchers use UC data and find that “URM” graduation rates increase following Proposition 209. The increased graduation rates are strongest among those students who were academically the weakest when they came in. This confirms what some opponents of racial preferences had long suspected: Proposition 209 reallocated “URM” students from Berkeley and Los Angeles to San Diego and Davis. In environments where they were better matched, they were more likely to graduate.</p>
<p>I just want to make this clear: I’ve brought up academic research on mismatch. You, @OHMomof2, and @dstark have ignored it each time in favor of your cheap talking points. </p>
<p>fabrizio I don’t think those who continue to favor cheap talking points have bothered to read either the postings or the underlying research since we are having to explain over and over again statements from GAMom, OHMom and dstark. If they had read the complete postings and research, they would not be asking the same questions over and over again, that have already been answered in this thread.</p>
<p>For instance when has anyone stated in GAMom’s words, that STEM “is the end all.” Not once has such words been uttered from me or anyone else, but in her mind that is clearly what was stated. She either did not read the past postings completely or she could only focus on the word STEM or the word Black and ignored all the rest of what was posted. It seems that others are skim reading as well.</p>
<p>I guess you can’t enlighten those who wish to be in the dark. As I have stated to xiggi, if you provide data and research to suggest academic mismatch is wrong, I welcome it but none have so far. Even xiggi’s attempt to provide some counterbalance was off. The stanford article does not dispute Sanders’ Academic Mismatch Theory, rather it focuses on how it is not ALL about academic mismatch. </p>
<p>The link to Harvard amicus also wasn’t data to disprove the academic mismatch theory. It was a collection of arguments and research about how the graduation rates at Harvard shows that it can’t be about academic mismatch because if URM were mismatched they would not be graduating at such high rates at Harvard. None of the research in the amicus deals with the specific data of high STEM transfer rates of URM compared to Whites and Asians. </p>
<p>In essence the entire argument in the amicus does not address the central data from which academic mismatch is founded upon. This is the type of sophistry that xiggi likes to employ and apparently those who wish to perpetuate the myth that AA is working employ the same tactics. Divide and confuse by diversion. It seems to work with way too many people including Supreme Court Justices who have good intentions.</p>
<p>We really are living in a parallel world, aren’t we. Here are a few “facts” from this thread:</p>
<ol>
<li>I question the validity of the paper in THE lawsuit that was the based for the 46 percent. Claimed the findings were unverifiable. And that statement has yet to be debunked by any of you.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>2, Then VOR (and perhaps Fab) changed direction with “Go read mismatch” which obviously a different book and not necessarily one that describes the Harvard brief. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>I addressed the “mismatch” and the previous work of Sander (since we CANNOT look at the Sander Uppala paper) and linked to both criticisms that are easy to follow as they are writen in laymen terms. The articles, obviously, also described the academic work that supported the criticisms. Fwiw, is NOT 'that" Stanford article. It is a discussion in the Stanford Law Review. </p></li>
<li><p>I posted in the same thread about how others DID support the mismatch findings by linking to Kahlenberg – as well as pointing in the direction of the work of Rose and Carnevale. Obviously, anyone who is remotely familiar with their work should have seen the parallels, and probably feasted on it … in support of the mismatch theories. Here is a hint for the master googler by excellence: go Kahlenberg, Sander and … Denver. </p></li>
<li><p>The Sander Uppala paper renains unadressed as the “moving the goalposts” remains the weapon of choice for a certain group of posters. Yes, the “show me the data” so I can ignore it and throw sonething else is working for all intents and purposes. That and throwing a “new study” to make a point on an issue that only makes senses to them.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>But heck, without some of us “trying” to discuss facts with a modicum of objectiviy, this thread will die and return to its shining irrelevance. Just as it has been for years. </p>
<p>The saddest part and one that is goes right by the thick skull of some here is that they are attacking the people who actually make an effort to understand what their claims are all about. In the end, it is much easier to do like most everyone does for such issues: ignore them altogether and enjoying the fact that their arguments are so feeble and that their curent attempts to sway anyone are simply too crude and annoying to be given much thought. </p>
<p>I hope there is enough space on that little irrelevant soapbox of yours! </p>
<p>I’m happy to explain those papers I referenced to the best of my ability. Some parts are beyond the scope of my knowledge; if you ask about one of those parts, I’ll freely say that I’m not qualified to elaborate. Otherwise, all you had to do was ask, xiggi, instead of deflect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well if you want to bring your dead horse back out for another beating, I shall oblige, xiggi. Don’t even try to pretend that you “made an effort to understand what my claims are all about”; you cannot express my positions using your own words.</p>
<p>I did not deflect. I addressed the “read Mismatch” by presenting evidence of criticisms and presented one divergent view as I linked to Kahlenberg. Again, did you really expect me to present an academic paper with citations and a lit review of both attacks and defenses? Seriously? </p>
<p>What you did is attack me for failing to present both sides, and when I call you on presenting one paper that amounts to a defense, you talk about deflection. Am I supposed to debate every paper that might remotely related to the efforts of Sander? I do not need to ask for explanations of the paper you presented as evidence. This is not a scholarly debate nor a debate society. I already stated that it was not unusual to see disputes in academic research as well as stated that … both opinions deserved to be heard. Are you showing the same balanced approach? Really! </p>
<p>As I said, I looked at Sander’s work in terms of the Harvard complaint. I addressed both sides of the mismatch debate in a simple to follow manner. If you think this forum would be helped by a full academic review, I am sure you should be able to find research that covers both sides. So, be my guest. I am not keeping your keyboard away. </p>
<p>Same for bringing up that “express my positions in your own words” pet peeve of yours. Go ahead as you make my point of NOT paying attention to what people actually write back to the forefront. </p>