I’d agree with that.
I see that we have one very mature student posting in the last few pages, and one very immature one. By the way, maturity definitely counts in college admissions.
On a side note, does anybody have a link to this mysterious data which states that URM’s are admitted with lower test scores? I’m not talking about some kid you heard about who got in with an 1800 I’m talking about a definitive collection of data stating that the average test scores of the admitted students of Minority X at University Y is significantly less than the test scores of white applicants? I didn’t think schools even released this sort of data…
I honestly do not think there will be a significant difference in pools at an elite university.
2012 Duke University study
“What Happens After Enrollment”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/grades_4.0.pdf&ved=0CB0QFjAAahUKEwjM67jZv5zIAhUWBY4KHQDaB-M&usg=AFQjCNEpWU7CDkN6tHVtSDoDwMmZIiawag
It’s not just SAT scores. There is also uneveness of academic achievement, curriculum, personal qualities (i.e. leadership, ECs), leadership, essay, recs [refer to page 7, bottom of Table 1].
There is an unevenness but the variance is not monumental. Recognize you’re also dealing with a small group and would the variance be any different for legacies, athletes, musicians etc… I’m always amazed how much attention is paid to such a small fraction of the admission applicants or the student body as a whole.
I think that this is an interesting article. I do think that for a lot of low income and racial minority applicants the jump between college and high school is much larger. This also applies to very rural white applicants. Many high schools offer so little in the way of academic preparedness that many students are completely caught off guard by this.
If we compare these sort of applicant qualities we must remember that many of them are in limited quantity. How many leadership positions are available? In a curved course, how many A’s are typically even being given? The root of many academic problems is likely a lack of preparedness for college, which is not likely to stem from poor grades in high school but rather a high school that can have a valedictorian go on unprepared. Should colleges penalize students for coming from a high school that cannot offer them a truly preparatory program?
SAT scores themselves are also suggested to not necessarily be a measure of intelligence or academic potential but rather a measure of socioeconomic class and the ability of a family to pay for test prep or a student to study rather than work job.
Duke is also a big sports school who regularly admits athletes knowing full well they can’t cut it academically. They ring these kids dry for every penny they are worth until they either fail out or are recruited for professional teams. I would bet money that the lowest performing group on campus is likely athletic teams, in both pre-college GPA/test scores and post college performance.
cowtownbrown the data is irrefutable. By the way the biggest sport by far at Duke is men’s Basketball and most of them graduate. It is one of the most successful programs in history. You are out of your depth in this discussion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/upshot/duke-is-also-a-winner-in-graduation-rates.html
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=209291279
THE EXTENT OF PREFERENCES Using the National Study of College Experience (NSCE) — a collection of information from eight anonymous elite colleges — authors Thomas J. Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford are able to calculate various applicants’ odds of getting into a school. They discover some mildly interesting trends regarding social class (more on that later), but their results for race are truly stunning. After academic performance and demographic factors have been taken into account, black applicants are more than five times as likely as whites to be accepted at NSCE private schools, and 220 times as likely to be accepted at NSCE public schools. Asian applicants, meanwhile, are only about a third as likely as whites to get big envelopes from private institutions, and one-fifth as likely to gain admission to public ones. Putting preferences in terms of test scores, at private schools, blacks get an advantage, compared to whites, worth 310 SAT points (out of 1600), Hispanics an advantage of 130, and Asians a disadvantage of 140. At public schools, the authors present the difference in ACT points: blacks 3.8 (out of 36), Hispanics 0.3, Asians –3.4. If we look at students who actually matriculate, blacks are far more likely than whites to come from the bottom 80 percent of their high-school classes (27 percent versus 12 percent), have high-school GPAs of B+ or below (32 versus 18 percent), and have SAT scores below 1000 (21 versus 2 percent). The logical conclusion from this mountain of evidence is obvious: Top-of-the-line schools use severe racial preferences. This shouldn’t be all that shocking; although colleges usually keep quiet about the degree to which they prefer blacks and Hispanics over Asians and whites, anecdotes and numbers have been trickling out for years. Even when California banned racial preferences, its state universities didn’t stop using them. Last year, a UCLA professor resigned from the school’s admissions committee in protest of its flouting the law and issued an 89-page report explaining his reasons. Few schools outright deny using preferences, and the Supreme Court allows the practice. The Center for Equal Opportunity has calculated the extent of countless schools’ preference policies, usually concluding that black and Hispanic candidates get a significant advantage.
Family income is definitely a huge factor. A NYT article about poor kids of all races admitted into UT Austin via auto-admit ‘percentage’ plan:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/magazine/who-gets-to-graduate.html?_r=0
In this case it appears to have little to do with family income and everything to do with not having the ability to do rigorous college level work. A student with an ACT of 22 is going to struggle in a statistics class at any top level college like UT. At some point it just comes down to whether students can or can not do the work. All of these colleges have massive outreach programs that help URMs to succeed at school with mentoring and tutoring. When you go back and look at her career plan she has chosen to be a nurse anesthetist which requires lots of hard science classes. Her background grades and scores do not support that career choice. I hope she can make it but then would you want her taking care of your child?
I disagree with that statement as do many test optional colleges, as well as Hampshire college which is now refusing to accept test scores. While very bright people often get exceptional test scores, many very bright people get very poor test scores for a variety of reasons. Additionally, sometimes run of the mill people get exceptional test scores.
I also disagree with this idea that some people do not have the “ability” to do well. Everyone has the capacity to do well in college, some are just more prepared than others. When you went to a high school that gave you great grades without ever forcing you to write a paper, how well could you expect to do in college? This idea of innate intelligence is very disagreeable. Some things certainly come easier to some than others but to say that a student is fundamentally incapable, is to get the very results you are trying to avoid.
The results from Asian applicants are also very skewed by the schools that many Asian applicants choose to apply to. Not only is there an immense emphasis on the same 15 or so schools to apply to there is also a cultural pressure to attend one of these very top schools. It cannot be a meritocracy solely, there simply aren’t enough spaces to accept every qualified applicant. At some point there has to be some subjectivity of what is valuable. Furthermore, a college admissions officer has to consider personal qualities. For example, emotional maturity and social consciousness are going to be very important if one is to be a contributing member of a college campus. To only consider academic merit would not only be ineffective, as it would result in an enormous class.
It’s great that Duke takes good care of it’s basketball players, would you care to wonder what they’re test scores and GPA’s were upon entrance? It’s interesting to me that Duke has taken care to ensure the success of their student athletes, many of whom were probably significantly less qualified than other applicants but stood to benefit the schools program and by association their wallet. Where do these “floundering” minorities fit into this? If there are resources and initiative for basketball players are there also initiatives and resources for first generation college students? Will they be given the same tender love and care academically that the University cash cows are receiving? I mean no disrespect to student athletes, I know many that are very hardworking academically but I know a great many who are depending on recruitment to get into college, physical genius is a thing but it’s not an academic thing. On a side note, I believe the year of college clause is BS, but I digress…
Everyone who filled out a college application well, has a very unique application. There are things on that application that they probably haven’t told anyone. There are personal writings that reveal more of who they are intellectually than any test score ever could. A Yale admissions officer told me that one of the top things they look for is grit, and the ability to overcome hardship. In the above study there was an upward trend in grades, so yes they may have struggled but they grew to it. Receiving an A easily is not the same as struggling to get a B. I find in my life that the struggle to achieve something is worth more than the actual outcome and I learn far more about the topic and myself in writing that paper or studying for that test than I do when I get that report card back with an A or B or C. Who are we to define the educational experiences of someone else as valid or invalid? Based on grades? What job looks over your college transcript? Based on test scores? What job cares what your SAT was? I think they would be far more interested in what you’ve learned and how you can apply that information to get results. I think we can all agree that many times education is a game you play, not to learn how to apply data but rather to memorize and reproduce. So why accuse those less adapted to this game as being less intelligent when the game itself is not indicative of intelligence?
What about post grad. job placement? What about the intersection between race and income? low income has been linked to lower graduation rates, try compounding that with racial issues. What about the real value of an education? It’s foolish to say that race does not impact education and the bringing of minorities on campus is more a service to the other majorities there. Why are colleges set on this idea of diversity? Because it opens the minds of other students to different perspectives. I just went to one of those 80%+ white college campuses and guess what? There are some really ignorant ideas about race and culture, and while this is everywhere, it was unbelievably prevalent. I do think it is irresponsible for colleges to admit unqualified applicants but I also understand that 1. This applies to FAR more than just minority students (special projects, athletes, celebrities etc) and 2. that being qualified is about much more than GPA or test scores.
I want to be respectful to someone who is so young but you seem to have confused this thread with an opinion piece in the NYT. Everyone is welcome to there on views but here these threads are meant to help new students understand the admissions process. The truth is that the majority of HS students do not have the ability to perform the work at an elite college. This is a fact no matter how you “feel” about it. A large percent of pre-med students at top colleges change their majors because they can’t get the needed grades in the tough science classes. This is a fact. Once again you have besmerched the fine student athletes at Duke without having a clue what you are talking about. The vast majority of students athletes have very similar scores to regular admits though being recruited is a hook for most of them. A student with a 22 ACT is likely to struggle in any top college math or science class because the non-URM admits have much higher scores. There is no controversy here but rather you aren’t aware of the well established facts as they exist today in elite college admissions.
Fixed this for you.
The logical conclusion from this mountain of evidence deeply flawed “study” is obvious:
I’m going to enter this discussion about URM status being a major advantage in admission. First of all most people who would think of it as a major factor point out that Asians are disadvantaged in the admission process specifically to Ivies. I would strongly disagree here for a number of reasons.
First, there is no way you could tell whether an admissions decisions would have come down to race or not especially at ivies where 85% of students with perfect test scores and gpa are rejected. Most people point to the Asian-URM score gap that is wide but don’t point out that here is very little difference in score between Asian and white applicants. As a result of the trivial differences between Asian and White applicant there is no specific reason Asians should have a major advantage over white applicants in terms of merit.
Second, I would say Asian overrepresentation at most top universities is down to the demographics of the applicant pool i.e the percentage of applicants who identify as Asian. A good example is UC Berkeley were 38% of all freshman applicants were Asian and as a result 42% of all matriculants were also Asian. Only around 4-6% advantage attributed to merit. Whites also have a similar trend at the school making up 26.9% of applicants and around 29% of matriculants. Now UC Berkeley isn’t allowed to discriminate by race therefore the This demonstrates that Asians may not be as entitled to place as most think. The Asian demographic in California is set to increase so I would assume Asians would make a higher % of matriculants in coming years.
Third, Asians are vastly overrepresented at almost all Ivies making up on average 20% of the freshman profiles. Stanford’s class profile is 22.6% Asian and Harvard is 21.3%. Soon Asians would make up a quarter of the each entering class, with this type of over representation it would be hard to claim this so called Asian quota. Again most would like to see more transparency in the admission process but this could do more harm then good. Also almost every top student rejected from an ivy whether they’re White, Asian or even a URM could make the claim that they have been marginalized. It would be hard to make a case for an Asian quota even taking into account test score differences there is a lack of evidence to make such a case.
Finally, those calling for a socioeconomic affirmative action without taking into account race or demographics do not realize this would mostly benefit Asian and White applicants. Since demographically speaking they would make up the largest % of students applying so would also make up the largest % of socioeconomically disadvantaged applying. URM applicants are socioeconomically disadvantaged at a much higher rate but make too small a percentage of applicants for this to be considered fairly and equally without taking into account demographics. If such a policy existed a lot of schools would simply be 100% Asian and white with very little to no URMs admitted. In addition to this those arguing for the removal of the holistic admissions process would rather have a purely academic based admissions process again favoring Whites and Asians over URM applicants who on average have lower test scores.
Shouldn’t the focus be on raising the scores of URMs? I realize that teaching to the test is not so helpful in the long run, but perhaps major cultural changes could foster greater achievement at an earlier point in the life of an URM.
Cowtownbrown wrote: “SAT scores themselves are also suggested to not necessarily be a measure of intelligence or academic potential but rather a measure of socioeconomic class and the ability of a family to pay for test prep or a student to study rather than work job.”
These claims are not true. SAT and GRE are both highly correlated with IQ. Not a perfect correlation, but still a high one. And your last claim is belied by the fact that lower income Whites have a higher avg. SAT than the avg. upper income Black. If you don’t believe me, just google my claim.
Ali1302. Almost everything you state simply isn’t true and this has been definitely shown by many separate studies. In truth none of this is remotely controversial to the academic people who work in this area. By making the statement that you don’t believe that being African American is a major hook only shows you really don’t know the subject. Being African American is major advantage at every top school but at the top few schools the applicant pool is so talented that that alone is not remotely enough to assure admission. However if you look at the acceptance rates at the top schools URM have much much higher admission rates despite lower average grades and test scores. . All of this data is well known and the underlying reasons are thoroughly discussed in many books such as the Bell Curve. The book received much negative press but in the following decades many studies have proven their analysis was correct. If you really want to study the subject you simply need to look at the data that showed that even in very wealthy schools where all the URM are well off and have access to every advantage the 200-300 point SAT gap remained stubbornly constant. Meanwhile lower income Asians somehow without wealth or any advantage manage to get high scores. There is simply no way to ignore the underlying IQ issues despite the fact that it’s understandably a very sensitive discussion. The truth is that 70-75 % of high school students simply don’t have the ability to perform rigorous college level stem classes. The colleges have managed to shield underperforming students by providing many degrees in the soft non-rigorous"studies" degrees. I too wish that every student could master variable calculus and get a good stem job but that is not reality. None of this is to suggest that that things couldn’t be improved or that there are no problems in American education but only that pretending the facts are not true serves no one’s interest on a serious college admission site
It’s a lot higher than 70-75%.
Rigorous STEM majors have average IQs in the 130+ range like mathematics and physics, which would place them at the 98th percentile in terms of IQ.
As a math and economics double major at a top 15 university, I felt that innate talent and intelligence were more valuable in passing exams than just effort.
You are correct but most people don’t like the truth and want to inclusive. CC after all really only exists to discuss mainly the top schools which admit less than 5% of the HS graduates. I do warn you however that while correct you will find your statement will upset many people. All of this data is well understood and accepted to be true as written in many books and papers. IQ is largely genetic and no amount of discussion can change that fact.
@SAY Mentioning the URM-Asian score gap doesn’t help prove your point here. Of course, Asians and whites are going to outscore African American applicants but what I’m taking about is whether this truly explains Asian overrepresentation and it doesn’t. Relying only on test scores is also a bad strategy since their are Asians admitted with below average test scores at most universities and all top universities have a holistic admissions process.
Low income Asian families are different, most low income Asian parents are willing to sacrifice a lot for their children’s education. For instance, low income Asian families would move to schools that offer more APs and with better reputations and are willing to pay a lot of what they have to ensure their children graduate from highschool and attend a good college. This explains the relatively high application rates of Asians in comparison to other races to the top universities in the united states.
What really explains Asian overrepresentation is demographics as I explained in my previous post. When you make X percentage of applicants your likely to make X percentage of matriculants to a specific college. I believe the URM advantage is inflated greatly and do not believe it puts any Asian at any major or even minor disadvantage. When you look into demographics of the applicant pool that provides a much clearer explanation of why Asians are overrepresented in the first place. My example of UC Berkeley that has no affirmative action explains this pretty clearly on my previous post.
And finally, I’m not going to go into a debate about IQ, since obviously a URM has a lower IQ since they are more likely to be socioeconomically disadvantaged, less likely to graduate from highschool, more likely to be incarcerated and less likely to have good healthcare. When you look at all of these factors they are likely to have a negative effect on IQ since IQ is highly variable during adolescence when the environment becomes the major factor.
I suggest you look into genetic determinism. Many people in this thread are overestimating just how much the environment influences you.
There are multiple cases of children who were starved in their parents’ basements for 15+ years and, within 1 year of being rescued and educated normally, trace the average IQs of their biological parents.
When you look at valid econometric studies that take parental IQ into account, the effects of income become statistically insignificant in predicting SAT score. This proves that income is only a proxy variable for intelligence. This does not imply that all rich people are smart, but an average rich person is somewhat sharper than the average poor person, and this explains the superficial correlation between income and SAT scores.
As someone who understands higher-level statistics, I suspect Asians would still overrepresent in higher education even without their good work ethic.
Take my brother and me, for example. I never tried hard in school, yet scored higher than my less gifted peers who put far more effort into their academics.
My dad has an IQ of 155 and my mom has an IQ of 147. My IQ is at 159 and my older brother has an IQ of 157. My parents had a combined income of $30,000/year when they were working. They never pushed us. The only thing they said to us was, “You both have IQs in the 99.99+ percentile. You two can be whatever you want to be,” and left us alone.
I am now an actuary and passed all the SOA exams. My after-tax income last year was $350,000. My brother is a doctor who graduated from harvard medical. Neither of us tried very hard at school. We never did our homework, but we aced every exam we took with minimal effort.
Other people with high IQs, no matter their race and socioeconomic background, ended up acing every exam without any effort.
You are underestimating just how important raw intelligence is.
Also, no one here is suggesting we rely only on test scores. The uncomfortable reality is that Asians dominate not only in test scores, but also extracurricular activities and leadership positions. Duke did a study on this; try googling it. That’s why prestigious colleges that have a race-blind but holistic admissions process have 40+% Asians.
Compare that with a population of 16% at colleges that aren’t race-blind. The obvious fact is that it DOES harm Asians no matter how much you deny it.
Also, you should be rewarding Asian families who sacrifice, not punishing them.