And no, I have not “oversimplified the issue.” I address arguments narrowly when narrow arguments come up or others attack me or present straw men. My position has been thoroughly argued elsewhere. The oversimplifiers are the ones who naively believe that their own preferred set of standards, imposed on U.S. institutions, “should” be the universally accepted standard everywhere. Why? Because it advantages them, that’s why. They themselves are the ones who for almost 20 years now have oversimplified the issues involved. By doing so, they actually show that they’re not very bright. And because those narrow standards are not adopted, they scream “discrimination.” And in doing so they reveal much more than a failure to think critically, by the way.
@epiphany I agree with you.
@roethlisburger of course “Race/Ethnicity/Gender/Sex” are legally protected classes, and of course they should be. So if that is part of your argument then we are on the same side of that one.
But to say that an Hispanic male receiving a spot at Harvard (or another school) over a Caucasian or Asian female that has a higher SAT score is discrimination, is where we disagree. It is NOT discrimination in holistic admissions. I think this is the core of what we disagree on.
So if for whatever reason Harvard, in this example, did indeed exclusively use race as the determining factor in accepting the Hispanic male (which in most cases is probably not the case anyway, because there are so many different components to the applications), then that is because they felt having this racial diversity on their campus was more in support of their institution’s goals therefore creating an optimal learning environment, which they have every right to determine.
You have to stop looking at the hard objective stats so much…there are clearly many other factors in determining who gets the offers and who doesn’t.
And most importantly, there are so many great schools out there. All of these top students will end up at great schools. They just have to stop thinking if they don’t get into an Ivy that they have been discriminated against or are victims.
Post #1699 above provides a very useful general framework for thinking about preference, especially race preference (the subject of this thread).
I do think that this must be right - at least some of the apparent discrimination must be related to self selection.
The Arcibianco study has been mentioned on here before, and it provides a window into the holistic admissions process at a super selective school (Duke).
http://public.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/grades_4.0.pdf
It should come as no surprise that “holistic” admissions still means reducing the decision criteria to numerical values, in Duke’s case the assignment of scores (1-5) on five metrics: academic achievement, curriculum rigor, essay, “personal qualities,” and letters of recommendation. (See p. 7, Table 1.)
The differences between Asian and white admits on these assigned scores (assigned by the admissions office, so these are ingredients in the “secret sauce”), in terms of standard deviation are: achievement (+0.35, positive being in favor of Asians); curriculum (+0.35); essay (+0.06); personal qualities (-0.07); and LORs (+0.18). So, on first glance, it would appear that there is some “overqualification” or discrimination against Asians, but nothing like the larger than +1 standard deviations we are used to seeing in other race preference or discrimination examinations of raw data (rather than assigned scores, which themselves may contain systematic biases).
Obviously, STEM students score higher and have more rigorous curricula, on average, in both college and (for those who wish to go further), graduate school. Table 10 (p. 20) in the Duke study hints at this, with (non-black) mean STEM majors’ SAT being a little less than 1/3 of a standard deviation higher than (non-black) non-STEM majors, and grading being much tougher in STEM (discussed throughout the study). Data for the GRE by intended major are here and show no surprises (except perhaps philosophy students - they are a smart bunch!): https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_table4.pdf.
Consistent with this narrative are the data from law schools, and further support the idea of self-selection. Few people realize that Asian students - who of course receive on average no preference in law school admission (although in the 1990s and early 2000s there was some debate about this) - score slightly less well on the LSAT, and there is also some evidence that their undergraduate GPA “overpredicts” their law school grades - cites are above in posts 1623 and 1626. (Note, however, that the law school data are a little muddied because lower performing Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders are grouped with higher performing Northeast Asians, so the score disparities and overprediction are no doubt exaggerated for the group typically referred to as Asians on CC.)
All this points to the need for the data to come out from the Harvard lawsuit and DOJ investigation. Self-selection may well explain much. However, the counterargument - namely, that Asians have risen dramatically in the target applicant demographic without a corresponding rise in numbers of enrolled at the “elites” - should also be taken seriously, but again self selection (crowding into certain majors that are not being expanded) should be considered.
Hopefully the data come out soon, and in a reasonably complete form. The tools of regression are powerful, and will tell the story. No one should be afraid of these sorts of analyses; this is the sort of thing a free society is supposed to do.
I am trying to determine that in terms of how we view the world, if we are even on the same planet to begin with. So for clarification, do you consider what I wrote above to be one of the “same old arguments”? Also, do you agree or disagree with these two specific statements?
[ul]
[] Much of the “Asian penalty” is due to self-selection into highly competitive majors
[] Admission preferences mean a reduction in standards (such as accepting a star football player with lower academics).
[/ul]
@hebegebe as it relates to your second bullet point:
“Admission preferences mean a reduction in standards (such as accepting a star football player with lower academics).”
You are lowering the standards of the academics, which is not the entirety of what is being considered as it relates to admission at schools that utilize holistic application review processes.
Are you saying academic standards are the only standards that she be utilized? Because that is not holistic admissions. And I do think some schools, Ivies in particular, do expect a certain level of academic achievement, either for their recruited athletes.
sorry for typos fixed below:
Are you saying academic standards are the only standards that SHOULD be utilized? Because that is not holistic admissions. And I do think some schools, Ivies in particular, do expect a certain level of academic achievement, EVEN for their recruited athletes.
Yeah, but I don’t think we live in a free society anymore. Our world was well anticipated by Orwell. There are thoughts one is allowed to think; for the rest, there’s crimestop and other mental contortions that prevent such questions from being dispassionately considered.
I don’t know how big “much” is supposed to be, but it makes sense, in combination with the fact that there are probably significantly fewer non-racial hooks (e.g., legacy, athletic) among Asians than whites.
ETA: Note, however, that a lot of the most competitive schools, including Harvard, don’t admit by major. And schools in general seem to becoming more STEMmy, so it’s hard to say how much a STEM preference amongst Asian applicants hurts them.
Except, Harvard doesn’t have every right to practice AA as you describe, unless Harvard wants to be like Hillsdale and forgo all federal funding. Any AA Harvard practices has to be consistent with Fisher.
I’m assuming they are trying to be consistent. Of course I meant in the way they felt they are “allowed” to. I’m sure there will continue to be lawsuits, etc. but I don’t think schools are going to go out of their way to violate the terms this is supposed to be executed in. There will be disagreements and lawsuits, but generally speaking I don’t think admissions committees are going to go rogue on this, especially now.
I still think you are implying they should be relying on hard numbers more than they currently are and more so than the subjective information available on the application and that’s where we can agree to disagree.
@collegemomjam said:
Not at all. Note that I never mentioned either grades or test scores explicitly.
Instead, let’s say that all applicants get a “base score” that is based upon their recommendations, their ECs including volunteer work, academic rigor, and finally GPA and test scores. For some, their base score will be so strong, perhaps through an overall outstanding profile coupled with national-level ECs, that they will get admission based just upon that.
But of course, not everyone admitted will have national level ECs, even at the elite college level. When you have literally thousands of students that are near the top of the class, have solid SAT scores, strong recommendations AND have have strong ECs that just fall short of national level, then you need something to pick some students out from the rest. And here are some hypothetical situations where preferences and penalties can make a difference in which students are chosen.
[ul]
[]Student A is a star quarterback. His grades are barely ok, but we suspect he can graduate, if we put him in easy courses and provide enough tutors. Done. He’s in.
[]Students B has demonstrated her love of Classics. Our Classics professors are crying out for students. Let’s admit her, rather than another CS student, since those classrooms are already full.
[]Student C is from a small public school in rural Wyoming. Very different from most our kids and outperformed given her situation. She’s in.
[] Student D has a solid record and is a legacy. Sold.
[/ul]
So you’re OK with those situations, but not race or ethnicity being part of the package? Not the only thing but something to tip the scales, even if it helps to balance out and diversify the student body in a productive way?
I would like to expand your question to the original three I posed at the end of #1699, with a slight modification
[ol]
[]Should an admission preference based upon race* protected classes* be allowed?
[]If allowed, what reduction of standards is reasonable?
[li]How much of a reduction in standards are colleges actually practicing?[/li][/ol]
My view is that if colleges are providing preferences to protected classes (obviously race, but also sex), they need to be transparent about what they are doing if they are taking any federal funds. Currently, the colleges get the gravy train that federal funds provide (which run into hundreds of millions per college when you count both research and student aid), and the luxury of no accountability. Of course they want to keep the status quo.
Now having said that, I doubt that transparency will find any smoking gun showing intentional discrimination against any group. We are long past the era of overt discrimination against the Jews. Yet you can end up with unintentional effects as side effects despite the best of intentions.
For example, I suspect most people would find it ludicrous to suggest that admissions offices intentionally discriminate against women. Yet in trying to create an equal gender mix, it is very likely that some colleges do. The truly elite don’t need to because at that level the talents of men and women are about equally strong. And at the level of BU or Brandeis, they have completely given up trying, and thus you end up with 60% women. But I suspect that in between, there is strong pressure to try to maintain a 50:50 split, and the result is that women are held to a higher standard than men.
Just a technical note here to help focus the discussion on sex based preferences.
Discrimination based upon sex is treated differently under the law than discrimination based upon race. Race discrimination is subject to the highest level of scrutiny - usually termed “strict scrutiny” - and generally requires a “compelling interest” in order to justify its use. Much of the legal debate touches upon whether any particular instance of discrimination is sufficiently “narrowly tailored” to justify its use, and whether there is actually a “compelling” interest at stake. (This is a gross simplification of the jurisprudence, but accurate for these purposes; for people interested in an excellent and very readable overview of the legal architecture, see J. Thomas’ opinion in Grutter, available here on pp. 349ff: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/case.pdf).
Discrimination based on sex, however, is subject to “intermediate scrutiny,” meaning that the discrimination must be in furtherance of an important interest and that such discrimination be merely “substantially related” to the interest, not be the least restrictive or most narrowly tailored means of achieving it. (Again, a gross, but accurate, simplification.)
You can see the effects of the two levels of scrutiny very easily in colleges. Obviously, there are preferences based upon sex in some selective schools (going both ways - males favored in some places like LACs, females preferred in high end STEM schools like CalTech and MIT), and we also see single sex schools (Smith, Mount Holyoke, Barnard, etc.). We also see sex-differentiated sports teams and even leagues.
Note, we do not see single race schools anymore - even the HBCUs I believe cannot legally exclude white (or other race) students. Although many posters conflate preferences based on race with other preferences like legacy, development, athletes, etc., they are clearly different, which partially explains why the debate has gone on for over 50 years now.
HBCUs never did exclude non-black students.
All other colleges and universities did, of course. That ended by law, not by choice, in most cases.
@hebegebe I have been mulling over your question about whether lowering of standards is permissible. My personal view is that there is probably a threshold of qualifications that make success in any given college likely. That threshold may be lower then the stats of the highest achieving applicants. However, in some ways those higher stats might be overkill. We see evidence of this looking at what has been happening at schools sligthly below the Ivies. For examle, it takes far higher stats to get into Barnard today then it did 3 years ago. However, I doubt that the classwork has gotten commensurately more difficult.
Assuming the college can determine the threshold for success. I see nothing impermissible about admitting students from protected classes or targeted classes who meet that threshold in order to craft a diverse student body.
Honest question, @OHMomof2. Could you point me to the specific law or laws that forced private colleges to integrate? Obviously there are the Title VII funding conditions, but private schools - such as Hillsdale - can opt out, so far as I know, by disclaiming the funding. If anyone else knows the answer to this, please post because I for one would like to learn more about the legal architecture governing the intersection of private schools and race questions.
Also, assuming the law exists, does it prevent private colleges from hosting segregated events like the first ever black graduation at Harvard last year? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ8iAsqIxOE) What about segregated dorms for black students - are they ok?
Another honest question. Are you bothered by single sex schools? Should we force Smith and Holyoke to admit men (or Wabash to admit women)? If the answer is no, then perhaps you would acknowledge that race discrimination is quite a bit different than sex discrimination?
^ Apologies, I meant Title VI above.
- I think we're all familiar with the legal requirement for public universities to admit non-white students (1956 U of Alabama was forced to admit one black student and cases went on for decades there and in other states). Private ones? No, I can't. In fact the federal government forced colleges that wanted to admit black students not to (1908 Berea vs Kentucky, Emory in GA much later, etc).
Really not sure what the current situation is - if Harvard wants to go all white and declines federal funds can it? No idea.
- "Black" housing isn't just for black students. My D was invited to live in her college's black student house last year. She's white. There have always been a few not-black people living in it - the cultural mission of the house is what it is, but anyone is welcome to be part of it.
The Harvard grad school event (not a replacement grad ceremony but a separate event) I’m fine with. These events exist for gay students, 1st gen students, several ethnic groups, probably women somewhere. They do that thing then also attend the general U gradation. Also, non-black students are allowed to attend the events so I don’t see a problem in that regard either.
- Single sex schools...I might be bothered if "the best" schools were set aside for men as was once the case (or for women but that hasn't ever happened). When the top schools are all for men or women aren't allowed to attend college at all that was a problem. I am OK with where things are now in that regard. Do men suffer for not being able to attend Smith or Barnard? I don't think so. Do women suffer for not being able to attend Morehouse or Deep Springs? Maybe the latter because there's nothing like that for women, probably not the former, women do just as well at Spelman. (Actually DS is allowed to admit women as of 2017 but there aren't any yet).
Thanks for the honest answer, @OHMomof2. I’ll leave the question out there, because I honestly want to know the answer myself, but like you I really don’t know of any law that forced integration in the private school arena. And yet all schools chose it? Oberlin was admitting black students in the mid-19th century, Harvard saw its first black graduate in 1870. Many other leading universities saw talented black students in the early 20th century.
I have much more faith in American society than many posters on here. America is dealing with its difficult history. At this point, in my opinion, large race preferences in admissions are doing more harm than good.
By the way, I don’t think that that graduation is a graduate school level event. I think I see Cameron Clarke in the front row to the right (with the glasses), the same student who was accorded almost unbelievable press for achieving a perfect score on the SAT (kudos to him) back in 2012. I could be wrong. Could white students also have a little event like that, and then attend the main ceremony too?