The Guardian Article: Yale Retains EA Policy

AdOfficer · January 16, 2007, 9:57pm

drummerdude…

to a large extent, this does have a lot to do with income…gordon winston did a wonderful study on high-achieving, low-income students and where they attend college (or rather, how many of them are attending the “elites” and, well, let’s just say they are under-represented at these schools). but you have to remember that, proportionally, there are more black and Latino students living in poverty than there are white studnets. in real numbers there are certainly more white students living in poverty as white Americans make up a clear majority of the American population; however, as a population they are proportionally not as poor.

your second point certainly rings true for SOME schools. but there are very few who can claim that their EA and ED pools are just as diverse racially as their regular pools. i believe most of the schools with ED are not going to get rid of it because many enroll a large proportion of their incoming classes (35%+) through ED. those schools with EA (and there are fewer elites with EA than ED) are, I think, doing a good job finding students of color and low-income kids to apply EA or are at least recognizing they have to do more outreach to these populations (like Yale).

as far as your last comment, it’s important to remember that a lot of low-income and URM students often times don’t realize they are competitive for admission to these schools and really don’t even think about applying, let alone applying early. these students have traditionally been ignored by these schools and although this has started to change, the message has yet to really be heard by a lot of kids.

sfgiants · January 17, 2007, 3:28pm

Hmm, well I’m not trying to be a smartass (really, I’m not), but what about having a separate application in ebonics because the regular English application discriminates against people of color?

Where does one draw the line?

All of this special treatment just perpetuates lower expectations for URM’s, thus contributing to built-in downward pressures (to borrow a phrase from the “I wish I weren’t Asian” thread)

Hanna · January 17, 2007, 5:18pm

“Harvard, for example, knows that historically it yields roughly 75% of the students it admits through EA, like in regular decision. If it admits more students through EA, that means less students will be admitted through regular decision.”

Harvard’s EA yield has hovered around 90%. This change can be expected to reduce yield somewhat.

standrews · January 17, 2007, 5:23pm

How will these numbers (from collegeboard) for Harvard freshman class be different when their non-ED class of 2012 class is finalized?

<pre><code>* 50% Women

50% Men
1% American Indian/Alaskan Native
19% Asian/Pacific Islander
9% Black/Non-Hispanic
7% Hispanic
47% White/Non-Hispanic
9% Non-Resident Alien
8% Race/ethnicity unreported
</code></pre>

Doesn’t RD make up for inequities in the ED applicant pool?

drummerdude_07 · January 17, 2007, 5:34pm

Whoever’s calling me naive should at least take a stab at backing it up. And Admofficer makes some great points, but once again I think the “I don’t even know to think about elite schools or know that i’m competitive” is MUCH better correlated to income and school environment than race. Because of the way race correlates with income and school quality, there is a lot of overlap, but I see NO reason whatsoever to skip over those first two filters and use race as the deciding factor.

And another thing I just thought of: while it is technically illegal to use quotas, no one can seriously doubt that the colleges, in making decision, are trying to get a certain % of their class to be Hispanic, Black, Asian, etc. So if this is true, aren’t URMs (and Asians for that matter) really competing against their own race, and not against evil whitie? In which case, if not many blacks know about EA, missing the EA round is not a huge disadvantage, because most of their competitors will be too. The issue would be that URMs who are rich and go to prep schools (ie likely to know about EA) get their advantages from AA even further enhanced.

AdOfficer · January 17, 2007, 6:58pm

hanna -
according to data given to me by harvard college’s undergraduate admissions office last year during my research, the yield on their ea admits the last few years has been around 75%-80% - this info had been available on their admissions website until they posted the class statistics for the class of 2010, when the yield for ea admits jumped (and they announced getting rid of ea for the following year). many attributed this to the record low admit rates at yale, stanford, brown, mit, wash u, and princeton…

sfgiants - you’re really taking this to the extreme, which affirmative action is not doing, nor is it lower anyone’s expectations. as i’ve said repeatedly, no one is going to be admitted to a highly selective school if they cannot do the work, nor has the pervasive discourse in the black and Latino communities been “we can lower the bar and achieve more,” which is what the argument that “affirmative-action-lowers-expectations” suggests.

standrews - at some schools, rd does “make up for” some of the inbalance in the early pools. princeton is a good example…the vast majority of their black and latino students are admitted in regular decision. however, the vast majority of their black and latino students are applying regular decision…

drummerdude - no one is skipping over income in lieu of race, NOR IS ONE SIMPLE CHARACTERISTIC OF A STUDENT THE DECIDING FACTOR. if anything though we are probably more sensitive to income than race…but again, there are far more black and Latino students living in poverty proportionally than there are white students…however, there is plenty of evidence out there which indicates that if we used an income-based affirmative action policy rather than race-based, the number of black and Latino students in our elite schools would actually decrease because, in real numbers (and not proportions), there are far more white students living in poverty than black or Latino students living in poverty because of the fact that white individuals represent the vast majority of the American population. and i’ve never worked in an admissions office where the goal was to enroll a certain number/percentage of URM students, which is what a quota is. the goal is usually to simply increase the number of these students on campus because there are so few of them…this isn’t an exact science or something formulaic as a quota would suggest. also, the number of URMs that attend prep schools is very small…

drummerdude_07 · January 17, 2007, 7:42pm

“NOR IS ONE SIMPLE CHARACTERISTIC OF A STUDENT THE DECIDING FACTOR”
Yeah we can all say that, but for a kid with an app that is “average” or slightly below by elite school standards, and the kid is black, you can’t really tell me that wasn’t the “deciding factor”, especially when white kids with similar stats are dropping like flies.

“there is plenty of evidence out there which indicates that if we used an income-based affirmative action policy rather than race-based, the number of black and Latino students in our elite schools would actually decrease because, in real numbers (and not proportions), there are far more white students living in poverty than black or Latino students living in poverty because of the fact that white individuals represent the vast majority of the American population.”

That logic does seem to make a lot of sense, but then again, why would a decreased number of URMs be such a horrible thing? They are only where they are right now becuase of AA inflating the numbers from their “natural” merit-based level.

sfgiants · January 17, 2007, 8:14pm

I agree with drummerdude, except I would equate the “natural” level for a URM as equivalent to the preferences a low-income student would receive. What rationale is there to explain the discrepancy in admit rates, given that white low-income student face 90% of the challenges that black low-income students do? In fact, we can turn your argument on its head and conclude that AA has gone much too far, else there wouldn’t be such a significant drop.

I agree with AA in principle, but not AT ALL in degree and not AT ALL in the way it is executed.

AdOfficer · January 18, 2007, 1:15am

drummerdude - again, no student who cannot do the work is going to get admitted to a school. if they can do the work, they “merit” being considered based on their academic abilities. but academic ability is not the only thing we look at.

my “logic” about the number of URM students dropping at elite colleges if we used income-based affirmative action isn’t simply a macination of my mind - it’s a statement based on real research using both demographics and educational statistics. Maria Cancian, among others, has done great work in this area.

your comment about URM students being where they are only because affirmative action compensates for what they lack in “natural” merit is completely insulting and smacks of eugenics…do you really think that under-represented minorities are not as intelligent or hard-working as white students?

sfgiants - i would not go so far as to say that low-income white students face 90% of the same challenges that low-income black students do…racism is a nasty, nasty social problem that still exists all over this country and can (and often does) affect black students on a very personal level every day of their lives. is being a low-income white kid easy? no. believe me, i know…been there. but if you really think that dealing with racism and discrimination because of your skin color is quantifiable and only 10% more difficult, i am deeply concerned.

drummerdude_07 · January 19, 2007, 12:11am

“if they can do the work, they “merit” being considered based on their academic abilities. but academic ability is not the only thing we look at”

Which is why the elite schools admit SO many people with 3.0 GPAs and 1700 SATs. These schools are not in the business of admitting people who can do the work; it’s self-evident from the decisions that are made that they seek academic quality FAR beyond that.

“your comment about URM students being where they are only because affirmative action compensates for what they lack in “natural” merit is completely insulting and smacks of eugenics…do you really think that under-represented minorities are not as intelligent or hard-working as white students?”

How come every time we get into a good AA argument, people just yell racism (or in this case eugenics, which is even worse) and ignore any worthwhile arguments? Not to mention the last sentence, which is blatantly inserting words into my mouth. I never said or implied that whites are better. Just that the URMs admitted to top schools have less “merit” strictly defined than Asians and whites. This is manifestly true and noone really denies it, because if each racial group began, on the average, with the same merit, there would be no “need” for AA in the first place.

“racism is a nasty, nasty social problem that still exists all over this country and can (and often does) affect black students on a very personal level every day of their lives”

Wake up. We don’t live under Jim Crow laws anymore. Nearly any person who exhibits downright racism in any part of this country is condemned, ostracized, and shot down by the other 99.9% of people. What problems there are are only multiplied by AA, which flames racial tensions by setting different standards for different demographics. Equal rights, pshhh no that’s an idea that is biased towards white males right?

AdOfficer · January 19, 2007, 12:29pm

drummerdude…

no one is saying a student with a 3.0 and 1700 sat is necessarily able to do the work at an elite institution - it would be extremely difficult for a kid with these stats to get in to an elite college in this country.

there have not been a lot of good arguments against affirmative action are on here, drummerdude. and your comment is clearly suggesting that URM students are not as intelligent or qualified as white students…if that wasn’t your intention, you misrepresented yourself terribly. i’m not sure how anyone could interpret your comment “why would a decreased number of URMs be such a horrible thing? They are only where they are right now becuase [sic] of AA inflating the numbers from their “natural” merit-based level.” any other way…this is, by the way, a grossly inaccurate comment.

i have not - in this post or in others (see my comments in “I wish I weren’t Asian”) - ignored anyone’s arguments. however, i’ve done enough of my own research on affirmative action in graduate school, worked in admissions long enough, and studied a huge amount of the discourse and research available about the subject to know a) what i’m talking about, b) what research and findings are dependable and what research and findings are not and c) how to be a good consumer of educational and social research - well enough to know how to present arguments (based on real research and not conjecture!) and make comments that are not as extreme and biased as the ones you have made in this thread because of personal feelings.

i am well aware that we do not live in jim crow times anymore drummerdude…you don’t need to lecture me or anyone older than you who has gone through high school or college on the social history of this country. however, if you truly believe that racism isn’t a big problem in this country today and that 99.9% of people would chide someone with racist views, you are sadly naive, as another poster mentioned earlier in this thread. white males have benefitted in this country socially and economically since its birth by systematically excluding others from government, business, education, and other sectors; only now are we really starting make any kind of headway (albeit very little) for others in this country…yet salaries of white men are still higher than anyone else’s in this country; white men still dominate the boardrooms of the private sector in this country; white men still dominate the faculty ranks and most universities in this country; white men still make up the majority of our government. are white men really being oppressed? are white men the victims of racism in this country that has excluded them from getting what they want? are white men under-privileged in this country because of the color of their skin or their gender? absolutely not!

interestingly, white male students are actually getting in to elite colleges nowadays with lower “qualifications” than white women, asian-american men and women, and a lot of latino and black students…year after year, there are fewer and fewer white males applying to our elite colleges who are actually compelling enough academically for them to be considered for admission to these schools…articles have been written about it, research is starting to be done on it, a lot of admissions folks and college counselors are talking about it. i am WIDE AWAKE drummerdude…no need to tell me to wake up.

afan · January 19, 2007, 12:30pm

You’re right. Trent Lott used to be majority leader. Now he has been condemned all the way down to minority whip. Reassuring that racism can result in such ostracism for a politician.

sfgiants · January 19, 2007, 11:06pm

AdOfficer, I still disagree with your argument. You ask if blacks aren’t as hard working as whites, and my answer is yes, at least in the academic realm. As a culture, the black community does not place much emphasis on academic achievement. Hence the black students mirror these priorities, and are not as hard working in academics as say, Asian students. AA wrongly compensates blacks for this because this deprioritization of education is OF THEIR OWN DOING. I think that’s the key here. I can understand compensating blacks for things that are not of their own doing (such as racism - but even then is racism really so bad in this country to be worth the equivalent of 345 points on the SAT (235 points on 1600 scale * 1.5 to arrive at that figure) as the study by Thomas J. Epenshade and Chang Y. Chung shows? Maybe 30 years ago, but not now.

I’ve grown weary of the line that applicants are qualified “if the can do the work.” Is the point of college admissions to see who can do the work? No. So I find that argument irrelevant.

I’m sorry, but I don’t exactly believe you, AdOfficer, when you explain the process for how AA works. What I really think is behind AA is that colleges want to admit more URM’s so that they can add material to their glossy brochures that they are diverse and yadda yadda yadda. They also want to avoid the problem of having bad publicity if they don’t admit as many URM’s as comparable institutions. So they take the easy way out and admit any black person even if they aren’t truly in need of the AA boost. See this article for proof: <a href=“http://www.nuatc.org/articles/pdf/CollegesTakeMoreTopBlacks.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nuatc.org/articles/pdf/CollegesTakeMoreTopBlacks.pdf</a>

As I said before, AA should compensate URM’s for WHAT’s NOT IN THEIR HANDS (racism, poverty, etc.) But AA has expanded its scope way beyond that.

drummerdude_07 · January 19, 2007, 11:55pm

I am not a Trent Lott fan, but nor am I naive enough to think he is racist. He made one stupid comment without realizing the implications, and for that the other “evil racist Republicans” immediately knocked him out of the leadership. And call it what you will, AdOfficer, but I call it pure leftist delusion. You can yak on and on about how horrible white males are, but you know as well as I do that you do not see them “oppressing” minorities and getting away with it. You cannot tell me with a straight face (especially while invoking your study of the data on the subject) that the URMs that get into elite colleges are on equal footing academically with their white and Asian counterparts. Not even the biggest defenders of AA deny this, because it is afterall the purpose of AA.

“white male students are actually getting in to elite colleges nowadays with lower “qualifications” than white women, asian-american men and women”

That is true, and I’m not defending it. If a private college wants a class of 50/50 genderwise while keeping their Asian numbers down (ie blatant racism), I think they should be able to, at the risk of losing any government grants or funds. But the government should not be open to such racism and sexism. The skewing going on here is not so different in principal from AA.

“if you truly believe that racism isn’t a big problem in this country today and that 99.9% of people would chide someone with racist views, you are sadly naive”

Oh really? So where are all the racists? Why don’t we see them in the act of committing racism? Go ahead and complain about all America’s racial problems, the average citizen knows you are simply fanning the flames of a distructive culture of victimhood.

“yet salaries of white men are still higher than anyone else’s in this country; white men still dominate the boardrooms of the private sector in this country; white men still dominate the faculty ranks and most universities in this country; white men still make up the majority of our government”

Perhaps, but doesn’t follow that they are getting there through racism. The average URM demographic has a lower I.Q. and is more likely to grow up in poverty or in a bad neighborhood than a white male. I don’t think anybody can tell you with 100% certainty what causes this (cultural differences, the effects of poverty, whatever), but I CAN laugh hysterically at people who blame it all on white males.

“clearly suggesting that URM students are not as intelligent or qualified as white students”

That’s because, from the best objective data we have, that statement is TRUE on the AVERAGE. That doesn’t mean anything about individuals, but because of poverty or environment (or genes for that matter) or whatever, ON AVERAGE URMs in elite colleges ARE NOT as qualified as white students. I don’t think that whites are inherently better than any other race, or that Asians are inherently better than whites, but it’s stupid to ignore the fact that at this time in this country, it’s the sad truth that the data tells. It’s not racist to tell the truth as established by study after study. I suppose that you’ll go off on a tangent about how IQ tests, the SAT, and the like are all “culturally biased”, but that is a fringe view held only by a radical and tiny segment of the relevant social science community.

You know, Marx and Engels aren’t the end-all be-all of social studies.

AdOfficer · January 20, 2007, 12:44am

sfgiants -

from the article you link: [black] immigrants…are initially more successful than many african-americans for a number of reasons. since they come from majority black countries, they are less psychologically handicapped by the stigma of race. in addition, many arrive with higher levels of education and professional experience. at first, they encounter less discrimination…there are plenty of blacks who could succeed at elite colleges, but the institutions are not doing enough to find them…they [are] overly reliant on measures like sat scores, which correlate strongly with family wealth and parental education".

i think you are laboring under the misapprehension that somehow a group is able to overcome the educational disadvantages they have faced in this country in a generation. the civil rights movement and integration of college campuses was less than 50 years ago; most of our elite colleges and universities are more than 3 times that old; harvard is over 350 years old; brown is over 240 years old, etc…do you really think that a group of students who are only, at most, 2 generations from “equal access” are going to be at the same level as their white peers, who have had access since these schools opened?

blacks are not as hard-working as whites in the academic realm? how are you making such a gross generalization? oh, right, the sat is a great measure for hard work, character, potential, intelligence, and engagement…i forgot.

if you have read my posts carefully, i am clearly not in favor of using affirmative action policies for students who have had advantages or privileges for which affirmative action compensates. some schools do use them in this way, but many do not…if you choose not to believe me, so be it. but you’re wrong.

drummerdude…
“pure leftist delusion”…funny that, i’m not a leftist…on the contrary, i’m rather conservative in a lot of ways. however, i’m not blind to the reality that racism still is prevalent in this country. i did not say that white males are horrible racists drummerdude - my point is that for decades white males have benefitted from a social structure that has systematically excluded non-whites from equal access to social and private institutions like education, business, government, etc…

if the average american citizen thinks i am simply complaining about racial problems and fanning the flames of victimhood, this country is more naive and uneducated than most of the rest of the world already thinks we are. a person doesn’t have to be in a white robe and hood carrying a noose around to commit “acts of racism” drummerdude. racism and discrimination have become such a part of the social fabric in this country that most discrimination based on race happens unconsciously and on a daily basis in subtle ways, not in the ways you suggest.

as far as your “true and objective data” is concerned…almost all of the studies quoted in this and other forums that claim URM students are “less qualified” than their white peers use simple measures - usually the sat. and yes, you are correct, i will argue about the merits - or rather lack thereof - of the sat until the cows come home. this point of view is not held by a select few on the fringes of social science drummerdude…rather, it’s held by most of the foremost experts of secondary and higher education and student learning in this country. yes, the experts.

and btw, one of my honors undergraduate degrees is in sociology…no need to remind me that marx and engels aren’t the end-all be-all of social studies.

evil_asian_dictator · January 20, 2007, 2:05am

Claiming cultural bias with regards to SAT scores is a load of BS and you know it AdOfficer. NOBODY WHO IS APPLYING TO COLLEGE in this day and age, regardless of socioeconomic status, in the United States is barred from having access to public resources that are available at bookstores, libraries, counseling offices, etc. Whether their parents earn $100K or $10K, American high schoolers today can go check out SAT practice materials for free at their local library and even sit down in a Borders/Waldenbooks/Barnes & Noble cafe and persue through test prep materials for as long as they desire. Citing racial and income disparities does not compensate for the lack of academic focus and ingrained educational values that many URM’s like African Americans possess today.

If for instance, a school district in a certain urban area is underfunded and poor, then the so-called white males" you speak of as being “PRIVILEGED” suffer from the same lack of resources and other problems than the URM’s also in the same district would. However, even in this case, these white males would be forced to compete with white males from Westchester county in New York City who attend Stuyvesant High School while the URM’s WOULD GET A 345 POINT SAT BOOST. So you tell me, who suffers and ends up being victimized by Affirmative Action?

Actually, almost every ethnic and cultural subsection of the Asian minority population that exists in this country now overcame educational disadvantages that they experienced for several generations when the earliest ancestors of these groups came to the United States. Ever heard of the Chinese Exclusion of 1882? That was when the large majority of the Chinese workforce in the country at that time were treated like dogs and forced to work almost 20-hour days building railroad tracks for almost no financial compensation. Not only was the majority of Chinese excluded from immigrating, however, the few Chinese that did immigrate were treated inhumanely. Many of their customs and traditions were violated, they were insulted, they were imprisoned, beat and in some cases killed. Remember how the Japanese were treated during World War II? NEARLY ALL JAPANESE CITIZENS IN THIS COUNTRY WERE ROUNDED UP AND PUT INTO INTERNMENT CAMPS. This is not the 1860s we are talking about here when slavery existed. This was during the 1940s which is 20 YEARS BEFORE THE CURRENT CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT to put it into perspective.

Where do the Japanese and Chinese population stand today in American society AdOfficer? I think we both know the answer to that question. Needless to say, they are the most financially well-off minority groups in this country and their income levels today far outrstrips those of even the top 5% of the white population in this country. And guess what? They suffer just as much discrimination today in the United States as African Americans. If you don’t believe me, then go read the latest racist article stereotyping Asian Americans printed by The Prince, Princeton University’s student newspaper.

The SAT might not be perfect but it’s the only national standard we have in this country to compare high school students belonging to all different races, income levels, and locations in this country. At the very least, it puts all Americans at an equal playing field regardless of socioeconomic status or race like I stated above. You’re only debunking the credibility of the SAT because you refuse to acknowledge that the disparity among scores across different ethnic groups is the result of a large difference in the amount of value and focus that is placed on educational values/academic achievment by high-achieving minority groups versus their low-achieving counterparts.

You cite all the right points about racism for all the wrong reasons AdOfficer. You neglect to mention that racism is LEVERAGED AGAINST EVERY RACIAL GROUP IN THIS COUNTRY INCLUDING WHITES. You forget to mention that black-upon-white racism is the most prevalent form of racism in the United States today and it consitutes more than three-quarters on all racial acts committed. You forget to cite that many famous white celebrities/politicians/comedians in this country have their careers destroyed and their name maligned permanently AFTER A MAKING A FEW UNINTENTIONAL RACIST REMARKS AND EVEN AFTER APOLOGIZING TO THE NAACP AND LITERALLY FALLING TO THE KNEES OF JESSE JACKSON AND ASKING FOR HIS FORGIVENESS FOR WEEKS while on the other hand, black rappers badmouth white people in their rap videos and black comedians spew ugly racist remarks aimed at the general white population in this country on a daily basis with little to no consequence. Trust me, these instances of racism aren’t very “subtle” at all nor are they “unintentional”.

Experts like yourself I’m sure sir.:rolleyes: I’m not sure what you learned in those sociology classes that you took at college but certainly that knowledge you presumably attained isn’t represented in the fallacious and misguided opinions you have expressed in this thread.

sfgiants · January 20, 2007, 2:19am

Even though I disagree with AdOfficer, I think it it’s better for everyone involved if we back off the personal remarks (myself included).

afan · January 20, 2007, 12:35pm

Entertaining as this discussion has become, I just want to point out that the statement with regard to Trent Lott:

“He made one stupid comment”

is wrong.

If you review the history, you will find that he has been saying the same thing for years. His colleagues in the Senate have known all about it for years. He only apologized when it hit the news and became an embarrassment. This embarrassment lasted a short while, and now he is back in the leadership.

Has he apologized for opposing the Voting Rights Act or the Civil Rights Act?

In other words, open expressions of racism are no impediment to high national office and leadership in a major political party. Racism is alive and well in 2007.

drummerdude_07 · January 20, 2007, 8:28pm

Voting against the Civil Rights Act or the VRA is NOT racist. I would have voted against the VRA. The VRA is essentially legalizing racial gerrymandering, basically requiring racial quotas for Congressmen. If anything it’s racist to vote FOR the VRA. As for the Civil Rights Act, Barry Godwater voted against it on the principle that pirvate businesses shouold be free from government regulations in the mide of the Civil Rights Act. Milton Friedman held similar views. Neither was a racist: one of Friedman’s most famous grad students was Thomas Sowell, a black man, and Goldwater worked hand in hand with the NAACP.

“racism and discrimination have become such a part
of the social fabric in this country that most discrimination based on race
happens unconsciously and on a daily basis in subtle ways”

That is simply a dangerous lie. Sure, it’s easy to claim racism when it’s somehow so subtle that no one notices it. That EVERYONE who is white is somehow automatically and inherently racist because of our “racist culture”. Where’s the fancy data to support THAT kinda crap, huh?

fabrizio · January 20, 2007, 9:06pm

How’d this turn into a thread about affirmative action?

I think most persons against affirmative action know that the practice has become severely institutionalized and that it will be very difficult to eradicate it. The best we can do now is to see if our states will allow civil rights initiatives for 2008.

Writing letters doesn’t help that much (other than giving you a right to complain).

Ms. Cliatt, Media Relations Manager for Princeton, went on record as saying that detailed admissions statistics (including admission rates by race) would be released if there were sufficient public interest. I, along with many others, wrote e-mails to her requesting the release of such data. She used two paragraphs to say “no” and never once did she mention her previous documented quote.

The Guardian Article: Yale Retains EA Policy

CONNECT WITH US