<p>^ I haven’t been stalking fabrizio, but in the posts that he has made recently here I recall absolutely no expressed preference for stats-based admissions. It is all too common a fallacy that I hope you will not believe–if you remove one factor from holistic admissions for legal reasons, that doesn’t make the process unholistic all of a sudden.</p>
<p>^^^ I did make a leap from his professing that he opposed racial preferences to favoring stats based ones, because he quoted the low SAT scores of blacks. It may be he was only noting these in his support of why my high stats white son might have been accepted to a program for low income students. If so, then I adjust my question to Fabrizio, do you support strictly stats based preferences, and if not, which other ones do you support? I would also add that he take a look at the pie chart in the link I provided that shows the racial make-up of all 260 Match recipients in 2008 for signs that colleges were favoring strictly high stats in the QB program. </p>
<p>The point I am making is that the colleges are all looking for different things, and that racial diversity may be one of those things, and it may not be. Oftentimes, the argument on this board has been that URMs stats are not as strong, and so they should not be taking spots away from Asians and whites who have stronger stats. The “AA” supporters say no, admissions should be “holistic”, and one of those holistic qualities colleges are looking for in creating a well-rounded student body is cultural diversity, and so if these kids are admitted with lower stats, so be it. </p>
<p>I have not read an argument yet that says that some other holistic quality is okay in addition to cultural diversity that would excuse the URM of not having stronger stats than those rejected. If Fabrizio has one, and I misread him, I’d be happy to hear it.</p>
<p>Re #955</p>
<p>I take it that you can’t view the link, then.</p>
<p>According to your link, in 2008, 260 students received College Match scholarships. Of those students, 28% of them self-identified as black. That’s 73 students. (Is that a big number?)</p>
<p>I assume your question means “…why [didn’t Pomona] pick out the ones that they’ll be picking out for ‘AA’ from the QB pile?”</p>
<p>First, did you consider that some of those 73 students weren’t interested in Pomona? [It</a> appears that](<a href=“QuestBridge”>QuestBridge) Pomona is in the company of many other good colleges and universities.</p>
<p>Second, even if all of the 73 students were interested in Pomona (ie. listed it as one of their eight), did you consider that some of those students didn’t rank Pomona as their top choice and were admitted to a choice ranked higher than Pomona?</p>
<p>I mean, considering the quality of all of the QuestBridge partner schools, that Pomona did not get many black QuestBridge students in 2008 does not surprise me at all. Recall that in post #953, I mentioned that top-scoring black students are extremely scarce but are highly sought-after. There are over twenty-five QuestBridge partner schools but only seventy-three black QuestBridge scholars. Do the math, ma’am. There aren’t enough black QuestBridge scholars for every school to have even three admits. And, hey, didn’t you say that Pomona only got two non-white QuestBridge scholars this year? Why is that surprising?</p>
<p>Re #958</p>
<p>First, I did not quote “the low SAT scores of blacks.” I referred to the scarcity of high SAT scoring blacks. The two figures are certainly related, yes, but their tone is certainly not the same. One’s positive while the other’s negative. Which is which, and which did you attribute to me?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am absolutely against “strictly stats based preferences.” I believe stats are important, yes, but that doesn’t mean I think they should be the only factors worthy of consideration. I support socioeconomic preferences, which to my knowledge, the QuestBridge program implements.</p>
<p>In order for me to provide the argument you seek in your final paragraph, I would have to play devil’s advocate, which I’m not in the mood to do right now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do the math, m’am? Excuse me?</p>
<p>There were only 260 matches from <em>2400 finalists</em>, who had actually been culled from an initial <em>4880 applicants</em>.</p>
<p><a href=“QuestBridge”>http://questbridge.org/cmp/finalist_profiles/2008_finalists.pdf</a></p>
<p>And, why aren’t we considering Hispanics for purposes of this discussion either? They are URMs who are given preferential admission status - why are we focusing on blacks?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry that I went negative on you, but you were using the statistics in a post that you ended with by saying that admission shouldn’t be based on racial preference. If you prefer this reason be “scarcity of high SAT blacks,” than I must take it that you do believe that stats be the superior measure of admission, although socioeconomic considerations are acceptable? Correct?</p>
<p>I apologize for my impoliteness. It got the best of me.</p>
<p>Since you didn’t say otherwise, I conclude that I correctly understood your to be “why [didn’t Pomona] pick out the ones that they’ll be picking out for ‘AA’ from the QB pile?”</p>
<p>Why is either the number of finalists or the number of initial applicants relevant here? You wanted to know why Pomona didn’t get more than two non-white finalists. I gave you two answers. Were they unsatisfactory?</p>
<p>Thanks for pointing out the other “under-represented” minority group. According to your link, in 2008, there were seventy-eight self-identified Hispanic College Match scholars. So, there were about 150 “under-represented” minority QB CM scholars, and slightly more than twenty-five partner colleges. That’s basically six per school. Of course, some schools may have more than six, and some schools may have less than six. Clearly, Pomona was one of the schools that had less than six “under-represented” minority QB CM scholars. As I’ve written, that is not surprising given the quality of all the partner schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, you have misread me. Due to my Chinese upbringing, I believe you must have misunderstood because I did not clearly express my views.</p>
<p>You are referring to my last paragraph in #953: * You seem to suggest that you want your son to be evaluated on “factors other than his stats or the color of his skin,” on the qualities “that [make] them say, you know, I really want to meet that kid.” Hey, that’s exactly what I want. That’s why I oppose racial preferences.*</p>
<p>In #952, you wrote, ”Is it possible, that perhaps their decision to choose my son from the hundreds of highly qualified low income URM finalists sitting on their conference table might, just might, have had something to do with factors other than his stats or the color of his skin? Some spark, some quality that made them say, you know, I really want to meet that kid, Matt.”</p>
<p>As I understood it, you made it clear that you didn’t like the insinuation that race was involved in the decision to select your son as a QB CM scholar. You suggested, quite heavily, that a far more likely reason was your son’s achievement. In other words, you wanted your son to be evaluated without regard to his race. You wanted him to be judged on the content of his character, not the color of his skin. I share your wants, and I see opposition to racial preferences as a logical conclusion to these wants.</p>
<p>So, I completely fail to see how you concluded that I believe “…stats [are] the superior measure of admission, holistic measures be damned.” I think stats are important, but that doesn’t mean I support a “numbers-only” system.</p>
<p>MattsMomFL: I believe you have been misreading all of my recent posts, as well as fabrizio’s. I fully support holistic admissions–if Student A is “lopsided” with lower stats but the college seeks a spark of passion, then Student A should be accepted over Student B with higher stats and strong ECs as well but perhaps mediocre essays. It is the college’s full perogative.
I agree, colleges have a right to “shape a class” or do whatever they like–within the law. I and other opponents of AA are arguing that the law be properly enforced to exclude racial diversity as a legally acceptable factor to consider (“thing to look for”). This certainly does not preclude holistic admissions, which is much preferable to the alternative (stats-based or exam-based).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look at the 2nd link I gave you showing the ethnic break-up of the **finalists. There were many more URMs in the group they selected from then the “match” group of 260. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, this is why I posted the second link…there were many more to choose from than 150. </p>
<p>The final “match” group of 270 represented less than 5% of the initial applicants and less than 10% of the finalists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think we agree more than one might think. The point I am trying to make is that by accepting my son when they could have accepted a full-paying white Jewish kid from the L.A. suburbs is clear indication that they are not discriminating against white kids in favor of URMs. There were a great deal more URMs than you have understood from that first chart that they had an opportunity to select from (those were the FINAL selections from all schools - and, QB didnt select these kids - these are the final picks of the colleges.</p>
<p>Once again, the finalist’s number and ethnic breakdown:</p>
<p><a href=“http://questbridge.org/cmp/finalist_profiles/2008_finalists.pdf[/url]”>http://questbridge.org/cmp/finalist_profiles/2008_finalists.pdf</a></p>
<p>While I am at it, here is the 2007 RD acceptance ethnic breakdown - I think you will be heartened by the huge advantage Asian Americans appear to have had in this group:</p>
<p>[National</a> College Match Program: 2007 Regular Admissions Admit Statistics](<a href=“http://www.questbridge.org/students/profiles_class2012/reg_admit_stats.html]National”>http://www.questbridge.org/students/profiles_class2012/reg_admit_stats.html)</p>
<p>
^^Keilexandra</p>
<p>The definition of holistic then has to be determined. I would consider URM a valid quality of a holistic decision - I would prefer my son to attend a school where there was cultural diversity.</p>
<p>Re #966</p>
<p>If you’re talking about magnitude, then yes, you’re right: “there were many more URMs in the group they selected from then the ‘match’ group of 260.” There were 296 self-identified black finalists and 543 self-identified Hispanic finalists.</p>
<p>But, wouldn’t proportion give us more information than magnitude? There were 2,470 Questbridge finalists in 2008. Twelve percent of them self-identified as black. Twenty-two percent self-identified as Hispanic. By comparison, of the 260 College Match scholars, twenty-eight percent were black and thirty percent were Hispanic.</p>
<p>Woah, woah, woah. Let’s read that again. Only twelve percent of the finalists were black, but twenty-eight percent of the CM scholars were black. You seem to be suggesting that Questbridge could have picked more “under-represented” CM scholars. Yet, the presence of black scholars in the final cut is more than double their presence in the finalist stage. Hispanics are likewise “overrepresented,” although not as obviously. </p>
<p>I would like to emphasize this point once more. “Under-represented” minorities made up 34% of the finalist pool but 58% of the CM scholars.</p>
<p>These are all facts that can be gleaned from your links. But, after writing them, I still don’t see why my answers are not satisfactory to your question of why Pomona didn’t get more than two non-white CM scholars.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Race certainly can be a valid quality of a holistic process. My point is that a holistic process that doesn’t consider race CAN STILL BE HOLISTIC.</p>
<p>We don’t consider body composition, blood type, or HDL/LDL ratio in admissions, yet any of those can certainly be a part of holistic admissions. Their presence or absence does not increase or decrease “holistic”-ness. I argue that race is no different than these.</p>
<p>CM? I’m not catching this abbreviation. Do you mean QB (for Questbridge?) </p>
<p>I don’t know why you don’t think I’m making a valid point, that when given the opportunity to choose URM’s, Pomona didn’t. 75% of the students Pomona ended up with were white. I know at least 1 additional was Asian and 1 was black. That seems pretty in keeping with the racial make-up of the country. They picked kids because they thought they’d e a good fit at their school (with some geographical diversity thrown in for good measure - there was a South Dakotan in the group). Here is an exampl where the system is working.</p>
<p>As for blacks making up a larger portion of matches than finalists, I expect that - the match round is for kids who have faced socioeconomic disadvantages and overcome obstacles - I am sure this exists to a much higher degree in the black community than it does in the Asian or white community.</p>
<p>I am also surprised that you have not commented that a whopping 32% of Asian QB finalists (a group far larger than any other group) that were selected during the RD round were Asian. Here again, selection was not anti-Asian, but pro-socioeconomic diversity. All factors being equal - the schools picked Asians, and in a much higher percentage than they comprise of the population.</p>
<p>Let me also note that the scholarship packages at the RD round are almost identical to those awarded match finalists. The only thing they do not share with the matches is the title “Quest Scholar.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The idea that whether or not a school practices affirmative action determines whether or not they are judging based on the “content of character” versus the color of skin is an absolute fallacy in reality of what holistic admissions is. Nobody is “judged” based on the color of their skin. Nobody is said to be inferior or superior, more or less deserving, based on color of skin, or any other factor for that matter. The only thing that one is judged on is whether or not they’re qualified, which all students admitted to the elite institutions we focus on are. After that point, a CLASS is shaped holistically with no linear standard of comparing any two admissions. You can certainly find correlations, but you will also find more than enough exceptions.</p>
<p>I’m currently reading a very interesting book, Outliers by Malcom Gladwell. In it he makes two very interesting points about our education system. First, that once you reach a certain threshold on the SAT or in GPA, the “qualified” threshold, it is no longer valid in discerning how well one will do in their future life. So when Harvard receives 27000 application, and rejects 93% of them, it makes no sense for them to try to pick out the academically “best” choices. Instead, it makes more sense for them to build a class based on a mission and a set of values comprised of qualified students. In this way you increase your chances of students’ success by constructing an environment you best believe fosters that success. For many schools this includes diversity of various types.</p>
<p>The second was particularly targeted towards affirmative action. It dealt with a study of Michigan law school students. At the law school, which practices (or did it stop?) affirmative action, minorities on the whole are qualified, but admitted under lower measurable academic “standards”. Predictably, they receive lower gpas while in school. But in the long run, their was no difference in their future salaries and career success. Thus there was no meaning in relaxing “standards” because once students were “good enough”, factors that are not measurable were more influential. </p>
<p>My interpretation, and point of mentioning this, is that it would make no sense for highly selective schools to attempt to “judge” students passed a certain point as more or less qualified, because it is nearly impossible. Thus schools look to create an environment that best helps the group as a whole reach their full potential.</p>
<p>^^Haha - I’m halfway through reading Outliers right now…thanks for bringing that up!</p>
<p>Re #971</p>
<p>Sorry, I should have defined my abbreviation. CM is for “College Match.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pomona can only choose “under-represented” minorities that have chosen Pomona. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you don’t know how many “under-represented” minorities actually listed Pomona as one of their eight choices. Thus, you don’t know how much opportunity Pomona had to choose “under-represented” minorities. They may not have had many interested “under-represented” minority finalists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now, is this really true, or does it just “make sense”?</p>
<p>Pomona reported to matches that they were selected from “hundreds” of finalists. Assuming all the black finalists in the country ranked other schools above Pomona and were all matched leaving no upward grade trend-ers and/or black finalists with 600-700 scores remaining, there are lots of Hispanic URMs in Cali that must have ranked Pomona. Why then no Hispanic matches?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now we’re getting to the crux of the issue. You just don’t see blacks as discriminated against in society. Am I right?</p>