Pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell is the one chart showing the same student as Asian, 25%, White, 36%, Hispanic 77%, and Black 95%.
This is institutionalized racism. Perhaps Affirmative Action was needed in the past to kickstart the disproportionate enrollment demographics, but it was past due to get rid of it.
The most interesting part following SCOTUS' ruling is that Harvard said it wouldn't change their ways, and nobody enforced the ruling.
> This is institutionalized racism. Perhaps Affirmative Action was needed in the past
Affirmative Action is institutionalized discrimination, at least when used to promote some groups over others. (Though it didn’t start that way; it started as a call to be purely race-blind in hiring.) I wouldn’t call it racism though, because it’s not based on any belief that races have different capability, it is purely intended to correct systemic bias based on the belief that races are equally capable.
> it was past due to get rid of it
This might be true, but there are still achievement and pay gaps in the US. There are lots of debates about why, and I don’t want to start one. I’m just curious how else to solve systemic biases if they’re still here. The whole problem with cultural bias is it’s sticky and difficult and people don’t believe they have biases. Today’s politics has done a lot to convince me that we haven’t solved it yet, but at the same time I’ll be the first to point out that we’ve come a long way even in my lifetime. The last little bit might take longer to fix than suffrage did just because of how subtle the issues are. If we take any preferential treatment off the table, preferential treatment that tries to artificially force equal opportunity, the question is what’s the alternative? We might have momentum, and do nothing might work, but what if it doesn’t? Wouldn’t that also be a form of institutionalized discrimination, effectively, like it was before Affirmative Action existed?
Lots of problems in society that are hard to fix. But there's nowhere else in society where our solution to a problem is to subject people who had nothing to do with the problem to unfair treatment. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is a good general principle.
Re: two wrongs/people who had nothing to do with the problem
Obvious counter examples: plenty of people have been drafted and died in wars they did not cause or start. Also, people pay taxes to educate others, which (hopefully) fixes a problem they didn't cause or start. The list just goes on and on. In fact, I think it's a fair argument to say that modern society is fundamentally based on the opposite your claim, that people who had nothing to do with all sorts of problems willing submit to unfair treatment because they believe that they,or people they care about, will be better of in the long run for having done the right thing, even if it's difficult and somewhat unfair. In general it's called being an adult. Yeah, sometimed it sucks, sometimes it's unfair, but generally it's better for everyone in the long run.
It depends how you conceptualize fairness. If you believe that some people have a pre-existing unfair bias in their favor, then applying a countermeasure is indeed fair.
No, because two wrongs don’t make a right. Where else in our society do we justify imposing a moral wrong on a specific individual on the premise that moral wrongs may have been committed against other individuals?
The death penalty is an example of two wrongs making a right in the minds of many people. It’s also at the same time an example of two wrongs not making a right. Imprisoning people is wrong, unless the government does it? All so-called lawful punishments of individuals are a form of hope that two wrongs do make a right.
Whether affirmative action is a wrong is your presumption, and it’s hotly contested, absolutely not universally agreed upon, which makes your use of ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ a straw man.
There are plenty of things wrong with preferential affirmative action, but I reject the framing that it’s evil, this is essentially an ad hominem attempting to quash any debate of the actual relative merits or the outcomes.
I feel like we can’t make forward progress if you refuse to acknowledge the reasons that history has happened the way it did. See Chesterton’s Fence.
> Imprisoning people is wrong, unless the government does it? All so-called lawful punishments of individuals are a form of hope that two wrongs do make a right.
In that case, the punishment is not a “wrong” because the person being punished has moral culpability due to their bad act.
That’s different from imposing a punishment on someone because of someone else’s bad act. That’s a principle that some societies hold that ours does not. In clan based societies, a wrong committed by one member of clan A to a member of clan B can justify retaliation against a different member of clan A.
I’d be very happy to discuss the nuances and relative merits. I agree that it’s time to have race blind admissions and stop preferential treatment. I’m arguing against the hyperbolic notion that affirmative action is inherently immoral. @rayiner is trying to cut off the idea that it had any upsides and was ever reasonable. I’m still trying to convey that racism != any and all types of discrimination.
>That’s different from imposing a punishment on someone because of someone else’s bad act.
I shell out thousands for engineered plans for a petty AF retaining wall because the boomers and their parents were cheap fucks and kept building shit that mushed over too fast (all retaining walls fall over, it's just a question of time).
Damn near every area of society has tons of stuff like this.
I disagree with your charaterization of the problem as exclusively a moral wrong... Was it only a moral wrong? Was the only effect a moral one? Or were there physical or tangible effects, too? For example, were there economic affects?
I'm not claiming to know the solution to the problem of ~200 years or slavery and ~100 years of Jim Crow laws, lynching, and further discrimination. I am saying that doing nothing about it seems pretty fucked. I am saying that claiming that it's immoral to do something about it, which you seem to be doing, makes you look like the worst kind of offensive and racist asdhole, too.
> I am saying that claiming that it's immoral to do something about it
I'm saying it's immoral to try to correct one injustice by doing a further injustice to an individual who had nothing to do with it. And it's not even me saying that, Plato said that 2,400 years ago.
That doesn't mean you can't do anything. You can have race-neutral policies that directly target individuals who have economic need. Cory Booker's baby bonds proposal, for example, would go a long way towards erasing racial wealth gaps: https://www.acluok.org/news/baby-bonds-path-toward-prosperit.... And it would do so without creating a new racial class system.
Plato said a lot of shit. To be honest, I don't really care. The Bible said a lot of shit, too. I don't need Plato to tell me that in America, black people, native Americans, and all sorts of other immigrants got well and truly fucked for a long, long time. I don't need Plato to tell me that I find this, and other forms of racism, personally offensive.
Also, it's seems suspicious to insist that all Affirmative Action be halted before these race-neutral policies are implemented. It's almost as if it's some sort of cheap justification for more shitty racism. How about we get rid of affirmative action after we get a this baby bonds proposal? And also a bunch of other stuff that creates a more equatable playing field? Again, minorities were fucked over for decades-to-centuries before Afirmative Action, why not just let it ride for a little while before knocking out the ladder from under them?
Again, I object to your characterization of Affirmative Action as wrong or immoral. It was designed to counter centuries of institutionalized racism. I'll grant that the implementation has been imperfect, but what in this world is perfect? It's just better than doing nothing, it's better than wasting further lives, it's better than creating a permanent underclass. Could it be improved? Yes. Should there be an open discussion about it's effects? Yes. But I think the results should be more like "tweaks to the system" rather than an outright ban, or crying and gnashing of teeth about how Affirmative Action immoral.
One other thing, you keep asserting that "correct one injustice by doing a further injustice to an individual who had nothing to do with it." A few comments ago I pointed out some obvious counter examples, which you neglected to address. The important point was that people who had nothing to do with all sorts of problems willing submit to unfair treatment because they believe that they,or people they care about, will be better of in the long run for having done the right thing, even if it's difficult and somewhat unfair. That doesn't make it immoral. It may be a difficult choice, but it's the kind of choice adults make all the time, and that's just part of living in a civilized society.
[EDIT: I made a mistake when I said "A few comments ago" - it was a separate thread in this discussion]
we all work for a company that steals from gamma employees for hundreds of years and share the proceeds with nu employees .to make amends the company gives the descendants of gamma employees a tiny fraction of what they’ve stolen as a bonus and the nu employees descendants ,who continue to profit from the previous theft by an order of magnitude more then gamma employees bonus, complain about gamma employees descendants preferential treatment being unfair
Your hypothetical fundamentally misrepresents the economics of what happened:
> share the proceeds with nu employees … nu employees descendants ,who continue to profit from the previous theft by an order of magnitude
Slaveholders were feudal lords. They didn’t “share the proceeds” with the serfs. They “privatized the profits and socialized the losses,” as we would say today. The profits flowed to a handful of families who happened to be white. But all the other white people suffered a deadweight loss. And the civil war nuked much of the south’s wealth. The war cost the south $2 billion, more than the south’s GDP and almost as much as the total value of its real and personal assets. The war also cost the union over $3 billion, an amount equal to its entire GDP. After that, there wasn’t some pool of money to generate dividends shared by all white people. Instead, there were taxes to pay for a war over something nearly all over them never benefited from.
If your ancestors were white independent farmers or sharecroppers, they were poorer for having to compete with massive plantations powered by slave labor. German Americans (the largest group of white Americans) never even arguably benefited from slavery. Half of them came here as indentured servants themselves in the 1840s. They scraped out a hard life in the midwest while having to compete with slave plantations in the south. Their biggest involvement with slavery was fighting and dying in disproportionate numbers to end it. And of course Irish, Italians, Asians, etc., came here after slavery ended.
So let’s tweak your example to reflect the reality. The C-suite of the company happened to be nu, and stole from gamma employees. They hired their nu kids as nepo babies and shared the profits with them, while underpaying the other nu employees. Eventually, some of the nu, including a large number who joined the company only recently, overthrow the C-suite and end the theft. Over the next 150 years, more nu employees keep joining the company, so today more than half have no ancestors who were even here during the theft.
Then the company creates a promotion policy where it gives a big preference to gamma employees over employees who happen to be classified as “nu”—regardless of whether the nu employee’s ancestors were even at the company during the time of the theft. Nobody would consider that a fair arrangement.
No, I'm trying to correct a poisonous misconception. Many people try to justify affirmative action based on the premise that "white people" continue to benefit from slavery economically, and that's just not true. The profits accrued to a small elite, and other white people were economically worse off than they would have been with an economy based on free labor.
The ChatGPT summary accurately captures the expert consensus on this: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a58046380288191b946198c5de72ce7 ("Most modern economic historians conclude that slavery enriched plantation owners but constrained the South's broader economic development. While non-slaveholding whites gained social status from the racial hierarchy, they likely had lower wages, fewer economic opportunities, less industrial development, and slower long-term income growth than they would have had in a Southern economy organized around free labor. In other words, economically they were probably worse off, while socially and politically they enjoyed privileges that would not have existed in a society without slavery.").
I’m citing ChatGPT here because I think it’s pretty good at summarizing the literature on this sort of factual question.
> If you believe that some people have a pre-existing unfair bias in their favor, then applying a countermeasure is indeed fair.
What definition of "some people" and "unfair" are we using?
I ask because I'm pretty sure that Obama's daughters "have a bias in their favor" in comparison with my lily-white nieces. (The parents of said nieces make around $40k/year.)
Is it fair to apply "countermeasures" to benefit said daughters relative to said nieces?
You can argue that said nieces have an unfair bias relative to similarly situated black children, but that's not how these systems tend to work.
I totally agree that there are lots of problems with just assigning the benefits based on coarse categories like "race". My point is just what I said in the quote: a process that seems "locally" unfair may produce a more "globally" fair result. Or it might not! I mean, you have to do it right. But if your goal is to produce a fairer result you might do things even though they seem unfair from a different perspective.
Yep. Maybe a little bit like a sports handicap, you’re not trying to give someone a better chance of winning than everyone else, you’re trying to give them equal chances based on historical data.
Gemini gave me an okay analogy: “If a pendulum is knocked permanently off-center by a structural bend or a magnetic field, the only way to center it again is to apply an equal and opposite force. Affirmative action policies attempt to apply this counter-weight to straighten the broader societal scale.”
I’m not sure but is there a question about whether we actually had pre-existing unfairness? Blacks got the legal right to vote in 1965. Before that was effectively institutionalized racism, fully entrenched cultural bias, right?
Discriminating against an individual based on their race is a moral wrong, unlike applying pressure to a pendulum. So your example doesn’t work because it doesn’t raise the disputed moral question.
Our system of morality and justice operates on individuals, not groups. It’s fundamentally mistaken to view the issue in terms of a pendulum that represents group outcomes.
> People pick partners based on race. Is that morally wrong?
Depends on their reasoning. If it is that they are attracted to people with a particular physical appearance that correlates with race, then its not morally wrong. If you are doing so because they do not want to pick a partner who they believe is of an inferior race, that is morally wrong.
> people pick partners based on race. Is that morally wrong?
Wrong, but not illegal.
> What do you mean? Class actions don’t exist?
You can’t have class actions based on pre-existing groups (say, “Italians”). You have to define the group in a way that provides a high level of certainty that all class members were subject to the harm that’s the basis for the suit.
Saying you have a preference is creepy. Having one and making decisions based on that is absolutely normal and always has been, and is not immoral, contrary to your claim. The vast majority of marriages globally are same race marriages.
>You can’t have class actions based on pre-existing groups (say, “Italians”). You have to define the group in a way that provides a high level of certainty that all class members were subject to the harm that’s the basis for the suit.
There were things like redlining, where blacks could only buy housing in certain areas. Those areas also tended to have worse schools, so the next generation of blacks was less well educated than whites of equivalent intelligence. That led to worse jobs, which led to worse financial outcomes, which led to living in worse parts of town, which led to the next generation having less education...
So, yes, there was pre-existing... "unfairness" may be too strong for some of it; it wasn't all unfairness. Some of it was the effects of past unfairness, even if the (deliberate) unfairness was no longer present. The pendulum was in fact bent, to at least some degree.
But I like the analogy, because you only apply the counterforce until the pendulum is straight. Then you stop. Things were bent enough that affirmative action may in fact have been necessary. But it should not be necessary forever. Even if it was the right thing to do, there comes a time when the right thing to do is to stop.
(Then you get into "is now the right time", and things get a whole lot murkier...)
Even if an individual’s condition today reflects historical injustices to groups, that doesn’t justify discriminating between individuals today based on their group. To your redlining example: it’s true a black american who inherits a house may have lower home equity than a white american who inherits a house. But isn’t the white american who didn’t inherit anything worse off than both? You can’t lump white americans together based on a group generalization—that’s the very thing we decided is immoral.
The historical argument also doesn’t survive attempts to generalize its underlying principles to immigrants. Objectively, Black americans are extremely privileged by virtue of being americans. A redlined community in 1950s America was still better than my dad’s village in Bangladesh.
Finally, your argument demolishes how affirmative action is actually practiced. Its biggest beneficiaries are immigrants and their children, in particular hispanics. That produces a very unfair result under your logic, because latin america is solidly middle income, and was even more so in the 20th century. In 1990, Mexico’s GDP per capita was ten times higher than India’s and China’s. Yet colleges and corporations discriminate in favor of “hispanics” descended from Spanish conquistadores, and against “asians” whose parents grew up in third world villages.
Your reasoning is exactly why I loathe any step towards this sort of thing in the UK. You cannot infer disadvantage from a simple racial categories. For example, the majority of South Asians I know in the UK have affluent and/or well educated parents. On the other hand I know there are people whose parents were poor educated, spoke English as a second language, went to schools in bad areas, etc. If you try to balance by ethnic group its the former who will get the most advantage from it. The Asian side of my ancestry was both more affluent, and had more people go to university than the white side.
As the article says the best universities here look at predicated A levels grades, their own admissions tests, and interviews. From what I have heard at open days etc. they are often clear that they do not care about ethnicity or skills at sports.
Racism is the thing we decided is immoral, actions based on belief that one group is inferior to another, not any and all notions of groups for any reason.
> Objectively, Black Americans are extremely privileged by virtue of being Americans. A redlined community in 1950s America was still better than my dad’s village in Bangladesh.
Whoa. They should be happy with what they have, and put up with racism and inequality here because there are poorer people somewhere else in the world? Some Blacks in 1950 couldn’t vote - they were “privileged”?
> Racism is the thing we decided is immoral, actions based on belief that one group is inferior to another, not any and all notions of groups for any reason.
No, what we decided was wrong was using race as a salient factor to discriminate between people. That’s why all our laws use that word. The laws reflect the moral principle.
> They should be happy with what they have, and put up with racism and inequality here because there are poorer people somewhere else in the world?
You’re the one supporting a system of affirmative action that treats people unequally. My point is that, if your justification for that unequal treatment is the historical circumstances of people’s parents and grandparents, then it’s quite relevant that almost any applicant with roots in America has a huge head start over almost any applicant with roots in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East.
I’m not the one who brought up the redlining example. That’s an example invoked by proponents of affirmative action. But if you invoke that reasoning, you should follow it through to its logical conclusions. If a university is choosing between an applicant whose family home in America has reduced value due to redlining, and an applicant whose family home is in a literal third world village, then what’s the moral logic for giving an advantage to the first applicant?
> Some Blacks in 1950 couldn’t vote - they were “privileged
None of my grandparents could vote in 1950 because they lived in a colony. Nobody whose family comes from China, Vietnam, etc., has grandparents who could vote in 1950.
> No, what we decided was wrong was using race as a salient factor to discriminate between people. That’s why all our laws use that word. The laws reflect the moral principle.
I think this discussion shows that there is fundamental disagreement about that. Many people believe that our laws as written do not reflect the moral principles they ought to reflect (and that the implementation/enforcement of those laws often does not even reflect the principles they supposedly encode).
> almost any applicant with roots in America has a huge head start over almost any applicant with roots in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East.
I think you are overstating your case. You are right in principle because it is true of some people so race is not a reliable marker of privilege, but most South Asians I know in western countries are from families that were better off than many Americans, and did not face the racist laws that black Americans did.
> None of my grandparents could vote in 1950 because they lived in a colony.
Most former British colonies were independent by then. India and Pakistan became fully independent in 1947 and had a degree of self-rule and elections for decades before that.
> but most South Asians I know in western countries are from families that were better off than many Americans
Affirmative action doesn’t look at a specific individual’s economic history. Virtually everyone who benefits comes from a family that’s better off than most Americans. Don’t forget that there’s lots of affluent black americans. They make up 8-9% of millionaires in the U.S. And don’t forget hispanic people: the Harvard data shows they got a preference nearly as strong as the one for black applicants. There’s a huge population of affluent immigrants from latin america for these programs to draw from.
And remember that, for asians, status is different from financial condition. My family was high status in Bangladesh. But my dad took a boat to school during monsoon season, and the school had no walls.
You mention “racist laws.” But asians faced terrible non-material injustices. My parents lived through a genocide of 300,000 bangladeshis by the pakistani military. Millions of Indians died in famines. Most of my sister in law’s family was killed by communists. This was all in the 20th century. I don’t think we should be weighing these injustices against each other. But that’s exactly what these affirmative action programs are doing when they give a huge preference to a black applicant over an otherwise identical asian applicant.
As I said, I agree with your in principle. I just think its true to say "almost any applicant with roots in America has a huge head start over almost any applicant with roots in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East." That is actually a sweeping generalisation, quite similar to the assumptions behind affirmative action.
> But asians faced terrible non-material injustices.
Some did, some did not. Some perpetuated and and benefitted from those injustices.
> I don’t think we should be weighing these injustices against each other.
My understanding is that Pakistan got what we would understand to be real elections in 1970: https://mygoldenbengal.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/pakistan-vot.... In 1950, the National Assembly was elected not by the people, but instead by provincial representatives elected during British rule.
> Nobody whose family comes from China, Vietnam, etc., has grandparents who could vote in 1950.
So those countries should deal with those issues, then? I really don't understand how you are allowed to post so much all over this website. No less in such an intentionally obtuse and argumentative manner.
> You’re the one supporting a system of affirmative action that treats people unequally
No, and you’re intentionally escalating things and I don’t appreciate it. I’ve been more than clear already that I don’t necessarily support affirmative action, and that I’m aware it has downsides and have acknowledged multiple times that it can have unintended consequences.
Unequal treatment already existed before affirmative action. That is the reason that affirmative action exists, and it is what affirmative action intended to fix. You have yet to acknowledge that fact in this discussion.
Yes! Exactly. Affirmative action should naturally end itself if it works. The goal is to equalize opportunity and stop preferential treatment, not to hang on to preferential treatment.
Well said, it does need to stop eventually. Now might be the right time, even if we’re not all the way there, given all the problems and unintended consequences and all the backlash.
You shouldn’t make “blanket judgments” that apply to every individual Bangladeshi. In a context where you’re evaluating individuals, you should do so without regard to their ethnicity or nationality. In the context where you’re talking about masses, then it’s permissible to draw inferences about aggregate characteristics.
Simple example: at the doctor’s office, I want them to measure my height, without regard to the fact that I’m Bangladeshi. But that doesn’t mean that medical journals must blind themselves to the fact that a group of 10,000 Bangladeshis is going to have a much lower average height than a group of 10,000 Germans.
> It is very clear that you are not talking about height.
It doesn't matter whether it's height or anything else. The point is that there's a fundamental difference between contexts in which you're evaluating an individual, and contexts in which you're evaluating groups in the aggregate.
> You are also different policy treatment of these groups.
I do not support any policy that would treat a specific individual differently because they're Bangladeshi.
If only it were actually that simple and fixed with platitudes. Culture and belief is passed on from generation to generation, otherwise we wouldn’t have had the persistent problem in the first place. How do we fix a problem that we already have historical evidence that when left alone doesn’t go away on its own, that people who weren’t the original cause of the problem still, in fact, perpetuated it? How can we know people have nothing to do with the problem today, given that there are still discrepancies in outcome? I’m not defending Affirmative Action, the question at hand is what’s the alternative proposal?
It's not a "platitude" it's an aphorism. It reflects the principle--already ancient to Plato 2,400 years ago--that we don't solve injustice by shifting that injustice onto innocent third parties. If you can prove wrongdoing by specific people then you can punish it. But if you define treating someone differently based on skin color as a moral crime—which I think is necessary for a multi-ethnic society to function—then you can’t use differential treatment to reengineer outcomes.
Apart from enforcing neutral principles, the other solution is individualism. We need to stop reinforcing the salience of race and racial communities and treat people as individuals.
It feels like a platitudinal aphorism to me, it’s trite and cliche and overused and was delivered as if it’s insightful in hopes of ending the debate. Google appears to agree vigorously that “two wrongs don’t make a right” is a platitude.
One problem with that platitude is that there are plenty of ways that two negative things can balance each other out or become positive in some way.
Aren’t you making deep cultural presumptions and imposing your own opinions? Affirmative action is controversial, and it’s had unintended consequences when used, but what’s the rationale for claiming it’s a “wrong” or “injustice”? Not everyone believes that.
You’re also deliberately ignoring the point that there might be no such thing as innocent third parties, but only people who aren’t aware they’re part of the problem, even if it’s subtle and unintended.
History already tried the Laissez Faire approach, and it didn’t work. Chips fell in a bad place. This isn’t about proving wrongdoing or punishment, it’s about acknowledgement of a problem, and reflection and self-improvement as a group.
An aphorism is an expression of a general principle. This one seems cliched because it reflects a principle deeply ingrained in our society. We reject “an eye for an eye” and instead say “two wrongs don’t make a right.” We have since Plato’s day. You don’t disregard core principles merely because a particular social problem is difficult to solve.
Affirmative action is wrong because we have defined treating an individual differently based on their race as a moral wrong. The act is wrong, regardless of your motivations. It’s like how stealing is wrong even if you’re doing it because someone else stole from you first.
I’m not ignoring your point that third parties may not be innocent. I said above that if you can prove wrongdoing by specific individuals, you can punish them.
> acknowledgement of a problem, and reflection and self-improvement as a group
There are no “groups,” just individuals who must be treated according to their individual merits, without regard to their group membership. That was the whole principle of the civil rights era.
> we have defined treating an individual differently based on their race as a moral wrong. The act is wrong, regardless of your motivations
No, I don’t think so, You’re conflating racism with discrimination.
We humans discriminate positively and negatively all the time. People discriminate based on race and gender and age for the purposes of picking a life mate or sexual partner, and society has exactly zero problem with that. Discriminating based on race is absolutely not a morally wrong act regardless of motivations. Intent matters, and the situation matters.
This talking point about all discrimination being wrong is fairly popular, and there are a lot of people who can’t see the difference between positive discrimination and negative discrimination. This is one reason I think affirmative action should end; it’s too subtle of a distinction and we were too successful at planting the idea that discrimination is bad.
You’re also conflating law with mores in your example. There are cases where stealing something is moral, regardless of whether it’s legal. There are also cases where stealing something is legal too, for example you can legally take back something stolen from you if you do it non-violently.
You’re also deliberately ignoring the point that there might be no such thing as innocent third parties, but only people who aren’t aware they’re part of the problem, even if it’s subtle and unintended.
I was about to post the same and that's 100% my take... sure, I didn't own slaves and I don't intentionally do anything racist... but I can absolutely acknowledge that by virtue of genetic lottery (white, with educated parents, etc) I had it orders of magnitude easier than the kids who grew up on the other side of town (black, less educated parents, etc).
I said it in another comment - affirmative action may not be the best solution, but it's tiresome to see people trot out the "2 wrongs" argument without proffering a better solution to the problem.
What about them? Being white doesn’t make people immune to drugs, nor guarantee anything, right? So what’s your point? Race advantage is something you can’t always see by looking at individuals, especially cherry picked examples. Bias is a statistical effect, so you may need to look at everyone in order to see it, unless we are talking about clear cases of oppression, inability to vote or slavery or violence or things like that. Most of that has been resolved, but subtle bias is still around.
>but I can absolutely acknowledge that by virtue of genetic lottery (white, with educated parents, etc) I had it orders of magnitude easier than the kids who grew up on the other side of town (black, less educated parents, etc).
How do the white kids with unfortunate life circumstances have an advantage over similarly situated black kids?
Thank you. Yes the whole problem and confounding factor with this argument is that racism exists, and emerged on its own. If we choose Laissez Faire, we already know the outcome, and it’s bad. The notion that we should do nothing to fix it and let the chips fall where they may would amount to institutionalized racism as opposed to institutionalized (positive) discrimination. Plus affirmative action can and should end, whereas racism does not without changes.
Okay, that’s true, it’s one of the available choices. That’s a rather extreme position to take, given the history of slavery, racism, and sexism in the U.S. We know for a fact that outcome discrepancies were caused by racism before 1965. The discrepancies have been on the decline since then. So, when exactly, did equal opportunity start? We didn’t have it in 1966 yet, despite the law. Did we have it in 1980? Outcomes have closed since then, so no, obviously not. When, then? What reason is there to believe outcomes discrepancies aren’t a problem, given that society generally believes they are?
> Okay, that’s true, it’s one of the available choices. That’s a rather extreme position to take, given the history of slavery, racism, and sexism in the U.S.
Slavery, racism, and sexism have happened in every single human society that has ever existed in some form or another, the US isn't special here. Discrepancies in average outcomes between different ethnic groups as measured by the statistical tools of industrialized states are at least as old as industrialization, and have relatively little correlation with whether a particular ethnic group was acting racistly towards another one in any given time and place.
> We know for a fact that outcome discrepancies were caused by racism before 1965.
No we don't.
> What reason is there to believe outcomes discrepancies aren’t a problem, given that society generally believes they are?
Societies generally believe all kinds of contradictory and mutually-inconsistent things, because a society is comprised of the aggregate of a large number of individual people who all have different understandings of the world, self-interests, group loyalties, etc. I don't assume that if society generally believes something, this is an unchanging fact about society, or that the thing is in fact correct, or that I should agree myself.
> Slavery, racism, and sexism have happened in every single human society that has ever existed in some form or another, the US isn't special here.
Sexism is different as its not a group trait that affects whole families or communities so the disadvantage is not inherited.
The US is not unique with regard to race, but not all societies are the same. The US has a history of race based slavery which had a cultural impact, and it had racist laws and lynch mobs etc. until very recently.
> have relatively little correlation with whether a particular ethnic group was acting racistly towards another one in any given time and place.
In most of the world people could legally marry someone of different race. In the UK an author could depict a marriage between people of different races in a children's book in the 1950s - I cannot think of any American examples of the same.
People will think “if XYZ group has a handicap maybe it’s because XYZ group is genetically inferior?” XYZ members themselves will think that and it will subconsciously affect them. People around them will think that and it will subconsciously affect their opinions towards them.
If you point out that XYZ group is only handicapped because they’re statistically environmentally disadvantaged, then it follows, why not handicap everyone with that disadvantage, or any comparable disadvantage? Why not handicap ABC minority? Some members of ABC will be jealous of XYZ and subtly discriminate against them (for this reason; these members would otherwise).
It creates the background conditions it seeks to destroy. Instead, handicap on things like health and income, which are more obviously fair and necessary (most people can accept that bad health and income are an especially serious disadvantages in today’s world).
Yes this is true, that can and has happened. I don’t think it’s true as rule, but it’s a valid point. Still, the most important question is what is the alternative?
We are closer to ending sexism and racism than we were 70 years ago before any affirmative action existed, right? Who’s to say that all the backfiring and unintended consequences that have happened aren’t better than the parallel universe in which maybe slavery still exists? Would it have happened faster with no quotas or boosts for groups that were historically discriminated against? Maybe yes, that’s possible, but we can’t know. What we do know is that we’ve made forward progress, even if imperfectly.
The thing that tends to be forgotten when people talk about affirmative action being preferential treatment is that the previous ‘in’ group was already getting preferential treatment, and maybe still is. We did not start from a level playing field. The core idea is to try to balance the pre-existing preferential treatment out. Unless you can resolve the cause of that, an easier way to attempt to handle it is to try to artificially make the preferences equal. The idea is not to give preferential treatment as an outcome, it’s to remove preferential treatment. This is related to how discrimination is not racism, and why positive discrimination is different from negative discrimination.
> We are closer to ending sexism and racism than we were 70 years ago before any affirmative action existed, right?
Correlation does not imply causation
> Who’s to say that all the backfiring and unintended consequences that have happened aren’t better than the parallel universe in which maybe slavery still exists?
They are better, but it's a low bar and an even lower one
> Would it have happened faster with no quotas or boosts for groups that were historically discriminated against?
Maybe, but even if "no", keeping the quota may cause a backslide.
Artificially balancing preferential treatment by applying it badly in the wrong direction is a duct-tape solution. Sure, it may have been justified after the Civil Rights Act. But it's not ideal and doesn't seem justified anymore, when we can easily positively discriminate for traits that are more obviously and universally negatively discriminated against, like income.
This is not relevant to what I said. We are closer to ending sexism and racism due to legislation, which is causal. We took specific actions to try to end sexism and racism and we know they had a positive effect.
> Artificially balancing preferential treatment by applying it badly in the wrong direction is a duct tape solution
I agree! It was meant to be a duct tape solution, from the start. It was meant to be temporary and end preferential treatment and go away.
> it may have been justified after the Civil Rights Act
I agree with this too, the justification was probably much stronger 60 or 70 years ago. It is weaker now… and that might be an indicator of its success.
Applying it badly has happened, and it’s lame and sucks, but that’s not an inherent feature or outcome of the core idea. Some might rightly say it was predictable.
The big open question is whether turning off all affirmative action will close that remaining gap, or leave us with a little bit of persistent systemic bias, or worse, a backslide. If that does, the next question is what to do.
> This might be true, but there are still achievement and pay gaps in the US. There are lots of debates about why, and I don’t want to start one. I’m just curious how else to solve systemic biases if they’re still here.
If you're unwilling to have a debate on why achievement and pay gaps exist, then you should be unwilling to assert that systemic bias is a problem, or even that achievement and pay gaps are a problem.
You didn't think the 50% admit rate for athletes, 40% admit rate for deans interest ie large cash donors, and 35% legacy admit rate were "the whole think"?
Legacy and donor admissions aren't the gotcha against race neutral admissions that you think they are. In fact, they go hand in hand. It's not a coincidence that the universities with strong legacy preferences all practiced affirmative action. Legacy students actually have slightly better grades and SAT scores than average, but this would unlikely to be the case if they used purely merit based admissions.
I didn’t say it to be a gotcha. But let’s admit that legacy admissions and athletes represent a non meritocratic social goal, and then ask why those are legitimate social goals but racial diversity is not one?
The problem is that affirmative action creates more opportunities to think about race, which leads to more resentment and discrimination. For example, in America, Italians used to be discriminated against, but today they are basically treated the same as all white people. If we had affirmative action for Italian Americans, they'd likely still be discriminated against today.
Honestly, the combination of extremely discriminatory, extremely corrupt, extremely predatory and then again discriminated differently by the fact if they are a sportsball player or not is rather amusing and at the same time baffling when observed from the other side of the globe.
Of course it is too late by now, by have Americans considered maybe abolishing all that and admitting students only based on the exam results, with preference given to the kids with better results (or no preference)? And replacing professional sportsball with a 1 lesson/week of general fitness? Maybe then they won't need to get so much debt to study too.
If we are talking about a meritocracy and access to opportuity this doesn't even have to be about fairness the reality is if there are talented people that dont do as well on tests simply because they cant afford private tutors and prep courses maybe it makes sense to factor that in.
But there is also a legitimate reason to pursue fairness. When a society loses upward mobility and becomes a calcified caste social unrest becomes an existential threat. When we ignore that disparity compounds and locks people out of the social system we risk destroying the very system that we benefit from.
That is not true. Disparate impact has never meant "literally anything that produces disparate impact is against the law." I guess until the Trump admin has started using it to mean this when it affects white people.
What data do you have to support the assertion that affirmative action is no longer necessary to ensure proper representation of minorities on campus?
I'm open to arguments that there are better ways to achieve the goal of equitable access to higher eduction, but looking at enrollment numbers, the problem is far from solved.
The open question is the meaning of "proper representation:"
- One which maximizes Harvard's power network?
- Most likely to succeed in the future?
- Representative of the general public by race?
- Representative of the general public in other ways (e.g. religion, political affiliation)?
- Academically, best-qualified right now?
- Academically, most potential? At birth? Now?
- Most likely to donate?
Etc.
However defined, Harvard has much modest discrimination by race compared to discrimination by religion, political affiliation, or home town.
Harvard is 95% liberal, and much more so at the faculty level. If you look at the further-out evangelical, born-again Christian groups, or more conservative Muslim groups, the discrimination is even more extreme. Atheists are vastly over-represented, in contrast.
Until one is aligned on goals and definitions, one can't speak of goals being met or unmet. Harvard can be -- and indeed, is -- racist against blacks by one definition, against whites by another, against Asians by a third, and so on.
I would prefer to have colleges [elite or otherwise] be generally representative of the population by race, religion, socio-economic background, etc.
The problem, as I understand it, is "best qualified" is massively impacted by things like race, parental income, and other factors outside the control of college applicants. Society is far from a meritocracy.
In what way is that not meritocratic? The goal isn't to find the most Christlike figure born to the humblest beginnings and tempted thoughout his life by literally Satan to fall off the good path; it's to find the actually realized best qualified person.
If you're the smartest, most knowledgeable, most conscientious, most humble person because you had a fantastic support system, well you're still genuinely a great person. If you are a D student with a felony criminal record because everyone around you was a horrible influence and your parents abused you, you're still genuinely terrible.
I've seen parents in a store together where one just "supervises" their toddler watching youtube or something while the other shops. Meanwhile I'm there reading to my kids while my wife shops. I'll not be surprised if my kids have better outcomes in large part due to the family they were born into, because I do that on purpose. Society should incentivize people to devote ourselves to raising the best next generation we can. Trying to define merit via some counterfactual hypothetical person instead of the actual person in front of you makes no sense. In fact it's counterproductive as you end up incentivizing people to do things like send their kids to worse schools so they can appear relatively better.
40+% of the slots at Harvard are taken up by ALDCs. That's most of the white students slots. If you're like, say, our vice president, you have quite literally a snowball's chance in hell of making it in.
I doubt people are incentivized the way you think they are. Smug attitude aside, everyone wants best for their kids. Many people don't know how. They don't know how because their parents, grandparents, and no one in their community knows how. You end up in what research calls a culture of poverty.
That common among, but not exclusive to, many low-income black communities, due to a history of Jim Crow and slavery, but also in many immigrant communities, and white communities in places like, again, where our vice president comes from.
Improving outcomes for such communities means:
1) Improved economic growth
2) Improved social stability
Representation at Harvard means such communities might trust science. I have very little sympathy for white liberal university faculty complaining how some groups don't believe in climate change when those same faculty are giving those same groups every reason to distrust the academic establishment.
There's also no law which says schools should be meritocratic.
Admissions departments can and do optimize for things like future donations, political influence, and so on.
This all has nothing to do with the fact that the comment I replied to is suggesting that somehow actually being better is not meritorious. If your parents, grandparents, and community did know how to raise you better, and you turn out better, you're still better.
The point is we should not point to that and say "you didn't really earn that;" we should point and say "here is the example for others to look to. Everyone be more like them."
Like I had a broken home growing up. The valedictorian had an intact family in a higher social class. I put in no effort, was rude to people for no reason, and was generally not a great person. He worked hard, was friendly to everyone, and was generally a better person along pretty much any metric.
The takeaway from that is not to think "wow that wasn't fair," but to think "how can I try to be more like his parents for my kids?"
What specific ethnic groups do and do not count as minorities? What specific ratio of people from various ethnic groups admitted to college campuses counts as "proper"? Why specifically do the enrollment numbers at college campuses today count as a "problem"?
If you treat prestige acceptance rates as a derivative of the progression of racial policy, it absolutely makes sense why affirmative action is in place given the history of racial justice in America.
Can you really claim that the trend won't reverse if purely meritocratic admissions are reinstated (disregarding legacy admits...although very unfair to disregard since their racial makeup heavily tracks with asian/white/etc)
It's simply a single lever to change the racial makeup of the upper class. And certainly it goes both ways, but to simply remove it with no solution implies a regression to the former system, which was all but equal, much less equitable.
Why are we treating it as a derivative, and what's the slope? Do we have proof it's not zero? Let's say Johnny and Kareem both study poli-sci at Harvard. When Johnny graduates with his gentlemanly C's, his dad puts in a word with his golf buddy and it's off to Wall Street. Kareem shoots his resume off through online portals but no one bites. He goes to law school and takes on even more debt. Johnny's sister, Sally, passes the bar on her third try and is hired by a white-shoe law firm. Et cetera.
You conveniently left out the fact that all the "easy" tracks (athletics, legacy, donor) are heavily skewed toward white applicants. It's interesting how everyone is riling about affirmative action, while at the same time nobody bats an eyelid about those nepotism tracks. And those definitely seem to be institutionally biased against black and Hispanics (in particular the Athletic track it seems, considering the proportion of black athletes in professional sport).
Yes but there's some nuance. I don't think Harvard admission is necessary for Affirmative Action goals. We're talking about a tiny minority of people who attend. In my own opinion, we're looking at rival elite groups fighting with each other.
The SFFA lawsuit targeted Harvard specifically and made the claim not that Affirmative Action was a problem but that secretive racial policies to help whites at the expense of Asians were. There wasn't any direct evidence of it and it's kind of laughable to think Harvard would do that. The SC didn't evaluate that claim and just struck down using race for admissions. But that doesn't mean you can't ask people to write a diversity essay about their race and grade them on that.
Harvard's present demographics[1]:
Of students in the class who self-identified their race, 11.5 percent
identified as African American or Black, 41 percent identified as Asian
American, 11 percent identified as Hispanic or Latino, and nearly 2 percent
identified as Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander.
I don't know why they collate it like this. This doesn't include international students who aren't identified by ethnicity. So based on percentage of the demographic, it would appear this is saying whites underperform on admissions substantially compared to everyone else which seems unlikely to me.
I was listening to a podcast where the host and the guest were both Black and both had been to Harvard. This was before the Supreme Court ruling. They joked that it was well known that the Black students at Harvard who were descendants of American slaves were about 10% of the Black student body at Harvard. There were a lot of children of Nigerians and 3rd world tycoons and such.
I think there is a good argument for a help up for people whose communities are still impacted by the history of American slavery (and all its ills) but giving these slots to children of the wealthy and often immigrants does not feel right.
If you talk to admissions officers, over drinks, they'll tell you that poor black students from marginalized US communities have abysmal performance at elite schools. The decision to admit rich black students is very deliberate.
There are many reasons why. Schools in the US are locally-funded, and a marginalized community might have 25% of the per-student spending of a rich community (actual, typical figures). Until inequities like that are addressed, there is little elite education can do to help, even if it wanted, which it doesn't.
The point of an exclusive university is to be, well, maximally exclusive. That's the literal opposite of inclusive.
In my state, the poor Black inner city schools have the highest per-student spending in the state (and some of the highest in the country), as the state government funds them heavily. Performance remains abysmal
However, there are *many* such effects. Whack one, and I can point to a dozen others.
Until and unless they're systematically addressed, it's actually very hard to either make progress or even draw good conclusions.
What's needed is a project to address *all* of the obvious ones, comprehensively, ideally on a national scale, but initially, at least on a pilot scale.
There is more to this story. I have heard Harvard (and its ilk) described as a smallish university attached to a massive investment fund. One of the criteria for admission is how much you and your family will be "good for" donations to the university. They much prefer students from rich families, even if they are the children of disagreeable dictators.
The price portion of this hits hard. My oldest starts college in 2 year and then his younger brother follows 2 years later. We make enough to not qualify for need based aid but not enough to just write a check, merit based aid + a meager 529 and our savings is their only hope besides debt.
Further, both are male, hetero, only 1/4 hispanic, and my wife and I are not drug addicts or alcoholics so they'll get nothing from the "whole student" review. There's a huge swath of the population in this boat. The middle/upper-middle class pays for everyone else as always.
Thats why its called price discrimination: you are trying to get as much money as possible from each buyer without regard to fairness. Heroin dealers at least set a fixed $/oz because they know that word getting around that someone gets it cheaper would get them shot.
> We make enough to not qualify for need based aid
Are you sure? If you're household income is <$340k (depending on details) you'll still get some scholarship, and as long as your household income <$200,000 tuition is free.
This is going to screw me hard. I didn't make a meaningful income (>$95K) until I was 35, 10 years ago; I got a PhD, did a 4 year postdoc, and was an assistant non-tenure-track professor for 3 years. My monthly student loan payments were $1800/month. I changed jobs to HFT, and we have lived comfortably but not able to save much. I have 3 kids aged 17, 15, and 13, the oldest is applying to colleges very soon. 2 years ago I changed jobs again, and now make $700K on paper, but it is 60%+ bonuses, half of which is in a 3 year RSU. So, my take home pay is about $400K cash, taxed in a high bracket; I paid $145K or so in taxes this year. I have about $150K saved, $350K in 401K, and my mortgage is at $500K, with $300K to go. We are finally stable, e.g. we can take a vacation or 2, we can afford groceries without worrying, and can do travel baseball, but it also isn't an extravagant lifestyle or anything.
Now, this is a pretty phenomenal position to be in for most Americans, I can't complain too much. But, my oldest (white, straight, varsity basketball, 4.7 GPA, 35 ACT, 36 on Math) wants to go to a school like USC or Vanderbilt, and we will get 0 aid help. I refuse to let my kids suffer through student loans like my wife and I had to; at one point I made $2500/month as a postdoc, and $1800 went to loans while I had 2 kids under 2. My search history at that point was pretty grim, involving what circumstances life insurance would pay out, etc.
So, assuming all 3 kids go to a $100K/year type school, and we pay cash, that is $12 MILLION dollars over the next decade I will be paying (ignoring inflation, etc). This is the worst case, etc, but still bleak. And, apparently Stanford CS students can't get job offers, so they are entering a horrific job market. I don't think any college is worth that, not even Ivys, but not going to a good college is still worse. If I had a crystal ball 10-15 years ago, we would have left the country.
The Dartmouth analytics say that is true. The top 1% is taking from the top 10% in admissions.
That said, your view that they need "trauma" to get in is very wrong. You need to find a hook. The hook should be positive and not negative. (Why should they let you in to the private club?)
Source: I've gotten my kids into 6 Ivies. Non-athletes, white, public schools, and I am not a doner.
It's a bit of an interesting Chesterton's fence. For most of human history your job is whatever your dad's job was (with a large degree of hand waving). It makes sense because there's at least some genetic disposition there and you're likely willing to train your children for free. Instead we pay strangers massive amounts of money for make work training that is often only loosely related to productive skills.
Obviously a lot of reasons to do it this way. But you gotta think at some point not working for 4 years while paying ~2x median annual wage has gotta go the way of the dodo.
All this stuff is self identifying too, so there are far more dishonest applicants than someone with a single LatAm grandparent marking themselves hispanic.
For all these completely anonymous, AI-generated investigative pieces that are hitting the front page of HN every week, I'd love to see the prompts. Because I suspect they say more about what the proprietor of the site is trying to achieve than the article itself.
Alright, I’m going to try to weigh in on this subject in good faith. Wish me luck!
I grew up in suburban Pittsburgh and attended a very good public school. I had friends who lived only ten or fifteen minutes away but attended schools that were substantially worse by nearly every measurable standard. How should a university compare our applications on an apples-to-apples basis?
Some people would say, “Just use standardized test scores.” And sure, those can be part of the equation. But I attended a better school, benefited from years of stronger teaching, had access to better preparation materials, and had supportive parents with disposable income to invest in my education. The list goes on. How exactly should those advantages be measured? Is it a university’s job to account for them?
Others may disagree, but if I were on a university admissions team, I would say that it is...at least to some extent. I wouldn’t want a completely homogeneous student body. I would want every admitted student to clear a reasonable academic floor, but beyond that, I would value diversity in backgrounds, opinions, interests, intended majors, and life experiences.
In my opinion, the issue is much more complicated than people often make it out to be, and I don’t personally believe there is some vast liberal boogeyman behind it. I don’t think the process is perfectly fair to everyone, nor do I think perfect fairness is possible in the first place. But I also don’t automatically agree that it is wrong for universities to try -- however imperfectly or ham-fistedly they might do it -- to understand the broader context in which an application was submitted.
> But I attended a better school, benefited from years of stronger teaching, had access to better preparation materials, and had supportive parents with disposable income to invest in my education...Is it a university’s job to account for [my advantages]?
I would argue: no. There are always applicants with even more advantages than you, and those with fewer.
Standardized tests level the playing field IMO. Money can only help you so much. Talent and hard work become the dominant factors.
Mommy and daddy can't pay for expensive hobbies, finagle unpaid internships at prestigious non-profits, or anything else. Personal tutoring for standardized tests has diminishing returns compared to just grinding. Think Leetcode: how much does coaching help a SWE vs just being good at coding and solving 2000 problems?
Now you may say: under-privileged students often have less stable home environments. So they have less time to grind problems. This is true. But it's also true for admissions as they're done today. They have less time, money, and opportunities for hobbies, volunteer work, sports, and internships. They can't hire essay coaches or admissions consultants.
Thrusting students into a more challenging academic environment than their current demonstrated abilities merit doesn't help anyone. On the other hand if poorer students can demonstrate merit without spending much money, just by writing a single test, this is as egalitarian as possible.
> Personal tutoring for standardized tests has diminishing returns compared to just grinding...
Eh, not so sure. My son got a 32 on the ACT the first time he took it, and after 4 months of private tutoring got a 35, with 36 on math. Could he have grinded himself and got there? Possibly, but I doubt it. Having someone who knows what they're doing and holding him accountable was invaluable.
You know your son well enough to say he wouldn't have done the grind by himself. But that's not the same as proving that coaching is always superior to grinding. Or that a motivated grinder can't beat a less motivated tutored student.
Why does it matter? How deep do you want to go to hunt for advantages? Are there no other places than Ivy League schools where one not so advantaged can get an education? Do you want the doctor saving the life of your loved one be the most qualified or one who ticked the disadvantaged boxes?
I suppose I just disagree that someone from a less affluent or privileged than me with got a 1400 SAT is less qualified than me (1510) simply because one number is larger than the other. These numbers don't exist in a vacuum.
Unfortunately as much as we love the idea of rewarding merit, it isn't actually "fair" in the truest sense of the word. Because everyone is born into different conditions, no one ever has the same opportunities, so you may be more capable than someone else through no fault of your own. Choosing the worse educated out of identically scoring students is one of the few times we decide to tip the scales. Unfortunately again good employment opportunities feel like a zero sum game right now.
OK but what would your goal there be? What do you think an existing admissions team's goal is in various different universities? What if some desire to build an elite club but can't say it on record? And is that such a bad thing?
What's the point of giving preferences to athletes at places like computer science department? Would not it make more sense to create an athletic department and accept all athletes there so they do not have to struggle with math?
Also, they could make a separate department for the riches where there also is no math.
The entire premise of the NCAA for the longest time was "They aren't employees, they are getting a good education for free and playing sports in their off hours!"
This has long been a farce though. They would be put in made up classes with no actual work and given fake grades.
When you combine the fraction of "hooked" admits with the number of seats affected by affirmative action, you get something between 35%-43% (depending on if you discount hooked admits that were extremely qualified anyway). I think this is an interesting way to frame it. Left to its own devices, Harvard would only devote around 60% of its undergraduate program to simply educating very very bright students. The other 40% is/was for les vieux riches, athletes, generally connected kids, and racial diversity.
While I'm sure it varies by school, I suspect you will find a similar dynamic at many other elite private schools. The undergraduate program is going to be much less important to a top-tier research university, and consequently the admissions board can go nuts with other priorities. When even the runners-up (on a merit basis) are quite strong you can go quite far indeed before anyone would notice a slip in standards.
"The published cost of attendance is a fiction almost no one pays."
"Net effect: a $175k household with a house and a 401(k) is judged "full pay," pays near-sticker from already-taxed income, and receives essentially nothing."
I never know how to resolve these two statements. In our case, my daughter happened to choose a good public university. Maybe that is what they mean.
I gave up with a dreams of returning to school when I realized in my early 20s, despite paying my own rent, bills, taxes, etc, the financial aid system considered me a dependent of my father still and lumped his income in with the calculations done to determine what I get/don’t get.
conflates a couple of things: the legacy tip itself and the fact that legacies tend to have stronger academic profiles to begin with (they come from advantaged households). A skeptic can fairly say "of course legacy admits do well, they're better applicants"
> legacies tend to have stronger academic profiles
Maybe for Harvard, but I'm not sure a legacy for some random private liberal arts school nobody has ever heard of (or $STATE University) will be any more academically gifted than someone whose parents both went to college anyway.
Maybe we need to differentiate between "legacy of a school" and "legacy of a school with a historically high academic quality"
Sure, but not at the admittance rate that legacies get. There's been stats & studies showing for example some Ivys with ~3% admit rates having something closer to ~12% for legacy applicants.
Most people applying to an Ivy are already self-selecting as pretty exceptional applicants (putting aside the delusional) and the legacy admits had same/worse SATs, etc.
edit: just looked it up, Harvard is at ~34% legacy admit rate versus regular 6% admit rate..
“Among the admitted legacies, grades and test scores were indistinguishable from non-legacy students. Both groups had an average SAT score that surpassed 1430.”
At Harvard, my understanding is that the legacy admits have slightly higher test scores than non-legacy admits.
You can invert nearly anything in the US with the right justification. You can cite the environment to ensure roads don’t have bike lanes, you can cite anti-racism rules to treat individuals by their race, to protect a man from a small home you can put him on the street. It just is how it is.
The framework to do it was introduced to prevent Jewish people from going to universities where it was found that when it was impossible to keep the Jewish people under 25% of enrollment it rapidly became possible once they accounted for well-roundedness.
The Jewish people of the age, like Asian people today, seem to have been narrow and pointed like a spear where others were like a sphere. Such is life. We aspire to spherical homogeneity. Other shapes need not apply.
There's a wonderful exchange in the movie Interstellar that speaks to this:
Cooper: You're ruling my son out for college now? The kid's fifteen.
Principal: Tom's score simply isn't high enough.
Cooper: What's your waistline? 32? With, what, a 33 inseam?
Principal: I'm not sure I see what you're getting at.
Cooper: You're telling me it takes two numbers to measure your own ass but only one to measure my son's future?
The point being is that a person, and their future, should not be distilled into a single number like an SAT score because people are far more complex than a single number. I would also contend that splitting them into a few numbers, such as by subject area, doesn't help either.
The SAT has 2 components with separate scores. The SAT score is usually the sum of both, but there's no reason colleges can't weight one section more than the other.
If you really care about multiple dimensions, add more types of standardized tests - general science (or specialized - separate physics, chem and bio sections), history, geography, whatever.
Or tell students to take the standardized tests that most closely map to their preferred major.
I still contend strongly that it is wrong to distill a person into a collection of numbers. They are not.
My mother was a special ed teacher who eventually became a diagnostician whose job it was to determine eligibility for services. Part of this job was to give a standardized test to a child to see if they met state set criteria. That said, this was only part of an assessment and was used along with parent preference, teacher recommendations, and other people involved with the process at the school. Outside of meeting state criteria, the numbers in the test were used to identify areas of strength and weakness to help understand a child and put this in perspective of a broader story. For example, if a child struggled with math, was it because they couldn't read well, struggled with the math itself, was distractable? There were also other instances where the test scores themselves were misleading. For example, did a child perform poorly because they were sick, or the AC of the building broke, or they set a test date on a school holiday when the child knew the other kids had a day off?
My point in telling this story is that the raw score in a standarized test can be helpful, but it does not tell a complete story. It is part of a broader assessment. The SAT and college admission is not different.
Purely using a test score does provide an objective score to rank a collection of applicants, but I still contend strongly that it misses the point. Depending on your point of view, college is meant to educate a populace, provide job training, give economic opportunity, or a whole host of other goals. One can use test scores a proxy to determine which applicants best approximate these goals, but I think we should consider whether they really help achieve this.
I'll also mention that using tests scores is not entirely "fair" either. I'd a friend who dated a guy who worked for Kaplan, one of the test prep companies. They had very good data about how much their test prep improved test scores. They were also very expensive. As a result, money and wealth can be used pretty directly to improve one's score. It's difficult for a university to fully address wealth inequality in society. However, since tests can be gamed so easily, I would caution against their over use.
> I still contend strongly that it is wrong to distill a person into a collection of numbers
No one's saying a person is a collection of numbers.
> My point in telling this story is that the raw score in a standarized test can be helpful, but it does not tell a complete story. It is part of a broader assessment
And that's very noble and well-meaning. But it can also be used to discriminate and deny opportunity. Raw scores, on the other hand, are hard data. You either have them or you don't. Do factors outside of one's control go into them? Absolutely. Those factors are all-pervasive and will influence anything you might use to determine merit.
> Kaplan, one of the test prep companies. They had very good data about how much their test prep improved test scores.
Of course they would say that. Even assuming it's true, Kaplan test prep books are only around $50 on Amazon. You could also get them for free from a public or school library (or the high seas, if that's your thing).
As I understand it, Kaplan has apps and dashboards and more material if you're a subscriber. Is there data about the marginal score improvement using that versus just the books?
When you get right down to it, everyone's starting point is different. Reducing the number of variables improves opportunity IMO.
My continued assertion is that "hard data" can be misleading, wrong, and discriminatory. It requires judgement to understand what it tells us and whether there is error in the collection of the data itself.
As far as Kaplan, I don't have metrics to share, but what I saw shocked me at the time. It appeared as though they collected data as to how much their test prep improved scores and it was pretty dramatic. And, they were smart enough to distinguish between their test prep books and their in person tutoring. In person tutoring worked better and by a lot, but it all helped.
As far as tests, I've never contended that they shouldn't be done, but that these scores need to be part of an overall portfolio. I have in fact sat on admittance boards for graduate school and the two dominant factors other reviewers used were GPA and where they went to undergrad. Both of these were hard metrics and full of bias. I'll also contend that they weren't particularly effective in identifying students who successfully completed the program.
Something to consider, I do think test scores can help screen candidates. For example, if one is going to admit into a math program, then their quantitative score should probably be above a certain level. After that, I personally don't think it matters. In that way, one could just set minimum criteria to be accepted, which includes GPA, tests scores, research, jobs, whatever, and then randomly select from that group. That would certainly eliminate a huge amount bias, though not all, but most people hate this approach because it contradicts this belief that we live mostly in a meritocracy. They want rankings and they want to know who number 1 is. My continued argument is that it's impossible to distill a person down to a hard ranking in a reasonable matter, especially with test scores, and it's not necessary for college admission since one can select a group of applicants for acceptance without ordering them.
I appreciate your willingness to engage and your detailed responses. I understand where you're coming from, and that you've seen how the sausage is made.
> In person tutoring worked better and by a lot, but it all helped.
Are money and other resources only helpful for getting a good test score? They don't matter at all for the factors that improve one's chances of admission? For example, going to a good high school district, participation in certain sports, hobbies, or access to internship, volunteer, or research opportunities?
My argument is simply: by making it about the test, you remove all the other factors where money could potentially have an influence. The rich students will get tutoring no matter what. But they can't gain any other advantages over the poor students.
> In that way, one could just set minimum criteria to be accepted, which includes GPA, tests scores, research, jobs, whatever, and then randomly select from that group.
That wouldn't be a terrible approach either. You are correct it would be unsatisfying.
> GPA and where they went to undergrad...were [both] hard metrics and full of bias.
I would argue they weren't "hard" at all. Undergrad is already gated by "squishy" criteria. Normalizing GPAs across universities (and countries, in the case of international applicants) is tricky and imprecise.
Money absolutely has an impact across easily available metrics. For example, money lets one purchase better coaching for sports or join a travel team. As we see from the lawsuit, athletes were accepted at a much higher rate than the rest of the applicants. Money lets one attend better schools either from a transfer or private school. Money allows for better tutoring. I completely agree.
Where I think we differ is that my contention is that money also allows one to game a higher test score on something like the SAT and by a significant factor. Yes, it would focus attention on this one factor, but I believe it also misses the point. College admissions is not meant to be a singular contest or game, but part of a broader ecosystem and that system has choices.
A university has a number of competing criteria and wants for its applicants. Generally speaking, a university does not want someone to drop out. They want graduates and part of screening applications is meant to determine whether they believe someone can successfully complete their degree. Some universities essentially operate like hedge funds that have classes. These universities have an interest in high net worth and connected applicants because these people can trade favors or give donations as alumnae. This is reflected in legacy admissions and automatic admission for certain classes of donors. Some universities want to give preference to in-state or in-city students. The purpose here is to ensure the university is locally connected because the state and city have the most influence on what is really a city inside of a city for most universities. Some universities want to give children of those who never went to college preference because it ultimately broadens their base and likely ensures their children will want to attend there as well. Some universities want to maximize their rating on the US News and World Report ranking because it means they can charge higher tuition.
None of those metrics above, moral or amoral alike, need a total ordering of applicants based on a test score.
As one other comment, when I sat on the graduate board, our department was flooded with applications from one particular country, more than half. Don't know why, but it was. Certainly, we accepted some of those applicants. However, consider the implications of accepting students purely from that one place. Would the local government be happy if we did not accept any local or domestic students? Would the federal? Probably not. However, if we accepted applications purely based on a singular test score, there would be incentive for that place to game the system and help with the test, legal or otherwise. No idea if they did then, but it wouldn't have mattered since we still read the broader application.
> I still contend strongly that it is wrong to distill a person into a collection of numbers.
Welcome to the adult world, where you are distilled into a collection of number each step of the way: look at credit scores, performance reviews, etc.
> I'll also mention that using tests scores is not entirely "fair" either.
Unfortunately we didn't come up with a better way to rank a group of people on scale in a reasonable amount of time. So tests are a necessary compromise. I also know plenty of examples where people aced their tests by just spending $30 on a prep book and studying hard.
Thankfully, I also work in the adult world and this world requires judgement.
As an example, my wife is a physician. She and her colleagues use metrics to help assess a patient, but ultimately treatment is based on their judgement. Purely relying on hard numbers, such as what an EKG gives, would lead to dead patients. Many of them. I am a mathematician. My world revolves around hard computational numbers, yet my algorithms will often given misleading results. Determining when that is requires judgement. Despite a push too the contrary, good hiring managers assess applicants and take responsibility for both good and bad hires. This requires judgement.
And, yes, I can also find examples where someone either didn't study or used a book and did well on their SAT. That said, in person test prep with a tutor absolutely has a large, positive effect on test scores, much more than simply a book. Kaplan has the internal data. It's absolutely worth the money if one can afford it. Most can't.
Your personal stories are very cute, but they don't explain what you're proposing instead of tests. I'm not sure how you're going to use so-called "judgment" to decide which students get in out of hundreds of thousands of applications in a reasonable amount of time.
Some random chart feedback. I found the use of red for elite colleges and then the use of red to mean white applicants to make the article slightly harder to read and understand. Recommend changing using completely different colors from that chart to he next one, because they are completely unrealted axis and
It feels like with fewer foreign students college's will have to open more slots to those who can be reasonable ready to be successful and also pay full rate.
How likely is it to be a certain demographic given certain stats? Pretty much says it all.
The race factor is irrelevant in practice. Even more so when you look at literature indicating that your success is actually more predictive from high school success than college attendance.
In other words, if you get into Stanford you will likely succeed even if you don’t go.
"Hooked" is any foot in the door aside from merit such as sports recruitment, child of staff, child of alumnus, or international student. Unhooked is everyone who has to get in on merit alone.
Looking at this without consideration for two factors (number of applicants and the number of applications per applicant) is borderline malpractice.
I can’t pull older numbers on my phone at the moment but in the last 12 years the number of applications to colleges (applicants*applications) has risen 50%.
So correct for the reality that…
1) that immediately skews your denominator and changes your percentages.
2) the upper middle class students are the most likely to apply to the most schools (because they can and don’t have the other paths)
3) more and more marginal students who previously would not have gone to college are getting encouraged to apply.
I know this is probably a /s but in the UK you apply through a service called UCAS not directly to the university, and UCAS only allow you to apply to 5 universities.
Pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell is the one chart showing the same student as Asian, 25%, White, 36%, Hispanic 77%, and Black 95%.
This is institutionalized racism. Perhaps Affirmative Action was needed in the past to kickstart the disproportionate enrollment demographics, but it was past due to get rid of it.
The most interesting part following SCOTUS' ruling is that Harvard said it wouldn't change their ways, and nobody enforced the ruling.
> This is institutionalized racism. Perhaps Affirmative Action was needed in the past
Affirmative Action is institutionalized discrimination, at least when used to promote some groups over others. (Though it didn’t start that way; it started as a call to be purely race-blind in hiring.) I wouldn’t call it racism though, because it’s not based on any belief that races have different capability, it is purely intended to correct systemic bias based on the belief that races are equally capable.
> it was past due to get rid of it
This might be true, but there are still achievement and pay gaps in the US. There are lots of debates about why, and I don’t want to start one. I’m just curious how else to solve systemic biases if they’re still here. The whole problem with cultural bias is it’s sticky and difficult and people don’t believe they have biases. Today’s politics has done a lot to convince me that we haven’t solved it yet, but at the same time I’ll be the first to point out that we’ve come a long way even in my lifetime. The last little bit might take longer to fix than suffrage did just because of how subtle the issues are. If we take any preferential treatment off the table, preferential treatment that tries to artificially force equal opportunity, the question is what’s the alternative? We might have momentum, and do nothing might work, but what if it doesn’t? Wouldn’t that also be a form of institutionalized discrimination, effectively, like it was before Affirmative Action existed?
Lots of problems in society that are hard to fix. But there's nowhere else in society where our solution to a problem is to subject people who had nothing to do with the problem to unfair treatment. "Two wrongs don't make a right" is a good general principle.
Re: two wrongs/people who had nothing to do with the problem
Obvious counter examples: plenty of people have been drafted and died in wars they did not cause or start. Also, people pay taxes to educate others, which (hopefully) fixes a problem they didn't cause or start. The list just goes on and on. In fact, I think it's a fair argument to say that modern society is fundamentally based on the opposite your claim, that people who had nothing to do with all sorts of problems willing submit to unfair treatment because they believe that they,or people they care about, will be better of in the long run for having done the right thing, even if it's difficult and somewhat unfair. In general it's called being an adult. Yeah, sometimed it sucks, sometimes it's unfair, but generally it's better for everyone in the long run.
It depends how you conceptualize fairness. If you believe that some people have a pre-existing unfair bias in their favor, then applying a countermeasure is indeed fair.
No, because two wrongs don’t make a right. Where else in our society do we justify imposing a moral wrong on a specific individual on the premise that moral wrongs may have been committed against other individuals?
The death penalty is an example of two wrongs making a right in the minds of many people. It’s also at the same time an example of two wrongs not making a right. Imprisoning people is wrong, unless the government does it? All so-called lawful punishments of individuals are a form of hope that two wrongs do make a right.
Whether affirmative action is a wrong is your presumption, and it’s hotly contested, absolutely not universally agreed upon, which makes your use of ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ a straw man.
There are plenty of things wrong with preferential affirmative action, but I reject the framing that it’s evil, this is essentially an ad hominem attempting to quash any debate of the actual relative merits or the outcomes.
I feel like we can’t make forward progress if you refuse to acknowledge the reasons that history has happened the way it did. See Chesterton’s Fence.
> Imprisoning people is wrong, unless the government does it? All so-called lawful punishments of individuals are a form of hope that two wrongs do make a right.
In that case, the punishment is not a “wrong” because the person being punished has moral culpability due to their bad act.
That’s different from imposing a punishment on someone because of someone else’s bad act. That’s a principle that some societies hold that ours does not. In clan based societies, a wrong committed by one member of clan A to a member of clan B can justify retaliation against a different member of clan A.
I reject your presumptive framing that affirmative action is a “punishment”. If you help someone, you are punishing the entire world?
> Where else in our society do we justify imposing a moral wrong on a specific individual
> If you help someone, you are punishing the entire world?
You are missing (or maybe even ignoring) the huge difference between these two viewpoints.
I’d be very happy to discuss the nuances and relative merits. I agree that it’s time to have race blind admissions and stop preferential treatment. I’m arguing against the hyperbolic notion that affirmative action is inherently immoral. @rayiner is trying to cut off the idea that it had any upsides and was ever reasonable. I’m still trying to convey that racism != any and all types of discrimination.
>That’s different from imposing a punishment on someone because of someone else’s bad act.
I shell out thousands for engineered plans for a petty AF retaining wall because the boomers and their parents were cheap fucks and kept building shit that mushed over too fast (all retaining walls fall over, it's just a question of time).
Damn near every area of society has tons of stuff like this.
It's just blood guilt/debt with extra steps IMO.
I disagree with your charaterization of the problem as exclusively a moral wrong... Was it only a moral wrong? Was the only effect a moral one? Or were there physical or tangible effects, too? For example, were there economic affects?
I'm not claiming to know the solution to the problem of ~200 years or slavery and ~100 years of Jim Crow laws, lynching, and further discrimination. I am saying that doing nothing about it seems pretty fucked. I am saying that claiming that it's immoral to do something about it, which you seem to be doing, makes you look like the worst kind of offensive and racist asdhole, too.
> I am saying that claiming that it's immoral to do something about it
I'm saying it's immoral to try to correct one injustice by doing a further injustice to an individual who had nothing to do with it. And it's not even me saying that, Plato said that 2,400 years ago.
That doesn't mean you can't do anything. You can have race-neutral policies that directly target individuals who have economic need. Cory Booker's baby bonds proposal, for example, would go a long way towards erasing racial wealth gaps: https://www.acluok.org/news/baby-bonds-path-toward-prosperit.... And it would do so without creating a new racial class system.
Plato said a lot of shit. To be honest, I don't really care. The Bible said a lot of shit, too. I don't need Plato to tell me that in America, black people, native Americans, and all sorts of other immigrants got well and truly fucked for a long, long time. I don't need Plato to tell me that I find this, and other forms of racism, personally offensive.
Also, it's seems suspicious to insist that all Affirmative Action be halted before these race-neutral policies are implemented. It's almost as if it's some sort of cheap justification for more shitty racism. How about we get rid of affirmative action after we get a this baby bonds proposal? And also a bunch of other stuff that creates a more equatable playing field? Again, minorities were fucked over for decades-to-centuries before Afirmative Action, why not just let it ride for a little while before knocking out the ladder from under them?
Again, I object to your characterization of Affirmative Action as wrong or immoral. It was designed to counter centuries of institutionalized racism. I'll grant that the implementation has been imperfect, but what in this world is perfect? It's just better than doing nothing, it's better than wasting further lives, it's better than creating a permanent underclass. Could it be improved? Yes. Should there be an open discussion about it's effects? Yes. But I think the results should be more like "tweaks to the system" rather than an outright ban, or crying and gnashing of teeth about how Affirmative Action immoral.
One other thing, you keep asserting that "correct one injustice by doing a further injustice to an individual who had nothing to do with it." A few comments ago I pointed out some obvious counter examples, which you neglected to address. The important point was that people who had nothing to do with all sorts of problems willing submit to unfair treatment because they believe that they,or people they care about, will be better of in the long run for having done the right thing, even if it's difficult and somewhat unfair. That doesn't make it immoral. It may be a difficult choice, but it's the kind of choice adults make all the time, and that's just part of living in a civilized society.
[EDIT: I made a mistake when I said "A few comments ago" - it was a separate thread in this discussion]
If you take something from me and the government takes it back that's two wrongs in your book??
If I steal something from you and then you retaliate by stealing something from my cousin, then that’s the definition of two wrongs.
In what way did your cousin ever have anything in this context? His admission wasn't rescinded, he never had it in the first place.
we all work for a company that steals from gamma employees for hundreds of years and share the proceeds with nu employees .to make amends the company gives the descendants of gamma employees a tiny fraction of what they’ve stolen as a bonus and the nu employees descendants ,who continue to profit from the previous theft by an order of magnitude more then gamma employees bonus, complain about gamma employees descendants preferential treatment being unfair
Your hypothetical fundamentally misrepresents the economics of what happened:
> share the proceeds with nu employees … nu employees descendants ,who continue to profit from the previous theft by an order of magnitude
Slaveholders were feudal lords. They didn’t “share the proceeds” with the serfs. They “privatized the profits and socialized the losses,” as we would say today. The profits flowed to a handful of families who happened to be white. But all the other white people suffered a deadweight loss. And the civil war nuked much of the south’s wealth. The war cost the south $2 billion, more than the south’s GDP and almost as much as the total value of its real and personal assets. The war also cost the union over $3 billion, an amount equal to its entire GDP. After that, there wasn’t some pool of money to generate dividends shared by all white people. Instead, there were taxes to pay for a war over something nearly all over them never benefited from.
If your ancestors were white independent farmers or sharecroppers, they were poorer for having to compete with massive plantations powered by slave labor. German Americans (the largest group of white Americans) never even arguably benefited from slavery. Half of them came here as indentured servants themselves in the 1840s. They scraped out a hard life in the midwest while having to compete with slave plantations in the south. Their biggest involvement with slavery was fighting and dying in disproportionate numbers to end it. And of course Irish, Italians, Asians, etc., came here after slavery ended.
So let’s tweak your example to reflect the reality. The C-suite of the company happened to be nu, and stole from gamma employees. They hired their nu kids as nepo babies and shared the profits with them, while underpaying the other nu employees. Eventually, some of the nu, including a large number who joined the company only recently, overthrow the C-suite and end the theft. Over the next 150 years, more nu employees keep joining the company, so today more than half have no ancestors who were even here during the theft.
Then the company creates a promotion policy where it gives a big preference to gamma employees over employees who happen to be classified as “nu”—regardless of whether the nu employee’s ancestors were even at the company during the time of the theft. Nobody would consider that a fair arrangement.
You're a troll
No, I'm trying to correct a poisonous misconception. Many people try to justify affirmative action based on the premise that "white people" continue to benefit from slavery economically, and that's just not true. The profits accrued to a small elite, and other white people were economically worse off than they would have been with an economy based on free labor.
The ChatGPT summary accurately captures the expert consensus on this: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a58046380288191b946198c5de72ce7 ("Most modern economic historians conclude that slavery enriched plantation owners but constrained the South's broader economic development. While non-slaveholding whites gained social status from the racial hierarchy, they likely had lower wages, fewer economic opportunities, less industrial development, and slower long-term income growth than they would have had in a Southern economy organized around free labor. In other words, economically they were probably worse off, while socially and politically they enjoyed privileges that would not have existed in a society without slavery.").
I’m citing ChatGPT here because I think it’s pretty good at summarizing the literature on this sort of factual question.
So, what if you steal $1000 from me and then give it to your cousin?
> If you believe that some people have a pre-existing unfair bias in their favor, then applying a countermeasure is indeed fair.
What definition of "some people" and "unfair" are we using?
I ask because I'm pretty sure that Obama's daughters "have a bias in their favor" in comparison with my lily-white nieces. (The parents of said nieces make around $40k/year.)
Is it fair to apply "countermeasures" to benefit said daughters relative to said nieces?
You can argue that said nieces have an unfair bias relative to similarly situated black children, but that's not how these systems tend to work.
And, it's not just Obama's daughters.
I totally agree that there are lots of problems with just assigning the benefits based on coarse categories like "race". My point is just what I said in the quote: a process that seems "locally" unfair may produce a more "globally" fair result. Or it might not! I mean, you have to do it right. But if your goal is to produce a fairer result you might do things even though they seem unfair from a different perspective.
Yep. Maybe a little bit like a sports handicap, you’re not trying to give someone a better chance of winning than everyone else, you’re trying to give them equal chances based on historical data.
Gemini gave me an okay analogy: “If a pendulum is knocked permanently off-center by a structural bend or a magnetic field, the only way to center it again is to apply an equal and opposite force. Affirmative action policies attempt to apply this counter-weight to straighten the broader societal scale.”
I’m not sure but is there a question about whether we actually had pre-existing unfairness? Blacks got the legal right to vote in 1965. Before that was effectively institutionalized racism, fully entrenched cultural bias, right?
Discriminating against an individual based on their race is a moral wrong, unlike applying pressure to a pendulum. So your example doesn’t work because it doesn’t raise the disputed moral question.
Our system of morality and justice operates on individuals, not groups. It’s fundamentally mistaken to view the issue in terms of a pendulum that represents group outcomes.
> Discriminating against an individual based on their race is a moral wrong
People pick partners based on race. Is that morally wrong?
> Our system of morality and justice operates on individuals, not groups.
What do you mean? Class actions don’t exist? Did I imagine the 19th amendment?
> People pick partners based on race. Is that morally wrong?
Depends on their reasoning. If it is that they are attracted to people with a particular physical appearance that correlates with race, then its not morally wrong. If you are doing so because they do not want to pick a partner who they believe is of an inferior race, that is morally wrong.
Exactly. It depends. It’s not a given.
> people pick partners based on race. Is that morally wrong?
Wrong, but not illegal.
> What do you mean? Class actions don’t exist?
You can’t have class actions based on pre-existing groups (say, “Italians”). You have to define the group in a way that provides a high level of certainty that all class members were subject to the harm that’s the basis for the suit.
> Wrong, but not illegal.
Why is racial preference in partner wrong?? Who agrees with this anywhere?
Maybe I’m out of touch, but 20 years ago expressing a racial preference for dating would’ve gotten you labeled a racist. Is this some new Gen Z thing?
Saying you have a preference is creepy. Having one and making decisions based on that is absolutely normal and always has been, and is not immoral, contrary to your claim. The vast majority of marriages globally are same race marriages.
>You can’t have class actions based on pre-existing groups (say, “Italians”). You have to define the group in a way that provides a high level of certainty that all class members were subject to the harm that’s the basis for the suit.
Yeah, and?
No response on the 19th amendment?
There were things like redlining, where blacks could only buy housing in certain areas. Those areas also tended to have worse schools, so the next generation of blacks was less well educated than whites of equivalent intelligence. That led to worse jobs, which led to worse financial outcomes, which led to living in worse parts of town, which led to the next generation having less education...
So, yes, there was pre-existing... "unfairness" may be too strong for some of it; it wasn't all unfairness. Some of it was the effects of past unfairness, even if the (deliberate) unfairness was no longer present. The pendulum was in fact bent, to at least some degree.
But I like the analogy, because you only apply the counterforce until the pendulum is straight. Then you stop. Things were bent enough that affirmative action may in fact have been necessary. But it should not be necessary forever. Even if it was the right thing to do, there comes a time when the right thing to do is to stop.
(Then you get into "is now the right time", and things get a whole lot murkier...)
Even if an individual’s condition today reflects historical injustices to groups, that doesn’t justify discriminating between individuals today based on their group. To your redlining example: it’s true a black american who inherits a house may have lower home equity than a white american who inherits a house. But isn’t the white american who didn’t inherit anything worse off than both? You can’t lump white americans together based on a group generalization—that’s the very thing we decided is immoral.
The historical argument also doesn’t survive attempts to generalize its underlying principles to immigrants. Objectively, Black americans are extremely privileged by virtue of being americans. A redlined community in 1950s America was still better than my dad’s village in Bangladesh.
Finally, your argument demolishes how affirmative action is actually practiced. Its biggest beneficiaries are immigrants and their children, in particular hispanics. That produces a very unfair result under your logic, because latin america is solidly middle income, and was even more so in the 20th century. In 1990, Mexico’s GDP per capita was ten times higher than India’s and China’s. Yet colleges and corporations discriminate in favor of “hispanics” descended from Spanish conquistadores, and against “asians” whose parents grew up in third world villages.
Your reasoning is exactly why I loathe any step towards this sort of thing in the UK. You cannot infer disadvantage from a simple racial categories. For example, the majority of South Asians I know in the UK have affluent and/or well educated parents. On the other hand I know there are people whose parents were poor educated, spoke English as a second language, went to schools in bad areas, etc. If you try to balance by ethnic group its the former who will get the most advantage from it. The Asian side of my ancestry was both more affluent, and had more people go to university than the white side.
As the article says the best universities here look at predicated A levels grades, their own admissions tests, and interviews. From what I have heard at open days etc. they are often clear that they do not care about ethnicity or skills at sports.
> that’s the very thing we decided is immoral
Racism is the thing we decided is immoral, actions based on belief that one group is inferior to another, not any and all notions of groups for any reason.
> Objectively, Black Americans are extremely privileged by virtue of being Americans. A redlined community in 1950s America was still better than my dad’s village in Bangladesh.
Whoa. They should be happy with what they have, and put up with racism and inequality here because there are poorer people somewhere else in the world? Some Blacks in 1950 couldn’t vote - they were “privileged”?
> Racism is the thing we decided is immoral, actions based on belief that one group is inferior to another, not any and all notions of groups for any reason.
No, what we decided was wrong was using race as a salient factor to discriminate between people. That’s why all our laws use that word. The laws reflect the moral principle.
> They should be happy with what they have, and put up with racism and inequality here because there are poorer people somewhere else in the world?
You’re the one supporting a system of affirmative action that treats people unequally. My point is that, if your justification for that unequal treatment is the historical circumstances of people’s parents and grandparents, then it’s quite relevant that almost any applicant with roots in America has a huge head start over almost any applicant with roots in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East.
I’m not the one who brought up the redlining example. That’s an example invoked by proponents of affirmative action. But if you invoke that reasoning, you should follow it through to its logical conclusions. If a university is choosing between an applicant whose family home in America has reduced value due to redlining, and an applicant whose family home is in a literal third world village, then what’s the moral logic for giving an advantage to the first applicant?
> Some Blacks in 1950 couldn’t vote - they were “privileged
None of my grandparents could vote in 1950 because they lived in a colony. Nobody whose family comes from China, Vietnam, etc., has grandparents who could vote in 1950.
> No, what we decided was wrong was using race as a salient factor to discriminate between people. That’s why all our laws use that word. The laws reflect the moral principle.
I think this discussion shows that there is fundamental disagreement about that. Many people believe that our laws as written do not reflect the moral principles they ought to reflect (and that the implementation/enforcement of those laws often does not even reflect the principles they supposedly encode).
> almost any applicant with roots in America has a huge head start over almost any applicant with roots in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East.
I think you are overstating your case. You are right in principle because it is true of some people so race is not a reliable marker of privilege, but most South Asians I know in western countries are from families that were better off than many Americans, and did not face the racist laws that black Americans did.
> None of my grandparents could vote in 1950 because they lived in a colony.
Most former British colonies were independent by then. India and Pakistan became fully independent in 1947 and had a degree of self-rule and elections for decades before that.
> but most South Asians I know in western countries are from families that were better off than many Americans
Affirmative action doesn’t look at a specific individual’s economic history. Virtually everyone who benefits comes from a family that’s better off than most Americans. Don’t forget that there’s lots of affluent black americans. They make up 8-9% of millionaires in the U.S. And don’t forget hispanic people: the Harvard data shows they got a preference nearly as strong as the one for black applicants. There’s a huge population of affluent immigrants from latin america for these programs to draw from.
And remember that, for asians, status is different from financial condition. My family was high status in Bangladesh. But my dad took a boat to school during monsoon season, and the school had no walls.
You mention “racist laws.” But asians faced terrible non-material injustices. My parents lived through a genocide of 300,000 bangladeshis by the pakistani military. Millions of Indians died in famines. Most of my sister in law’s family was killed by communists. This was all in the 20th century. I don’t think we should be weighing these injustices against each other. But that’s exactly what these affirmative action programs are doing when they give a huge preference to a black applicant over an otherwise identical asian applicant.
As I said, I agree with your in principle. I just think its true to say "almost any applicant with roots in America has a huge head start over almost any applicant with roots in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East." That is actually a sweeping generalisation, quite similar to the assumptions behind affirmative action.
> But asians faced terrible non-material injustices.
Some did, some did not. Some perpetuated and and benefitted from those injustices.
> I don’t think we should be weighing these injustices against each other.
I agree with you there.
Exactly who was East Pakistan a colony of in 1950 and who was denying them the franchise?
OK I see you meant in the US.
No, I meant in Pakistan. Wasn’t it still technically ruled by Britain at that point? Until the 1956 constitution?
No, it was an independent country which shared the same monarch - rather like Canada and Australia still are.
It was a Dominion, but again who was denying your relatives the franchise?
My understanding is that Pakistan got what we would understand to be real elections in 1970: https://mygoldenbengal.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/pakistan-vot.... In 1950, the National Assembly was elected not by the people, but instead by provincial representatives elected during British rule.
Your link mentions provincial elections in 1954 (excluding the ones during the 60s dictatorship)
> Nobody whose family comes from China, Vietnam, etc., has grandparents who could vote in 1950.
So those countries should deal with those issues, then? I really don't understand how you are allowed to post so much all over this website. No less in such an intentionally obtuse and argumentative manner.
> You’re the one supporting a system of affirmative action that treats people unequally
No, and you’re intentionally escalating things and I don’t appreciate it. I’ve been more than clear already that I don’t necessarily support affirmative action, and that I’m aware it has downsides and have acknowledged multiple times that it can have unintended consequences.
Unequal treatment already existed before affirmative action. That is the reason that affirmative action exists, and it is what affirmative action intended to fix. You have yet to acknowledge that fact in this discussion.
Yes! Exactly. Affirmative action should naturally end itself if it works. The goal is to equalize opportunity and stop preferential treatment, not to hang on to preferential treatment.
Well said, it does need to stop eventually. Now might be the right time, even if we’re not all the way there, given all the problems and unintended consequences and all the backlash.
Hm. How does this vibe with your blanket judgement about Bangladeshis?
You shouldn’t make “blanket judgments” that apply to every individual Bangladeshi. In a context where you’re evaluating individuals, you should do so without regard to their ethnicity or nationality. In the context where you’re talking about masses, then it’s permissible to draw inferences about aggregate characteristics.
Simple example: at the doctor’s office, I want them to measure my height, without regard to the fact that I’m Bangladeshi. But that doesn’t mean that medical journals must blind themselves to the fact that a group of 10,000 Bangladeshis is going to have a much lower average height than a group of 10,000 Germans.
It is very clear that you are not talking about height.
You are also different policy treatment of these groups.
> It is very clear that you are not talking about height.
It doesn't matter whether it's height or anything else. The point is that there's a fundamental difference between contexts in which you're evaluating an individual, and contexts in which you're evaluating groups in the aggregate.
> You are also different policy treatment of these groups.
I do not support any policy that would treat a specific individual differently because they're Bangladeshi.
If only it were actually that simple and fixed with platitudes. Culture and belief is passed on from generation to generation, otherwise we wouldn’t have had the persistent problem in the first place. How do we fix a problem that we already have historical evidence that when left alone doesn’t go away on its own, that people who weren’t the original cause of the problem still, in fact, perpetuated it? How can we know people have nothing to do with the problem today, given that there are still discrepancies in outcome? I’m not defending Affirmative Action, the question at hand is what’s the alternative proposal?
It's not a "platitude" it's an aphorism. It reflects the principle--already ancient to Plato 2,400 years ago--that we don't solve injustice by shifting that injustice onto innocent third parties. If you can prove wrongdoing by specific people then you can punish it. But if you define treating someone differently based on skin color as a moral crime—which I think is necessary for a multi-ethnic society to function—then you can’t use differential treatment to reengineer outcomes.
Apart from enforcing neutral principles, the other solution is individualism. We need to stop reinforcing the salience of race and racial communities and treat people as individuals.
It feels like a platitudinal aphorism to me, it’s trite and cliche and overused and was delivered as if it’s insightful in hopes of ending the debate. Google appears to agree vigorously that “two wrongs don’t make a right” is a platitude.
One problem with that platitude is that there are plenty of ways that two negative things can balance each other out or become positive in some way.
Aren’t you making deep cultural presumptions and imposing your own opinions? Affirmative action is controversial, and it’s had unintended consequences when used, but what’s the rationale for claiming it’s a “wrong” or “injustice”? Not everyone believes that.
You’re also deliberately ignoring the point that there might be no such thing as innocent third parties, but only people who aren’t aware they’re part of the problem, even if it’s subtle and unintended.
History already tried the Laissez Faire approach, and it didn’t work. Chips fell in a bad place. This isn’t about proving wrongdoing or punishment, it’s about acknowledgement of a problem, and reflection and self-improvement as a group.
An aphorism is an expression of a general principle. This one seems cliched because it reflects a principle deeply ingrained in our society. We reject “an eye for an eye” and instead say “two wrongs don’t make a right.” We have since Plato’s day. You don’t disregard core principles merely because a particular social problem is difficult to solve.
Affirmative action is wrong because we have defined treating an individual differently based on their race as a moral wrong. The act is wrong, regardless of your motivations. It’s like how stealing is wrong even if you’re doing it because someone else stole from you first.
I’m not ignoring your point that third parties may not be innocent. I said above that if you can prove wrongdoing by specific individuals, you can punish them.
> acknowledgement of a problem, and reflection and self-improvement as a group
There are no “groups,” just individuals who must be treated according to their individual merits, without regard to their group membership. That was the whole principle of the civil rights era.
> we have defined treating an individual differently based on their race as a moral wrong. The act is wrong, regardless of your motivations
No, I don’t think so, You’re conflating racism with discrimination. We humans discriminate positively and negatively all the time. People discriminate based on race and gender and age for the purposes of picking a life mate or sexual partner, and society has exactly zero problem with that. Discriminating based on race is absolutely not a morally wrong act regardless of motivations. Intent matters, and the situation matters.
This talking point about all discrimination being wrong is fairly popular, and there are a lot of people who can’t see the difference between positive discrimination and negative discrimination. This is one reason I think affirmative action should end; it’s too subtle of a distinction and we were too successful at planting the idea that discrimination is bad.
You’re also conflating law with mores in your example. There are cases where stealing something is moral, regardless of whether it’s legal. There are also cases where stealing something is legal too, for example you can legally take back something stolen from you if you do it non-violently.
> There are no “groups”
I was referring to humanity, to all of us.
You’re also deliberately ignoring the point that there might be no such thing as innocent third parties, but only people who aren’t aware they’re part of the problem, even if it’s subtle and unintended.
I was about to post the same and that's 100% my take... sure, I didn't own slaves and I don't intentionally do anything racist... but I can absolutely acknowledge that by virtue of genetic lottery (white, with educated parents, etc) I had it orders of magnitude easier than the kids who grew up on the other side of town (black, less educated parents, etc).
I said it in another comment - affirmative action may not be the best solution, but it's tiresome to see people trot out the "2 wrongs" argument without proffering a better solution to the problem.
What about white kids on the other side of the town with drug addicted parents?
What about them? Being white doesn’t make people immune to drugs, nor guarantee anything, right? So what’s your point? Race advantage is something you can’t always see by looking at individuals, especially cherry picked examples. Bias is a statistical effect, so you may need to look at everyone in order to see it, unless we are talking about clear cases of oppression, inability to vote or slavery or violence or things like that. Most of that has been resolved, but subtle bias is still around.
>but I can absolutely acknowledge that by virtue of genetic lottery (white, with educated parents, etc) I had it orders of magnitude easier than the kids who grew up on the other side of town (black, less educated parents, etc).
How do the white kids with unfortunate life circumstances have an advantage over similarly situated black kids?
Thank you. Yes the whole problem and confounding factor with this argument is that racism exists, and emerged on its own. If we choose Laissez Faire, we already know the outcome, and it’s bad. The notion that we should do nothing to fix it and let the chips fall where they may would amount to institutionalized racism as opposed to institutionalized (positive) discrimination. Plus affirmative action can and should end, whereas racism does not without changes.
The alternative proposal is not treating racial discrepancies in outcome as a problem to be solved.
Okay, that’s true, it’s one of the available choices. That’s a rather extreme position to take, given the history of slavery, racism, and sexism in the U.S. We know for a fact that outcome discrepancies were caused by racism before 1965. The discrepancies have been on the decline since then. So, when exactly, did equal opportunity start? We didn’t have it in 1966 yet, despite the law. Did we have it in 1980? Outcomes have closed since then, so no, obviously not. When, then? What reason is there to believe outcomes discrepancies aren’t a problem, given that society generally believes they are?
> Okay, that’s true, it’s one of the available choices. That’s a rather extreme position to take, given the history of slavery, racism, and sexism in the U.S.
Slavery, racism, and sexism have happened in every single human society that has ever existed in some form or another, the US isn't special here. Discrepancies in average outcomes between different ethnic groups as measured by the statistical tools of industrialized states are at least as old as industrialization, and have relatively little correlation with whether a particular ethnic group was acting racistly towards another one in any given time and place.
> We know for a fact that outcome discrepancies were caused by racism before 1965.
No we don't.
> What reason is there to believe outcomes discrepancies aren’t a problem, given that society generally believes they are?
Societies generally believe all kinds of contradictory and mutually-inconsistent things, because a society is comprised of the aggregate of a large number of individual people who all have different understandings of the world, self-interests, group loyalties, etc. I don't assume that if society generally believes something, this is an unchanging fact about society, or that the thing is in fact correct, or that I should agree myself.
> Slavery, racism, and sexism have happened in every single human society that has ever existed in some form or another, the US isn't special here.
Sexism is different as its not a group trait that affects whole families or communities so the disadvantage is not inherited.
The US is not unique with regard to race, but not all societies are the same. The US has a history of race based slavery which had a cultural impact, and it had racist laws and lynch mobs etc. until very recently.
> have relatively little correlation with whether a particular ethnic group was acting racistly towards another one in any given time and place.
There were actual racist laws in the US which is pretty good evidence of people being racist in the 1960s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_Unit...
In most of the world people could legally marry someone of different race. In the UK an author could depict a marriage between people of different races in a children's book in the 1950s - I cannot think of any American examples of the same.
How could race-determined discrimination be anything other than racism?
Except preferential treatment backfires.
People will think “if XYZ group has a handicap maybe it’s because XYZ group is genetically inferior?” XYZ members themselves will think that and it will subconsciously affect them. People around them will think that and it will subconsciously affect their opinions towards them.
If you point out that XYZ group is only handicapped because they’re statistically environmentally disadvantaged, then it follows, why not handicap everyone with that disadvantage, or any comparable disadvantage? Why not handicap ABC minority? Some members of ABC will be jealous of XYZ and subtly discriminate against them (for this reason; these members would otherwise).
It creates the background conditions it seeks to destroy. Instead, handicap on things like health and income, which are more obviously fair and necessary (most people can accept that bad health and income are an especially serious disadvantages in today’s world).
Yes this is true, that can and has happened. I don’t think it’s true as rule, but it’s a valid point. Still, the most important question is what is the alternative?
We are closer to ending sexism and racism than we were 70 years ago before any affirmative action existed, right? Who’s to say that all the backfiring and unintended consequences that have happened aren’t better than the parallel universe in which maybe slavery still exists? Would it have happened faster with no quotas or boosts for groups that were historically discriminated against? Maybe yes, that’s possible, but we can’t know. What we do know is that we’ve made forward progress, even if imperfectly.
The thing that tends to be forgotten when people talk about affirmative action being preferential treatment is that the previous ‘in’ group was already getting preferential treatment, and maybe still is. We did not start from a level playing field. The core idea is to try to balance the pre-existing preferential treatment out. Unless you can resolve the cause of that, an easier way to attempt to handle it is to try to artificially make the preferences equal. The idea is not to give preferential treatment as an outcome, it’s to remove preferential treatment. This is related to how discrimination is not racism, and why positive discrimination is different from negative discrimination.
> We are closer to ending sexism and racism than we were 70 years ago before any affirmative action existed, right?
Correlation does not imply causation
> Who’s to say that all the backfiring and unintended consequences that have happened aren’t better than the parallel universe in which maybe slavery still exists?
They are better, but it's a low bar and an even lower one
> Would it have happened faster with no quotas or boosts for groups that were historically discriminated against?
Maybe, but even if "no", keeping the quota may cause a backslide.
Artificially balancing preferential treatment by applying it badly in the wrong direction is a duct-tape solution. Sure, it may have been justified after the Civil Rights Act. But it's not ideal and doesn't seem justified anymore, when we can easily positively discriminate for traits that are more obviously and universally negatively discriminated against, like income.
> Correlation does not imply causation
This is not relevant to what I said. We are closer to ending sexism and racism due to legislation, which is causal. We took specific actions to try to end sexism and racism and we know they had a positive effect.
> Artificially balancing preferential treatment by applying it badly in the wrong direction is a duct tape solution
I agree! It was meant to be a duct tape solution, from the start. It was meant to be temporary and end preferential treatment and go away.
> it may have been justified after the Civil Rights Act
I agree with this too, the justification was probably much stronger 60 or 70 years ago. It is weaker now… and that might be an indicator of its success.
Applying it badly has happened, and it’s lame and sucks, but that’s not an inherent feature or outcome of the core idea. Some might rightly say it was predictable.
The big open question is whether turning off all affirmative action will close that remaining gap, or leave us with a little bit of persistent systemic bias, or worse, a backslide. If that does, the next question is what to do.
> This might be true, but there are still achievement and pay gaps in the US. There are lots of debates about why, and I don’t want to start one. I’m just curious how else to solve systemic biases if they’re still here.
If you're unwilling to have a debate on why achievement and pay gaps exist, then you should be unwilling to assert that systemic bias is a problem, or even that achievement and pay gaps are a problem.
You didn't think the 50% admit rate for athletes, 40% admit rate for deans interest ie large cash donors, and 35% legacy admit rate were "the whole think"?
Legacy and donor admissions aren't the gotcha against race neutral admissions that you think they are. In fact, they go hand in hand. It's not a coincidence that the universities with strong legacy preferences all practiced affirmative action. Legacy students actually have slightly better grades and SAT scores than average, but this would unlikely to be the case if they used purely merit based admissions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_preferences
I didn’t say it to be a gotcha. But let’s admit that legacy admissions and athletes represent a non meritocratic social goal, and then ask why those are legitimate social goals but racial diversity is not one?
The problem is that affirmative action creates more opportunities to think about race, which leads to more resentment and discrimination. For example, in America, Italians used to be discriminated against, but today they are basically treated the same as all white people. If we had affirmative action for Italian Americans, they'd likely still be discriminated against today.
Honestly, the combination of extremely discriminatory, extremely corrupt, extremely predatory and then again discriminated differently by the fact if they are a sportsball player or not is rather amusing and at the same time baffling when observed from the other side of the globe.
Of course it is too late by now, by have Americans considered maybe abolishing all that and admitting students only based on the exam results, with preference given to the kids with better results (or no preference)? And replacing professional sportsball with a 1 lesson/week of general fitness? Maybe then they won't need to get so much debt to study too.
> have Americans considered maybe abolishing all that and admitting students only based on the exam results
No, because that's "not fair" to some groups.
If we are talking about a meritocracy and access to opportuity this doesn't even have to be about fairness the reality is if there are talented people that dont do as well on tests simply because they cant afford private tutors and prep courses maybe it makes sense to factor that in.
But there is also a legitimate reason to pursue fairness. When a society loses upward mobility and becomes a calcified caste social unrest becomes an existential threat. When we ignore that disparity compounds and locks people out of the social system we risk destroying the very system that we benefit from.
For the last 50 years you would get in severe trouble for using test scores alone thanks to disparate impact.
That is not true. Disparate impact has never meant "literally anything that produces disparate impact is against the law." I guess until the Trump admin has started using it to mean this when it affects white people.
What data do you have to support the assertion that affirmative action is no longer necessary to ensure proper representation of minorities on campus?
I'm open to arguments that there are better ways to achieve the goal of equitable access to higher eduction, but looking at enrollment numbers, the problem is far from solved.
The open question is the meaning of "proper representation:"
- One which maximizes Harvard's power network?
- Most likely to succeed in the future?
- Representative of the general public by race?
- Representative of the general public in other ways (e.g. religion, political affiliation)?
- Academically, best-qualified right now?
- Academically, most potential? At birth? Now?
- Most likely to donate?
Etc.
However defined, Harvard has much modest discrimination by race compared to discrimination by religion, political affiliation, or home town.
Harvard is 95% liberal, and much more so at the faculty level. If you look at the further-out evangelical, born-again Christian groups, or more conservative Muslim groups, the discrimination is even more extreme. Atheists are vastly over-represented, in contrast.
Until one is aligned on goals and definitions, one can't speak of goals being met or unmet. Harvard can be -- and indeed, is -- racist against blacks by one definition, against whites by another, against Asians by a third, and so on.
Fair questions and criticisms.
I would prefer to have colleges [elite or otherwise] be generally representative of the population by race, religion, socio-economic background, etc.
The problem, as I understand it, is "best qualified" is massively impacted by things like race, parental income, and other factors outside the control of college applicants. Society is far from a meritocracy.
In what way is that not meritocratic? The goal isn't to find the most Christlike figure born to the humblest beginnings and tempted thoughout his life by literally Satan to fall off the good path; it's to find the actually realized best qualified person.
If you're the smartest, most knowledgeable, most conscientious, most humble person because you had a fantastic support system, well you're still genuinely a great person. If you are a D student with a felony criminal record because everyone around you was a horrible influence and your parents abused you, you're still genuinely terrible.
I've seen parents in a store together where one just "supervises" their toddler watching youtube or something while the other shops. Meanwhile I'm there reading to my kids while my wife shops. I'll not be surprised if my kids have better outcomes in large part due to the family they were born into, because I do that on purpose. Society should incentivize people to devote ourselves to raising the best next generation we can. Trying to define merit via some counterfactual hypothetical person instead of the actual person in front of you makes no sense. In fact it's counterproductive as you end up incentivizing people to do things like send their kids to worse schools so they can appear relatively better.
40+% of the slots at Harvard are taken up by ALDCs. That's most of the white students slots. If you're like, say, our vice president, you have quite literally a snowball's chance in hell of making it in.
I doubt people are incentivized the way you think they are. Smug attitude aside, everyone wants best for their kids. Many people don't know how. They don't know how because their parents, grandparents, and no one in their community knows how. You end up in what research calls a culture of poverty.
That common among, but not exclusive to, many low-income black communities, due to a history of Jim Crow and slavery, but also in many immigrant communities, and white communities in places like, again, where our vice president comes from.
Improving outcomes for such communities means:
1) Improved economic growth
2) Improved social stability
Representation at Harvard means such communities might trust science. I have very little sympathy for white liberal university faculty complaining how some groups don't believe in climate change when those same faculty are giving those same groups every reason to distrust the academic establishment.
There's also no law which says schools should be meritocratic.
Admissions departments can and do optimize for things like future donations, political influence, and so on.
This all has nothing to do with the fact that the comment I replied to is suggesting that somehow actually being better is not meritorious. If your parents, grandparents, and community did know how to raise you better, and you turn out better, you're still better.
The point is we should not point to that and say "you didn't really earn that;" we should point and say "here is the example for others to look to. Everyone be more like them."
Like I had a broken home growing up. The valedictorian had an intact family in a higher social class. I put in no effort, was rude to people for no reason, and was generally not a great person. He worked hard, was friendly to everyone, and was generally a better person along pretty much any metric.
The takeaway from that is not to think "wow that wasn't fair," but to think "how can I try to be more like his parents for my kids?"
What specific ethnic groups do and do not count as minorities? What specific ratio of people from various ethnic groups admitted to college campuses counts as "proper"? Why specifically do the enrollment numbers at college campuses today count as a "problem"?
If you treat prestige acceptance rates as a derivative of the progression of racial policy, it absolutely makes sense why affirmative action is in place given the history of racial justice in America.
Can you really claim that the trend won't reverse if purely meritocratic admissions are reinstated (disregarding legacy admits...although very unfair to disregard since their racial makeup heavily tracks with asian/white/etc)
It's simply a single lever to change the racial makeup of the upper class. And certainly it goes both ways, but to simply remove it with no solution implies a regression to the former system, which was all but equal, much less equitable.
Why are we treating it as a derivative, and what's the slope? Do we have proof it's not zero? Let's say Johnny and Kareem both study poli-sci at Harvard. When Johnny graduates with his gentlemanly C's, his dad puts in a word with his golf buddy and it's off to Wall Street. Kareem shoots his resume off through online portals but no one bites. He goes to law school and takes on even more debt. Johnny's sister, Sally, passes the bar on her third try and is hired by a white-shoe law firm. Et cetera.
You conveniently left out the fact that all the "easy" tracks (athletics, legacy, donor) are heavily skewed toward white applicants. It's interesting how everyone is riling about affirmative action, while at the same time nobody bats an eyelid about those nepotism tracks. And those definitely seem to be institutionally biased against black and Hispanics (in particular the Athletic track it seems, considering the proportion of black athletes in professional sport).
Do consider the incentives of those developing the model that made those predictions. Afaict, it was not selected for purpose other than testimony.
Yes but there's some nuance. I don't think Harvard admission is necessary for Affirmative Action goals. We're talking about a tiny minority of people who attend. In my own opinion, we're looking at rival elite groups fighting with each other.
The SFFA lawsuit targeted Harvard specifically and made the claim not that Affirmative Action was a problem but that secretive racial policies to help whites at the expense of Asians were. There wasn't any direct evidence of it and it's kind of laughable to think Harvard would do that. The SC didn't evaluate that claim and just struck down using race for admissions. But that doesn't mean you can't ask people to write a diversity essay about their race and grade them on that.
Harvard's present demographics[1]:
I don't know why they collate it like this. This doesn't include international students who aren't identified by ethnicity. So based on percentage of the demographic, it would appear this is saying whites underperform on admissions substantially compared to everyone else which seems unlikely to me.[1]: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/10/class-of-2029...
I was listening to a podcast where the host and the guest were both Black and both had been to Harvard. This was before the Supreme Court ruling. They joked that it was well known that the Black students at Harvard who were descendants of American slaves were about 10% of the Black student body at Harvard. There were a lot of children of Nigerians and 3rd world tycoons and such.
I think there is a good argument for a help up for people whose communities are still impacted by the history of American slavery (and all its ills) but giving these slots to children of the wealthy and often immigrants does not feel right.
This is not an accident.
If you talk to admissions officers, over drinks, they'll tell you that poor black students from marginalized US communities have abysmal performance at elite schools. The decision to admit rich black students is very deliberate.
There are many reasons why. Schools in the US are locally-funded, and a marginalized community might have 25% of the per-student spending of a rich community (actual, typical figures). Until inequities like that are addressed, there is little elite education can do to help, even if it wanted, which it doesn't.
The point of an exclusive university is to be, well, maximally exclusive. That's the literal opposite of inclusive.
In my state, the poor Black inner city schools have the highest per-student spending in the state (and some of the highest in the country), as the state government funds them heavily. Performance remains abysmal
I'm curious: Which state?
However, there are *many* such effects. Whack one, and I can point to a dozen others.
Until and unless they're systematically addressed, it's actually very hard to either make progress or even draw good conclusions.
What's needed is a project to address *all* of the obvious ones, comprehensively, ideally on a national scale, but initially, at least on a pilot scale.
There is more to this story. I have heard Harvard (and its ilk) described as a smallish university attached to a massive investment fund. One of the criteria for admission is how much you and your family will be "good for" donations to the university. They much prefer students from rich families, even if they are the children of disagreeable dictators.
Glenn Loury & John McWhorter?
No. Briahna Joy Gray and a guest whose name I don't remember.
The price portion of this hits hard. My oldest starts college in 2 year and then his younger brother follows 2 years later. We make enough to not qualify for need based aid but not enough to just write a check, merit based aid + a meager 529 and our savings is their only hope besides debt.
Further, both are male, hetero, only 1/4 hispanic, and my wife and I are not drug addicts or alcoholics so they'll get nothing from the "whole student" review. There's a huge swath of the population in this boat. The middle/upper-middle class pays for everyone else as always.
> my wife and I are not drug addicts or alcoholics
Yet, you still have two years.
no.freaking.kidding
Thats why its called price discrimination: you are trying to get as much money as possible from each buyer without regard to fairness. Heroin dealers at least set a fixed $/oz because they know that word getting around that someone gets it cheaper would get them shot.
> We make enough to not qualify for need based aid
Are you sure? If you're household income is <$340k (depending on details) you'll still get some scholarship, and as long as your household income <$200,000 tuition is free.
[1]: https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/net-price-calculat...
This is going to screw me hard. I didn't make a meaningful income (>$95K) until I was 35, 10 years ago; I got a PhD, did a 4 year postdoc, and was an assistant non-tenure-track professor for 3 years. My monthly student loan payments were $1800/month. I changed jobs to HFT, and we have lived comfortably but not able to save much. I have 3 kids aged 17, 15, and 13, the oldest is applying to colleges very soon. 2 years ago I changed jobs again, and now make $700K on paper, but it is 60%+ bonuses, half of which is in a 3 year RSU. So, my take home pay is about $400K cash, taxed in a high bracket; I paid $145K or so in taxes this year. I have about $150K saved, $350K in 401K, and my mortgage is at $500K, with $300K to go. We are finally stable, e.g. we can take a vacation or 2, we can afford groceries without worrying, and can do travel baseball, but it also isn't an extravagant lifestyle or anything.
Now, this is a pretty phenomenal position to be in for most Americans, I can't complain too much. But, my oldest (white, straight, varsity basketball, 4.7 GPA, 35 ACT, 36 on Math) wants to go to a school like USC or Vanderbilt, and we will get 0 aid help. I refuse to let my kids suffer through student loans like my wife and I had to; at one point I made $2500/month as a postdoc, and $1800 went to loans while I had 2 kids under 2. My search history at that point was pretty grim, involving what circumstances life insurance would pay out, etc.
So, assuming all 3 kids go to a $100K/year type school, and we pay cash, that is $12 MILLION dollars over the next decade I will be paying (ignoring inflation, etc). This is the worst case, etc, but still bleak. And, apparently Stanford CS students can't get job offers, so they are entering a horrific job market. I don't think any college is worth that, not even Ivys, but not going to a good college is still worse. If I had a crystal ball 10-15 years ago, we would have left the country.
> So, assuming all 3 kids go to a $100K/year type school, and we pay cash, that is $12 MILLION dollars over the next decade I will be paying
You forgot a decimal there.
If you want to fund your kids’ elite education and you can’t front the cash, you can take out the loan or agree to pay a loan they take.
Plus, your $300k bonus (maybe $150k after taxes) will go a long way towards financing this obligation.
The Dartmouth analytics say that is true. The top 1% is taking from the top 10% in admissions.
That said, your view that they need "trauma" to get in is very wrong. You need to find a hook. The hook should be positive and not negative. (Why should they let you in to the private club?)
Source: I've gotten my kids into 6 Ivies. Non-athletes, white, public schools, and I am not a doner.
It's a bit of an interesting Chesterton's fence. For most of human history your job is whatever your dad's job was (with a large degree of hand waving). It makes sense because there's at least some genetic disposition there and you're likely willing to train your children for free. Instead we pay strangers massive amounts of money for make work training that is often only loosely related to productive skills.
Obviously a lot of reasons to do it this way. But you gotta think at some point not working for 4 years while paying ~2x median annual wage has gotta go the way of the dodo.
> only 1/4 hispanic
If you mean only one grandparent is born in a Latin American country, then according to the U.S. Census Bureau, you are Hispanic.
Exactly.
All this stuff is self identifying too, so there are far more dishonest applicants than someone with a single LatAm grandparent marking themselves hispanic.
For all these completely anonymous, AI-generated investigative pieces that are hitting the front page of HN every week, I'd love to see the prompts. Because I suspect they say more about what the proprietor of the site is trying to achieve than the article itself.
Alright, I’m going to try to weigh in on this subject in good faith. Wish me luck!
I grew up in suburban Pittsburgh and attended a very good public school. I had friends who lived only ten or fifteen minutes away but attended schools that were substantially worse by nearly every measurable standard. How should a university compare our applications on an apples-to-apples basis?
Some people would say, “Just use standardized test scores.” And sure, those can be part of the equation. But I attended a better school, benefited from years of stronger teaching, had access to better preparation materials, and had supportive parents with disposable income to invest in my education. The list goes on. How exactly should those advantages be measured? Is it a university’s job to account for them?
Others may disagree, but if I were on a university admissions team, I would say that it is...at least to some extent. I wouldn’t want a completely homogeneous student body. I would want every admitted student to clear a reasonable academic floor, but beyond that, I would value diversity in backgrounds, opinions, interests, intended majors, and life experiences.
In my opinion, the issue is much more complicated than people often make it out to be, and I don’t personally believe there is some vast liberal boogeyman behind it. I don’t think the process is perfectly fair to everyone, nor do I think perfect fairness is possible in the first place. But I also don’t automatically agree that it is wrong for universities to try -- however imperfectly or ham-fistedly they might do it -- to understand the broader context in which an application was submitted.
> But I attended a better school, benefited from years of stronger teaching, had access to better preparation materials, and had supportive parents with disposable income to invest in my education...Is it a university’s job to account for [my advantages]?
I would argue: no. There are always applicants with even more advantages than you, and those with fewer.
Standardized tests level the playing field IMO. Money can only help you so much. Talent and hard work become the dominant factors.
Mommy and daddy can't pay for expensive hobbies, finagle unpaid internships at prestigious non-profits, or anything else. Personal tutoring for standardized tests has diminishing returns compared to just grinding. Think Leetcode: how much does coaching help a SWE vs just being good at coding and solving 2000 problems?
Now you may say: under-privileged students often have less stable home environments. So they have less time to grind problems. This is true. But it's also true for admissions as they're done today. They have less time, money, and opportunities for hobbies, volunteer work, sports, and internships. They can't hire essay coaches or admissions consultants.
Thrusting students into a more challenging academic environment than their current demonstrated abilities merit doesn't help anyone. On the other hand if poorer students can demonstrate merit without spending much money, just by writing a single test, this is as egalitarian as possible.
> Personal tutoring for standardized tests has diminishing returns compared to just grinding...
Eh, not so sure. My son got a 32 on the ACT the first time he took it, and after 4 months of private tutoring got a 35, with 36 on math. Could he have grinded himself and got there? Possibly, but I doubt it. Having someone who knows what they're doing and holding him accountable was invaluable.
You know your son well enough to say he wouldn't have done the grind by himself. But that's not the same as proving that coaching is always superior to grinding. Or that a motivated grinder can't beat a less motivated tutored student.
>How exactly should those advantages be measured?
Why does it matter? How deep do you want to go to hunt for advantages? Are there no other places than Ivy League schools where one not so advantaged can get an education? Do you want the doctor saving the life of your loved one be the most qualified or one who ticked the disadvantaged boxes?
I suppose I just disagree that someone from a less affluent or privileged than me with got a 1400 SAT is less qualified than me (1510) simply because one number is larger than the other. These numbers don't exist in a vacuum.
Both the front door and the window on the second floor are just openings. I'm sure you would prefer to walk out through the former than the later.
Unfortunately as much as we love the idea of rewarding merit, it isn't actually "fair" in the truest sense of the word. Because everyone is born into different conditions, no one ever has the same opportunities, so you may be more capable than someone else through no fault of your own. Choosing the worse educated out of identically scoring students is one of the few times we decide to tip the scales. Unfortunately again good employment opportunities feel like a zero sum game right now.
> but if I were on a university admissions team
OK but what would your goal there be? What do you think an existing admissions team's goal is in various different universities? What if some desire to build an elite club but can't say it on record? And is that such a bad thing?
What's the point of giving preferences to athletes at places like computer science department? Would not it make more sense to create an athletic department and accept all athletes there so they do not have to struggle with math?
Also, they could make a separate department for the riches where there also is no math.
The entire premise of the NCAA for the longest time was "They aren't employees, they are getting a good education for free and playing sports in their off hours!"
This has long been a farce though. They would be put in made up classes with no actual work and given fake grades.
Presumably the athletes want it and they have leverage.
When you combine the fraction of "hooked" admits with the number of seats affected by affirmative action, you get something between 35%-43% (depending on if you discount hooked admits that were extremely qualified anyway). I think this is an interesting way to frame it. Left to its own devices, Harvard would only devote around 60% of its undergraduate program to simply educating very very bright students. The other 40% is/was for les vieux riches, athletes, generally connected kids, and racial diversity.
While I'm sure it varies by school, I suspect you will find a similar dynamic at many other elite private schools. The undergraduate program is going to be much less important to a top-tier research university, and consequently the admissions board can go nuts with other priorities. When even the runners-up (on a merit basis) are quite strong you can go quite far indeed before anyone would notice a slip in standards.
"The published cost of attendance is a fiction almost no one pays."
"Net effect: a $175k household with a house and a 401(k) is judged "full pay," pays near-sticker from already-taxed income, and receives essentially nothing."
I never know how to resolve these two statements. In our case, my daughter happened to choose a good public university. Maybe that is what they mean.
it's easily resolvable. the first statement is a lie: MANY students pay the full, published cost of attendance.
What do either of those quoted statements have to do with public universities specifically?
At high-end private universities, "The published cost of attendance is a fiction almost no one pays."
Yet, most upper-middle-income students are considered "full-pay."
Therefore, most upper-middle-income students now attend public universities.
Or at least that is the conclusion I drew from the two statements I quoted.
I gave up with a dreams of returning to school when I realized in my early 20s, despite paying my own rent, bills, taxes, etc, the financial aid system considered me a dependent of my father still and lumped his income in with the calculations done to determine what I get/don’t get.
It would have been helpful to model the effect of legacy status while accounting for academic indices.
conflates a couple of things: the legacy tip itself and the fact that legacies tend to have stronger academic profiles to begin with (they come from advantaged households). A skeptic can fairly say "of course legacy admits do well, they're better applicants"
> legacies tend to have stronger academic profiles
Maybe for Harvard, but I'm not sure a legacy for some random private liberal arts school nobody has ever heard of (or $STATE University) will be any more academically gifted than someone whose parents both went to college anyway.
Maybe we need to differentiate between "legacy of a school" and "legacy of a school with a historically high academic quality"
> they come from advantaged households
They also tend to be smarter because smarter people have smarter kids.
Sure, but not at the admittance rate that legacies get. There's been stats & studies showing for example some Ivys with ~3% admit rates having something closer to ~12% for legacy applicants.
Most people applying to an Ivy are already self-selecting as pretty exceptional applicants (putting aside the delusional) and the legacy admits had same/worse SATs, etc.
edit: just looked it up, Harvard is at ~34% legacy admit rate versus regular 6% admit rate..
A study of a top 25 school showed that legacy admitted students had identical scores than non-legacy: https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-why-elite-colleges-...
“Among the admitted legacies, grades and test scores were indistinguishable from non-legacy students. Both groups had an average SAT score that surpassed 1430.”
At Harvard, my understanding is that the legacy admits have slightly higher test scores than non-legacy admits.
Legacy SATs were about 30pts lower per Harvard Crimson in 2023 https://features.thecrimson.com/2023/freshman-survey/academi...
"The average SAT score among legacy students was 1543, while it was 1515 for non-legacy students."
Thanks my reading comprehension was low last night it would appear
It puzzles me why US colleges are allowed to consider anything other than standardized test scores.
You can invert nearly anything in the US with the right justification. You can cite the environment to ensure roads don’t have bike lanes, you can cite anti-racism rules to treat individuals by their race, to protect a man from a small home you can put him on the street. It just is how it is.
The framework to do it was introduced to prevent Jewish people from going to universities where it was found that when it was impossible to keep the Jewish people under 25% of enrollment it rapidly became possible once they accounted for well-roundedness.
The Jewish people of the age, like Asian people today, seem to have been narrow and pointed like a spear where others were like a sphere. Such is life. We aspire to spherical homogeneity. Other shapes need not apply.
There's a wonderful exchange in the movie Interstellar that speaks to this:
The point being is that a person, and their future, should not be distilled into a single number like an SAT score because people are far more complex than a single number. I would also contend that splitting them into a few numbers, such as by subject area, doesn't help either.The SAT has 2 components with separate scores. The SAT score is usually the sum of both, but there's no reason colleges can't weight one section more than the other.
If you really care about multiple dimensions, add more types of standardized tests - general science (or specialized - separate physics, chem and bio sections), history, geography, whatever.
Or tell students to take the standardized tests that most closely map to their preferred major.
I still contend strongly that it is wrong to distill a person into a collection of numbers. They are not.
My mother was a special ed teacher who eventually became a diagnostician whose job it was to determine eligibility for services. Part of this job was to give a standardized test to a child to see if they met state set criteria. That said, this was only part of an assessment and was used along with parent preference, teacher recommendations, and other people involved with the process at the school. Outside of meeting state criteria, the numbers in the test were used to identify areas of strength and weakness to help understand a child and put this in perspective of a broader story. For example, if a child struggled with math, was it because they couldn't read well, struggled with the math itself, was distractable? There were also other instances where the test scores themselves were misleading. For example, did a child perform poorly because they were sick, or the AC of the building broke, or they set a test date on a school holiday when the child knew the other kids had a day off?
My point in telling this story is that the raw score in a standarized test can be helpful, but it does not tell a complete story. It is part of a broader assessment. The SAT and college admission is not different.
Purely using a test score does provide an objective score to rank a collection of applicants, but I still contend strongly that it misses the point. Depending on your point of view, college is meant to educate a populace, provide job training, give economic opportunity, or a whole host of other goals. One can use test scores a proxy to determine which applicants best approximate these goals, but I think we should consider whether they really help achieve this.
I'll also mention that using tests scores is not entirely "fair" either. I'd a friend who dated a guy who worked for Kaplan, one of the test prep companies. They had very good data about how much their test prep improved test scores. They were also very expensive. As a result, money and wealth can be used pretty directly to improve one's score. It's difficult for a university to fully address wealth inequality in society. However, since tests can be gamed so easily, I would caution against their over use.
> I still contend strongly that it is wrong to distill a person into a collection of numbers
No one's saying a person is a collection of numbers.
> My point in telling this story is that the raw score in a standarized test can be helpful, but it does not tell a complete story. It is part of a broader assessment
And that's very noble and well-meaning. But it can also be used to discriminate and deny opportunity. Raw scores, on the other hand, are hard data. You either have them or you don't. Do factors outside of one's control go into them? Absolutely. Those factors are all-pervasive and will influence anything you might use to determine merit.
> Kaplan, one of the test prep companies. They had very good data about how much their test prep improved test scores.
Of course they would say that. Even assuming it's true, Kaplan test prep books are only around $50 on Amazon. You could also get them for free from a public or school library (or the high seas, if that's your thing).
As I understand it, Kaplan has apps and dashboards and more material if you're a subscriber. Is there data about the marginal score improvement using that versus just the books?
When you get right down to it, everyone's starting point is different. Reducing the number of variables improves opportunity IMO.
My continued assertion is that "hard data" can be misleading, wrong, and discriminatory. It requires judgement to understand what it tells us and whether there is error in the collection of the data itself.
As far as Kaplan, I don't have metrics to share, but what I saw shocked me at the time. It appeared as though they collected data as to how much their test prep improved scores and it was pretty dramatic. And, they were smart enough to distinguish between their test prep books and their in person tutoring. In person tutoring worked better and by a lot, but it all helped.
As far as tests, I've never contended that they shouldn't be done, but that these scores need to be part of an overall portfolio. I have in fact sat on admittance boards for graduate school and the two dominant factors other reviewers used were GPA and where they went to undergrad. Both of these were hard metrics and full of bias. I'll also contend that they weren't particularly effective in identifying students who successfully completed the program.
Something to consider, I do think test scores can help screen candidates. For example, if one is going to admit into a math program, then their quantitative score should probably be above a certain level. After that, I personally don't think it matters. In that way, one could just set minimum criteria to be accepted, which includes GPA, tests scores, research, jobs, whatever, and then randomly select from that group. That would certainly eliminate a huge amount bias, though not all, but most people hate this approach because it contradicts this belief that we live mostly in a meritocracy. They want rankings and they want to know who number 1 is. My continued argument is that it's impossible to distill a person down to a hard ranking in a reasonable matter, especially with test scores, and it's not necessary for college admission since one can select a group of applicants for acceptance without ordering them.
I appreciate your willingness to engage and your detailed responses. I understand where you're coming from, and that you've seen how the sausage is made.
> In person tutoring worked better and by a lot, but it all helped.
Are money and other resources only helpful for getting a good test score? They don't matter at all for the factors that improve one's chances of admission? For example, going to a good high school district, participation in certain sports, hobbies, or access to internship, volunteer, or research opportunities?
My argument is simply: by making it about the test, you remove all the other factors where money could potentially have an influence. The rich students will get tutoring no matter what. But they can't gain any other advantages over the poor students.
> In that way, one could just set minimum criteria to be accepted, which includes GPA, tests scores, research, jobs, whatever, and then randomly select from that group.
That wouldn't be a terrible approach either. You are correct it would be unsatisfying.
> GPA and where they went to undergrad...were [both] hard metrics and full of bias.
I would argue they weren't "hard" at all. Undergrad is already gated by "squishy" criteria. Normalizing GPAs across universities (and countries, in the case of international applicants) is tricky and imprecise.
Money absolutely has an impact across easily available metrics. For example, money lets one purchase better coaching for sports or join a travel team. As we see from the lawsuit, athletes were accepted at a much higher rate than the rest of the applicants. Money lets one attend better schools either from a transfer or private school. Money allows for better tutoring. I completely agree.
Where I think we differ is that my contention is that money also allows one to game a higher test score on something like the SAT and by a significant factor. Yes, it would focus attention on this one factor, but I believe it also misses the point. College admissions is not meant to be a singular contest or game, but part of a broader ecosystem and that system has choices.
A university has a number of competing criteria and wants for its applicants. Generally speaking, a university does not want someone to drop out. They want graduates and part of screening applications is meant to determine whether they believe someone can successfully complete their degree. Some universities essentially operate like hedge funds that have classes. These universities have an interest in high net worth and connected applicants because these people can trade favors or give donations as alumnae. This is reflected in legacy admissions and automatic admission for certain classes of donors. Some universities want to give preference to in-state or in-city students. The purpose here is to ensure the university is locally connected because the state and city have the most influence on what is really a city inside of a city for most universities. Some universities want to give children of those who never went to college preference because it ultimately broadens their base and likely ensures their children will want to attend there as well. Some universities want to maximize their rating on the US News and World Report ranking because it means they can charge higher tuition.
None of those metrics above, moral or amoral alike, need a total ordering of applicants based on a test score.
As one other comment, when I sat on the graduate board, our department was flooded with applications from one particular country, more than half. Don't know why, but it was. Certainly, we accepted some of those applicants. However, consider the implications of accepting students purely from that one place. Would the local government be happy if we did not accept any local or domestic students? Would the federal? Probably not. However, if we accepted applications purely based on a singular test score, there would be incentive for that place to game the system and help with the test, legal or otherwise. No idea if they did then, but it wouldn't have mattered since we still read the broader application.
> I still contend strongly that it is wrong to distill a person into a collection of numbers.
Welcome to the adult world, where you are distilled into a collection of number each step of the way: look at credit scores, performance reviews, etc.
> I'll also mention that using tests scores is not entirely "fair" either.
Unfortunately we didn't come up with a better way to rank a group of people on scale in a reasonable amount of time. So tests are a necessary compromise. I also know plenty of examples where people aced their tests by just spending $30 on a prep book and studying hard.
Thankfully, I also work in the adult world and this world requires judgement.
As an example, my wife is a physician. She and her colleagues use metrics to help assess a patient, but ultimately treatment is based on their judgement. Purely relying on hard numbers, such as what an EKG gives, would lead to dead patients. Many of them. I am a mathematician. My world revolves around hard computational numbers, yet my algorithms will often given misleading results. Determining when that is requires judgement. Despite a push too the contrary, good hiring managers assess applicants and take responsibility for both good and bad hires. This requires judgement.
And, yes, I can also find examples where someone either didn't study or used a book and did well on their SAT. That said, in person test prep with a tutor absolutely has a large, positive effect on test scores, much more than simply a book. Kaplan has the internal data. It's absolutely worth the money if one can afford it. Most can't.
Your personal stories are very cute, but they don't explain what you're proposing instead of tests. I'm not sure how you're going to use so-called "judgment" to decide which students get in out of hundreds of thousands of applications in a reasonable amount of time.
Because the SAT is too easy and gets saturated.
so make it harder? Seems like a solvable problem.
They’ve made it easier. Seems like the will to solve it didn’t exist.
Claude slopped html page.
Really enjoyed your article.
Some random chart feedback. I found the use of red for elite colleges and then the use of red to mean white applicants to make the article slightly harder to read and understand. Recommend changing using completely different colors from that chart to he next one, because they are completely unrealted axis and
It feels like with fewer foreign students college's will have to open more slots to those who can be reasonable ready to be successful and also pay full rate.
How likely is it to be a certain demographic given certain stats? Pretty much says it all.
The race factor is irrelevant in practice. Even more so when you look at literature indicating that your success is actually more predictive from high school success than college attendance.
In other words, if you get into Stanford you will likely succeed even if you don’t go.
What do "hooked" and "unhooked" mean here?
"Hooked" is any foot in the door aside from merit such as sports recruitment, child of staff, child of alumnus, or international student. Unhooked is everyone who has to get in on merit alone.
Looking at this without consideration for two factors (number of applicants and the number of applications per applicant) is borderline malpractice.
I can’t pull older numbers on my phone at the moment but in the last 12 years the number of applications to colleges (applicants*applications) has risen 50%.
So correct for the reality that…
1) that immediately skews your denominator and changes your percentages.
2) the upper middle class students are the most likely to apply to the most schools (because they can and don’t have the other paths)
3) more and more marginal students who previously would not have gone to college are getting encouraged to apply.
And their model is just breaking.
So with some searching…
In the UK you can apply to upto five colleges.
In the US the recommendation seems to be between 5-8
On the sixth application does someone knock on your door?
I know this is probably a /s but in the UK you apply through a service called UCAS not directly to the university, and UCAS only allow you to apply to 5 universities.
This post got removed from the front page after reaching #7. Unclear what happened.