Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Prompted by the Harvard discrimination trial, I wonder how a truly diverse student body would look like.
Races are not enough - e.g. West Africans could very well be more genetically and culturally different compared to East Africans than Whites compared to Hispanics. Genetic diversity in admissions can be found by giving applicants ancestry DNA tests and optimizing for the total genetic distance between each pair of students.
But ancestry differences are only somewhat correlated with cultural differences. The cultural differences can be added by looking at what culture(s) the student grew up in and assigning a value to each cultural factor (e.g. importance of marriage, patriotism, sports).
Additional information can be used - e.g. growing up in a single-parent household, living in a big vs. small city, having or not having siblings, playing or not playing an instrument, religiousness, political ideology (gamed too easily?), parents' occupations. Even physical differences can be used - e.g. sex (which is done already), height, face shape, color blindness.
But in order to create leaders in various fields, colleges should assign higher weights to differences in thinking. Some of it is already done by the choice of a major - an average music major is different in many ways than the average Computer Science major).
One test that can be useful to create and consider would be questions with answers that can be arrived at in two or more ways and that take up about the same amount of time to answer (in order to prevent gaming the test). A test of writing can also be made (expressing ideas or solutions in different but just as readable ways).
Personality testing such as the Big Five or MBTI or self-esteem test can be done. In practice, colleges would likely ignore or penalize some differences in thinking and personality, e.g. they would probably prefer open-minded students to close-minded students, globalists to nationalists, extroverts to loners.
Political diversity should also matter.
Friends are a large influence on each student. There could be questions about them.
Colleges would probably not care about what might be important child development differences, e.g. playing or not playing a given video game, reading a given book, playing outside, time spent watching TV. But using these would improve diversity.
In practice, the desired diversity could be made to mirror the scores of widely defined U.S. or world residents. The demographics change with time, though. Would this or using predicted future results be discriminatory? Using scores of current leaders in various fields (if even possible to gather), might also be discriminatory - e.g. the Senate members are definitely different in many ways (sex, race, age, background, personality) from other U.S. citizens.
All this seems like a costly process but Harvard's endowment is at $37.1 billion, so they could do it if they really want more diversity. Some of these would likely cause more discrimination lawsuits, especially if religion and genetic info are used. But a race is a protected class too. If Harvard loses, would they be able to use methods such as diversity in cultures? Or would it be shown to be a proxy for race? Could telling students to do an ancestry DNA test and only using their answers to a question about their ancestry be legal?
An NBER study showed that black patients receive more effective care from black doctors. If that's true among other races and ethnicities, it'll show that racial or ethnic diversity does matter (but it would also show that it's better to send patients to doctors of the same race, which has no chance politically). Given the legal and political uncertainty about these issues, it is more likely that such new methods would be used in China first. If shown to be successful, would it cause the U.S. (and Europe, where they are even less likely to be used) to follow?
(I hope this is not political or controversial enough to be moved to P&OC)
When our sons applied to universities 20 years ago, their acceptance and scholarship letters seemed to indicate that geographic diversity was also sought by the schools.
Ironic situation now that nation-wide ethic minorities are university majorities in certain fields of study. Also unusual is the very high prevalence of females in Veterinarian Medicine programs, Vet programs are approaching 90% females at some schools. Which yields the question "Has the gender pendulum for Veterinarian Medicine shifted so far towards female students, and for so long, that male students have now abandoned Veterinarian Medicine as a career choice?"
The current 50:50 gender representation in the field of practice is ideal, but that ratio will rapidly change as older males age out of the career and are replaced with 80% females entering the career.
When our sons applied to universities 20 years ago, their acceptance and scholarship letters seemed to indicate that geographic diversity was also sought by the schools.
Ironic situation now that nation-wide ethic minorities are university majorities in certain fields of study. Also unusual is the very high prevalence of females in Veterinarian Medicine programs, Vet programs are approaching 90% females at some schools. Which yields the question "Has the gender pendulum for Veterinarian Medicine shifted so far towards female students, and for so long, that male students have now abandoned Veterinarian Medicine as a career choice?"
Why would men do that, just because women have become a majority in a formerly Maile-dominant field of study? Presumably anyone choses a field of study out of innate interest on some level.
Artificially induced "diversity" is only another phrase for "affirmative action" ... In 'University-speak,' this means less academically qualified students get admitted, moved along and graduated, at the expense of more qualified students. This "dumbing-down of America" is promoted by labeling anything less "racism," particularly when more qualified students are not "diverse enough."
But, the non-academic/government world still hires and promotes on the basis of qualifications ... unless government contract pressure is used to force a "diversity injection" in the form of 'hiring quotas, etc'.
Ultimately, the only thing changed under the diversity-agenda, is PC appearances and words -- and perhaps some government bureaucrats feel better about themselves. Meanwhile, the perceived value of a Harvard (or other) education gets diminished.
Why would men do that, just because women have become a majority in a formerly Maile-dominant field of study? Presumably anyone choses a field of study out of innate interest on some level.
And role model influence.
Males in Elementary Education are still rare, and until recently Males in Nursing were very rare. In the past the little Susies were inappropriately told that they could not study Engineering and other fields. The little Sam's of today may not be told they cannot become Vets, but if the majority of Vets they see are female they may internally decide they should look elsewhere.
I actually chose my career based on the profession of the character played by Brian Keith in the 1960's TV Sit-Com "Family Affair". (Sounds stupid, I know) I love my career and had no other exposure to it as a child. I have no idea how I would have been influenced if the character's sister or a female neighbor was the globe trotting Construction Engineer/Project Manager.
Prompted by the Harvard discrimination trial, I wonder how a truly diverse student body would look like.
Races are not enough - e.g. West Africans could very well be more genetically and culturally different compared to East Africans than Whites compared to Hispanics. Genetic diversity in admissions can be found by giving applicants ancestry DNA tests and optimizing for the total genetic distance between each pair of students.
But ancestry differences are only somewhat correlated with cultural differences. The cultural differences can be added by looking at what culture(s) the student grew up in and assigning a value to each cultural factor (e.g. importance of marriage, patriotism, sports).
Additional information can be used - e.g. growing up in a single-parent household, living in a big vs. small city, having or not having siblings, playing or not playing an instrument, religiousness, political ideology (gamed too easily?), parents' occupations. Even physical differences can be used - e.g. sex (which is done already), height, face shape, color blindness.
But in order to create leaders in various fields, colleges should assign higher weights to differences in thinking. Some of it is already done by the choice of a major - an average music major is different in many ways than the average Computer Science major).
One test that can be useful to create and consider would be questions with answers that can be arrived at in two or more ways and that take up about the same amount of time to answer (in order to prevent gaming the test). A test of writing can also be made (expressing ideas or solutions in different but just as readable ways).
Personality testing such as the Big Five or MBTI or self-esteem test can be done. In practice, colleges would likely ignore or penalize some differences in thinking and personality, e.g. they would probably prefer open-minded students to close-minded students, globalists to nationalists, extroverts to loners.
Political diversity should also matter.
Friends are a large influence on each student. There could be questions about them.
Colleges would probably not care about what might be important child development differences, e.g. playing or not playing a given video game, reading a given book, playing outside, time spent watching TV. But using these would improve diversity.
In practice, the desired diversity could be made to mirror the scores of widely defined U.S. or world residents. The demographics change with time, though. Would this or using predicted future results be discriminatory? Using scores of current leaders in various fields (if even possible to gather), might also be discriminatory - e.g. the Senate members are definitely different in many ways (sex, race, age, background, personality) from other U.S. citizens.
All this seems like a costly process but Harvard's endowment is at $37.1 billion, so they could do it if they really want more diversity. Some of these would likely cause more discrimination lawsuits, especially if religion and genetic info are used. But a race is a protected class too. If Harvard loses, would they be able to use methods such as diversity in cultures? Or would it be shown to be a proxy for race? Could telling students to do an ancestry DNA test and only using their answers to a question about their ancestry be legal?
An NBER study showed that black patients receive more effective care from black doctors. If that's true among other races and ethnicities, it'll show that racial or ethnic diversity does matter (but it would also show that it's better to send patients to doctors of the same race, which has no chance politically). Given the legal and political uncertainty about these issues, it is more likely that such new methods would be used in China first. If shown to be successful, would it cause the U.S. (and Europe, where they are even less likely to be used) to follow?
(I hope this is not political or controversial enough to be moved to P&OC)
The higher education model every state and most individual school shoulds look to is California's three tiered system. UC schools, Cal-State schools and community colleges. All segregated greatly by academic merit and
little else. It just works.
Harvard as a nominally private institution should have lot of leeway to decide its own admissions criteria. However, Harvard has treated Asian Americans in particular very unfairly and because of that it seems there's a good chance they are going lose this case.
As if the classes at Harvard, Amherst, Stanford, Chicago and other prestigious, highly selective schools are not already diverse? Puh-leeze. These schools are already far more diverse than they have ever been -- racially, ethnically, by socio-economic status, and by gender. Compare entering classes at any of them now with what their entering classes were like 60 years ago and that much is obvious. I think the great part is that these schools have finally come to realize that talent and ambition comes in a variety of flavors.
IMO what many folks don't understand is that picking an entering class at any of them is more art than science. Yes, there is a high baseline of academic competence and achievement. (And yes, there are also many more black and Hispanic students at these top schools who are very capable of doing the work than the anti-affirmative action zealots believe). But a class is more than just a matrix of numbers for tests and grades.
Every top school, including Harvard, wants a different mix of students beside high academic achievers and the occasional big donor's or celebrity's kid. It might be artistic talent, potential business leadership, sports prowess, political involvement, science and computer geeks, future academics, Wall Street whizzes, and so on. Finding the elusive mix is something that just can't be done by the numbers. It's why that word "holistic" really does mean something. To get the right mix of kids schools really do have to look at every facet of an applicant, including ethnicity. And it should be noted that Asians have benefited greatly from affirmative action -- no matter the outcome of the current case. A generation ago these students were barely a blip on the screen at the top schools, and today they are much more than that.
But I fear the plaintiff's case at Harvard comes down to little more than "My SATs are higher than theirs!" and "They don't like me!" If that is the crux of their case, then Harvard deserves to win.
But I fear the plaintiff's case at Harvard comes down to little more than "My SATs are higher than theirs!" and "They don't like me!" If that is the crux of their case, then Harvard deserves to win.
I feel like this is basically what the plaintiffs in this case are arguing. I think they’re coming at this from the point-of-view that “higher test scores & GPA= more qualified.” But really, what does “more qualified” mean when it comes to college admissions? If Harvard and other elite schools were just looking to graduate the students with the highest test scores, it could easily do that and this case would be moot. Schools like Harvard are looking to graduate students who can do more than ace a multiple choice test. They are looking for well-rounded leaders, creators, thinkers, etc. Many of these qualities can’t be determined by test scores and GPA alone. Who is “more qualified”: Student A who’s from an upper-middle class family that could afford tutors, expensive extracurricular activities, and access to similar high-achieving families, or Student B who is from a low income, single parent household who, despite working after school and growing up in a rough neighborhood, excels regardless. I worry that if student A has a higher test score and GPA, the plaintiffs would argue that Student A deserves to be admitted over Student B, though many would argue that Student B worked harder by virtues of having less than Student A. Is someone who got a perfect math score on their SAT “more qualified” than a student who scored a 710 on the math section but is artistically gifted or is just simply a charismatic go-getter? Thinking of qualifications as simply a numbers game is where I think these plaintiffs are getting tripped up on when college admissions has never been about pure numbers- otherwise, why bother with essays and recommendations?
Speaking of recommendations, I read somewhere that teacher recs are where many Asian American students tend to falter. I refuse to make wide assumptions about an entire group of students, but based on my personal experience, this makes sense to me. I went to an “exam school” in Boston that was very much a feeder school for the Ivies. Now I was a quiet shy kid but I was NOTHING compared to some of the AsAm students I remember from my AP classes. One kid specifically, this thin Chinese American boy who never took his coat off, even during the warmer months, I never heard him speak a word without being called on. Sadly it was kind of a joke about how forgettable he was. Even as seniors, the teachers and staff forgot his name. Still, he graduated at the top 5% of the class, but he did nothing to stand out. I’m not sure what sort of LOR a teacher could write for him. “He was present and turned in his work”?
I tutored a lot of high school students and college freshmen, along with having a side gig as a proofreader (kindly ignore my typos here, my phone screen is entirely shattered!), and I’m going to be real honest here: some of the most boring, god-awefully plain essays I’ve ever read came from Asian Americans and white male students from the suburbs. Don’t @ me, this is based on my personal experience. All these good boys and girls who aced all the tests, played violins/pianos/cellos, became captain of their debate teams/quiz bowl team/chess clubs, were great at golf or tennis or track, and helped the hungry and homelesss, they wrote some bland, generic essays (conversely, the BEST essay I can remember reading came from a AsAm student who had defied his family and decided to go to an arts school and major in film. 11 years later and I can still remember how that essay started!). This quest to be the perfect student has led to a lot of cookie-cutter students, IMHO. It doesn’t help that there are companies out there coaching kids on how to be “Ivy ready” using the same tired formula. I can only assume that the admissions team for any of these elite schools see much of same and their eyes glaze over until someone “unique” pops out and grabs their attention.
I’ve rambled for a bit here (sincere apologies), but I’m curious to see how this case turns out and how high schools like my alma mater adjust students’ expectations. This lust (can’t think of a better word) for getting into an Ivy League school always struck me as a bit too much and I’ve seen it drive kids to bad places. Keep thinking of college as if it’s a race where your kid has to come in first and watch how many of them burn out or resort to drastic measures as a result
Why the **** is this so important? How much money is being wasted on this ****?
Addressing discrimination is not important?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
