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.
Some Asian groups are not really known to be academically successful, but they have to compete with Chinese, Koreans and Indians... for the reduced cap, Not fair for them too.
That's a good point but "less academically successful" could be due to uneven immigration policies.
Imagine that country X had a huge influx of Irish due to a volcano destroying most of the country but also let in small numbers of immigrants from Sweden and Scotland but only for highly educated positions and they only let in the best applicants.
The *average* Irish immigrant would be less educated and from a family with less of an educational focus than the cherry picked people from the other two countries.
Caltech has a serious diversity problem. Here are the straight up numbers for undergraduates at Caltech.
Only 1% of Caltech undergraduates are African American. That means that there are roughly nine Black undergraduate students out of a population of 900. There are zero students who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native, and only 6% who identify as Hispanic. Contrast those to the demographic of the Los Angeles area which is: 7.6% African American, 0.9% Native American, and 40.3% Hispanic. (U.S. Demographics are: 12.6% African American, 16.3% Hispanic and 0.2% American Indian or Alaskan Native.)
I recognize that these issues are related to larger questions of race and inequality in the U.S., but for the purposes of this post, I am focusing on Caltech initiatives to promote diversity on campus.
A common argument I hear for this lack of diversity is that Caltech is simply too difficult to allow someone without the best math and science background to attend. They argue that anyone who has not mastered the sciences by the time they get here has no hope of succeeding. This perspective bothers me to no end
According to an informal survey of this year's Harvard's freshman class, legacy admits actually scored higher on their SATs than non-legacies. I mean seriously what are the odds that Harvard graduate has a dumb kid?
Statistically speaking, of course Harvard graduates tend to have smart children ON AVERAGE.
However, the vast majority of the population are not Harvard graduates, so very likely the best students are still among non-legacies.
According to an informal survey of this year's Harvard's freshman class, legacy admits actually scored higher on their SATs than non-legacies. I mean seriously what are the odds that Harvard graduate has a dumb kid?
That's a good point but "less academically successful" could be due to uneven immigration policies.
Imagine that country X had a huge influx of Irish due to a volcano destroying most of the country but also let in small numbers of immigrants from Sweden and Scotland but only for highly educated positions and they only let in the best applicants.
The *average* Irish immigrant would be less educated and from a family with less of an educational focus than the cherry picked people from the other two countries.
In fact Chinese immigrants are like that. In old days, most immigrants were poor farmers from Cantonese area. Nowadays, many new immigrants are well educated and/or wealthy. Chinatown people cannot compete with Silicon Valley Chinese.
Statistically speaking, of course Harvard graduates tend to have smart children ON AVERAGE.
However, the vast majority of the population are not Harvard graduates, so very likely the best students are still among non-legacies.
Possibly but the other thing to consider isn't direct legacies but rather the children of powerful people.
ie) Gore went to Harvard and would not have been considered a legacy and he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Clinton on the other hand earned his way into elite schools from a poor Arkansas family.
AA does not make a lot of sense in engineering or hard science.
Nobody will hire an engineer because he is a "minority". They only look for skills to get the job done. In fact AA can hurt those minorities who really qualify.
Universities will intentionally hire some professors of minority, but there are not so many positions to begin with.
In fact Chinese immigrants are like that. In old days, most immigrants were poor farmers from Cantonese area. Nowadays, many new immigrants are well educated and/or wealthy. Chinatown people cannot compete with Silicon Valley Chinese.
Yep. It's really not comparable to say a certain group has more ability per se but noting you've skimmed the cream off the top is the truth.
P.S. This has been the subject of debate among many blacks as well where top students from Nigeria or from very well-off black families have gained admission and thus counted in the demographics and freezing out a student that has had more adversity to get past.
The big theat at Harvard anymore is that they''ve relaxed their application standards for mens sports. That means if you are a black male that had borderline scores to get into harvard before but would have gotten in with a little nudge....you might not get that nudge anymore because they've filled that demographic with an athlete that was given a much larger nudge. (I base my assumption on the fact of the high % of AA's in collegiate spots).
According to an informal survey of this year's Harvard's freshman class, legacy admits actually scored higher on their SATs than non-legacies. I mean seriously what are the odds that Harvard graduate has a dumb kid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
"informal survey" lol.
I heard that legacies scored 1-2% lower than the Harvard average (which is still pretty freakin' high), but I don't remember the source. Also, I would imagine that people could argue that since a private university is choosing to allow legacies then they should be free to do so. There may be a point to that... Although I don't personally agree with legacy admission criteria I'm not sure that anyone could force a private university to change how they evaluate applicants.
I heard that legacies scored 1-2% lower than the Harvard average (which is still pretty freakin' high), but I don't remember the source. Also, I would imagine that people could argue that since a private university is choosing to allow legacies then they should be free to do so. There may be a point to that... Although I don't personally agree with legacy admission criteria I'm not sure that anyone could force a private university to change how they evaluate applicants.
Private doesn't really shield you if someone starts dragging you through the press for your demographics.
You can also run afoul of organizations like the NCAA etc. that can apply pressure indirectly if they don't like your admission practices.
Heck, look at the heat schools can get just because of their mascot.
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.
