The following article was first posted on The Chronicle of Higher Education website in the cultural priorities section.
********************************************************************************
The lead article in Sunday’s New York Times featured
important research that could help shape the future of equity debates and
affirmative action in higher education.
The article, “Better Colleges Failing to Lure Poorer Strivers,” by
David Leonhardt, cites a significant study conducted
by Stanford University’s Caroline Hoxby and Harvard University’s Christopher
Avery, which finds that while more than three-quarters of wealthy high-achieving
students attend selective four-year colleges, only about one-third of
high-achieving low-income students do so.
Looking at students whose grades and test scores put them in
the top 4 percent of the high-school Class of 2008, Hoxby and Avery found that
34 percent of those from the lowest income quartile of households attended one
of the nation’s most selective 238 colleges compared with 78 percent of those
from the richest quartile….
*********************************************************************************
Kahlenburg's entry tries to debunk some of the myths about how the switch from race based preferences to socio-economic consideration would hurt the diversity of schools. His questions about the commitment of colleges and universities toward overall commitment to students at the low end of the economic spectrum are trenchant.
What follows is my posted comment in response to his piece.
********************************************************************************
The article and comments here have been helpful in bringing
an issue that has received very little attention from media and educators until
just recently.
an issue that has received very little attention from media and educators until
just recently.
Highly selective admission is a zero sum process. For every
great student in one category selected another has to be rejected. The net cast
on the study cited in the article is far too wide for an accurate overview of what
goes on in admission offices at the top 25. The thought experiment would go
something like this. Would a school benefit from having a low income student
who has a less rigorous academic program, lower scores, and fewer high profile activities
that a student with 2300 SATS, top 1%, and significant leadership and service activities?
Maybe so. But to give just one real world example, this from an admission
officer at an Ivy. If a student is not hooked in some way (legacy, athlete,
under-represented student) then any score under 740 on the SAT 1 or 2 is enough
to say no. Of course these kinds of stats can never made public unless
transparency were a cause worth fighting for and this is not high on the list
for most educators for all kinds of reasons, some of the noble and others less
so.
great student in one category selected another has to be rejected. The net cast
on the study cited in the article is far too wide for an accurate overview of what
goes on in admission offices at the top 25. The thought experiment would go
something like this. Would a school benefit from having a low income student
who has a less rigorous academic program, lower scores, and fewer high profile activities
that a student with 2300 SATS, top 1%, and significant leadership and service activities?
Maybe so. But to give just one real world example, this from an admission
officer at an Ivy. If a student is not hooked in some way (legacy, athlete,
under-represented student) then any score under 740 on the SAT 1 or 2 is enough
to say no. Of course these kinds of stats can never made public unless
transparency were a cause worth fighting for and this is not high on the list
for most educators for all kinds of reasons, some of the noble and others less
so.
The bottom line: A student at the top 4% of any school with
the scores at the low end of range included in the study is already at the
bottom of the pool of those students who are selected. Should schools invest
huge sums of money to recruit them? If so, then they will have to sacrifice
recruiting at other places in which there are students with far higher
statistics and activities and networks that predict future success. Is it fair
that the kids from the top end have more advantages? To bring up this straw man
argument misses the point I think. The students themselves are not responsible
for the world in which they live and there is already strong resentment among
the middle class that too much is being done at the ends of the spectrum at
their expense. The rich will always have greater access. No getting around that
unless human nature changes.
the scores at the low end of range included in the study is already at the
bottom of the pool of those students who are selected. Should schools invest
huge sums of money to recruit them? If so, then they will have to sacrifice
recruiting at other places in which there are students with far higher
statistics and activities and networks that predict future success. Is it fair
that the kids from the top end have more advantages? To bring up this straw man
argument misses the point I think. The students themselves are not responsible
for the world in which they live and there is already strong resentment among
the middle class that too much is being done at the ends of the spectrum at
their expense. The rich will always have greater access. No getting around that
unless human nature changes.
But for those parents who are putting in every cent to send a kid to top public school (in terms of property taxes and saving for college), to feel that they will be overlooked in favor those who have less
than do will not necessarily bring about transformational change. It will be the suburban kids with 2400s and perfect grades, great recommendations, essays,
and activities who will have to be sacrificed. Is this social experiment to get
more strivers worth it to them? I think it would be a hard sell.
than do will not necessarily bring about transformational change. It will be the suburban kids with 2400s and perfect grades, great recommendations, essays,
and activities who will have to be sacrificed. Is this social experiment to get
more strivers worth it to them? I think it would be a hard sell.
The intellectual left has long been chided by a tiny group
of thinkers who are not on the right. The person I am thinking of in particular
is Slavoj Zizek, who some think of as the most important philosopher alive
today. His view is that the left was duped into supporting issues that are
secondary to the most important one of all: economic disparities. I have
written recently on him and this issue so I am not a disinterested spectator.
of thinkers who are not on the right. The person I am thinking of in particular
is Slavoj Zizek, who some think of as the most important philosopher alive
today. His view is that the left was duped into supporting issues that are
secondary to the most important one of all: economic disparities. I have
written recently on him and this issue so I am not a disinterested spectator.
I have also written about the group that makes it necessary to look awry at these studies. Asian Americans confound the educational left as they undermine the belief that things like standardized testing are racially biased.
They are the group with the stats that demonstrate overt racism at the Ivies.
The charts, reproduced in the Times, and on a prior entry here, show how the Ivies
have kept the percentage of Asians unchanged over the last generation despite 400%
increases
in applications from the group who are now the highest testers and performers out
there. But the wall of ‘holistic’ admission permits them to continue to keep
the percentages down as thee institutional priorities do not value the
diversity this group might bring. Should more middle class Asians with perfect
academics and great support in other ways be turned down at the expense of
poorer Asians who will bring socio-economic diversity? As long as the Ivies
keep the percentages of Asians constant that is the kind of issue that schools
will have to come to terms with behind closed doors and away from any legal
scrutiny.
there. But the wall of ‘holistic’ admission permits them to continue to keep
the percentages down as thee institutional priorities do not value the
diversity this group might bring. Should more middle class Asians with perfect
academics and great support in other ways be turned down at the expense of
poorer Asians who will bring socio-economic diversity? As long as the Ivies
keep the percentages of Asians constant that is the kind of issue that schools
will have to come to terms with behind closed doors and away from any legal
scrutiny.
The Supreme Court may make it law to focus on economics but
the educators have already prepared to still give great weight to race. U. Cal
schools have lead the way by asking questions that permit racial proxies to be
used in admission. The Common Application has also stepped in by asking
questions that focus on grit and striving while getting rid of open-ended
replies. They are effectively directing applicants to focus on overcoming barriers,
and while this may be noble, it will again put the middle class kids who have
not suffered enough in some way at a distinct disadvantage in the admission
process.
the educators have already prepared to still give great weight to race. U. Cal
schools have lead the way by asking questions that permit racial proxies to be
used in admission. The Common Application has also stepped in by asking
questions that focus on grit and striving while getting rid of open-ended
replies. They are effectively directing applicants to focus on overcoming barriers,
and while this may be noble, it will again put the middle class kids who have
not suffered enough in some way at a distinct disadvantage in the admission
process.
All in all, there will be much discussion and many future lawsuits ahead.
No comments:
Post a Comment