Opinion of the Ivy League

[Indy Texas]

Ivy League colleges (and other high caliber colleges like MIT and Duke) aren't inherently bad in and of themselves- my problem with them is that they tend to be factories for the elites, and their selectivity creates a culture of college admissions anxiety.

What's inherently wrong with a selective admissions process?

Because it means that academically untalented candidates are unable to study at the top colleges and some individuals are envious that they don't have this talent.
However the US selection process is also very heavily weighted towards extracurriculars which IMHO should hardly be considered if applying for an intellectual course at a top college. And taking into account an applicant's skin colour should be banned outright. Harvard should also stop admitting some candidates because they have rich parents and will make a hefty donation to the school. I think the UK Oxbridge selection process is the most ideal, as none one of these flaws are present and it's much more strictly academically selective.

If you go by test scores and grades alone, you end up with way more acceptable applicants than there are spaces at Harvard. You have to have a way to cull the pool so you turn to "soft" factors. Someone who graduated high school with a 4.0 and didn't do anything else obviously doesn't look as compelling as someone who graduated high school with a 4.0 and played three varsity sports, was in student government and did a lot of volunteer work. The second student is more well-rounded and productive.

We have gotten into an extracurricular arms race of sorts that arguably disadvantages poor and middle class kids. Being captain of the soccer team doesn't mean much when someone else's parents paid $10,000 for them to spend a summer "studying" at French universities or teaching English to Cambodian refugees or something. I was guilty of my parents paying a bunch of money for me to go to a developing country the summer after junior year to dispense pharmaceuticals to the villagers and "give back." It provided plenty of feel-good, compelling fodder for my personal statements to apply to colleges. It's a lot easier to do that when gainful summer employment is not expected or required of you or of others in your peer group.

[Foucaulf]

I think you make some good points. 

However, it's naive to think that elite academic institutions lack racial parameters, if not quotas.  These universities want to have a certain percentage of black, Hispanic, non-white, socially advantaged/rich whites and a balanced male-female ratio.  If these schools just actively disregarded the race of their students, more Asians and fewer blacks and Hispanics would be admitted.  Asians might lose out by focusing too much on test scores, but they are less likely to be admitted solely by virtue of their race.  That's just wrong on some level.  Nobody should be judged negatively because they are "an Asian," "a black" or "a Hispanic."

This is why I tried to avoid the normative aspect and just claim "it will be hard to prove quotas exist". There's also a framing problem: "parameters" is a lot less sinister than "quota". And while I think everyone implicitly admitted parameters exist, a quota is difficult.

Reason #5 against the idea: while the Ivies are supposedly converging to a 16+/-2% Asian student body composition, is this exceptional or a trend among all elite schools? I know that Stanford has 18%, UChicago has 16%, MIT has 30%. If the STEM schools are the only ones admitting significantly different proportions of Asians, that doesn't help the argument that the group is diverse and varied.

I must admit I agree on the following: Jews are more overrepresented than Asians at elite colleges; white students are left out of the conversation; and Ivies should go out and say that they accept underrepresented groups first for integration purposes, so they can enter the elite. But of course conservatives will frame it as "racist and un-American."

[President Tyrion]

Here's my take. I am an Asian and I go to a "Public Ivy". My school was recently ranked very highly (think top 3) by some ridiculous ranking system, so I'm going to wield that like a sword and hifly my way right through this argument.

Jokes aside, here's the point. Asians are, by and large, admitted to low-acceptance-rate institutions at a rate lower than their peripheral data (test scores, GPA, extracurriculars although that's a qualitative variable) would suggest. My school, by and large, "discriminates" (for lack of a better term) against Asian scores less than any college mentioned in this thread, because it's in fact illegal for a public school to do so (Regents of UC v Bakke). That's not to say that it's necessarily a "Bad Thing" for schools to do so, however.

It has been mentioned already that peripheral data does correlate with income. That is to say that more income, all else equal, will yield a higher test score and GPA than another candidate, and, for all intents and purposes, this relationship is in fact purely causal.

Now, we know that Asian Americans, on the whole, earn more than any other racial group. That's largely a function of sample bias, of course. Since Asian immigration is both voluntary and inconvenient (differentiating it from both the slave trade and intra-continental immigration), the people most likely to immigrate are the ones who are moderately rich and capable of making the trip. Furthermore, after coming to America, recent Asian immigrants wouldn't have had to deal with the systematic undermining that URMs (underrepresented minorities) have been dealt.

What's the point here? I could probably say that, with my test scores, GPA, and extracurriculars, I would probably be at whatever school I wanted if I was black. But that's essentially assuming something that isn't necessarily true. As an Asian, I am blessed to come from one of the greatest sample biases of all time. My test scores, GPA, and extracurriculars are all a product of having hard-working, motivated, and relatively rich (think upper middle class, anyway) parents, and I wouldn't trade them for anything.

In the end, General Mung Beans and hifly and others, think before you speak. America is about equality of opportunity at every step of the process, and colleges are certainly justified in taking steps to ensure that everyone has equal opportunity. In doing so, certain assumptions have to be made about the system, as is the case when you fit a curve to a scatter plot of data. You're minimizing the distance from each point to the curve, but that does mean some points are further from the curve than others. It's an arbitrary system, but it's the best of the arbitrary systems.

Also, to the question, what do I think of the Ivies? I like and dislike them. Their existence sort of forces a certain type of culture to be created around higher education in general. With that said, Ivy institutions contribute a TON to the world through their research, so let's not take that away from them.

[Sopranos Republican]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[publicunofficial]

"I love that they are elitist and wealth-worshiping, but if only they weren't so liberal!" - Blue Avatars

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

If these schools just actively disregarded the race of their students, more Asians and fewer blacks and Hispanics would be admitted.

Why would this be a good thing?

No particular racial composition is better or worse, but it would reflect the students' merits rather than race.

Yes an Asian student from Cupertino with a "Tiger" mom who pressured him or her to get straight As and a 2300 SAT score is far more meritorious than an African-American kid from the south side of Chicago with a single mom on welfare who got a 3.7 and a 2000 SAT score.

Get real dude.

edit: now this is obviously a crude example but the idea that those with lower test scores and extracurricular but who come from low-income families/are first generation college students and went to bad schools are less qualified is rubbish.

[DemPGH]

There's a hierarchy in academia that's easy to dislike and which is quite off-putting, so setting that aside plus setting aside the admission BS, the Ivies are obviously a great place.

Here's the thing, though: at a well-ranked, large state school you can get the same quality of education. It may not carry the name, but the quality is there. Where the Ivies tend to set themselves apart, though, and I have seen this, is in resources that are available. Even an Ivy like Cornell will have things to offer you at your fingertips that simply outstrips pretty much everyone else. And I'm not even talking about Harvard or Yale. That's certainly a bonus to a grad student.

I can't really compare or comment on Stanford or Cal-B as I actually don't know a whole lot about them, but I have heard them referred to as "Ivy West."

[traininthedistance]

Tyrion, of course, wins the thread.

FTR, I voted Freedom Institutions for the simple fact that the research and scholarship that goes on there in the arts, sciences, and humanities is just so important to the human condition, and of such high quality, that it more than outweighs these institutions' admittedly negative traits.  There is nothing more important than the advancement of knowledge.

And it should also be noted, since this is a political board and all, that the Ivies are in general home to saltwater (i.e. correct) economists, and the right-wing freshwaters that have ruined everything are more often found at places like Chicago and some Big Ten schools. 

[bedstuy]

It has been mentioned already that peripheral data does correlate with income. That is to say that more income, all else equal, will yield a higher test score and GPA than another candidate, and, for all intents and purposes, this relationship is in fact purely causal.

Now, we know that Asian Americans, on the whole, earn more than any other racial group. That's largely a function of sample bias, of course. Since Asian immigration is both voluntary and inconvenient (differentiating it from both the slave trade and intra-continental immigration), the people most likely to immigrate are the ones who are moderately rich and capable of making the trip.

This begs the question, if the problem is economic inequality, how is race a congruent factor in addressing the underlying inequality?  There are poor Asians and rich blacks.  And, if the underlying principle is economic, why give preference to legacy students, children of donors and elite private boarding school students?  If the schools are trying to combat economic inequity, they're doing a horrible job.

Furthermore, after coming to America, recent Asian immigrants wouldn't have had to deal with the systematic undermining that URMs (underrepresented minorities) have been dealt.

I'm sure that's true to an extent.  But, Asian Americans are and have been subject to systematic undermining and racial prejudice in America.  There's a long history to that and there is prejudice and racism against Asians today.  If we're quantifying who deserves compensation for racism, shouldn't Asians have preference over whites, even if blacks have preference over Asians?   

What's the point here? I could probably say that, with my test scores, GPA, and extracurriculars, I would probably be at whatever school I wanted if I was black. But that's essentially assuming something that isn't necessarily true. As an Asian, I am blessed to come from one of the greatest sample biases of all time. My test scores, GPA, and extracurriculars are all a product of having hard-working, motivated, and relatively rich (think upper middle class, anyway) parents, and I wouldn't trade them for anything.

You're suggesting that blackness confers lazy, poor, unmotivated parents.  That's not true.  Conversely, some Asians don't have motivated, involved parents or rich parents.  And to put it another way, why won't we just throw out the "race = economic circumstances" idea altogether.  A college asks for a FAFSA, they know the economic circumstances of their applicants.  They could easily sort by economics instead of race. 
 

In the end, General Mung Beans and hifly and others, think before you speak. America is about equality of opportunity at every step of the process, and colleges are certainly justified in taking steps to ensure that everyone has equal opportunity. In doing so, certain assumptions have to be made about the system, as is the case when you fit a curve to a scatter plot of data. You're minimizing the distance from each point to the curve, but that does mean some points are further from the curve than others. It's an arbitrary system, but it's the best of the arbitrary systems.

I understand where this is coming from, but I think you're being disingenuous.  You're basically saying all of life is unfair.  If you're white or Asian in America, you ultimately should just stop complaining about race issues because you're a winner in the final calculation.  That has some weight in my book and I probably would have ascribed to that idea a few years ago. 

But, I don't think two wrongs make a right.  We shouldn't just look at our racial classifications uncritically.  Are these racial categorizations actually worth the unfairness they produce?  Are they furthering some compelling societal interest?  That's the question I need to be satisfied with to feel comfortable with a system of racial classification.  When it comes to elite universities, I'm not convinced that they're helping minorities much at all.

[President Tyrion]

It has been mentioned already that peripheral data does correlate with income. That is to say that more income, all else equal, will yield a higher test score and GPA than another candidate, and, for all intents and purposes, this relationship is in fact purely causal.

Now, we know that Asian Americans, on the whole, earn more than any other racial group. That's largely a function of sample bias, of course. Since Asian immigration is both voluntary and inconvenient (differentiating it from both the slave trade and intra-continental immigration), the people most likely to immigrate are the ones who are moderately rich and capable of making the trip.

This begs the question, if the problem is economic inequality, how is race a congruent factor in addressing the underlying inequality?  There are poor Asians and rich blacks.  And, if the underlying principle is economic, why give preference to legacy students, children of donors and elite private boarding school students?  If the schools are trying to combat economic inequity, they're doing a horrible job.

Furthermore, after coming to America, recent Asian immigrants wouldn't have had to deal with the systematic undermining that URMs (underrepresented minorities) have been dealt.

I'm sure that's true to an extent.  But, Asian Americans are and have been subject to systematic undermining and racial prejudice in America.  There's a long history to that and there is prejudice and racism against Asians today.  If we're quantifying who deserves compensation for racism, shouldn't Asians have preference over whites, even if blacks have preference over Asians?   

What's the point here? I could probably say that, with my test scores, GPA, and extracurriculars, I would probably be at whatever school I wanted if I was black. But that's essentially assuming something that isn't necessarily true. As an Asian, I am blessed to come from one of the greatest sample biases of all time. My test scores, GPA, and extracurriculars are all a product of having hard-working, motivated, and relatively rich (think upper middle class, anyway) parents, and I wouldn't trade them for anything.

You're suggesting that blackness confers lazy, poor, unmotivated parents.  That's not true.  Conversely, some Asians don't have motivated, involved parents or rich parents.  And to put it another way, why won't we just throw out the "race = economic circumstances" idea altogether.  A college asks for a FAFSA, they know the economic circumstances of their applicants.  They could easily sort by economics instead of race. 
 

In the end, General Mung Beans and hifly and others, think before you speak. America is about equality of opportunity at every step of the process, and colleges are certainly justified in taking steps to ensure that everyone has equal opportunity. In doing so, certain assumptions have to be made about the system, as is the case when you fit a curve to a scatter plot of data. You're minimizing the distance from each point to the curve, but that does mean some points are further from the curve than others. It's an arbitrary system, but it's the best of the arbitrary systems.

I understand where this is coming from, but I think you're being disingenuous.  You're basically saying all of life is unfair.  If you're white or Asian in America, you ultimately should just stop complaining about race issues because you're a winner in the final calculation.  That has some weight in my book and I probably would have ascribed to that idea a few years ago. 

But, I don't think two wrongs make a right.  We shouldn't just look at our racial classifications uncritically.  Are these racial categorizations actually worth the unfairness they produce?  Are they furthering some compelling societal interest?  That's the question I need to be satisfied with to feel comfortable with a system of racial classification.  When it comes to elite universities, I'm not convinced that they're helping minorities much at all.

Very reasonable response, bedstuy.

I think, from a normative perspective, I would agree that economic situation, more so than race, should be a factor in admissions. I think that you're saying it's an inefficient solution to use race as a proxy for economic upbringing, and, to that point, I agree.

I DO think private institutions do not do as good a job as they could of addressing income inequality, but that's because their goal isn't to address income inequality. It matters to them insofar as they get better students, and they'll do their part to try to "uncover" those very good students from unlucky backgrounds. I doubt they'd go as far as to try to make the process inherently perfectly equal except for lip service.

Also, I do believe that a poor Asian person should be looked upon more kindly than he or she would be under the present system. FAFSA isn't a great way of communicating income, actually, as it is generally not considered for purpose of admission, but for the purpose of considering aid after the fact.

And no, I'm not saying that black parents aren't hard-working, just that my parents are, and I appreciate them. To rephrase, parents from less fortunate backgrounds may not have the resources that my parents have, so I count myself lucky that I was put in such a situation.

I don't think that two wrongs make a right, but I do think that, at least to some extent, Asians are dealt a better hand than other minorities, all else equal. I don't know that I would advocate telling Asians (of which I am one) to "suck it up" so much as I just think it's important that we as a group show some empathy.

[bedstuy]

My point on the FAFSA is that schools already collect financial data from parents.  It's not a stretch to use similar means for admissions purposes.  And I agree that whites and Asians shouldn't be bitter about their lot of our society, on balance.  As a matter of a Rawlsian hypothetical, you should be happy to be born an Asian or White American.

But, in a larger sense, that's not really responsive to my criticism.  My point is that elite universities use unfair admissions practices on a number of levels, racially, economically and are largely subjective in the interstitial decision-making between qualified students and therefore open to bias.  The question to me is therefore, would it simply be better to have an objective academically-based standard for admission?  I'm not absolutely convinced either way, but we ought to be circumspect about acknowledging the flaws in the way universities work, even when those flaws inure to the benefit of people less fortunate than you or I.   

[President Tyrion]

My point on the FAFSA is that schools already collect financial data from parents.  It's not a stretch to use similar means for admissions purposes.  And I agree that whites and Asians shouldn't be bitter about their lot of our society, on balance.  As a matter of a Rawlsian hypothetical, you should be happy to be born an Asian or White American.

But, in a larger sense, that's not really responsive to my criticism.  My point is that elite universities use unfair admissions practices on a number of levels, racially, economically and are largely subjective in the interstitial decision-making between qualified students and therefore open to bias.  The question to me is therefore, would it simply be better to have an objective academically-based standard for admission?  I'm not absolutely convinced either way, but we ought to be circumspect about acknowledging the flaws in the way universities work, even when those flaws inure to the benefit of people less fortunate than you or I.   

There are certainly flaws, of course. I don't think I could look at the system and not quickly be able to find quite a few different types of people who would be negatively affected by the system.

Desiring objectivity is one thing, but how would one achieve it? You're essentially in a position where you have to look at different students from different places and attempt to contextualize their performance. It's hard to say exactly what universities could do from an admissions perspective, at least from the standpoint that private institutions just aren't going to waste resources when, quite frankly, they have a system that works for them, even if it doesn't necessarily work for everyone.

[Indy Texas]

And it should also be noted, since this is a political board and all, that the Ivies are in general home to saltwater (i.e. correct) economists, and the right-wing freshwaters that have ruined everything are more often found at places like Chicago and some Big Ten schools. 

Chicago in particular, but that's less true today than it was in Friedman's time and up through the end of the 20th century.

The only "conservative" economics department that I can think of (to the degree that would satisfy your average Republican) is George Mason University. And it's worth pointing out that their faculty don't produce a lot of noteworthy research and mainly confine themselves to the sort of pseudo-intellectual politicking that passes for "nonpartisan, independent policy research" on the Right these days. I'll read random rants on the Interwebs about how Austrian economists are shut out of the Ivory Towers because liberals control everything and hate defenders of liberty. Well when your entire approach to economics is basically, "Math is hard. Statistics is boring. Empirical research is stupid and doesn't prove anything. Free markets are always good because I say they are," it's kind of hard to do things like conduct research and publish it which is kind of what academia is all about.

Of the many economics professors I had both as an undergrad (at a private school with a relatively conservative reputation) and a grad student (at a public school with a relatively liberal reputation), I can think of exactly one professor who I can say with fair certainty was a Republican. And the most left-wing one I had was a guy who was a staff economist at a bulge bracket investment bank for several years before he went all opebo and quit and took a teaching job.

[bedstuy]

My point on the FAFSA is that schools already collect financial data from parents.  It's not a stretch to use similar means for admissions purposes.  And I agree that whites and Asians shouldn't be bitter about their lot of our society, on balance.  As a matter of a Rawlsian hypothetical, you should be happy to be born an Asian or White American.

But, in a larger sense, that's not really responsive to my criticism.  My point is that elite universities use unfair admissions practices on a number of levels, racially, economically and are largely subjective in the interstitial decision-making between qualified students and therefore open to bias.  The question to me is therefore, would it simply be better to have an objective academically-based standard for admission?  I'm not absolutely convinced either way, but we ought to be circumspect about acknowledging the flaws in the way universities work, even when those flaws inure to the benefit of people less fortunate than you or I.   

There are certainly flaws, of course. I don't think I could look at the system and not quickly be able to find quite a few different types of people who would be negatively affected by the system.

Desiring objectivity is one thing, but how would one achieve it? You're essentially in a position where you have to look at different students from different places and attempt to contextualize their performance. It's hard to say exactly what universities could do from an admissions perspective, at least from the standpoint that private institutions just aren't going to waste resources when, quite frankly, they have a system that works for them, even if it doesn't necessarily work for everyone.

I know it works for them.  But, do you think employers want to obey Title VII of the Civil rights act.  Employers would benefit if they could violate the Civil Rights Act and fire women for getting pregnant.  We don't allow them though, because it isn't fair. 

And, I have a solution.  Allocate a set number of admission spots to an objective formula of GPA and SAT or perhaps some more broad ranging, difficult standardized test.  Maybe include a few other relevant factors, a writing sample, recommendations or a resume.  Then, allocate the remaining spots for special cases, where people have qualified but have extenuating circumstances.  Don't allow racial classification or legacy admissions and make it open and clear what the process is.  I think that would be more fair.

[Indy Texas]

My point on the FAFSA is that schools already collect financial data from parents.  It's not a stretch to use similar means for admissions purposes.  And I agree that whites and Asians shouldn't be bitter about their lot of our society, on balance.  As a matter of a Rawlsian hypothetical, you should be happy to be born an Asian or White American.

But, in a larger sense, that's not really responsive to my criticism.  My point is that elite universities use unfair admissions practices on a number of levels, racially, economically and are largely subjective in the interstitial decision-making between qualified students and therefore open to bias.  The question to me is therefore, would it simply be better to have an objective academically-based standard for admission?  I'm not absolutely convinced either way, but we ought to be circumspect about acknowledging the flaws in the way universities work, even when those flaws inure to the benefit of people less fortunate than you or I.   

There are certainly flaws, of course. I don't think I could look at the system and not quickly be able to find quite a few different types of people who would be negatively affected by the system.

Desiring objectivity is one thing, but how would one achieve it? You're essentially in a position where you have to look at different students from different places and attempt to contextualize their performance. It's hard to say exactly what universities could do from an admissions perspective, at least from the standpoint that private institutions just aren't going to waste resources when, quite frankly, they have a system that works for them, even if it doesn't necessarily work for everyone.

I know it works for them.  But, do you think employers want to obey Title VII of the Civil rights act.  Employers would benefit if they could violate the Civil Rights Act and fire women for getting pregnant.  We don't allow them though, because it isn't fair. 

And, I have a solution.  Allocate a set number of admission spots to an objective formula of GPA and SAT or perhaps some more broad ranging, difficult standardized test.  Maybe include a few other relevant factors, a writing sample, recommendations or a resume.  Then, allocate the remaining spots for special cases, where people have qualified but have extenuating circumstances.  Don't allow racial classification or legacy admissions and make it open and clear what the process is.  I think that would be more fair.

So where does that leave the people who worked hard and did well in school and on the SAT but didn't have "bad things" happen to them like divorced parents and deaths in the family and living in a battered women's home? There is an upper ceiling for objective achievement: it's not possible to do better than a 4.0 GPA or a 2400 on the SAT. You seem to implicitly be demanding more of kids who weren't "unlucky in life" but in the admissions office at Princeton everyone is at that upper bound where you simply can't get better. So if the biracial transwoman who lived in a bus station for a month in 10th grade has a 4.0 and a perfect SAT score and so does the white kid from Montgomery County, Maryland, what do you say to the white kid? It's not possible for him to do any better than a 4.0 and a 2400.

[bedstuy]

My point on the FAFSA is that schools already collect financial data from parents.  It's not a stretch to use similar means for admissions purposes.  And I agree that whites and Asians shouldn't be bitter about their lot of our society, on balance.  As a matter of a Rawlsian hypothetical, you should be happy to be born an Asian or White American.

But, in a larger sense, that's not really responsive to my criticism.  My point is that elite universities use unfair admissions practices on a number of levels, racially, economically and are largely subjective in the interstitial decision-making between qualified students and therefore open to bias.  The question to me is therefore, would it simply be better to have an objective academically-based standard for admission?  I'm not absolutely convinced either way, but we ought to be circumspect about acknowledging the flaws in the way universities work, even when those flaws inure to the benefit of people less fortunate than you or I.   

There are certainly flaws, of course. I don't think I could look at the system and not quickly be able to find quite a few different types of people who would be negatively affected by the system.

Desiring objectivity is one thing, but how would one achieve it? You're essentially in a position where you have to look at different students from different places and attempt to contextualize their performance. It's hard to say exactly what universities could do from an admissions perspective, at least from the standpoint that private institutions just aren't going to waste resources when, quite frankly, they have a system that works for them, even if it doesn't necessarily work for everyone.

I know it works for them.  But, do you think employers want to obey Title VII of the Civil rights act.  Employers would benefit if they could violate the Civil Rights Act and fire women for getting pregnant.  We don't allow them though, because it isn't fair. 

And, I have a solution.  Allocate a set number of admission spots to an objective formula of GPA and SAT or perhaps some more broad ranging, difficult standardized test.  Maybe include a few other relevant factors, a writing sample, recommendations or a resume.  Then, allocate the remaining spots for special cases, where people have qualified but have extenuating circumstances.  Don't allow racial classification or legacy admissions and make it open and clear what the process is.  I think that would be more fair.

So where does that leave the people who worked hard and did well in school and on the SAT but didn't have "bad things" happen to them like divorced parents and deaths in the family and living in a battered women's home? There is an upper ceiling for objective achievement: it's not possible to do better than a 4.0 GPA or a 2400 on the SAT. You seem to implicitly be demanding more of kids who weren't "unlucky in life" but in the admissions office at Princeton everyone is at that upper bound where you simply can't get better. So if the biracial transwoman who lived in a bus station for a month in 10th grade has a 4.0 and a perfect SAT score and so does the white kid from Montgomery County, Maryland, what do you say to the white kid? It's not possible for him to do any better than a 4.0 and a 2400.

I don't think you understand what I said.  Allocate a set number to a objective set of criteria, maybe 20%.  And then, allocate 20% to some squishy Ivy League method that allows for more liberties with evaluation. 

And, I proposed a solution to your problem, make a more difficult test.  It's not that difficult.  There's plenty of standardized tests where the highest score is achieved by a tiny number of people.  I don't think anyone gets a perfect MCAT score for example.

[Indy Texas]

My point on the FAFSA is that schools already collect financial data from parents.  It's not a stretch to use similar means for admissions purposes.  And I agree that whites and Asians shouldn't be bitter about their lot of our society, on balance.  As a matter of a Rawlsian hypothetical, you should be happy to be born an Asian or White American.

But, in a larger sense, that's not really responsive to my criticism.  My point is that elite universities use unfair admissions practices on a number of levels, racially, economically and are largely subjective in the interstitial decision-making between qualified students and therefore open to bias.  The question to me is therefore, would it simply be better to have an objective academically-based standard for admission?  I'm not absolutely convinced either way, but we ought to be circumspect about acknowledging the flaws in the way universities work, even when those flaws inure to the benefit of people less fortunate than you or I.   

There are certainly flaws, of course. I don't think I could look at the system and not quickly be able to find quite a few different types of people who would be negatively affected by the system.

Desiring objectivity is one thing, but how would one achieve it? You're essentially in a position where you have to look at different students from different places and attempt to contextualize their performance. It's hard to say exactly what universities could do from an admissions perspective, at least from the standpoint that private institutions just aren't going to waste resources when, quite frankly, they have a system that works for them, even if it doesn't necessarily work for everyone.

I know it works for them.  But, do you think employers want to obey Title VII of the Civil rights act.  Employers would benefit if they could violate the Civil Rights Act and fire women for getting pregnant.  We don't allow them though, because it isn't fair. 

And, I have a solution.  Allocate a set number of admission spots to an objective formula of GPA and SAT or perhaps some more broad ranging, difficult standardized test.  Maybe include a few other relevant factors, a writing sample, recommendations or a resume.  Then, allocate the remaining spots for special cases, where people have qualified but have extenuating circumstances.  Don't allow racial classification or legacy admissions and make it open and clear what the process is.  I think that would be more fair.

So where does that leave the people who worked hard and did well in school and on the SAT but didn't have "bad things" happen to them like divorced parents and deaths in the family and living in a battered women's home? There is an upper ceiling for objective achievement: it's not possible to do better than a 4.0 GPA or a 2400 on the SAT. You seem to implicitly be demanding more of kids who weren't "unlucky in life" but in the admissions office at Princeton everyone is at that upper bound where you simply can't get better. So if the biracial transwoman who lived in a bus station for a month in 10th grade has a 4.0 and a perfect SAT score and so does the white kid from Montgomery County, Maryland, what do you say to the white kid? It's not possible for him to do any better than a 4.0 and a 2400.

I don't think you understand what I said.  Allocate a set number to a objective set of criteria, maybe 20%.  And then, allocate 20% to some squishy Ivy League method that allows for more liberties with evaluation. 

And, I proposed a solution to your problem, make a more difficult test.  It's not that difficult.  There's plenty of standardized tests where the highest score is achieved by a tiny number of people.  I don't think anyone gets a perfect MCAT score for example.

I don't see how that works. It sounds like you'd have the admissions office basically print out a distribution of SAT scores and GPAs and start automatically sending admits to people, starting with the perfect scores and going down until you've given out 20% of your acceptances.

Let's say Asian-Americans are significantly more likely to get these high grades and test scores. So they disproportionately make up that 20% of "auto-admits."

Colleges and universities are not unlike companies, speed dating events, fraternities, country clubs or any other group of individuals who let some people "in" and leave others "out" in that culture matters. In university admissions, that means diversity. If you let every Asian in via objective criteria and end up with a 50% Asian student body, that's not diverse. Diverse is having every racial/ethnic group as evenly represented as possible and having the very rare ones simply represented period (i.e. a half Inuit, half Puerto Rican who grew up in Montana).

So if you've already let a lot of Asians in using pure objective criteria, you have to let in fewer using all the other criteria. All you've done is make it harder for Asians who didn't do as well in school to get in relative to everybody else who didn't do as well in school. All in the name of making things "fair" for the Asians with the perfect test scores.

[LastVoter]

Seats should be awarded on a lottery based system to people that can fill out their application.

[President Tyrion]

The SAT needs to be harder for sure, especially the math section, which is ridiculous. I mean, honestly, math is tested to a MUCH lower level than reading. It's obscene. Way too many students are reaching the upper bound, and there's not enough spread on the distribution. The issue with that is that, at some point, the test is forced to get longer, because the assumption is that the SAT tests to a certain level, so you need those questions and questions that test to a higher level on a multiple choice test where you cannot get partial credit.

I don't think a strict numerical cutoff is the way to go. Colleges wouldn't like it, and students wouldn't like it, and it doesn't really promote diversity. Also, GPA is entirely contextual and a GPA at one high school is totally different than the equal performance at another.

[opebo]

Seats should be awarded on a lottery based system to people that can fill out their application.

Great idea!  But on the other end graduates of the 'old system' should also be sent to re-education camps and barred from all government or professional employment.