OT: CNN Article - Athletes have an advantage in Admission: Supreme Court decision on AA
I came across an interesting article on CNN regarding the recent Supreme Court decision on Affirmative Action. The article (which is not paywalled, and link is provided below) notes that prospective athletes are called out as a group that receives noted consideration. I found the article interesting.
Both my children are students at Michigan - which, as an alum, makes me very happy. Neither are Michigan athletes, however - both were impacted by athletics. One was recruited by highly regarded academic institutions, and the other was not granted admission because an athlete was provided a scholarship instead.
Two statements in the article that surprised me were:
- Harvard University has more student athletes than Michigan (Harvard with 1,191 to Michigan's 886), and
- At "smaller" schools (Ivies, "Highly Selective Admission" D3 schools) student athletes represent about 20% of the student body.
This isn't intended to be a political discussion, rather - the impact of athletics in college. Since I enrolled at Michigan - many years ago - my preference has been toward collegiate athletics over professional sports.
Any perspectives - or thoughts to share?
Here's the link: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/09/opinions/college-admissions-elite-sports-harvard-affirmative-action-macintosh/index.html
Victor - I agree - and have no issue with it. My guess is - as there are today - essay questions which provide an opportunity to share aspects of your background and upbringing.
What might be interesting, on a bit of tangent, is what the California schools will do - since standardized test scores are no longer considered when applying to public colleges and universities.
Again, not that this matters - I don't know if universities will - or - the Common / Coalition applications will have a checkbox for this. And, if they do have a checkbox - then, I'm sure it will be optional. Honestly, I can't recall whether it was an optional or required field when our children applied.
@Amazinblu: It's not just California not requiring SAT/ACT scores. It's most of the Big Ten now. including Michigan. Been that way for a couple of years. I am not saying reporting SAT/ACT doesn't help, just that you do not need to when applying to U-M.
Max, standardized testing is a topic of its own. With Covid - "test score optional" was an approach that many schools took.
So, I don't know if the B1G is "test score optional" or "no test scores will be reviewed / included / considered".
In California, I think it's "no test scores" for any degree of consideration. And, IMO, that makes evaluating a student VERY different - unless, the Admissions Advisor really has a good handle on each school in their geography.
I think that it does change things. How much it changes things are up to us news and world reports. Schools care a ton about rankings. Like enough to risk their freedom. I’m looking at you Temple.
They added diversity to the methodology and removed alumni giving. That puts the burden on the schools and they’re going to have to do more work to create diversity within their gates. Even optional diversity statements will take time to read and consider. Wholistic is a term thrown around a lot, but they’ll have to do more to ensure a “wholistic” process.
White women. White women have overwhelmingly benefitted most from AA.
White male attendance numbers have fallen dramatically over the past two decade whereas white women have continued to attend in significant numbers. There are disproportionately more white women in colleges than white men.
I'm not going to get into a classic SalvatoreQuattro back and forth.
But, could there be any other reasons, any at all, and please take your time to think about this or use the internet, any reason at all, other than affirmative action, as to why the trend you point out could be happening?
I agree, it's probably multi-factorial. While this article is a little old, it states that women get 4x more scholarships than men, and I'm sure that difference still exists today. With that, it could be argued that this difference is driven by AA policies, but who knows.
https://www.businessinsider.com/nerdwallets-college-scholarship-study-2013-8
I am not blaming AA for less men attending college. I am saying that white women have benefitted most from AA in a time where less men have attended college. WW are the chief beneficiaries of policies that were meant for black Americans.
Sorry, I should have made my point much clearer.
Facts
"WW are the chief beneficiaries of policies that were meant for black Americans."
The first time the term affirmative action was used (by Kennedy):
"take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly] during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin"
...and the next time in US law (LBJ):
"take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."
Quattro, this is FALSE.
Any admissions person will tell you that, if admissions were just blindly based on academic credentials, about 60% of every class at the more competitive universities would be female.
I was bored at both of my kids' 8th grade "graduation" ceremonies, so I counted the number of female and male "honors" students. Was about 70% female with both of my kids.
Men are enrolling in college at much lower rates than women among black and white Americans. What I stated is true.
If your stat is true it sounds like the education system is failing men,
Maybe. But also women are just smarter. Are you a man and married to a woman? How much shit does she handle compared to you? Are you proud when you achieve one chore? She does twelve without struggle while handing your children’s lives, your shit, and her job.
That’s an extremely broad generalization. Dare I say sexist/misandrist?
No, that isn’t true. Intelligence has nothing to do with gender, ethnicity, skin color, etc.
Anyone who says this category of humans is smarter than this other category of humans because of their physical being is engaging in the worst kind of pseudoscience.
More women go to school because they tend to work in fields that require degrees whereas men have always been divided between manual labor jobs and professional positions. More men are gravitating to skilled trades.
" Intelligence has nothing to do with gender, ethnicity, skin color, etc."
That is really, really, really dependent on your definition of "intelligence".
Ability to do certain academic tasks is absolutely correlated with sex.
For example - Men consistently outperform women on spatial tasks, including mental rotation... but womens performance on those tasks improve when their testosterone levels spike.
I agree with you. A female of the human species matures more compared to a male of the same age. My wife and I have a boy and a girl each. It's noticeable. We also have a 50% -50% mix of nieces and nephews. And it's noticeable in that group as well.
UT-Austin's student body is exactly 60% female. Top 6% students from an in-state high school are guaranteed spots.
Regarding essays, a friend of mine helped my daughter write her essay. This friend was a middle school english teacher who did this on the side, and now does it full time, "this" being helps kids with their college applications, particularly the essay portion. She advised my daughter what to write about based on her own knowledge of what colleges look for. My daughter is white and fairly affluent so she's had no real hardships in her life. At the time, she worked in the bakery of a grocery store, behind the counter help, etc. She also worked in the kosher bakery when needed, mopping floors, wiping counters, etc and that's what she wrote about. So while it wasn't about a hardship, the essay made it clear that she works in a blue collar job. My friend thought that essays showing adversity of any kind were not only helpful but also that my daughter should keep her job through the school year, really nailing this point home. What I got out of that was, Hide your fortunate lot in life, colleges don't want that. But maybe it's that colleges have an allotted number of spots for those kids via legacy admissions, athletes, and big donors, so unless your kid fits into one of those categories, play down your privilege. That was just my take.
Shhh. Don’t tell that to preacher mike. He’s still upset over Brown v. BoE
This is completely uncalled for. You're a giant asshole.
I don't think that SCOTUS justices, liberal or conservative, disagree on that legacy/donar programs are unfairly. Gorsuch scolded such programs even harder than KBJ.
I think Harvard has always claimed to have the most athletic programs in Division 1 and probably all of the NCAA. But I'm not sure if I'm remembering that correctly.
This could be the next shoe to drop in the college admissions saga. I think it will be difficult for these schools to keep giving slots away to rich kid recruits for the rowing, squash and fencing teams, et al. One of my friends went to Yale and his freshman year roommate was an average kid (although wealthy and connected) who was admitted to play on the golf team. But the kid quit the team before even hitting a tee shot. Forgive me if I think that's more disturbing than giving a spot to a poor minority kid who has put in major effort with limited resources. (Also - I grew up playing lacrosse in a recruiting hotbed and a lot of the guys I played with/against went to the nation's top schools despite having unimpressive academic records).
Exactly.
The poor minority kid needs that "slot" much more than the wealthy kid who plays golf.
Being able to attend Yale is life-changing for someone who grows up in a poor family. The wealthy golf player would be just fine if they were forced to attend Michigan or Virginia or Duke.
The #1 predictor of future economic success in this country is the economic status of the family to which you are born. (again, not my opinion; that's what the facts show)
But the admissions policies that were struck down weren't designed for poor minority kids. That was the problem. They were designed to favor certain minorities, regardless of their socio-economic background or the opportunities they were afforded growing up. They often advantaged upper middle class African-American kids who were going to good schools growing up over children of poor immigrants from Asia who worked their ass off to get good grades and test scores.
There is some truth to this, based on the data.
I've long advocated for a combination of looking at underrepresented groups...as well as socioeconomic circumstances.
Preacher Mike, are you saying that poor immigrants should be the beneficiaries of A.A. over kids who's families have endured the systemic affects of slavery, concentration camps, or forced migration over the past 300+ years because perhaps one generation has managed to overcome the odds?
I think he’s saying that to a certain degree, I think he’s softening his true views.
My take on his comment are that middle and upper middle class Black students have been taking seats from 1600, 5.2 Asian students.
If that's the case does it matter? If the middle class black kids family marched with Dr. King to bring about change and has sacrificed much for the struggle for equality, why should smarty pants be able to benefit from something designed with the former in mind? The Asian kids grades are so good he'll be fine but will he advance attitudes, policies and impact race relations in this country to make a better future? Perhaps the immigrant kid needs to pay some dues here like others have.
Correct if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that certain groups need to pay some dues based purely on race? I'm not judging, I'm genuinely curious as to what you're getting at.
I'm suggesting that the new ethnic minority perhaps lacks an appreciation for all of the things that have gone on here that have afforded him/her an opportunity to come to this country and not be discriminated against. The ground work has already been done and he should be thankful enough to say "I appreciate what predecessors have done before I came". So much so that I wouldn't try to weaken that work because I didn't get in at a particular school. I have to accept that some things were put in place as a response to something bigger than me, even before I got here and that reason has value to most Americans.
OK. Thanks for the clarification. It seems that this would apply to all races. Everyone should have an appreciation for what people did before us to make this world a better place. Not getting into a particular school because of something like race seems like a step back and goes against what people did before us to make this world a better place.
We have to be careful about grouping all people in one category or another. My point is narrow and I don't want people to think that I believe all minorities in this country deserve a benefit because of their race, That's is not what I'm saying. I am however saying that if you belong to a class of minorities who's family has historically (75 years or more) endured systemic and institutionalized racism in this country, then it's ok to consider that as a factor for admission in higher education.
As many have said here, students get a preference for playing sports like lacrosse, rowing crew and skiing but often times these sports are rarely offered in inner city high schools so the pendulum swings back the other way because it benefits some people in a race neutral way but we all know what it looks like in the end.
I'm only saying that AA was always intended to bring about inclusion for minority descendants of groups that were affected by institutional racism, and that's good policy IMO. It's disingenuous for ethnic groups who have not experienced that, in this country, to take advantage of those policies simply because of their African, Asian, Middle Eastern, or Indian descent. it's a misapplication of the intent and unfortunately non-contemplated minorities have used it to their benefit. If they didn't get in because a descendant of slaves or a Native American got the spot, I'm ok with that because their inclusion in the bigger picture is more important. There are other schools. If they don't understand, perhaps a class in cultural sensitivity at the other school might help.
Thanks for the nuanced reply. Makes total sense where you are coming from. My only retort is the I thought AA was about equal opportunity, regardless of race, ethnicity, etc. But then again, I'm no expert here. I'm just trying to have a casual conversation.
As an extreme example: Lebron James' kids are some of the most privileged kids in the world. They have every opportunity in front of them. I would hope that current AA policies don't give preferential treatment to them simply because of their race (even though their race at some point in the past faced discrimination).
I get your point but it illustrates the exception, not the rule. The truth is that the vast majority of blacks that the policy was intended to help, don't take advantage and AA goes largely underutilized at schools that are highly selective. This point was illustrated with statistics by another poster in this very thread. Lebron James is a unicorn and since none of us know him, he probably doesn't belong in this discussion. The fact is other non-intended minorities wind up using the policy in order to help schools to pad the numbers for minority admissions stats, not because they embody the intent of AA. Educated whites look at the 2 black families they know and believe this is an accurate depiction of blacks (because it's convenient for this discussion) therefore, AA is no longer necessary. But when it's time to give admissions or need based aid to a prolific basketball star, they conveniently remember why we need AA.
The truth is that some educated blacks have been very successful but largely due to HBCU's educating blacks since before the civil war. More than 50% of black teacher's and 70% of dentists and doctors graduated from HBCU's, not the highly selective schools we've been discussing here. What does that phenomenon tell you about this topic? That these highly selective schools have been largely off limits to blacks either because George Wallace blocked the entrance or because admissions denied them due to racist policy. While some of you openly talk about having had 4 and 5 generations of U of M grads. who have enjoyed great careers and have created generational wealth, you use black millionaires the one successful black family you know, to take a away a benefit that seeks to help millions. These minorities were actually impacted in this country, by the atrocities of institutionalized bigotry. Some of us will be honest and not get side-tracked talking about anomalies that have no real weight because they're not truly representative of the facts. Where you are on this very important topic speaks volumes about who you really are.
Please tell me what my true views are. I await the amazing results of your psychic powers.
I'm saying that preferential treatment in the interest of creating a truly diverse student body, not just one diverse in skin color, needs to take into account much more than the skin color or ancestry of the applicant. It needs to consider their actual merit and potential to enrich the university, broadly defined well beyond their academic aptitude.
What you seem to believe is that university admissions should act as a reparations program for African-Americans. Affirmative-Action has never really been sold as that either as policy or legally, because it would not be supported by the public nor the Constitution. Putting that to the side and accepting the premise that we should treat college admissions as a reparations program, the question becomes, how well does that actually work? How do we measure how much reparations are warranted? For how long? Does it matter if the reparations succeed in eliminating the disadvantages of historic injustices? How do we know when the disadvantages of historic injustices have actually been eliminated? If an African-American family is already very successful financially and have the ability to provide ample opportunities for following generations, do they deserve the same amount of reparations as a poor and struggling African-American family?
I would pose it is virtually impossible to answer those questions satisfactorily. Which is the problem addressed in the actual SCOTUS case. The defendants were unable to point to any actual progress with regards to the goals these policies are putatively meant to achieve nor could they give a coherent argument as to when we might expect such progress to arrive. Which for me points to the futility of using college admissions for the purpose you describe. Rather, I believe we need to reform K-12 education for lower socio-economic classes and make it so that they receive the education and develop the skills they need to compete on the merits for the spots at our colleges. Expecting affirmative action at the college level to fix the failed education of the vast number of minority groups before college is a fools errand, and unjust to boot.
It absolutely is reparations. That's what we've been discussing. What did you think AA was all about? Being nicer to some people because of ethnicity? It's always been about righting the wrongs of this country's misdeeds to it's citizens and attempting to mitigate the historical impact. To rely on dictum from Scotus is highly political, seeing as the court is stacked with far right Trump appointees, they're biased. Either you believe that these classes of minorities are owed something or you don't. My suspicion is you don't, and that's fine, there are thousands of folks who don't and many of them even stormed the capital on January 6th attempting to overthrow the government. But to fake like "oh it's too hard to figure out, so we should just forget about it" is B.S. Boy, bye!!! I assume you have a degree from a highly selective university. You were trained to figure it out and leave things better than where you found it.
Reforming K-12 is a start but it's been done, tried, failed and tried again. Problem is you refuse to put the money where your mouth is. That's why Birmingham schools have lacrosse and ski teams that admissions offices give special consideration for, while DPS has never heard of these sports and are lucky to have any sports at all. What your talking about is a farce. The solution has to be front supported, back and middle supported.
AA is a measure to bring affected minorities into highly selective universities, so that they could become the leaders and future policy makers that would help shape what tomorrow's America looks like. Now, you want to do away with it because you've actually met a highly educated black who's not a football player and that scares you? What did you think the outcome was going to look like? The success of the program looks exactly like what you've been describing, ie. "I know a black guy who has gone to great schools all of his life, since I've seen one, there's no need to continue with this experiment, because we don't know if it's working". You just answered your own question because you started the discussion talking about blacks you've met who are successful. How do you think they became successful, inheritances? trust funds? Don't be a hypocrite. Either you believe in righting the wrongs of this country or you believe privilege is too good to share with anyone who doesn't look like you. Many of our parents and grandparents stood on the wrong side of history in the 60's and 70's. Where will you stand when history looks back on you?????
The article noted that Harvard fields 37 Varsity teams, while Michigan "only" fields 27 varsity teams.
Varsity athletics is a big, tangible part of the campus life and culture. Schools are completely entitled to want to consider athletes' athletic contribution to the school as a special talent that factors into admission. It is not affirmative action to favor athletic skills' contribution to the college.
Varsity athletics is a big, tangible part of the campus life and culture.
Couldn't the same be said for diversity of student body?
I think an Asian child of immigrants who grew up poor, working at the family dry cleaning business or restaurant while also studying his ass off brings a lot more diversity to the campus than an African-American kid who grew up upper middle class in a nice suburb going to a private school. And the SCOTUS decision said that if a student can demonstrate the way their race offers a unique shaping of their character which will enrich the university, that is fair for the school to consider. The ruling doesn't devalue diversity, it says that the diversity being promoted is too narrow and not really a meaningful type of diversity.
Here we go. The classic hypotheticals from the early 2000’s except you’re swapping a “gritty” white kid for a “gritty” Asian kid going toe to toe with Carlton Banks.
This race thing seems personal to you. Where’s your frustration with legacies buddy?
Black student students make up 3-5% of the student body at top schools. I don’t think they’re your problem mike. I can absolutely guarantee you that racism in education impacts Black students at all income levels in ways that you obviously can’t comprehend. Beyond that, you’re people are going to be going toe to toe with top tier Asians. I had a professor once say that “All UC’s would be 90% Asian if students were admitted based on meritocracy (academic achievement)”. Those are likely not the Asians from your little hypothetical. More importantly, the vetting the adcom would have to do to filter for your hypothetical students would go both ways. This decision won’t change your little scenario
I'm happy to get rid of legacy policies. Those just don't happen to be unconstitutional.
PM, I have to disagree with the notion that a first or second generation immigrant minority should be the beneficiary of something that was designed to help fix institutionalized racism (in this country). The problem wasn't that new minorities who come to this country were locked out of housing, employment or education for well over 200 years, the descendants of former slaves, Native Americans and some Asians had already paid the price for their acceptance into American society.
I get that your point is about Blacks who have done well to overcome despite the challenges their descendant's faced. I and many others would argue that some Americans have probably enjoyed a huge advantage with superior education, cheap labor and generational wealth being passed down at the hands of a state sanctioned system of bigotry, aimed to give an advantage to the majority over the minority. In fact, there are at least two or three (living) generations of minorities who have lived through an America that was legally segregated. The question is when is enough enough? Well pull out your statistics and tell us how many generations it would take to bring those affected, on equal footing with those who enjoyed the benefit? (crickets)
If you can admit that the premise I put forth is true, how could you dare say that it's ok for a poor ethnic minority immigrant who's been here for 10 years, deserves the benefit of something designed to compensate minorities, who have inherited sanctioned abject generational poverty? When you think about people being sprayed with firehoses, having dogs sicced on them or governors blocking the doors to universities, and using police to threaten violence for not conforming, do you think a generation of middle class achievement is enough recompense and the benefit should go to a business owning "new" minority who has endured little if anything, at the behest of this countries policies?
But the vast majority of these slots are going to very privileged black students who went to good schools and parents do very well. IE people who are suffering very little from institutional racism. They aren't going to poor kids being raised by single moms or a grandparent, going to a terrible inner city school.
What about their parents and grand parents and their parents who no doubt had to live in separate but unequal America? It's easy to judge based on how things look and yes there are blacks who have done well despite institutionalized racism but have you ever asked how much further they could have been or how much generational wealth they could have passed down by now, but for the policies they had to live under. It sounds like you want to throw out a good policy because it's been too good for the hand full of blacks you know.
That is flat out false. It actually doesn't even stand up. There aren't enough "privileged" black families out there do truly disenfranchise Asian applicants. Especially when you factor in self-selection.
You're talking all this madness, but what created the middle class? The GI bill and FHA/VA loans. Black soldiers fought. Black soldiers did the dirty work. They did not get the same benefits. Education created the middle class.
Washington Post: 1 in 7 white families are now millionaires. For black families, it's 1 in 50.
Yeah. So PM, here you say the school can consider other things than academics, but in several other comments in the thread you say that an "academically average, wealthy African American" shouldn't get in over a "poor Asian American with excellent test scores". So in those comments you are purely valuing test scores and grades.
I think that is really the main issue with the anti affirmative action arguments, they seem to take for granted that SAT/ACT scores are the best predictor of a successful alumni. Because isn't that what the University is ultimately aiming for? Produce successful alumni who 1. improve the reputation of the degree and 2. donate back to the school.