Comments
Wounded_Hand t1_iu3a3z4 wrote
What, that racial discrimination is OK as long as it supports the right races?
CannedApples13 t1_iu3awrp wrote
need the raw data to be able to draw that conclusion.
Wounded_Hand t1_iu3cyjt wrote
Why? Are you suggesting that the presented results are fabricated?
Jatzy_AME t1_iu3cc6h wrote
There are many ways to read this data. One would be that the schools had to make space for URM for possibly very good reasons, but did so mainly by kicking out Asian, to avoid hurting whites as much as possible.
ambirdsall t1_iu2wyds wrote
I too love to throw alley oops to racism by leaving out important context! For example: SAT scores have a positive correlation to exactly the kinds of economic and pre-college educational privilege URM populations have less access to, meaning we should expect fewer high SAT scores in those populations even when assuming the underlying intelligence distributions are identical. Bonus (speculative, but based on a phenomenon that is very well established in easier-to-measure professional contexts): more heterogeneous populations are less prone to groupthink, suggesting that selecting for diversity could actually improve educational outcomes.
And, bonus: by comparing raw percentages of massively different-sized populations, this chart implies that more URM students are being admitted than have the test scores to "back it up" (just look, the middle bar is bigger on the right than the left) despite saying literally nothing about the actual test scores of the actual ORM admittees. Every single minority student at those institutions could be sitting on a 1550+ without changing this chart a whit.
Anyway, I hope and assume that OP was not actually trying to feed the reactionary trolls with this; but looking at some of the other comments here, it's happening anyway.
ackermann t1_iu31akb wrote
> SAT scores have a positive correlation with economic and pre-college educational privilege
True. But it is concerning that this hits Asian kids considerably harder than even whites! Asians still experience some racism in this country, and probably don’t deserve that.
Not all Asians are wealthy. Especially those from Laos, Vietnam, or other poorer countries (maybe they should be classed as URM).
Lower income Asian kids are really getting screwed here. Why should they have to score much higher than others, to get to the same colleges? Because of the color of their skin?
If we need to discriminate at all, if anything, it should be based purely on wealth/income IMO, not race.
Wouldn’t income be a better proxy for privilege, than race? To somewhat counter wealthy peoples ability to afford expensive schools, private tutors, and SAT prep classes.
This would still indirectly favor URM, since they tend to be lower income. But it would better handle cases like poor asian/white kids, or rich black kids.
mgzkk1210 t1_iu3b3mw wrote
> Asians still experience some racism in this country, and probably don’t deserve that.
Fucking hell, don't pussyfoot this shit.
russellzerotohero t1_iu3bx6x wrote
Yeah Asians especially Chinese receive a ton of racism.
EnjoysYelling t1_iu3d06r wrote
You’re right that omitting context can be deceptive. Here’s some context you omitted.
The number of extremely high test scores in a demographic is likely proportionate to the number of moderate test scores in that demographic.
These scores exist along a smooth distribution - in the population overall and within each demographic. If one demographic has a higher number of students that beat a particular score, it’s usually because their entire population distribution of scores is shifted rightward. Said another way, they have a higher number of students beating any given score.
Even if there is a large number of outstanding performers among every group, there are likely more outstanding performers among the groups that have better performance at any given benchmark. These groups also likely have the highest performers.
If one demographic has a lower ratio of quantity of high performers to quantity of admissions …
… then, that demographic is required to meet a higher standard of performance to be admitted.
There are arguments that academic performance shouldn’t be the only merit considered.
However, if we expect that these non-academic merits are distributed equally throughout the population … shouldn’t a demographic with higher academic performance have just as much as other demographics?
Shouldn’t those demographics still end up being more qualified overall?
Unless we’re suggesting that academic merit is somehow inversely proportional to other forms of merit … when most trends show the opposite to be the case.
So even considering non-academic merits, the demographics with higher academic performance overall should still have admissions rates proportionate to their performance.
There are arguments in favor of having different standards for historically disadvantaged groups to compensate them for that disadvantage. That’s a position that I respect, as it earnestly seeks justice.
However, there’s not much room for argument that there are not different standards being used for different demographics here.
Further, if a demographic that was until very recently historically underrepresented is now being designated as “overrepresented” because they are performing highly compared to other demographics … is this justice?
It seems to me that there a probably other ways of seeking justice here … particularly, by seeking to improve the entire distribution of test scores of underrepresented groups.
This seems preferable to me to our current practice of effectively using the disprivilege of underrepresented groups to effectively launder the privilege of historic wealth via the elite university system.
This laundering of privilege happens at the ultimate expense of hard-working members of “overrepresented” groups, not all of whom are born wealthy but who now must meet higher standards purely because of their ethnicity.
LostDefectivePearl t1_iu2zhur wrote
One of the many ways to twist statistics to suit a narrative is to refuse context and let people run roughshod with assumption instead.
Jorge5934 t1_iu32nrw wrote
But the dude you are responding to has for an argument the idea that universities do this because more diversity might benefit education.
Call me crazy, but I think good professors is really what makes education good, but if you require those mental gymnastics to claim statistics are being twisted to deny context, that right there is part of the problem.
NHFI t1_iu36g6j wrote
Good professors do make for a good education....diversity of ideas also makes for a good education. Both can be true at the same time
Roadkill_Bingo t1_iu3102h wrote
Thoughtful comment. That’s for pointing some of these things out.
MakeTotalDestr0i t1_iu1o3p2 wrote
Am I reading this correctly and 33% of the school population is URMs?
tabthough OP t1_iu1uqw8 wrote
This is correct: 33% of the HYPMS domestic student population is URMs
waypastyouall t1_iu2xlnt wrote
That is messed up that their race is a factor in their admissions
Jorge5934 t1_iu31p2l wrote
I got invited to apply to an ivy leage university after my not very high ACT. I'm sure was because I'm Ecuadorian, and US universities crave to collect nationalities like if we were Pokémon, just so they can print that they represent 77 nationalities on their brochures.
hiricinee t1_iu32xd5 wrote
Harvard said in court it was because Asians did worse in the interview process. Interestingly enough, they almost categorically scored lower in "likeability"- essentially that the interviewers liked URMs better than Asian students, on average- which is literally (not figuratively) racist.
SchoolboyBlue t1_iu3cf5t wrote
My Harvard interviewer literally asked me to draw a godamn elephant in my interview … literally ignored my entire resume (sports, leadership, work, APs) and just opted to zero in on an art class I took. I’m East Asian.
[deleted] t1_iu3csas wrote
[deleted]
OftenTouchesGrass t1_iu3b552 wrote
Huh? I would imagine different economic backgrounds could cause the students to have different attitudes towards education and why they want to attend the university. This could factor in.
And either way, SAT scores are already biased towards the economic background of whites, Asians, and other middle and upper class demographics.
CannedApples13 t1_iu3assr wrote
No it‘s not.
Passing on a student because they aren’t likable doesn’t make the recruiter or the institution racist. It just means they weren’t likable. Get a personality.
mkaszycki81 t1_iu3cubd wrote
Individuals? Sure. But if the average for a specific racial group is systemically higher, then there's clear bias.
Top_Election3816 t1_iu3bpst wrote
No its not. Keeping data for scientific and socioeconomic purposes are very important. What if 60% of 1400 SATs were black people, but only 3% of Harvard students were black? You could point it out with data but without data we’d never know.
joeschmoe86 t1_iu2ycy4 wrote
It was a factor in their non-admission long enough, I'm okay with them making up ground.
ackermann t1_iu2zy3b wrote
It’s at Asians’ expense though.
Not all Asians are wealthy. Especially those from Laos, Vietnam, or other poorer countries.
Lower income Asian kids are really getting screwed here. Why should they have to score much higher than others, to get to the same colleges?
If we need to discriminate at all, if anything, it should be based purely on wealth/income, not race. To somewhat counter wealthy peoples ability to afford expensive schools, private tutors, and SAT prep classes.
This would still indirectly favor URM, since they tend to be lower income. But it would better handle cases like poor Asian kids, or rich black kids.
craftmacaro t1_iu38j1n wrote
these are Ivies. Where massive amounts of the most populace ethicity on the planet are applying and pretty much every applicant is 1400 plus if not 1500 plus… there are schools in china and japan that are more prolific in many areas than the US schools and the high school prep of certain asian countries is directly geared towards high SAT scores, along with cultural emphasis that is lacking in many communities urm… i’m a professor as well as defender of my PhD at a college that sucks compared to harvard in rankings but is massively better recognized in snake venom research which is all i care about as a venom a researcher… harvard can keep its endowment. they don’t have 209 venomous snakes i can extract 5 minutes from my lab.
The truth is that a lot more than sat scores and grades are taken into account including relative performance amoung those of similar background and personal desire to go to this school for this reason apart from “you are the most prestigious”. I guarantee that those who had reached out to, and won over a faculty member. demonstrating why THAT school and THAT lab interested them, race was less of a factor among those that did that.
not saying it’s not still fucked up… but admissions are not based on morality police. they are based on statistical evaluations of many factors by people who understand the cost/benefit analysis and how to do the best with very limited info we have… and until we have less limited information… that really is the best we can do
685327593 t1_iu31y99 wrote
I just honestly can't wrap my head around how a person could logically think the solution to racism is... more racism. This world is so fucked with that sort of logic.
pickettfury t1_iu33iz0 wrote
I think the idea is to even up the societal balance by giving this generational a handicap. Just imagine starting a game of monopoly mid way through with a bunch of players that already own half the board. It's impossible to compete, right?
685327593 t1_iu34s8k wrote
Make affirmative action about socioeconomic status instead of skin color then. The moral problem here is that you can't fix the past. You're punishing people who didn't have anything to do with the injustices of the past. That's doubly true for Asians whose ancestors were often ALSO victims of colonialism.
Thorusss t1_iu38uuv wrote
Imagine the UN decides that all Americans now have to live in severe poverty (global poor - famines, etc.) for two generation, because their grandparents were born in a rich country.
Makes sense also?
Thorusss t1_iu38nmv wrote
So because black people in the past were unfairly treated, the solution is to treat other races unfairly now? Especially the young people now, who in no shape were responsible for the past?
waypastyouall t1_iu2yl37 wrote
Ah, reverse racism, fight fire with fire
Abstract__Nonsense t1_iu307r6 wrote
As opposed to accepting a permanent racial underclass based on previous racist policies with broad based socioeconomic implications.
Ark-kun t1_iu37py5 wrote
Underclass is poor people.
Discriminating poor people by race is racist.
Independent-Bike8810 t1_iu31y0c wrote
like when welfare assistance went to mothers so long as no male was boarding in the household causing marriage to an employed male, even one earning the minimum wage to risk a mother’s economic well-being
Abstract__Nonsense t1_iu32y5z wrote
Ya, bad policy is bad policy? I think this is not the gotcha you think it is.
waypastyouall t1_iu31kze wrote
That's some funky propaganda you've been reading
Abstract__Nonsense t1_iu32s9j wrote
So you believe that current socioeconomic disparities in the in the U.S. just naturally resolve themselves over time? And I’m the one brainwashed by propaganda…
WindFelon t1_iu3e0r7 wrote
sounds like your username is appropriate
songpeng_zhang t1_iu38jy1 wrote
You should make a point to only send your kids, or loved ones, to URM physicians for life saving care.
[deleted] t1_iu3auu5 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iu1ugnj wrote
[deleted]
pigeonsmasher t1_iu1usc2 wrote
That is incorrect
ArtesianDiff t1_iu1uuuz wrote
You're right, I'll delete my post. Misread.
jello2000 t1_iu3d8mh wrote
Understand that URM can include Asians, especially Southeast Asians who are under represented like Cambodians, Hmong, Vietnamese, etc.
69_420_ t1_iu2wabo wrote
This is what systematic racism looks like
[deleted] t1_iu39cq2 wrote
[removed]
685327593 t1_iu1lzvm wrote
This is racism in action pure and simple. It's funny because these same universities have apologized for doing the exact same thing to Jews in the past.. but now that it's Asians it's suddenly OK.
KeaganItReal t1_iu2art9 wrote
Are your serious? Whites are under represented too. Are you going to say white people are oppressed? Also what requirement is there that a private universities demographics have to directly match the demographics of top testing students? If that is some requirement who set the arbitrary data point for which we compare test scores? Gtfoh
Edit. I think people are misunderstanding my comment. I'm not saying that anything is justified because it happens to white people. I'm also not saying what happens to white people and Asians is racism as the commenter above me suggested. I'm saying their should be no expectation of demographic fairness or proportional equality in university admissions.
MyAnswerIsMaybe t1_iu2obdv wrote
White people are being oppressed just as much so its okay its they are doing it to Asians
Race should play 0 factor in college admissions
[deleted] t1_iu2umy3 wrote
[removed]
MyAnswerIsMaybe t1_iu2vke8 wrote
Race can't play a factor for the simple fact a kid can't change it.
We have had this discussion time and time again, but at the end of the day everybody should be treated equally regardless of sex, race and any other factors not related to the content of their character.
Schools should be able to decide who to except off of GPA, SAT, essay, whatever they want but race shouldn't play a factor in it. Period.
NHFI t1_iu361k9 wrote
Race isn't playing a factor, test scores are, for schools like this high test scores get you an interview. The schools value a good story, be that hard work, overcoming adversity etc, every single person you see in this graph scored amazing on tests every single one earned a spot at these schools but there isn't enough spots. interviews said this breakdown deserved a spot. plain and simple.
KeaganItReal t1_iu2vtf6 wrote
I thank all of our lucky stars that there are smart people out there in positions of power who disagree with you
MyAnswerIsMaybe t1_iu2vwsc wrote
You are advocating for racism
Plain and simple
hotfezz81 t1_iu3ek4g wrote
He's a troll
Qastodon t1_iu304th wrote
Instead of making admission easier for urms, maybe we should actually change the fucking circumstances that make it difficult for them to go to school.
And there are underpriveleged people who aren’t urms? Or urms who are rich.
[deleted] t1_iu2i3im wrote
[removed]
GiusWestside t1_iu3ahfg wrote
So... Harvard & co. Are being racist to Asian guys?
AagaySheun t1_iu39woe wrote
I am all for helping URMs but this should be done at the school (middle school and high school) levels and not at the university levels. This is just not fair.
russellzerotohero t1_iu3bywv wrote
How would you do that? There are a lot of middle school and highschools.
EnjoysYelling t1_iu3eevr wrote
Disconnect the funding of schools from local property taxes
AagaySheun t1_iu3chtr wrote
One of the ways is by reducing the cost of high school and middle school education based on income levels of the family.
Reducing the cost of college preparatory courses.
Encouraging pursuing higher education in marginalized communities.
Tasty-Tumbleweed-786 t1_iu3f9dg wrote
Do we know if lower income Asians (eg Laos, Cambodia) are in the Asian or the URM group? I guess they would technically be both, but it would make a significant difference.
pjasbi t1_iu1ubrj wrote
Yes and sadly this is reflected in the performance of these students at higher levels of education. As a college instructor, I can attest there is severe grade and degree inflation
hotfezz81 t1_iu3ehox wrote
What's grade and degree inflation?
KeaganItReal t1_iu2b4ay wrote
What is "this" exactly? And how it reflected in "which" students?
Wounded_Hand t1_iu3ap91 wrote
“This” : URM students being accepted to these colleges to fulfill a quota, rather than based on merit.
“Which” : URM is defined in the graphic.
KeaganItReal t1_iu3czgs wrote
No part of this graphic should lead you or the commenter or anyone else to "this" conclusion. The population of people who take the SAT and the population who enter one of those 5 schools are very different in volume. The chart visualizes students who scored over 1400 on their SAT. That includes plenty of students who just got 1400 and plenty who got perfect scores and lots in between. Without any other info you don't know if the urm group on the right were the most meritorious and worthy of entry or even what their SAT scores are at all other than that it was over 1400.
So that would be a petty stupid assumption, one that I'm pretty sure most intelligent people wouldn't make. I still wouldn't see the link between that asinine conclusion and degree inflation. Even if there's an issue of letting non-meritorious candidates in, there should be no issue of degree or grade inflation just because the wrong kids got in. They'll flame out or underperform (which is actually a much bigger problem that degree inflation). Grade and degree inflation is an issue with the education and educators at those particular institutions. Maybe original commenter is just a shitty educator at a shitty school.
pjasbi t1_iu2cewb wrote
Read the graph, figure it out
Specific_Raisin8169 t1_iu2ofh0 wrote
They can’t read graphs or figure things out— they’re part of that ‘special’ group who just got in because…. You know. 🤷🏻♂️
KeaganItReal t1_iu2va4m wrote
Dude what admissions officer hurt you? You tell me the point this assclown is trying to make? How are you choosing to interpret this data to fit your narcissistic worldview and victim mentality?
KeaganItReal t1_iu2v31c wrote
Or perhaps you don't really have a point and your an elitist intellectual snob looking for a space to be a victim.
tabthough OP t1_iu1kjfp wrote
Source: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/07/class-of-2026-yield-at-nearly-84-percent, https://admissions.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2026profileweb.pdf, https://admission.princeton.edu/apply/admission-statistics, https://mitadmissions.org/apply/process/profile/, https://facts.stanford.edu/academics/freshmen-class-profile/
Tools: Excel, PowerPoint
Usernamemustbeb- t1_iu3c894 wrote
Adding the connection between the two sets is as misleading as adding a line between discreet datapoints. If you want to really understand this, I suggest you repeat the visualization with a sankey diagram using absolute numbers.
I'm sure you're not trying to be misleading, but this is a very flawed way of showing this data, and you can see it has misled by the number of salivating anti-woke or dog whistle comments in this post.
Ark-kun t1_iu385ys wrote
I wish they would publish the raw data (no PII of course).
Obsolete-Prototype t1_iu2pwc7 wrote
Diversity hires in a nutshell
Ok_Stick_1256 t1_iu3brs4 wrote
Here’s the deal: just about everyone who goes to Harvard deserves to be there. If Harvard wanted to accept only people with 1600s on the SAT, they could fill up their class with ease. Instead, they choose a class that reflects a larger set of backgrounds. I massively benefited from the diversity of my class, and I’m glad that Harvard didn’t just pick a bunch of rich kids who had access to the best SAT prep.
The SAT shows where a person ended up in their junior year of high school—it doesn’t show where they started out, nor where they’re going to end up. And it certainly doesn’t show what kind of a contribution they’ll make to the academic community.
logicallyzany t1_iu3939t wrote
Ironically Whites are literally a URM by definition in this setting.
Only 89 upvotes, but in reality it’s probably 5000 upvotes but being suppressed by downvotes.
How long before this post is locked?
Agitated-Action4759 t1_iu1l0bi wrote
Woah, it's almost like there's more to college admissions than high standardized test scores.
[deleted] t1_iu2w3wo wrote
[removed]
EnjoysYelling t1_iu3etns wrote
Why would you assume that demographics with higher test scores must be fundamentally less qualified in some other way?
That must be your position if you believe that these admissions are purely merit based.
And that would be a strange position to take, considering that high performance in one area typically trends with high performance in other areas.
[deleted] t1_iu1loeh wrote
[deleted]
685327593 t1_iu1mkvq wrote
How do you mean that? Whose money are you talking about?
[deleted] t1_iu1od21 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iu1ogkm wrote
[deleted]
685327593 t1_iu2lnoj wrote
Your conclusion is completely unsupported by fact. First off, what we see here is a massive advantage for black and Hispanic individuals. Your argument would therefore suggesr these individuals to be higher income than Asian and white families. That is simply false. Secondly, admission to these schools is completely need blind and they offer extremely good financial aid packages. If your family is low income you will go for free.
Far-Two8659 t1_iu2qidl wrote
I totally misread this chart. I'm an idiot, ignore me lol.
SubjectiveCoconut t1_iu1tggp wrote
This is true of college as a whole (and there are a lot of other wealth related inequities), but actually not for affording it, once you get into Harvard. These schools in the graphic all have really amazing financial aid.
If your household income is <120k for instance, you go to Stanford for free if you get in, flat out.
You are a bit screwed if you're properly middle class in a HCOL area esp. if your parents recently had a salary bump, but that's definitely not the same as low income students.
What is fucked up, is that a lot of the URM students at these places themselves come from insane amounts of wealth. The cross sectional view of race and wealth is probably a very different picture.
Far-Two8659 t1_iu1v76b wrote
Sure, but you're missing the competitive piece. You have 10 students who have nearly identical academic records. You can admit 5. 4 of them come from significant wealth and are likely to bolster your endowment. 6 come from low income families and would qualify for full financial aid.
Of those 10, all 4 endowment boosters are getting in. Period.
SubjectiveCoconut t1_iu392gz wrote
That's simply not true. Like the sheer amount of money these institutions have, you think you can bribe them with 1 or 2 million, or even 10 or 20 mil? Please.
Also the folks who work in admissions aren't at all the folks who work with the endowment.
The kind of wealth that can buy a Harvard seat can get in on soft power -- being a senator or a billionaire, and there aren't really a lot of those types. And tbh, that's not 100% a bad thing -- though I also can't defend the policy entirely. Because the reason Harvard is the ticket to a stable income and good life if you're from a lower class background is in a large part the connections you make there -- which involves meeting these types of rich kids.
As an aside, the competitive piece is why the URM component is larger in the final admissions. They're not being cut slack and let in because they're URM. There are just a lot of qualified kids. You could admit three times as many without lowering standards. And that means you can afford to optimize for diversity, to make the experience more enriching for the kids that attend.
wrenwood2018 t1_iu2zy43 wrote
And this is why these schools are about to lose a major case at the Supreme Court.
guachi01 t1_iu3ef5j wrote
They are going to lose the case because the Supreme Court is filled with far right legislators who pay only lip service to the law, precedent, and the Constitution.
keishalemons t1_iu2wnn8 wrote
So "URM'S" aren't actually "under represented", score lower, and get into HYPMS anyways...
Ya I'm sure this won't come back to bite society in any way, shape, or form....
It also makes you wonder, how smart and how "qualified" the people running these institutions are anyways? Why are they doing this?
zucim t1_iu308hn wrote
Every year I swear Harvard students get dumber and dumber. Everyone who got in just wrote a good essay and founded some random non profit. What is the merit of a Harvard education when there is no merit involved in admissions.
Tasty-Tumbleweed-786 t1_iu3f41g wrote
Except every single one of those URMs that were admitted could have got max/extremely high scores.
bebemaster t1_iu3481q wrote
Story time. Back in 1997 when I was looking at colleges I attended a "Bridging the gap" seminar at my local state university. Only prospective students whose parents didn't attend college were invited. In the packed ballroom we were the only white family in attendance. It seemed clear to me that the personal history captured by this metric was more meaningful than the color of one's skin, and that there were other more meaningful metrics that captured disadvantage as well, income, location, schools attended, etc.
Usernamemustbeb- t1_iu3bwe5 wrote
A sankey would show this a lot better - this totally ignores differences in population, especially misleading with the connection between the total unrelated sets.
A lot of "gotcha, woke sheeple" comments here from people who haven't taken two minutes to think about what's really being shown here.
EnjoysYelling t1_iu3ffga wrote
If the admissions process is merit based, then the only population levels that should matter are the population levels of students that meet some minimum standard of merit …
… which is what is shown in the graph we’re looking at
qa2fwzell t1_iu2zcna wrote
Quit showing actual systemic racism you're ruining our agenda bigot!!!
Low-Fisherman-9468 t1_iu2mxlu wrote
Yeah obviously, affirmative action doesn't attack the real problem. Broken culture, broken families, and broken windows.
Also, university here in America need to be reworked to be 95% US citizen. It is ridiculous that talented students are being rejected to keep that sweet international student tuition. This would help Asian and White Americans who are being cheated.
demetrixjennings t1_iu2qak4 wrote
I agree AA doesn’t fix the problem. But hard-working, talented people who are passionate about bringing their skills to the US shouldn’t be allowed to go just because they weren’t born there? That’s totally out of their control. That just shifts the problem to somewhere else
The-Jolly-Llama t1_iu327hu wrote
In concept that’s true, but in my 3 years as a grad student at a top ranked R1 university, I saw an awful lot of international students who couldn’t string an English sentence together to save their lives, wasting lots of tuition money on a program they were really ill-prepared for, because the school just kept accepting them and flunking them (or shoving them through, depending on the particular flavor of lazy professor they had) just to collect that sweet, sweet, international tuition money.
wrenwood2018 t1_iu30ijx wrote
We should definitely take as much top talent as possible. However many public schools are there with a mission to educate the population of that state. So if local students are displaced for international ones there is a conflict between that and the desire to scoop up international talent.
[deleted] t1_iu31t2u wrote
[deleted]
Bad_Adam1917 t1_iu3avu7 wrote
Take a look at the STEM faculty in any top school in the US. A decent proportion will be foreigners who came to the US to do a Masters/PHD and now produce cutting research, all thanks to them being allowed to study in this country.
The issue with completing your education outside the US and then coming in is that it usually limits you to just industry. If you want to get into academia, you’ll need some kind US credentials or it doesn’t work.
And banning these people from US academia will very seriously damage US competitiveness because such people are in short supply everywhere in the world, meaning they could produce that cutting edge research elsewhere if the US bans them.
Fun_Designer7898 t1_iu3a6t7 wrote
Because US education is incomparably better than the majority of where the foreign students come from
There was an analysis done a couple of years ago that found out that the most elite chinese, russian or indian computer science student at their countries version of an Ivy League, are quite a bit worse than the -average- computer science student in the US.
[deleted] t1_iu31ot8 wrote
[deleted]
tobetossedout t1_iu2zc0l wrote
>Broken culture, broken families, and broken windows
Is some white supremacist bullshit, just ignore that person and move on.
[deleted] t1_iu31plg wrote
[removed]
wrenwood2018 t1_iu30d94 wrote
>Also, university here in America need to be reworked to be 95% US citizen. It is ridiculous that talented students are being rejected to keep that sweet international student tuition. This would help Asian and White Americans who are being cheated.
This to me is a major problem. There are way, way, way too many international students at many public universities. They are mostly there because their tuition is so high it is a windfall for the school. Unfortunately it often means we are training individuals who go back to a foreign country and undertraining our own population.
685327593 t1_iu32gt0 wrote
The US training foreign elites is how we export our culture to the rest of the world. It's very intentional.
[deleted] t1_iu2yyva wrote
[deleted]
schroindinger t1_iu376kp wrote
Grouping minorities together makes their representation a bigger, I could make the same graph with two groups URM and Asians & whites and it would seems disproportionate as well. That said the proportions of SAT score and HYPMS might still draw the same conclusions
morebob12 t1_iu3fqnk wrote
I have no idea what this is even showing
JoHeWe t1_iu3aw3r wrote
Asian (American)
Pacific Islanders
Native American
Hispanic Americans
Black Americans
White (Americans)
I mean, if race is used for demographics, at least complete the list.
Asian
Pacific
Native
Hispanic
African
European.
Ark-kun t1_iu37t0m wrote
Now let's take Bayes formula and reverse this.
(need more raw data though)
[deleted] t1_iu2zh5u wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iu3123u wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iu3aoz7 wrote
[removed]
Zeko_Tosh t1_iu35pxs wrote
How is it possible to have those data in the USA ? Is it legal ?
IAMSTILLHERE2020 t1_iu34gnh wrote
So what does a Harvard degree get you? I know a teacher in a private catholic school that went to Harvard.
SubjectiveCoconut t1_iu39t39 wrote
Careful, this isn't painting the proper picture, because you don't see where the rest of those top students go. Are there more Asians in the top 100 colleges in the US? I believe so.
The URM are not being cut slack and let in because they're URM. There are just a lot of qualified kids. You could admit three times as many without lowering standards. And that means you can afford to optimize for diversity, to make the experience more enriching for the kids that attend. (Also at these colleges URMs are often from other countries where they were the top students. They're not all American in this chart.)
What you can disagree with is whether attending a diverse college (on ethnicity) is more enriching than otherwise. (I personally think it is more enriching to have that sort of diversity, but I can see the other pov)
EnjoysYelling t1_iu3fxh6 wrote
Many of the other top 100 colleges have similar patterns of admissions.
I would wager that nearly all of them admit proportionately fewer “overrepresented students” relative to performance.
All of these schools are attempting to do what the elite colleges do, for nearly the same reasons.
This means that nearly all of these schools are turning down qualified students based on their ethnicity, for the sake of admitting similarly or less qualified students of other ethnicities.
You can call this practice whatever you want, but the practice is not really much different
[deleted] t1_iu2wc22 wrote
[removed]
kernanb t1_iu3dbu3 wrote
Stunning and brave. Great to see these ivy league schools being unapologetic in dramatically boosting their number of Black students.
[deleted] t1_iu2yujw wrote
[removed]
kaseda t1_iu2xbii wrote
Keeping in mind that URM are systemically more likely to be in poorer schools with fewer resources, it's not surprising. On one hand, I'm glad they are being given a chance to "break the cycle," on the other hand, breaking the cycle is basically a myth to begin with and I fear many of those students are going to lack the full financial resources they need and just end up going into debt only to face continued racism once they enter the job market.
wrenwood2018 t1_iu30pw8 wrote
In my experience thought it isn't poorer URM that are benefitting. It is typically a wealthy URM going to these schools that then gets an extra bump because of their race. The economic diversity at many colleges is much worse than their racial diversity.
kaseda t1_iu31ulm wrote
I agree. I specifically avoided Ivy/other prestigious schools because I was afraid of not fitting in with the "wealthier" groups. I went to a state university instead and still noticed an insane shift in culture - I can hardly name anyone other than myself who didn't have at least well-off parents paying for their college, and even some who did got some hefty loans while doing it.
Outrageous-Duck9695 t1_iu2yor3 wrote
Usually if you come from low income family ivy schools are free.
kaseda t1_iu2znnq wrote
Only if you meet their criteria or get the right scholarships. E.g. 2 parents working just above minimum wage jobs might have income above their threshold but would be a problem if you're only 1 of 5 children. Even then, who knows how much applying for that need-based full ride ends up affecting your admission. Some stats I've seen estimate only 20% actually get those scholarships, which might end up being less than half of the minority group in the end, so they still end up paying at least some money and pulling out loans. At Ivys, even small percentages of tuition will add up fast.
Outrageous-Duck9695 t1_iu30kmt wrote
- Families with annual incomes of $75,000 or less do not pay anything toward the cost of a Harvard College education.
- Nearly 1 in 4 undergraduates comes from a family whose annual income is $75,000 or less.
- 55% of Harvard undergraduates receive financial aid and pay an average of $12,700 per year.
If you are poor, Ivys are the place to be.
685327593 t1_iu32qo6 wrote
WAY to many people don't understand this. The reality is that unless you're rich the better the college you go to the LESS you will actually pay. Too many people get scared by the "sticker price", but that's mostly to fleece international students.
kaseda t1_iu32obx wrote
An average of $12,700 leaves you with $50k total debt after 4 years. Even if you assume most of that is outliers who receive no aid, leaving with $25k can still be tough. The reason why "breaking the cycle" is such a myth is because getting an education leaves you in debt, so you spend time paying that off. Once you do, the money that you might spend investing or saving often ends up going towards your parents, who couldn't save for themselves. Once you are ready to send your own child to college, the money that you would have saved for them has gone to your parents, and so they end up going with no savings - but now you make money so need-based scholarships are hard to get. Unless you are getting your education completely free, you'll probably have less debt somewhere else and after a few years experience nobody will care that you went to an Ivy school.
Outrageous-Duck9695 t1_iu3apb0 wrote
For 90% of American families Harvard is more affordable than their local state school.
I went to a state school for two years after attending CC for my first two and still came out with a debt of ~30k. I would have zero debt had I been accepted and attended Harvard.
685327593 t1_iu32z47 wrote
>Keeping in mind that URM are systemically more likely to be in poorer schools with fewer resources
And the solution should be to provide those schools with more resources.
Also, AA might make sense if it were based on socioeconomic status, but it's NOT. It's based purely on race. Poor Asians still get discriminated against and rich black people still get the benefits.
ScienceOverNonsense t1_iu2rjpf wrote
Many more people are intellectually capable than are admitted. Legacy admissions are a tradition at all schools and this almost always favors affluent white families by putting legacy ahead of intellectual criteria. As a practical matter, legacy admissions help pay the bills by generating generous donations and fund raising that less well endowed schools depend on to operate. Affirmative action is necessary to provide more opportunities for underserved people of color who are also intellectually capable of doing the work required to graduate. SAT scores have never been the sole criteria for admission, nor should they be.
waypastyouall t1_iu2xpn7 wrote
>Affirmative action is necessary to provide more opportunities for underserved people of color who are also intellectually capable of doing the work required to graduate. SAT scores have never been the sole criteria for admission, nor should they be.
Source needed
HenriettaHiggins t1_iu2uevy wrote
Dear science over nonsense, We are out numbered. Signed, someone who values the same.
[deleted] t1_iu1ow0i wrote
[removed]
skedeebs t1_iu1qpmo wrote
Why would you do that?
OldGloryInsuranceBot t1_iu2qybn wrote
If you factor out people who don’t factor out Jews, then you’ll find that the remaining Jew-factor-outing people are quite underrepresented in Universities.
JJmarcone t1_iu21rqq wrote
I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is to screech about demographics and diversity. I know that wasnt the point of this post but thats the mindset of every college these days.
Abstract__Nonsense t1_iu30nk8 wrote
I’m gonna go ahead and hope this is straight up trolling about the absurdities of “Christian/European demographics” being oppressed in the U.S.
No-Literature5008 t1_iu2n4jw wrote
Based.
Good thing we look at more than SAT scores for college admissions. Otherwise we’d end up with a student body that is in no way representative of our society.
waypastyouall t1_iu2xrwa wrote
Harvard isn't supposed to be representative in any way, it's meant to have the best of the best
No-Literature5008 t1_iu2xyvz wrote
Harvard is a private institution.
waypastyouall t1_iu2y15i wrote
So what, private businesses can be racist? Not surprised someone like you has such weak points.
No-Literature5008 t1_iu2z6ca wrote
Harvard isn’t being racist.
Not weak. Just the truth.
[deleted] t1_iu2zo63 wrote
[removed]
No-Literature5008 t1_iu2ztkr wrote
Looking at more than SAT scores when admitting students isn’t racist. The world isn’t a technocracy run by people with the best test scores. That’d be a terrible society.
waypastyouall t1_iu31j69 wrote
Did you forget what this conversation is about? It's about including race in your admissions. Maybe you have a memory of a goldfish.
natwetzel t1_iu31nky wrote
all of these schools are test-optional except MIT
Series_G t1_iu1u723 wrote
The SAT is a load of horse-ahem, anyway. It's not a predictor of intelligence or life outcomes or even college graduation. So much so that many colleges don't even require it, anymore. GPA is a better predictor of college success. And even that has serious limitations, post-Covid.
I get what the author is implying. Just wish they would come out and say instead of (probably) posting back to the thread under another handle.
The careerism these days is exhausting.
Mother_Sand_6336 t1_iu2uqyn wrote
What evidence do you have that SAT scores don’t correlate with freshman-year retention rates, 6-year graduation rates, and all sorts of life outcomes such as income, post-grad degrees, or book authorship, because I’ve seen pretty consistent evidence of those correlations repeated across decades?
GPA and family income correlate strongly, too, perhaps a bit more than SAT, but ‘school quality’ obscures the significance of GPA and disadvantages those from less affluent backgrounds, whereas SATs help such students demonstrate college-readiness despite poorer grades that might result from life events or other burdens.
williamanon t1_iu2fqpq wrote
All is as it should be. The only thing the SAT measures is the ability to pay for courses and tutors to learn how to pass the SAT. I has no correlation to the actual performance of student later in their academic life.
685327593 t1_iu2i094 wrote
The SAT is actually one of the most predictive metrics of future success we have.
rfgrunt t1_iu2ynaw wrote
Maybe it’s because it’s a major determining factor to what college you get into which is also a pretty strong predictor of success
DavidWaldron t1_iu2mjy1 wrote
Family wealth is also predictive of future success. Should colleges try to admit students from wealthy families?
685327593 t1_iu2n0av wrote
The whole point of standardized testing is to provide a way for smart kids from poor backgrounds to compete with the kids of the wealthy.
DavidWaldron t1_iu2ndgb wrote
It’d be nice if it worked that way. After accounting for academic performance in high school, a lot of the remaining variation in college success explained by standardized tests reflects student background.
685327593 t1_iu2oom6 wrote
The "problem" is simply that the kids of the rich are legitimately the smartest kids. There's a considerable "nurture" component to intelligence and higher income kids receive it more than poor kids do. By the time they're 17 kids from high income families are just factually more intelligent and well rounded individuals. And that's not to mention any genetic intelligence advantage they may receive.
PS: While rich kids are nurtured better than poor ones I'd argue it's certainly possible for poor parents to provide a good head start to their kids. We see that even poor Asian kids greatly overperform on academic metrics because their parents stress it a lot at home and focus what resources they have primarily on education.
DavidWaldron t1_iu2s9oy wrote
That’s not really true (about Asians). If you look at, say, the Hmong population in Minnesota, or the Burmese population where I currently live, they are less successful academically than average. Everyone loves to talk about “Asian culture” as a reason for Asian-American academic success, but it’s way overstated. The main reason Asians are successful is simply that a large portion of us are children or grandchildren of immigrants and immigration to America (aside from poor refugees) selects from the highest socioeconomic strata of foreign countries.
Edit for sources: for a general overview of what causes immigrant success in America I recommend Boustan and Abramitzky’s recent book, Streets of Gold. I also like Ed Lazear’s paper on the nuts and bolts of selection in America’s immigration system, but that’s a bit technical.
685327593 t1_iu2tq0g wrote
"Asian" is a poor way to lump together dozens of different ethnicities. It's obviously not true that they all value the same things, however in general there's no doubt Asian culture is more focused on education.
DavidWaldron t1_iu2u2mj wrote
And in response to the first paragraph, the question is whether you want the post secondary education to simply reflect people’s advantages up to that point, or whether you also want to capitalize on ability that has been underdeveloped and under-recognized. If you want the former, reward standardized test (or straight-up family wealth). If you think the latter has benefits you can use policies like Texas‘s top percent policy which gives automatic acceptance based on percentile performance within schools. This is empirically shown to increase college attainment among economically disadvantaged students with no real downsides.
Edit: here’s the Texas Top Percent research
685327593 t1_iu2vhf8 wrote
I think top colleges should admit the most qualified students. Lowering the standards of our top academic institutions isn't the solution to poor parenting and school funding. State colleges are perfectly fine institutions of higher learning and a person attending one has plenty of opportunity to succeed in life. A Harvard education isn't required to get ahead for an intelligent and motivated individual. If politicians want to do something to help poor people get more educated they should change the way schools are funded since the current model of using local property taxes is manifestly unfair. The reality is that by the time a person is 18 its already too late to make up for a learning deficit acquired early in life.
DavidWaldron t1_iu2w0v3 wrote
I don’t care about Harvard either, to be honest. I care much more about public universities. It simply doesn’t follow that admitting the “most qualified” students maximizes the benefits of the education system. It doesn’t. It is actually less efficient than a design like in Texas.
Abstract__Nonsense t1_iu3108m wrote
Ok that’s fine, and they have no moral desert for attending the most prestigious colleges. Go take your fallback option at Vassar, Rick, privileged white kid. If your aptitude for life mirrors your aptitude for tests that education will serve you just fine…
DavidWaldron t1_iu3a6d9 wrote
Yes, in fact that’s exactly what happens when you award automatic admission based on relative performance within one’s high school. Economically disadvantaged students have improved education and employment outcomes, while kids at top-ranked feeder schools have essentially the same outcomes, but some of them attend less prestigious colleges.
[deleted] t1_iu2nfs8 wrote
[removed]
ar243 t1_iu2iud9 wrote
"the only thing the SAT measures..."
Very true, but let's not forget that the only thing college measures is how well you do random busywork. Even the really technical majors still have a ton of BS classes, depending on the college.
I would argue that the SAT measures exactly the kind of thing that colleges demand out of their students.
tjmk5000 t1_iu2xxtu wrote
Then how do you explain the variation in SAT scores among those of equal wealth with equal ability to pay for courses and tutors.
HenriettaHiggins t1_iu2nkz6 wrote
Honestly this seems like a step toward the right kinds of things. More representation in these institutions is good.
Obsolete-Prototype t1_iu2qn0c wrote
How is denying people who are intellectually capable in favor of 'URM's the right step?
This is what systematic racism looks like, and you're calling it good..
[deleted] t1_iu2up3m wrote
[deleted]
Obsolete-Prototype t1_iu2vaeb wrote
What point are you even trying to get across? /r/iamverysmart
Mother_Sand_6336 t1_iu2v5io wrote
Must these schools be gatekeepers for meritocracy? Or are they providing a world-class education as defined by themselves?
In other words, why should a private institution be required to serve a meritocratic function, rather than be free to determine for themselves the product they wish to offer?
Obsolete-Prototype t1_iu2w6lu wrote
because it's nothing more than an ego-stroke on a resume. The final result is a piece of paper that says 'I PLAYED THE GAME'. And guess what happens when the URM's that played the game goes into a job interview and the other candidates didn't get the pity admission?
LOL, Systematic racism is alive and well and you act like it's acceptable.
Mother_Sand_6336 t1_iu2yjuj wrote
I just think it’s more complex than any single factor or goal. And I think there’s a free-market for private institutions so long as they’re not actively discriminating against any single individual or barring entire groups based on race.
Purplekeyboard t1_iu2rvpa wrote
Unless you're Asian. Then it's not so good.
HenriettaHiggins t1_iu2u67n wrote
I guess your perspective really depends on what you think the test tells you and what you think HYPMS should value and what getting an education from a place like this means.
If you see HYPMS admissions as a kind of emblem to say you’ve maximized certain modifiable factors about your childhood education, then yes, this looks like it’s not so great for white or Asian people. But there comes a point where candidates of a certain caliber just look identical in all measurable ways. And at the point where you have more people like that applying than slots, there are other values that come into play. For example the community as a whole being more diverse is thought to benefit the education of people of all races who attend.
I’m not sure what people are worried about for the sake of high performing kids. If they aren’t going to undergrad at a place like this, they’re not going to magically become low performing kids. I don’t have data on this but I would imagine a high performing student who doesn’t attend one of these schools is likely to pay less tuition, have greater value added (https://www.brookings.edu/research/using-earnings-data-to-rank-colleges-a-value-added-approach-updated-with-college-scorecard-data/ for example), and potentially go somewhere like this for graduate school if they want to. Or somewhere that actually does what they’re passionate about better than these schools do. They’re very likely going to be fine if they don’t burn out, and if they do, they would have in a place like this too.
What I think rubs people the wrong way about this is that there’s a perception that maximizing every modifiable factor is somehow “earning” a spot that you’re then entitled to on some level and losing to a minority kid. That’s just not how that works. Admissions rank your application on many factors (including legacy in some cases), but all of them will tell you that some aspect of who gets in is just random. There are still too many maximal candidates. And some aspect is about being unique and interesting not just maxing out. So given that, would I rather go to school with a perfect distribution of who maxed out on a single test score? Or rather that the company I pay for my education values a bigger picture of what constitutes a good community for learning? I think I care more about the latter.
[deleted] t1_iu37mei wrote
[removed]
PYHProtectYourHoles t1_iu1wnhu wrote
A lot of people won’t like the implications of this graphic lol