Author Topic: How To Get Into College  (Read 242 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Religious Dick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1149
  • Drunk, drunk, drunk in the gardens and the graves
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
How To Get Into College
« on: July 20, 2010, 11:12:25 PM »
How To Get Into College
Posted By Steve Sailer On 15 July 2010 @ 12:51 In General | Comments Disabled

Russell K. Nieli writes:

A new study by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and his colleague Alexandria Radford is a real eye-opener in revealing just what sorts of students highly competitive colleges want ? or don?t want ? on their campuses and how they structure their admissions policies to get the kind of ?diversity? they seek. The Espenshade/Radford study draws from a new data set, the National Study of College Experience (NSCE), which was gathered from eight highly competitive public and private colleges and universities (entering freshmen SAT scores: 1360). Data was collected on over 245,000 applicants from three separate application years, and over 9,000 enrolled students filled out extensive questionnaires?.

The box students checked off on the racial question on their application was thus shown to have an extraordinary effect on a student?s chances of gaining admission to the highly competitive private schools in the NSCE database. To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550. ?

Espenshade and Radford also take up very thoroughly the question of ?class based preferences? and what they find clearly shows a general disregard for improving the admission chances of poor and otherwise disadvantaged whites. Other studies, including a 2005 analysis of nineteen highly selective public and private universities by William Bowen, Martin Kurzweil, and Eugene Tobin, in their 2003 book, Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education, found very little if any advantage in the admissions process accorded to whites from economically or educationally disadvantaged families compared to whites from wealthier or better educated homes. ?

At the private institutions in their study whites from lower-class backgrounds incurred a huge admissions disadvantage not only in comparison to lower-class minority students, but compared to whites from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds as well. The lower-class whites proved to be all-around losers. When equally matched for background factors (including SAT scores and high school GPAs), the better-off whites were more than three times as likely to be accepted as the poorest whites (.28 vs. .08 admissions probability).

Although grading standards might be lower at a working class white high school than at St. Poshington?s.

Having money in the family greatly improved a white applicant?s admissions chances, lack of money greatly reduced it. The opposite class trend was seen among non-whites, where the poorer the applicant the greater the probability of acceptance when all other factors are taken into account. Class-based affirmative action does exist within the three non-white ethno-racial groupings, but among the whites the groups advanced are those with money.
When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.

Poor Non-White Students: ?Counting Twice?
The enormous disadvantage incurred by lower-class whites in comparison to non-whites and wealthier whites is partially explained by Espenshade and Radford as a result of the fact that, except for the very wealthiest institutions like Harvard and Princeton, private colleges and universities are reluctant to admit students who cannot afford their high tuitions. And since they have a limited amount of money to give out for scholarship aid, they reserve this money to lure those who can be counted in their enrollment statistics as diversity-enhancing ?racial minorities.? Poor whites are apparently given little weight as enhancers of campus diversity, while poor non-whites count twice in the diversity tally, once as racial minorities and a second time as socio-economically deprived?.

There are problems, however, with this explanation. ?

Besides the bias against lower-class whites, the private colleges in the Espenshade/Radford study seem to display what might be called an urban/Blue State bias against rural and Red State occupations and values. This is most clearly shown in a little remarked statistic in the study?s treatment of the admissions advantage of participation in various high school extra-curricular activities. In the competitive private schools surveyed participation in many types of extra-curricular activities ? including community service activities, performing arts activities, and ?cultural diversity? activities ? conferred a substantial improvement in an applicant?s chances of admission. The admissions advantage was usually greatest for those who held leadership positions or who received awards or honors associated with their activities. No surprise here ? every student applying to competitive colleges knows about the importance of extracurriculars.

But what Espenshade and Radford found in regard to what they call ?career-oriented activities? was truly shocking even to this hardened veteran of the campus ideological and cultural wars. Participation in such Red State activities as high school ROTC, 4-H clubs, or the Future Farmers of America was found to reduce very substantially a student?s chances of gaining admission to the competitive private colleges in the NSCE database on an all-other-things-considered basis. The admissions disadvantage was greatest for those in leadership positions in these activities or those winning honors and awards. ?Being an officer or winning awards? for such career-oriented activities as junior ROTC, 4-H, or Future Farmers of America, say Espenshade and Radford, ?has a significantly negative association with admission outcomes at highly selective institutions.? Excelling in these activities ?is associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds of admission.?

Espenshade and Radford don?t have much of an explanation for this find, which seems to place the private colleges even more at variance with their stated commitment to broadly based campus diversity. In his Bakke ruling Lewis Powell was impressed by the argument Harvard College offered defending the educational value of a demographically diverse student body: ?A farm boy from Idaho can bring something to Harvard College that a Bostonian cannot offer. Similarly, a black student can usually bring something that a white person cannot offer.? The Espenshade/Radford study suggests that those farm boys from Idaho would do well to stay out of their local 4-H clubs or FFA organizations ? or if they do join, they had better not list their membership on their college application forms. This is especially true if they were officers in any of these organizations.

Most admissions people are unimpressive, although I recently met the top guy at one famous private college and he was formidable. In response to an anxious parent?s question whether they should send their kid to dig ditches for poor people in Guatemala this summer, he replied that there were plenty of ditches that could be dug in Los Angeles County, and that poor people in Guatemala are probably pretty good at digging ditches already, so he just rolls his eyes when he sees this kind of thing on a college application, but, apparently, other colleges don?t have the same reaction.

A lot of admissions people seem to have Be Like Me motivations ? one reward of their pretty crummy job is that they get to pick out young people they like and make them happy. And they tend to like people who remind them of themselves. One job of the top guy, like the one I met, is to gently remind the lower level admissions people that the last kind of people the Alumni Drive of 2030 wants to send out fundraising letters to is poorly paid admissions officers, so the admissions officers had better hold their noses and let in some competitive smart preppie jock Republicans who will go to Wall Street and make a lot of money and give some of it to the college.

But small town Republicans? That, apparently, is a bridge too far.

Article printed from VDARE.com: Blog Articles: http://blog.vdare.com

URL to article: http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2010/07/15/how-to-get-into-college/
I speak of civil, social man under law, and no other.
-Sir Edmund Burke

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How To Get Into College
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2010, 11:03:28 AM »
But small town Republicans? That, apparently, is a bridge too far.

=============================
These are the "legacy" admissions. Small town Republicans that have donated piles of money to worthy causes will certainly have a better chance of getting their scions admitted. If you examine the freshman class at prestigious universities, you will find LOTS of small town Republicans. I think that admissions officers do as they are told, and know their jobs quite well. They themselves are a diverse group at the prestigious schools, and are not all that poorly paid, either.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7876
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How To Get Into College
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2010, 12:04:42 PM »
But what Espenshade and Radford found in regard to what they call ?career-oriented activities? was truly shocking even to this hardened veteran of the campus ideological and cultural wars. Participation in such Red State activities as high school ROTC, 4-H clubs, or the Future Farmers of America was found to reduce very substantially a student?s chances of gaining admission to the competitive private colleges in the NSCE database on an all-other-things-considered basis. The admissions disadvantage was greatest for those in leadership positions in these activities or those winning honors and awards. ?Being an officer or winning awards? for such career-oriented activities as junior ROTC, 4-H, or Future Farmers of America, say Espenshade and Radford, ?has a significantly negative association with admission outcomes at highly selective institutions.? Excelling in these activities ?is associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds of admission.?


this part was really surprising to me, since alot of my friends did this . but i do notice now they didn`t get the school they wanted to go. I didn`t make the connection.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: How To Get Into College
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2010, 12:31:10 PM »
Do 4-H'ers, ROTC'ers and FFA'ers parents tend to be big contributors to Ivy League schools? I tend to think they don't.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."