Rules changing on For Profit Schools in USA? Affirmative Action too?

[laughing dog]

There is more than grades and scores, yes, but those two should be the most important criteria.

What ought to be the most important criteria and what role they play depends on the goal and mission of the institution.

 

[Derec]

What ought to be the most important criteria and what role they play depends on the goal and mission of the institution.

Yes. Since colleges are academic institutions academic criteria should be most important ones. That should be obvious.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's the thing that conservatives refuse to acknowledge: Affirmative action has never, ever been about admitting unqualified candidates to universities. University admissions has never, ever been about admitting the top X scoring candidates, with scores = some combination of GPA + test scores.

Because "qualified" isn't a binary state. You can define it however you want. If you want imbeciles in Harvard simply set the qualifications low enough.

However, when you look at the dropout rate you see a different story. It's highly related to SAT scores.

University admissions has always been about establishing a threshold for admissions and then looking at applicants who meet that threshold. That threshold is and historically has been permeable for legacy admissions and for athletes. In the past, part of that threshold has been gender, skin color/race, ethnicity, and religious background, strongly in favor to the point of admitting only white males from Christian affiliated homes.

Which provides an easy dodge of simply lowering the standards until you can claim enough of your desired categories are "qualified". Thresholds are useful when you don't have a pile of applicants to choose from (generally, any case where you must take applicants one at a time and accept/reject), but there is no reason for them to exist at an elite school. You simply take the applicants, sort them by whatever yardsticks you choose and then take from the top of the pile until you have selected enough.

- - - Updated - - -

Question, are Asians being prevented from attending Harvard? Asians represent over 1 in 5 students at Harvard (Asians represent about 1 in 16 people in the US). Blacks represent about 1 in 7 students. Latino are about 1 in 9. Whites are about 1 in 2. So Asians are the second highest represented race in Harvard and well beyond their representation within the general US Population... and they are being discriminated.

Once again, the old garbage of a disparate result is proof of discrimination.

Interestingly, that is the plaintiff's argument in the case against Harvard. Hmmm.

Since they are arguing for a disparate result your argument makes no sense.

 

[laughing dog]

Since they are arguing for a disparate result your argument makes no sense.

They are not arguing for a disparate result. They are saying the results are disparate given their characteristics. They are explicitly using disparate outcomes as proof- something you claim is garbage. So your position is either hypocritical or makes no sense.

 

[laughing dog]

What ought to be the most important criteria and what role they play depends on the goal and mission of the institution.

Yes. Since colleges are academic institutions academic criteria should be most important ones. That should be obvious.

Why should we think your views on what the appropriate goals and missions of a college or university and the appropriate criteria for admission are better than those of the people who know their institutions, their history, etc...?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since they are arguing for a disparate result your argument makes no sense.

They are not arguing for a disparate result. They are saying the results are disparate given their characteristics. They are explicitly using disparate outcomes as proof- something you claim is garbage. So your position is either hypocritical or makes no sense.

They are after admissions based on ability. That will be different than the percentage of the population.

 

[laughing dog]

Since they are arguing for a disparate result your argument makes no sense.

They are not arguing for a disparate result. They are saying the results are disparate given their characteristics. They are explicitly using disparate outcomes as proof- something you claim is garbage. So your position is either hypocritical or makes no sense.

They are after admissions based on ability. That will be different than the percentage of the population.

You are not responding to the content - their argument is based on disparate outcomes. something you say is garbage.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The most important thing about education is to be exposed to new ideas and new people and different ways of thinking. This happens when one is exposed to a variety--that is a diversity of opinion, thought, philosophies, disciplines, people.

How would you feel about Affirmative Action for conservatives in the social sciences? How about for conservative men in "gender studies"? I would really like to see your thoughts on that, or those or any other proponent of double standards for races, and other "affirmative action" ideas.

And how would you regard a spoiled black kid who grew up in a rich family and isolated from the inner city poor black kid experience, and has a mindset much more like rich white kids than like anybody of any race who is not rich? Should she be excluded from the lowering of standards for black students?

How about fresh immigrants? Should they get preferred status since they are most likely to have diverse backgrounds?

Is this really about diversity of backgrounds and ideas and ideologies? Or is it just the shade of skin and shape of eyes that is the issue?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I've started to see more and more of a push (or counter-push) for diversity of ideas on college campuses.

https://heterodoxacademy.org/

Jon Haidt has been right about this for a long time. But I've not seen him or anyone with a similar stance to his, calling for affirmative action for it.

 

[Toni]

The most important thing about education is to be exposed to new ideas and new people and different ways of thinking. This happens when one is exposed to a variety--that is a diversity of opinion, thought, philosophies, disciplines, people.

How would you feel about Affirmative Action for conservatives in the social sciences? How about for conservative men in "gender studies"? I would really like to see your thoughts on that, or those or any other proponent of double standards for races, and other "affirmative action" ideas.

And how would you regard a spoiled black kid who grew up in a rich family and isolated from the inner city poor black kid experience, and has a mindset much more like rich white kids than like anybody of any race who is not rich? Should she be excluded from the lowering of standards for black students?

How about fresh immigrants? Should they get preferred status since they are most likely to have diverse backgrounds?

Is this really about diversity of backgrounds and ideas and ideologies? Or is it just the shade of skin and shape of eyes that is the issue?

I would not be in favor of any political litmus test for any university admissions, period. Some religious universities and colleges in fact do have de facto religious or political requirements: students are required to attend church services, must adhere to a restrictive student code of behavior, etc. Accepting admission into any university or college is accepting that the admitted student will adhere to the expected student code of conduct and behavior, regardless of religious affiliation of university or student.


In the U.S., undergrad university students are admitted to a university as freshmen, normally without any declared major. Some exceptions may exist. For example, it used to be that at some universities, an engineering degree was a 5 year program and it was important to declare that major your first semester in order to be able to graduate on time. Some nursing programs begin early freshman year, as well but students are not normally admitted into a specific program until after the completion of a proscribed set of courses, typically taking one or sometimes 2 years (depending on program). But this is not typical. Most freshmen are 'undeclared' and do not declare a major until their sophomore or sometimes junior year.

I am unaware of any race or gender or political criteria for admissions into schools within universities or into majors. Normally, prerequisites include a set number of coursework/level of course work plus a minimum GPA.

Many universities do have special programs and special outreach for students who are the first in their families to attend college. I am guessing that is what you mean by new immigrants. There is also sometimes outreach for students who live in rural or urban areas. Our local university hosts special 'camps' for students who are considering various careers in medicine, for example. This is an opportunity for high school students to be exposed to what it is like to be on a college campus and away from home before they must choose a university to attend. Other universities have special programs for musicians, for some athletes, for some other programs for similar reasons: it gives the students a taste of what a university program and university life might be like. It also develops a familiarity for the student, perhaps increasing chances the student will select that university.

In the US, most universities are publicly funded, state universities. Many have lower entrance requirements for students from the university's state or region of the state or multiple state region (depending on size of university, population density, etc.) over students from outside the region. Some universities have differing admissions requirements for international students. It is quite common for international university students to be required to take special English proficiency coursework and exams prior to attempting more rigorous course work. Such admissions are often provisional, depending on student's abilities to achieve and demonstrate sufficient English proficiency. There are multiple reasons for this, one being money as international students typically pay out of state (higher) tuition than in state students do. It also increases diversity and the opportunity for ALL students to benefit from a more diverse student body. One learns more from being exposed to a variety of different people, of different backgrounds, etc.

Private universities do the same, although using perhaps different formulas or different criteria, etc.

 

[Toni]

Because "qualified" isn't a binary state. You can define it however you want. If you want imbeciles in Harvard simply set the qualifications low enough.

However, when you look at the dropout rate you see a different story. It's highly related to SAT scores.

In fact, Harvard has an exceptionally high rate of completion for all students, no matter what their demographic.

https://www.scholarships.com/colleges/harvard-university/graduation-rates/

or if you prefer, here's the info from Forbes:

6-Year Graduation Rate by Race/Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native 83.0%
Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 98.0%
Black or African American 93.0%
Hispanic/Latino 94.0%
White 98.0%
Two or More Races NA
Race/Ethnicity Unknown 98.0%
Non-Resident Alien 98.0%

6-Year Graduation Rate by Gender
Male 97.0%
Female 98.0%

Which provides an easy dodge of simply lowering the standards until you can claim enough of your desired categories are "qualified". Thresholds are useful when you don't have a pile of applicants to choose from (generally, any case where you must take applicants one at a time and accept/reject), but there is no reason for them to exist at an elite school. You simply take the applicants, sort them by whatever yardsticks you choose and then take from the top of the pile until you have selected enough.

That's simply nonsense.

Harvard typically expects its students to have SAT scores in the top 1% of test takers. (http://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/massachusetts/harvard-university/admission/).

Even at that, it manages to accept only about 5 percent of all applicants. Harvard accepts only highly qualified applicants, if one excludes legacy applicants who may or may not achieve the normal minimum SAT plus GPA scores required.



Because Harvard only looks at highly qualified applicants, it must look very carefully beyond mere test scores to select students most likely to flourish and to contribute to the university.

 

[Toni]

And I suppose you would have no problem with a business saying "no more than 1 black at a time may enter this establishment". Same thing, just turned the other way around.

- - - Updated - - -

Fascinating.

"Even though you're saying 'in theory' I'm still going to go out of my way to say you are wrong."

Let's get down to basics.

Premise: Assume All A is B.

Now go ahead and tell me I'm wrong about that.

The fact is that more and more universities and medical schools are questioning the old admissions criteria that relied so heavily on test scores and GPA’s and even abandoning these as primary criteria. They are doing this because stellar GPA’s and test scores have proven to be unreliable predictors of academic success at their universities and medical schools. This seems incredible unless you consider a few factors, including grade inflation, and the fact that many students achieve their success in these metrics because. Mom and dad could foot the bill for tutors and cram schools and prep courses to ensure that their little darlings got the highest scores possible. This is not the same thing as teaching a great work ethic nor is it indicative of raw talent that can be overlooked in students who come from more modest means. Or from parents who are willing to allow them to succeed or fail on their own efforts rather than the efforts of mom and dad and the six tutors who have coached every aspect of the applicants’ lives. This is not synonymous with preparing a student to excel at university where they must rely upon their own motivations and efforts and utilize the skills of an increasingly independent thinking and acting young adult. Profs are actually not impressed by parents trying to run interference for their little darlings. Because it doesn’t serve the best interests of the student.

They are questioning the old ways because the old ways expose their discrimination.

In practice the old ways do a pretty good job of predicting who will succeed and who won't--and a college should be aiming for students that will graduate.

Well, no. They are questioning their old ways because the old ways are not as predictive as was once assumed. In part, this is because reliance on test scores such as SATs for admissions strongly favors students with parents who can afford to pay to send them to numerous cram courses and coaching sessions to ensure the highest possible scores. Which is not the same thing as the students with the most academic talent and potential.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

or if you prefer, here's the info from Forbes:

6-Year Graduation Rate by Race/Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native 83.0%
Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 98.0%
Black or African American 93.0%
Hispanic/Latino 94.0%
White 98.0%
Two or More Races NA
Race/Ethnicity Unknown 98.0%
Non-Resident Alien 98.0%

In other words, a Hispanic is 3x as likely to fail, a black 3.5x as likely to fail and a native 8.5x as likely to fail.

That says a lot.

Because Harvard only looks at highly qualified applicants, it must look very carefully beyond mere test scores to select students most likely to flourish and to contribute to the university.

Just because they're only looking at the cream of the crop doesn't mean there's no fudging going on.

Which is it--the Hispanics/blacks/natives are inferior, or the standards are being weakened when admitting them??

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In the US, most universities are publicly funded, state universities. Many have lower entrance requirements for students from the university's state or region of the state or multiple state region (depending on size of university, population density, etc.) over students from outside the region. Some universities have differing admissions requirements for international students. It is quite common for international university students to be required to take special English proficiency coursework and exams prior to attempting more rigorous course work. Such admissions are often provisional, depending on student's abilities to achieve and demonstrate sufficient English proficiency. There are multiple reasons for this, one being money as international students typically pay out of state (higher) tuition than in state students do. It also increases diversity and the opportunity for ALL students to benefit from a more diverse student body. One learns more from being exposed to a variety of different people, of different backgrounds, etc.

I can maybe see this argument making some sense (maybe), but what does race have to do with it? If diversity of ideas and backgrounds is the goal, then why use race as a proxy? As I wrote above, why not have affirmative action for conservative students in the social sciences and "gender studies" courses if diverse viewpoints is the goal?

Also, they are grouping "Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander" all as one racial group? So lots of privileged Chinese get in and that serves to make things harder for underprivileged Filipinos if they set their entrance requirements more difficult for this group as the students have alleged in this court action? That also seems totally unjust.

 

[Toni]

or if you prefer, here's the info from Forbes:

6-Year Graduation Rate by Race/Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native 83.0%
Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 98.0%
Black or African American 93.0%
Hispanic/Latino 94.0%
White 98.0%
Two or More Races NA
Race/Ethnicity Unknown 98.0%
Non-Resident Alien 98.0%

In other words, a Hispanic is 3x as likely to fail, a black 3.5x as likely to fail and a native 8.5x as likely to fail.

That says a lot.

Because Harvard only looks at highly qualified applicants, it must look very carefully beyond mere test scores to select students most likely to flourish and to contribute to the university.

Just because they're only looking at the cream of the crop doesn't mean there's no fudging going on.

Which is it--the Hispanics/blacks/natives are inferior, or the standards are being weakened when admitting them??

It’s that you prefer to view things through an extremely skewed lens. Those graduation rates are extraordinarily high. Yet you are determined to draw conclusions that black and Hispanic students are failures. The fault lies within you.

 

[Toni]

In the US, most universities are publicly funded, state universities. Many have lower entrance requirements for students from the university's state or region of the state or multiple state region (depending on size of university, population density, etc.) over students from outside the region. Some universities have differing admissions requirements for international students. It is quite common for international university students to be required to take special English proficiency coursework and exams prior to attempting more rigorous course work. Such admissions are often provisional, depending on student's abilities to achieve and demonstrate sufficient English proficiency. There are multiple reasons for this, one being money as international students typically pay out of state (higher) tuition than in state students do. It also increases diversity and the opportunity for ALL students to benefit from a more diverse student body. One learns more from being exposed to a variety of different people, of different backgrounds, etc.

I can maybe see this argument making some sense (maybe), but what does race have to do with it? If diversity of ideas and backgrounds is the goal, then why use race as a proxy? As I wrote above, why not have affirmative action for conservative students in the social sciences and "gender studies" courses if diverse viewpoints is the goal?

Also, they are grouping "Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander" all as one racial group? So lots of privileged Chinese get in and that serves to make things harder for underprivileged Filipinos if they set their entrance requirements more difficult for this group as the students have alleged in this court action? That also seems totally unjust.

Why do you think that conservative students have difficulty getting into social sciences? There is NO political filter for admissions. Zero.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why do you think that conservative students have difficulty getting into social sciences? There is NO political filter for admissions. Zero.

I don't think conservative students have any harder time getting into social sciences and "gender studies" courses. I was asking if they should have an easier time, lower entrance standards, and be especially sought after and encouraged to apply.

You know, like with the black students and against the asian students, to encourage diversity, only this would be diversity or thoughts and outlooks and backgrounds, which you said enriches all students, and not just of looks.

 

[Toni]

Why do you think that conservative students have difficulty getting into social sciences? There is NO political filter for admissions. Zero.

I don't think conservative students have any harder time getting into social sciences and "gender studies" courses. I was asking if they should have an easier time, lower entrance standards, and be especially sought after and encouraged to apply.

I don't think they should, but that logic follows from what you wrote above about valuing diversity, and also from the alegation in this court case that standards are raised and lowered based on race, possibly for that reason. And if it isn't for that reason, then I ask again, for what reason? Your supreme court has ruled race may be considered in entrance decisions. If you support that, why? And if your answer is as you wrote above, that it means "diversity", then why not do the same for conservative students in social studies to encourage diversity there?

You've merely written a lot of nonsense.

 

[Toni]

I don't think conservative students have any harder time getting into social sciences and "gender studies" courses. I was asking if they should have an easier time, lower entrance standards, and be especially sought after and encouraged to apply.

Why?

 

[laughing dog]

Why do you think that conservative students have difficulty getting into social sciences? There is NO political filter for admissions. Zero.

I don't think conservative students have any harder time getting into social sciences and "gender studies" courses. I was asking if they should have an easier time, lower entrance standards, and be especially sought after and encouraged to apply.

Since students choose their majors, "easier time" and "lower entrance standards" have no literal operational meaning. And in most social sciences, departments are already encouraging students to major in their disciplines regardless of their ideology.