When a story has had significant attention in the last year or so, we bury reposts as duplicates.
Edit: I see now that the post itself is tagged with [dupe]
A cynic would even point out that Ivy League schools heavily use race-based affirmative action to change the narrative and appear diverse. Sadly, no one looks at how poorly they look in terms of socio-economic diversity - typically around 15% of students receive Pell Grants compared to 30% at the top UCs that don't practice LDC preferences (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-unive...)
Also known as "grandfathered" students. Meaning, if your grandpa went to Harvard, you can apply to Harvard as a legacy student and get a way lower bar on the literacy test.
The difference is that private schools normally get better exam results. That's slowly changing now due to quotas and schemes to help disadvantaged kids. A lot of parents are apparently questioning the value to private schools over living in an area with good state schools.
For Oxbridge specifically there's also the interview. I don't know much about it but private schools definitely train their kids for these and I don't doubt there's unconscious bias there.
Also Oxbridge is so posh that a lot of lower socio-economic kids go to interview and then run for the hills.
We just like to dress it up and call it "Meritocracy". Nevermind that your merits are that you were born into a wealthy, well-connected family.
Jewish: 14.0% vs 2.6% (5.38x)
Asian American: 25.3% vs 5.3% (4.77x)
Native Hawaiian: 0.6% vs 0.2% (3.00x)
Native American: 1.8% vs 0.7% (2.57x)
African American: 14.3% vs 12.7% (1.13x)
Hispanic or Latino: 12.2% vs 17.6% (0.69x)
non-Jewish white: 33.0% vs 58.9% (0.56x)
https://college.harvard.edu/admissions/admissions-statistics from 2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews, upper estimate used
So in this case, white hispanic and non-Jewish white majority (which can be one in the same, to some of the people self identifying) do feel short changed and this can be accurate in this case, if they are not "legacy, athletes, staff/donors".
Obtaining support and resources for a more productive and inclusive society would need to not marginalize the power group capable of changing it.
Edit: To provide a little myself:
“In 2017, only about half (49.9 percent) of elementary school students and 54.7 percent of college students were non-Hispanic white,” said Kurt Bauman, Chief, Education and Social Stratification Branch. So Harvard seems to be more diverse than other colleges, at least slightly. I suspect the census is combining the Jewish population into the non-hispanic white category, but haven't looked close enough to know. Even with that, Harvard is slightly more diverse than the average.
The original implication was ALDC white kids getting in at the expense of minorities, but what appears to be really happening is ALDC white kids getting in at the expense of non-ALDC white kids, who were significantly under-represented to begin with.
I have a feeling the stats make a bit more sense if you just assume Harvard is country-of-origin blind, and so compare Harvard admissions to the racial make-up of the entire global population (perhaps weighted by how much of each country’s population declares intent to attend a university.)
Many employees of US companies are not US citizens, but that doesn't stop people from evaluating Google or FB or whoever that way.
I do apologize, and I appreciate the helpful clarifications.
In reality, it's the other way around. And the fact that almost half of the few whites that do get in do so through some loophole almost makes it worse -- it means a white kid who is a brilliant student but isn't born into the right family or is an athlete has almost no chance of being admitted.
What does this mean? Athlete, legacy, donor, ...C? Celebrity?
"Removing preferences for athletes and legacies would significantly alter the racial distribution of admitted students, with the share of white admits falling and all other groups rising or remaining unchanged."
I do recall the popular line about how everyone at orientation could be replaced with a new cohort that has similar academic profile, which implies that there is quite a bit of judgement call going on.
Overall, it is unsurprising yet disappointing that they estimate ~3/4 of ALDCs would not get admitted without that status. This system is probably a big reason that most elite schools have ~15% of their students from the top 1%, while MIT is closer to 5%. MIT definitely does not do legacies and of course gives little weight to athletics. I am not sure about children of faculty though.
The whole admissions situation is of course an opaque, handwavy, crapshoot. But I am just curious in practice what would happen to the distribution if Harvard decided to drop say legacy status.
The disclaimer on the data says it's just an estimate, it's not from an official record, so I guess the real number isn't known.
Certain private universities, most notably Harvard, introduced policies which effectively placed a quota on the number of Jews admitted to the university. According to historian David Oshinsky, on writing about Jonas Salk, "Most of the surrounding medical schools (Cornell, Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Yale) had rigid quotas in place. In 1935 Yale accepted 76 applicants from a pool of 501. About 200 of those applicants were Jewish and only five got in." He notes that Dean Milton Winternitz's instructions were remarkably precise: "Never admit more than five Jews, take only two Italian Catholics, and take no blacks at all."
Jews have always had it pretty good in the US, don't know what there really is to complain about.
Is there clear evidence that legacies have an easier time getting in on a per case basis compared to a similar student without that that designation, as is the case for applicants with the URM designation?
"Among admits who are African American, Asian American, and Hispanic, the share is less than 16% each."
Injustice can easily be rooted out while also overcoming the concept of race.
The problem is that race-oriented thinkers obsess over race and reify it, actually making racial tension worse.
Again, the racially-oriented thinkers often just exacerbate division.
Even today, COVID 19 affects Black and Latino folks at greater rates. That is a real, physical, manifestation of racial injustice. Ignoring that means ignoring structural problems in America.
However it is America that has come the farthest in overcoming racial discrimination, which is why people from around the world want to come here in droves.
Those groups are disproportionately affected because they are disproportionately living in cities, which has nothing to do with racial oppression.
The Latino population has swelled in recent decades and new immigrants to the US are almost always poorer than the general population. That's been true for the last 200 years and there's nothing wrong with that.
Yet racialists like yourself ignore this and try to claim discrimination. It's intellectually dishonest.
As for Blacks in America, the only thing that will bring them up and negate past discrimination is a improvement of their culture and focusing on the future. Most of black poverty today is caused by broken homes and other cultural issues, not oppression.
Why are you trying to be so blind to race concerns?
Race-based affirmative action misbehaves in exactly the ways its critics predict, but is still wildly popular because of how it feels to white liberals.
As far as I know, legacy admissions have never been challenged before the SCOTUS.
Furthermore, legacy admissions tend to reward underachieving students from privileged families, while affirmative action intends to reward overachieving students from underprivileged circumstances (e.g. programs admitting the top N% of graduates from every high school help good students who went to bad schools).
Bad schools hurt, but discriminating by race at matriculation is about the most hamfisted imaginable way to achieve the outcome you're talking about. If the goal is to find and admit students whose worst academic years are behind them, overadmitting 1st generation Nigerian Americans because they look similar to African Americans is not the way.
P.S. it seems you switch from "tend" to "intend" mid sentence, so I don't grasp what comparison you're trying to draw, maybe give that another shot.
I'm fairly confident in the effect of legacy admissions. As for affirmative action programs, I'm confident in the intent of those programs, but less confident in their effect. Thus the switch in wording.
> Among admits who are African American, Asian American, and Hispanic, the share is less than 16% each.
Why not just separate people by their majority national heritage?
But yeah, I think abstracting 60% of the world population as a monolithic "Asian" category is disingenuous and betrays the lived experiences of Asians from historically disadvantaged and poor countries. I think the Gates Foundation is on a good track by considering Asian students for their full ride scholarship, alongside Native American, Hispanic, and Black peers, by analyzing the specific lived experience of the applicant (a Southeast Asian refugee has lived a different life than the "steretypical" Asian American applicant).
eg: Scottish, Irish, Jewish people immediately come to mind
Personally I think it'd be better to avoid using skin color/race as an indicator of need and instead just look at need in isolation. A poor person needs help paying for school regardless of their skin color.