This doesn't track. College admissions tests are a huge area of concern when it comes to institutionalized racism (due to the racial wealth gap). They don't test anything other than an applicant's ability to do well on the test, and that is primarily determined by (a) the applicant's to spend time studying for the test and (b) the applicant's ability to utilize resources to study for the test.

(a) tips testing in favor of the wealthy because poor people cannot afford to spend time studying, and (b) tips testing in favor of the wealthy because poor people cannot afford to spend money on test prep materials.

Compound this with the fact that the tests are fairly expensive themselves, so even retaking the test is often out of the question for people with few means, compared to wealthy students who can retake the test as many times as they like.

The idea that entrance exams balanced things in favor of people from lower socioeconomic classes is, and always has been, a bunch of malarkey.

You are looking at this absolutely, not relatively. The rest of the admissions criteria have similar issues you raise, if not worse. (Essays and interviews especially risk class bias)

> They don't test anything other than an applicant's ability to do well on the test, and that is primarily determined by (a) the applicant's to spend time studying for the test and (b) the applicant's ability to utilize resources to study for the test.

Citation needed here. They are quite predictive of college success (GPA) which is why they are used.

I do appreciate this point, but I still don't think it's enough to warrant keeping exams in-place. I think we should remove them while also striving to improve the rest of the college admissions process. Having a metric that claims to level the playing field but actually does not is, in my opinion, more harmful than other metrics that are less straightforward. It gives false hope and also allows for a more dastardly scheme of classism, since it is centralized instead of managed separately by each university.

> They are quite predictive of college success (GPA) which is why they are used.

I think they are indicative of socioeconomic standing, which in turn is predictive of GPA. Students who can afford tutoring, or who have parents who have free time to help while growing up, or who do not need to take on extra jobs, or who don't generally worry about other such stressors that are typically due to low socioeconomic status are consistently shown to achieve greater academic success at all grades, even as early as first grade. Socioeconomic status is the #1 predictor of academic success, and this is reflected by college entrance exams.

Keep in mind that it is in the best interests of these organizations to intentionally avoid addressing this point. Also, it's worth remembering that college entrance exams trace their origins back to purported tests of general intelligence that were in fact designed with intentional cultural bias to prevent non-white students from finding admission at universities. (This was later addressed and somewhat rectified, in some ways, but my points is that the organizations responsible have a history of not really caring about crafting a test in the best interests of the student.)

No. It's the opposite. I asked OP why he wouldn't simply NOT aspire to attend if he found the school's "social justice ideals" so disagreeable.

>OP cannot compete on a level playing field

What is a "level playing field"? That statement begs the question that you or OP can and should be defining Harvard's admission criteria in the first place. That's what you're missing. It's their prerogative to set the playing field. Your preferred criteria are irrelevant. And, the kicker is, it's a pretty good bet they know better.

>at all and his accomplishments are meaningless

That's hyperbolic to say the least. I'm sure they're meaningful to Harvard and elsewhere. Likewise, the experiences and capabilities of some whose talents may be reflected outside of a standardized test are meaningful.

>Admitting people based on racial criteria is racist

That's an unserious, facile argument that ignores 400+ years of history that continues to this day. It's been estimated that racism, starting with slavery, has cost Black Americans over $70 trillion. There's a legacy attached to that which clearly disadvantages black people. Further, redlining, unequal pay, etc. continue. If it's racist to acknowledge these facts, then it is also racist not to.

The things you say about racial injustice are true, however if correcting this were truly the goal Harvard and the other ivies would remove legacy admission preference. They won’t because their core mission is to provide a route for the wealthy and powerful to pass down social status to their heirs.

The function of anyone else there is to obscure this core mission.

I'd say it's more a projection of that system. If you eliminated elite colleges entirely, the system wouldn't simply vanish.

Is that something current people who had no choice in what happened deserve to be punished for? and yes, I recognize this applies both ways, but every time this topic comes up it seems like we forget that no college applicant had much of a choice regarding the circumstances that led to the admissions criteria being the way they are, so the claim that one needs to be biased for/against a group because of historical issues isn't entirely morally sound. In the end you are still punishing some group of innocents.

Personally I think that instead the focus should be on trying to balance the field at the high school level. If everyone is brought up to a similar level of education by the end of high school, there is no need to bias admissions themselves, instead the university can just offer financial aid to poorer students. Alternatively things change so that the university one goes to doesn't really matter for future career prospects. In my opinion the former is easier to achieve.

Yes, it does work both ways but, while you acknowledge that, it's kind of like you want to read past that part quickly.

Because, what you're essentially saying is, "yes, this one group had a 400-year head start at the expense of that other group. But, why punish them for that?"

This line of discussion, BTW, overlooks a few other oft-overlooked points:

1. There is real value to having a student body that reflects the broader population--good for the school, the students, and the broader society

2. All of these students are of top quality. They're not eschewing a bunch of Einsteins to admit a bunch of dullards.

3. Harvard has an abysmal 4.6% acceptance rate. The overwhelming majority of applicants are being rejected for all kinds of reasons. The idea that qualified people are losing their seats en masse due to racial preferences is wildly inaccurate.

4. There's never been an objective, quantitative admissions process in any case. It's kind of funny that people are so focused on the SAT score, as if that was part of some numeric point-scoring system.

I just don't really see how that changes the fact that it's unfair to the person rejected because of an immutable characteristic. Your argument about having a student body that reflects the broader population has that same 'disconnect' to me, is it fair for an equally qualified candidate to be rejected just because they don't fit a statistic that they're powerless to influence?

That same point is also exactly why I think the focus should be on bringing everyone to a similar level in high school, so given equalizers for class differences like sufficient scholarships specifically targeted at poorer families (and similarly preventing the rich from paying their way in), every group has an equal chance of admission, which, along with a purely merit based admission criteria should naturally result in a student body representative of the population.

It's my mistake for not clarifying that I'm not saying that the SAT is somehow important in this. I'm solely talking about this idea of intentionally applying racial bias to the system. Personally I'm quite happy that these standardized tests are going away for the same reason that they aren't particularly objective and success in them depends on the guides and coaching you can get access to, and how many times you can afford to try.

I think we all do, to be honest. But, I shouldn't have phrased my response in a way that suggested you were being disingenuous. Sorry if it came across that way.

What I was trying to say is that was the really important bit and deserves more focus IMO.

>I just don't really see how that changes the fact that it's unfair to the person rejected because of an immutable characteristic

Well, the short answer is, that there may be some who are so rejected, but there are also real individuals on the other side.

And, this brings up a really important point, that I think presents the challenge when discussing these things. That is, we kind of oscillate between the macro and micro levels without announcing it.

So, we're talking about these ongoing and historical effects that really are generational and persistent, so bear down on Black people in ways that disadvantage them today. And, generally, you have many White people who benefitted from that equation and passed those advantages down to individuals. Not all, but certainly many, and even neutrality is better than disadvantage.

Now, we'll acknowledge that it's not fair to the Black individual. However, when any talk of remedy is had, there's an intense focus on whether an individual White person might be perceived to be negatively impacted. And, the conclusion generally runs along the lines of "well, you can't fight racism with more racism".

But, then, what about the individual Black person, who continues to be disadvantaged? He/she just becomes an externality; the by-product of a history and system that are really hard to address.

So, this treats the Black person at the macro level ("we must fix the system!") and the White person at the micro level ("we must now apply treatment evenly to every individual!").

However, if we do attempt to address the issue, then we charge the individual Black person with receiving any perceived benefits, and we forget about the system that operates at the macro level. So he is treated in the micro at the least advantageous time for him.

But, going the other way, we tend not to attribute generational/systemic advantages to White people at the micro level. So, individually, they are seen only as victims of efforts to remediate, and we push those advantages up to the system at the macro level. So she is treated in the micro at the most advantageous times.

The other part is that we tend to talk about this as if it's only the legacy of our history that we're remedying, when there are very real, persistent systemic issues from redlining to mortgage rates to unequal pay and more. So, these are ongoing advantages and disadvantages being mitigated. It's not as simplistic as a head-to-head match up wherein a Black person benefits from a diversity policy that directly disadvantages a White person.

Those two individuals are part of a larger system that doles out advantages and disadvantages in various ways and at various times.

Harvard is currently 39% white, 8% black, and 20% Asian.

This seems to indicate that Harvard should focus on bringing up the number of white students admitted and reducing the number of asian students. Whites are underrepresented by half.

I feel like you said this as an example of an obviously disagreeable point, but I unironically hold this view.

Expanding opportunity for a group is always good; I'm all in favor of funding high-quality schools in historically underfunded districts, or providing free after-school programs to help kids whose parents are working, or to expand tutoring. These are all things that will disproportionately help those groups who have been marginalized throughout history.

I am absolutely against, however, grading an individual differently due to their historic group membership. If an Asian student is applying to college, there is nothing that student could have done differently to avoid the opportunities they were born with, so it seems eminently unfair to punish that specific individual for something they have no control in and had no say in. Charge the student more if they're rich, sure, but don't discount the merit of a student solely because of their group membership.

tl;dr: I'm all for investing in marginalized groups to level the playing field, but scoring individuals differently for things they have no control over feels flat-out wrong.

>I'm all for investing in marginalized groups to level the playing field, but scoring individuals differently for things they have no control over feels flat-out wrong.

I hear you, but what you're kind of doing there is drawing the lines around what you'd feel comfortable with, not what might actually be most effective. And, your comfort is generally tied to addressing things at the macro level. When we talk of groups, people tend to find it more acceptable than when they consider individuals being affected. But, of course, policies, including harmful ones, have historically been aimed at groups and groups are comprised of individuals.

>seems eminently unfair to punish that specific individual

Likewise with this sentiment. But, if we look at it as "punishing" individual people on one hand, then we're discounting the negative effects (i.e. punishment) experienced by individuals in the original group from previous and ongoing policies. That is, we're kind of unevenly oscillating between the macro and micro views, wherein the previous individual's "punishment" is lost in the group, but the current individual's is clear, present and personalized.

The other thing is that those individuals in advantaged groups are frequently also the direct benefeciaries of favorable policies that they didn't earn. Where do we sort that?

Because, in that context, even "merit" takes on a different meaning, relatively speaking.

It's all suboptimal, but we got to this place by embarking on a massive, multi-century campaign of codified disenfranchisement of some groups in favor of others, to include violence, murder and redistribution of trillions of dollars in wealth. Millions of individuals were harmed as a result. I wish this entire discussion was unnecessary, but if earnestly attempting to address this means that a relative few individuals, say, go to Duke instead of Harvard, then it's unfortunate, but these things don't reasonably show up on the same chart.

"That statement begs the question that you or OP can and should be defining Harvard's admission criteria in the first place" This argument can then be applied to any school or workplace. Upset that google has started prioritizing White candidates, refer to your argument, who are you to question it? Upset that Princeton suddenly said they had too many minority students, who are you to question it? It doesn't work that way, anyone is free to question anything and blindly accepting things because someone says that these people know better is not a good thing in a free society.

"If it's racist to acknowledge these facts, then it is also racist not to" No one is ignoring racism and its history but rather I am arguing that college admissions is not the place to address them. College should provide an equal arena for everyone to compete for admissions based on academic and extra-curricular achievements. Intervention to bring minority applicants up to a competitive level should be done in early childhood up through highschool. The SAT is simply a series of questions that test academic achievement, getting rid of a test because a group does not do well on it is a race to the bottom in much the same way as removing advanced math from a highschool curriculum is.

The problem should be fixed at the source, if Harvard wants to make an impact, take a few billion of their endowment and donate it to local school districts that are struggling to provide for their children.

"That's an unserious, facile argument that ignores 400+ years of history" I'm going to ignore the insults. Coming to a resolution that helps the affected minority should not be based on punishing one group to raise up another. It should be focused on raising all groups up to an equal stage, that can only happen if work starts with the young.

You're right, its Harvard's call to do what ever they want and to spend their endowment however they want but everyone is entitled to an opinion and to proffer a proposal on a message board. Discrimination based on race is the definition of racism, that's not an opinion, its simply the factual definition of the word.

From the oxford dictionary, racism is defined as "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." Note: typical means usually, not always.

I appreciate your view point; as a father of young white kids, I disagree with it but I understand how you are likely approaching this from an equal but opposite position.

Edit: Harvard's current racial demographics white: 39% Asian: 20% Black: 8%

Whites are already underrepresented as a portion of the general population by 50%. Blacks are underrepresented by ~5%