Race and Class in Elite College Admission

[asta]

I've run across this book on several blogs and websites today:

 

 

No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal:

Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life by Thomas J. Espenshade & Alexandria Walton Radford

 

It appears to be a "O.M.G." kind of moment, as it is actually a scientific study.

 

Some bits from one blog:

 

College diversity policies don’t extend to Asians, low-income whites, Junior ROTC officers or Idaho farm boys, writes Russell Nieli, who works for Princeton’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, on Minding the Campus.

 

A new study by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford uses data from eight highly competitive public and private colleges and universities over three years.

 

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.

 

Here is an interesting review of the book, that actually goes beyond quotes and delves into the issues themselves.

 

In Defense of the Future Farmers of America - Pretty much sums up the problem with this from the book:

 

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.â€

(read it here)

 

Kinda makes ya want to hurl.

 

 

asta

[OLG]

My dh sent me this info as presented on Pat Buchanan's blog and all I could do was say to myself they are telling it like it is....

 

My cynical self wants to know why on earth the powers that be speak of a brain drain out of one side of their mouth and then turn around and allow (or promote??) these admission actions. Doublespeak?

 

Bring me a barf bag too!

 

Mary

[Yolanda in Mass]

I, too, read the article and while I believe it to be true anecdotally, there is no data to back up their claims. Maybe I read it too quickly this morning, but I did not see any data or explanations as to how the authors reached their conclusions.

 

Yolanda

[TravelingChris]

The authors do have data. 9000 student's worth of data which is a lot more than most surveys which usually have between 1000-2000 respondents. This is also a much better study because it is not a self response study. It took data from a database of applicants to certain schools.

 

It is a devastating book and analysis. It shows what so many of us knew but I didn't even realize how extremely prejudiced the schools were to regular activities in many areas- 4H, ROTC, etc.

[asta]

The authors do have data. 9000 student's worth of data which is a lot more than most surveys which usually have between 1000-2000 respondents. This is also a much better study because it is not a self response study. It took data from a database of applicants to certain schools.

 

It is a devastating book and analysis. It shows what so many of us knew but I didn't even realize how extremely prejudiced the schools were to regular activities in many areas- 4H, ROTC, etc.

 

Hubby pointed out one thing that I would be curious to know about:

 

Would "good" schools such as Texas A&M be biased as well? I wouldn't think so, as 1) they are an Ag school, and 2) they have a corps of cadets.

 

But maybe they don't make the cut for what is considered "good"...

 

 

a

[creekland]

I fully believe the study, but chances are, I wouldn't want any of my children attending those schools anyway, so the rejection might be a blessing in disguise.

 

We're not even applying to any Ivies or any schools that are "red light" politically as per "Choosing the Right College." Middle son is likely to apply to some very selective schools otherwise and I've already told him there could well be a bias based on our homeschooling and some texts we use. We both agree that if admissions is biased against that even with his other activities (cc classes, APs) and scores, etc, that he doesn't really want to be attending there anyway.

 

Plus, just because he doesn't make it in doesn't 100% mean it was due to any of the above, but it seems he might have some odds against him at some places. We know this, but I refuse to play the game to meet what they want.

[Vida Winter]

Sickening as those policies are, I would not pay a cent to have my dc attend many of those universities. They are self-selecting the students they want and we are doing likewise in our selection process.

[In The Great White North]

Hubby pointed out one thing that I would be curious to know about:

 

Would "good" schools such as Texas A&M be biased as well? I wouldn't think so, as 1) they are an Ag school, and 2) they have a corps of cadets.

 

But maybe they don't make the cut for what is considered "good"...

 

 

Nope.

 

1) Texas A&M would not be one of their 8 schools (I suspect they meant Ivies but promised not to say it.)

 

2) Ds was admitted to Texas A&M, in spite of Eagle Scout and CAP, and even offered in state tuition. (They actually have automatic admissions if you have a minimum SAT score - no other criteria necessary.)

[elizabeth]

Kinda makes ya want to hurl

 

Well, in all fairness and to honestly provide some political diversity to this board I offer the following. Reading the linked blog by Ed Driscoll with the insidiously racist Panthergate at the heading makes me want to" hurl."

The allegations of discrimination against caucasians of" superior "academic ability are old news, this has not worked in the past and for the present it looks like sour grapes. Petty, small minded and race baiting. Nice work.

[asta]

Kinda makes ya want to hurl

 

Well, in all fairness and to honestly provide some political diversity to this board I offer the following. Reading the linked blog by Ed Driscoll with the insidiously racist Panthergate at the heading makes me want to" hurl."

The allegations of discrimination against caucasians of" superior "academic ability are old news, this has not worked in the past and for the present it looks like sour grapes. Petty, small minded and race baiting. Nice work.

 

I really wish people around here would get over the WHERE of the links and look at the content. No one commented about OLG reading it on Pat Buchanan's blog!

 

I don't wander around looking for people I agree with or don't agree with in the blogosphere: I do google searches for the authors of books and find places that are posting succinct bits from those books. I cross check them from other places to make sure they aren't editing them for content.

 

As transientChris already pointed out: this isn't race baiting - the authors have the data to back themselves up. Did you read the other piece?

 

Sheesh.

 

(and no, this isn't the first time this has come up, so yes, it is a burr under my saddle)

 

 

asta

Edited July 21, 2010 by asta

[creekland]

Discrimination is discrimination no matter who does it, or where, or who reports about it. There aren't different rules for different folks.

 

That said, as long as the colleges were private colleges, they get to decide who they want and who they don't IMO. And, as stated before and/or on other threads, it's not like this comes as a complete surprise to most of us nor do we necessarily want our younguns to go there.

 

I see it being pretty similar to Christian colleges. If it's right, then a student will fit in and love it. If it's not, then why would you want to pay thousands to attend there anyway? The philosophy and core beliefs are totally different.

 

Ditto that when looking at new grads to hire. If a school's department or general philosophy agrees with an employer's work, then it's a plus. If not, it's a negative (and I don't mean Christian or not with this, but overall).

[Skadi]

That said, as long as the colleges were private colleges, they get to decide who they want and who they don't IMO.

 

Except that it's the law that universities, public and private, must discriminate in order to reach "quotas" of minorities. And imagine if universities required black students to have such high SAT scores while letting white people have a pass -- it would cause a national outrage. But when it's done in reverse, it's just called being fair. Question it and you risk being branded a racist yourself.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Skadi

[Nan in Mass]

Sometimes, people need help to get out of a hole. The hole was pretty big. There will come a time, hopefully, when the hole isn't there and the help isn't needed. As for the eagle scouts and 4-H, private colleges are private and can admit whomever they want (more or less - see above) to build the student body that they wish to educate. I agree that they are being prejudiced and that it is their loss, but if you have pacifist professors, it makes a certain amount of sense not to accept ROTC students, just as if you have conservative Christian professors, it makes a certain amount of sense not to accept non-Christian students. (I'm not saying the two are mutually exclusive - I know that some conservative Christians are pacifists.) Nobody is entitled to an ivy league education. It is different for everyone who wants and can benefit from and can find a way to pay for a state education, but even there, there is likely to be some selection based on something because there may not be enough spots for all the people who are qualified. Hopefully they aren't selecting based on whether you live on a farm. If the state schools are trying to be like the ivies, then that is wrong, but I don't think what the ivies are doing is wrong. Sad, yes, their loss, yes, but wrong, no.

-Nan

[K-FL]

Discrimination is discrimination no matter who does it, or where, or who reports about it. There aren't different rules for different folks.

 

 

Oh, but there are. Do you think all those female fire fighters can carry as much dead-weight from a burning building or get a heavy fire hose in place as quickly? Dh had a friend (20 yrs ago) that was trying to get on as a Miami-Dade fireman. He didn't make the cut, but the woman did even though his physical tests were superior. The women have a different scale they have to meet. No different for college entrance or passing students w/o merit.

[Amy in TX]

wrote the following in a letter to the editor of the NY Times this morning:

 

"...What Ross Douthat and the authors of the study on which the column is based don't emphasize is that it is precisely these people who are not applying for admissions to these institutions. No wonder they are underrepresented.

 

I served on the admissions board of an Ivy League university for six years and could count on one finger the number of coal miner's children from West Virginia who applied during that period.

 

Despite energetic recruiting efforts, the most academically talented of white, rural, working-class students overwhelmingly choose to attend their state colleges and universities or religious institutions, where they feel they will fit in socially with their peers more comfortably. This problems stems in part from how they perceive elite institutions.

 

I am certainly not saying that the atmosphere at elite universities might not benefit from having a few more Idaho farm kids around, but beating the drums of the politics of envy a la Pat Buchanan serves no useful purpose whatsoever."

[In The Great White North]

Despite energetic recruiting efforts,

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[asta]

wrote the following in a letter to the editor of the NY Times this morning:

 

"...What Ross Douthat and the authors of the study on which the column is based don't emphasize is that it is precisely these people who are not applying for admissions to these institutions. No wonder they are underrepresented.

 

I served on the admissions board of an Ivy League university for six years and could count on one finger the number of coal miner's children from West Virginia who applied during that period.

 

Despite energetic recruiting efforts, the most academically talented of white, rural, working-class students overwhelmingly choose to attend their state colleges and universities or religious institutions, where they feel they will fit in socially with their peers more comfortably. This problems stems in part from how they perceive elite institutions.

 

I am certainly not saying that the atmosphere at elite universities might not benefit from having a few more Idaho farm kids around, but beating the drums of the politics of envy a la Pat Buchanan serves no useful purpose whatsoever."

 

I wonder how many recruiters they are sending to Sandpoint, Idaho high schools.

 

 

a

[TravelingChris]

My son was a commended scholar in the hardest area to become a NM Finalist. It was clear that he was a military child since his address was an APO box. Did he get mail from the elites- mostly not. A few did send him things, but almost none. Now he was a male with a very good GPA, and high test scores. We didn't put down race as we never do since we think doing so is racist.

 

THe fact that these are disciminatory practices by private institutions should interest everybody. These institutions are tax exempt. It is in the nation's interests that good students get good educations. However, I am not convinced that some of these schools do give a good education. It probably depends on the area. There are Ivy Leagues that give, in my opinion, mediocre educations in certain fields. Why- because you do not get a good education from an ideologue who is bent on pursuing his or her political and social aims.

 

It also does a huge injustice to minority students who go to schools where others are much more advanced than them. There have been sociological studies that show that students who get preferential treatment where their scores and grades don't match the others are much more likely to drop out. IT would be far better for them to go to a school more suited to their grades and test scores. Those who do tend not to drop out. That belies the whole myth that the only reason minorities drop out is because of lack of funds or lack of support. There is no reason to think that an institution that courted them so strongly would be a non-supportive place compared to an institution that didn't. But the drop out rates are significantly different.

[creekland]

Oh, but there are. Do you think all those female fire fighters can carry as much dead-weight from a burning building or get a heavy fire hose in place as quickly? Dh had a friend (20 yrs ago) that was trying to get on as a Miami-Dade fireman. He didn't make the cut, but the woman did even though his physical tests were superior. The women have a different scale they have to meet. No different for college entrance or passing students w/o merit.

 

 

What I meant was that there shouldn't be different rules for defining discrimination based on who is doing it. Sorry if it didn't come across that way. I'm not an Affirmative Action believer and consider all aspects of that discrimination.

 

I also believe private schools or companies should be allowed to discriminate as they see fit (my Libertarian views). My choice is whether I support them or not with my business - or dollars - or whatever. I don't believe gov't should discriminate - by Affirmative Action or any other method. We ought to all be equal in this country.

[creekland]

wrote the following in a letter to the editor of the NY Times this morning:

 

"...What Ross Douthat and the authors of the study on which the column is based don't emphasize is that it is precisely these people who are not applying for admissions to these institutions. No wonder they are underrepresented.

 

I served on the admissions board of an Ivy League university for six years and could count on one finger the number of coal miner's children from West Virginia who applied during that period.

 

Despite energetic recruiting efforts, the most academically talented of white, rural, working-class students overwhelmingly choose to attend their state colleges and universities or religious institutions, where they feel they will fit in socially with their peers more comfortably. This problems stems in part from how they perceive elite institutions.

 

I am certainly not saying that the atmosphere at elite universities might not benefit from having a few more Idaho farm kids around, but beating the drums of the politics of envy a la Pat Buchanan serves no useful purpose whatsoever."

 

I understand completely why there aren't more kids like he mentions applying. My middle son is likely to have the stats to be competitive and I doubt he will be applying either - though we aren't blue collar. The Ivies do not have a good "real life" reputation around these parts for undergrad. They are seen as snooty and out of touch with reality. Many employers (locally) will not hire people freshly graduated from them due to the belief (real or imagined) that they will bring the snootiness into the workplace and turn off the regular customers. One step down from Ivy and people ooh and ahh and hiring can happen quickly (still with interviews). Graduate level work is viewed 100% differently for some reason.

 

While stereotypes may or may not be true, real life is real. If my son wanted to break into the Ivy world we might consider letting him apply to one. Since he doesn't, it's better if he doesn't - for undergrad. He doesn't want the awe - or stigma - that accompanies the degree.

 

The author of that letter indeed does have a valid point. I don't foresee opinions locally changing in the near future. Life is what it is. A few will tend to buck the flow, but not many.

[mcconnellboys]

Wow. That's. Really weird. But good to know....

[elizabeth]

For another look at what is required to be competitive at the highly selective ivies read Admissions Confidential by Rachel Toor a Yale grad who was an admissions officer at Duke. This hooey about Future Farmers of America and 4-H being red state extracurriculars thus ignored by "elitist" schools is laughable. Do you think National Honor Society,Youth in Government, National French/Spanish or Latin exams mean anything? Then you know little if you think any of that matters. It is about economic class, legacies, International Baccalaureate, AP and national level competition such as Math Olympiad. If your dd or ds did not attend one of the college prep schools that are feeders to the ivies that is another negative. Race has very little if nothing to do with admissions. Class is entirely another matter. If we want to discuss race may we discuss the shameful practice of kowtowing to alumni with bs athletic programs that actively pursue some students who are great at a sport and have no hope of graduating from said school with a degree. That little dog and pony show is something I have a great deal of experience with having tutored basketball and baseball players at the local uni. Many could not read or write. Try reading Platonic dialogues with a fourth grade reader . That, my friends ,chaps my hide . They keep them afloat with C's and a few D's then dump them in their third year when they can no longer keep up the charade that they actually have the ability to graduate.Some a precious few go pro the others drift back into anonymity or worse. It is appalling to witness. But boy oh boy do those alum dollars keep flowing as long as their precious team is doing well and to hell with the individual students who are supposed to be getting an education. My rant over.

[creekland]

may we discuss the shameful practice of kowtowing to alumni with bs athletic programs that actively pursue some students who are great at a sport and have no hope of graduating from said school with a degree. That little dog and pony show is something I have a great deal of experience with having tutored basketball and baseball players at the local uni. Many could not read or write. Try reading Platonic dialogues with a fourth grade reader . That, my friends ,chaps my hide . They keep them afloat with C's and a few D's then dump them in their third year when they can no longer keep up the charade that they actually have the ability to graduate.

 

Way back in the dark ages when I was in college (state U with good to great athletics) I ended up in a Statistics class with several of the athletes. One day in class the prof was discussing finding averages and put several numbers on the board that averaged out to -2. One of the students raised his hand and asked, "Is the average ALWAYS -2, or if you changed one of those numbers, would the average change?" This was supposed to be a junior level class. I've never forgotten that experience (and I got an easy A in the class - only attending when there was a test - with the prof's permission).

[elizabeth]

:lol:

[Blessedfamily]

...If we want to discuss race may we discuss the shameful practice of kowtowing to alumni with bs athletic programs that actively pursue some students who are great at a sport and have no hope of graduating from said school with a degree. That little dog and pony show is something I have a great deal of experience with having tutored basketball and baseball players at the local uni. Many could not read or write. Try reading Platonic dialogues with a fourth grade reader . ..... My rant over.

 

I'd like to know exactly what curriculum Michael Vick was matriculating in at Virginia Tech.

[Renee in NC]

For another look at what is required to be competitive at the highly selective ivies read Admissions Confidential by Rachel Toor a Yale grad who was an admissions officer at Duke. This hooey about Future Farmers of America and 4-H being red state extracurriculars thus ignored by "elitist" schools is laughable. Do you think National Honor Society,Youth in Government, National French/Spanish or Latin exams mean anything? Then you know little if you think any of that matters. It is about economic class, legacies, International Baccalaureate, AP and national level competition such as Math Olympiad. If your dd or ds did not attend one of the college prep schools that are feeders to the ivies that is another negative. Race has very little if nothing to do with admissions. Class is entirely another matter. If we want to discuss race may we discuss the shameful practice of kowtowing to alumni with bs athletic programs that actively pursue some students who are great at a sport and have no hope of graduating from said school with a degree. That little dog and pony show is something I have a great deal of experience with having tutored basketball and baseball players at the local uni. Many could not read or write. Try reading Platonic dialogues with a fourth grade reader . That, my friends ,chaps my hide . They keep them afloat with C's and a few D's then dump them in their third year when they can no longer keep up the charade that they actually have the ability to graduate.Some a precious few go pro the others drift back into anonymity or worse. It is appalling to witness. But boy oh boy do those alum dollars keep flowing as long as their precious team is doing well and to hell with the individual students who are supposed to be getting an education. My rant over.

 

How do kids who cannot read and write get the minimum SAT scores necessary to play an NCAA sport?

[TravelingChris]

I don't know what minimums were when I was in grad school. I do know that the University was banned from a sport for a year because of irregulaties with both recruiting and what happened to the students once they got there. It was a horrible scam. Non literate males who played a sport were given special tutors who wrote papers for them, etc. while similar females or non athletic males got nothing. I was a grad student in a department where many of these athletes were parked for the undergrad studies. By far the majority didn't graduate and also didn't get contracts. This was a winning team too.

[Penny]

Good job changing the subject!

[Renee in NC]

Except that it's the law that universities, public and private, must discriminate in order to reach "quotas" of minorities. And imagine if universities required black students to have such high SAT scores while letting white people have a pass -- it would cause a national outrage. But when it's done in reverse, it's just called being fair. Question it and you risk being branded a racist yourself.

 

What law requires admissions quotas? I knew they were "allowed", but I didn't know they were required.

[Amy in TX]

Good job changing the subject!

 

Yes...

 

I posted the above letter from the ivy admissions person who said white, rural, working class kids aren't applying to ivies in any great numbers. Several posters replied with :lol:, meaning presumably that they don't believe ivies are recruiting white, rural, working class kids. No statistics were given to support this belief.

 

I'm actually not a fan of affirmative action--I think it's a band-aid solution that addresses the wrong end of a very real problem. However, I'd like to see some evidence (other than anecdotal) that ivy league schools are deliberately keeping white rural kids out. All this :lol: smacks, to me, of "the politics of envy."

 

There's a thread right now on the high school board in which posters are discussing the culture in their (white, rural) areas of applying only to local state schools because ivies are considered "snooty," exactly as the ivy admissions guy I quoted above lamented.

[Bostonian]

wrote the following in a letter to the editor of the NY Times this morning:

 

I served on the admissions board of an Ivy League university for six years and could count on one finger the number of coal miner's children from West Virginia who applied during that period.

 

Despite energetic recruiting efforts, the most academically talented of white, rural, working-class students overwhelmingly choose to attend their state colleges and universities or religious institutions, where they feel they will fit in socially with their peers more comfortably. This problems stems in part from how they perceive elite institutions.

 

I am certainly not saying that the atmosphere at elite universities might not benefit from having a few more Idaho farm kids around, but beating the drums of the politics of envy a la Pat Buchanan serves no useful purpose whatsoever."

 

Your comments about the NUMBER of poor whites who apply is IRRELEVANT to the finding that is bothering people, which is about the ACCEPTANCE RATE of students.

[In The Great White North]

The burden of proof is on the original claim of energetic recruiting.

 

Where is the evidence of millions of dollars spent, dedicated admissions personnel and recruiting trips, and full ride scholarships, as is common for other "under represented" populations? Where is the evidence of any recruiting at all?

 

The perception in rural America that the Ivies are "snooty" represents a recruiting and marketing challenge, not an excuse to write off a large segment of the population.

[TravelingChris]

Yes, the book cited statistics about admissions and how much less your chances were depending on a number of factors. By the way, it isn't my kid who is so disadvantaged since upper income whites were given brownie points. It is poor whites and Asians who are disadvantaged. It is particularly poor whites (and probably Asians, if they are applying) from rural areas and with rural ECs. The study belies the often used anecdote that the Ivies are looking just as hard for the Idaho ranch kid as they do for an inner city Latino kid. In fact, the pecking order gives wealthy Blacks an advantage, followed by wealthy Latinos, and last of all poor asians, and poor rural whites. But this study was NOT anecdotal. To dismiss it as such is simply to put your fingers in your ears and say, na na na nana.

[Amy in TX]

Your comments about the NUMBER of poor whites who apply is IRRELEVANT to the finding that is bothering people, which is about the ACCEPTANCE RATE of students.

 

Sorry.

[distancia]

My daughter has been called repeatedly by recruiting officers at two top notch Ivy schools in the northeast. D's combined SAT scores were 1890. We could not figure out why she was being called.

 

Then we learned it was because of volunteer work she has done over the past several years that has won national recognition (she founded an international organization). The organization assists poor Hispanic children in 3rd world countries, and D has been featured in the media for her work. She looks Latina, we have a surname that be could be considered Hispanic (but it's not), and on her SAT forms she had indicated an interest in International Studies.

 

Both of the schools sent huge packets of scholarship information about all the programs available for "unique students" and those from "diverse backgrounds".

 

The fact that these 2 universities were repeatedly calling D (whose scores were very high but not spectacular) tells me that there is a shortage of qualified minorities who are willing to relocate and leave friends, family, and culture behind.

 

I looked at the profiles of the white students attending these universities (there is a site for college reviews written by actual students who list their ethnicity) and the whites had composite scores in the 2200-2350 range. There was a score of 1800+/- reported by a minority student who liked the school but missed his home in Atlanta.

Edited July 27, 2010 by distancia

[Amy in TX]

The burden of proof is on the, original claim of energetic recruiting.

 

Where is the evidence of millions of dollars spent, dedicated admissions personnel and recruiting trips, and full ride scholarships, as is common for other "under represented" populations? Where is the evidence of any recruiting at all?

 

I'd like to see this too. I'm curious about it; I wish he'd included it in his letter. But I've seen no evidence that this hasn't happened, either. I'd like to see that, too.

 

The perception in rural America that the Ivies are "snooty" represents a recruiting and marketing challenge, not an excuse to write off a large segment of the population.

 

I didn't get from that letter that they were "writing off" white rural America. He said himself that it was a recruiting challenge. The letter piqued my curiosity; I wish that he had supplied some evidence for his assertions, too. I thought I'd throw it in here and see if anyone had any more specific info for or against his assertions.

[Amy in TX]

But this study was NOT anecdotal. To dismiss it as such is simply to put your fingers in your ears and say, na na na nana.

 

I wasn't dismissing the study as anecdotal. I was referring to posts about people's children (or children they know) not being recruited.

[Robin in DFW]

nt

Edited July 29, 2010 by Robin in DFW

[Bostonian]

.my dd17 had to score much higher than the ps students (because she's homeschooled...another discrimination issue)

 

If a parent chooses to homeschool a child, and the student does not have external evaluations of the student's work (Mom's grades for the student are not truly "third-party"), it should not be surprising that the bar for standardized tests is set higher.

 

That "discimination" seems rational and legal to me and is not on a par with racial discrimination in college admissions.

[Tullia]

If a parent chooses to homeschool a child, and the student does not have external evaluations of the student's work (Mom's grades for the student are not truly "third-party"), it should not be surprising that the bar for standardized tests is set higher.

 

That "discimination" seems rational and legal to me and is not on a par with racial discrimination in college admissions.

 

 

Hmmm...I can understand a school requiring external validation in the form of test scores, but what would be the rationale for saying that test scores should be higher than applicants from public/private schools. Ah, well it's past my bedtime and the brain isn't working...

[In The Great White North]

If a parent chooses to homeschool a child, and the student does not have external evaluations of the student's work (Mom's grades for the student are not truly "third-party"), it should not be surprising that the bar for standardized tests is set higher.

 

That "discimination" seems rational and legal to me and is not on a par with racial discrimination in college admissions.

 

 

Not really.

 

High schools grading practices vary widely. Some rely primarily on tests. Some use open book tests only. In some attendance rates as high as test scores (under the guise of "in class participation." Just because the grade is from a high school, does not mean it is consistent with the next high school down the road.

 

Colleges become familiar with the grading practices of high schools which send them lots of applicants. The grades of applicants from smaller schools, or the first few applicants from any school, have no more meaning than the "mommy grades" from home-schoolers.

[Robin in DFW]

nt

Edited July 29, 2010 by Robin in DFW