A group called Students for Fair Admissions is suing Harvard University, claiming that it systematically discriminates against Asian-Americans in its admissions process. The group forced Harvard to release internal documents about its admissions decisions, which showed that Asian-American students were downgraded for personal characteristics even when their test scores and grades were perfect.
Two important principles are clashing in this dispute. On one hand, there is the principle of merit-based admissions. On the other is the practice of affirmative action, weighting the scales to give places to students who are black and Hispanic who might have lower scores but have the ability to succeed at Harvard.
Here are some statistics.
The U.S. population is about 6% Asian, African Americans are 13%, whites are 61%, Hispanics are 18%.
The Harvard class of 2021 is 22% Asian, 14.6% African American, 11.6% Latino, and 2.5% Native American or Pacific Islander.
The goal of Students for Fair Admissions is to eliminate affirmative action and to base admissions entirely on objective statistics. Conservatives have rallied to the cause because they oppose affirmative action.
The dilemma that Harvard and other elite institutions face is they they want to have a diverse student body. If they based admissions solely on tests and grades, their student body would have very few blacks or Hispanics, like New York City’s elite, exam-based high schools, where admission is determined solely by one test score, resulting in student bodies with few black or Hispanic students.
I hope that Harvard prevails, or racial segregation will intensify in executive suites and professions.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I hesitate to paste a full newspaper column I wrote, but readers can ignore it just as easily as they could ignore a link. Here’s my take:
You reap what you sow. Harvard University may soon be harvesting their crop.
Students for Fair Admissions, a group comprised of Asian-American students, filed suit against Harvard in 2014, claiming discrimination in admissions. The students claim that Harvard systematically discriminates against Asian-Americans, penalizing them for high achievement and giving preference to other racial and ethnic minorities. They further claim it is essentially an illegal quota system.
Last week the group asked the judge to rule summarily without a trial, claiming that documents detailing Harvard’s admission practices prove a de facto case in their favor. They also seek to have these documents made public, asserting that the public has a right to know “exactly what is going on at Harvard,” given the importance of this civil rights case.
Harvard disagrees, of course, denying discrimination against any group and asserting their right to assemble “a class that is diverse on multiple dimensions.” They seek this diversity to achieve “educational benefits,” a justification that has passed Supreme Court scrutiny, most recently when the Court rejected Abigail Fisher’s second attempt to sue the University of Texas at Austin.
Harvard further argues that release of their proprietary documents would violate the privacy of applicants and would provide valuable information to other admission offices, eroding Harvard’s competitive advantage.
Many observers of this decades-long battle over affirmative action believe the Students for Fair Admissions see the Harvard case as a path to the Supreme Court in order to reverse the prior rulings. With the recent appointment of Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, that strategy may succeed if and when the losing party appeals the case. The group’s lawyer, Edward Blum, also represented Abigail Fisher and is a leading opponent of affirmative action.
As a 19 year Head of an independent school, I’ve observed the admission wars from the other side. I am a great supporter of affirmative action, both as a remedy for historic disadvantage and as a means of creating a diverse class for purposes of educational vitality. The Abigail Fisher lawsuits, known as Fisher I and Fisher II, were nearly frivolous, claiming damage where there was none. I contributed to, and recruited additional educators to contribute to, a brief filed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund in support of the University of Texas.
But Harvard might well be hoist on its own petard and they deserve it.
While not alone in creating and maintaining the elitist game, Harvard is certainly a prime player. Harvard and other “highly selective” colleges and universities have driven a near-manic chase for high SATs, stratospheric grade point averages and bulging portfolios of Advanced Placement classes. A generation of students is riddled with high stress, depression and eating disorders, chasing the ideal profile that portends admission to the most selective schools. Harvard and others not only drive the process, they capitalize on it, playing the reputation game by providing their glittering statistics to schemes like the annual U.S. News and World Report rankings. It is, quite literally, a vicious circle.
A disproportionate number of Asian-American students play this game very well, as evidenced by the credentials of the parties to this lawsuit. This has an ironic collateral affect on all Asian-Americans, as high scores and grades are not universal Asian-American traits. Millions of wonderful Asian-American kids suffer from not conforming to the stereotype.
But, stereotype aside, I can fully empathize with successful students who were informed of the rules, played the game exquisitely well, and then experienced rejection, losing a place to a less “qualified” applicant.
Harvard and others claim that admission is an art form, using many variables to craft a class of interesting, capable and creative young women and men. But you can’t paint by the numbers and call yourself an artist. Many colleges have escaped the crass clutch of the College Board and either become test optional or do not require any standardized test scores in the application process.
Years ago a member of the Board of Overseers at a highly selective college confidentially told me of a new, internal admission strategy. The admissions office was charged with admitting a significant portion of an incoming class from the pool of applicants with lower SAT scores. This strategy was to force the school to look more deeply at qualities not captured by quantitative measures.
If Harvard and others want to craft diverse classes without being sued, then get out of the game. Defy the College Board craziness. Be test optional. Don’t reward the AP chase. Don’t participate in the annual U.S. News and World Report beauty contest.
As long as they are explicitly and implicitly setting the rules – and bragging about their own success in the game – it is reasonable to expect that they will follow them. They can’t have it both ways.
Brilliant and thanks for posting!
“If Harvard and others want to craft diverse classes without being sued, then get out of the game. Defy the College Board craziness. Be test optional. Don’t reward the AP chase. Don’t participate in the annual U.S. News and World Report beauty contest.”
Well said. Harvard is a private college. I’m assuming the majority of their funding comes from private sources, not from taxpayer funds which have strings attached to concepts such as equitable admissions – or admit based solely on grades/scores – or whatever .
If Harvard wants to craft a freshman class from a mix of ethnics that reflects their vision as to how best to educate, that is their prerogative. Obviously, if they try to admit today on grossly biased basis as they successfully did against Jews in the ’30’s, they will be called to account to the public, thanks to digital transparency.
The public debate is a good thing: we need to discuss whether admissions based solely on grades/ test scores means Harvard’s freshman class would grossly over-represent Asian-Americans as related to local/ national demographics – and whether such lopsided admissions [ethnic-wise] serves Harvard’s educational goals. But the decision is theirs.
Well, I guess as far as baking a cake, the supreme cake might agree with you.
Speaking of cakes, Steve Nelson’s post is excellent — you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
We have poorly defined “gifted education” these days. It shouldn’t be all about tests and AP classes.
What does gifted education mean to you?
I don’t pretend to be able to define ‘gifted education.’ That’s a loaded term, whose definition would vary depending on the spectrum of ability represented in any one school district. My point is that a private college may select its freshman class as it wishes. The school may have other agenda than simply selecting the top test-scorers (or whatever), & that is their prerogative. I also make the point that today’s digital media platform creates enough transparency that blatant ethnic bias in admissions will out, & foment sufficient public discussion to influence admissions policy.
And maybe when the Ivy League schools join the test optional/no test movement, this whole mess will come crumbling down. University of Chicago just went test optional last week. What the asian community doesn’t comprehend is that the ability to choose the correct answer on a bubble test does not equal an education. Ranking within the asian community is based on competition…..their kids are killed and drilled in education to get the best test scores, but they lack in many ways, the social skills needed to fully assimilate within the greater community in which they live. Education does NOT equal test prep.
Also brilliant and thanks for posting!
Really??? Evidence?
Wow. Kind of a racist assessment.
I agree with all of the above! some colleges are in with the elite which will be taken down.
“The goal of Students for Fair Admissions is to eliminate affirmative action and to base admissions entirely on objective statistics.”
There is no such thing as “objective statistics” when it comes to the teaching and learning process. Everything is subjectively based. Putting numbers onto/into an assessment does not make it objective as there are many subjective decisions that go into making the assessment itself, no matter what assessment type is used.
The standardized testing industry would love it if everyone believed that their “product” were to be “objective”. Alas, that is an impossibility.
Agreed. The questions are not objective. The answers are not objective. The setting of cut scores (passing marks) is not objective.
Diane,
Or are they anti-Asian? As a parent of an adopted Chinese daughter I seriously have my questions! Would you not defend your daughter in this this position? I see this reaction against objective reality in this culture, and frankly it scares me. Do we want science or Gnostism to be our guide??
Who is anti-Asian? What are you talking about?
OK Diane, you cannot deal with the real world. So be it. I will not be posting in future, so feel free of your assured world vision.
An opponent who cannot defend his/her opinions is shall we say “inutile” If the court decides in favor of Harvard, higher learning in this country is over (it pretty much is already).
A bientot!
Deal with the “real world” — as Abby sees it. That’s funny. We each have our own view of the world. That doesn’t mean we are right with our view and that includes Abby.
Abby, we have many disagreements here. Civility is the rule. If you like to dish out abuse and opinion, but you can’t engage civilly with others, farewell.
I wonder if Abby is Jim.
Or maybe their married to each other, eh!
Actually, I think Abby left because she knew she was going to be found out for not giving proper credit to whomever wrote what she had in her response to me about “post modern Foucaultian (Wilson) viewpoint. . . ” It seems to me I’ve seen something similar to that thought and language usage before, but don’t remember for sure.
Abby should answer your response about Wilson. No one has ever disagreed with you until she came along. I hope she replies. It is cowardly to throw down a challenge, then leave in a huff. As a Jew, I was offended when she asked me whether I was happy with Jewish quotas in Ivy League colleges in the 1920s. Guess what? There were Jewish bans and exclusions in many institutions, not just Ivy League colleges. There were neighborhoods that wouldn’t sell to Jews, and country clubs that excluded Jews, and many other institutions and establishments that were anti-Semitic. And she has the nerve to ask me if I like Jewish quotas! Now I have to worry about whether a baker will sell me a cake! Oy!
Thanks for your response! And you pointed out/explained something in a way that now helps me understand something in a different light.
I was bit ambivalent, actually more leaning to side with the Supreme Court on the bakery case due to freedom of speech and association issues, even freedom of religion (and I think you know I’m not religious at all). As far as I was concerned “if they didn’t want my business because of my beliefs or who I am in my being, I sure as hell wouldn’t give them my business.” They might be the only bakery in town, I’d have made my own cake, as terrible of a cake decorator (really destroyer of icing) that I am.
But with your comment I can see more fully as to the problems of my position. Where does that SC decision lead? To exclusion of many different groups by many different people with many different beliefs? That decision could certainly lead to the balkanization, the walling off of people’s minds to those that are different. Historically, as your example shows and many others, we know that that type of separation and psychical walling off has led to many atrocities committed against many innocents. How can we allow that?
Andre Comte-Sponville addresses the issue of tolerance and its apparent antithesis intolerance in a chapter in his “A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues”:
“Should there be freedom for the enemies of freedom?”
Quoting Popper’s “paradox of tolerance”:
“If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not to prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught [intolerance in the name of religion] of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed the tolerance with them.” [my addition]
Comte-Sponville again: “. . . all intolerance tends toward totalitarianism–or in religious matters toward fundamentalism: only in the name of the supposed truth of one’s [religious] point of view can one pretend to impose it on others, or rather, only by supposing its truth can one claim justification for its imposition [and intolerances].” [my additions]
“What is tolerance?” Alain’s answer is this: ‘A wisdom that overcomes fanaticism, that is a baleful love of truth.'”
I could continue quoting Comte-Sponville’s discussion of tolerance. There are many excellent ideas that he presents in this chapter, well, not only in this chapter but in the whole book. I highly recommend, and if I had the authority I would mandate that all educators read and comprehend his “small treatise”
Oh, I expected no response from Abby. No one so far has accepted my challenge to refute Wilson’s and my critiques of the standards and testing regime. Why? because in essence there is no logical rebuttal or refutation to be made. At least I will believe that until someone shows me such a rebuttal.
Since you think I am a coward by not replying, I shall be happy to oblige you:
Here is my refutation of Noel Wilson:
(me kicking a sturdy stone)
Forgive me for plagiarizing Samuel Johnson’s takedown of Bishop Berkeley’s similar airy-fairy philosophy, but it was so apropos!
PS: Now you can no longer say that Noel Wilson’s pedagogy has never been refuted!
You are not responding to me but to Duane Swacker.
Agreed. Truly teaching and learning cannot be fully objective.
Laura, I’d say that “Truly teaching and learning cannot EVER be fully objective.” It is the subjectivity itself of the process, that human to human connection between the teacher and the student that makes it a wonderfully human experience and something to cherish.
Really? The postmodern Foucaultian (Noel Wilson)viewpoint is now being seriously questioned. Sorry, testing is not Foucaultian “violence”; it simply gives a snapshot of where students are on their journey. Wilson’s misunderstanding of Pirsig’s methaphysics of quality led to his internal condundrum. The fact is we live in a “somewhat” real world and have to deal with that. How do you explain the “fact” that a strong positive correlation (r=0.70) exists between High School GPA and SAT scores and college performance? Is this an “impossibility”? Or that the students who tend not to score very high on “standardized tests” tend not to do very well in the REAL WORLD?? (such meaning including their own opinions, i.e. they don’t make much money) Please explain this “fact” with some non post-modern hoo-ha.
Thanks 🙂
Abby,
Since GPA is a better predictor of college success than the SAT, why take the SAT? More than 1,000 colleges have reached the conclusion that the standardiced Test is superfluous. Are they wrong?
I think Abby works for the college board as a paid troll.
Do you work for the College Board, Abby?
When our daughter was taking the SAT in high school, she was stressing out about it. She has never been a stellar test taker. Average at best, but she graduated from high school as an award-winning scholar-athlete with a GPA of 4.65. As she had feared, she ended up with an SAT score that was slightly below average and she feared she wouldn’t be accepted to one of the colleges she had applied to.
Stanford was her first choice, her dream.
To calm her down so she could sleep, I called Stanford admissions and asked them how important the SAT score was and I was told it was only one factor that was considered and wasn’t that important. I was told, Stanford preferred looking at the whole person, and the SAT score, if used at all, was usually a tiebreaker between two students that were comparatively equal in everything else but the SAT.
The first acceptance letter arrived from UCLA. I think Davis was 2nd and then Stanford’s arrived.
Our daughter was accepted to Stanford and she graduated with a BS in 2016.
“Search Results
“Stanford offers admission to 2,063 students from around the world. The Office of Undergraduate Admission announced today that 2,063 high school students have been admitted to the Class of 2020 from a pool of 43,997.Mar 25, 2016”
https://news.stanford.edu/2016/03/25/admit-admission-announce-032516/
Diane:
No they are note ‘wrong”, they are doing what is expeditious. Let’s fact it, if true meritocratics were used, 90% of elite colleges would be Asian.Obviously, this racist fact cannot be seen, so we have to result to prestdigitation. It makes us feel better, right? As the parent of an adopted Asian daughter, I feel the effects. Sorry if it interferes with you ideal of equality.
And no, Lloyd, I am just a lowly middle school teacher and parent of an adopted Chinese daughter.
BTW Diane, those 1920 Jewish quotas were OK with you???
Abby,
I have heard enough from you. Don’t push any more buttons.
Standardized tests do not determine which students have the most merit.
Al Shanker favored the educational equivalent of Boy/Girl Scout merit badges. A recognition of meritorious performance and deeds. I was looking through the Shanker archives at Wayne State, online, and came across the Boy Scout manual to merit badges.
I wrote to this point in a comment that languishes in moderation.
Sorry for the delay. Your comment is no longer in moderation.
Wilson is “now being seriously questioned”? Really? Please explain and/or give those questions, critiques, rebuttals, and/or refutations. I’ve been looking for 20 years and have yet to encounter any. Saying that Wilson is being questioned is not a rebuttal nor refutation. I’m from Missouri, show me those “questions”.
What is Wilson’s “misunderstanding of Pirsig’s methaphysics (sic) of quality”?
And what is Wilson’s “internal conundrum”? Please explain.
We have to deal with a “‘somewhat’ real world”? How is the world only “somewhat real?
Correlations are just that, statistical correlations nothing more. Correlations in the “real world” are not statements of a causative effect. Be that as it may would you please explain how you got that r=.70 between the three variables you mention. As far as I know, and I’m not a statistician, correlation coefficients are used to describe a mathematical/statistical relationship of two variables. Please enlighten as to how you got that for three variables. So to answer your question: Yes, it seems to be an impossibility.
“. . . who tend to not” That is language of uncertainty so that perhaps there is a correlation (don’t know what it is because you have not given that correlation and its genesis) between the not scoring well and not making much money. But the reasons for that could be many and varied, from non-dominant culture social incompetencies to perhaps money isn’t the end all be all for any number of folks to the correlation coefficient being so low as to be meaningless to many other explanations.
Was that enough disputing your supposed “facts” without post-modern hoo-ha?
You sure talk of uncertainties, things like “somewhat real world”, a supposed correlation among three variables being a “fact”, or those “tendencies” as if they are facts and certainties. I don’t buy snake oil. As a matter of fact I smell the aroma of Pure Grade AA bullshit in an attempt to defend the indefensible. You have given no rebuttal nor refutation to Wilson’s work.
Answer my questions and we can then begin to have a better discussion.
As an aside, Foucault did not consider himself a “post-modern” historian, yes he considered himself a historian with new and different “tools”, ways to analyze different historical categories-medicine, madness, sexuality, etc. . . .
From a post of yours Abby after I posted a response:
“OK Diane, you cannot deal with the real world. So be it. I will not be posting in future, so feel free of your assured world vision.
An opponent who cannot defend his/her opinions is shall we say “inutile”.
Is that last sentence an example of the pot calling the kettle black? I have posted a response to your “opinions”, defending my solid positions on standardized testing.
And now you are slinking away from here like a beaten dog with her tail between her legs. Come on, I was looking forward to your response. Not that I really expected a cogent one. Oh well!
Be that as it may I leave you with this:
Ending anti-Asian-American discrimination doesn’t have to hurt Black and brown applicants.
This controversy is like a story I once heard about a billionaire, a tea party person, and a teacher. Adapted for this case, it’s a rich Harvard alumnus, a Black or brown applicant, and an Asian-American applicant.
They have 12 cookies. The rich alumnus grabs 11, turns to the Black or brown applicant, and says, “Watch out! That Asian kid is trying to steal your cookie!”
An internal Harvard report found that the preference for athletes and legacies is greater than the preference for African-American or Latino applicants.
So how about keeping the preference for Black and brown applicants, who deserve a leg up because they have to overcome discrimination in society to achieve in school. Just eliminate the preference for athletes and the mostly white, mostly affluent “legacies.”
That undeserved preference cost Asians roughly 12 percent of the admissions slots.
Asians are 6% of the population. They are 16% of Harvard students. Does that suggest bias?
Interesting.
Yep. Asians are the new Jews.
https://forward.com/opinion/national/379610/when-it-comes-to-college-admissions-asians-are-the-new-jews/
Um, it’s pretty offensive to compare not getting into an elite college to being shipped off to the gas chambers by the millions. I find it pretty shocking that a Jewish publication would be so brash with that comparison.
I’ve read comparisons between the Jews and the Chinese a number of times and it has to do with the fact that the core of Confucianism and Judaism have some things in common.
“They both stress the importance of the relationship between man and man, and are based on the Golden Rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you,” says Professor Fu Youdee.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26067154
n April 17, 1967, the result of a survey published by the New York Times stated that about 40% of student at Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania were Jewish. At Yale, Harvard and Cornell the Jewish students were between 20 and 25%, while between 13 and 20% students at Dartmouth, Princeton and Brown were believed to be Jewish.
Mind you, the Jewish population of the United States is less than 2%
In the 1920s, Ivy League Colleges had Jewish quotas.
“Asians are 6% of the population. They are 16% of Harvard students. Does that suggest bias?” – Lots of problem in this country because it continues to split its constituents into white, black, brown, yellow, red and whatever other colors and gradations in can come up with. Divide et Impera.
Asians are 22% if Harvard’s entering class.
I like your thinking, but a substantial portion of Harvard’s donors are alumni hoping to legacy their kids in. I think those donors would disapprove of such an approach and you certainly wouldn’t want to impact Harvard’s endowment, would you?
And it still doesn’t deal with the claim that students with inferior academic credentials, beyond those accepted with legacy and/or athletic abilities factors outweighing academic indicators, are being chosen over students with impeccable academic credentials.
The students have a weak case that is impossible to prove. Harvard will most likely win as it is a private institution that can set entrance criteria as it wishes.
Meanwhile the virtues of “diversity” are condemned as a threat to all things great about American achievements.
This was in my local paper today, from an ultra-conservative nationally syndicated African American writer, Walter E. Williams, who is a professor of economics at George Mason University. The Economics Department at George Mason is a major beneficiary of money from the Koch brothers. The University is notorious for hosting academics who are climate change deniers
http://triblive.com/opinion/featuredcommentary/13749725-74/walter-williams-diversity-inclusion-harm See also https://www.desmogblog.com/koch-and-george-mason-university
Thanks, Laura.
Dear Professor Ravitch- I follow your posts regularly and am a firm supporter and graduate of public schools. You missed the mark on your Harvard piece. I agree diversity of background is critical, especially at the highest levels. However, this can be achieved and must be achieved without falsely devaluating a specific group, such as Harvard may be doing by grading Asians as having poor personalities. Perhaps eliminating test scores on SAT and ACT for everyone would help. I think you got this one wrong but we all are human. Be well.
From a Harvard (medical fellowship) and sister of Harvard undergraduate (biochem) and half Asian half German American alum.💕😀
I agree that Harvard should become test optional. It should remain diverse.
I find it interesting that China has affirmative action for its minorities resulting in tens of thousands of ethnic minority students getting into higher education. If tests scores were used to rank them, most of them would not go on to a senior high school or get into college.
“China has one of the oldest and largest sets of state-sponsored preferential policies for ethnic minorities.”
If curious, click the link and read just the short abstract. I think you will find the results of China’s longtime affirmative action policies interesting because they refute any claims that affirmative action doesn’t work and isn’t fair.
Click to access 7PacRimLPolyJ077.pdf
China has, I think ( could be off a bit but not by much), 56-recognized minorities that add up to more than 100 million people. Tibetans are considered one of those minorities.
That means those few stressful high stakes tests used to rank students into senior high schools and again for college are mainly for the Han Chinese — not the minorities.
The same was true of China’s one-child policy — a policy that did not apply to the minorities since they were so heavily outnumbered by the Han majority.
Fascinating. Thanks for this. We often think of China and Africa as monolithic, a most egregious mistake. It is fascinating to think that even after all those centuries of dynastic domination, so many ethnic groups abound there. And this pales by comparison to the ethnic diversity of Nigeria or other parts of sub-Saharan Africa.
If we do not discover how to craft a world where it is safe to be unique, we will assure our demise as humanity.
From your document: “Preferential policies are seen as the main tool in narrowing the economic and social gaps between Han and minority people. For example, PRC officials argue that if equal treatment were the principle in determining entry into universities, equality of opportunity would sharply diminish.” – This is basically the same idea I posted below in this thread: provide for equal opportunities right from the start, THEN treat everyone by merit. This is totally different to an American system, where millions of people, not only blacks and Latinos, but white as well, so it is not exactly racist – are not cared for, they grow up in poverty and drug abuse, but THEN somehow when they hit the high school graduate age, then are to be treated according to the race. Which country has more human policy, eh? In the American version, the government does not have to do anything to ease the life of have-nots, all it has to do it come with some bogus affirmative actions to claim that it cares, and to pit one minority against another.
BA, you are so full of Bull-S or is that Pig-S? You said, “They grow up in poverty and drug abuse”. They being minority children.
Giving preference to minorities does not mean colleges are being forced to accept only minorities that are drug addicts and live in poverty and are illiterate …
What it means is that minorities with high GPA’s and/or test scores (SAT or ACT) in their subgrouping, where required for admission, are from the top of that minority.
When we compare the number of students with high GPA’s and/or SAT or ACT scores by minority Asians come out on top. They dominate.
Whites come in second and whites and Asians mostly attend K-12 schools in more affluent areas and those schools do not deal with all the problems that come with poverty and drugs use is not a given for children growing up in poverty.
“In 2013, among persons aged 12 or older, the rate of current illicit drug use was 3.1 percent among Asians, 8.8 percent among Hispanics, 9.5 percent among whites, 10.5 percent among blacks, 12.3 percent among American Indians or Alaska Natives, 14.0 percent among Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, and 17.4 percent among persons reporting two or more races.” (page 26)
Click to access NSDUHresults2013.pdf
Did you notice that there is a higher ratio of drug use among Whites vs. Hispanics?
Now, lets take a look at the numbers — not ratios.
There were 73,642,285 children less than 18 in the US in 2016.
https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/101-child-population-by-age-group#detailed/1/any/false/870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38,35,18/62,63,64,6,4693/419,420
Population Distribution of Children by Race/Ethnicity (2016)
51% white — 37.5 million total and 9.5 percent use illegal drugs or 3.56 million
14% black — 10.3 million total and 10.5 percent use illegal drugs or 1.08 million
25% Hispanic — 18.4 million total and 8.8 percent use illegal drugs or 1.6 million
10% Other
4.3 million white children live in poverty
5.2 million Hispanic or Latino children live in poverty
3.5 million black children live in poverty
Total number of children living in poverty is 14.116 million
https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/44-children-in-poverty-by-race-and-ethnicity#detailed/1/any/false/870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38,35,18/10,11,9,12,1,185,13/324,323
The next question is, how many of the children using illegal drugs live in poverty?
“We’ve known for some time now that a history of abuse and neglect are risk factors for substance abuse later in life. Among reported cases of childhood abuse and neglect over a 10-year period, over 70 percent of them involved drug or alcohol abuse.[5] Adult substance abusers are 2.7 times more likely to be abusive toward their children and 4.2 times more likely to be neglectful.[6] What we also know is that this same history is more likely to occur in lower income households.
“While the two separate incidences do not show direct causation, it is compelling enough evidence to consider the association between both abuse/neglect and low income/poverty as precursors to addiction. In fact, both combined may even further put someone at a predisposal for drug or alcohol abuse. In a survey of state welfare offices, 85 percent claimed parental drug and/or alcohol use and poverty were the top two problems in their child protective cases/”
https://www.dualdiagnosis.org/drug-addiction/economic-status/
While children living in poverty are at a higher risk of illegal drug use, not all children living in poverty use illegal drugs. In fact, more do not use illegal drugs than use them especially among miniorty groups.
To whomever might agree with me regarding human nature in selfishness:
1) People should ask themselves about their priority and their favors which would give away to their own children, their direct relatives, their favourite friends OR to strangers, foreigners, and invaders???
2) All second generations of immigrants should ask themselves whether they have lived, worked, entertained, supported and behaved like their native counterparts for the country where they were born and grown up? Their HONEST answers will show their true colour.
3) Being an immigrant of first generation, my own philosophy and attitude is that I support, and fight for the best in the country, province, and city where I live in. Most of all, since I left a communist country, I support all capitalist countries and against all communist countries. I really and truly do not care for CHINA or VIET NAM where my father and my mother were born from and VN where I was born from.
In short, between the country threw me away and the country takes me in, at the minimum of human decency, I am for sure to support the country let me in and let me free to grow. I will NOT HARM nor HELP the country and its authority which threw me out.
In the same vein, I hope that all smart, and genius students should be happy to go any LOCAL Public University and should make their names for their local university, They should not care or complain about the ivy league university administrative policy.
It is our own talent and our own money. We support wherever and whoever treasure our support. Back2basic
Our own talent and our own money? Please, just be quiet.
To Steve Nelson
Do you have anything to say better? People, like you, only can intimidate the ignorant and arrogant but empty spirit. Let’s get back to the basic, wouldn’t you? Back2basic
m4potw: I apologize for my slightly rude suggestion about being quiet. I deeply dislike the attitude that we deserve what we get and get what we deserve. But my dislike is no justification for being unkind.
I don’t know if anyone’s still reading, but I was thinking about this on my four-hour round-trip drive to drop the middle kid at camp today. Above I said that Harvard is motivated to be both selective and diverse, but I realized that’s not quite it. What they’re really motivated to do is select the students who are going to Do Big Things in the future. As often as possible, whenever someone makes a discovery/breakthrough, develops or leads a major company, gets elected to public office, publishes a noted book, wins a major award, etc., etc., Harvard (and most universities) would very much like to say, “See? One of ours.”
So their admissions criteria is constantly seeking that magic bullet of how to find the future Doers. I think they’re finally waking up to the fact that top scores on the SAT/ACT does not often produce those Doers, so that’s why they’re willing to devalue those scores in favor of other factors (and may, like U of C, eventually toss them altogether).
But giving priority to legacy students is a more sure-fire way to find the Doers. One of the key predictors of Doing Big Things is being descended from people who do/did Big Things. (The GWB/Chelsea Clinton effect) Not because such descendants are inherently superior, but because they’re born with the money, connections and influence to be in the right place and know the right people to Do Big Things. So legacy admissions are not going away any time soon.
There may also be something to the idea that poor and minority kids who make it all the way to Harvard’s doorstep may have the “Oprah” effect – the right combination of talent, canniness, determination, aggression and sheer luck to Do Big Things, so they may be worth the bet.
But dime-a-dozen middle/upper middle class, unconnected white and Asian kids who have all followed the same lock-step good grades/AP classes/high SAT/ACT scores/National Honor Society/extracurricular activities/required volunteer hours playlist are not turning out the Doers and so, by Harvard’s standards, are actually less qualified.
Sigh. I proofread, I really do. Not that you can tell. Final sentence s/b: “… are not turning out to be the Doers….” Sorry.
Who is anti-Asian? What are you talking about?
Oh please, Diane – this is what the lawsuit is about!
By the way, I admire you tremendously. I think you are fighting the good fight. Schools should be under local jurisdiction as the constitution says.
My point is that the “meritocracy” should be just that – students who CARE, It should never eliminate any student who has an interest in or wonder about how this world works.
In regards to your “meritocracy should be just that. . . .” Your push to use invalid standardized test scores does exactly what you decry–it eliminates many students who have “an interest in or wonder about how this world works”. That separation, sorting and ranking with cut points to determine whether a student can or cannot partake of a certain course of study that they choose is exactly what standardized testing does. It prevents many from doing what you suggest.
Give me a public school college / university graduate any day.
“The goal of Students for Fair Admissions is to eliminate affirmative action and to base admissions entirely on objective statistics.” – This is the only fair option. Affirmative action as it is being done is sheer idiocy. The proper affirmative action would be raising the standards of living for everyone, making sure everyone has place to stay and food to eat and decent elementary and secondary education, then no affirmative action will be needed. If the government seriously was worried about it, it had half a century to put some practices in place. Instead the government radicalized the minorities via the war on drugs, and then created the school to prison pipeline. This whole affirmative action business is just a pretense of caring, not a real effort for equality and equity.
I used to think like you. But when I realized that standardized tests are a very distorted and narrow filter for selecting students, I lost faith in them. They are uniform, but what they test for is the ability to take the test. They systematically favor those whose families have the highest income and education. One can raise scores by expensive tutoring but that gives another advantage to the wealthy whose kids are not good at taking standardized tests.
As the article yesterday stated, the GOA, a record of four years of effort, is a better predictor of college success than the SAT or ACT.
Now that more than 1,000 colleges are test optional, these tests may one day be history. Even now, colleges see them as only one piece of evidence in a portfolio, not the most important.
I am not fixed on SAT or other standardized tests, then can and should be improved. What I hate is when I don’t know the exact criteria how I – yes, I, not just my efforts – is being measured. I believe you supported Cathy O’Neil’s “The Weapons of Math Destruction”, it is about scores all right, but it is more about not knowing how exactly you are being scored.
At lest with the SAT you get the questions, you answer them, you get the score, AND you can also get the exact questions and answer keys for less than $20 if you want. This is more fair than a “holistic” approach where you don’t know whether they check your relatives five generations back to find whether any of them were an enemy of the state, or whether they simply favor children of their friends and sponsors.
It is not about the SAT, it is about the principle: merit vs. non-merit. And for me the answer is self-evident, unless you live in a kingdom.
Merit vs. non-merit is nonsense. Who precisely defines “merit” or the gatekeeping based on their definition? For centuries, privileged white people have both defined “merit” and enforced their definition. It’s similar to the issue of whiteness. Who’s white? The only way this concept is used is to bar folks from membership. We don’t define white, we simply tell people they are not white.
The idea of merit is always subjective and biased. It’s why some of us are very, very wary of the idea of meritocracy.
How do you define merit?
@Steve, merit and whiteness are kind of orthogonal qualities, unless you consider whiteness as a merit. You lost me here.
Lilly livertarianism-gubmint bad is primitive me, me, me and mine thinking at its finest.
This is certainly an “animated” discussion.
One central issue is nearly absent in the comments. Nearly every commenter, regardless of stance, stipulates to the idea that the SAT is an important measure of worth and ability. It is neither. It is a test of a very narrow range of historically celebrated skills. It assumes a common, as Howard Gardner would call it, IQ-type intelligence. It rewards rapid decoding and certain test strategies. Despite not being a subject based test, it assumes a certain cultural experience. Some people are intrinsically skilled in these ways and augment their ability with practice and test preparation. Others find the questions and answers absurd, struggling to choose an answer to a question that is both arcane and poorly phrased.
All research indicates that the SAT is strongly associated with wealth, although obviously this relationship is not directly correlative. The SAT is primarily a really good measure of how good a person is at taking tests like the SAT.
If i were to list the qualities that enliven a classroom, campus or community, the capacity to score well on the SAT would be low on the list. I taught high school students every year during my 19 years as head of a school. Often, the least interesting kids were the ones who scored highest on the SAT. From a psychological and neurobiological point of view, this is not surprising. That’s a long discussion, but I think I could be persuasive.
We are conditioned to see being “smart” in a very specific way and the lavish devotion to SAT scores is a symptom of this conditioning.
The SAT gained power by way of the College Board’s aggressive work, yet nearly all of you (commenters) allow it to act as absolute proxy for merit, thereby thinking that holistic admissions is some sort of compromise, disadvantaging the truly meritorious. Holistic admission actually considers factors far more important than the SAT. “But that’s not objective!!” you scream in response. The SAT is not objective. It is crafted by humans who operate from a specific set of beliefs, biases and intentions.
During my time in education I learned a great deal from students from varied backgrounds; their observations, use of language, the musicality of their cadences, their perceptive abilities, their passions, their life experiences, their traditions, their striking insights into matters I’d never considered, their capacity for empathy, their ability to create something of original beauty, their wisdom, their humor . . . I could go on at greater length.
The SAT has far too much undeserved power and by engaging so earnestly in this discussion many of us inadvertently enhance that power.
A long way of saying, “Screw the SAT.”
Overall, I agree with what you have stated, Steve. . . with one caveat:
“The SAT has far too much undeserved power and by engaging so earnestly in this discussion many of us inadvertently enhance that power.”
I don’t understand how showing the inherent errors, falsehoods and invalidities of tests like the SAT “inadvertently enhance that power”. How else can we get the word out of the insanities and harms caused by tests like the SAT without talking about it? In short I don’t understand what you are getting at.
Good caveat, Duane. My concern is about those who argue the Harvard case, or other examinations of selectivity, without questioning the SAT itself. It is often tacitly acknowledged as a valid measure of merit, even among those who would be flexible in how it is deployed. My basic point, as I think you understand, is that it is de facto horsebunky.
If we found that a school using “holistic” admission standards was consistently giving Black or Latino students substantially lower scores on the categories of “positive personality,” likability, courage, kindness and being “widely respected” than any students from all other ethnic group last, what would we say?
I would say that a private college makes its own decisions about what matters most, so long as it does not end up with a student body that is segregated or violates civil rights protections.
And a public college?
Public colleges, like public schools, must be open and transparent and follow every law.
Private colleges, like private charter schools, are not as closely regulated as public schools.
The admission standards at Stuy and BX Science are regulated by the State Legislature. The admission standards at Trinity, Dalton, and St.Bernards are not.
Aside from the public/private distinction, if it were true that Harvard admissions officers consistently find applicants who are members of one ethnic/racial group less “likable” than applicants who are members of other ethnic/racial groups, would you find anything problematic about that?
I think it is a pretty stupid way to judge candidates, most of whom never have a personal interview. I think the admissions office is looking for a way to have a class that contains a certain proportion of blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and whites. If anything, the formula is overweighted for Asians, who are 6% of the population, but 22% of the Harvard class.
If Harvard based admissions solely on the SAT, they would have an entering class that was almost completely Asian and white.
And yet apparently it’s how Harvard judges candidates.
The 6% metric doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, Diane. Whites make up 80% of the US population, but only 44% of the Harvard student body. Is the admissions formula “underweighted” for whites? White make up 45% of the NYC population, but only 24% of the specialized high school population. Are whites grossly underrepresented in those schools? According to the logic of that 6% metric, yes.
Too bad. Not every institution can match the proportion in the national population or in the city population.
Give it up.
I prefer that NYC’s specialized high schools use multiple measures, not just a single test score.
I also think it is the prerogative of private colleges to shape the student body they want so long as they don’t exclude students on grounds of race or ethnicity or sexual orientation (many do)
“Too bad” is where I assumed this was leading, but it’s not much of a defense of the argument that Asians are statistically over-represented at Harvard.
So a private baker can decline making a cake for a gay couple? What if all the bakers in the neighborhood feel the same? All the bakers in the country?
A ridiculous comment. Diane already made it clear that private institutions cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sexual identity or other disallowed variables. (Although discrimination based on sexual or gender identity remains legal on the federal level.)
Steve,
You have hit on the reason that DeVos also says, when asked if she will enforce civil rights laws, says she will enforce the law as written.
The law does not prevent discrimination against LGBT students or staff.
Her family founded and funds the anti-LGBT groups the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family. Her mother has personally underwritten anti-gay campaigns in California.
Yes, my friend, the failure to pass ENDA and its predecessors is among our great shames.
Unfortunately private institutions can and do discriminate on the basis of sexual identity. Some are proud of it, especially voucher-receiving evangelical schools.
Playing dumb again? That was a recent Supreme Court decision.
I’d say they weren’t very good at acting white.
These scores aren’t based on interviews.
They appear to be assigned based on a review of applicants’ files. But if these personality scores actually were designed to assign scores based on how “white” an applicant can act, as your joke suggests, is that a legitimate factor on which to base admissions decisions?
There is wisdom that a smart bird will select a stable and strong branch to land on; and that people, who are smart, will choose a tranquil and peaceful environment to settle in.
IMHO, it is our money, our effort, and our talent, then we should select the applicable university where we (students) can learn and create the best for our own future and our country, state where we live in.
In short, parents, teachers and students should unite to support and to protect in order to make YOUR LOCAL PUBLIC EDUCATION/ SCHOOLS/UNIVERSITY AS THE BEST RESOURCE for many upcoming younger generations to lean on and to be proud of. Back2basic
To Steve Nelson:
Your apology is accepted and I hope that you are civilized to accept mine.
Normally, I ignore any rude comment that treats others as a child.
However, I am sorry to snap at your comment about my suggestion – yes, it is our money and our talent – Then we should exercise our own right to learn at the university where it provides us with learning environment to suit our needs.
People, who love to have the fame from others, will suffer the humiliation. If we are truly talent, we can create a fame and fortune on our own.
I, an immigrant, need to work and to study 10 times harder in all aspects in life. My money, my talent and my effort belong to me. I really do not care any ivy league university. I really do not need to work for any big corporate like Google. I would prefer to sell my creation to them for fame and fortune on my own.
If all parents, teachers and students firmly believe in the spirit of humanity and believe in their own taxpaying money that is to support their LOCAL PUBLIC EDUCATION, public schools K-12, public trade colleges and public university, then there will be lots of talent GRADUATES from all states in America whether its economy may be different, but NOT talent teachers and talent students. Back2basic
No need for you to apologize. You have a very different life experience and I have no right to judge.
Harvard gets about 40,000 undergraduate applicants and admits about 2,000.
In a class of 2,000 about 440 are Asian, 280 are Black; 220 are Hispanic and over 1,000 are white. This makes Asians the only over-represented ethnic group. These numbers in no way represent a racist admissions policy.
Can’t you see why Harvard needs balance more than they need perfect test scores?
The vast majority of the 38,000 students rejected are highly qualified, yet they simply lost this particular lottery for reasons that become very, very subjective. They all want to know why not me? The answer is simple: 40,000 students can’t fit into 2,000 seats.
By the way, does anyone know why didn’t they file a suit against Yale? or Princeton? or U-Penn? or Cornell? or Dartmouth?
On a side note, seeking true diversity at elite universities is never really accomplished.
Their students come from all over the world, they come in all different skin colors, and they represent every religious belief that humanity has ever invented. But in reality they are really all the same: serious, driven, hard working, and very smart young people who got lucky enough to win the lottery. They come from the same academic culture which is the culture that has pervaded their young lives since birth.
I do not understand the basis of the discussion.
What does diversity mean? Racial? Religious? Any other?
Who is Asian? Is it by self declaration or is there some kind of objective way?
If it is decided that, say, racial quotas are OK, how do you decide on the quota? Based on the US percentage of the race or state or town where the school is located?
All great questions.