Reflective Change Essay

Posted on

My expectations for my first semester at Trinity were relatively typical: class, homework, parties, and new friendships. I arrived having chosen the two kids I was to live with but beyond that aspect, the social scene, classes and what daily life in general would be like were a complete mystery. I entered Trinity with the mindset, as illustrated by Tatum, of many white students who had little exposure to people who were of different races and socioeconomic classes – unaware of the impacts of race and economic standing, and assuming that there would be ample racial equality and interaction.[1] My background is likely why I was unable to see the pretentious nature of many Trinity students that, as I have come to realize, alienates students who are not of significant means. I am from a predominately white, wealthy area and attended boarding school, which only exposed me to kids of even higher financial standing than those that kids would interact with at most public and even private day schools. As a result, I was blind to the pretentiousness so abundant on Trinity’s campus, as well as the prevalence of racial segregation.

The first class that I attended in my college career was our seminar. I walked through the threshold of the classroom believing that we would be discussing the effects of color and money solely in regard to the college admissions process and possibly some of its effects on society as a whole; my expectations, however, were completely false. After only a few short weeks, our seminar began to illustrate the depths to which race and social class penetrate life, even on Trinity’s campus.

The first activities that actually forced me to realize the gravity of the role race can play in a person’s life were the debates we conducted when we decided whom to admit to “The College.” Sometimes in order to influence one’s opinion, they must experience what is being discussed. In the initial stages of the activity, I was still in the mindset that, while race and financial standing certainly played a roll in who was admitted to institutions of higher education, college admission was primarily a meritocracy. But, after leaving class having completed “Decision Day” I was left pondering how crucial the factors discussed by Stevens in Creating a Class are. We had held discussions and other students had given examples of their applicability on Trinity’s campus, but having to assume the mindset of an admissions officer attempting to create a truly diverse freshman class, and having to decide between applicants based on their ethnicity or whether we could afford to admit them to “The College” put the effects of race and socioeconomic status in a position where I could truly understand them. I began to realize disadvantages that students considered to be “minorities” or who were unable to pay for college were faced with.

Although my eyes had begun to be opened to the issues that we discussed in class, what truly started a change in my way of thinking was when we discussed whether college was still the gateway to success. Part of the “American Dream” was attending college so one could then get a good job and live a financially stable and therefore happy life. However, one key point was brought up that jolted this traditional American thought process and changed my outlook on the stratification of wealth and success in the United States: the poverty cycle. Our seminar illustrated how those in the lower socioeconomic classes, especially minorities, were denied access to respectable education, guidance through the college process and programs like SAT tutoring that advantage mainly white upper-middle and upper class students. It was because of this, we determined, that many minorities and those hailing from areas of low economic status were often unable to even graduate from high school, much less attend college or realize the success illustrated in the stereotypical “American Dream.”

Perhaps the most lasting effect to my way of thinking is my newfound ability to notice the small things that many minority students mention as being issues at Trinity. I believe this probably stems from our readings by Tatum, Lee, Armstrong and Hamilton. Initially the theories discussed in their books were slightly confusing, but after clarification in class, I was actually able to identify them while walking around campus. The most interesting point brought up from our readings was how many white students are blind to the effects of racism and social class.[2] I began to understand that terms such as “local” that I had previously seen as mere descriptions also carried a deeper racial meaning behind them. However, out of all our readings the one that I found most beneficial – specifically regarding applicability on Trinity’s campus – was Paying for the Party. Although the book centers on how women of different financial backgrounds take different paths through college, I found that their theories could extend to people of all ethnicities and genders. As we had discussed in class, I noticed the segregation of where students in Mather, but I never had questioned how that might affect one’s path through college. Assuming that students sit with their friends and therefore those are same people that they would “go out” with on the weekends, study and just casually hang out with, I realized that Armstrong and Hamilton’s discoveries have deep social implications that are extremely applicable at Trinity.[3]

My favorite activity that we engaged in, and the one that I think most influenced my way of thinking, were the peer interviews. It is one thing to notice topics discussed in class around campus and hear issues brought to light by peers in seminar discussions; but hearing those same issues brought to light by other students, completely out of context and unaware of what we have learned in our seminar, brought a much stronger meaning to what we had been discussing in our seminar. As I read through the interview transcriptions I was subconsciously identifying patterns and relating responses to theories we had learned about in our readings. After completing the interview essay I sat and thought about how prevalent everything we had studied and discussed actually was on my college campus. I think I had actually, finally realized just how significant a person’s race and social class influences their entire lives. It effects college prospects, college social life, friends, job prospects and considerably more.

Having experienced my first semester of college and life at Trinity I feel that my way of thinking has certainly been changed by our seminar. I am no longer oblivious to the pretentious environment that seems to have permeated all aspects of life at Trinity, or the barriers that make not only just attaining a college education, but one’s social life at college more difficult for those of lower socioeconomic standing or those or who are considered “minorities.” This seminar has also sparked a personal interest in examining the social affects of wealth stratification on Trinity’s campus, a topic that I would certainly be interested in studying in more depth in the future. I found that the seminar’s open discussion platform, with our professor and student advisor steering the conversation in the proper direction, made it considerably easier to grasp concepts than in my other lecture based classes. In conclusion, I have actually been a true beneficiary of what we learned in this seminar. As it has displayed to me the considerable effects of racial and socioeconomic status on students both in the United States today and at Trinity, opened my eyes to issues at Trinity that I had previously been unable to see, and exposed me to an entirely new method of thinking.


[1] Tatum, Beverly Daniel. Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? and other conversations about race. New York: BasicBooks, 1997.

[2] Tatum, Beverly Daniel. Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? and other conversations about race. New York: BasicBooks, 1997.

[3] Armstrong, Elizabeth A., and Laura T. Hamilton. Paying for the party: how college maintains inequality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013.

Interview Analysis Essay

Posted on

Recently our seminar class interviewed a series of sophomore Trinity students on the impacts of race and socio economic status on campus. Our interviewees consisted of students from different financial backgrounds and races, which helped us to identify several important themes in student interactions around campus. To investigate this topic, our seminar conducted an interview-based study of students’ perceptions of race and social class at Trinity. Our interview guide posed ten open-ended questions and three demographic questions that explored topics, such as personal awareness, social interactions, and other students’ assumptions regarding racial and social class differences at Trinity. The Office of Institutional Research and Planning provided our professor with a stratified random sample of 55 sophomores from the Class of 2016, categorized by race (white or non-white) and first-year financial aid status (receiving or not receiving). Our professor sent personalized email invitations to this group, and assigned each of us to conduct an interview with all who responded and agreed to participate. The typical interview lasted about ten minutes, and was transcribed by the interviewer. The final sample consisted of 18 interviews: 10 students who received financial aid (4 white and 6 non-white), and 8 students who did not receive financial aid (4 white and 4 non-white). All names are pseudonyms and personally identifiable details have been masked, in accordance with our research ethics confidentiality agreement approved by the Trinity College Institutional Review Board. From the responses gathered in these interviews, we were able to identify several common themes that correlated with the findings from Paying for a Party, Why are all the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? and Unraveling the Model Minority Stereotype, which we read in class.

 

One common theme that we found was that Trinity students were made extremely aware of their own family’s wealth and the impact it may have on those around them who are less fortunate. Often times students may not be doing this on purpose it is just how they have always acted. One interviewee stated that she became more aware of her socio economic class because people at Trinity can be  “very pretentious” or “flash off their wealth.” (Kirsten, 16)  In Paying for the Party, Armstrong and Hamilton explain how students often take a different path through college depending on their family’s financial standing because their family’s finances can affect their social interactions. [1] This is further reinforced by one students interview response she stated that when she was dressed well people were more likely to be friendlier to her than if she was dressed like a slob. (Yvonne, 20) On Trinity’s campus, students judge others who aren’t well dressed, making the assumption that those students are from a lower economic class. This impacts how students interact, and as seen above, often students will not even be courteous to those that they perceive are from lower financial standing. Unlike Armstrong and Hamilton, we traced the impact of socio economic status into students’ interactions with athletic coaches. One interview participant stated that coaches “assume” he’s from a lower class and that impacts “how they speak to him.” (Fred, 22) Another student sheds light onto how prevalent financial status can be in social interactions saying that “being able to expend money on dinner with friends… having a car on campus…can sometimes divide who you do or no do not hang out with.” (Victoria, 24) As a Trinity student, I have seen a myriad of these examples myself, as friends who often cannot or choose not to spend as much money in social situations can fall out of a group relatively quickly. After reading Paying for the Party it was clear that socio economic status played a larger role in student’s social interactions on Trinity’s campus than it did at Midwest University, where Armstrong and Hamilton completed their study. This may be because there are “very few people coming from very low social classes” as one interviewee believes. (Jim, 27) One possibility is that kids from the upper class are more social because they feel less pressure from their parents, who have the ability to pay for their schooling. This parallels the findings by Armstrong and Hamilton, who noticed that upper class kids were more likely to choose the party path through college than those from lower social classes.[2] One interviewee, who was a transfer, noticed that both at his previous college and Trinity, kids on scholarship generally worked harder than the kids whose parents paid for it. (Ruby, 29) From our findings we were able to conclude that socioeconomic standing plays a vital role in how one is perceived and interacted with while on Trinity’s campus. Both students and faculty at Trinity pass judgment on students regarding their financial standing, and both have been proven to treat students thought to be from lower classes differently.

 

Another key theme we found was the impact of race in social interactions on Trinity’s campus. Often times, these may go unnoticed, but 11 out of the 17 interviewees actually had a high perception of the racial barriers present at Trinity College. In the book Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? Tatum outlines the stages of racial identity formation and how that impacts a child as they advance through the stages.[3] In her theory Tatum outlines how a child of color initially has very little understanding of their racial identity. As a child ages, they become more aware of the impact of racism and begin to disassociate themselves with the dominant white culture. Finally the child, now a young adult, emerges through the closing stage committed to the greater African American community, but also accepting of white people and white culture.[4] One of the themes from her book applicable here at Trinity is the actual cafeteria stereotype itself. Nearly every interviewee mentioned something about the racial divide in Mather Hall, and how there is one side typically used by white – athletic students and one side for the minority students. (Kirsten, 18) One possible explanation could be that race can be a dividing factor because “people tend to gravitate towards people of their own background or ethnicity.” (Serafino, 34) This could be amplified by the small percentage of minority students on campus, however. Our findings demonstrate how the immersion/emersion phase of Tatum’s racial identity development theory can impact social interactions amongst students on Trinity’s campus. Students of color begin to realize the racism in their society and tend to hang out with only those of their own race and avoid white culture, which could prove to be the explanation for the segregation found in Mather.[5] However, the segregation on campus will not end until students of both races take the initiative to put aside any and all racial assumptions and make an effort to interact with members of the community who are of different races. Without this, no progress will ever be made and the segregation found around Trinity’s campus will continue to be perpetuated.

 

Another common theme is that the interviewee’s play down the prevalence or effects of racism on campus; some white students even had very little recognition of racial barriers on campus whatsoever. Our findings in this instance are consistent with those of Lee in Unraveling the Model Minority Stereotype. One reason that many white students may not realize the racial barriers present for minority students at Trinity is that they are unaware that racism is existent at Trinity.  In her study, Lee uncovered that many white students “spoke proudly of the diversity of the student population and boasted that students of all races got along with each other.” [6] In all actuality, however, many of the students that Lee interviewed participated in “busting,” a form of passive racism, which is essentially a form of bullying through racial jokes. The white students viewed this as acceptable because it signified “good interracial relations.”[7] However, the reality was that minority students were actually extremely offended by the jokes. We also uncovered several examples of this. One non-white student illustrated just how prevalent passive racism is on Trinity’s campus stating that “people tend to assume incorrectly that I automatically have certain interests. Which isn’t true.” (Juan, 4) This type of racism generally is not done maliciously or on purpose, but rather it exists due to a general acceptance of racial stereotypes by white students. It is possible that many of the students at Trinity are from primarily upper class areas and have little experience with diversity. The absence of consistent interaction with students of other races could explain why passive racism is so widespread at Trinity. However, as stated above, many minority students also play down the impacts of racism on Trinity’s campus. One non-white student laughed after being asked if she had experienced any racism in her daily interactions at Trinity saying: “Not so much people are like – like, blatantly racist. You know, but they make assumptions that people are Asian they’re gonna be great at, like, the sciences and, yeah.” (Ruby, 30) When minority students play down the impact of passive racism it just perpetuates the racial stereotypes present at Trinity and reaffirms the dominance of white culture on Trinity’s campus.

 

Socioeconomic status and race are crucial in the social fabric of Trinity’s campus. From our class readings: Paying for a Party, Why are all the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? and Unraveling the Model Minority Stereotype; we were able to identify several themes regarding socioeconomic status and race that parallel our findings from interviews conducted with Trinity sophomores. Students have been proven to perpetuate racial stereotypes both through general assumptions and daily interactions, while treating those who are perceived to be from lower socioeconomic statuses differently from those assumed to be upper class.  It is evident that race and social class play a defining role in ones social life on campus at Trinity College. Although this discrimination is often passive, and can come in many different forms, it is prevalent nonetheless, and is negatively affecting Trinity students. One must only look around or listen to a conversation to find this to be true, and unless students of all races take considerable action, the culture on this campus will not change.


[1] Armstrong, Elizabeth A., and Laura T. Hamilton. Paying for the party: how college maintains inequality. Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 2013.

[2] Armstrong, Elizabeth A., and Laura T. Hamilton. Paying for the party: how college maintains inequality. Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 2013.

[3] Tatum, Beverly Daniel. Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? and other conversations about race. New York: BasicBooks, 1997.

[4] Tatum, Beverly Daniel. Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? and other conversations about race. New York: BasicBooks, 1997.

[5] Tatum, Beverly Daniel. Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? and other conversations about race. New York: BasicBooks, 1997.

[6] Lee, Stacey J.. Unraveling the “model minority” stereotype: listening to Asian American youth. New York: Teachers College Press, 1996.

[7] Lee, Stacey J.. Unraveling the “model minority” stereotype: listening to Asian American youth. New York: Teachers College Press, 1996.

Race in the Admissions Process

Posted on

This essay was assigned to be written from the perspective of a race advocate, and does not necessarily represent the views of the author.

Colin Cahill

10/1/13

Color and Money

Race in Admissions Considerations

“The issue of affirmative action at our nation’s top universities excites much interest and controversy in part because it goes to the very heart of what Americans mean by equal opportunity and meritocracy.” [1] For citizens of the United States today, admission to college, and more specifically an elite university, is the gateway to the American dream.[2] A degree from an elite institution brings with it not only prestige, as well as increased employment and wage opportunities, but is what Americans view as the driving force behind social mobility today. However, even with the continued use of affirmative action at elite schools, there is still little racial diversity; calling into question whether the current system of college admissions today allows for higher education to be the great equalizer, or in contrast, acts as a format to benefit wealthier and predominately white applicants.  In the last several weeks, our seminar class was given an intimate look at the college process from the admission’s officer’s viewpoint. We undertook the challenge of reading through the applications of fifteen students applying to “The College,” placing a numerical ranking on them, and deciding whom to admit, deny or waitlist. We created a rating system by which each application was given a series of points correlating with various traits such as: GPA, test scores, extracurricular activities, race, demographics, etc. As an admissions team, we did not create as diverse of a class as we had hoped, but we did succeed in creating equal opportunity for minority students, and constructed a process for legally considering diversity in our admission system.

College admissions officers today face a daunting task. Hundreds of thousands of students apply to American universities each year, and it is the task of these officers to utilize an incredibly complex system of variables to decide the fate of each applicant. In the United States, about 15 percent of all students who graduate from high school are black; however, out of the colleges contacted in a recent New York Times poll, just one institution boasted a graduation rate above 70 percent with as many black students enrolled in its freshman class.[3] Hispanics are even more underrepresented at elite institutions, as they are more likely to attend two year, community colleges.[4] To remedy this, colleges across the United States have made use of affirmative action to place more priority on minority applicants.

As an admissions team, we were also presented with the challenge of creating an admissions system that factors diversity into our decisions. As we learned from Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, it is illegal to have a set percentage of minority students that gain acceptance in collegiate institutions, as any fixed percentage or number is a quota system. [5] However, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the judges upheld that the use of a “plus system” was in fact legal, and the importance of affirmative action was also reaffirmed.[6] We ultimately created a more advantageous approach to color conscious admissions by utilizing our own “plus system.” To do this, we assigned a numerical value from one to three, to be used in the applicants’ total points ranking, based on racial diversity. This allowed one’s ethnic background, and other diversifying traits such as sexuality and nationality, to benefit minority applicants in the admissions process.

After analyzing the data used in our admissions process, it is evident that the value given to applicants’ diversity was a deciding factor in how applicants were ranked, and ultimately, in whom we chose to admit. By eliminating the diversity value placed on each applicant, I found that thirteen of the fifteen applicants would have had different rankings. Only two of the top five ranked applicants were still present in the top five, while the fifth applicant’s cumulative ranking placed him tied for eighth with what was previously the twelfth ranked applicant.[7] This further reinforced the necessity to include a diversity quotient in admission considerations as the average diversity value of the top five rated applicants was 2.2, while the average diversity value of the top five rated applicants without the diversity quotient included was just 1.7. [8]

Our admissions team offered nine applicants admission, with three being admitted outright in the first round and six off the waitlist. In the initial rounds of waitlist applicants, diversity was of foremost consideration. We took into account that many of the minority students applying were from low socioeconomic backgrounds and attempted to create as much equal opportunity as possible.[9] However, as we progressed, our team became less concerned with diversity or equal opportunity and more concerned with accepting the best holistic applicant that would accept our offer of admission, and therefore diversity was not as strongly emphasized. However, we were left with a substantial financial aid budget, and realized that applicants that were of low socioeconomic backgrounds and required ample financial aid were more likely to accept.[10] Therefore, we did put added emphasis on those who were of lesser means, and in doing so strove to create more equal opportunity for those of lower financial standing in our applicant pool. Nonetheless, two of the three applicants that enrolled, Caitlin Quinn and Jazmine Hope-Martin, had diversity quotients of one and were from upper and middle class financial standing.[11] This is not to say that the incoming freshman from this pool of applicants are not diverse, as diversity is constituted by many variables from ethnicity to geographical location and even political beliefs, but the diversity score of the applicants that were enrolled is lower than what we had hoped.

Our admission’s team unfortunately did not succeed in creating as diverse of a class as we had intended, however we attempted to admit as many students of a diverse background as possible and create equal opportunity for the students in our applicant pool. Future admissions officers of “The College” may be better served to assign a higher quotient range for diversity in their ranking systems. This would allow diversity to then play a larger role in admissions decisions and create more opportunity for students of diverse backgrounds to be ranked higher and thereby have a greater chance of being accepted in the first round.[12] Although the diversity quotient of our freshman class was lower than what we had hoped, we succeeded as an admissions team in creating an admissions process that legally factored diversity into admissions considerations. We drew up our own “plus system” after learning, from the Grutter v. Bollinger case, that it is legal to use race as a factor in admissions.[13] In addition, we attempted to create as much equal opportunity as possible by using race and socioeconomic standing as deciding factors in our decisions. Even though our admissions team may not have succeeded in creating the most diverse freshman class, I feel that those who did enroll in “The College” have much to offer both the school and its community.


[1] Carnevale, Anthony Patrick, and Stephen Jay Rose. Socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and selective college admissions. New York: Century Foundation, 2003.

[2] [2] Stevens, Mitchell L.. Creating a class: college admissions and the education of elites. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007.

[3] KELLER, JOSH. “At Elite Colleges, an Admissions Gap for Minorities – Interactive Feature – NYTimes.com.” The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/07/education/college-admissions-gap.html?_r=0 (accessed October 1, 2013).

[4] KELLER, JOSH. “At Elite Colleges, an Admissions Gap for Minorities – Interactive Feature – NYTimes.com.” The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/07/education/college-admissions-gap.html?_r=0 (accessed October 1, 2013).

[5] University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S. Ct. 2733, 57 L. Ed. 2d 750 (1978).

[6] Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 123 S. Ct. 2325, 156 L. Ed. 2d 304 (2003).

[7] 4th round review, Color and Money Admissions Simulation Data, Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

[8] 4th round review, Color and Money Admissions Simulation Data, Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

[9] Stevens, Mitchell L.. Creating a class: college admissions and the education of elites. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2007.

[10] 5th round review, Color and Money Admissions Simulation Data, Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

[11] 4th round review, Color and Money Admissions Simulation Data, Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

[12] 4th round review, Color and Money Admissions Simulation Data, Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

[13] Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 123 S. Ct. 2325, 156 L. Ed. 2d 304 (2003).