Category: Uncategorized

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

 

Race Isn’t Just a Color Thing

Written by: Jasmine Gentry

When asked to “create a class” that will be entering The College represented by we admissions officers, who recently applied to college, the task seemed quite simple. We were gravely mistaken. The task was to narrow down the applicant pool from fifteen students to three based on overall ratings while taking into consideration academics, extracurricular activities, personal interest in The College, and background. Once all fifteen applicants were ranked, a financial aid round ensued, and acceptance letters were sent out in batches. The first three students who accepted the offer to attend The College were admitted. Our simulation, though legal, experienced a few hiccups that prevented the admittance of the best possible class due to a lack of equal educational opportunity. These hiccups, though seemingly small, held prospective students’ futures in their hands. These hiccups may be better known as over subjectivity, personal opinion, or ignorance of necessary qualifications. Our own biases weren’t the only obstacles. The College allocated us with an extremely small financial aid budget that was seemingly impossible to work with. In part, it’s evident that The College needs to rethink priorities: a phenomenal class or a cheap class? It was extremely hard for our group of admissions officers to decide what made a student qualified and the weight each aspect of the students’ application should carry. This may seem arbitrary since this was our first simulation, but the “reasoning” behind our inability to decide was pure ignorance of what it takes to be the best candidate for The College. Without that knowledge, the chance a student had in order to attend The College was extremely biased based on who was speaking in the discussion room. Our hiccups led to the absence of equal opportunity. Equal means something applies to a whole, a collective. Opportunity is a chance.  Equal opportunity in education is thus a chance for all students to be provided the best education.

Let’s start by addressing the simulation as a whole. There were no legal breaches in our simulation (the head of admissions made sure of it). However, the morality of our decision remains in question. Let’s face it; the simulation was completely biased based on the officer who was reviewing the application. Our personal beliefs of what was most important or notable affected the rating a certain student was given. For example, a big emphasis was placed on whether or not a student was private or public schooled and whether or not they had a good interview. Ironically enough, the officers who focused on these aspects presented the same characteristics in their own applications. Now, it may be said that those qualities are important, however, the high school a student attended and whether or not he or she interviewed isn’t necessarily controlled by the student.  There are extenuating circumstances that weren’t taken into consideration because of an officer’s point of view. We should’ve been looking at students with character. Character is built from background: race being an extremely influential factor. Why? Because if a student isn’t the same race as the majority of the students that will be attending The College, a certain stereotype implants itself, with the help of society, into the head of the minority student. There are common stereotypes that have made themselves prevalent in today’s society. Think about it, Black students are ghetto, Hispanic students can’t speak English, Asian students like math and only math, European students are rich and snobby, white students still can’t get over white supremacy. These never-fading ideas are implanted in the minds of children because society tells them it’s true. We build ourselves up on what we think we are, so if we think we’re a part of the stereotype, that’s where we will fall. It’s said that history repeats itself and therefore, “…race is an especially important aspect of diversity and deserves special attention because of the continuing salience of race and the historic, legalized race-based discrimination that existed in the United States.” (Katherine). Now, it has been said that the best candidates for The College will be good students despite outstanding circumstances, but in all honesty, the best students exist because of the outstanding circumstances.

The next question that arises is: did we create the best possible class? No. The best possible class would be culturally diverse, athletically talented, from all social classes, academically sound, artistically creative, composed of leaders and followers, and ultimately unique. The goal for The College is to provide the diversity that acts as a driving force for students to become “better learners and more effective citizens,” (Haas). We tried to create this kind of class in the beginning when we first created overall ratings, but when we reached the financial aid portion of acceptance, our ratings meant almost nothing. In order to accept our top three applicants a financial aid budget of $90,486 deemed necessary (Decision Day). Our budget was $80, 000 including a $10,000 merit scholarship for one applicant (Correspondence). We were more than $10,000 over budget and thus turned to our next candidate who unfortunately needed $47,740 in financial aid. Four out of the five of our top candidates were racially diverse; however, they required the most financial aid and therefore were declined admittance (Decision Day). When all is said and done, an equal opportunity at education is impossible due to the unavailability of funds to compensate need. We ended up looking for a stereotypical clique of classic students that would inhabit The College, instead of students with potential, because we couldn’t afford them.

It’s ironic that race, and the need for financial aid are so closely related, considering the fact that America, and its’ education especially, is supposedly a place where equal opportunity thrives. Anyone is supposed to be accepted into the American society since we’re a melting pot, and every child has the right to a good education since education is the key to success. Oddly enough, if your race lands you in the minority category, a true struggle ensues regarding your educational opportunities. In the case of this simulation, race was considered when looking for diversity, but had to be overlooked when looking at finances. When it comes down to it, if the financial aid budget is too small to admit the best possible class, then funds elsewhere need to be reallocated in order to compensate for those students who are minorities and stuck needing assistance due to the color of their skin since our society is set up to put them in a certain social class as a result. The same schools that turn away students based on their need also pull strings for athletes who aren’t necessarily academically qualified to attend said school. Schools with athletic teams tend to recruit students based on athletic ability, what they see on the field, not their test scores or report cards. Admissions offices are challenged to accept star athletes because the athletic record is just as important as the academic record. Every school wants to be in the limelight one way or another (Winters). Maybe some different strings need to be pulled.

All in all, race is a necessity when trying to build a diverse and best possible class for any college, The College especially. This is because the diversity of race breeds diversity in culture and a set of students, each having a completely different outlook on life. College is about more than overpriced textbooks and a high GPA; it’s about learning to function in the world, not just your hometown; it’s about a loss of ignorance and a gain of experience. “Whether we’re dealing with high school kids, middle school kids, graduates or undergraduates, by helping them to understand how to own and be accountable for their passion we do a lot of good things. One of those things is to increase diversity,” – Richard Cherwitz (Parr).Having a class with the most diverse students takes race in as a huge factor because race tends to tie with origin and that allows a school to branch out across the country and the world. If colleges didn’t branch out, the students that attend their schools would be virtually the same person with a different hair color. All students would be from the same areas, social standards, backgrounds, and lifestyles. The only benefit for all upper class black students to study together, while elsewhere, all lower class white students study together is for each group to learn about how they all have the same background with subtle differences. That defeats the purpose of education, of branching out, of broadening horizons. College is about more than a degree. It’s about learning how to show some humanity because you understand humanity. If the opportunity to experience other cultures is taken away, what’s the point in growing up if nothing has changed since high school? Race consideration isn’t just a black and white thing; it’s a people thing.

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Correspondence from Dean of Admissions (from simulation), Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall 2013,http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

Decision Day (from simulation), Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

Haas, Mark. “Research Shows Diverse Environment Has Educationalbenefits.” Research Shows Diverse Environment Has Educationalbenefits. The University Record, 22 Mar. 1999. Web. 04 Oct. 2013.

Parr, Chris, chris.parr@tsleducation.com. “Positive Efforts To Increase Diversity Without Prejudice.” Times Higher Education 2117 (2013): 26-27. Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 1 Oct. 2013.

Reed, Katherine. “Two Arguments For Race-Conscious Admissions Policies.” American Journal Of Education 119.3 (2013): 341-345. Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 1 Oct. 2013.

Winters, Carla A., and Gerald S. Gurney. “Academic Preparation Of Specially-Admitted Student-Athletes: A Question Of Basic Skills.” College And University 88.2 (2012): 2-9. ERIC. Web. 4 Oct. 2013.

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

 

The college admissions process has become increasingly complex in recent decades. The value of a college degree  is increasing, creating a bigger demand for students to apply and enroll. Colleges are pressured not only to accept the best and most deserving students, but also to accept students of minority races. This system can become quite unfair to those students who are not in minority races. The admissions process used in the simulation by The College, chose to consider race as a factor (Decision Day). Though the system that the admissions representatives at The College elected to use was done legally, and in accordance with the Constitution; it was not done solely on applicants’ merit. Therefore, it violates color-blind proponents’ values about how race shouldn’t be considered in the process.The financial aid budget of seventy thousand dollars was distributed appropriately based on the need each admitted student had expressed. The admissions officers, instructed to admit the best possible entering class, chose not to weigh race heavily, but because they chose to included it, conflicts with the belief that the admissions process should be judged exclusively on merit.

Merit in the college admissions process means that the applicants is judged on how they performed and excelled as students both in and out of the classroom. This includes, but is not limited to high school GPA, standardized test scores, extracurricular activities, leadership roles, and any academic awards or honors the student may have earned. By viewing the student from a perspective without including their racial identity, it creates an objective view of them and their application. In the simulation of The College, the process was legal, the admissions team factored in race into the applicant-scoring process, creating a color-conscious approach rather than the more favorable merit based and color-blind approach (Decision Day). A race-blind admissions process, especially in 2013, is difficult because colleges want to be able to advertise that they have a diverse campus. The College wants to be able to show potential applicants that they are a community that values diversity. Having a diverse campus can add to the quality of the education not only for students, but also for faculty and staff. However, colleges should not have to sacrifice the quality of their entering class because they are focused on creating a diverse one. In the simulation of The College, race was not a pivotal factor, yet, it did have some impact on the outcome of many of the applicants. On decision day, the  number generator spit out numbers of whether the student the admissions officers chose to admit was revealed, the admissions team was left with the hard choice of going down the list of applicants and their rankings. Applicants were skipped over for ones that were lower down on the ratings scale because they were not members of a minority group, or would cost The College too much. For example, Lisa Wu had a higher cumulative admissions score, but The College’s admissions committee chose to pass over her. Instead, the committee chose to admit Daniel Juberi, who had a lower cumulative admissions score than Lisa Wu (Decision Day). This is violating the ideal that the admissions process should be color-blind. By skipping over applicants because they aren’t a minority, or a certain gender, the committee is determining their decision based on personal qualities, not based on their academic and extracurricular profiles.

Applicants to The College should be evaluated based on their academic and extracurricular profiles. It is important that The College accepts students who have academic records and profiles that indicate that they will succeed in college. Applicants’ extra-curricular activities and involvement in the community are a good indicator of whether or not the student will be a successful college student. The quality of the candidate is what should determine the outcome of their admission decision, not their race or ethnicity. In fact, the race and ethnicity of the student shouldn’t be included in the application. Of course, every college wants to have a diverse student body.  Yet, does this mean that colleges, specifically The College, should sacrifice the caliber of their admitted students in favor of a campus that is not homogeneous? “The problem is that few students who receive a preference realize that their entering academic credentials are well below the institutional median” (Heriot 453). If colleges accept a minority student that does not necessarily have the best credentials, they are less likely to be successful in their college career. Students who are struggling to keep up with the workload will not get as much out of their college experience. So, it is advantageous for colleges to admit students who are best suited for success not only during their time at the college, but also after they graduate.

Institutions of higher education such as The College need to maintain their reputation of being a selective and elite school. In order to do this, they must admit the best applicants.  This idea is flawed and affected somewhat based on applicants who may qualify for financial aid. Applicants to The College who are not a minority and who will cost the college money are not as desirable. As James Jackson argues, affirmative action is intended at helping the minority students, but it just ends up leaving the white applicants at a disadvantage.  Jackson feels that the main reasoning and rationalization for affirmative action is to right the wrongs of generations past (Jackson). The admission process should give equal opportunity to everyone, regardless of their race. However, trying to create a campus that is diverse, can cause the admissions team to stray away from the real mission of the admissions team:  to create the best possible class. Having the knowledge of a person’s racial or ethnicity could also bring personal biases of admissions officers to the forefront.

There have been Supreme Court cases in recent years that were brought forward by white plaintiffs who feel that they were rejected by that particular institution because of their race. In the 2003 Supreme Court Case “Gratz v. Bollinger”, Jennifer Gratz argued that she was denied admission to the undergraduate school at the University of Michigan because she was white and the point system used to assess the applicants was not fair. The point system gave an automatic twenty points to applicants who were a member of a minority group. The Court decided that race was allowed in the admissions process but that the point system had to be overhauled (Rehnquist). The system that The College used in the admissions simulation was a point system. And although the point scale was much smaller than the one used at the University of Michigan, the fact that any points at all were allotted to minority students is not assessing the applicants on their merit alone (Rehnquist). Just how color-conscious advocates favor allowing race to be a factor and then would therefore agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Gratz case, advocates of a merit-based admission would disagree with how the Supreme Court ruled in this controversial and highly scrutinized case in 2003. There are conflicting views about how or if race is included in the college admission process. These conflicting views are not only problematic for students, but also for the administrators who are involved in the admissions process of higher education. Affirmative action is problematic for college administrators because of the constant struggle to give equal educational opportunity to all students, regardless of race.

The admissions simulation of The College brought  key issues about race and money to the surface. The admissions officers chose to skip over certain applicants based on their financial need and their race (Decision Day). The financial need of the applicants didn’t have a very large impact on their admission. The budget was large enough and was distributed strategically enough that all applicants received their expressed need. The merit based grant was a bonus, and the admissions committee used it wisely when it was awarded to Jazmine Hope-Martin. The system  the admissions officers created and participated in is not a complete merit-based system. Knowledge of the applicants’ races were clearly marked on their application and they were even granted points for being a member of a minority group (Decision Day). Though the points were unsubstantial, they were points nonetheless. Though this is Constitutionally legal, this is contradictory to the beliefs of people who value student academic and extracurricular performance in college admission. The admissions team at The College did not use the best system or methods to admit the three applicants. In the future, The College should not include any points in their point system for race of the applicant. If the race or ethnicity of the student is mention in passing, that is okay, but it should not become a component in the total points. In terms of financial aid, The College did a  good job of allocating aid to the  applicants based on their expressed need, so I think that this should remain the same in future admissions processes. In all, the class that was admitted, and enrolled was strong; these applicants will be flourishing members of The College community.

#####

Works Cited

 

Decision Day (from in class simulation), Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

Gratz Et Al v Bollinger Et Al. The Supreme Court of The United States. 23 June 2003. Google Scholar. N.p., n.d. Web.

Heriot, Gail. “Just Say No to Affirmative Action.” Springerlink.com (2011): 449-53.EBSCOhost. Web.

Jackson, James S. “Affirmative Action and the Illusion of Racial Equality: “Race Traitors or Fools?”” Black Scholar 33.3-4 (2003): 5-8. Web.

Daniella Salazar

Professor: Jack Dougherty

FYSM Color and Money

10/03/2013

 

MERIT MATTERS

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

1) Does the author present a clear and focused argument or thesis statement in the introduction?  Does it respond to the assignment?

2) Is the author’s reasoning persuasive and well developed?  Are the claims supported with appropriate evidence?  Are counter-arguments fully considered?

Every year the admissions and financial aid offices at The College try to admit the best and most suitable group of applicants.  To do so, they came up with a system that allowed them to give every applicant a fair and legal evaluation of their files. The College only took into consideration merit when reviewing the applicant’s files and did not quantify or acknowledge race. Therefore, every applicant was judged under the same criteria ensuring that everyone had an equal educational opportunity. However, the fact that students were admitted did not mean that they enrolled at The College, and thus, not necessarily the applicants with the best performance ended up attending. Even though the top three students did not enroll, The College ended up with the best possible class to its possibilities.  The financial aid funds available were allocated correctly to try to achieve a well-rounded class, covering the admitted student’s financial needs.

Because it is illegal to take into consideration race as an automatic plus on student’s applications, the admissions office had to come up with a system that judged the applicants with a holistic approach. The Supreme Court case “Gratz and Bollinger”, illustrates a scenario where a Caucasian female, Jennifer Gratz, suits the University of Michigan for using race as a determining criteria on the admissions process. The Supreme Court ruled that giving automatic points for race is not seeking the best interests of the whole entering class and it’s violating Title IV. Based on the Supreme Court’s decisions, the admissions office cannot give automatic extra points for ethnicity or race because that would be discrimination against those who are not minorities (“Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, Petitioners v. Lee Bollinger et al.” 257). Therefore, when going through the applications and ranking and qualifying the students, the admissions office ensured that all of those admitted to the college gain admission under the same parameter and based on their merit.

It is in the college’s best interests to accept those students who excel in both academic and extracurricular areas. These students are the ones who will help the school’s statistics to go up, and thus its position in the national ranking. If that happens, the college would theoretically receive more applications and thus more profit. In order to do so, the admissions office established a criterion that allowed them to take a holistic approach in regards to reviewing the applications. There were four main categories taken into consideration: Academics, extracurricular, legacy and diversity. Each category had a score. Academics and extracurricular were given a score from one to nine, nine being the highest score. For legacy the scores went from zero to one and for diversity from one to three (” Decision Day: Color & Money Admissions Simulation data 2013″). The value of each category shows how important it was when making decisions. The first two criteria, academics and extracurricular, have more numerical value because they are the factors that matter the most in the admissions process, mainly because they show the merit, “character, leadership, and well-roundedness” (Karabel 342), of the student. The last two criteria, diversity and legacy, have less numerical value. This is because, although they are to some extent important, they do not show the students abilities and thus do not fully explain why they would be a valuable addition to the college community.

The college evaluated all their applicants based on their academic accomplishments and overall merit. This granted the applicants with a fair evaluation process because it does not favor any race, by giving it automatic points and also guaranteed that the process was legal. In contrast with the Gratz vs. Bollinger case, the college does not give 20 automatic points to minorities, or give preferences to Caucasians (“Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, Petitioners v. Lee Bollinger et al.” 257). The college operates under a color blind policy and thus offered them the opportunity to excel and stand out by their application. According to this policy, “an individual’s chance to get ahead should not be limited by social origins or by ascribed characteristics such as race or gender…”(Karabel 4). By judging them under the same criteria, and not putting any of the students at a disadvantage because of their class, The College offered them an equal educational opportunity.

Each category covered a different aspect of the application. On one hand we took into consideration grades and quantitative ways of measuring the student. On the other hand we took into consideration the extracurricular activities, recommendations and essays that give us a personal insight of the students core and personality. One of the qualitative ways of measuring the students, was seeing how much diversity they could bring to the college. The diversity category, unlike what many people think, does not measure how different a student is in terms of race, color or social background, but rather on terms of experiences and knowledge. Its purpose is to create a well-rounded class where everyone is different in a unique way so that learning does not happen only on classrooms but on campus as a whole. Considering diversity based on race would not be legal.

The financial aid budget was limited to seventy thousand dollars and it was given to the most qualified students who the college could afford. In order to determine who got the financial aid, the admissions officers ranked the students according to the average score in the categories explained before (” Decision Day: Color & Money Admissions Simulation data 2013″). They also determined how much financial aid they needed and their estimated family contribution. The admissions office prioritized students with the best overall score and covered his or her full financial need, and then tried to adjust other students, well ranked, into the budget. Because the school is committed to cover every student’s full financial need, it cannot overextend its services and thus, it tries to accept those ideal students who it can afford. Therefore, the acceptance letters are sent at different times to ensure that if the students accept the offer we would be able to cover their financial need. Furthermore, every time a student accepts or declines an offer, the budget and admissions decisions have to be revised, to avoid making any mistakes in regards to the financial package.

Despite the fact that the financial aid office had to work with a limited budget in order to admit the students, the students who enrolled still came from different backgrounds. The three applicants who enrolled at The College come from very different backgrounds and have different financial aid packages. For instance, Caitlin Quinn who was ranked at the top of our applicants list needed no financial aid, Jazmine Hope-Martin (ranked sixth in our list ) who got 13,134 dollars in form of a grant, and Daniel Juberi (ranked tenth) , who got 52,477 dollars  (” Decision Day: Color & Money Admissions Simulation data 2013″). Although our top three choices did not enroll at the college, the students who did were still in the top of our list proving that the decision were made based on merit. This shows that during both our admissions and financial aid rounds, merit was always the most important and determining factor, thus ensuring a colorblind approach.

The admissions process involves several variables that the college officers cannot always control. For instance, if a students accepts an admissions offer or not, or if the financial budget allows the college to afford the top applicants. In theory, the simulation of The College did not result on the best possible class because the best three students of the ranking did not enrolled in the college. However, in practice, it did result on the best possible class because the admissions office accepted the best combination of students that we could afford; that matched the school’s profile and that wanted to enroll.

The College’s admissions process prioritized each student’s abilities and development through his or her high school years, taking into consideration both academics and extracurricular activities. It tried to create the best well-rounded class, and in order to accomplish that it took a holistic and yet individualized approach to the applications. Every application was looked at separately but judged under the same criteria, offering the students equal educational opportunity. The admissions officers overlooked race when making decisions and highlighted merit following a colorblind policy. The process was legal, for no automatic points were given based on race. The college ended up with the best possible class that it could afford and it granted the students with an opportunity to tell their story in a fair environment.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Stevens, Mitchell . Creating a Class: College Admissions and education of elite : Harvard University Press, 2007. 244. Print.

Karabel, Jerome. The Chosen. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 4. Print.

United States. Supreme Court of the United States . Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, Petitioners v. Lee Bollinger et al.. 2003. Print. <http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/results/docview/attachRetrieve.do?csi=6443&A=0.8102126476082379&risb=21_T18279650746&urlEnc=ISO-8859-1&inline=y&smi=41696&key=48X4-Y610-004B-Y02D-00000-00&componentseq=1&type=pdf>.

” Decision Day: Color & Money Admissions Simulation data 2013.” . Trinity College. Web. 1 Oct 2013. <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtmGKybdRLlZdEVIZmJGSnlFMEwyMnQyTW5JVWpmR3c

Stevens, Mitchell. Creating a Class. United States of America: Harvard University Press, 2009. 31-51. Print.

Killgore, Leslie . Review of Higher Education. 32. (2009): 471. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://ej4da6xn7z.search.serialssolutions.com/?genre=article&isbn=&issn=01625748&title=Review of Higher Education&volume=32&issue=4&date=20090601&atitle=Merit and Competition in Selective College Admissions&aulast=Killgore, Leslie&spage=469&sid=EBSCO:ERIC&pages=469-488>.

Karabel, Jerome. The Chosen. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 342. Print.

 

 

Will Sleeper

10/4/13

Color and Money

Persuasive Essay #1: Merit Matters

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

     After completing the admissions simulation, it is clear that the process of selecting candidates is something administrators have been struggling with for a while due to the many factors that build up a resume. Weighing the importance of these factors is very difficult, as most of it has to do with personal preference of the given administrator looking at the candidates. For example, one’s race may be valued for the diversity the student would bring to the community. In addition, the family’s income may be seen as worthy of consideration with no need for financial assistance and potential future donators in mind. Looking at one’s ability in the academic world and the extracurricular activities they take part in says a lot about an individual and how they would fit in at the school. Those who are better qualified in terms of merit can contribute more to the school’s environment than those who are weaker in this realm. As well as this, the individuals who work hard and have succeeded deserve to be admitted rather than those who are not as qualified academically but benefit from another factor of admissions. Having academic success and extracurricular qualifications are qualities that the candidate can actually control as opposed to things they are born into, such as skin-color, ethnicity and wealth. Although many factors are evaluated in determining a candidate’s acceptance, one’s academic qualifications and extracurricular accomplishments should trump all other elements in order to supply universities with smart, driven, and deserving scholars, thus creating the most enriching atmosphere possible.

     While diversity at a college remains important, the primary piece that makes up the institution exists in the merit of its students. Originating from the Ivy League schools, the merit system was created “to make a society, where everyone has equal opportunity to gain the rewards merited by their efforts and talents” (Pappas, Tremblay 31). Creating a society like this brings out the best in the college and will make for a more prestigious institution. In the simulation of the admissions process for The College, although two out of the first three would bring diversity to The College, these three applicants were very strong in terms of their merit. Administrators still act out in the interest of meritocracy when a student is admitted strictly in terms of merit, but they would happen to bring diversity as well (Decision Day, Simulation Data). In earning one’s position in a university’s enrollment through academic success, a student brings the qualities that allowed them to succeed in secondary education, such as persistence, diligence, and the desire to improve, to this new scholastic institution, creating an environment where learning and personal development can flourish as one. While meritocracy benefits the university’s prestige, it also properly rewards those who rightfully earn their position in the student body.

        Throughout high school, kids motivate themselves with the idea of getting admitted to their college of choice, using this notion to pursue their academic endeavors and to persist through the many obstacles thrown their way. While a higher-level degree is the ultimate target, the college acceptance letter is the short-term goal for most ambitious high school scholars. Behind nearly every decision made, whether it is about running for class president or taking that extra AP class, is the thought of how it will affect their resume. To admit weaker candidates for reasons unrelated to academics refutes the work that many students have worked on for more than four years. Whether it be for reasons related to their skin-color or their family’s affluence, taking in candidates with less impressive academic credentials sends a message to those who prove more worthy for the spot that their dedication throughout high school did not matter. On the situation where race trumps academic merit, Professor Shin of Brigham Law University states “… an individual’s race is never by itself a relevant reason for including or excluding him from certain kinds of groups” (Shin 1210). Bringing in this irrelevancy to the admission process discredits the academic success of those who have worked for it and deserve to be recognized. While many recognize the importance of racial diversity in a student body, “… the positive benefits of [such] diversity simply do not register as reasons that could be sufficient to justify selecting directly for diversity” (Shin 1208). Simply put, there is no justification for choosing candidates who would diversify the institution over those who are better qualified, since these other factors are largely based on luck and are not up to the candidate’s decisions.

     Academic accomplishments and extracurricular qualifications are qualities that the candidate can actually control, therefore it is not fair to value things that are a result of chance, such as skin-color, ethnicity, or wealth, against success for which students chose to work. One cannot decide to be born in a highly prosperous family or choose the color of their skin. How is it just to reward students for characteristics that are out of their control? Such selection techniques discourage the candidate’s pursuit of knowledge and scholarly excellence, since they know that other factors– over which they have no ability to alter– contribute to the administrator’s decision just as much, if not more, than their academic qualifications. Accepting students who are less qualified because of these factors that are based on fate not only devalues hard work in high school, but also hurts the institution’s distinction: “Other basic tenets of enrollment must be considered such as maintaining standards, encouraging excellence, and meeting the primary institutional mission statements” (Zink). Universities should not lower their standards in order to accept candidates who have appealing credentials but fall short with their academics, for then they debunk their own worth as a respectable institution. In addition, the students themselves do not even support the rationale behind placing race and ethnicity above merit:

We conducted a survey of college students at the University of South Florida (N = 160) which demonstrates the tension between diversity as an abstract goal and implementing that goal in concrete instances: though fully 70% of participants felt that diversity was an important consideration when deterring the overall composition of an incoming class, just 10% felt that race should factor into any specific decision between two individuals. (Norton 103)

This study shows that while a large majority of students respect the advantages of a diverse community, 90% of the group believes that color-blindness is the most appropriate action in evaluating the legitimacy of candidates. Students –the ones being assessed– do not want to be judged on the things they cannot control because they want to be acknowledged for their successes and years of work.

     Even though college administrators face thousands of applicants a year and need to devise a method of selecting the best group from these contenders, a color-blind selection system based on meritocracy benefits the institution while treating the candidates as fairly as possible. In the class admissions simulation of The College, merit was taken heavily into account but other categories such as race and the diversity a student would bring to The College were looked at too much. Although the process was not illegal, the officers did not abide by the idea of strictly merit when looking at the applicants resumes. By valuing the students’ work and commitment to succeed over anything else, universities bring in the most deserving and qualified applicants while upholding the high standard of excellence for which they strive to maintain. In addition, this system of evaluation motivates students at a young age who seek to qualify for positions in highly acclaimed colleges or universities later on in their lives. As stated by Lana Zink, “it instills in them a desire to strive harder, to take the right courses in high school, and to excel to possible greatness” (Zink). Therefore, acceptance based on merit creates a richer learning environment for not only the higher-level institutions, but also those at the secondary level.

 

Works Cited:

Decision Day, Color and Money Admissions Simulation Data, Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

Norton, Michael I., et al. “COLORBLINDNESS AND DIVERSITY: CONFLICTING GOALS IN DECISIONS INFLUENCED BY RACE.” Social Cognition 26.1 (2008): 102-11. ProQuest. Web. 29 Sep. 2013.

Pappis, Geri, and Christopher W. Tremblay. “Meritocracy the Great American Myth? A Look at Gatekeeping in American Higher Education.” College and University (2010): 29-34.

Shin, Patrick S. “Diversity v. Colorblindness.” Brigham Young University Law Review 2009.5 (2009): 1175-220. ProQuest. Web. 29 Sep. 2013.

Zink, Lana. “Is The Meritocracy Necessary Even At The Doors Of Academe?.” Journal   Of College Admission 157 (1997): 22-29. Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 29 Sep. 2013.

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.

 

Elise Ogden

FYSM

Persuasive Essay

10/4/13

 

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

 

For most high school students, the college admissions process is a long and strenuous one. High school seniors spend weeks slaving away to craft the perfect personal essay, deliver the perfect answers during interviews, and submit the perfect application. Despite all this hard work, once a student presses “Submit” their future is at the mercy of nameless, faceless admissions officers who, many students feel, are in the business of crushing dreams. This, however, is not the case. The admissions process is immensely complicated, and decisions are made based on everything from SAT scores to the personal feelings an officer has about a student. One of these factors has proven particularly contentious: race. Colleges and universities grapple with the moral and legal question of how extensively to factor race into the admissions decision. When our seminar was charged with accepting three out of fifteen applicants to “The College”, we chose to factor in race. When considered legally, race can provide equal educational opportunities to the whole student body, not just the minority applicants who reap the immediate benefits of race-conscious admissions.

In order to have a race-conscious admissions policy, we had to develop a formula for evaluating our applicants. Considering race is a slippery slope, however; it is easy to accidentally use illegal means to help establish diversity. Therefore, we did not give applicants a numerical boost based on race and we did not establish a quota for minority students because both of these actions have been determined unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, in Gratz v. Bollinger and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, respectively. In Gratz, minority applicants to the undergraduate program at the University of Michigan were automatically given a 20 point boost in a system where applicants were evaluated on a scale of 1-100. This was ruled unconstitutional because the admissions process did not give individual consideration to applicants, instead giving a categorical advantage to minority applicants (Gratz v. Bollinger). Nor did we set aside spots for minority applicants, as was ruled unconstitutional in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (University of California Regents v. Bakke).

In our simulation, the diversity value of an applicant was considered holistically and individually, which the case Grutter v. Bollinger ruled constitutional (Grutter v. Bollinger). On a scale of 0-22, we rated each student based on academics (scale of 1-9), extracurricular activities (1-9), family legacy (0-1), and diversity (0-3). The diversity category was not race-specific; we determined that it can be anything that sets an individual apart, from race to sexual orientation to musical skills. We then admitted three applicants who scored high numbers: Caitlin Quinn (18.7), Jazmine Hope-Martin (17.2), and Angelica Parker (18.2). Caitlin was white (resulting in an average of 1.3 out of 3 in the diversity category), Jazmine was Mexican American (a 2.7 out of 3), and Angelica identified as multiracial (2.3 out of 3) (4^th Round). Based on legal precedents, our evaluation of race in the admissions process was legal.

Expanding the diversity of a campus is in the best interests of minority applicants and adds to the environment of the campus in general, so admissions officers try to create the best possible entering class. Our simulation was no different- we attempted to balance academic and extracurricular achievement, while picking applicants who also offered something special. Each of the three applicants we initially admitted (Caitlin, Jazmine, and Angelica) was unique. Caitlin was white, Jewish, attended private school in San Francisco, and was a two-sport varsity captain (Caitlin). Jazmine attended private school in Massachusetts, volunteered with Amnesty International, and was a National Merit semi-finalist (Jazmine). Angelica attended private school in Florida, was recruited for the swim team at The College, and identified as multiracial (Angelica). Despite these differences, the simulation did not result in the best possible entering class. The three original admits were all girls who attended private school. Additionally, as a result of the random number generator, the three students who actually enrolled in the College were Caitlin Quinn, Jazmine Hope-Martin, and Daniel Juberi. Daniel was a much weaker applicant, scoring a 16.7 out of 22, he was African American, and attended private school in Massachusetts (4^th Round). The resulting class was 1/3 white, 1/3 African American, and 1/3 undeclared. All three attended private school, and two were from Massachusetts. Ideally we would have had better regional, educational, and racial mix of students.

Although the class we enrolled was not the best possible one, we did provide equal educational opportunity. For minority students, many of whom come from less privileged backgrounds than their white counterparts, a race-conscious admissions policy helps to give them a more competitive application. By factoring race into the decision, we were given a more compelling reason to accept Daniel Juberi since his academics were less than stellar. A multi-racial college environment is also advantageous to the whole student body. According to Aaron Thomson, professor of sociology at Eastern Kentucky University, diversity provides eight benefits: it “expands worldliness… enhances social development… prepares students for future career success…prepares for work in a global society…increases our knowledge base…promotes creative thinking…enhances self-awareness” (Jacobs). Thomson suggests that racial and ethnic diversity gives students valuable life skills that will help them succeed in college and beyond. Using a race-conscious admissions policy helped to ensure that the campus at The College provided equal and valuable education opportunities to students from all different backgrounds.

In completing the simulation, each member of our seminar developed an individual opinion about how the College should make decisions. I believe that a race-conscious admissions policy is the best way to create a consistently good class. If an admissions team were to consider only merit in their decisions, they would most likely end up with a class of white, upper-class, private school students who were able to afford tutors, SAT prep classes, and expensive club sports teams as well as full tuition to a college. Although these students would be numerically ideal applicants, they would be a homogenous class with little to offer culturally. If an admissions team were to use a class-conscious model, the typical student would likely come from lower-income or urban communities and have less impressive qualifications than their merit-based counterparts. While this would provide heretofore impossible opportunities for many students, it would also put a burden on elite institutions who remain competitive through statistics like the average SAT score and GPA of their students. Colleges and universities would also need to increase their financial aid budget to accommodate for their high numbers of expensive students. In a race-conscious system, however, a college would be more likely to strike a balance between cultural diversity and academic prestige. By factoring in race, the college would provide opportunities to many lower-class applicants, because minority applicants are statistically more likely to come from low-income families. At the same time, having an impressive minority presence in a student population is a competitive and necessary statistic for elite schools. So says Mitchell Stevens in his book Creating a Class, “a racially heterogeneous student body is a marker of a school’s national reach and caliber today” (Stevens 143). Students see diversity as a sign of prestige, so from a marketing standpoint it is critical that a student body be diverse. By factoring in race, admissions officers simultaneously create opportunities for minority students while increasing the prestige and marketability of their school: it’s a win-win.

There are several undeniable benefits to a race-conscious admissions policy. This policy strives to provide benefits to deserving, and generally more economically challenged, applicants. It also promotes equality by attempting to make up for years of excluding minority applicants. It benefits the school because having a large percentage of minority students is a competitive statistic that increases the school’s prestige, and it gives students an opportunity to gain a more global perspective. In our simulation of The College, we chose to factor race into our decision because we felt that including race is a fundamentally important part of the process. In doing so, we took care to make sure our process was legal; we did not employ a quota or point system, because those have been declared unconstitutional. Although the class we admitted was not the absolute best possible, because it is difficult to balance academics, extracurriculars, and diversity, we did the best we could. By not discriminating against anyone and looking at each applicant holistically, we promoted equal educational opportunities. In the future, “The College” should continue to use a race-conscious admissions policy because it allows the admissions to consider applicants from several perspectives and create a diverse and interesting class.

 

Works Cited

Angelica Parker, Simulation Applicant Files, Color & Money seminar at Trinity      College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

Caitlin Quinn, Simulation Applicant Files, Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall  2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

Daniel Juberi, Simulation Applicant Files, Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall  2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 123 S. Ct. 2411, 156 L. Ed. 2d 257 (2003).

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

Jacobs, Jeremy S. Hyman; Lynn F. “Why Does Diversity Matter at College Anyway?”US  News.

U.S.News & World Report, 12 Aug. 2009. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.

Jazmine Hope-Martin, Simulation Applicant Files, Color & Money seminar at Trinity  College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

Stevens, Mitchell L. “Race.” Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of  Elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2007. N. pag. Print.

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

4th Round Review, Color and Money Admissions Simulation Data, Trinity College, Fall  2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

 

 

Nick Bouchard
10/1/13
Color and Money
Jack Dougherty
Color and the Admissions Process
In September of this year, a class run by professor Jack Doughty simulated an admissions process modeled after the Mitchell Stevens’s novel Creating a Class. While there were many issues that came up during the process, one of the most consistently brought up topics was that of race, and the value it should have in the acceptance process. One of the main reasons why this was so heavily debated was because of difficulty executing this process legally. The difficultly comes from how Affirmative Action policies have evolved through many Supreme Court rulings since its creation. Despite the challenges of executing the policies legally, the admissions group decided to have Affirmative Action policies play a significant role through a diversity score that added to the overall score of an applicant. This was because of the overall belief by the group that to have a diverse entering class was highly important in both promoting equal opportunity, and in accepting the highest quality of students in the entering class.

Since it’s implementation in 1965 the issue of Affirmative Action has sparked an enormous amount of controversy. Much of that has to do with this nation’s history with racial prejudice and how we as a nation are trying to make up for the injustices brought against minorities in this country. Nathan Glazer, a critic of Affirmative action has described it as “ineffective” because of how it has further reinforced discrimination and tipped the balance on the other side of the color barrier (Glazer, 1975). An example of this ineffectiveness could be seen in Stevens’s Creating a Class. Stevens confronts this when he has to turn away an impoverished Latvian student because he could not list him as multicultural. This reveals the superficial nature of Affirmative Action by demonstrating how it only works you an applicant has “the right mix of skin color, citizenship, and financial need” (Stevens, 2009). However, despite these detractors, many others see Affirmative Action as not only an example of white guilt, but a policy that can benefit the college culture for the student population overall.

An example of this benefit is what Joane Rabe describes as “unconcious Racism” (Rabe, 2001), a topic discussed in her book Equality, Affirmative Action, and Justice . She states that admitting more diverse students helps break down stereotypes for both the white students towards the minorities, and the minorities towards whites as well. Another example from Rabe is the fact that accepting people from other countries increases the profile of the college itself. By the college doing this they gain an international profile will help increase its revenue in more ways than one. This can been seen in Trinity college. Back before Affirmative Action was enacted, the international student population here was almost nonexistent. Now international students make up more than 4 percent of the total population (International Student, 2013). By having an international presence Trinity college greatly enhances the campus culture by bringing in an international culture. It also helps set up an environment where people from different nations learn to work together and come to understand each other. These policies help build international understanding in a world where international conflict is all too common. It was because of this reasoning that the group chose to let the color conscious policies have an influence on the acceptance of applicants.

Implementing these policies in any significant way however proved to be more complicated than originally thought. This was because of the stances the Supreme Court has taken on the influence Affirmative Action can have in admitting an applicant. Over the decades rules have been set by the Supreme Court so colleges do not turn color conscious policies into discriminating policies. The first instance of this was the Supreme ruling on Bakke vs. University of California (1978). This case involved Allen Blakke, a student who was reject from the university of California multiple time even though there were minorities being let in with lower scores because of a quota the school was trying to hit. The court found this unconstitutional and made it so colleges could not use quotas when admitting minority students.

Another Supreme Court case that greatly affected Affirmative Action in regards to the admissions process was Grutter vs. Bollinger (2003). This case involved a law student who could not get into the University of Michigan’s law school while minorities at a lower academic rank were getting in. She took her case to the Supreme court and while the court upheld the idea that the school could consider race a factor, the school could not use a fixed point system anymore when someone was racially diverse. These restrictions by the Supreme Court made a racially diverse class harder to attain because admissions offices now had to jump through many more legal hoops.

The tactic the group using for these applicants was to give out an applicant a ‘diversity score’. An applicant would receive a score from one to three on how “diverse” they are. Now on the surface this could be seen as conflicting with the Michigan rulings because this involves giving a “fixed score” for ethnic diversity. However an argument could be made that “diversity” is based on other factors as well. An example of this was Cliff Anderson. He was scored a three by many due to not only his race but also for the fact that he is gay. Another example was how many applicants received diversity points for attending a public school. These are examples of how the diversity scale was not solely based on someone’s race, but also on other factors about the person as well.

Overall the acceptance process should be seen as a success in terms of how the quality of the class.The college ended up requiring students of legacy, Spanish, and African American decent. Also, while all the students accepted were from private schools, the process allowed for equal opportunity education because of the students accepted. Out of the nine accepted, over half came from public schools. This shows that at least socioeconomically the playing field has evened out due to this process. Despite all of the students being from private school, the strength of the class is still high because of the diversity. While the students are well off, they have different racial background. They all have different backgrounds and as a result they each have something unique to add to the college culture overall. It is for these reasons that the college admissions group achieved their goals in all three areas at an effective level.
Bibliography:
Glazer, Nathan. Affirmative Discrimination: Ethnic Inequality and Public Policy. New York: Basic, 1975. Print.
Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2013.
Rabe, Johan. Equality, Affirmative Action, and Justice. Hamburg: J. Rabe, 2001. Print.
Stevens, Mitchell L. Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2007. Print.
“Trinity College.” International Student. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2013.

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

             In the admission process of elite education there are many aspects that factor into who will be accepted, declined, waitlisted, who will receive financial aid and how much they will get. In order to come to these decisions, an admission team must narrow down from a huge applicant pool to the lucky few that are offered admission and hopefully end up attending the school. Applicants must present themselves in the best way possible, and sometimes having a certain background can improve an application. At The College applicants are ranked using a numerical system that included high grades, high SAT scores, and a high GPA. One of these enhancing qualities that many admission officers focus on is race. Even so admission officers have to be very cautious in the way they approach race. Since specific races cannot be assigned a numerical value, admission officers have to find a legal way to incorporate it into their decision-making. In the admission decision for The College the category used was diversity and not specifically race. This allowed a numerical value to be assigned to diversity, but it did not define what it meant; whether it was skin tone or an interesting instrument that an applicant played, no definition was set. Since it was an open-ended category, the selection process was legal and fair. Having a Racially diverse classes lead to more interesting and in-depth discussion where many different viewpoints are brought to light. Making it very important to have a color-conscious admission board in order to gain the best possible class.

The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Regents of University of California v. Bakke that schools could not determine whether a student will be accepted based on race. It can be discussed but not given a numerical value (Regents of University of California v. Bakke). This case was kept in close consideration throughout the decision-making process. The College’s admissions committee was color-conscious throughout the process, but never was there a quota or a number assigned to race. Another Supreme Court case that the committee kept in mind was Grutter V. Bollinger where the court stated that race can be a “…modest factor among many others to achieve diversity, but an educational institution must ensure, through sufficient procedures, that each applicant receives individual consideration” (Grutter v. Bollinger).  Although legally schools can categorize race into five general types- “African American/black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and white” (Steven p. 154)- we the admission board still stayed away from these specific definitions and tried not to categorize anyone but look at applicants holistically.

The financial aid that was awarded to our accepted students had nothing to do with race. This was not even mentioned when discussing the amount a student would get; it was based solely on the Trinity College net price calculator, which did not take race into consideration (https://trincoll.studentaidcalculator.com/survey.aspx). All students were rewarded the full amount of financial aid they required keeping it a fair and legal process.

Everything was done legally according to race, but sadly the enrolling class did not show as much diversity racially as it could have and therefore did not result in the best possible entering class. The College ended up with two white girls who only got a one in the diversity portion of the chart and one African American boy (4^th round review). Although there is some diversity, looking at all of our applicants there could have been even more.  Out of three admitted and enrolled students one was not the admission board’s top choice. Even looking at the applicants who were higher up on the list of who to accept, there still would not have been much racial diversity. A racially diverse entering class brings different cultures, beliefs, and traditions creating an invigorating environment. Also because students will have come from so many different backgrounds, there is a plethora of opinions that will be brought to class discussion and interactions among students. Not only is diversity important for in-class discussion but a diverse college also can have benefits for life after college. Diversity in “…higher education prepares students to become involved as active participants in an increasingly diverse society” (Dancy). In one of her articles Heather C. Hills writes about how in two of her classes one with all white students and one with black students the discussion was very different. “Students in the morning class were prompted to think about African Americans and their interests…” prompting interesting and passion-filled discussion (Hill). This was completely lacking in her afternoon class that had no diversity. The College’s entering class will not be totally lacking in racial diversity but there is still not a lot of it.  Therefore, in the simulation it is not the best possible class that will be entering The College.

Even though this is not the most diverse entering class, there is still an equal educational opportunity for the students. It is not a solely white class one, of the entering students is an African American. Therefore interesting class discussions will still happen because there is different backgrounds within the classroom setting and therefore different viewpoints. If it has been an all white class to be accepted class discussion might have been good but they would be lacking more diverse perspectives. When all the students are in class they will compliment each other and no one will be at a disadvantage.

                The admission board should continue to practice a color conscious outlook in future years. A very important method that was used during the admission process was looking at applicants as a whole not as individuals. Every applicant was given an equal opportunity to present themselves in the best light. No one person made the decision about an applicant. Many different people reviewed the files to avoid anyone’s bias or personal feelings. Also a numerical system was used to rate applicants. Once every admission board member rated the applicants those numbers were used to rank applicants in order of most desired to least desired.

The College’s admission board should focus on accepting a diverse student body in order to have a unique class with many perspectives. One of the definitions of diversity is race but that is not the sole definition. Since there is such a fine line between legal and illegal when it comes to discussing race, the word diversity allows the board to discuss race legally. This crates a policy that ensures a diverse incoming class racially.

Overall the process used by the admission board was legal and fair when it came to the aspect of race. By using the word diversity race could be discussed legally. It was noted which students were racially diverse, but that was not a deciding factor on whether they gained acceptance. This is very important because having a racially diverse student body is very crucial. The College tried very hard in accepting a diverse class, which should always be done in order to have unique perspectives, different traditions and different backgrounds on the campus. A color- conscious admission board will always allow for the best entering class possible and should always be strongly considered throughout the admission process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works cited

Dacny, T. Elon, II. “Beyond Affirmative Action in College: Fostering Culturally Responsive Climates in a Political World.” Ebsco Host. N.p., 1 Sept. 2011. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.

 

Grutter v. Bollinger Et. Al. Supreme Court. 23 June 2003.

 

Hills, Heather C. “The Importance of Minority Perspective in the Classroom.” The Chronicle Of Higher Education. N.p., 7 Nov. 1997. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.

 

Net Price Calculator. Program documentation. Trinity College Net Price Calculator. Trinity College, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.

 

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Supreme Court. 28 June 1978. Print.

 

Stevens, Mitchell L. Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2007. Print.

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

Jonathan Oh Persuassive Essay: The Admission Process of The College and Applicants

 

The Admission Process of The College and Applicants’ Merit
The admission process is now done. The admission officers spent about a month to decide whom they let into The College. Out of fifteen applications, the admissions officers had to choose three. The complicated selection process included checking each applicant’s quality, which was very time consuming. After the process was done, the officers were asked to answer several questions about why and how the admission and financial aid process worked, how the selection system can be improved, through the point of view of merit matters (on the other word, color-blind). However, merit matters (or color-blind) in this process do not mean only one’s grades or standardized test scores. The dictionary definition of merit is: “the quality of being particularly good or worthy” (Dictionary.com). The process of accepting students into The College requires checking not only one’s grades and standardized test scores, but also extracurricular, skin color, background culture, where she or he is from, and financial status, all facts that can affect the admission decision.
The admission officers were first asked, “Was the admissions and financial aid process legal?” (Dougherty 1). Since the importance of higher education is continually growing, the admission officers of The College have worked on the process very carefully. The college admissions process has become a serious and sensitive social issue. For example, in the “Grutter vs. Bollinger” case, which was brought to even the Supreme Court of the United States, Barbara Brutter, a female Michigan resident, filed the suit, “alleging that respondents had discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Grutter vs. Bollinger). She also claimed “that she was rejected because the Law School uses race as a “predominant” factor” (Grutter vs. Bollinger). The admission officers of The College were aware of the importance of a fair, effective admission system, in order to prevent several complicated troubles.
They created the “Grand Total Rating” (GTR) system, which can grade each applicant’s academic achievement, extra curriculums, diversity, and legacy. Each section has a different scale: academic achievement section has one to nine points, extra curriculum section has one to nine points, diversity section has one to three points, and having legacy section has zero to one point. The seventeen admission officers of The College reviewed each student and transferred each student’s general qualities into statistic data through the GTR system. Obviously, a student with a higher GTR is more likely to receive the acceptance letter than an applicant with a lower GTR.
The reason why a student with a higher GTR point is “more likely” to get accepted is because the admission process and the financial aid process are two separated things. This is how the financial aid process worked: the admission officers calculated the “Grand Total Rating” (GTR) of each student, and then the financial aid officers would decide whether the applicant is worth spending money for and The College’s budget could afford each applicant, highly based on the applicants’ GTR points.
Unfortunately, The College is not a need-blind school, which means that each student’s financial status can be an important factor of the admission process. If the student does not seem financially able to afford The College, and The College cannot give enough money for the student to come to The College, the student may not get the acceptance letter. By the amount of the financial aid each student needed, the student might be considered after applicant who had the lower GTR.

Throughout the whole process, the officers have tried their best to make sure that every single step of the admission process was legal, effective, and “reasonable”. For example, one may argue that it is unfair to include diversity section on the GTR system. Yes, the officers did add “diversity”, which can indicate to students’ given, physical appearance, such as skin colors. However, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that “admissions program that gave special consideration for being a certain racial minority did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment (Grutter vs. Bollinger); in America, it is officially fair to count minorities’ skin colors in the admission office process of college. Furthermore, the skin color does not indicates only the given, physical appearance. Several thousand years ago, when humans did not have scientific transportations and lived in one area for several generations, skin colors meant more than simple physical appearance; it referred to the environment, religion, ideology, and culture. Even though the meaning of “diversity” has got weaker than ever, it still means one’s cultural background. When the College admission officers included “diversity” section on the GTR system, they wanted to have different kinds of students from different kinds of culture.
As another example, one may argue that it’s unfair that a student with a higher GTR point can be accepted after a student with a lower GTR point due to their financial status. The College is clearly a non-need-blind private educational institute, which surely states that it cannot afford every single student’s needs. It is very frustrating to reject a great student with many talents only because of his or her financial situation. However, if one can’t come to The College because he or she cannot afford it, why would the admission office want to send the acceptance letter to him or her? It sounds ideal and wonderful if the budget of The College could afford all the applicants; however, in reality, it is impossible. Furthermore, The College is a “private” institute and has a right to use its money to whatever it wants to use. The admission officers wanted the best results and balance they could have.

The new admission system worked. The officers sent the regular acceptance letters to four of the applicants and late-acceptance letters (waiting-list letters) to five of them. Out of the nine applicants who received the acceptance letters, three decided to enroll, a fact that makes the enrollment rate about 33.3%; it was the similar percentage to one the officers originally aimed for: 30%. The use of financial aid did not go over the limit. The amount of available financial aid is primarily $70,000, and the admission office spent only $55, 611 totals. These stats indicates that the new system did its job.
The new admission system accepted a variety of students. Caitlin Quinn, the first choice of all the officers, who is a white female student from California with wonderful academic achievement, decided to enroll. Jazmine Hope-Martine, a female student from Massachusetts with outstanding extracurricular experience, decided to enroll. Daniel Juberi, a white male student from Massachusetts, who is recruited as a men’s basketball player, decided to enroll. All the incoming students have strong academic ability; all of them were at least top 20% of the class rank. Juberi is from a public school, while Quinn and Hope-Martine are from private schools. Quinn is from the West Coast, while the other two are from the East Coast. The admission process this year, with a new system, helped The College accept students with different, great qualities.

However, there have been several points that could have been better. For example, the GTR system was a bit vague, especially about the diversity section. It was not clearly defined what “diversity” meant. It could have meant applicants’ skin colors, where they are from, how wealthy their families are, and what kind of different talents they have. The GTR system should have made it clear what the exact meaning of “diversity” was before it influenced the admission process. Before some applicants have questioning the vagueness of the diversity section, the officers should clarify it. If they do not define the exact meaning of “diversity”, the GTR system may have to face some conflicts due to its racial issue.
Also, the officers should have sent the acceptance letters to more than four students at the first place. The College eventually had 33.3% of the enrollment rate, which is not bad, but if the officers thought more realistically, the enrollment rate could have been a higher; once students are in the waiting list, they are less likely to enroll. The officers did not have enough time to prevent this waiting list issue. However, to improve the reputation of The College, they will have to spend more time carefully, creating new system that can prevent the admission process from overusing waiting list system.

Despite the grueling process, the admission officers of The College tried their best to achieve the best result possible to balance between the diversity, financial aid, academic quality of students, and school reputation. Not only because they wanted good grades from their boss, Jack Dougherty, but also because it was the job they wanted to do. There are several points that can be improved. There are several parts that must be better. However, the officers did great job to find new enrolling students, based on students’ merit, “the quality of being particularly good or worthy” (Dictionary.com)

Citation
Dougherty, Jack. “Persuasive Essay: Debating Policy in The College Simulation.” Color and Money. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2013.
“Grutter v. Bollinger.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 09 Oct. 2012. Web. 28 Sept. 2013.
“Merit.” Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 03 Oct. 2013.

Vincent Ye

10/2/13

Professor Dougherty

First Year Seminar: Color and Money

                                                Color and Money: Race and Social Class

Persuasive Essay: Debating policy in The College simulation

 

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

This year The college attracted many applicants, which was a great achievement. Current policies indicated the need to achieve more diversity in race and class representation of students by accepting more diverse students, and this admission campaign was aimed at searching for the best ones. The task was clearly set and we needed to choose three best applicants to meet the goal of the college. As a result, three students Caitlin Quinn, Jazmine Hope-Martin and Daniel Juberi joined The College learning community. This year showed that all students can rely on their knowledge and achievement indicators, such as SAT scores or GPA, with no reference to their social class; however, in some exceptional cases, the admission committee treats high social status as a substantial benefit for the applicant, which is not really fair concerning other applicants.

The overall background of this year campaign is as following. 9 of 15 applicants have been accepted and 3 have enrolled. All applicants come from different social backgrounds, and it shows that education is becoming more and more affordable for people. Out of 3 students, who   have been accepted by The College’s admission board, two applicants have 50K annual family income. They are Daniel Juberi and Rosa Martinez. In both cases of Daniel and Rosa, applicants have been offered extensive university grant, which merits $52K. Other families of accepted applicants are different in their social class earning $100-200K. The list of applicants includes 2 applicants who are ready to pay full price of their education (one not accepted); one applicant out of them comes from a family with $400K annual income (“4th round review”). This situation shows that different people have an opportunity to apply for higher education regardless if they are rich or poor. Even in this case, equality is relative because Athletic Director has recommended both Juberi and Martinez for their outstanding sport achievements. Perhaps, without this recommendation they would have less chances to enter the college (“Correspondence from Dean of Admissions”).

After all, Daniel Juberi has been accepted as a college student, and it is the right choice as he is in the worst situation out of all applicants. He is from a single-parent family, where only the mother works (“Decision Day”). Moreover, his sister is in college as well, so his family cannot afford to pay for David’s education. Even though he does not have the highest GPA scores, but his overall achievement, especially in sports, and high motivation perform the role of the most influential driver of the decision of the commission and persuades all members that he deserves this opportunity. Juberi’s poor family condition received additional points from the admission board which were expressed in 0.6 point of family legacy in overall assessment which shows that committee members were not against accepting Juberi (“4^th week review”). The fact that this student gets the opportunity to study proves that The College is a place for everyone either rich or poor.

One more accepted applicant is Hope-Martin. She is a level student, with overall family income of 150K. Her example shows that the university praises academic achievement and invites really talented students to join. She represents a middle-class average American family. Obviously her case is not connected with social class attribution because she comes from a usual family with enough money to pay for her education and great academic achievement to cover the lacking rest (“Simulation Applicant Files”, “4^th week review”).

Due to the current policies, The College needs to be very careful with the way it assesses its applicants. Increased attention to diversity and social class issues create a situation in which people just cannot disregard equality for all applicants who want to study at The College.  Obviously, Quinn Caitlin comes from the upper-class family with both parents working (“4^th round review”). It is noted in admission reviews that “full-payer” is an advantage for the admission board to consider. Caitlin’s family members studied at The College and it gives her additional bonus in her admission review. High social status of the family, connection to the college and the desire of parents to invest in its development indicate that Caitlin is a candidate liked by the committee. Luckily, Quinn is not accepted only due to her family status, but she has all needed credentials to be accepted as well.

Usually, admission board members from all colleges argue that family legacy is a minor thing and it is considered the least. Family connection and income should not be treated as decisive factors when evaluating students who want to study at any college. One thing is to help poor students to get education if they are really motivated like Juberi (“Simulation Applicant Files”). The other case is to promote inequality by promoting rich applicants and protecting their admissions in the committee either by the committee members or by the college staff. The example of this student shows that the role of family stats is far from minor as family legacy lead to additional point from the board members and the recommendation from Vice President of Development for Caitlin Quinn. It is confusing that parent’s generosity is treated with so much attention. Moreover, the Vice President of Development promotes the personality of the richest applicant motivating his position by benefits for all The  students (“Correspondence from Dean of Admissions”). Such great attention to this factor can lead to decrease in prestige of the place and a common belief that people with much money have better opportunities to enter the place. Applicants from poor families can consider the place to be corrupted and unequal treating people with less money than their average applicants. I believe that  protectionism and additional support for rich family is not a thing to be valued by American society, where equal opportunities are viewed as a core value.

Two controversial cases are to be reviewed. On the one hand, The  is ready to accept the challenge and let students from poor families join the place. On the other hand, the cases of overt inequality and preference to accept rich students are observed. In the case of Quinn, her acceptance is quite predictable because if The College declines her application, her parents will never give any presents to the college again. Naturally, college becomes a tradition for rich families and parents are ready to please the administration of educational establishments by various gifts to the college or investments in college development. It is not fair that Quinn got a support from the Vice President even before the 3^rd round of evaluation as the Vise President contacted the board when all members were in the process of their decision making. The Vise President of Development created the atmosphere of pressure on the committee and all members had to take his message into consideration (“Correspondence from Dean of Admissions”). Quinn’s acceptance is legal due to her high academic performance, leadership roles, sports and other achievements which make her a great applicant even without the support of her family. However, there is a question whether such university behavior is adequate or not concerning other students.

According to Stevens, the direct link between Quinn’s background and her opportunities to be accepted makes it less possible for other individuals to study at The College (12). Parental influence can be treated as an inherited privilege, which cannot be considered in any organization, which claims to provide equal opportunities for all applicants and students. In all other cases, students have been evaluated and treated equally. Evaluations of other applicants  accepted by The College were based on the college aims and personal achievements of each applicant, so it is possible to say that students get more and more opportunities to receive their education thanks to their high academic performance, personal qualities and achievements. According to Clotfelter, most elite colleges tend to support meritocratic character of their admissions supporting family connection and promoting their college as a family tradition or value for elite students (110-111). Quinn’s examples show that The College is not the exception from this rule and elite students are motivated to donate to the college as they will have more opportunities and influence on the institutional decision later.

Summing up, the work of admission board can be called legitimate. All of the best applicants, regardless of their social class were accepted by the board and 3 of them enrolled in the end. There is a balance as one upper class and one lower-class students enrolled. The number of poor and rich students needs to be mediated for the college to function properly. In this respect, all people should be inspired by their real opportunity to be accepted by prestigious college like The College. As a private college, The College cannot supply all students with financial aid; however, if to balance the number of rich and poor, both groups will invest in each other’s development. Still, all students need to be judged based on their personal achievement. Achievements and social status of their parents are two things that should not need to be so heavily weighted as it the case of Quinn. It is great that in this case, the applicant shows everything expected by the college from its ideal student. In the opposite case, The College college could easily lose its reputation and prove that it support elite only with no regard to those students who do not have powerful family background or enough money to pay.

 

Works Cited

Clotfelter, Charles T. “Alumni giving to elite private colleges and universities.”Economics of Education Review 22.2 (2003): 109-120.

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

“Correspondence from Dean of Admissions” (from simulation). Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

“Decision day”. Color and Money Admissions Simulation Data, Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney

“Simulation Applicant Files”. Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

Stevens, Mitchell L. Creating a class: College admissions and the education of elites. Harvard University Press, 2009.

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

A Second Look at the Winning Race

Our nation claims to be one of racial equality, but giving students a benefit in the admissions process for higher education institutions based on one’s race is purely unequal. College and University admissions should be based off of merit: those students who have the capability to succeed both inside and outside the classroom. In no way should merit pertain to the color of one’s skin or the money one has. However, these two factors have become an overwhelmingly large part of the admissions process and specifically a significant part of a simulation done for an elite, private institution.

Although one may argue that the admissions system used at The College was legal, due to some doubt, removal of a diversity rating used would result in a completely legal and fair system. By enacting a merit based plan and adapting a percentage plan, accepting students based on their ranking in their class, the College would still be able to take into account racial and socioeconomic differences without explicitly doing so when looking at the applicants in the office, and by doing so creating equal educational opportunities for all students.

In the classes stimulation, the decisions of the admissions officers seemed to have resulted in an outcome promoting equal educational opportunity. During these decisions, the officers considered the most qualified students who could pay for the tuition as well as those who were not as socioeconomically well off. However, those who were a certain race or could afford more of the tuition were looked at more closely, creating an unequal playing ground for all applicants. The College admissions should have had a more color- blind process. By having a “race blind” admissions process, students are judged based on merit, accepting the most prestigious and academically qualified students.

During the simulation, students of a race other than Caucasian were looked at with a different eye than those students who were white. Because these students were given an advantage, the admissions process was not completely fair, and could be argued as either legal or illegal. Students were rated on a scale of 1-3 based on diversity as part of a grand total rating, giving ethnic students an upper edge. This idea of giving students a higher rating in the admissions process of higher educational institutions has been brought to the attention of the courts before and schools such as University of Michigan and University of California Berkeley have been brought under public eye because of race conscious practices. In each case, a student was denied access the university and challenged that the admissions favored those of unique ethnic and racial backgrounds. In the Michigan case, the court ruled that the admissions office cannot give students of certain races extra points, but can make diversity a goal for the incoming class (Gratz v. Bollinger). Since the term “diversity” was not specifically defined in the simulation, it is hard to decide whether it is legal or illegal, thus it should be removed from the system all together.

The point of a higher education institution is education itself, therefore the students who are most academically fit deserve admissions, which should have nothing to do with race. As Leslie Killgore states, “A student-centric perspective defines college as both reward and opportunity for students of high ability” and that “admission to elite colleges is awarded to students as a function of their increasingly meritorious achievements” (Killgore 470). Killgore believes that admissions should look past race and admit students based on merit and ability, which is what the College’s admissions should have done when choosing who to admit and waitlist in the simulation. The idea behind race- neutral admissions is taking into account other aspects beside race, which may in turn benefit those who are racially diverse, but does not “exclude” those who are not (Coleman 4).

Although nothing was done illegally when considering financial aid and admission into the College, there are ways in which the decision was made unfairly, thus leading to unequal educational opportunities. On multiple occasions, students who were deserving of a spot in the College were not given the chance because of the amount of financial aid need. After admitting the first student, Caitlin Quinn, the number one applicant and a free student for the college, the admissions officers began to look for a second and third possibility. Applicants such as Rosa Martinez and Paula Nunes were initially overlooked because of the amount of financial aid they would need, 47740 dollars and 52219 dollars respectively (“4^th Round Review”). Both applicants displayed outstanding academics and extracurricular activities and were ranked numbers three and five respectively out of all of the applicants in the simulation. As a result of the admissions officers choosing to skip over Rosa and Paula, Jazmine Hope- Martin and Daniel Juberi were offered a spot (“4^th Round Review).

Despite the discrepancies and at times, unfair decisions, the class itself is diverse both socioeconomically and racially, however, the admissions office did not always provide the students with equal educational opportunities. A student, no matter what race or ethnicity, should be offered admissions regardless of aid need, solely based on merit. After admitting Caitlin Quinn, the admissions officers began to jump around the ranking list because of the amount of financial aid need a student needed or because of the goal of diversity, whether or not the student had a good resume. After brushing over Rosa Martinez and Paula Nunes, the officers chose Jazmine Hope- Martin solely because she needed the least amount of final aid out of herself, Paula and Rosa and because she would be awarded the merit scholarship based on her standardized test score, making her financial aid need go down significantly. After Jazmine was chosen, the officers began to look at the bottom of the list in an attempt to admit a student with a unique ethnic background, ignoring academic accomplishments. Although on the surface the incoming class seems to be diverse, the process itself did not provide deserving students with equal educational opportunities.

There are ways in which a college admissions team can make sure the incoming class is both diverse and academically qualified. In 2000, the Florida State Board of Education “banned consideration of race in admissions decisions for the state’s higher education institutions” (Fryer 2). At the same time, they implemented the “Talented 20 Program” which guarantees those students who graduate the 20% of their class at a Florida public school and take either the SATs or ACTs a spot at one of the “eleven state universities” (Fryer 2). By implementing this program, students all over the state, regardless of race and socioeconomic status, are given a spot at a state university, given the fact that they are within the top 20% of their class. No matter what public high school, either in a wealthy area or impoverished area, those students who perform well are offered admissions and thus given an equal educational opportunity, no matter what walks of life. By executing such a plan, the incoming class is one filled with diversity without skipping over certain applicants or giving others an upper edge. Although this is harder to do at a smaller institution, such as the college, it shows that there are successful, fair ways to disregard race in the admissions process and get a diverse, academically suitable class.

It is understandable that colleges feel pressure to admit both the brightest and academically fit students and a diverse class, however, there is a point in the admissions process in which the way certain applicants are looked over others is unfair and at times, illegal. Although the admissions officers of the simulation of The College tried to uphold the laws and regulations of admissions, some aspects of this process were questionable, creating a bias towards those of different races and creating a class not solely based on merit and not giving all applying students an equal opportunity of admissions.

Works Cited

Coleman, Arthur L., Scott R. Palmer, and Steven Y. Winnick. “Race-Neutral Policies in Higher Education: From Theory to Action.” CollegeBoard, June 2008. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.

“4th Round Review.” Trinity College, Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013. <http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney>.

Fryer, Roland G., Glenn C. Loury, and Tolga Yuret. Color-blind Affirmative Action. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2003. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.

Gratz v. Bollinger. Cornell University Law School. Supreme Court. 23 June 2003. Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, Web. 30 Sept. 2013.

Killgore, Leslie. “Merit And Competition In Selective College Admissions.” Review Of Higher Education 32.4 (2009): 469-488. ERIC. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.

Hieu (Hugh) Nguyen

FYSM

Prof. Dougherty

Oct 1st, 2013

Persuasive essay

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

             In a month, the first year seminar class conducted a simulation of an admission process, in which students were admissions officers and tried to bring three applicants to The College’s campus out of 15 applications. Among the three enrolled students, there was one student who would pay the costs in full (Caitlin Quinn), one student who would pay very little ($3933, Daniel Juberi), and one whose amount of expected contribution would be in the middle ($43276, Jazmine Hope-Martin)¹. These differences in the amount of money to pay for The College made the the entering class seem socioeconomically diverse, however, the results were only due to chance and the balance in wealth is not likely to happen again in the future. Because certain people happened to enroll and others happened to decline, we ended up with class diversity but if we use the same system again, the results will be worse. So, though the admissions process was legal, the outcome neither reflected a best possible entering class nor promoted equal education. The two main reasons are the rating system and the low budget. The rating system are unfair for students with low socioeconomic status because many aspects that the system gives points to are affected by social class; the low budget forced our admissions team to hesitate when admitting low income students.

              Let’s begin with the holes in our rating system. The rating system give points to students based on these four factors: academics, extra-curricular activities, legacy, and diversity. At first glance, before the F-round, it appeared that low-income students and wealthy students were on an equal standing, as the one who has higher total scores than others will be admitted, regardless of his/her social class. However, if we give it more insightful look into it, it appears that academics and extracurricular activities are deeply affected by class.

               The participants of the simulation rated each applicant’s academic strength based on many factors. Some major factors were: standardized scores, grades, course curriculum, and (to some applicants) class rank. Each of these components is affected by socio-economic class to some degree. In term of standardized scores, rich kids score higher than underprivileged students, because the richer ones have more resources to prepare for the tests. With money, affluent parents can easily pay SAT prep courses or hire SAT tutors for their kids. In her article named “SAT scores and family income” in the New York Times, Catherine Rampell used College Board’s SAT scores in 2009 to analyze the relationship between SAT scores and family income. The charts imply that the higher the income of a family is, the higher SAT score its kid can get. The author observes that “On every test section, moving up an income category (the difference between two closest income levels is $10000) was associated with an average score boost of over 12 points.”² Thus, the difference in total SAT score between a student whose family earn $20,000 a year and another one whose family earn more than $200,000 a year is 360 points – a number that can change the whole impression of an admissions officer toward a student’s academic strength. In addition, according to the “Advantage” graph from the infographic “Affluent Students Have an Advantage and the Gap is Widening”³, one can see only 26 percent of the poorest students who graduated college have above-average test scores, while the richest kids whose scores are below average (30 percent of the richest kids) still get college degrees. These studies suggest that if there are two students in two opposite social classes who have the same exact SAT scores, the one who is in lower class has shown more determination and hard works in preparing for the SAT as he has less resources than the more privileged one. Another case is when two students have slightly different SAT scores and the rest of their academics are the same, it does not necessarily means the one that has higher score is academically better. However, due to our numerical rating system, the kid who has higher SAT score will surely have higher rating in academics.

             Others main factors that determine one’s academic strength can also be altered by social class as well. For example, take a look at the grades of applicants from private school and public school. Private schools have individualized attentions, which means students have more opportunities to spend time one-on-one with teachers, therefore they tend to get higher grades than those who in public schools. One evidence for this statement is Gamoran’s research named “ Student Achievement in Public Magnet, Public Comprehensive, and Private City High Schools”. The data in Table 4 shows that students attending nonreligious private high schools score higher than those in public comprehensive schools and in public magnet schools in all these four subjects: math, science, reading, and social studies⁴. Speaking of rigorosity of one’s curriculum, AP and honors courses vary from each school, but generally a student in a higher socioeconomic class will have a more rigorous course load. This is shown in Joshua Klugman’s research named “How Resource Inequalities Among High Schools Reproduce Class Advantages in College Destinations.” He measured families’ socioeconomic status (SES) based on parents’ education levels, jobs, and family annual incomes when students were in tenth grade. One of the date shows that “[a] standard deviation increase in SES increases AP subject-taking by .16 courses” and “[s]chools’ AP subjects…have significant benefits for students’ chances of enrolling in more selective colleges (Model 2A)”⁵. Thus, from all of the above, wealthy kids obviously receive higher academic ratings than those low-incomers who are actually on the same academic level with them, but that fact does not show on the rating system.

              Not only heavily correlating to academics and test scores, class also deeply influences one’s extra-curricular activities. Wealthy families invest in arts, music lessons, sports, and travel for their kids,. They use money to shape their kids as ideal applicants for colleges. In Klugman’s research “How Resource Inequalities Among High Schools Reproduce Class Advantages in College Destinations,” the data indicate that a richer family will have children with more extracurricular activities⁶. He also shows that “Students who attend private schools have higher levels of extracurricular activities”⁷. Hence, students whose families are in higher socio-economic class have great advantages in extra-curricular activities. Their parents pay money for their music and dance lessons, guide them in playing sports at a young age, and pay travel fees for them to go to African or South American countries to help the local people (which is dubious, as some students take the trip just to put it on their resumes). The seminar’s simulation applicant files help to partly prove that notion. It reveals in Angelica Parker’s letter of recommendation from her guidance counselor that her parents had gotten involved to help her become a decent swimmer. They transferred her to the new school to “give her an opportunity to swim on a varsity team while still in grade school”⁸. Her family is wealthy, and if her mother had not had a serious disease then Angelica would not have applied for financial aid. If Angelica had not been transferred back to the school she is currently attending by her parents, she would have stayed in the local high school which would never leave her enough time for outside activities and Angelica’s name would not have appeared on the Athletic Director’s mail to the Dean of Admissions⁹.

              Besides affecting criteria like academic and extra-curricular activities, socio-economic issues also affect low-income students in various other ways. In his article “Low-Income Students and the Socioeconomic Composition of Public High Schools”, Robert Crosnoe shows that “low-income students in public schools… have more psychological problems when the percentage of middle and high-income families increase in their high school”.¹⁰ Therefore, it is undeniable to say that students in lower class have weaker profiles than those in higher classes. Thus, low income students are often some steps behind wealthy kids when they apply to selective colleges. Let’s take a look at the students who were ranked from tenth to fifteenth in the Decision Day Simulation Data¹¹. Each of them, except Benjamin Rosen whose financial need is average ($21,590), needs more than $40,000 a year. Their families are either in low or low-middle class and they have the worst grand total admissions rankings. Hence, even when the F-round was not started yet, the low-income applicants already had less chance of getting in than the privileged ones, because during the time in high school, they had less resources to excel in academics, to prepare for standardized scores, and to select the best fitted extracurricular activities.

             But perhaps what prevents students with socioeconomic disadvantages from being admitted to colleges is the lack of budget. In his book “Creating a class”, Stevens reports the way The College categorize students based on their financial needs. He wrote that “Apps for which the answer to the aid question was no were described colloquially as “free”, because their acceptance would not “cost” the College any of its financial aid budget. Those who would need a lot of financial aid to be able to attend the College often were colloquial described as “expensive” or “needy”.”¹² In the simulation, the ability of paying college costs is an indispensable part of the admissions process. The purpose of F-round is to use Net Price Calculator to calculate each student’s expected family contribution and the money Trinity College would have to spend on each student. Due to limited budget ($70,000), every admissions officer looked for students who had high grand admissions total ratings and were able to pay in full first. Students whose families donate money to Trinity were given preferences. Caitlin Quinn is an epitome. It is undoubted that her grand total score is the best, but as stated before in previous paragraphs, her superior socioeconomic status contributed a lot to her grand total score. But there was another reason that is no less important that helped her to be the first nominated applicant. It was the fact that her name appeared on the Vice President of Development’s letter to the Dean as her family have been “a very important financial supporter of our institution.”¹³ In order to spend the least budget money possible on the first person to admit, every one in the admissions team agreed to admit her right away. Another paradigm is Erika Sparks. Her admissions score was not good enough to be nominated for the first and second time, however due to her low financial need (only $1225), she was accepted in the third attempt, also with a perfect vote 15-0. If it was not due to the poor budget, the first three admitted applicants should have been Caitlin Quinn, Rosa Martinez, and Angelica Parker, as they have the highest grand total ratings and they would meet the socioeconomically diverse goal (one pays in full, one pays very little, and one pays somewhere in the middle). Unfortunately, if the admissions team decided to do so, the $70000 budget would in no way could meet both Rosa and Angelica’s financial needs. Luckily, the final results turned out to be a little bit balance in term of social class, as Caitlin would pay in full, Daniel would pay a little and Jazmine would pay approximately two-third of the total costs. But as mentioned in the introduction, that is not likely to happen again in the future if the same rating system and same amount of budget are used. If the first three admitted people decided to enroll, the entering class would not have been socioeconomically diverse, as there would be no one in a low social class.

            One thing to remember, though, is that the process was certainly legal, because it did not violate any rule about higher education. The rating system did not give any extra point for someone who was in a low social class. If the admissions team had automatically awarded points to low income students, the process would have been illegal because it would be similar to the case Grutter v. Bollinger¹⁴ in which University of Michigan automatically gave 20 points for minorities. Hence, the process was legal.

            In a nutshell, from all of the reasons above, though the admissions and financial aid process was legal, it is undeniable that the outcome did neither reflect the best possible entering class nor promote equal educational opportunities, due to the rating system and the budget. As long as money can affect at least one of the factors that admission officers use to determine the brightest applicants, then higher education cannot be considered as an equalizer. To improve this, some changes are needed to be made. To minimize the budget problem, The College needs to expand its funding for financial aid. There are some ways to do it, like contacting alumni and donors more frequently to get more money from them, and asking the states to provide more federal aid money for US citizens applicants. To fix the rating system problem, social class must be taken into account, but not by giving a low income student some numerical points as it would be illegal. The best way is to abandon the whole rating system and set up a new, completely holistic approach by not giving any points at all for any students and thus there will be no grand total admissions ranking. Thirdly, The College should incorporate with some programs that help highly achieving, disadvantaged students to apply for selective colleges (i.e.: QuestBrigde). Thus, it is reasonable to hope for a future where access to education is equal for everyone. But for now, as the simulation showed, an equal access to colleges only exists in theories.

 

1) Does the author present a clear and focused argument or thesis statement in the introduction?  Does it respond to the assignment? 2) Is the author’s reasoning persuasive and well developed?  Are the claims supported with appropriate evidence?  Are counter-arguments fully considered?

Briana Miller

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

“College is the key to success” is a term that is all too familiar in American society. The belief that one can shape and mold their future by attaining a college degree—regardless of their socioeconomic background—has served as defense to the American ideology of liberty and equal opportunity amongst all. The presumption that a student can easily go from low social status to an elite college campus—through impressive academic achievement, of course—is thought to be true as well. Studies have shown, however, that highly affluent families continue to disproportionately represent the graduating classes of top colleges. In fact, no more than five percent of the least privileged applicants contribute to these elite communities (Weismann, 1).

 

While social class may not be used purposefully or directly as criteria during the admissions process at elite institutions, it certainly does account for many aspects that make up one’s application. Consequently, social class serves as a dividing factor for those who are admitted and denied to highly ranked institutions. We as the admissions committee at The College subliminally developed a system that included categories favoring affluent children. Perhaps if we created a strategy that evaluated applicants in a fashion similar to Steven’s College, we would have had a more legal process that allowed for more socioeconomic diversity within the admitted class.

 

Jean Lattimore was an applicant who had decent grades, a long list of extracurricular activities, and sincere recommendations testifying his great work ethic. In one of his letters of recommendation his counselor mentioned how “he stands at the top of his graduating class of 45 peers. Although our district cannot afford to offer as wide a variety of courses as some other schools, Jean has applied himself and made the best of every available opportunity.” Additionally, she noted how Jean had taken a calculus class at the local technical college—proving that he was ready for college level academics despite his school’s lack of resources (Jean Lattimore, Simulation Applicant Files, Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney). Unfortunately, two factors brought Jean’s overall rating down: our system’s “academics” and “legacy” categories. The College decided that it was necessary that he’d be given a lower academic score for his inability to take challenging courses—although this circumstance was out of his control. Furthermore, Jean had no family history (of attendance) at The College which allotted him no additional points to boost his rating in the legacy category. In the end, Jean was denied admission.

In Stevens’ ethnography, he mentioned that his college used the percentage of graduates that went directly to a four-year college from a high school as a way to predict the quality of courses offered at that particular school. At less affluent high schools, students who excelled, despite an adequate curriculum, were still awarded good academic scores (Stevens, 193). If The College had taken this approach, it is possible that Jean may have had a fighting chance of being admitted.

A student who was in the complete opposite situation of Jean was Caitlin Quinn. Caitlin was considered a shoo-in student: her GPA, test scores, and list of extracurricular activities were all solid; not to mention that her family could afford full tuition. On top of the very high scores Caitlin received in the academics and “extracurricular activity” categories, the admissions system also granted her one additional point for having a family legacy at The College (Caitlin Quinn, Simulation Applicant Files, Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney).

In the Supreme Court case Regents of California v. Bakke, it was ruled that it was unconstitutional for race to be used as an advantage in the college admissions process (Regents, 1). As a result, our admissions committee was very conscious about not granting minority students additional points because of their race. Ironically enough, however, The College was in favor of creating a category that specifically awarded an additional point to legacy students. The outcome of this, although we were attempting to provide an equal educational opportunity for all applicants, is an illegal advantage to those of more affluent families, for they have far higher legacy rates than lower class applicants. Just as students do not receive admission advantages because of the color of their skin, shouldn’t students also receive no advantages for familial connections they have at The College? Unfortunately enough, this issue of inequality was completely overlooked by the committee.

Benjamin Rosen, yet another applicant, was a bit of an interesting story during the simulation. Although he attained a relatively low GPA and missed two interviews with college admissions people, The College highly considered admitting him. Thinking that Benjamin was deemed a legacy student because his father is employed by The College, the admissions committee was very hesitant about dropping his file. Once it was clarified that he was not a legacy student, however, his application was unanimously declined admission (Class Lecture).

Stevens mentioned the history of legacy in his study. He notes that “throughout the nineteenth century, educational systems had been local affairs. Colleges competed with other schools in their own cities and regions for the patronage of prominent local families; the degree to which any one school was able to corner the market on local patronage defined the limits of its institutional prestige” (Stevens, 34-5). The “prestige” Stevens referred to coincides with wealth as well (i.e. social status). Without being conscious of this, the admissions team continued the tradition of social class legacy—just as many generations before them had; just as they had used it for their own college applications. The benefit to using high social status as a determining factor in the admissions process is the amount of money The College continuously receives from the affluent families applying. Nonetheless, this issue of legacy, which was a long time contribution to the exclusiveness of elite institutions, is still obviously, a part of the imbalanced admissions system today.

Situations such as the ones that occurred with Jean, Caitlin, and Benjamin lead me to believe that the admissions team did not fully weigh the pros and cons of their applications with regard to their social statuses. The intertwinement of wealth and elite college achievement is a complicated process to undo. It will require the committee to evaluate the students’ socioeconomic status, the kind of high schools the students attended and, in turn, how these two things affect the make-up of each individual application. It is not enough to have a broad category that simplistically labels applicants qualified or underprepared in regard to their course loads(for as we have seen, not all applicants have access to preparatory resources), nor can we defend the decision to add a category that defends students of legacy families and, in turn, high social status. If The College genuinely wishes to increase the amount of socioeconomic diversity amongst its student body, it must be open to the different social classes and academic background students come from. Otherwise, no change will come.

 

Benjamin Rosen, Simulation Applicant Files, Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

Caitlin Quinn, Simulation Applicant Files, Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

Class Lecture, Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall 2013.

Jean Lattimore, Simulation Applicant Files, Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall 2013, http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.

Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978). Supreme Court. Dec. 2006. Print.

Stevens, Mitchell. Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites. First Harvard University Press, 2009. Print.

Weismann, Jordan. “America’s Top Colleges Have a Rich-Kid Problem.” The Atlantic. 24 May 2013.

 

 

College Admissions is no simple thing. From considering diversity, to academic accomplishments, to yield rate, among other influencing factors, the process of admitting students into college in todays world is no easy task. In our simulation, we worked as group to create an incoming class of 3 admitted students to the best of our abilities whilst still considering all the factors i just mentioned; on top of handling a 70,000 dollar financial aid (Color & Money, The College Simulation)  budget which we had to divvy out through our own discretion. Ultimately, we admitted students almost entirely based on who possessed the highest levels of merit in their applications, as we should have considering that merit is what matters most when admitting a student in an esteemed college. While diversity is an important factor in creating collegiate communities, admissions itself should be based on a students capabilities and the level to which they worked to achieve the right to be accepted to The College (or any established college). The color of ones skin does not determine the level of intelligence they possess, thus any student of any background or race is capable of achieving high merit in some form if they really set their mind to it. Ripping away the dreams of college acceptance from a capable hard working student with high merit just because they don’t meet the definition of “underrepresented minority” as presented by our government today is not only reprehensible but should be illegal- which is why all college admissions should be “color- blind” and based solely on the merit of the applicants presented.

The legality of college admissions becomes tricky when it come down to diversity and how to ensure a diverse student body.  As getting into college has become an increasingly difficult feat in recent years, many court cases have become important in determining the legality of policies such as affirmative action, and other race based admissions processes.  Affirmative action has been present for many years in the United States college admissions system in an attempt to take factors such as  “race, color, or national origin”  into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group “in areas of employment, education, and business” (National Archives, 1989).  However this policy came into question in 2003 in the supreme court case “Gratz v. Bollinger” addressing the University of Michigan’s take on the affirmative action policy in which they automatically awarded 20 points to underrepresented minorities.  In a 6-3 decision, the court decided, “”predetermined point allocations…. ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed” and was therefore “unconstitutional” (Gratz V. Bollinger, 2003).  In other words, admissions offices could not use “quotas” in admitting minority  students, but they could consider ones ethnicity as a plus when considering their application.  We took this case -among others- to heart when doing our simulation, making sure that all of our race considerations were legal and didn’t use quotas.  Instead we looked for students who were qualified and hard working, those students who, regardless of their race, had put a monumental effort into achieving high levels of merit- whether it be through academics, athletics, extracurriculars, good character and so on. We made sure to avoid illegal actions such as quotas by making the first round of cuts almost entirely based on merit, using a point system to weed out those who had a lower academic standing and did not have the academic quality to be admitted to The College (Round 5 spreadsheet). By doing this, we were left with a list of the students with the highest levels of merit, and from there we were able to discuss how their ethnicity may play a part in their acceptance,  but would in no way a defining factor.

In doing our simulation, as i mentioned, we did have a point system, however not directly based on race.  Instead, we, in a sense used a loophole, by making our point system not directly based on race but instead based on the level of a students “diversity” which could mean any number of things (Round 4 spreadsheet, Diversity column).  This allowed us to legally consider all applicants while still considering their race and the diversity that it may bring to The College as a factor in admissions.  Moreover we, rightfully so, barely even considered the race of an applicant on any sort of major scale, only allocating a max of three points (out of a scale of 23) to diversity, and we didn’t really address it at any other point in our admissions process. This is important because admissions should be more focused on a student’s ability to succeed than on their ethnicity.  To hold a student of color to a lower standard than to say  that  a Caucasian one, is not only insulting but also discriminatory. The use of affirmative action does this by automatically giving “minority” students an advantage over those of “non- minority” backgrounds, regardless of class or socio-economic factors (National Archives, 1989).  a Every applicant is aware, when writing their application, that it is their merit which they will be judged on- and so it is only fair if we stay true to this and judge our applicants based on the merit which they have presented us with.

As Peter Thiel and David Sacks, two Stanford alumni, write, “Originally conceived as a means to redress discrimination, racial preferences have instead promoted it. And rather than fostering harmony and integration, preferences have divided the campus. In no other area of public life is there a greater disparity between the rhetoric of preferences and the reality” (Sacks, Thiel, 2013). They suggest that merit isn’t solely based on test scores or GPA’s, but also extracurriculars in athletics, music, and other efforts, “But race and ethnicity (or gender or sexual preference) do not have a place on this list; these are traits, not achievements (Sacks, Thiel, 2013). Our simulation provided us with the best incoming class possible.  Because we based our admissions on merit, as suggested by Thiel and Sacks, when our first couple of choices rejected the offer, our wait list still contained fantastic applicants academically.  Ironically we also ended up with a very diverse class, without even having intended it.  Jazmine Hope-Martin and Daniel Juberi are both minority students ( hispanic and african american) who, with little note to their ethnicity were still able to get into the college based on their academic stature and high merit, both being in the top 20% of their class. (Simulation, Applicant files).  Our color blind system worked extremely well, and could potentially be a good model for how actual college admissions could work.

All well minded students are capable of the same achievement, regardless of their race.  Race Conscious college admissions drive our society backwards, away from the “color blind” society that is desired by so many.  Merit is what makes a student a worthwhile applicant- whether that be through good character, excellent grades or test scores, or outstanding extracurriculars- it doesn’t matter which of these factors ultimately gets a student accepted into college, but it does matter if a student who deserves an accepted spot through their hard work and determination is unfairly denied this opportunity because of an outdated and discriminatory practice such as affirmative action.

 

 

Works Cited

“Executive Orders.” Executive Orders. 01 Oct. 2013 <http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html>.

 

Thiel, Peter, and David Sacks. “The Case Against Affirmative Action.” Stanford Magazine. 01 Oct. 2013 <http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=43448>.

 

“Jazmine Hope-Martin.” Simulation Applicant Files, Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall 2013, <http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney.>

 

“Daniel Juberi.”  Simulation Applicant Files, Color & Money seminar at Trinity College, Fall 2013, <http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney. >

 

“Color & Money Admissions Simulation data.” Color and Money Seminar at Trinity College, Fall 2013,<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtmGKybdRLlZdEVIZmJGSnlFMEwyMnQyTW5JVWpmR3c#gid=16>

“Round 5 Final Admissions Decisions and Managing Yield” Color and Money Seminar at Trinity College, Fall 2013 <http://commons.trincoll.edu/colorandmoney/simulation/round-5/>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hello this is Ali. It is my first time using WordPress.

Colin Cahill’s sample post.

This is a sentence.

This is Benjamin Peterson’s sample post.