I saw the word “shocker” and “daughters,” but it wasn’t about what I thought it was…darn…

Williams College discriminates in order to attract what they perceive is their desired class.

With regards to race, why all the fuss. When you want diversity, say in a soup, you add potatoes, carrots, celery and onions. So we add a few races here and there, and a legacy over there. You get a good soup that way.

What’s the problem all about? Common sense should dictate this process so why all the stress?

Most conversations I had were around ‘05ish and like I said previously were not just with people who worked in Admissions(they were also with members of the committee that sets the admissions policy).

It seems pretty clear to me that all of the numbers and trends at Williams support this preference so I am somewhat confused why you’re struggling to believe it–is your hesitancy only due to the alleged Asian disadvantage at some of the other elite schools?

I don’t doubt your word (and admissions officers have a habit of shading the truth with outsiders) but I am having trouble getting my mind around this claim. Did they give you any sense of the magnitude of the preference? As much as legacies? As tipped athletes? As poor applicants? As URMs?

Details, please. Also, what years were these conversations?

Yes. Every single conversation I’ve had with Admissions Office members (and members of the admissions committee…advac or something like that: I don’t remember what it was called anymore) suggests this. Not one of these conversations was limited to describing asians as “flagged” and leaving it at that.

Williams has a relatively high difficulty attracting Asian Americans because of its relatively low name recognition (when compared to its peer schools) and rural location. This is similar to the problems Williams has attracting Muslim students (who are also flagged).

I know of two (presently sophomore) transfer applicants from last year: a white male athlete (had attended a secondary boarding school) who was not accepted and an Asian male who was.

It is certainly true that admissions “flags” or “tags” Asian-American applicants. See the recipe article. But there are 30 or so similar tags. Some help a lot. Some hurt. (I think that there is a special tag for those with discipline/honor problems at their school.) Some are neutral. I am 99% sure that Asian-American flags are neutral. The College counts Asians. It likes it that they make up 10% of the class. But it sees no need to turn down more qualified whites to bring that 10% up any higher. There isn’t much if any constituency for such a preference. (Most of the drumbeat for affirmative action comes from those interested in increasing the percentage of URMs, underrepresented minorities. Asians don’t count for that. Nor should they.)

So, the admissions officers were not lying to you when they said that Asian-American applicants are “flagged.” Did any admissions officer suggest that, all else equal, the College would take an Asian-American with 1450 SATs over a white applicant with 1500? If the College did this, there would be a lot more Asian-Americans at Williams.

Here are some books you should look at before you run your anonymous mouth again: American Apartheid by Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton. Look–that one’s a national sample! oh crap. Here’s another book: Won’t You Be My Neighbor? Race, Class, and Residence in Los Angeles. Oh crap–that’s set in LA! Whatever shall you attempt to condescend to me about now?

here’s a census report on it:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/housing_patterns/pdf/ch5.pdf
This is most damaging for a couple reasons to your pithy and completely incorrect statements. First, you’ll likely think that the reduction in level of segregation = not segregated. That’s not true. they are still highly segregated across the country (if you really want, I can explain the measures and what they mean. Suffice to say, for now, that .64 is a really high dissimilarity measure, considering the possible range is 0 to 1). Here’s the second problem for your statement: “The Midwest had the highest level of residential segregation for four of the five indexes; the Northeast had the highest level for the remaining one.”

And if you want some articles, I can supply those too (if you’re at an institution with access to JSTOR). I only avoid full names and naming my mentor because I don’t want google searches involving me or her to lead anyone here.

Finally…why would a blog committed to an institute of higher learning have commentators who deny/dismiss academic research with ad hominem attacks? odd.

I say the same to you and your “leading sociologist() on that issue.” I suppose any so-called “expert” can cite evidence in support of whatever he or she would like others/to believe — but it doesn’t mean it’s true. Perhaps in the northeastern US — but this is a big country. Or are you and your sociologist too self-absorbed to have noticed?

If you look at Williams’ admissions policies in general, they aren’t based around being a racial representation of the country. Rather, Williams seems to base its admissions decisions on manufacturing some sort of artificially ideal “learning environment.” However, I think you know that; it doesn’t take a whole lot of thinking about it to realize that Williams has many times the national population of Jews, a fraction of the national population of Evangelicals Christians, as well as a far greater proportion of cellists.

I would wager that the “we want a class that reflects national proportions” is less sincere and more designed to cover Williams’ ass in the case of a lawsuit. I would be very surprised if Williams wouldn’t love to be 35% “of color,” if not higher. I think the idea is that the more diverse the student body, the better. Similarly, while Williams accepts the greatest number of students from states like New York and California, I would wager that it would love to deny many of those students in favor of similarly qualified applicants from Montana or Kentucky…there just aren’t any. International diversity is obviously a much shakier issue, given its unique financial situation as well as variously held notions of Williams’ “roll” as a national (or international) institution. However, in every other situation, I believe all facts point to Williams pursuing a policy that may generally be summed up by “more is better” when it comes to minorities, whether those minorities be bagpipers, belly dancers, or blacks.

Asian Americans are flagged at Williams and given a small advantage.

Really? I have never read this anywhere. Indeed, the main issue with Asian American enrollment has always been the concerned with whether or not they are discriminated against. Previous discussion here.

Since I am not in the room at Williams admissions, I could be wrong about this, but I doubt it. If Williams, today, gives a preference (even a small one) to Asian applicants over equal white applicants, it would be just about the only elite school that I am aware of that does this.

And, moreover, why would it do so? It is reasonable for affirmative action proponents to want Williams to be 10% black since the would be similar, more or less, to the national pool. (This is an goal of the college.) But why does Williams need to have a class with double the percentage of Asian students in the US? That makes no sense from the standard affirmative action perspective. Now, just because Asians are strong applicants does not mean that the College should discriminate against them, but it seems highly unlikely that the College would discriminate in favor of them.

But give us more details on your claim. I have been wrong before . . .

actually, you’re completely wrong. I study residential segregation in graduate school and work under one of the leading sociologists on that issue. Our society is not only still segregated, but still discriminates. Sorry if that pisses you off, but it’s undeniably true.

2. Asian Americans are flagged at Williams and given a small advantage. This is very different from Michigan or a west coast school where arguably they are at a disadvantage (so where at Michigan or Stanford the difference between avg Black and Asian SAT scores may be greater than avg Black and White SAT scores, at Williams they are most likely smaller).

3. Let’s compare Black and Latino applicants to White applicants. I worked in Admissions at Williams, and my impression is that the difference is much closer to 100 points than it is to 200.

4. David, why would you get rid of socio-ec status in admissions? If there’s one thing that’s painfully obvious to me is that wealth makes a HUGE difference in applicant’s stats…wealthy applicants overwhelmingly tend to have class, SAT, and essay writing tutors, and can afford to participate in the wide range of extracurriculars that are now becoming nearly necessary for Williams admission. A student unable to afford any tutors or take up a musical instrument for financial reasons will be at a huge admissions disadvantage to one who can. Shouldn’t we adjust our perspective on the poor student for these differences–I personally am far more impressed with a 4.0 student with uneducated parents from a poor rural high school who has worked a night job since they were 15 with 1400 SATs, than a 4.0 student from Andover who plays cello and soccer reasonably (but not phenomenally) well with 1500 SATs.

This isn’t true either. Why is it so difficult to admit that our nation isn’t as segregated as you would like to believe?

david does not believe admissions as it is works well.

Not true! I think that the admissions department does a fine job (it does not set policy about things like athletic tips and affirmative action) and I think that Williams policy on these is OK. Not perfect, but OK. If I ran admissions at Williams, my decisions would be at least 75% (if not 90%) the same as current policy. And, in many of those areas in which I disagree with current policy (more internationals, fewer tips), my opinions are the same as people like Rory and Sam Crane. In fact, I would guess that my ideal class is closer to Rory’s than either of our ideal classes is to actual practice.

That said, there are differences. I would let in more internationals and fewer tips. I would give almost zero preference for class and much lower ones for race. (Some for black, none for Latino.) I would also increase the Tyng and use it to “buy” more excellent black applicants, the ones that Williams should get but which it loses to HYPS.

Yet those are mostly quibbles. At least 400 members of the class of 2011 would still be members of that class if I or Rory or Sam ran admissions.

I’m not even going to touch this one. ;-)

williams is not michigan. bad use of statistics. asians score significantly higher than whites as well…bad use of statistics. SATs are not a good test to rely upon for college admissions…yep, there it is again: bad use of statistics! Children of west indian immigrants face discrimination in the US as well. what else can get a one line response…let’s see: oh, current eph, your point about legacies and students getting ahead has a problem of endogeneity clouding the issue.

andrew, david does not believe admissions as it is works well. far from it–he dislikes affirmative action for race or for class. i’ll argue that the current model is the only model that could actually succeed in integrating the campus. If affirmative action were class based, we’d see an exaggeration of the divide between rich and poor on campus. not only that, but the rich would be practically lily white (and asian) while the poor would be an over-representative group of black and latino. that’s not good.

middle class and even upper class black and latino families still live in predominantly black/latino neighborhoods, still go to predominantly black and latino schools and still face daily discrimination in society not because of their class, but because of their race. it’s a selfish white desire to believe that we can deal with issues of race via proxies like class because then we aren’t all nearly as implicated in the failures of society (or, if we are, we’re ok with it. class hierarchy doesn’t bother americans like race hierarchies). it’d feel good, but it is not a good idea.

If we agree that Blacks and Latinos deserve the same opportunities that most Whites are afforded, and that Blacks and Latinos largely do not have those opportunities because of a past or current racism, and we agree that education is the most effective path out of this poverty, than shouldn’t we also agree to make some exceptions to allow those from these groups into college?

Sure! The critical issue is the size of those exceptions. Almost no one, except those damned color-blind absolutists, objects if Williams choose an African-American applicant with 1400 over an Asian-American applicant with 1450. Alas, that’s not what happens.

After all, as statistically significant as 100 SAT points may seem, can you really say that there is a noticeable difference in intellectual capabilities between a student with 1300 SATs and a student with 1400 SATs?

Although you are more likely to get a copy of Morty’s private diary out of the Williams administration than real data on SAT score differences by race among Ephs, we have plenty of circumstantial evidence that the gap between Black and Asian Ephs is much closer to 200 points than 100. The gap is 240 points at Michigan.

Should Williams prefer an African-American applicant with 1250 SATs over and Asian-American applicant with 1450 (and similarly more impressive high school grades) if both applicants go to the same high school and have parents of similar educational background and wealth? Right now, the official (unstated) answer is Yes.

The argument for legacies, I believe, is a strong one. Legacies are given a very small preference in admissions because their status as a legacy indicates several things about them. First, they are more likely to matriculate than the average student. I think this is fairly self-explanatory, and is well-supported by the data (which I believe David could probably supply if you desired it). This alone should probably give the edge to legacy applicants in an otherwise indistinguishable situation. However, there’s more–legacy applicants have something going for them that non-legacy applicants don’t: a pedigree. I hate saying that something like this should matter (I was not a legacy at Williams), but it should; students with successful parents are more likely to themselves be successful. So why should Williams give preference to sons and daughters of Ephs over sons and daughters of Lord Jeffs? School spirit. This is purely anecdotal, but in my 4 years experience at Williams, the legacies I knew routinely displayed more enthusiasm about Williams than the average student. Sure, this wasn’t by a wide margin and the most enthusiastic students I knew probably weren’t legacies (in most cases I didn’t know either way). However, it was enough of a difference that I noticed it. I think the effect of growing up wearing a Williams hoodie is non-negligable.

Now, regarding the issue of race, I agree that there is a Prisoner’s dilemma, but even if all schools in the country went race-blind, we would still have marginal minority populations (and no, not just African American) in the top schools. I’m sure that some at Williams would argue that the experience of attending a racially diverse Williams outweighs the cost of admitting slightly lower performing students. Others, I am sure, would argue that racially-based discrimination is still a significant facet of our society, and that wealthy African Americans and Latinos face significantly more challenges (possibly comparable to poor Whites) on their path to college than wealthy Whites.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, I feel like it is hard to argue that much (if not most or all) of the correlation between poverty and skin tone in our country is far from accidental, and is due to a past (and possibly continuing) history of racism. Similarly, I find it hard to argue for a better de-racialization of poverty in America than via education. If we agree that Blacks and Latinos deserve the same opportunities that most Whites are afforded, and that Blacks and Latinos largely do not have those opportunities because of a past or current racism, and we agree that education is the most effective path out of this poverty, than shouldn’t we also agree to make some exceptions to allow those from these groups into college? After all, as statistically significant as 100 SAT points may seem, can you really say that there is a noticeable difference in intellectual capabilities between a student with 1300 SATs and a student with 1400 SATs? At the very least, shouldn’t we concede that life experiences–such as the sort that accompany having to deal with discrimination on a daily basis, as I am sure many minorities feel that they do–should outweigh such small apparent differences in intellectual capabilities?

Second, the issue of race. There seems to be some sort of prisoners’ dilemma going on here. If Williams alone went race-blind, as you say, we would have close to zero African-Americans. (Curiously, you don’t seem to mention any other minorities.) It would take all major colleges throwing out race-conscious admissions to equalize it again.

Yet, why doesn’t Williams decide to lead these colleges in the direction of fairness rather than waiting for them to make the first move, and then following them? Additionally, what does it matter how many ethnic minorities are enrolled in the college at a given time as long as all ethnicities are admitted at the same rate? Does diversity really need to be forced? Your comment about there being “many, many more poor non-black applicants with 1400 SATs then there are poor black applicants” seems to show that you feel the black applicants are more deserving of admission than the non-black applicants – would you agree?

You raise a few good points about the college’s admissions policies, but it falls short of convincing me that Williams admissions are fine the way they are.