Brother Smartness of Postgraduate Musings on mixed-race twins.

I thought, I’d flip the script and post this picture of these odd defying fraternal twins who were born in May of 2006. The chances of having twins that are so drastically different in their racial makeup is about 100-1. I can’t help but to be fascinated by this phenomena. I wonder how one would go about addressing race in a family such as this.

Interesting stuff. How should such applicants check the boxes on the Common Application? How should Williams classify them in its annual nose-couting exercises? More here from the very non-pc folks at Gene Expression.

Perhaps we can all agree that, for a start, Williams should release the underlying data, should let us know just what boxes are checked in what combination on the Common Application. Is transparency too much to ask for?

The process of racial classification at Williams is endlessly fascinating (see here, here and here). In a previous thread, I was struck by this comment from fellow EphBlog author Reed Wiedower ‘00.

As I pointed out during Winter Study, I’m still curious as to why the college keeps lying about the racial question.

Many people my year refused to answer the question, especially those of mixed heritage. Many so called “whites” were equally dismissive of it.

I think that removing oneself from racial aggregate data is statistically a good move. Why? Because it forces the administration to take a look behind the numbers at what is going on.

I should have challenged Reed at the time on his use of word “lying.” First, there is the issue of the anthropomorphizing the “college” — a sin of which I am regularly guilty. The college doesn’t lie (or talk or tell the truth). Individuals at the College do. Second, the honest and hard-working Ephs at the College who are actually responsible for these statistics are doing the best that they can given the constraints that they face.

In fact, Dave Winters ‘95, Director of Institutional Research (and the man whose name appears on these documents), was kind enough to explain the mechanics of what happens. Endless details below the break.

(more…)

This New York Times article is receiving a fair amount of attention (here, here and here) in the blogosphere.

Alan Moldawer’s adopted twins, Matt and Andrew, had always thought of themselves as white. But when it came time for them to apply to college last year, Mr. Moldawer thought it might be worth investigating the origins of their slightly tan-tinted skin, with a new DNA kit that he had heard could determine an individual’s genetic ancestry.

The results, designating the boys 9 percent Native American and 11 percent northern African, arrived too late for the admissions process. But Mr. Moldawer, a business executive in Silver Spring, Md., says they could be useful in obtaining financial aid.

And for getting into Williams?

“Naturally when you’re applying to college you’re looking at how your genetic status might help you,” said Mr. Moldawer, who knows that the twins’ birth parents are white, but has little information about their extended family. “I have three kids going now, and you can bet that any advantage we can take we will.”

Genetic tests, once obscure tools for scientists, have begun to influence everyday lives in many ways. The tests are reshaping people’s sense of themselves — where they came from, why they behave as they do, what disease might be coming their way.

It may be only natural then that ethnic ancestry tests, one of the first commercial products to emerge from the genetic revolution, are spurring a thorough exploration of the question, What is in it for me?

Quite a bit, at least in terms of admissions to elite colleges. The average combined SAT differential between African-American and Asian-American students at places like Williams is around 150 points. Imagine that you are an ambitious high school senior with mid 600 SATs. Without a “hook,” you are highly unlikely to be admitted to Williams. Check the box marked African-American on the Common Application, and you improve your chances dramatically. How much do you really want to go to Williams?

Given the tests’ speculative nature, it seems unlikely that colleges, governments and other institutions will embrace them. But that has not stopped many test-takers from adopting new DNA-based ethnicities — and a sense of entitlement to the privileges typically reserved for them.

Prospective employees with white skin are using the tests to apply as minority candidates, while some with black skin are citing their European ancestry in claiming inheritance rights.

Note that the Common Application gives you almost complete latitude in what boxes you check. It states, “If you wish to be identified with a particular ethnic group, please check all that apply.” In other words, there is no requirement that you “look” African-American or that other people identify you as African-America or even that you identify yourself as African-American, you just have to “wish to be identified.”

Now, one hopes, that there isn’t too much truth-stretching going on currently. The Admissions Department only wants to give preferences to students who really are African-American, who add to the diversity of Williams because their experiences provide them with a very different outlook than their non-African-American peers. But those experiences can only come from some identification — by society toward you and/or by you to yourself — over the course of, at least, your high school years. How can you bring any meaningful diversity if you never thought of yourself as African-American (or were so thought of by others) until the fall of senior year?

“This is not just somebody’s desire to go find out whether their grandfather is Polish,” said Troy Duster, a sociologist at New York University who has studied the social impact of the tests. “It’s about access to money and power.”

So true. Note that Duster gave a talk at Williams a few months ago. Too bad that no one on campus blogged about it. I’d bet that it was interesting.

Driving the pursuit of genetic bounty are start-up testing companies with names like DNA Tribes and Ethnoancestry. For $99 to $250, they promise to satisfy the human hunger to learn about one’s origins — and sometimes much more. On its Web site, a leader in this cottage industry, DNA Print Genomics, once urged people to use it “whether your goal is to validate your eligibility for race-based college admissions or government entitlements.”

If you care about the traditional notion of diversity at Williams — that it is critical for the College to have enough African-American students, students who identify themselves this way and are so treated by society — than this phrasing must make your blood run cold. What happens when hundreds (thousands?) of students with 600 level SATs take these tests and “discover” that they are African-American?

Some social critics fear that the tests could undermine programs meant to compensate those legitimately disadvantaged because of their race. Others say they highlight an underlying problem with labeling people by race in an increasingly multiracial society.

“If someone appears to be white and then finds out they are not, they haven’t experienced the kinds of things that affirmative action is supposed to remedy,” said Lester Monts, senior vice provost for student affairs at the University of Michigan, which won the right to use race as a factor in admissions in a 2003 Supreme Court decision.

Still, Michigan, like most other universities, relies on how students choose to describe themselves on admissions applications when assigning racial preferences.

Up until now, we have all assumed (hoped) that applicants are mostly honest. The College does not check that you are “really” African-American or Hispanic. They take you at your word — although they certainly like to see club membership, essay/recommendation references and other signs consistent with that check-mark.

Yet what happens when every student at elite high schools gets tested? This will happen. Indeed, how can any social studies teacher resist such a test when it would serve as a great starting point for all sorts of amazing class discussions?

Then, once every junior at Exeter has taken the test, it will be time for some fun discussions in the college councilor’s office.

Uptight Parent: We would really like Johnny to go to Williams.

College Counselor: Well, Johnny is a great kid who will do well at Colby. But, with his grades and test scores, Williams would be quite a reach.

UP: If Johnny were African-American, he would get into Williams.

CC: Well, that might or might not be true, but it hardly seems relevant to this discussion since Johnny is white.

UP: But in the project that Johnny did for social studies showed that he was 2% sub-Saharan African.

CC: So . . .

UP: That means that he can check the African-American box on the Common Application.

CC: Well, the traditional usage of that box is for students that have always identified themselves, and been identified by others, as African-American.

UP: But it doesn’t say that on the form, does it?

CC: No.

UP: So, Johnny can check it, right? There is no school policy against it?

CC: Correct.

UP: In fact, since the test demonstrates that, scientifically, Johnny is African-America, I can count on the school to verify that designation in all its application paperwork.

CC: Yes. [Sigh] And I hear that the fall foliage is lovely in the Berkshires . . .

Think that this is just more stupid EphBlog fantasy?

Ashley Klett’s younger sister marked the “Asian” box on her college applications this year, after the elder Ms. Klett, 20, took a DNA test that said she was 2 percent East Asian and 98 percent European.

Whether it mattered they do not know, but she did get into the college of her choice.

“And they gave her a scholarship,” Ashley said.

Of course, being “Asian” does not help you when applying Williams.

Note also that these tests often make mistakes, so many of the box-checkers will actually be mistaken.

The point here is not that the current admissions policy at Williams is bad or good. It is what it is. The point is that there are significant preferences given to those who check certain boxes and that cheap genetic testing will provide many people with a plausible excuse to check boxes that, a few years ago, they did not have. How much will the admissions process change as a result? Time will tell. It will be very interesting to look at the time series of application by ethnic group over this decade. I predict that the raw number (and total pool percentage) of African-American and Hispanic applicants will increase sharply. Time will tell.

See here and here for bloggers who cover the science behind these tests.

How is a Canadian who is part black and part Chinese classified by the nose counters at Williams? I don’t know.

I would assume that “Pookrum” filled out the Common Application and checked several boxes. Does Williams keep track of non-American racial classifications for enrolled students? If so, why isn’t this data reported? Certainly, the state of diversity at Williams depends, at least partially, on the race/ethnicity of the 6% of students who are international . . .

With regard to this thread, a reader writes:

My comments have to do with the whole nose counting issue. First, let me state the obvious: I usually disagree with Dave and often find him annoying, difficult and insensitive. Also, I do believe that affirmative action has a place in today’s world. However, Rory et. al. are driving me nuts! Why won’t they address the problem of counting a URM for your numbers but that URM not bringing any significantly different experience than a comparable non-URM? It seems a fair and justifiable question worth a response.

My hope is that the admission office looks at the applicants background in detail and sees what kind of “URM experience” they bring to the table. I think all kinds of URM’s experience are valuable: from the prep-school URM to the inner-city URM. But clearly it is in the college’s interest to have a diversity of diversity.

I hate it when people I agree with duck the hard questions and do not have the courage to take on a well thought out critique.

I hate it too.

If it is a rainy day at the end of August, it must be First Days at Williams. Throughout the 80’s the day of then freshmen now first year arrival seemed to always be a day like today, overcast with a bit of rain but not enough to make moving in too hard. At least, that was the weather 21 years ago.

But, from EphBlog’s point of view, there are two key questions: First, is anyone blogging the First Days experience? We are most interested in the presentations that the College makes. I heard some negative comments about last year’s speakers and wonder if things will be better this time around. Second, is anyone taking pictures?

Previous posts on First Days here and here. And, of course, I wonder if the class of 2009 will be learning The Mountains?

The central goal of First Days should be to ensure that every first year makes at least a friendly acquaintanceship with 50 or so other members of the class. A week is not enough time for friendship, of course, but it would be nice if everyone knew enough people well enough that there was always a table for them to join in Baxter (or wherever it is that first years are eating now). Also, it is best if these meetings are as randomized as possible. Ephs of specific interests and backgrounds will have no doubt congregate in the years to come. First Days is the time to meet those who you might not ordinarily meet.

The College already starts this process in the right direction by ensuring that entries are a microcosm of Williams as a whole. There is nothing wrong with well done social engineering. It is also wise to provide a week for the first years to do things as a class, without the pressure/distractions of other obligations. (Am I right in thinking that first year athletes don’t start practicing with their teams until after First Days are over?) I hope that the JA’s also mix up people (perhaps via entry-pairings?) in the discussions after the various speakers. And, certainly, every discussion should begin with the sort of learn-everyone’s-name game that is a staple of summer camps and retreats.

It would be also good to see more of this forced mixing. I hope that WOOLF groups are, for example, not organized by entry but instead mix up the entries as much as possible. It would be even better if the College put WOW later in the semester so that URMs are not (self-)segregated from the very start of their Williams experience.

We are all purple first.

In retrospect, I should have brought up the interesting issue of what counts as “Hispanic” at Williams as a general topic and not tied it directly to one particular student. So, let me bring it up here. The Record reports that:

[Director of Admissions Richard] Nesbitt said he was “ecstatic” with the yield of minority students. “We’re doing very well by any standards,” he said. Included in the class are 53 Asian Americans, 42 African Americans (down from 53 last year at this time), 55 Latinos (a record high) and three Native Americans. Thirty-two international students have also accepted offers. Nesbitt expected the number of African Americans to rise to 9 percent of the class as decision extensions expire this month.

Question: Is it true that there are 55 “Latinos” in the class of 2009?

(more…)

George Tolley claims that he “should know better than to debate with someone who controls the medium (and therefore the message?),” but he was still kind enough to send in these follow ups on our running discussion about admissions at Williams. George writes (with my comments interspersed):

Dave, you give me some credit, and yet I think that you don’t give me enough credit (when it suits your rhetorical position?).

First, perhaps we have a fundamental disagreement over the purpose of racial diversity on campus. In my opinion, so long as the mere fact of race in this country is a reason for people to be separated and treated differently, then it is a reason for people to be thrown together on campus. I recognize this as the-chicken-and-the-egg: who stops basing decisions on race first — schools or society at large? That’s a tough one, and I don’t have the knowledge, background, experience or time to debate it effectively.

Race does matter in this country, but I suspect that we disagree about how much it matters. In any event, recall that our precise diagreement is about whether or not my mixed race daughters should get preference over your non-mixed race sons. For all practicle purposes, my daughters are not “treated differently” than your sons in the America of 2003. Indeed, many people who see them don’t even realize that they are mixed race! (Actually, one daughter could probably “pass” and one couldn’t.)

If I had fallen in love with and married a Williams woman of African, as opposed to Chinese, ancestry then this would not be as true. Indeed, to the extent that any ethnic box checking is reasonable in the Williams admissions process of today, a preference for black applicants would be the least objectionable. I still think that people over-estimate how differently 17 year olds — at least the 17 year olds who are educationally and economically on the path to a Williams application — are treated based on the color of their skin.

But, at least when it comes to my daughters, it is simply untrue to say that they have been “separated and treated differently” from the sort of students who populate the Williams campus today. Indeed, by the time that they apply to Williams, the proportion of young women of mixed race ancestry from educated, affluent families will be much greater than their proportion in the larger society. Providing them with affirmative action (with regard to your sons) would be the functional equivalent of providing a Jewish applicant with this advantage. It is neither needed nor warranted.

You also ask, why use race as a proxy for a particular life experience, when the admissions office could simply use that life experience itself? In some instances, such as your (unfair) example comparing your daughters to a Chinese immigrant, it should be a simple matter for the admissions office to recognize the difference in the richness in cultural heritage, simply by comparing elementary school transcripts. I reiterate: “I trust the admissions people at Williams to assign a degree of preference to that element of their application that adequately balances the multitude of competing interests that come into play.”

Why is my example unfair? Indeed, an even better one would involve a Chinese immigrant from a place like Vietnam or Indonesia or any of the many countries in which the Chinese diaspora are discriminated against, both formally and informally.

I stand second to none in my admiration of the skill and dedication of the people in the Williams admissions office, and I certainly hope that they will recall these kind words in 10 years. I also suspect that, even though George thinks that my daughters deserve an advantage over his sons, the Williams admissions office won’t agree. My daughters won’t get an advantage because Williams will, based on merit, have as plenty of mixed raced students. Their race won’t affect their prospects.

I still object, as a matter of principle, to the college’s bean counting. Consider a reprentative quote: “And the community of students is becoming increasingly diverse. In the Class of 2006 alone, 27 percent of students identified themselves as black, Latino or of Asian descent, and 6.5 percent are from countries outside the United States. No entering class in Williams history has been as diverse.”

This is the sort of thinking that I find offensive. What if the class of 2007 looks just like the like the class of 2006, except that they removed 10 students who looked like George’s sons and replaced them with 10 that looked like my daughters? Would this new class, with 29% “minority” be more “diverse”? I don’t think so. It follows that the College’s claims to increasing diversity should be taken with a grain of salt. One of the problems with ethnic bean counting is that it makes it too easy for the College to claim increasing diversity without actually having achieved it in any sort of substantive manner. Non-white does not equal diverse.

But in other instances, can you see that it might be much more difficult to parse out important life experiences (e.g., achieving success despite having been the victim of discrimination in housing or employment). As a practical matter, how does an admissions office identify students with such valuable but intangible assets? There are only so many experiences that one can cram into even a well-written essay.

And what about the diversity of opinions? Some opinions are not politically correct, and others might be considered radical or dangerous, and as a result these opinions are never expressed on a college admissions application. Sometimes, I suspect that teenagers have such opinions, but they don’t know that they have them, or how to express them effectively. Should the diversity of such opinions simply be ignored as irrelevant to the college admissions process?

Of course not. I never argued this. Indeed, I think that Williams could be a lot more diverse on this metric.

And isn’t race just as legitimate a proxy for those opinions as anything else?

No. No. No. A thousand times no. Race is a horrible proxy for diversity of opinion and experience. Fortunately, the College has access to a wealth of information that matters as much if not more than race, starting with the applicant’s high school. In terms of real diversity, I would be much more interested in how many students come from families with incomes below the 10th percentile or attended high schools from which fewer than 25% of the students went on to college. I can imagine a case for giving applicants like this a preference over George’s sons. I can not see a case for so favoring my daughters.

I would also put a lot more credence in the College’s claims of increasing diversity if they were to provide statistics on these sorts of measures.

And what about the issue of future life experience? Does the college have an interest in training leaders, and if so, then isn’t it just possible that your daughters (even them!) could be role models in this country in ways that my sons never could be, simply by virtue of (the accident of) their gender and racial makeup? And in that case, shouldn’t the College pursue your daughters, and others like them, to fill some proportion of the admitted population?

No. While it would be great if the College could train future presidents, cure cancer and implement world peace, I would be happy if it were to just focus on (and succeed at) one goal: To provide the best liberal arts undergraduate education on Earth.

Given his previous comments on ethnic box checking, I asked George Tolley if he felt that my daughters should be given preference over his sons by the Williams admissions office. For those who don’t know, George and I, while not the two brightest stars in Carter House firmament, were smart enough to marry wonderful women from the class of 1989. Although both Kay and Kirsten are as American as apple pie, Kay (my wife) is of Chinese descent while Kirsten is of German ancestry — my guess, on the basis of Kirsten’s maiden name along with her blond hair and blue eyes. George replied as follows. I (unfairly!) interspersed my comments below. Of course, if I were really smart/geeky, I would be able to set up this blog with a proper comments section, but that will have to await the summer.

Let me be clear (and equally provocative): Yes, I do.

Further, I trust the admissions people at Williams to assign a degree of preference to that element of their application that adequately balances the multitude of competing interests that come into play. Thus, your daughters may get a large boost, because of a perceived need in that class year to check that particular box; or they may receive only an infinitessimal boost, because of the relative surplus of mixed-race marriages in our generation. In either instance, the admissions office can and should have the discretion to make those judgments — both to improve the class and to improve the four-year educational journey of the students offered admission.

George may be my buddy and ex-roommate, but I find this delusional. In what meaningful way will the race of my daughters — the shape of their eyes, the pigment of their skins — effect the education of their classmates at Williams? How will it change what they write in their papers or say in their classes or through out for discussion during the late night bull sessions? The answer, of course, is that it won’t. Pigmentation, in and of itself, does not matter.

George will respond that, of course, he (and the admissions office) is not interested in pigmentation for its own sake. He (and they) care about the experiences that are correlated with that pigmentation. And, certainly, my daughters have something of an exposure to Chinese culture. They eat Dim Sum. They get “lucky money” in red envelopes on Chinese New Year. But these attributes are about as important to who they are as my father’s preference for green ties on St Patrick’s Day is to who he is.

And that is the difference between ethnic box checking (EBC?) and meaningful diversity. An 18 year old who immigrated from China when she was 10 and speaks Chinese at home to her parents might (might!) deserve some sort of preference over George’s sons in applying to Williams. Such a woman would add more diversity of opinion and world view to a Williams classroom than my own daughters would, charming as they might otherwise be. To argue that my daughters deserve a preference over George’s sons — My but their eyes are so unsually shaped! And look at the color of their skin! — is to care more about appearence than substance.

In either instance, I approach the issue without believing that “getting into Williams” is the be-all and end-all that getting into the University of Michigan seems to have been for the plaintiffs in their case. Living with crushing disappointment is a valuable lesson — one that some of those Groton kids probably needed more than actually getting into an Ivy school. After all, I didn’t get into most of the Ivy schools where I applied, but I landed on my feet and turned out okay.

Mainly because you were smart enough to marry Kirsten! ;-)

Correspondingly, I fully expect that my boys will be better writers, clearer thinkers, happier people, and more comfortable with diversity or whatever after their college experience (as I certainly was), whether they attend Williams or Swarthmore or the University of Maryland (in this, perhaps I display a bias — I do expect my sons to attend college somewhere).

On top of that, I join those who believe that diversity of opinion and experience is a good thing in higher education. And in a country where the precise thing that would disadvantage my sons in college admissions grants them an advantage in virtually every other aspect of their lives, I add ethnic diversity to the list.

Perhaps George and I agree more than we disagree. Diversity of opinion and experience is good. But the experiences of my daughters is, for most practical purposes, no different from the experiences of George’s sons. Williams parents. Surburban living. Good schools. Soccer teams. Trips to Disney World. Given that, why should Willams favor my daughters?