Posted under Affirmative Action & Political Correctness & Race
A new study indicates that lower-income European Americans (i.e. poor white people) are the most discriminated against group of people in college admissions. Russell K. Nieli writes:
A new study by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and his colleague Alexandria Radford is a real eye-opener in revealing just what sorts of students highly competitive colleges want — or don’t want — on their campuses and how they structure their admissions policies to get the kind of “diversity” they seek. The Espenshade/Radford study draws from a new data set, the National Study of College Experience (NSCE), which was gathered from eight highly competitive public and private colleges and universities (entering freshmen SAT scores: 1360). Data was collected on over 245,000 applicants from three separate application years, and over 9,000 enrolled students filled out extensive questionnaires….
The box students checked off on the racial question on their application was thus shown to have an extraordinary effect on a student’s chances of gaining admission to the highly competitive private schools in the NSCE database. To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550. …
Espenshade and Radford also take up very thoroughly the question of “class based preferences” and what they find clearly shows a general disregard for improving the admission chances of poor and otherwise disadvantaged whites. Other studies, including a 2005 analysis of nineteen highly selective public and private universities by William Bowen, Martin Kurzweil, and Eugene Tobin, in their 2003 book, Equity and Excellence in American Higher Education, found very little if any advantage in the admissions process accorded to whites from economically or educationally disadvantaged families compared to whites from wealthier or better educated homes. …
At the private institutions in their study whites from lower-class backgrounds incurred a huge admissions disadvantage not only in comparison to lower-class minority students, but compared to whites from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds as well. The lower-class whites proved to be all-around losers. When equally matched for background factors (including SAT scores and high school GPAs), the better-off whites were more than three times as likely to be accepted as the poorest whites (.28 vs. .08 admissions probability).
Having money in the family greatly improved a white applicant’s admissions chances, lack of money greatly reduced it. The opposite class trend was seen among non-whites, where the poorer the applicant the greater the probability of acceptance when all other factors are taken into account. Class-based affirmative action does exist within the three non-white ethno-racial groupings, but among the whites the groups advanced are those with money.
When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.
Poor Non-White Students: “Counting Twice”
The enormous disadvantage incurred by lower-class whites in comparison to non-whites and wealthier whites is partially explained by Espenshade and Radford as a result of the fact that, except for the very wealthiest institutions like Harvard and Princeton, private colleges and universities are reluctant to admit students who cannot afford their high tuitions. And since they have a limited amount of money to give out for scholarship aid, they reserve this money to lure those who can be counted in their enrollment statistics as diversity-enhancing “racial minorities.” Poor whites are apparently given little weight as enhancers of campus diversity, while poor non-whites count twice in the diversity tally, once as racial minorities and a second time as socio-economically deprived….
There are problems, however, with this explanation. …
Besides the bias against lower-class whites, the private colleges in the Espenshade/Radford study seem to display what might be called an urban/Blue State bias against rural and Red State occupations and values. This is most clearly shown in a little remarked statistic in the study’s treatment of the admissions advantage of participation in various high school extra-curricular activities. In the competitive private schools surveyed participation in many types of extra-curricular activities — including community service activities, performing arts activities, and “cultural diversity” activities — conferred a substantial improvement in an applicant’s chances of admission. The admissions advantage was usually greatest for those who held leadership positions or who received awards or honors associated with their activities. No surprise here — every student applying to competitive colleges knows about the importance of extracurriculars.
But what Espenshade and Radford found in regard to what they call “career-oriented activities” was truly shocking even to this hardened veteran of the campus ideological and cultural wars. Participation in such Red State activities as high school ROTC, 4-H clubs, or the Future Farmers of America was found to reduce very substantially a student’s chances of gaining admission to the competitive private colleges in the NSCE database on an all-other-things-considered basis. The admissions disadvantage was greatest for those in leadership positions in these activities or those winning honors and awards. “Being an officer or winning awards” for such career-oriented activities as junior ROTC, 4-H, or Future Farmers of America, say Espenshade and Radford, “has a significantly negative association with admission outcomes at highly selective institutions.” Excelling in these activities “is associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds of admission.”
Espenshade and Radford don’t have much of an explanation for this find, which seems to place the private colleges even more at variance with their stated commitment to broadly based campus diversity. In his Bakke ruling Lewis Powell was impressed by the argument Harvard College offered defending the educational value of a demographically diverse student body: “A farm boy from Idaho can bring something to Harvard College that a Bostonian cannot offer. Similarly, a black student can usually bring something that a white person cannot offer.” The Espenshade/Radford study suggests that those farm boys from Idaho would do well to stay out of their local 4-H clubs or FFA organizations — or if they do join, they had better not list their membership on their college application forms. This is especially true if they were officers in any of these organizations.
HT: Steve Sailer
Addendum: For more discrimination against whites, check out the Bill Gates scholarships.
RonL on 20 Jul 2010 at 6:42 am #
It is part cultural bias and part economics. There are only so many scholarships to go around and they are basically meant for non-whites. Unless you are willing to deconstruct your whiteness, you are not diverse.
For the record, acceptable activities is an issue in NYC too. It’s an art form for prep kids here and it doesn’t start with teenagers but with parents trying to get their tykes into the right preschools.
ShellyBrown on 20 Jul 2010 at 6:45 pm #
i’ve been following this on memeorandum. the worst is when libs try to say that it’s because things like model un, german club and so on prepare you for post-college life moreso than things like 4h or ffa. how many people do you know with a harvard degree who go on to become horse breeders or run kennels instead of working at the world bank?
the problem is that this is part of the problem. instead of getting a good education and returning home to where they came from the best of america’s students are getting educations and working for international in scope groups like citibank or exxon.
we need to find a way to decouple education from jobs so that good educations can go to everyone without consideration of what they’ll do after getting a degree.
any ideas on how?
Bede on 20 Jul 2010 at 8:11 pm #
Yea, do away with all professional schools (business schools, education schools, etc) and return to traditional liberal arts schools that only offer traditional degrees (e.g. humanities and hard sciences).
ShellyBrown on 20 Jul 2010 at 8:24 pm #
that’s really not very helpful. take for example engineering, computer sciences and several hybrid degrees, like biostatistics. you don’t think that those are disciplines worthy of university education? honestly, without university level funding, you couldn’t do most of the interesting stuff in those fields.
i also don’t think that the libs are wrong as much as they miss the point. yes it’s true that ffa is not something that prepares you to be in harvard, but why is it that so few harvard grads want to be farmers? i think that its because of the fact that we’ve gotten so big that international corporations just steal the best of everyone from wherever they want and locate them wherever they want – there’s no such thing as going to college and coming back any more.
i don’t think that banning medical schools or engineering schools is the way to go.
what we need is a fundamental rethinking of everything around us that got us here.
Bede on 20 Jul 2010 at 11:11 pm #
Of course, I didn’t mean to do away with medical schools or computer science and engineering degrees. (Medical school is usually a graduate program one attends after acquiring a liberal arts degree.) But we should do away with many of the fluff professional schools (like “education,” business, etc., which really serve no purpose) and the degrees specifically designed for affirmative action retards (American studies, leisure management, etc.)
ShellyBrown on 21 Jul 2010 at 12:10 am #
but even if you abolish business school, how does that help create incentives for people to go back to Shreveport or Omaha after finishing school? why should a montana girl with an mit degree in computer science bother going back to helena when all the jobs are in new york, chicago, san francisco or virginia?
that’s the issue no one is talking about. over at lydia’s place, they’re talking about contempt for white people and reverse racism, which is fine, but nobody’s hitting the big picture. why is it that people go to school and never go back? there’s too much money at stake to do so.
so when i talk about decoupling education from jobs, it’s part of a bigger conversation. how do we as a country create fair opportunities for everyone all over the nation so that citibank and lloyds don’t just take the cream of our schools, drop them in harvard for four years and then conveniently locate them wherever they want? how can helena, montana, be a part of the spoils, so that montana kids can come back home, remain montanans and still be rewarded for their education?
i don’t have an answer, which is why i’m trying to talk to people about it.
Bede on 21 Jul 2010 at 1:56 am #
There’s no doubt that the modern economy has created a “brain drain” from rural areas. Perhaps as previous economic centers become more undesirable — because of mass immigration, population density, etc. — there will be more of an incentive for these people to return to their hometowns after college.
I also don’t have an answer.
Captainchaos on 21 Jul 2010 at 6:56 am #
As the senile yearning for a past which can never be recaptured and the infantile, dreamy optimism that some acceptable level of reform, however small, can be pursued within the existing dispensation are increasingly violently torn away a new horizon will be revealed. Behind the veil lies the possibility of total revolution which knows no limits. Verily, a better world will have been brought into being – for us. And our enemies…as if expunged from the pages of history.
If we don’t have to settle for less, then why should we? There is no reason.
Captainchaos on 21 Jul 2010 at 7:22 am #
The proposition that the demographic shifts and racial dispossession we have experienced are essentially irreversible is the most pathetic areality and squalid self-fulfilling prophecy of ultimate ruination imaginable. Only and ever true within the bounds of the existing zeitgeist.
ShellyBrown on 21 Jul 2010 at 4:27 pm #
personally i think that technical fields aside (and even for some like computer programming) you learn all the skills you need on the job so education should be about letting someone learn what they want to learn. i’ve met great programmers who were artists by training and great copywriters who did american history in school.
i hate the idea of school as job training and i think that this is why people are doing what they do. if you have a harvard degree, you’ve probably taken out loans. there’s no way you can pay that back being a farmer. it makes more sense to be a banker.
RedPhillips on 21 Jul 2010 at 7:35 pm #
“i hate the idea of school as job training”
So do I.
We have actually addressed the issue of rural brain drain here before. I know I have. I know Patroon has. But I don’t think the root cause is necessarily the education/employment coupling although it is certainly a part of it. I think the issue is more a spiritual problem (not necessarily in the religion sense) of materialism among other things. A smart and goal directed kid from rural town, USA goes away to college, graduates and then takes a job in Big City, USA 1000 miles from home because they gave him “the best offer.” Some of that may have to do with the reality of paying back loans, but some of it is because we largely measure success materially. We judge (ourselves and others) the guy with the big house, nice car, boat, disposable income, etc. as more “successful” than the guy who is struggling to make it because he took a “lesser” job back home to be near kith and kin. We consider it our birthright to “go wherever we want to go and be whatever we want to be” as long as we work hard enough. It is all inextricably tied up in the whole modern project.
BrockTownsend on 21 Jul 2010 at 8:37 pm #
(wmounts, A&M. BT)
This story hits a little too close to home for me.
ITEM #1:
I spent the last two days with my son at his soon-to-be college’s orientation. My son who is half-white, half-Korean, is an amazing young man (my bias notwithstanding). He is entering college with 38 credit-hours from Advanced Placement courses/exams, and had a 1550 on the traditional SAT (2300 on the new one), with an overall high school GPA of 4.2 (out of 4.0). He is a National Merit Scholar. Two summers ago, he spent the summer in an Artificial Intelligence program at Stanford, and this summer is continuing his job of last summer working in research in a USArmy lab.
He was accepted to only two universities, neither of which was the University of VA (a state funded public institution).
ITEM#2:
He had his 18th birthday recently, and we had a party for him which included 8 of his friends. He went to a rather special high school; all of them are extremely high achievers. The group was mixed ethnically; a couple of mixed race kids, three whites, a couple of asians, and one black girl. Guess which person was accepted to Yale, even though 6 of the others had higher SATs and GPAs?
ITEM#3:
At dinner Monday night, we ended up at a table that included a man who bragged about having 3 masters degrees in very obscure subjects (ancient music seemed to be his favorite), whined about not making very much money, but then boasted about how his lack of income worked in his favor because the university was giving his son an almost free ride. As a counterpoint to this, my business of 20 years is struggling because of the massive loss of manufacturing in this country, and our income has dwindled over the last 2-3 years. But, because we were frugal during the good times and can show “wealth”, we are getting no assistance.
I’d like to say that I’m not bitter, but…
College Diversity: Code for Race Discrimination « College Blogaversity on 22 Jul 2010 at 12:45 pm #
[...] familes are the most discriminated against group in the college admissions office, according to a recent analysis of a Princeton University study. If your child fits into this category, how will you reveal that [...]
To be poor and white in America | Conservative Heritage Times on 24 Jul 2010 at 6:17 pm #
[...] stay poor and white. I say probably because there’s always the occasional go-getter or two, but when a recent study showed that elite academia has no interest in having poor or middle to low middle class whites [...]
Daily Reading | Conservative Heritage Times on 25 Jul 2010 at 8:43 pm #
[...] recent study showing that lower-income European Americans (poor whites) are the most discriminated against in college [...]
Shirley Sherrod & Obama’s War against European America | Conservative Heritage Times on 27 Jul 2010 at 6:13 pm #
[...] A recent study confirms that poor whites are the most discriminated against group in college admissions. – A recent report [...]
Whitey, pack up your desk! | Conservative Heritage Times on 29 Jul 2010 at 3:13 am #
[...] week indeed has been a bad week for European Americans. First, we hear how poor whites are the most discriminated against in college admissions. Second, we learn that the [...]
Obama Flashes Gang Signs? | Conservative Heritage Times on 10 Aug 2010 at 2:02 am #
[...] in Texas. As the thuggery of the Obama Regime reaches new heights…. Barack Obama flashes gang signs | | | | | [...]
To be poor and white in the Age of Obama | Conservative Heritage Times on 10 Aug 2010 at 9:05 pm #
[...] whites) are now the most discriminated against group of people in college admissions. As recently noted by Russell K. Nieli: Lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the [...]
Egalitarianism vs. Science | Conservative Heritage Times on 27 Aug 2010 at 2:47 pm #
[...] much longer will egalitarianism be at war with science? And how much longer will European Americans suffer because of this war? | | | | | [...]