小区的房子终于卖光了# Living
m*4
1 楼
挺实在的一篇文章。
http://touch.latimes.com/?from=timeline&isappinstalled=0#sectio
BY SARA HARBERSON
June 9, 2015, 8:00 a.m.
In May, 60 groups filed a complaint with the Justice and Education
departments claiming that Asian Americans are held to a different standard
— a higher standard — than other students applying for admission at elite
universities. They believe that "holistic admissions" is being used as a
modern-day form of racial discrimination.
I worked in admissions at the University of Pennsylvania and at Franklin &
Marshall College, and I can tell you something about what goes on. Elite
universities — public and private — practice what is called "holistic
admissions," a policy based on the idea that a test score or GPA does not
completely reflect who a student is and what he or she can bring to a
college community. It allows a college to factor in a student's background,
challenges overcome, extracurricular involvement, letters of recommendation,
special talents, writing ability and many other criteria. Private schools
and many public universities can include race among the characteristics they
consider, as long as they don't apply racial quotas.
In all, holistic admissions adds subjectivity to admissions decisions, and
the practice makes it difficult to explain who gets in, who doesn't, and why
. But has holistic admissions become a guise for allowing cultural and even
racial biases to dictate the admissions process?
To some degree, yes.
As an admissions professional, I gave students, families and guidance
counselors a list of what it took to be admitted — the objective
expectations of a competitive applicant. I didn't mention that racial
stereotyping, money, connections and athletics sometimes overshadow these
high benchmarks we all promoted. The veil of holistic admissions allows for
these other factors to become key elements in a student's admissions
decision.
The most heart-wrenching conversations I had were with students who hit all
the listed benchmarks and didn't get in. I would tell them about the overall
competitiveness of the applicant pool and the record low admit rate we had.
But after I hung up the phone, I knew I wasn't being transparent.
There was always a reason. Once in a while, it was something concrete, like
the student got a low grade in an academic course even though his or her
overall GPA remained high. Often, it had to do with the fact that the
application had no "tag."
A tag is the proverbial golden ticket for a student applying to an elite
institution. A tag identifies a student as a high priority for the
institution. Typically students with tags are recruited athletes, children
of alumni, children of donors or potential donors, or students who are
connected to the well connected. The lack of a tag can hinder an otherwise
strong, high-achieving student. Asian American students typically don't have
these tags.
Asian Americans are rarely children of alumni at the Ivies, for example.
There aren't as many recruited athletes coming from the Asian American
applicant pool. Nor are they typically earmarked as "actual" or "potential"
donors. They simply don't have long-standing connections to these
institutions.
And the fact is that Asian Americans often don't use the "connections" they
do have. In all my years in college admissions, I never received a phone
call or a visit from a well-connected politician, chief executive or other
leader to advocate for an Asian American student.
Tags alone are not the only reason highly qualified Asian American
applicants are turned away in droves from elite private institutions.
Nowadays nobody on an admissions committee would dare use the term racial "
quotas," but racial stereotyping is alive and well. And although colleges
would never admit students based on "quotas," they fearlessly will "sculpt"
the class with race and gender percentages in mind.
For example, there's an expectation that Asian Americans will be the highest
test scorers and at the top of their class; anything less can become an
easy reason for a denial. And yet even when Asian American students meet
this high threshold, they may be destined for the wait list or outright
denial because they don't stand out among the other high-achieving students
in their cohort. The most exceptional academic applicants may be seen as the
least unique, and so admissions officers are rarely moved to fight for them.
In the end, holistic admissions can allow for a gray zone of bias at elite
institutions, working against a group such as Asian Americans that excels in
the black-and-white world of academic achievement.
This doesn't mean that holistic admissions should be outlawed. I'm convinced
that empirical benchmarks can't be the only thing that matters in college
admissions. Holistic admissions can be truly glorious to watch in action. To
see an admissions committee admit a student for the story and background he
or she brings is exactly what America, education and opportunity are all
about.
One way to improve the system for Asian Americans — and everyone else — is
to add more transparency to the process. That would mean coming clean about
tags and their influence in the admissions process. In addition, all
colleges should be required to make public the demographics of their
applicants and the percentages admitted. This is already the practice at
many public universities, such as the University of California.
Better yet, schools should also break down their admits' high school GPAs
and test scores by race and ethnicity. Knowing acceptance rates by
identifiable characteristics can reveal institutional tendencies, if not
outright biases; it can push schools to better justify their practices, and
it would give applicants a look at which schools offer them the best
opportunities.
Without more transparency, holistic admissions can become an excuse for
cultural bias to dictate a process that is supposed to open doors. We are
better than that. And our youth will demand that we do something about it.
Sara Harberson is the founder of AdmissionsRevolution.com, a subscription
college counseling website. She is the former associate dean of admissions
at the University of Pennsylvania and the former dean of admissions and
financial aid at Franklin & Marshall College.
http://touch.latimes.com/?from=timeline&isappinstalled=0#sectio
BY SARA HARBERSON
June 9, 2015, 8:00 a.m.
In May, 60 groups filed a complaint with the Justice and Education
departments claiming that Asian Americans are held to a different standard
— a higher standard — than other students applying for admission at elite
universities. They believe that "holistic admissions" is being used as a
modern-day form of racial discrimination.
I worked in admissions at the University of Pennsylvania and at Franklin &
Marshall College, and I can tell you something about what goes on. Elite
universities — public and private — practice what is called "holistic
admissions," a policy based on the idea that a test score or GPA does not
completely reflect who a student is and what he or she can bring to a
college community. It allows a college to factor in a student's background,
challenges overcome, extracurricular involvement, letters of recommendation,
special talents, writing ability and many other criteria. Private schools
and many public universities can include race among the characteristics they
consider, as long as they don't apply racial quotas.
In all, holistic admissions adds subjectivity to admissions decisions, and
the practice makes it difficult to explain who gets in, who doesn't, and why
. But has holistic admissions become a guise for allowing cultural and even
racial biases to dictate the admissions process?
To some degree, yes.
As an admissions professional, I gave students, families and guidance
counselors a list of what it took to be admitted — the objective
expectations of a competitive applicant. I didn't mention that racial
stereotyping, money, connections and athletics sometimes overshadow these
high benchmarks we all promoted. The veil of holistic admissions allows for
these other factors to become key elements in a student's admissions
decision.
The most heart-wrenching conversations I had were with students who hit all
the listed benchmarks and didn't get in. I would tell them about the overall
competitiveness of the applicant pool and the record low admit rate we had.
But after I hung up the phone, I knew I wasn't being transparent.
There was always a reason. Once in a while, it was something concrete, like
the student got a low grade in an academic course even though his or her
overall GPA remained high. Often, it had to do with the fact that the
application had no "tag."
A tag is the proverbial golden ticket for a student applying to an elite
institution. A tag identifies a student as a high priority for the
institution. Typically students with tags are recruited athletes, children
of alumni, children of donors or potential donors, or students who are
connected to the well connected. The lack of a tag can hinder an otherwise
strong, high-achieving student. Asian American students typically don't have
these tags.
Asian Americans are rarely children of alumni at the Ivies, for example.
There aren't as many recruited athletes coming from the Asian American
applicant pool. Nor are they typically earmarked as "actual" or "potential"
donors. They simply don't have long-standing connections to these
institutions.
And the fact is that Asian Americans often don't use the "connections" they
do have. In all my years in college admissions, I never received a phone
call or a visit from a well-connected politician, chief executive or other
leader to advocate for an Asian American student.
Tags alone are not the only reason highly qualified Asian American
applicants are turned away in droves from elite private institutions.
Nowadays nobody on an admissions committee would dare use the term racial "
quotas," but racial stereotyping is alive and well. And although colleges
would never admit students based on "quotas," they fearlessly will "sculpt"
the class with race and gender percentages in mind.
For example, there's an expectation that Asian Americans will be the highest
test scorers and at the top of their class; anything less can become an
easy reason for a denial. And yet even when Asian American students meet
this high threshold, they may be destined for the wait list or outright
denial because they don't stand out among the other high-achieving students
in their cohort. The most exceptional academic applicants may be seen as the
least unique, and so admissions officers are rarely moved to fight for them.
In the end, holistic admissions can allow for a gray zone of bias at elite
institutions, working against a group such as Asian Americans that excels in
the black-and-white world of academic achievement.
This doesn't mean that holistic admissions should be outlawed. I'm convinced
that empirical benchmarks can't be the only thing that matters in college
admissions. Holistic admissions can be truly glorious to watch in action. To
see an admissions committee admit a student for the story and background he
or she brings is exactly what America, education and opportunity are all
about.
One way to improve the system for Asian Americans — and everyone else — is
to add more transparency to the process. That would mean coming clean about
tags and their influence in the admissions process. In addition, all
colleges should be required to make public the demographics of their
applicants and the percentages admitted. This is already the practice at
many public universities, such as the University of California.
Better yet, schools should also break down their admits' high school GPAs
and test scores by race and ethnicity. Knowing acceptance rates by
identifiable characteristics can reveal institutional tendencies, if not
outright biases; it can push schools to better justify their practices, and
it would give applicants a look at which schools offer them the best
opportunities.
Without more transparency, holistic admissions can become an excuse for
cultural bias to dictate a process that is supposed to open doors. We are
better than that. And our youth will demand that we do something about it.
Sara Harberson is the founder of AdmissionsRevolution.com, a subscription
college counseling website. She is the former associate dean of admissions
at the University of Pennsylvania and the former dean of admissions and
financial aid at Franklin & Marshall College.
