3 ms·

Being from a "big, square state" was a non-trivial admissions bonus when I was in high school - once I got my SAT scores back, I was flooded with mail from scho

by MandieD 10y ago

Being from a "big, square state" was a non-trivial admissions bonus when I was in high school - once I got my SAT scores back, I was flooded with mail from schools I hadn't dreamed of applying to, full of references to "need-blind admissions" and examples of estimated financial aid for truly middle-class/working-class families. I grew up in Texas, but outside of the big urban/suburban areas. I'm white, as are most residents of "big, square states".

yummyfajitas 10y ago
At Michigan - the one university where numbers were made explicit - being black is worth +1.0 on GPA, whereas underrepresented state is +0.1 and underrepresented county in Michigan is +0.3. https://www.cir-usa.org/Images/mich_index.gif https://www.cir-usa.org/Images/mich_index.gif Do you have any data suggesting that other universities give even remotely as much weight to underrepresented state as they do to race?
- rmxt 10y ago
  It's flagrantly misleading to claim that "being black is worth [x]" when this scale is dated and explicitly prohibited from use after Gratz v. Bollinger (2003). See here for UMich's 16 year old explanation of this scale: https://diversity.umich.edu/admissions/archivedocs/uapolicy.html https://diversity.umich.edu/admissions/archivedocs/uapolicy.... Do you have any data suggesting anything of the sort is still in use?
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Colleges are secretive, so we need to make do with what little data the court forced them to reveal. I know of no data more current than this. Do you have any evidence things have changed?
    - rmxt 10y ago
      How can you take something as useful evidence when it has been explicitly prohibited from use? Unless public colleges are secretly flying in the face of a Supreme Court ruling, your assertion that "being black is worth +1.0 on GPA, whereas underrepresented state is +0.1 and underrepresented county in Michigan is +0.3," is unproven by the evidence you provided. Had you said "was," and explained that you don't believe things have changed, that would have been far more intellectually honest.

by MandieD 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

At Michigan - the one university where numbers were made explicit - being black is worth +1.0 on GPA, whereas underrepresented state is +0.1 and underrepresented county in Michigan is +0.3. https://www.cir-usa.org/Images/mich_index.gif https://www.cir-usa.org/Images/mich_index.gif Do you have any data suggesting that other universities give even remotely as much weight to underrepresented state as they do to race?

rmxt 10y ago
It's flagrantly misleading to claim that "being black is worth [x]" when this scale is dated and explicitly prohibited from use after Gratz v. Bollinger (2003). See here for UMich's 16 year old explanation of this scale: https://diversity.umich.edu/admissions/archivedocs/uapolicy.html https://diversity.umich.edu/admissions/archivedocs/uapolicy.... Do you have any data suggesting anything of the sort is still in use?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Colleges are secretive, so we need to make do with what little data the court forced them to reveal. I know of no data more current than this. Do you have any evidence things have changed?
  - rmxt 10y ago
    How can you take something as useful evidence when it has been explicitly prohibited from use? Unless public colleges are secretly flying in the face of a Supreme Court ruling, your assertion that "being black is worth +1.0 on GPA, whereas underrepresented state is +0.1 and underrepresented county in Michigan is +0.3," is unproven by the evidence you provided. Had you said "was," and explained that you don't believe things have changed, that would have been far more intellectually honest.