For Gatekeepers at Colleges, A Daunting Task of Weeding, by Jacques Steinberg, New
York Times, February 27, 2000, excerpt:
"Though the Californian's
SAT scores exceeded the median of those applying
to Wesleyan (1,350), and her race [Asian] and
West Coast origin were in high demand, Mr.
Figueroa finally circled the preliminary
recommendation "deny." Among his
concerns, he said, was that she had not selected
very challenging courses.
The New Yorker [Hispanic],
despite scores that ranked her among the bottom
of this year's applicants [and a "D"
in English], got a tentative "admit."
Mr. Figueroa liked the portrait of a scrapper
and born leader that emerged from her essay and
teacher recommendations. But he conceded that he
also saw a grainy reflection of himself -- he is
the sixth of seven children raised by
Mexican-born parents in California -- staring
back from her manila folder."
Steve Sailer comments:
What's fascinating in
this NY Times account of a Mexican-American
admissions officer at
Wesleyan U., besides the obvious -- the rank
Hispanic chauvinism,
the desire to be a "social engineer"
and the anti-Asian prejudice -- is the admissions officers'
absolute refusal to look at quantitative feedback on the consequences of
their past admissions decisions. Mr. Figueroa
has a "gut
feeling" that a co-Hispanic with an SAT
score two standard deviations
below the Wesleyan mean will somehow be a
success, while the Asian with the well-above average test
score won't. Well, what's his batting average on his past gut
feelings? Did the people he admit in the past do
better -- in terms of gpa,
hard majors, graduation rates, professional
school acceptances,
donations to alumni funds, or whatever -- than
the other admissions
officers? How did Wesleyan's admittees do
compared to its rivals? How did past admittees with
SAT's 400 points below the mean do compare to
past admittees with scores
125 points above the mean?
Next question: why
isn't there enough of a competitive marketplace
in collegiate
education that colleges that permit this kind of
shoddy workmanship
on the part of their admissions staffs don't get
driven into bankruptcy?
Richard Armour's
definition of an admissions office -- the
committee in charging
of admitting the university's mistakes.
[Steve Sailer [email
him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and
movie critic for
The American Conservative.
His website
www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily
blog.]