Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Affirmative Action for the Rich

—

by

Dick Hall-Sizemore
in ,

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

It turns out that, when it comes to admission to elite universities, kids from rich families have not only the advantages that are inherent with their background — top prep schools, tutors, an upbringing full of varied experiences, etc.— they have one more advantage — simply being rich.

A recently released study shows that in applicant pools for the Ivy League universities, Stanford, Duke, M.I.T., and the University of Chicago, of those applicants with the same SAT or ACT scores, those from families in the top 1 percent income bracket were 34% more likely to be admitted. Those from families in the top 0.1 percent were twice as likely to be admitted.

All the celebrating over the recent Supreme Court decisions amid declarations that “admission should be based on merit” may have been premature. Those decisions may just result in more rich White kids getting admitted.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

43 responses to “Affirmative Action for the Rich”

  1. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    15“You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.
    There is a chance the rich are getting in because the parents were smart and high earners and the student has the genes.
    There is also the possibility of good habits being passed or insisted by the parents.
    There is also the possibility the school admits because the parents can pay the full (inflated, ridiculous) price. Which subsidizes the low income kids (I particularly hate the socialism of this and wish there was just a real price.)
    And then there are the spawn of political hacks who I suspect get admitted for who the parent is and the position held (and the opportunity for grift)
    Lots of variables…

  2. Acbar Avatar
    Acbar

    I do not understand why the impact you describe is wrong, let alone unconstitutional.

    Any private educational institution (e.g., Harvard, but also many, many other smaller or less-advantaged colleges) depends on alumni giving for its financial viability. How could such a school NOT pay attention to the potential for future alumni giving from a candidate for admissions? The son or daughter of a wealthy alum starts out with financial advantage, yes, and perhaps even an inherited stake in industry; is this child more likely to give large sums to the college that admitted and educated and shaped him than the average matriculant?

    This financial consideration has nothing to do with grift; it’s like, indeed it is, a business’s concern with customer satisfaction and brand loyalty.

    Moreover, a college must maintain the intangible “spirit” of the institution — the “rah rah” traditions of the place that foster the good experience for all, and encourage that sentiment for the old days fostered by reunions — all intended to lead to alumni giving. Who is better positioned to love, and romanticize, the undergraduate experience than the child raised in the household of an enthusiastic alum? Especially a wealthy enthusiastic alum? Who is more likely to cease giving than an alum whose kid is denied admission?

    Another factor: those kids of wealthy alums are also likely to have had the advantage of a strong, “preppy” secondary education. And the “preppy” spirit of a college is attractive to some other applicants, too, who aspire to emulate it. Say what you will against this, it is a factor which matters to many applicants taking those college tours (recently critiqued here).

    And finally, the parents of a wealthy child probably end up paying “full freight,” the full cost of tuition, housing, board and fees. Yes, that is an advantage for that kid — who will graduate without debt — but it’s also an advantage to the institution, which gets to fill its dorms and classrooms with just as many of those who benefit from loans and grants, PLUS an additional increment of students who pay “full freight.”

    For better or worse, classification of applicants by measures of wealth is not illegal. Wealth is not a basis for discrimination proscribed by the Constitution or any law I’m aware of. And these private institutions have every incentive to take wealth into consideration. Why shouldn’t they?

    There is a whole range of additional considerations involved when we talk about higher education supported by the State; but that’s a different discussion. Moreover, in the case of Virginia, the State has been passing much, and a growing share, of the financial burden on to the alumni of its principal colleges for years. Alumni giving necessitates considering the potential for future giving by admittees. What goes around comes around.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      “Wealth is not a basis for discrimination proscribed by the Constitution or any law I’m aware of.”

      Except in progressive taxation, according to some, like Norquist who compared to the Holocaust — a winning argument. Oh so winning.

      It certainly means the “public elites” can’t consider surnames and bank accounts as meritorious… until the next ruling.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        Jeez, why’d you do that? I’d almost completely repressed memories of old Grover. Thanks a lot.

    2. M. Purdy Avatar
      M. Purdy

      The issue isn’t legality, per se, it is fairness. Rewarding some kids who won the birth lottery, while penalizing others who didn’t, seems to me to be wholly at odds with the idea of meritocracy, self-determination, and upward mobility. Society has built-in advantages for the kids of the wealthy (often white), so it’s not surprising that elite colleges reflect that built-in advantage. What is surprising is that some can rail against policies that were adopted to help address those inequalities in the name of “meritocracy” and “achievement” then suddenly forget all about those supposed principles when it comes to systemic biases that advantage their own demographic. It’s almost as if this whole debate isn’t really about leveling the playing field at all; it’s about protecting privelige.

      1. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        Yes. And also about protecting the “privilege” of unmerited admission or job promotion, just because of the color of skin.
        Which is and has been unConstitutional.
        It is also racist in its own way. It presumes that by the color of skin, one’s ability to succeed is pre-determined.
        Affirmative action went from “a hand up, not a handout” to entire enterprises surreptitiously undermining competence in the benign sounding name of “equity” which really means equality of results, at all costs, including competency. It is a destructive, divisive doctrine, and a complete reversal of MLK’s “dream.”
        It also ignores the role of individual effort and behavior. Two people can make $25000 a year. One is always broke. One saves $5000 annually. In the same rich family with all the benefits one goes on to greater wealth and one lives near poverty, having spent all the advantage. Different outcomes happen in poor families as well.
        Inequality will always exist. The poor you shall always have with you…

        1. M. Purdy Avatar
          M. Purdy

          “And also about protecting the “privilege” of unmerited admission or job promotion, just because of the color of skin.” Like white rich people have benefitted from for the last 300+ years?

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Are there any poor whites?
            Been to eastern Kentucky lately? Appalachia?
            Have any people from there become rich? How? Have any black people become rich? The lowering of competency standards in the name of “equity” is destructive to society. Besides lowering the quality of output, it lowers trust AND increases division.
            If you are in an airplane, do you care about the color of skin of the pilot or the competency?
            How about your brain surgeon?
            How about your engineer and architect and specs for a skyscraper?
            Meanwhile, we care about important things like sports, where there are no token players on the team. We care so much, we have instant replay and go frame by frame. De’Andre tipped the ball and it rolled off of the Texas Tech kid’s pinky. If only we cared about the crooks in control everywhere…which is really what SAVE OUR DEMOCRACY! means. (We Marxists are in power and we ain’t giving it up, so we will act like fascists to preserve our power). DEI is a form of Marxism and teaches hatred and “solutions” that create more of the problems, like all Marxist policies.

          2. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            Is it impossible for you to stay on topic? Try.

          3. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            You were the one who asserted that being white and rich meant 300 years of unmerited benefit. Seems on topic to me. So I guess your deflection means you do not wish to defend your point, which seems to have racist implications. Again, DEI/CRT is a poisonous, divisive, racist doctrine.

          4. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            “You were the one who asserted that being white and rich meant 300 years of unmerited benefit.” And you didn’t address this point. You went off on a harangue.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Oh BTW, to be “private”, really private, it cannot receive any — none, zero, zip — federal funding. That might be Liberty, maybe, but certainly not Harvard.

      “Last year, for example, Harvard University attracted more than $800 million in research funding, with 70 percent coming from the federal government.”

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Citizens United — not just free speech but a ticket too.

    Nice to think that the decision will affect the green kids too, but green can’t been seen until it’s shown.

    Consider the PAC of Texas AG Paxton, who is facing an impeachment trial that is being presided over by Lt. Governor Patrick, just stroked a $3M check to Patrick’s campaign fund for his 2026 campaign.

    No effect.

  4. Teddy007 Avatar
    Teddy007

    This was shown in the testimony during the SFFA trial involving Harvard. Black and Hispanic students were given large admission bumps while poor whites and asians were given a much smaller admission bumps. However, black and Hispanic applicants who were from poor families were not give the additional bump for being poor. Thus, affirmative action based on race definitely favored the children of rich parents.

    In addition, as Harvard has become more selective, the benefit of being a legacy has grown and the legacies are affluent.

  5. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    “Those decisions may just result in more rich White kids getting admitted.”

    Interesting to see how you move so seamlessly from “rich” to “White”.

    Are rich Asian, Latino and Black families shut out from preferential admissions?

    Where did Obama’s daughters go to college (after graduating from a top prep high school while Daddy was President)?

    USC and Harvard?

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Apparently, it’s just a bit of a higher bar for Asians to get into that top 1% than Whites.

      Why?

      Because there are more rich Asians than rich Whites.

      https://dqydj.com/income-by-race/

      1. M. Purdy Avatar
        M. Purdy

        Income and wealth aren’t the same thing.

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          Right. And Dick’s article (as well as my statistics) are about income.

          “A recently released study shows that in applicant pools for the Ivy League universities, Stanford, Duke, M.I.T., and the University of Chicago, of those applicants with the same SAT or ACT scores, those from families in the top 1 percent income bracket …”

          1. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were saying it’s still tough for Asians to get into these colleges relative to whites, even if in the top 1%. My point is that wealth (as opposed to income) might be playing a role.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Of course, kids of very rich Asian, Latino, and Black families are not shut out from preferential admissions. It is just that 88 percent of the top one percent in wealth are White.

      https://contexts.org/articles/gender-in-the-one-percent/

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        Interesting article. However, the authors seem to have forgotten that Asians exist. The charts display White, African-American, and Latino.

        What happened to the Asians?

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          I noticed that too and don’t know the answer.

          After some more digging, I found a more reliable study, although it is a little dated (published 2017).

          2014

          Top 1 percent
          White 87.83
          Asian 7.16
          Hispanic 3.13
          Black–1.39

          Top 0.1 percent
          White 89.10
          Asian 6.35
          Hispanic 2.75
          Black 1.37

          https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23733/w23733.pdf

    3. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      This is just another DHS article that is poorly researched, written and nothing more than complaining. I don’t think he’s written anything but that since Youngkin was elected and he stopped getting a tingle up his leg about the Governor.

  6. Scott McPhail Avatar
    Scott McPhail

    Fascinating . . . and totally irrelevant

    Is racial discrimination unconstitutional?
    Is it illegal?
    Is it immoral?

    None of the above questions are touched by what income/worth percentages of the homes students come from.

    IF that was a real concern then we would be doing something about the overall extortionate costs of higher education today.

    1. M. Purdy Avatar
      M. Purdy

      “None of the above questions are touched by what income/worth percentages of the homes students come from.” I would imagine there’s a very strong correlation.

      1. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        Wait…don’t you remember the Covid mantra when people were asking questions…repeat after me, mindlessly, covering your eyes and your ears…”Correlation does not equal causation.”

        Say it again and again. And 3 years later when all the ignored conspiracy theorists were proved right, just pretend you never participated in the cover up…
        Meanwhile, income alone is not the final determinant in life. Nor is “race,” which is a construct. There is the human race. All men are created equal…radical proposition from the guy who worked to found the school that pays the salaries of all the “smart” people who work there and hate him…

        1. M. Purdy Avatar
          M. Purdy

          All over the map today, I see. Too much caffeine?

          1. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Another substantive response!
            Just pointing out correlation does not equal causation, right? I heard it enough during Covid. And that is true…but it does sometimes indicate causation, which is also true.

            Have you figured out the number of sexes yet?

            Not being mean, just trying to figure out if you will ever be truthful that anyone could ever believe any point you wish to make.

  7. Scott McPhail Avatar
    Scott McPhail

    Waiting patiently to hear someone complain about the free rides given to certain students because the can run fast or jump high or show certain skills at a children’s game.

    Is that somehow more fair that admitting the children of the wealthy?

    1. M. Purdy Avatar
      M. Purdy

      Apples and oranges. We’re talking about admissions to elite colleges, not big time college athletics. The Ivy League doesn’t even give scholarships to their athletes.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        UVA gives scholarships to their athletes. Ivy League gives needs based aid to athletes. Impressive list of pro athletes from the green leaf league.
        https://www.ranker.com/list/athletes-who-went-to-ivy-league-schools/people-in-sports

        1. M. Purdy Avatar
          M. Purdy

          The ethics of NCAA college athletics is a different debate altogether. It’s frankly a weird anomaly that our college sports are turning into a minor league. I think a lot of folks have mixed feelings about it (I certainly do), but still, I root for the Wahoos every season.

          1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead

            Too much money on the table. Here to stay.

          2. M. Purdy Avatar
            M. Purdy

            I fear you’re right.

  8. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    What? Your telling me that Chelsea Clinton got into college because she was rich and white and then became the Brenda Starr of her generation with her white rich and criminal mother pulling strings. Yup I believe that.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Sort of like Jared Kushner. https://www.propublica.org/article/the-story-behind-jared-kushners-curious-acceptance-into-harvard

      1. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        Or the Kennedy brothers…

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Sort of like Donald Trump.

      1. walter smith Avatar
        walter smith

        I suspect he got into Wharton on merit…

  9. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    There is no fair reason to have legacy admissions.

    1. M. Purdy Avatar
      M. Purdy

      Unless you believe that privileges must be protected.

  10. WayneS Avatar
    WayneS

    Affirmative Action for the Rich

    I thought that’s what “Veritas” meant…

    😉

  11. VaPragamtist Avatar
    VaPragamtist

    Dick, I think you’re oversimplifying the study. The authors find “The high-income admissions advantage at private colleges is driven by three factors: (1) preferences for children of alumni, (2) weight placed on non-academic credentials, which tend to be stronger for students applying from private high schools that have affluent student bodies, and (3) recruitment of athletes, who tend to come from higher-income families”

    Your article tries to link this with race. There is certainly a correlation between wealth and race, but I don’t know if that extends to this study. Within the top 1% the authors look at, are White applicants more likely to be accepted than Black? I only skimmed the study, but I don’t see where they sought to address that question. You’re reading too much into it, drawing your own conclusions the authors never intended.

    You also try to equate this to Affirmative Action–giving extra weight to non-merit based criteria. The authors find preferences for legacies (read: donors) is the largest factor in the discrepancy for the 1%. That’s probably the most akin to the AA argument, though there are business arguments that can be made as to why a university needs to maintain donor relations (including scholarships for less wealthier students).

    The other two factors–nonacademic criteria and athletics–are not necessarily non-merit based (depending on how we’re defining “merit”). Wealthier students have more opportunity to participate in extra curriculars, join organizations, volunteer, and otherwise pad their college apps. Athletes are accepted, in large part, based on their athletic ability. Of course if a student goes to a private prep school with a crew team, a fencing team, a tennis team, swim team, access to quality equipment and coaches, and so on. . .they’re more likely to be recruited for Harvard’s crew team, fencing team, tennis team, or swim team than someone lacking those resources.

    So there’s a definite path dependence that should be looked at. But its not the same as AA.

Leave a Reply

Read More