The main problem with Espenshade and Radford's survey data is that it is too old at this point to be realistic as a picture of
current practices at elite institutions, though:
The book's analysis is based on data provided by the National Survey of College Experience, collected from more than nine thousand students who applied to one of ten selective colleges between the early 1980s and late 1990s. The authors explore the composition of applicant pools, factoring in background and "selective admission enhancement strategies"--including AP classes, test-prep courses, and extracurriculars--to assess how these strengthen applications. On campus, the authors examine roommate choices, friendship circles, and degrees of social interaction, and discover that while students from different racial and class circumstances are not separate in college, they do not mix as much as one might expect. The book encourages greater interaction among student groups and calls on educational institutions to improve access for students of lower socioeconomic status.
Unfortunately, the characterization of "4H" for example, as a monolithic large market-animal production thing is
extremely dated. A good many modern 4-H participants don't have that kind of profile at all, and just as many of them are likely to be involved in Model UN, debate, and robotics competitions as they are FFA.
Presumably
those aren't the kids who are "disadvantaged" by participating, though.
Which of course argues that there may be something inherently flawed in the analysis of 4-H participation
per se being a "negative" at elite institutions. Maybe some KINDS of kids aren't considered a good fit for those institutions-- but really, if you consider a kid that has a series of agrarian-like interests and extracurriculars, and an interest in
forestry management or ROTC, then maybe Princeton isn't the right place for reasons that have little to do with how "elite" the student looks as a result of the extracurriculars, n'est pas?
Lots of BLUE STATE kids are involved in some of those activities, as well.
http://blog.speakupmovement.org/uni...efense-of-the-future-farmers-of-america/This is (IMO, of course) a good summation of the substance of the remarks about, criticism of, and clarifications regarding the statements made by Espenshade and Radford in that study-- and where they make certain assumptions (evidently without parsing effect or causation too much):
http://facultyblog.law.ucdavis.edu/...-Office-Bias-Against-Rural-Students.aspxI have in fact bothered to look up the original study-- and read that section of the discussion (and Espenshade/Radford's rebuttals/clarifications) with some interest, given my DD's extracurriculars.
This pretty much sums up my own conclusions:
http://legalruralism.blogspot.com/2011/04/college-admission-bias-against-rural.htmlAlso-- it's reported variously that this particular gem was derived from either "8" or "10" elite institutions' ad-coms, via confidential communications with those individual ad-coms, apparently, during the late 80's through mid-90's. Or is it late 90's? That's also been variously reported.
