Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.
The Forums will be unavailable Tuesday, June 25 starting at 9 am ET as we prepare for a major design update!

"Race" in College Applications FAQ & Discussion 12

1297298300302303306

Replies to: "Race" in College Applications FAQ & Discussion 12

  • Data10Data10 Registered User Posts: 2,901 Senior Member
    edited April 22
    In 2012 there was a significant increase in the percentage of admits who identified as Asian, and a corresponding significant decrease for blacks and Hispanics (https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/19/acceptance-rates-by-race/). This corresponds with the beginnings of the current lawsuit against Harvard. These percentages had remained relatively constant for at least 20 years (http://www.unz.com/runz/asian-quotas-in-the-ivy-league-we-see-nothing/).
    The articles you referenced don't seem to support your statements. The Asian admitted shares as listed in the SFFA analysis graph only increased from 19% in 2011 to 20% in 2012. I suspect this variation relates to which sample group they are using, such as lawsuit sample group or full class. All of the sample groups agree that both years were ~20% , without a large increase in 2012.

    I also included the federally reported racial percentages of the matriculated class (not percent admitted students) as listed in IPEDS, which include additional categories for 2 or more races and unknown. These percentages should match the CDS and any other federally reported source. The unknown percentages has a surprising amount of variation. The matriculating students does show a more substantial increase from 17% to 20% between 2011 and 2012, although not unlike year to year changes in some of the previous years.

    We also don't see any of the racial percentages "remained relatively constant for at least 20 years." International roughly doubled from ~6% to ~12%. Hispanic increased by a factor of ~1.5x from ~8% to ~12%. During the post 2010 period following the change in black racial definitions, Black increased significantly. The Asian admitted student share seems to have increased over this period in the lawsuit sample, but less consistently so in the IPEDS matriculating class numbers.

    Harvard Admitted Share: SFFA Graph (Harvard lawsuit racial definitions,)
    2015 -- 37% White, 21% Asian, 12% Hispanic, 12% Black
    2014 -- 40% White, 19% Asian, 12% Hispanic, 12% Black
    2013 -- 39% White, 20% Asian, 10% Hispanic, 11% Black
    2012 -- 41% White, 20% Asian, 9% Hispanic, 10% Black
    2011 -- 42% White, 19% Asian, 11% Hispanic, 12% Black
    2010 -- 44% White, 20% Asian, 9% Hispanic, 9% Black
    2009 -- 39% White, 17% Asian, 11% Hispanic, 11% Black
    2008 -- 40% White, 19% Asian, 9% Hispanic, 11% Black
    2007 -- 42% White, 19% Asian, 10% Hispanic, 10% Black
    2006 -- 43% White, 18% Asian, 10% Hispanic, 10% Black
    2005 -- 45% White, 18% Asian, 8% Hispanic, 10% Black
    2004 -- 46% White, 19% Asian, 9% Hispanic, 10% Black
    2003 -- 50% White, 16% Asian, 8% Hispanic, 9% Black
    2002 -- 51% White, 16% Asian, 8% Hispanic, 9% Black (total = 84%)
    2001 -- 45% White, 14% Asian, 8% Hispanic, 11% Black (total = 78%)
    2000 -- 46% White, 16% Asian, 9% Hispanic, 10% Black
    1999 -- 47% White, 16% Asian, 9% Hispanic, 10% Black
    1998 -- 43% White, 18% Asian, 8% Hispanic, 9% Black
    1997 -- 40% White, 17% Asian, 9% Hispanic, 9% Black
    1996 -- 42% White, 16% Asian, 8% Hispanic, 9% Black

    Harvard Freshman Racial Percentages (federal racial definitions)
    2017 -- 38% White, 20% Asian, 12% Hispanic, 11% International, 9% Black, 7% 2+ Races, 2% Unknown
    2016 -- 39% White, 21% Asian, 11% Hispanic, 12% International, 8% Black, 7% 2+ Races, 2% Unknown
    2015 -- 38% White, 19% Asian, 11% Hispanic, 13% International, 7% Black, 6% 2+ Races, 7% Unknown
    2014 -- 42% White, 19% Asian, 11% Hispanic, 11% International, 7% Black, 7% 2+ Races, 2% Unknown
    2013 -- 43% White, 19% Asian, 10% Hispanic, 12% International, 7% Black, 7% 2+ Races, 1% Unknown
    2012 -- 45% White, 20% Asian, 9% Hispanic, 11% International, 6% Black, 6% 2+ Races, 3% Unknown
    2011 -- 45% White, 17% Asian, 10% Hispanic, 12% International, 7% Black, 6% 2+ Races, 3% Unknown
    2010 -- 44% White, 15% Asian, 9% Hispanic, 10% International, 6% Black, 5% 2+ Races, 11% Unknown
    <-- Change in Racial Definitions, Totals Should = 100% -->
    2009 -- 40% White, 17% Asian, 9% Hispanic, 10% International, 9% Black, 10% 2+ Races, 14% Unknown (total = 109%)
    2008 -- 41% White, 19% Asian, 7% Hispanic, 10% International, 8% Black, 10% 2+ Races, 14% Unknown (total = 109%)
    <-- Change in Racial Definitions, Introduction of 2 or More Races and Pacific Islander Categories -->
    2007 -- 42% White, 18% Asian, 8% Hispanic, 10% International, 8% Black, 13% Unknown
    2006 -- 44% White, 16% Asian, 8% Hispanic, 9% International, 8% Black, 15% Unknown
    2004 -- 47% White, 20% Asian, 9% Hispanic, 9% International, 9% Black, 5% Unknown
    2002 -- 52% White, 17% Asian, 7% Hispanic, 8% International, 7% Black, 8% Unknown
    2000 -- 45% White, 16% Asian, 8% Hispanic, 6% International, 8% Black, 16% Unknown
    1998 -- 44% White, 19% Asian, 8% Hispanic, 6% International, 9% Black, 15% Unknown
    1994 -- 42% White, 20% Asian, 8% Hispanic, 5% International, 9% Black, 15% Unknown

  • wyzragamerwyzragamer Registered User Posts: 69 Junior Member
    There was a typo, as 2015 was the start of the lawsuit. This trend was noticed by Adam Mortara during the Harvard lawsuit. I wonder, do you have admit rates by race for these years? That would be the relevant number for this analysis.
  • roethlisburgerroethlisburger Registered User Posts: 2,780 Senior Member
    edited April 22
    @collegemomjam
    It just seems like there is a big gray area between what is legal and illegal discrimination then.

    There's not that much of a grey area. The courts have long held quotas are illegal. As a matter of fact, Harvard, of course, claims it doesn't use quotas in its legal filings. Not even the supporters of AA believe Harvard's legal filings as you will see those same posters claim everyone is in separate racial/ethnicity buckets and tell kids they only compete within their own racial/ethnicity bucket for admissions.
  • Data10Data10 Registered User Posts: 2,901 Senior Member
    There was a typo, as 2015 was the start of the lawsuit. This trend was noticed by Adam Mortara during the Harvard lawsuit. I wonder, do you have admit rates by race for these years? That would be the relevant number for this analysis.
    The post I replied to discussed percentage of admits who identified as Asian (admit share), so I focused on that. The admit rates by race are in the linked Crimson article. It appears that the Black admit rate and to a lesser extent Hispanic dropped more steeply than the other races, with the surge in applications near 2006 (marked as class of 2010 in graph). However, the surge in applicants primarily appear to be ones with lower stats, causing the average Black applicant SAT to drop by ~50 points over a period of a few years. I suspect either a change in marketing strategy to send mailings to a wider test score range or effects of the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative, which was launched in 2005. I see little pattern for the other races, other than admit rates decreasing over time.
  • wyzragamerwyzragamer Registered User Posts: 69 Junior Member
    @collegemomjam I wonder if you think my list of suggested alternatives to AA would help address the problems better or not. I'd like to know your reasons for supporting AA.
  • collegemomjamcollegemomjam Registered User Posts: 1,882 Senior Member
    @ChangeTheGame Thanks for your kind words....right back at you! :smile:
  • ChangeTheGameChangeTheGame Registered User Posts: 718 Member
    edited April 23
    @wyzragamer Just amazing commentary.
    I think we have many points of agreement. I agree there is the kind of racism (or at least insensitivity) that you describe. I just think that the current affirmative action system isn’t the right way to address those issues.

    Your words simplify how I feel about about this topic, but better than anything I have posted in the last 100 pages of this thread.



  • CanuckguyCanuckguy Registered User Posts: 1,171 Senior Member
    I came across this interview with Heather MacDonald the other day. She covered many of the topics discussed in this thread:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffIpRC9cSUc

    What got my attention is not so much the topics covered, though they are interesting, but her academic pedigree. Do you need qualifications of this calibre to be heard? Is this one of the reasons why people would do almost anything to get into an elite?
  • privatebankerprivatebanker Registered User Posts: 5,003 Senior Member
    @ChangeTheGame and @MWolf What do you think of the discussion linked above?
  • ChangeTheGameChangeTheGame Registered User Posts: 718 Member
    edited May 4
    @Canuckguy Heather MacDonald’s academic pedigree helps. The Elites have many other benefits (access to the high society, amazing resources, and unparalleled financial aid are a few) that make them so coveted. I don’t quite get the fascination with the elites as my own life goals (to not be poor forever, maybe become rich, to live life fully, and to be happy) look pretty achievable, even coming from my HBCU.

    @privatebanker Ah, Heather MacDonald. I have read some of her work over the years and I believe we talked about one of her essays/articles on this thread a good while back. While I don’t agree with her thoughts across the gambit of her opinions (she tends to talk about AA being something that has nefarious intentions while I think of the policies as trying to help, but being misguided (especially the impact to race relations inadvertently, the affect on African American psyche, the actual execution of the policy, along with not focusing on the real problem). For the sake of the thread, I will only talk about her opinions on AA and the achievement gap (Going into free speech conversations and college campus political atmosphere would be going down a rabbit hole) . If you jump to the 27th minute of her discussion, she talks about what I see is the number one problem which is the culture in African American households around education and behaviors. She mentions doing a “thought experiment” around African Americans having the same behaviors/actions as Asian Americans for a 10 year period and see if we would still have an academic achievement gap . One thing that I have always appreciated about past commentary I have seen from her is that she has never subscribed to the lower IQ theory as it relates to African Americans (which I vehemently disagree with), but has insisted that African Americans as a group have not had behaviors that would produce students at the highest levels. I do believe that she could be more “nuanced” in some of her stances (I don’t particularly care for the name of her book despite being against racial preferences in college admissions), but I also understand that bold declarations help sale books and garners media attention.

    As a personal aside, my son recently took a mock AP Physics 1 exam to simulate the AP exam occurring next week and made a 5. It made me curious, because for all of the high achieving African American students that I have met (along with my kids being in a great school district and my wife teaching gifted science at a great school), I have only known only 1 African American student to make a 5 on the AP Physics 1 exam. In the last year that College Board reported data (2017), only 6 African Americans in our state (GA) and 44 African Americans in the US (out of 8047 African Americans who took the test) made a 5 on the AP Physics 1 exam. Almost 61% of all African American AP Physics 1 exam takers made a 1 on the exam. The African American students at my son’s school have mostly lived privileged lives, but they are not seeing much better results (despite being in the same classes as students who are scoring above the National norm in AP Physics 1). I want African Americans to look into the mirror at ourselves as much as we blame systematic inequalities for our problems (I don't believe this is happening).
  • MWolfMWolf Registered User Posts: 1,146 Senior Member
    edited May 4
    Right off the bat, the interviewer starts with the logical fallacies. He uses Argument from Authority. The fact that Dr. Nikolas Christakis is "an accomplished Physician and Sociologist" as well a "Master of one of the Yale colleges". This is not relevant to whether he is right or not, and this is a fallacy known as "argument from respect", a version of Appeal to Authority.

    She opens her mouth, and starts with "Poisoning the Well" - a type of ad hominem. Basically, she is saying "their argument has no basis because they behaved badly". Then she goes into her next logical fallacy, saying "the Black Lives Matter Nonsense", which is Begging the Claim.

    She then moves on to presenting an unsupported claim to prove her point, by claiming that "right wing academics are walking in fear of their lives". She presents absolutely no evidence that this is true, and there is, in fact, no way that she could even know this.

    She presents an anecdote or two, and claims that it proves that there is a trend, and then makes up some evidence to strengthen her case.

    That is how she goes about things. She makes bombastic claims, without any supporting evidence, or with a couple of anecdotes. She talks about "A growing body of empirical evidence is undermining the claim that racial preferences in college benefit the recipients", She does not mention in the discussion what this body of evidence is, where it from, how anybody can access it. Instead she moves straight on to her philosophy.

    She also provides partial data to create an illusion which is not true. She shows the statistic that only 35% of Black Students in STEM remain there, versus 62% of White students. However, she does not mention that the graduating rates of Black students from "elite universities is mostly pretty close to that of White students. Of the Ivies, the biggest difference is at Cornell, where 94% of white students graduate, versus 87% of Black students. At Harvard, it's 98% versus 97%. Graduation rates of Black students are close to, or over, 90%, at almost very "elite" college to which there is Affirmative action. Interestingly, as UCLA and UCB, which do not have AA, the rates are 78% and 74%, and they are 12% and 17% lower than those of White students. THOSE are the statistics which demonstrate that AA works, but she is intellectually dishonest and cherry picks data that supports her forgone conclusion (another logical fallacy).

    There is a deep racist ideology hidden beneath her arguments. When she talks about black students being unprepared, it is only to argue that they do not belong in the "elite" colleges similar to the ones she attended. She has no interest in figuring any solution, mostly because she knows very well that the "problem" is not there. She wants to reduce the number of Black students in "elite" colleges, so she sifts through data to find something that supports her plan to eliminate AA.

    Is she right in any of her claims? I do not know. Does she make a compelling case? Not even close, since all of her conclusions are based on either false, misinterpreted, or partial evidence, fed through a series of logical fallacies to reach a forgone conclusion that is nothing more that the way she sees for bringing back her idealized version of the 1950s. She has no argument there which does not employ some type pf logical fallacy. In the case of success of Black students at elite colleges, the data isn't there.

    All that being said, she should be allowed to talk on campus.

    @Canuckguy To discuss what is going on on campuses, you need somebody who is very familiar with campuses. She's not one of them - she's a lawyer and a pundit, not an academic. She was interviewed because she is right wing, extremely smart, educated, a woman, and she is secular.
  • roethlisburgerroethlisburger Registered User Posts: 2,780 Senior Member
    @MWolf
    She was interviewed because she is right wing, extremely smart, educated, a woman, and she is secular.

    Saying she was interviewed because she is a woman is a misogynist comment.
  • MWolfMWolf Registered User Posts: 1,146 Senior Member
    @roethlisburger When a right wing group want to interview a person who expresses an view that is critical of women or minorities, they interview a woman or a minority. It's an old reactionary tactic. Pointing it out is not misogynistic.

    The definition of Misogyny is: "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women." Unless I had claimed that she was not as qualified for this interview as a man, merely pointing out that her gender is an important part of the political theater going on here is in no way or manner misogyny.

    That is simply how this game is played. When you want to present a controversial point of view, you have it done by a member of the group, or one of the groups, which your opponents claim will be negatively affected by policies based on that point of view. It makes debate difficult, because they can always respond "how can you say that it will be bad for this group? I'm from this group". It is, of course, a logical fallacy, but use of logic in debates is not all that useful.

    Left wing groups are not nearly as skilled at this.
Sign In or Register to comment.