Any statistics to show that minorities due worse in college?

fabrizio · June 24, 2007, 10:47am

It’s possible. I want to stress that more merit-based is not “numbers only.” The only difference is “no race, no gender, no ethnicity, no national origin, no religion is considered.”

Like President Lincoln, any of the following would be OK with me:

<ol>
<li> Incoming classes at flagship universities have few Asian students due to more merit-based admissions.</li>
<li> Incoming classes have about the same number of Asian students.</li>
<li> Incoming classes are majority Asian.</li>
</ol>

I like to think of myself as fair. If the policy I support results in fewer Asian freshmen, so be it. We would need to work harder, then.

By contrast, I notice that a lot of racial preference supporters would never support this policy because it could result in fewer “under-represented” minorities and “too many over-represented” minorities. I thank you for not being one of those people, who in my opinion are not very fair.

“Under-represented” minorities are indeed just one part of the whole. But, I am of the belief that if this part is to be made bigger, then the best option is to eliminate racial preferences.

madville · June 24, 2007, 10:48am

As opposed to referring to the Cal system ad nauseum, I would suggest looking at the independent (secondary school) model. Focusing on diversity, in race and socio economics, independent schools have tremendous outcomes overall with testing, gpa’s, graduation, and matriculation with regards to urm’s. Most urm’s in this environment are not rich and do exceedingly well. Not bogged down with the beaurocracy of teachers unions and other obstacles, urm’s thrive in this environment and go on much more prepared than their peers in other academic settings.

madville · June 24, 2007, 10:52am

The “best” option is to utilize processes such as utilized in my previous post in varied applications so that racial preferences become obsolete.

fabrizio · June 24, 2007, 10:53am

Perhaps I should have defined what it means to be “hurt.” The racial preference crowd claimed in 1996 that if Proposition 209 were to pass, then all the civil rights advancements would be for naught. Minorities would be excluded. Colleges would be resegregated. The world would come to an end!

They were wrong then, and ten years later, they still didn’t learn their lesson as they made the same comments when they unsuccessfully opposed Proposal 2. Of course, the last comment about the apocalypse was a joke.

The same crowd that vocally opposed Proposition 209 tried to peg its supporters as white supremacists. Assuming that were true, the “white supremacists” got more than they bargained for. White enrollment at Berkeley dropped after Proposition 209 while Asian enrollment went up. I’ve personally never met a white supremacist who was pro-Asian. Heck, the first white supremacist I ever met was more anti-Asian than anti-black. But, they might exist, who knows?

Students prefer Berkeley, LA, and Davis over Riverside because the first three are perceived to be the best in the UC system. But, are students entitled to be at those three universities simply because they happen to be darker skinned? I don’t think so.

fabrizio · June 24, 2007, 10:56am

I like the processes you mentioned because they actually target the problem earlier. They actually do something to effect change. I’m all for those.

As a compromise, how about increasing the emphasis on the processes you mentioned and decreasing the emphasis on racial preferences? That way, we help more students when they need help (i.e. earlier in their academic lives), and we make the admissions game more meritocratic and fair.

Bay · June 24, 2007, 11:40am

Fab,

While your meticulous analysis is admirable, I wonder if you appreciate the value of racial diversity beyond the university setting.

Encouraging and promoting the representation of all races in admissions will ultimately lead to racial diversity in every level of industry, government and profession. It would be unfortunate if pure merit-based admissions led to a world where (for example) every physician and professor in America were Asian. Our society benefits from representation of every race in every facet of American life, regardless of whether you personally value it or not. And creating a stratified educational system where certain races end up in the top-tier colleges and other races end up in the bottom-tier, is the antithesis of our country’s current goals, and would only be a step backwards.

fabrizio · June 24, 2007, 12:39pm

Thank you, Bay.

I do appreciate the value of racial diversity beyond the university setting. I believe that this racial diversity is obtained naturally and does not need to be forced through a preference system. I agree with all of Mr. D’Souza’s major points in his article, “Why Diversity Doesn’t Matter,” which was his response to Mr. Lee Bollinger’s article, “Why Diversity Matters.”

<a href=“http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/06/04/why_diversity_doesnt_matter[/url]”>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/06/04/why_diversity_doesnt_matter</a>

First, a “world where (for example) every physician and professor in America were Asian” is a world that does not and will never exist. Berkeley and LA are not 100% Asian, and they never will be. There is such a thing as a competitive non-Asian student who excels at testing, writing, and speaking. I doubt that they would become extinct even under an Asian or European system of university admissions.

Second, what is this “pure” merit-based admissions you speak of? madville wrote of a “more” merit-based admissions, which I support. The only difference between the “more” system and the current system is that race, gender, ethnic affiliation, national origin, and other factors that are irrelevant to participation in university programs are not considered.

I don’t know whether it’s done on purpose or just by accident, but racial preference advocates are mistaken when they claim that complement of race-based admissions is “pure” merit-based admissions. It is not. The complement is race-blind admissions.

I have no problems with the encouraging part. I have some problems with the promoting aspect, but only if it involves capping student enrollments based on race. As I wrote to madville, I detest policies that presuppose a “right” number of X students simply because they happen to be of race X.

You describe “…creating a stratified educational system where certain races end up in the top-tier colleges and other races end up in the bottom-tier…” as “the antithesis of our country’s current goals…and…a step backwards.”

No, it is not a step backwards. Fifty years ago, students were barred from attending schools not because they weren’t qualified, but because of their skin color. That was immoral, wrong, and unjust. We don’t do that anymore; it’s history.

Now, we’re not barring anyone from attending a school based on his skin color. Instead, we set criteria for admission, and if a student meets this criteria, he can be admitted. The test scores should be high. The grades should be high. The course selection should be rigorous. The extracurriculars should have been chosen because the student enjoys them and positively contributed. The essay should answer the prompt, be free of major writing errors, and show a part of the applicant that cannot be displayed on the application. If any student meets these conditions, then he’s got a good chance for admission. By contrast, fifty years ago, even if a student met all of these requirements, he could be turned away simply because he was dark-skinned. Praise Allah that we don’t do this anymore.

Even so, Bay, there are black students at Berkeley. There are Hispanic students at UCLA. These two schools are not exclusively white and Asian. There is no “stratification.” There is only correct matching.

Bay · June 24, 2007, 2:53pm

Fab,

De facto exclusion of certain races is just as abhorrent as de jure exclusion.

Whatever happens, even the education “market” will ultimately correct itself. Universities which become the near exclusive domain of any one race will no longer be considered desireable by highly qualified applicants of other races, (nor will they likely be the highest ranked by USNWR). Meanwhile, those campuses offering a richly diverse community, both racially and non-racially, will likely become the premiere institutions. Just my opinion, of course.

Tyler09 · June 24, 2007, 3:05pm

The half empty approach your taking is that the purpose of AA is to cap enrollment. THATS why you don’t understand what people are telling you.

The half-full approach is that the purpose of AA is to INCREASE enrollment of underrepresented groups.

-If you want to increase the representation of black students from 4% to 8%, that additional 4% means that 4% of the overrepresented groups (whites and asians) aren’t going to be admitted because that 4% has to come from somewhere.

–If you don’t believe in pure meritocracy, what separates race-blind admissions from that?

A university builds a class out of individual students, race and gender are both part of that students identity that can help build a diverse class which allows for optimal exposure to the various groups that make up america.

ALL students earn their spots at universities that practice AA too, they all package themselves best they can and the adcoms pick students based on what THEY’RE looking for, it’s not like it’s a competition where they choose solely for the students.

-The other 99% WERE hurt in the UC system because they lost ground at the most prestigious and best universities in the system, everybody took a step down.

-AA isn’t about working with “right numbers” as you say, It’s about wanting to make sure all groups are well-represented. If all groups are well-represented their is still room for overrepresentation as evidenced by universities like stanford where asians make up 5% of the population yet 25% of the students. In fact, stanford is an excellent example of how diversity contributes to a college environment and how the representation ends up.

madville · June 24, 2007, 3:50pm

Fab, as articulate and meticulous you have been in making your points, I’m surprised that you subscribe to this ideological belief. American history (world history for that matter) is rife with non natural preferences and advantages taken from those less previledged. The way things are didn’t happen naturally, unless you subscribe to the verse, “The heart is utterly wicked and deceitful, who can know it.” The disparities are huge and real. Minorities haven’t been on equal footing since they’ve arrived. There’s nothing “natural” about different people assimilating or co-existing when there is a history of discrimination, subjugation and exploitation between them. To move beyond this takes a constant and concerted effort with all parties involved. More than likely it would never be achieved, but it’s still worth striving for. AA is imperfect, but it’s a work in progress. It’s administration and utilization can evolve, but at long as inequality abounds, it remains a necessary “evil.”

Hardstyleprep · June 24, 2007, 4:14pm

The selective Institutions will have a higher graduation rate among black students because their admissions is more selective choosing the best minority candidates. A lot of regular Colleges will take many unqualified African Americans saddling them down with student loans and cashing in on pell grants and other minority scholarships knowing that they are likely to fail. The Urban Educational Public School System has failed to educata blacks miserably.

Blacks from Suburban Public Schools that live in that Community that have educated parents achieve at the same and in some cases more than their white counterparts. Blacks from Elite Prep Schools are intellectually and academically prepared for Elite Universities and good Colleges and have outperformed Suburban Whites in good Public Schools. It’s all about academic preparation and the students love of learning, not the Race as most Conservative Pundits have tricked Americans to believe. They have been so successful at this chicanery that the average white student belives blacks need a break or some type of boost to get into great Colleges, as if blacks are inherently inferior and can’t obtain Ivy League Admissions based upon merit. A shame of this Conservative talk show crazed country.

norcalguy · June 24, 2007, 4:27pm

“AA isn’t about working with “right numbers” as you say, It’s about wanting to make sure all groups are well-represented.”

The problem is that the groups SHOULDN’T be well-represented right now. Minorities don’t have the educational background to compete successfully at top universities. And, no, I don’t think graduation rates are good indicators nor do I think graduation rates support the idea that minorities are doing just as well as ORMs. To solve the problem of unequal access to education, we should be attacking the problem at its foundation which is at our elementary and high schools. Affirmative action only works at the top, at a very superficial level. If we continue with affirmative action, minorities will continue to average 900 on the SAT and the average SAT score of minorities at the Ivies will continue to be 1350. Instead, if we actually address the root of the problem, we might see a day when minorities are averaging 1000-1100 on the SAT and 1450 at the top universities. Affirmative action obstructs any kind of meaningful action because it blinds minorities and minority-advocates from the real problem.

“Fab, as articulate and meticulous you have been in making your points, I’m surprised that you subscribe to this ideological belief. American history (world history for that matter) is rife with non natural preferences and advantages taken from those less previledged.”

Perhaps you believe that the disparity of in SAT scores of URMs and ORMs is due to racism? I don’t. I believe that it WAS due to racism but the level of racism has receded to a point that allows minorities to succeed. Asian immigrants demonstrate that indeed there are opportunities out there for minorities. These immigrants start out poorer with greater language/cultural barriers than blacks but end up with better scores. I see the key difference as simply being one of cultural attitude. Of course, this cultural attitude is a by-product of past racism but nevertheless it is possible to change minorities’ attitudes towards education through hiring better teachers, improving facilities, and starting after-school programs to keep kids out of trouble. Of course this costs money but it should increase college attendance and lower the amount we have to contribute towards welfare, medicaid, prisons, etc.

The thing is: even if these URMs don’t get into Harvard or Yale, they are still going to go to college. So while minority percentages may drop slightly at top top colleges, they will rise a little at the slightly lower end colleges where these minorities would presumably go. I don’t think any of these students are saying, “It’s Harvard or bust!”

Instead of focusing on the minute number of minorities in top colleges (top colleges are generally so small that even increasing the minority percentage from 2%–>10% represents a small increase in absolute numbers), we should be focusing on increasing the percentage of minorities in college, period. 99% of the population (black or white) won’t go to any of these top colleges where affirmative action actually makes a difference. We should be focused on specific programs and actions that help minorities get a higher level education. So what if it’s not at Harvard? I’d rather have minority percentages increase from 2% to 10% at state schools than have them increase from 2% to 10% at Ivies because it means much more in terms of absolute numbers. The problem with affirmative action is that it does not make much of a difference in helping the minorities who really need help but it does cause so much resentment that it precludes progress from being made at lower educational levels.

Hardstyleprep · June 24, 2007, 5:03pm

You take a black guy from Harlem in a rough drug infested Neigborhood in a Public School System with average taechers and he manages a 1350 on the SAT is equivalent or superior to a white from a wealthy or Upper Middle Class suburb who scores 1450. Put the white kids in that environment for 18 years and lets see what they score. By the way, Asians acore higher than whites and are turned down to admit whites at prestigious schools but it’s funny that whites don’t complain about that.

Wealthy Legacy Parents get their kids into Ivy League Universities despite their kids mediocre achievements with all their priviledge (Elite Prep Schools) and wealth (money to help them get the best test preparation etc…). Whites get tremendous breaks in this society and the College Admission world at top schools. They’re against Affirmative Action to correct 400 years of racism and discrimination to protect their white priviledge in America.

fabrizio · June 24, 2007, 5:03pm

I agree with you. Whether its de facto or de jure, exclusion of certain races is always abhorrent.

But, race-blind admissions do not result in de facto exclusion. There are so-called under-represented minority students at both Berkeley and LA. As previously noted, race-blind does not have to be numbers only. Indeed, in practice, it has never been a pure merit-based system.

We differ on what constitutes a richly diverse community. X percent Asian is not X/3 percent Chinese, X/3 percent Korean, and X/3 percent Indian. That X percent consists of those three groups as well as Japanese, Pacific Islanders, Vietnamese, Filipino, Cambodians, Afghans, Laotians, to name only a few. The ten Asian ethnicities I listed represent at least ten different languages, ten different cultures, and ten different histories. This applies to all racial groups.

fabrizio · June 24, 2007, 5:11pm

Tyler,

No, I never said that the purpose of affirmative action is to cap enrollment. I said an effect of racial preferences is the placement of caps on some groups.

The purpose of affirmative action is to increase enrollment of designated groups. I have no problems with that. My problems emerge when affirmative action becomes a system of racial preferences and caps.

Very true. If you can double the representation of black freshmen without resorting to racial preferences, I’m with you. If you can’t, then sorry, I can’t support you.

Race-blind admissions does not have to be a “pure” meritocracy. Race-blind admissions can and in practice does still include extracurriculars, work experience, essays, and letters of recommendation.

Are the “other 99%” you speak of entitled to admission at the “most prestigious and best universities in the system?” To my knowledge, you haven’t answered this question, even though I’ve posed it several times.

What is “well-represented?” When you use terms like under, well, and over-represented, you’re implying that there’s some magic optimum level of racial breakdown that once reached will benefit everyone. What is this level?

fabrizio · June 24, 2007, 5:12pm

madville,

Thanks for the compliment.

There certainly isn’t. Thanks to the original civil rights movement, segregation, also an unnatural process, is over. Now, little children of all races can play together on the school fields.

Half a century ago, one could be openly racist and be barely criticized for it. Today, it’s almost impossible to be openly racist, at least not toward certain groups. We’ve come a long way, but racism is far from nonexistent. I live in the South, and I’ve heard many a subtle racist joke. As a sign of improvement, however, these jokes are never uttered out loud, only in private. Whites don’t turn and run in the opposite direction when they see blacks. Instead, they smile and say, “What’s up?”

People of my generation increasingly aren’t seeing skin color as a barrier to relationships. It’s becoming as irrelevant in choice as religion. Nevertheless, like fundamentalist Protestants who refuse to befriend Catholics, the factor is still relevant for some.

It used to be that our country forcibly destroyed diversity through segregation. We don’t do that anymore. I agree with Mr. D’Souza that diversity can be obtained naturally today.

RootBeerCaesar · June 24, 2007, 5:19pm

I think a lot of rich white college applicants would be a lot happier if they were black and poor [for the application].

madville · June 24, 2007, 11:42pm

I respectfully disagree.

I have benefitted directly from affirmative action in my employment. It presented me with an opportunity. One in which I have a have taken advantage of.

As a result I am:

A home owner, ( the avg AA is not)

Household income in the top quartile (ditto)

Able to send my children to an independent school which supports financially and otherwise racial and socio- economic diversity. It is more racially diverse than the public school options I had.
Because of this my children have gpa’s, standardized test scores, and a curriculum which they have thrived in that is more challenging and higher than any racial group including asians.

College options I never dreamed of for my children.(no one in our family had gone to college. That includes great grand parents on down)

Full ride scholarships.(at dozens of schools)

Pursuing career paths and majors I wouldn’t even have thought of.
Relationships and experiences that they will treasure and benefit them for a lifetime.

I’m not stating these things to brag or boast, but to illustrate how an affirmative action situation presented me with the economic werewithal to make my vision for my family a reality. I’m sure my parents wanted good things for my siblings and myself but were much more limited in their ability to do so. In increasing my economic capital, I broadened my social capital. In broadening my social capital I was able to parlay that into other unique opportunities for my children. Those schools and activities supported my vision for my kids and developed my children’s human potential. As a result they have accomplished wonderful things. They have more than held their own. Hopefully they will be able to perpetuate and significantly improve on their experiences for their children and for those that they have to interact with.
There is nothing atypical about my situation and most who have benefitted from AA in my experience have done as much and more. I refute the argument that those that say that people who have received AA would have been just as successful without it. Possibly, but I doubt it. I and their mother have a high school diploma and are not self employed. Most of my co workers are the same.
Take that individual with the attributes that would make him a viable candidate for a selective school, and his or her outcomes will be better than if they had attended a lesser institution. I’m not saying always or absolutely, but definitely, more often than not. I’m doing more than believing it, I’m living it. Even with all the positive things that have happened for us, much of it has been trial and error. No one has preceeded and blazed a path for us going this route. Cultivating the attitudes and behaviors that bring about these outcomes doesn’t happen overnight. It doesn’t happen in a generation. But it can and does happen and I know that AA for now, is a VITAL part of presenting urm’s opportunities that elevate them beyond ordinary into exceptional individuals.

Isn’t that the main reason we seek out these exceptional institutions for ourselves and our children? Isn’t that the reason that those that feel excluded, deserving and entitled are resentful?

Tyler09 · June 24, 2007, 11:53pm

Ok, norcalguy, think for a second.

The reason people want to attend say Harvard is because it prevents better opportunities for you and for your children.

So if a black student attends Harvard, their children will have better opportunities.

The kids of people who graduate from Harvard are going to say, score higher on the SATs (in general) because they have better educational opportunities.

So AA isn’t going to stop african americans from achieving, it’s going to help them achieve, i dont even know where that argument comes from.

Tyler09 · June 24, 2007, 11:59pm

And fabrizio,

what you’re suggesting is that AA become more in-depth and ask more specific questions regarding race. Well the more specific and in depth you make it, the less accurate of answers you’re going to get. And with so many people being a mix, it would only complicate the system. But you already said that you oppose the thought of using race in admissions so i dont even know why that was brought up.

-why do you keep asking me whether african americans are “entitled” to a spot at an ivy. They are “entitled” to help recovering from the enormous setbacks imposed in the past. AA is part of that help. Universities are "entitled " to the right to create a diverse college environment and help the various groups of America in he ways they see fit. You are “entitled” to the right to choose whether or not to attend one of the universities.

The best schools are where the best and the brightest decide to attend. And if the best and the brightest, the future leaders were truly opposed to AA then the Ivys wouldn’t be that big of a deal.

Any statistics to show that minorities due worse in college?

CONNECT WITH US