are colleges racist?

[Professor101]

<p>

Hunt -But Professor101, what exactly is your claim against Stanford? It doesn’t appear that the raw numbers of Asians have, in fact, dropped at Stanford in recent years. Thus, your claim has to be that 16-18% Asians isn’t “enough.” But as has been pointed out, Stanford draws nationally (where Asians are less than 5%) and from California (where Asians are about 12%). So once again, the challenge is to show that Asians “should” be more overrepresented than they are already. That’s what’s hard to show without data that don’t appear to me to exist.

Please see Post #2061.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

If your presentation is logical, then Stanford had misrepresented their Asian numbers for many years (treat multi-racial as Asian). This will not alter the fact that Asian is about 16-18% of Stanford’s students’ body and my claim against Stanford remains as presented.

</p>

<p>WOW! </p>

<p>Let me try (again) to point you toward the right direction, and perhaps help you understand. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>What is the source of your numbers? Easy … you quoted a figure of 16 percent from the College Board. The College Board is relying on the Common Data Set filed by Stanford. </p></li>
<li><p>Why are the numbers different in the last year? Here are the instructions for the CDS of 2010-2011. Here’s a link to the changes:
[Common</a> Data Set Initiative](<a href=“http://www.commondataset.org/]Common”>http://www.commondataset.org/) where you can read the following:
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE CDS FOR 2010-2011
B2 Enrollment by Racial/Ethnic Category reflects new reporting standards</p></li>
<li><p>I have provided you links to the Fall 2009 data at NCES. Stanford provided the information as requested by the surveyors. No misrepresentation at all. </p></li>
<li><p>No amount of data will convince you otherwise? The contrary is quite true. I would be happy to look at the data you provide, and I would be happy to be convinced of a potential error. The question should, however, be directed at you. I have now presented solid and verifiable numbers to you. While I can understand your lack of familiarity of the presentation of educational statistics, I cannot understand your unwilingness to accept the correct interpretation when offered to you.</p></li>
</ol>

[xiggi]

<p>

Please see Post #2061.

</p>

<p>Your position that Stanford should admit more Asian students is different from the claim that the representation of such students has dropped from around 26 percent by … about TEN percent to a low of 16 percent. </p>

<p>The first position seems to be based on some extrapolation of the population distribution coupled with the belief that Asians should be represented at THREE times their racial representation. Irrational as it might be, that is an opinion you are entitled to have. But it is nothing more than an opinion.</p>

<p>The second position is … plain wrong, and based on a faulty interpretation of the existing data. </p>

<p>As someone said in the past, you are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own set of facts!</p>

[Professor101]

<p>

Xiggi -As someone said in the past, you are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own set of facts!

</p>

<p>Let’s cut through the cheese. Do you agree or not for the AY 2010-2011, Stanford enrolled 16% Asian Freshmen and 18% Asian overall? </p>

<p>

Let me try (again) to point you toward the right direction, and perhaps help you understand.

Haha, I don’t need the GPS anymore next time. You are too arrogant for your own good. Do you think that people don’t know the stuff that you throw over there? For a person studying education at one of our nation’s top institutions, you make me feel sad.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

Let’s cut through the cheese. Do you agree or not for the AY 2010-2011, Stanford enrolled 16% Asian Freshmen and 18% Asian overall?

</p>

<p>Camembert or Edam? LOL! </p>

<p>Of course, since I posted the numbers in the first place, I must agree that Stanford reported such numbers for the newly created category of Asians, which represents the traditional and more comprehensive category used in the past, but minus Other Asians and Mixed Race Asians. Context is everything! </p>

<p>Again, those figures are not compatible with former statistics. You cannot compare apples to oranges. The new classifications have to be compared to their appropriate counterparts. In plain English, you can only compare the reported figures of Asians to the numbers posted in the same … small box on the CDS of another school and only for the year 2010-2011. </p>

<p>Simply stated, your position that the number of “Asians” decreased is totally invalid. </p>

<p>

You are too arrogant for your own good. Do you think that people don’t know the stuff that you throw over there? For a person studying education at one of our nation’s top institutions, you make me feel sad.

</p>

<p>Still loving that ad hominem, don’t you. I will not fall into the trap of volleying back. As far as not knowing that “stuff” I believe you have provided ample proof of that being the case.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

Do you agree or not for the AY 2010-2011, Stanford enrolled 16% Asian Freshmen and 18% Asian overall?

</p>

<p>How can anyone say for certain? Is there a reason why people ignore the Internationals (7%) and race unknowns (8%)?</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

I am not aware Harvard is known for its engineering programs, but Stanford is renowned in engineering like MIT, Caltech and Berkeley. HP, Google, Yahoo, etc. just make Stanford more connected with engineering and technologies. The only President produced by Stanford was an engineer.

</p>

<p>I never said, “Harvard is known for its engineering programs.” </p>

<p>I said this:

Just because a university is strong in science does not mean that science programs disproportionately dominate (as with MIT, Caltech). Like Harvard, Stanford is a research university with strong science departments and with many other strong departments as well.

</p>

<p>Which was in response to this, from you:

Stanford along MIT, Berkely, and Caltech is among the top science and engineering schools in the country.

</p>

<p>And now here is your position:

Stanford is renowned in engineering like MIT, Caltech and Berkeley. HP, Google, Yahoo, etc. just make Stanford more connected with engineering and technologies. The only President produced by Stanford was an engineer.

</p>

<p>And? It doesn’t mean that Stanford wants to become “an engineering school,” even though you obviously only value engineering. (Proof = above) Harvard doesn’t want to become an engineering school either, nor do the other Ivies. </p>

<p>Further, throwing Berkeley in the mix (admissions-wise) is irrelevant. Public university, with overwhelming numbers of students in-State.</p>

[Professor101]

<p>

Xiggi -The first position seems to be based on some extrapolation of the population distribution coupled with the belief that Asians should be represented at THREE times their racial representation. Irrational as it might be, that is an opinion you are entitled to have. But it is nothing more than an opinion.

You don’t understand Texaspg’s calculation in Post #2056 at all.</p>

<p>

Xiggi - Of course, since I posted the numbers in the first place, I must agree that Stanford reported such numbers for the newly created category of Asians, which represents the traditional and more comprehensive category used in the past, but minus Other Asians and Mixed Race Asians. Context is everything!

As long as you agree on the 16-18%, I rested my case.</p>

[sorghum]

<p>If a single private high school had 6 kids all from high-income well-educated-parent homes, and each kid had 2350+ SAT, high GPA, excellent piano or violin skills, was a strong tennis player, wrote generically sincere essays, and had letters of recommendation attesting to their decent & honest character …</p>

<p>Could they ALL get into the same top Ivy?</p>

<p>If they were all Asian (or as I prefer to say, Asian-American) - absolutely not.</p>

<p>If they were all black (or to be consistent, African-American) - not so clear.</p>

[sorghum]

<p>And here is a hilarious thread on cheating on SAT:</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-act-tests-test-preparation/1161632-how-do-people-cheat-sats.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-act-tests-test-preparation/1161632-how-do-people-cheat-sats.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>All those above who think “Asians” are more inclined to cheat than regular 'Mericans, please read it.</p>

[collegealum314]

<p>Assuming the # of Asian applicants don’t exceed the number of STEM positions (below saturation), and assuming the school in question takes the superior applicant every time (determined holistically or however,) then racial preference for STEM positions/majors shouldn’t matter.
Another assumption, of course, is that colleges aren’t trying to fix the demographics within each major.</p>

<p>Also, I’d like to point out that even though Asians may prefer STEM professions, a big chunk of those are premeds. Premeds these days do not only major in biology and chemistry; they major in humanities majors too.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Oh well, Professor, all I can say is that I did try … patiently! But then, there is no worse blind… … than the one who refuses to see.</p>

[20more]

<p>Are some people born rude?</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>Sorghum, what’s a “non-top Ivy” or is this just another example of slicing the bologna too thinly?</p>

<p>Professor, since you are so sure you know what the % of Asian Americans “should” be at a given school, what “should” the % of blacks, native Americans, non-Jewish whites, Jews, etc should be, and how do you arrive at those calculations?</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

All those above who think “Asians” are more inclined to cheat than regular 'Mericans, please read it.

</p>

<p>Except for those posters with screen names indicating origins, or with anecdotes indicating population localities of cheating (such as a particular country, territory, etc.), how would you know the personal origins of those on the thread you linked? How is that thread any indication of “inclination” by minority ethnicity or absence of minority ethnicity of any kind?</p>

[205mom]

<p>Now I’m sure I live in LaLa land, because I wish the race check-box would DISAPPEAR. </p>

<p>We are not URM, or Asian. I would happily have my kids attend a university that was almost all ____ (fill in the blank) if acceptances were based on other meritorious criteria.
When I hear the grumblings about too many Asians in our schools I get a heart ache. Let our school be flooded with Asians who earn their way.</p>

<p>Maybe I took M. L. King’s “I have a Dream” speech literally. I still hope our species can grow up someday.</p>

<p>I’m sure I will be sorry for posting this. This is one topic (evidence the giagantic response) that brings out the nasties.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

I still hope our species can grow up someday.</p>

<p>I’m sure I will be sorry for posting this. This is one topic (evidence the giagantic response) that brings out the nasties.

Apparently you are correct. In your very first post on the topic you have managed to call people nasty and imply they are not grown up.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

As long as you agree on the 16-18%, I rested my case.

</p>

<p>Professor,
It seems to me that the only thing you can say with relative certainty is that Stanford enrolled somewhere between 16 - 31% Asian students, and that assumes that everyone reporting was truthful.</p>

[205mom]

<p>Didn’t take you long to show up. Hello bovertine! </p>

<p>Just wanted to add that we are of a minority (maybe 2%-3% of the American population) that has had a l-o-o-o-ng history of discrimination. I’m sure you can guess who.
This is why I am saddened by the Race check-box. I also dislike legacies, which got me some contemptuous responses on another thread.</p>

<p>It’s hard to be part of any selection. It would never be a perfect process. But we are working our way to making it better. Right?</p>

<p>Oh, I hope.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

Didn’t take you long to show up.</p>

<p>

I guess it’s now nasty to merely quote somebody’s post. You hurled two insults in your very first post. It is just a fact. It is possible to argue your position without calling others nasty or childish.</p>

<p>What did those two characterizations add to your argument? Delete the personal attack and you have a perfectly valid argument, which to a great extent I agree with, although I may disagree with you on some specifics.</p>