<p>O.K. bovertine, I’m sure I’d like you if I knew you, and I’m sure you are right about my caustic tone. The topic brings it out.</p>
<p>Try again:
I dream of a race-blind admission to universities.</p>
<p>Better?</p>
<p>It is always disappointing to see how threads about racial issues in college admissions contain such personally aggressive comments.</p>
<p>It would be nice to see people stick to the analysis, their experiences, their opinions, and ask questions politely, and share their disagreements and their proofs with grace.</p>
<p>No one can prove anything 100% without ALL the data. But there may be some light to shed. Disrespect does not accomplish much. Corrections and criticisms of lines of thinking can be useful, but why do they have to be directed at a person? </p>
<p>Why is ok to attack people who disagree with racial boxes? who wonder if a non-URM group is being discriminated against, purposely OR just by dint of the methodology?</p>
<p>Graceful disagreement would be so much more helpful to improving the situation.</p>
<p>I cannot help wondering if it is just somehow considered “wrong” to ever question AA or race-aware admissions…<br>
We could accomplish so much more in all these excellent posts if posters respected each other more.</p>
<p>You are a class act 205. I know I am guilty of being ascerbic a lot. Anyway, I got kicked off the computer and posting from this phone is too tough.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone on this thread did this. Your diatribe only adds more inflammatory accusations.</p>
<p>People have been attacked for their claims regarding evidence or lack thereof. I don’t recall anyone being “attacked” because they disfavored the concept of AA.</p>
<p>Bay,
I do not at all think my posts have the tone of a diatribe. Maybe the sound of buzzing as from a mosquito who keeps asking questions… and other times I hope for a continued peaceful debate. Why the label of me and my words? Why not just listen to their content and deal with that? Insn’t it a good idea for us all to respect each other???</p>
<p>You seem to really react to my posts. “Your diatribe only adds more inflammatory accusations.” THAT is an inflammatory remark! And most unnecessary. Please stop this. I am trying my utmost NOT to be inflammatory.</p>
<p>How to ask questions and not be labelled inflammatory? How to ask for more respectful discourse and not be labelled as giving a diatribe???</p>
<p>I was not saying ANYthing about anyONE in particular in post #2102. Why did u react so forcefully to me???</p>
<p>I think that when people are disagreeing, they are getting personal in their responses. JMO. It is sad. Let us try to get along even when we disagree. And give people a chance to voice their opinions and questions.</p>
<p>Bay, take care.</p>
<p>performer’smom - your tone is fine. It’s just really, really tough to challenge the orthodoxy. There is an attempt on here to prove the questioning wrong through data and rational analysis. That is not working. Then it turns to insinuations that those who don’t roll over and agree with them are (a) dumb, (b) young and immature, (c) bad people and rude to boot!</p>
<p>Have heart. I really think we will see change on this.</p>
<p>
PG, I think that you are one of the most fair-minded people on this board and you asked a fair question, but I don’t have a fair answer. I’ll give it a try.</p>
<p>First, I only have some familarity with Stanford and don’t pretend to know other school well. Second, I’ll use Canuckguy’s Power Relations theory, which essentially states that the composition of school’s Class is determined by the power relationships among groups, to rationalize my estimates.</p>
<p>For Stanford, the power elites are Whites (including Jews). For a private institution, this determines that Whites will maintain plurality in the forseeable future. In a color-blind admission, either Asian or Hispanic may take the plurality because of their large population in California, which will shift the balance of power and the power elites will not want to see that. African American has a relatively small population in Ca and therefore may not be able to compete for the top spot. I see a realistic composition like this:</p>
<p>Stanford:
Whites: ~30%
Hispanics: ~25%
Asian: ~25%
African: ~10%
Others: ~10%</p>
<p>Professor101’s calculation is interesting, because he thinks both Hispanics and Asians “should” have representation at Stanford at almost the same level as whites. But if Stanford were to drop this “power” approach that supposedly results in the currently unfair distribution, what criteria would Stanford be using to decide whom to admit? Do you really think that if Stanford used the exact same criteria it uses now, except that it stopped considering race, the results would be as you suggest? Note that currently Stanford uses very different criteria than Berkeley does.
I sort of feel like responding to this with “I’m rubber and you’re glue,” but I will rather say that one rhetorical tactic people often use when somebody disagrees with them is to say that the other person thinks they are bad people. Well, I don’t think that. I do think that people who make accusations without being able to back them up with much beyond their own feelings and theories about power structures are not very persuasive, and I repeat my view that I think that it does a disservice to smart kids who might read this and think they are being cheated when they get into one Ivy League school and not another.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because I thought your accusation was 1)wrong; and 2)targeted only one side of the debate.</p>
<p>There have certainly been heated exchanges on this thread but they definitely have not been limited to the pro-AA-ers attacking the anti-AAers and it was never simply because some people did not support the idea of AA.</p>
<p>If you don’t wan’t people to negatively react to your lectures that do not add to the content of this discussion, then you need remain neutral rather than accusing only one side of misbehaving.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, you are so right that using data and rational analysis does not work. The latest discussion about the incredibly simple and clear numbers of Asian enrollment at Stanford could be a poster child for the peril of trying to explain data to zealots. </p>
<p>Well, should the people who find the “questioning” of the orthodoxy wrong (or uncalled for) simply use different tactics? Considering the level of argumentation brought by the “challengers” it might not be a bad idea to resort to irrational analysis and prefer idle speculation over data. Considering the tone of the “challengers” perhaps resorting to name calling, rudeness, and ad hominem might open the door for a dialogue among equals.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One could always hope. In the meantime, I have seen no changes whatsoever in the discussions about this subject in the past 8 years on CC. They ALWAYS start with the same arguments and always end up with nothing else than acrimony. This would not happen if there were REAL and valid arguments presented.</p>
<p>Hunt - If you look at what Professor101 is stating vs what Stanford is providing as their facts they are really not that far off. Xiggi says there is some sort of reclassification based on yearly data sets but I cant figure out what the govt changed - does anyone know? I don’t understand why Stanford would put it out there on the front pages of admission to show their student profile if they are totally off (23% vs 16-18% for the Asian category). </p>
<p>I don’t have a stake in this argument other than wondering what the heck is Stanford is trying to do if Xiggi’s argument is correct. </p>
<p>Race/Ethnicity
African American 707 (10%)
American Indian or Alaska Native 190 (3%)
Asian American or Pacific Islander 1,548 (23%)
White 2,385 (35%)
International 493 (7%)
Mexican American 573 (8%)
Other Hispanic 443 (6%)
Unidentified 548 (8%)</p>
<p>May be I will ask one of those new admits to take a physical count in September.</p>
<p>“For Stanford, the power elites are Whites (including Jews). For a private institution, this determines that Whites will maintain plurality in the forseeable future. In a color-blind admission, either Asian or Hispanic may take the plurality because of their large population in California, which will shift the balance of power and the power elites will not want to see that.”</p>
<p>That theory assumes that all whites think the same way, specifically on this topic - which is clearly a false assumption.</p>
<p>It is precisely because people think with their brains and not their skin, that colleges consider applicants for their attributes and not their skin color.</p>
<p>I think most people who support affirmative action also dream of a day when it won’t be necessary. Either because we’ll all be brown, or because we all have the same opportunities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Professor101 is way off in his evaluation of Stanford. By comparing apples to oranges, he arrived at entirely faulty conclusions that have no basis in reality. The student body of Stanford did not experience the wholesale changes he claims. For what it is worth, he made similar allegations in 2008. Allegations that were conclusively proven to be false by posting the correct information from the CDS. </p>
<p>He compares the reclassified number of freshman enrollment of 16 percent to the historical entire Asian student body, which he claims to be 26 percent. The figure of 16 percent is not comparable to the prior years, nor comprehensive. The figure of 16 percent does NOT account for the international Asian students, does NOT account for any of the students who remain unidentified, and NO LONGER account for students of mixed race. </p>
<p>With all due respect, not only did I explain what the reclassification was all about, but provided the source, namely that this is a change imposed by the Common Data Set organization. This is not a change Stanford introduced. One only needs to look at the Common Data Set for the year 2010-2011 to see that ALL schools had to reclassify the students to account for the growing number of mixed races students. </p>
<p>I commented several times on this in the last pages. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, not only did I explained the changes, but I showed the changes line by line. The data provided by Stanford on its website corresponds to the traditional presentation. Different reports have different audiences. It does not get simpler than that. </p>
<p>For good measure, I will repost the numbers:</p>
<p>*This is the traditional information posted by TexasPG:</p>
<p>African American 707 (10%)
American Indian or Alaska Native 190 (3%)
Asian American or Pacific Islander 1,548 (23%)
White 2,385 (35%)
International 493 (7%)
Mexican American 573 (8%)
Other Hispanic 443 (6%)
Unidentified 548 (8%)
Total 6887</p>
<p>This is the CDS format that follows the imposed changes in classification:
Nonresident aliens 493
Hispanic / Latino 1079
Black or African American 506
White, non-Hispanic/Latino 2,350
American Indian or Alaska Native 88
Asian, non-Hispanic/Latino 1223
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 19
Two or more races, non-Hispanic/Latino 581
Race/ethnicity unknown 548
Total 6887</p>
<p>Now, I will place them side by side, and show the difference.
Nonresident aliens 493 493 0
Hispanic / Latino 1079 1016 -63
Black or African American 506 707 +201
White, non-Hispanic/Latino 2,350 2385 +35
American Indian or Alaska Native 88 190 +102
Asian, non-Hispanic/Latino 1223 1548 +325
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 19 -19
Two or more races, non-Hispanic/Latino 581 -581
Race/ethnicity unknown 548 548 0
Total 6887 6887 0</p>
<p>Do you see how the 600 students that compose the Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islander, and
two or more races vanishes in the traditional view? In this table, those 600 students are appearing as 325 Asians, 102 American Indians, 201 Blacks and so on. Please note that the reclassification also impacts the remaining categories, especially white and latinos.</p>
<p>It requires a tremendous display of bad faith to reject this presentation. I can assure you that the presentation DOES cover the same 6,887 students! *</p>
<p>Is nt there a projection in 20xx (2040?) year by when US will be considered brown?</p>
<p>Xiggi - Should nt Stanford adjust the facts to suit the data set? Is there any reason for them to claim they have 23% Asians if they don’t?</p>
<p>I am not questioning your analysis since I am still not certain your adjustments reflect true facts vs your own interpretation of the data. I really don’t care one way or another other than being disappointed with Stanford accounting.</p>
<p>mathmom,
That is a wonderful way of expressing why some are questioning AA and race-aware admissions. It is a paradox. When will it no longer be valid? Not be necessary?
Is it promoting what it is trying to undo or avoid?
What I love about your statement is that it shows how both “sides” could be seen as on the the “same” side. Thanks!</p>
<p>Regarding the issue of mixed races, here a few items worth considering:</p>
<p>These students are part of the growing country-wide phenomenon of individuals who identify themselves as mixed race. The number of people who check both the black and white boxes has increased by 134 percent to 1.8 million since the 2000 census, the first time it allowed such an option. Among American children, the multiracial population has increased nearly 50 percent to 4.2 million since 2000.
[Blending</a> together | Stanford Daily](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/05/05/1048224/]Blending”>Blending together)</p>
<p>In 2000, the U.S. Census gave Americans the chance to identify themselves by more than one race for the first time. Almost seven million people – over 80 percent of whom were under 25 – checked more than one box, Stanford University professors Harry and Michele Elam told a crowded auditorium in Haldeman Hall on Thursday. A new global “mixed-race movement” has begun, they said in their lecture, titled “The High Stakes of Mixed Race: Post-Race, Post-Apartheid Performances in the U.S. and South Africa.”
[TheDartmouth.com:</a> Stanford profs examine mixed race in U.S. society](<a href=“http://thedartmouth.com/2008/04/18/news/race]TheDartmouth.com:”>http://thedartmouth.com/2008/04/18/news/race)</p>
<p>The 2010 census, which hit mailboxes this month, is causing scholars and mixed-race people to debate, for just the second time in the counts history, the dilemma of whether or not to check multiple race boxes.
[Mixed</a> feelings about mixed-race census option | Stanford Daily](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/03/31/mixed-feelings-about-mixed-race-census-option/]Mixed”>Mixed feelings about mixed-race census option)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the past, I have often shared that the biggest tragedy associated with affirmative action is that we … still need it so desperately. The other tragedy is that so much time and energy is wasted on the impact of AA on the extremely narrow issue of admissions at about 20 universities, and perhaps as few as 10.</p>
<p>“Stanford:
Whites: ~30%
Hispanics: ~25%
Asian: ~25%
African: ~10%
Others: ~10%”</p>
<p>Is that what the distribution “should” be … Why … And what do you do if (say) only 2% of the applicant pool is Hispanic?</p>
<p>Interesting hypothesis but 2% is equal to 700 people in last year’s applicant pool. That sounds like a really low number since they are already admitting 14% that they are classifying as Hispanic. It would be nice though since that means 200+ admits out of 700!</p>