<p>xiggi in post 2118 you say “the biggest tragedy associated with affirmative action is that we still need it so desperately”. Why do you think we still need affirmative action for college admissions?</p>
<p>In answering the original question from OP, my answer is YES.</p>
<p>Arbydan “my answer is YES.”</p>
<p>Your analysis does sum up the best arguments made by those that feel the way you do.
Plus, no made up stats or stories on how a friend (or a friend of cousin), that is Asian did not get into the school of his choice. Very refreshing…</p>
<p>“Jonathan Reider, director of college counseling at San Francisco University High School, said most elite colleges’ handling of Asian applicants has become fairer in recent years. Mr. Reider, a former Stanford admissions official, said Stanford staffers were dismayed 20 years ago when an internal study showed they were less likely to admit Asian applicants than comparable whites. As a result, he said, Stanford strived to eliminate unconscious bias and repeated the study every year until Asians no longer faced a disadvantage”</p>
<p>This is buried in a long series of articles at this link: [The</a> <i>Harvard Crimson</i> Defends Discrimination](<a href=“http://www.discriminations.us/2008/02/the-harvard-crimson-defends-discrimination/]The”>http://www.discriminations.us/2008/02/the-harvard-crimson-defends-discrimination/)</p>
<p>However, the original article was written by Dan Golden in the Wall Street Journal (you have to pay for the link if you go directly to the Wall Street Journal). [Is</a> Admissions Bar Higher for Asians At Elite Schools? - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB116321461412620634-lMyQjAxMDE2NjEzMTIxMTE0Wj.html]Is”>http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB116321461412620634-lMyQjAxMDE2NjEzMTIxMTE0Wj.html)
PAGE ONE</p>
<p>Is Admissions Bar Higher for Asians At Elite Schools? School Standards Are Probed Even as Enrollment Increases; A Bias Claim at Princeton
By DANIEL GOLDEN
November 11, 2006; Page A1</p>
<p>Dan Golden’s overall opinion, “if they are not held to a quota, there is certainly an effort to keep their numbers down.” He calls this a “scandal” and a “shame.”</p>
<p>“An article in the Wall Street Journal stated federal investigators also found discrimination against Asian American graduate school applicants being practiced in UCLAs mathematics department, and in 1992, a federal investigation prompted UC Berkeley to rescind a policy that compared Asian American applicants to each other, instead of the entire pool of applicants.”</p>
<p>[The</a> Daily Bruin :: New UC rules worry some Asian Americans](<a href=“http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2009/05/new-uc-rules-worry-some-asian-americans]The”>http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2009/05/new-uc-rules-worry-some-asian-americans)</p>
<p>I’ll add that in my personal experience, I didn’t see that Asians had a harder time getting in colleges than whites in my high school. </p>
<p>However, I think there is some evidence suggesting otherwise, and certainly I’ve seen some stereotyping. And considering the amount of energy we spend in this country looking for other forms of discrimination, this merits a serious and sustained look as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Too bad that the story is incomplete and offers an example of tailoring facts to support faulty conclusions. </p>
<p>Golden did indeed write, “In 1990, federal investigators concluded that UCLA’s graduate department in mathematics had discriminated against Asian applicants.”</p>
<p>Too bad he did not bother to check his facts more carefully …</p>
<p>On August 8, 1993, OCR issued a revised LOF concerning the Mathematics
Department. It stated that because of new evidence, OCR had revised its
original findings and no violation had been found to have occurred.
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How about two books by two Harvard alumni? </p>
<p>[Ivy</a> League universities: Merit in motion | The Economist](<a href=“http://www.economist.com/node/5213394]Ivy”>Merit in motion)</p>
<p>[Lexington:</a> Poison Ivy | The Economist](<a href=“Poison Ivy”>Poison Ivy)</p>
<p>Although I came to my hypothesis independently, it is consistent with their findings. If that is still not enough evidence to at least support a power theory, then you are a devout Christian.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why go to an elite?</p>
<p>[Brown</a> and Cornell are Second Tier - Percolator - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/brown-and-cornell-are-second-tier/27565?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en]Brown”>http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/brown-and-cornell-are-second-tier/27565?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en)</p>
<p>It is very important if you want power and what power can bring. Just imagine, being a master of the universe, and have Congress answering to you and not the electorate. Thats power. </p>
<p>Don’t you sent your son to Yale, where he is a legacy?</p>
<p>^^^Again, how many times do we have to emphasize that this isn’t China; there are many paths to “power” (influence) in the United States, including through a free press, the arts and, yes, even through scholarly research.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is pretty interesting, assuming it’s true. It tells us, first, that Stanford didn’t have a policy, even 20 years ago, of limiting the number of Asians. Rather, there was, apparently, unconscious bias, which they were “dismayed” to learn about, and they took steps to eliminate it. It would be interesting to know what steps they took. It would also be interesting to know what, exactly, they studied to determine that there was a bias. Presumably it went beyond comparing stats.</p>
<p>As for why one should go to an elite, elites are great. As Canuckguy helpfully pointed out, I went to one and so does my son. You get an excellent education there. But this idea that they are the ticket to power is naive.</p>
<p>OT: Someone needs to point out that Higher Ed article (Brown, Cornell 2nd tier) to POIH. It totally dissed MIT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This has been discussed in the past on CC. This is all part of a pattern: people quote studies but fail to use the MAIN conclusions of the studies but prefer to use parts of it. This has happened to support claims of discrimination at Stanford, at Harvard, and at the Math department at UCLA. As discussed above, the FINAL outcome of the federal investigation established that NO discrimination took place, but this did not stop some researchers such as Golden to dissect the studies for the sole purpose of making a point that was NOT established in the conclusions of the report.</p>
<p>In this case, Reider, in his desire to make the point (and present a narrative that fits his new career better) only used selected part of the study by opting to discuss the bias and stereotypes. For balance, he should have added this little tidbit: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is quite a bit different from the story penned by Scott Jaschik in October 2006 </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Be it journalistic “liberty” or “error by omission” on the part of Mr. Reider, it remains that the quotation is misleading and intellectually dishonest!</p>
<p>xiggi, I’m not sure those two quotes are actually inconsistent–if the bias is unconscious.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Hunt, I agree that the quotation can be viewed as consistent. Yet the implications lead to vastly different conclusions.</p>
<p>For instance, what happens when one replaces the word conscious with deliberate: </p>
<p>“The panel found no evidence of deliberate bias and noted that Asian Americans were less likely than whites to enjoy preferences for legacies or varsity athletes.”</p>
<p>Fwiw, the issues of unconscious discrimination or unconscious bias seem to present new avenues for legal debate, especially in cases of employment --a recent example being the Wal-Mart sex discrimination class action.</p>
<p>Could it be that the Asian American community has used the wrong approach in alleging issues of discrimination in higher education on the basis of statistical evidence?</p>
<p>Just to add here in this interesting conversation, 
…</p>
<p>Admissions officers do not pretend to be perfect, and in that respect do try to monitor their own biases – i.e., become aware of them so that their effect will be reduced, by examining them. (We tend to be more controlled by what is unconscious in us.) I had a conversation with several of them as a group recently, in which they all discussed that they try to uncover their own personal biases (such as, sympathizing/favoring an applicant whose experience may resemble their own at that age, etc.). In committee, they challenge each other regarding those biases, particularly if ‘trends’ by one of them are apparent.</p>
<p>Again, not a perfect system, but one which strives to ‘check’ and moderate human perception.</p>
<p>Statistical evidence can be pointed to in cases of conscious/deliberate or unconscious racial discrimination.
One would hope that the colleges are self-examining these figures. Some may feel that the colleges are “managing” them, in an effort to be fair, OR to hide biases. And their definition of “fair” may not agree with yours or mine…</p>
<p>The problem is that the percentages are hard to nail down. Certainly for the public, as evidenced in the thread.
In light of that, it IS possible, IMO, for an admissions program to be UNaware of their own biases, given how slippery the numbers are. “Blindness” is an ironic term- it can imply total liberty and fairness, and it can also imply unfair practices allowing bias. Is it right to assume that the colleges are really aware of all these exact figures?? </p>
<p>There are “trends” and “patterns”. I think that is where the debate rests, the questions originate.</p>
<p>At any rate, I do not see a WHOLEsale effort on the parts of Asians to cry “racism.” I feel that questions are being asked about it all. There are misunderstandings about the importance of the “whole” candidate. But, Xiggi, don’t you feel that it is HEALTHY in a democracy with the laws we have for an individual, even groups, to QUESTION what is happening? Unfortunately, without definitive "answers’', there will always be lingering questions and plenty of opinions on both/all! sides. So far, IMO, there are no definitive answers.</p>
<p>I personally am not really clear about how the law of our land and constitutional rights apply to college admissions. Is this clearly defined? Are these laws only applicable to PUBLIC schools? Or schools with x or more dollars of public dollars in assistance, either directly to the school or even to the students?
Sorry to be so out of the loop…
Thanks.</p>
<p>Related to my last question,
Is there any requirement for colleges or unis of any type in US to be “transparent (and to what extent?)” about their admissions processes?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>May I ask you why would ask ME this question? </p>
<p>Should I assume that you think I have been unwilling to listen to the arguments, and unwilling to seek to understand the problem and its true nature. Fwiw, not only I have I asked repeatedly the “challengers” to express their views more cogently, but I have provided background, context, and numbers. </p>
<p>As I wrote before, asking someone to state or restate their argument is very different from rejecting the argument without discussion. It actually shows a willingness to listen and … discuss. However, it so happens that the elements discussed in this thread have been debated ad nauseam in the past years at College Confidential. For this reason, it is not hard to remember that the statistical evidence has been subjected to scrutiny, and in many cases easily debunked. </p>
<p>In addition to remember past discussions, it also happens that some of us might have explored the subject (beyond the debates in a forum) through academic research, or … professional activities. The deeper exploration of the issues always seeks to search and evaluate facts, and hopefully uncover evidence. What it does not do is seek to … bury the issue or decree them unworthy of further debate. </p>
<p>Lastly, it is not because one remains skeptical of the “evidence” and underwhelmed by the accuracy of the “data” presented or their correct interpretation, that the person is … insensitive to the personal impact of admission policies. In an anomymous forum, very little is known about the background of the “debaters.” This might explain why pejorative comments or claims of racism are so easily hurled.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The answer to that question is an easy YES! That is why you have a multitude of reporting requirements. That is why there is a U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that is tasked to investigate ALL claims of discrimination. </p>
<p>This is not to say that everyone is happy with the extent of the disclosures. For the issues debated in this thread, it is obvious that some would like to see a more complete disclosure on the admission rates for … individual sub-groups as opposed to the disclosure of enrollment numbers. </p>
<p>This said, there is no guarantee that a more detailed disclosure would made the process of admission more clear, especially at schools that rely on a holistic review model.</p>