are colleges racist?

[siserune]

<p><a href=“re:” title=“negative action”>quote=fabrizio</a></p>

<p>You may say that the experience of the UCs post-209 has little to nothing to do with private elites. But that doesn’t answer why the percentage of Asians did rise at Berkeley and UCLA after 1996.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Did the percentage of Asians, or the admissions rate of Asians, or the number of Asians admitted, in fact, go up at Berkeley when compared to whites? Are the changes in the relative white/Asian numbers unusual compared to the the natural annual fluctuations in the years post-209?</p>

<p>UC Statfinder has the data readily available. </p>

<p>Ratios for California residents, freshman fall admission, 1994 to 2009:</p>

<p>Ratio of Asian / White admission rates:
0.892 0.859 0.864 0.925 0.925 0.973 0.940 0.939 0.970 0.985 0.937 0.990 1.039 1.015 1.026 1.000</p>

<p>Ratio of Asian / White number of admitted students:
1.115 1.003 1.009 1.077 1.175 1.137 1.163 1.191 1.222 1.211 1.165 1.186 1.328 1.238 1.217 1.228</p>

<p>Ratio of Asian / White number of enrolled students
1.455 1.302 1.363 1.496 1.561 1.470 1.530 1.588 1.652 1.604 1.476 1.614 1.670 1.574 1.584 1.425</p>

<p>I can’t find a clear statement online of what the first year of prop.209 was. The black/hispanic numbers dropped to half their previous levels in fall 1998 so I am guessing that is the first year of implementation of Prop.209. Notice that the ratio of Asian to white admission rates stayed exactly the same (0.925) from 1997 to 1998…</p>

<p>There is an erratic but noticeable trend of increases since 1998 at Berkeley in all three series of Asian/white ratios of admission rate, admitted number and enrollment count. Given the effectively race-neutral admission during that time, this is due mostly to demographic changes, with Asians in California growing both in number and apparently in admissions qualification compared to whites. The latter could be due to increasing verbal scores as the proportion of native-born or US-raised Asians grows among second generation immigrants.</p>

<p>[UC</a> Berkeley Fall Enrollment Data](<a href=“http://opa.berkeley.edu/institutionaldata/archiveenroll.htm#one]UC”>http://opa.berkeley.edu/institutionaldata/archiveenroll.htm#one)</p>

<p>[University</a> of California: StatFinder](<a href=“http://statfinder.ucop.edu/statfinder]University”>http://statfinder.ucop.edu/statfinder)</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

It is so disheartening that a vocal few on this thread are more concerned about their own prospects and getting accepted into a handful (literally) of selective universities than they are about social injustice.

</p>

<p>Amen. And if I were an adcom, and “heard” any hint of that mentality in an app, I think I probably <em>would</em> be prejudiced against such people. Not “what can I contribute to your campus,” but “me, me, me, I need to punch my credentials ticket.”</p>

[soomoo]

<p>

I agree that all races should be educated on a level playing field in grades k-12.

</p>

<p>Thank you limabeans for putting this out there. Until we fix the huge problem in K-12 education we are not going to achieve racially diverse admission outcomes at elite universities without using racial preferences.</p>

<p>I feel that the anti AA crowd is really oversimplifying this issue.</p>

[Canuckguy]

<p>

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>You are talking about the tempest in a teapot kind of power. I am talking about the throw people halfway around the world into joblessness or death kind of power. I hope you are not suggesting they are comparable in magnitude, or significance.</p>

<p>

You get an excellent education there. But this idea that they are the ticket to power is naive.

</p>

<p>To think of them as tickets to power is indeed naive. It is, I believe, the best way to transmit privilege from one generation to another though. Life has no guarantee, but one can improve one’s odds by going to an elite.</p>

<p>It is true that you can get an excellent education at Yale; but you can get an excellent education at many less expensive institutions as well. I still suspect it is the signaling that people are paying for. Familiar with the work of Terenzini and Pascarella? You may want to take a look at myth #3:</p>

<p><a href=“https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/hschein/www/readings/Pascarella-myths.html#Myth%20%239[/url]”>https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/hschein/www/readings/Pascarella-myths.html#Myth%20%239&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Yes, fab, I REALLY REALLY want racial diversity in my life.

</p>

<p>Have you consider moving your family into a black/Latino neighbourhood? This way you can save money on housing and get all the diversity you desire. Two birds with one stone, I’ll say.</p>

<p>Why liberals want diversity, but only in small dosages, is absolutely beyond me.</p>

[glido]

<p>“parents should all be well educated and completely dedicated to their children and their education. The sad truth is that they are not. If we as a country allow this to happen .”</p>

<p>We should pass a law requiring parents to care no more and no less about educating their children than all of the other parents in the country. ;)</p>

[UVAorBust]

<p>I just read a very interesting article. It was about a group of 70-80 African American’s who formed a mob and began shouting “kill all white people”. Along with that, they antagonized any white members of the community out on the streets. This is during recent times as well. </p>

<p>I’m trying to find the article so I can post it here, but I’m having a hard time.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

It is so disheartening that a vocal few on this thread are more concerned about their own prospects and getting accepted into a handful (literally) of selective universities than they are about social injustice. Fortunately, the powers that be do not see things from this selfish viewpoint.

</p>

<p>A vocal few? Really? Who are these people? Am I one of them? Would it shock you if I said (again) that I only applied to one private school, which was a LAC in the South? </p>

<p>I think you should move beyond a contrived notion that anyone who disagrees with racial preferences does so out of selfishness or bitterness. </p>

<p>

Maybe we’ll get to that point when we become like other countries and stop allowing immigrants the chance to make a better life for themselves. When we do that, we should have less diversity and everyone should know their rightful place in society.

</p>

<p>Did you even bother to read my next paragraph, which was actually just one sentence? Sheesh.</p>

<p>Oh, because by using it today, we can create an educated class of “underrepresented” minorities in leadership roles, thereby producing a virtuous cycle, which will enable us to stop using racial classification?</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>Canuckguy, in his inimitable fashion wrote:

Quote:
“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>You are talking about the tempest in a teapot kind of power. I am talking about the throw people halfway around the world into joblessness or death kind of power. I hope you are not suggesting they are comparable in magnitude, or significance.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, if you’re talking in terms of the ability to hurt people (and, it appears that you are) then, of course, I would cede that to the service academies. And, you don’t have to go half-way around the world to see the effects of greed and materialism – just ask the people who once owned businesses in the neighborhoods around Alton (MA.)</p>

<p>But, I don’t think most people have to go to college to learn how to be selfish and tyrannical. I think the arts, the media – even pop culture – are bulwarks against such tendencies and perhaps the only ones a free society does have. That, to me, is REAL power.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

And to PG, Epiphany, Hunt, Bay and Xiggi – sorry, guys. You have not convinced me. You have worked very hard at making your case but no deal.

But see, we don’t have to convince anybody of anything. Those with the job of convincing are those who think there is something wrong with the status quo–like fabrizio (who, not surprisingly, returned primarily to comment on the URM part of this issue) and others who think Asians are being discriminated against on the basis of race. It is they who have to come forward with enough evidence to make other people believe that there is an injustice being done. They have to overcome objections and alternate explanations for the patterns they see. To do that, data is needed–not just anonymous and anecdotal observations. And the data are extremely thin. As far as I know, no new data supporting the proposition has been added since we began discussing this on multiple threads something like four years ago. If I’m mistaken about that, please tell me about the data.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

who, not surprisingly, returned primarily to comment on the URM part of this issue

</p>

<p>Yes, Hunt. Please ignore that I wrote three paragraphs about “negative action.” Please pretend that I did not write “Certainly it’s hard to prove; that I do not contest. Just ask the Jews: they could never prove that holistic admissions was responsible for capping their enrollment to 15% until decades later.”</p>

<p>Sheesh. I use paragraphs for a reason, you know? It’s so you aren’t fatigued by a gigantic wall of text.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>Hey, fabrizio, how about writing a few paragraphs that summarize the facts that make you believe that Asian students are being discriminated against on the basis of race by elite schools–if you do believe it, that is. That’s what I’ve asked you for a bunch of times, and you either can’t or won’t do it. Instead, you dole out, one at a time, semi-facts that you seem to think are “gotchas.” But they aren’t. So give us a summary. A numbered bulleted list (like the one I gave pages back) would be nice, but I leave format up to you.</p>

<p>If you’re unwilling to do this, then I am left to wonder whether your discussion of “negative action” is really just a smokescreen for your real purpose–which is to take away “positive action” for URMs. I guess throwing in claims about negative action makes it seem less churlish to want to take benefits from those who have been oppressed. If that’s not why you’re doing it, prove it.</p>

[siserune]

<p>More on the prop.209 UCB data:</p>

<p>According to the UC President’s Office, Berkeley stopped using race in admission beginning with the class entering Fall 1998.</p>

<p>[University</a> of California Office of the President](<a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/news/access/qasp12.htm]University”>http://www.ucop.edu/news/access/qasp12.htm)</p>

<p>So from the numbers posted in #2201, the ratio of Asian admission rate to white admission rate stayed exactly the same at Berkeley before (1997) and after (1998) prohibition of race in the decisions. From the demographic trends or from plotting the rates for each year and noting the clear growth trend, one would have expected a slight increase. Race-blind admission holding the Asian numbers down! </p>

<p>This gets funnier, because it’s the shortfall relative to the trend that corresponds to Espenshade and Chung’s notion of a credential-adjusted Asian effect. That the 1998 result is below the trend, or the 1997 result exceeds it, means that in E&C terms, Asian applicants “faced a gain of [number] points on the SAT” in the year just before 209 admissions. Which is to say, in the year 1997, the last year of E&C’s data.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>Siserune - If I am interepreting your data correctly, is the analysis showing that fewer whites are joining Berkeley although equal numbers are being admitted?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

That’s what I’ve asked you for a bunch of times, and you either can’t or won’t do it.

</p>

<p>Copy and pasting from my post #1934:</p>

<p>*Regarding the perception that Asians are discriminated unfairly against whites (i.e. what Jerry Kang and Frank Wu refer to as “negative” action), it really doesn’t help when you read [an</a> article](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian]an”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/10/asian) stating that “Admissions officers, while defending the overall integrity of the system, admitted that bias is a real problem.” Nor does it help when an admissions officer recounts anecdotes of hearing colleagues say “yet another Asian student who wants to major in math and science and who plays the violin…I don’t want another boring Asian.”</p>

<p>Does that article decisively prove that “negative” action exists? No. It only highlights that many Asian applicants have this concern, and their concern is not unfounded. Going with siserune’s source, sure, Asians are more likely than non-Asians to pursue STEM majors. Yes, a class cannot be all STEM majors. Yes, an Asian applicant should not expect admission at any private elite based on his stats and ECs. But NO, his application should not be read with an attitude of “yet another Asian student who wants to major in math and science and who plays the violin.”*</p>

<p>You actually replied to #1934, but your comments on the quotes from the article were limited to “[fabrizio] knows discrimination when he sees it.” As I said, those quotes alone do not prove the existence of “negative action.” But it’s kind of hard not to wonder about it when admissions officers admit that “bias is a real problem” (though the system overall is fine).</p>

<p>As for your penultimate paragraph in your reply (#1939), you state that “something so obvious that Asians (like other immigrant striver groups before them) are highly interested in STEM fields is resisted until the evidence for it is irresistable, and then the subject is changed.”</p>

<p>Well, Hunt, it wasn’t so obvious until siserune referred us to a reputable source affirming that yes, Asians do major in STEM fields at a much higher rate than non-Asians. If you’re demanding that I and others prove “negative action,” good faith requires that you do the same for your claims, and you couldn’t; again, siserune confirmed it.</p>

<p>I’m also reminded of a much older conversation where you offered the suggestion that East Asians don’t pursue ECs related to journalism whereas South Asians do based on your children’s educational experiences. I then pointed out that the editorial board of my alma mater’s student newspaper was half-Asian, most of whom were East Asian. You retorted that my alma mater isn’t generalizable since most students are STEM majors. I checked the Harvard Crimson and found much the same: there were more East Asians in the board than South Asians. You never said anything about this again, even though you were convinced that it was “so obvious that South Asians are more interested in journalism than East Asians.”</p>

<p>I don’t bring old history up to pick on you. Rather, I brought it up to highlight that what you see with your eyes may not be generalizable, and if you’re going to say that we have to prove our claims, well, then so do you.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

There is an erratic but noticeable trend of increases since 1998 at Berkeley in all three series of Asian/white ratios of admission rate, admitted number and enrollment count. Given the effectively race-neutral admission during that time, this is due mostly to demographic changes, with Asians in California growing both in number and apparently in admissions qualification compared to whites. The latter could be due to increasing verbal scores as the proportion of native-born or US-raised Asians grows among second generation immigrants.

</p>

<p>So your answer to my question is demographics. In other words, even if there were no Proposition 209, we would’ve seen increases in these three ratios anyway.</p>

<p>OK. It’s a very plausible explanation. Thanks.</p>

[mathmom]

<p>It’s also possible that some whites are choosing to go elsewhere. Back in 2007 we peeked in on a biology class at Berkeley that was 100% Asian.</p>

[siserune]

<p>

Siserune - If I am interepreting your data correctly, is the analysis showing that fewer whites are joining Berkeley although equal numbers are being admitted?

</p>

<p>Something like that. The yield is higher for Asians than whites, as are the raw application numbers. </p>

<p>Of the data available from UC, only the admission rates quantify UC Berkeley’s decision behavior. Given an admission rate for some group of applicants, enrollment and application counts tell you only about that group’s preferences, not anything that happened in an admissions office. Still, that the relative number of white vs Asian applications and enrollments also didn’t move significantly (the changes were comparable to or smaller than ordinary year to year fluctuations) from 1997 to 1998, says that at a school of Berkeley’s level of selectivity, as far as white/Asian comparisons are concerned, not much happened when the admissions was race-blinded.</p>

<p>The conclusion is that the two basic tenets of the “negative action” (preference for whites over Asians) theory contradict each other: that (1) Berkeley post-209 and (2) Espenshade et al’s studies, both predict what the top tier schools would look like under a meritocracy. UCB data does not fit with Espenshade’s simulations for the white/Asian numbers, so it’s not possible for both ideas to be true. </p>

<p>By the way, I consider the Espenshade studies as almost ironclad proof for the female vs male effect (gender discrimination) with credible quantitative estimates, and qualitatively very plausible about the admission of non-Asian minorities. Legacy and athlete effects are harder to evaluate because they interact with many things and nonrecruited athletes are ignored. The gender issue is totally avoided in the media accounts of the study and probably the authors would prefer not to be questioned about it. “Don’t ask, don’t tell”.</p>

[aegrisomnia]

<p>This thread is still going on?</p>

<p>And wait, did somebody explain to me how “selective” admissions aren’t completely unfair to students who are academically gifted? The time a student spends learning the violin or being leader of the FBLA could be spent, I don’t know, advancing his/her studies. Maybe playing the violin could be a valid acceptance criterion for a violin performance progam… anyway.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>To quote Ronald Reagan, fabrizio: “There you go again.” Your post quotes some other people and says that you have reason to “wonder.” OK, wonder away. But how about a summary of why, exactly, you wonder about this. Is it just based on that one article, or do you have some actual facts?</p>

<p>And as to this:

Well, Hunt, it wasn’t so obvious until siserune referred us to a reputable source affirming that yes, Asians do major in STEM fields at a much higher rate than non-Asians.

You *really *want to argue that this wasn’t obvious? Really?</p>

<p>But:

Rather, I brought it up to highlight that what you see with your eyes may not be generalizable, and if you’re going to say that we have to prove our claims, well, then so do you.

As I’ve noted, the burden of proof is on you, because you are challenging the status quo, accusing elite colleges of racism, etc.</p>

<p>But honestly, I have, again and again, gone looking for data that might inform the discussion, in this thread and previous ones. Every time I do that, you come up with some (to me) weak factoid that’s supposed to refute my data, like how many Home Ec majors there are in some college that isn’t even one of the ones we are talking about. I’m tired, and I really think you should put up or well, you know. Give us a summary of the evidence of anti-Asian discrimination that you’ve gathered.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

And wait, did somebody explain to me how “selective” admissions aren’t completely unfair to students who are academically gifted?

Hey, they are even more unfair to people who are stupid, something which nobody ever complains about here.</p>