are colleges racist?

fabrizio · June 28, 2011, 10:59am

Yes, Hunt. Please pretend that “admissions officers” are just “some other people” in the context of this discussion. Please also ignore that while they defended the overall integrity of the system, they “admitted the bias is real.” Additionally, please act as if I did not acknowledge that such a comment does not prove the existence of “negative action.” Isn’t it so easy to ask why I “wonder about this” when you do things like that?

(1) You couldn’t back it up. siserune did.
(2) Take a step back and see what it is you’re doing. You’re (correctly) asking for support for the claims of “negative action.” But then you’re trying to weasel your way out of supporting your own claims.

It doesn’t work that way, Hunt. You won’t accept an answer of “it’s obvious” to the title question of this thread, but apparently, “it’s obvious” is more than enough when it comes to Asians and STEM majors. No reputable source necessary.

fireandrain · June 28, 2011, 11:19am

In case it got lost in all the subsequent posts, I’m going to ask my question again, posed to those who believe that colleges are racist against Asians:

Speculate away.

collegealum314 · June 28, 2011, 11:49am

This is a really low blow. First of all, I’m not sure why you think that the “vocal minority” on this thread are all Asian or that they had trouble getting into a “handful of selective universities”. Second of all, it amazes me that people think “social injustice” is inicompatible with Asian concerns.

I recognize this is a sticky issue, but frankly it angers me that this group of people (Asians) is marginilized and ridiculed like this. How about saying that this policy is necessary for x,y, and z reasons, while at least acknowledging that it is unfair to Asians? I could respect that at least. There are actually reasons for affirmative action that I do accept, but I haven’t seen them on this thread.

Also, I think it’s so ironic that these selective universities are so concerned with social justice, but they still maintain their legacy policy. The attitude seems to be, “Let’s go after social justice, as long as it doesn’t affect the people who have been priveleged in this country since they came over on the Mayflower.”

performersmom · June 28, 2011, 11:53am

fireandrain,
Some of us, who are questioning the use of AA in College Admissions on this thread, do not think that, if there is racism in College Admissions, it necessarily originates from selection decisions based on overt generalizations about races and personal biases. It can result insidiously from the very system that is trying to prevent it.

There is “group”-ism: check the box and then let the committee decide what to do with your application.
There is “diversity”-ism: we cannot have too many of any type of student to keep the class balanced.
Not enough of one group, the academic criteria are lowered.
Too many of another group, the academic criteria are raised.
A candidate who is very unique may have lower than average academic criteria.

IF applicant pools lump Asians into a group initially, they will be compared to each other. And if Asians really do similar activities, they will cancel each other out. The Asian who does unique activities for an Asian would be looked at more favorably, even with lower academic stats, for instance. If Asians applicants really do have higher scores on average, their scores as a group of acceptees and attendees will be higher on average. This is what Asians focus on as being unfair.
[On that note, does anyone have any idea what percent of Asians are playing on the less than level field of weak public schools, immigrant parents, low incomes, difficult neighborhoods, discrimination due to skin color and foreign-ness, etc.?]

This process is not discriminatory vs. Asians per se, btw. The seats are limited, and if AdComms define diversity using racial grouping, this can happen.

Surely, diversity is a multi-dimensional matrix across many lines, such as gender, socio-economic, geographic, activities, academic focus, type of HS, academic and EC opportunities…
At best, I would hope for an individualized review of each application in light of the applicant’s individual (NOT GROUP) opportunities and disadvantages. To me, the only place for race or gender would be at the very END, to double-check that a class is not composed of 80% or more of any such group.

Is it right to generalize that ALL URM’s need a boost? That the playing field was not level for ALL of them? I find that sort of thinking to be insulting and discriminatory.
I do not accuse the AdComms of consciously thinking this way, but the use of racial boxes to group applicants could reflect and/or promote these types of generalizations about races- it seems to point to blanket assumptions about the groups.
There is huge diversity among races, genders, tennis players, private school kids, public school kids, kids of doctors, kids of janitors…

p.s. Pizzagirl,
My post was not meant to to be “all about me” in a selfish way- I was just trying to show i can relate, and was a way to avoid dictating how OTHERS SHOULD FEEL. Y’all are great at criticizing the way someone writes a post without looking at what the poster is saying.
Have YOU every thought about how it feels to wear the other shoe??? Play devil’s advocate- it is a healthy way to see if your opinions hold up!

I so appreciate all the contributions of statistics and citations.
Much work by a few to benefit all.

performersmom · June 28, 2011, 12:02pm

I forgot to mention in my post that the actual percentages of groups composing a class are considered by some here as potentially discriminatory.
Much of this thread is about how many Asians SHOULD be vs WERE admitted, as a GROUP. Is this quota-ism?
Is quota-ism discriminatory if it causes rejection of many candidates in one group and fewer rejections in another, qualifications being the same? Are the qualifications the same? Impossible to measure in a holistic way, of course!

My point is that grouping by race is really a potential for discrimination. And it can lock in erroneous assumptions about races by society.

Bay · June 28, 2011, 12:06pm

To my knowledge, it has never been established that selective universities use AA for “social justice” reasons. It may be that they do it for political reasons (i.e., to keep everyone happy and maintain their popularity), or for defensive reasons (they are concerned about being sued for racial discrimination because too few URMs are admitted without AA). Neither of those theories conflict with the legacy practice, and the first one supports it.

aegrisomnia · June 28, 2011, 12:06pm

Well, frankly, I don’t have a problem with stupid people not getting into good schools… I have a problem with smart people not getting into them because they didn’t have the foresight or the ambition to get into jazz tap. If “selective” admissions is any different from competitive admissions based only on academic merit, that means that some students with more academic merit are rejected in favor of students with less academic merit… on purpose, mind you. Does this not bother anybody else?

Or do ECs and “diversity” considerations only break ties? In other words, does anybody have any idea what weight these elite universities place on various factors? Probably not, because if any of us had a clue, there would be no argument at all.

Bay · June 28, 2011, 12:12pm

That may say something about how smart they really are.

Hunt · June 28, 2011, 12:14pm

So, where’s the support for the claims of “negative action?” Summarize it. By the way, I’ve given lots of factual support for the perception that Asians choose STEM fields over multiple threads. You just didn’t like it–I guess now you finally have to admit it’s true. But did you ever really, for one second, doubt that it was true? Perhaps you think that I really “know” that Asians are being discriminated against, and just don’t want to admit it.

But really, unless you can do a little better, you are going to lend support to my new hypothesis, which is that your real purpose is to take preferences away from URMs, and discussion of “negative action” against Asians allows you to cloak that position with an air of victimhood.

texaspg · June 28, 2011, 12:16pm

siserune -
“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.”

Are there any race based statistics available for other UC schools? mathmom mentioned looking at a biology class being 100% Asian but I was thinking the same should be true for engineering. I was surprised to hear from an Asian parent in Texas that his son was giving up an admission at Cornell and a scholarship at Rice to go to Berkeley, at full pay for all 4 years to do engineering where school was ranked higher in the specific engineering area.

Essentially, do Berkeley’s statistics for Asian yield differ in a significant way compared to their UC counterparts?

fabrizio · June 28, 2011, 12:29pm

Like what, the CSU data from 2002-2003? Oh yeah, Hunt, that really supported your claim.

It remains that it was siserune who proved your point for you with a reputable source. You never found his source, but you’re taking the credit for his post. And it’s pure hypocrisy that you’re arguing that you don’t have to prove your claims but your opponents do.

My “real purpose” is treatment without regard to racial classification, which necessarily requires “tak[ing] preferences away from URMs.” I mean, duh; how can you have preferences for "URM"s (or any racial classification) when racial classification isn’t considered?

I don’t see how that suddenly dawned on you after discussing this issue with me over the years. Quite frankly I find it hilarious that this is your “new” hypothesis.

sewhappy · June 28, 2011, 1:19pm

I think Asians are resented by a lot of people because they are so high-achieving academically. It’s very awkward that so many Asians came poor to this country but then quickly ascended without any real gap issue. Many of the posts on here imply that Asians are sort of greedy to want more admissions to top schools because they already get so many.

This attitude makes me uncomfortable and apparently others on here, as well.

Hunt · June 28, 2011, 1:25pm

The reason it’s my new hypothesis is your continual refusal to even summarize why you think (if you do) that Asians are being discriminated against with respect to whites. I don’t want to rehash old threads too much, but you may have forgotten that the data from the CSUs wasn’t the only data. There was also data from Michigan (which somebody else found, but which I analyzed) and data (perhaps somewhat anecdotal) taken from results threads right here on CC. The data you provided on whether Asians choose STEM majors disproportionately: zilch. You just questioned the data that was provided. At least you’re not doing that any more, but you don’t seem to want to address the implications, even now. Why?

sewhappy, it makes me “uncomfortable” when people want to strip URMs of preferences. I think it’s unpatriotic. Whether it’s “greedy” or not I leave up to the consciences of the individuals.

fabrizio · June 28, 2011, 1:40pm

Continual refusal…Reread my post #2214, which itself copied #1934.

If you’re not going to read what I write, then why have a discussion with me?

Not addressing the implications…reread my post #1934.

Paternalism and racial preferences, it’s the American way!

Seriously, though, the main point is that you are not exempt from proving your own claims, Hunt. “It’s obvious” is not going to do it.

fireandrain · June 28, 2011, 1:43pm

You are making an assumption here. One that I have not seen evidence of in my direct experience and my readings on the topic. Students at the same high school are sometimes compared to each other. Students with certain talents might be compared to each other (which soccer goalie do we accept?). But I don’t assume that because one’s race is indicated that Asians are compared to Asians, whites to whites and Hispanics to Hispanics.

This is what happens now!

How can this be accomplished if students don’t check off the “race” box? Many of us believe that what you describe is exactly what is happening during deliberations by admissions committees.

Hunt · June 28, 2011, 1:47pm

Even you admit that that particular claim is proven–even though you resisted all the evidence before. I’m just curious as to whether you ever really doubted that Asians choose STEM majors more than whites do.

I’m sorry, but your post 1934 just cites an article. Is that it? Do you think that nobody will go back and look at what you wrote (and didn’t write) in your prior posts? If you are playing some kind of game, I don’t understand the purpose.

epiphany · June 28, 2011, 1:47pm

No student is being either identified by one aspect of herself, or being evaluated by one aspect. There are far too many “aspects” to look at, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with anything so personal as race, gender, haircolor, let alone off-topic such as weight, car, political bent (directly, anyway). Tangentially, other “aspects” may come into play, such as religion, but only tangentially in that a particular student may have been active in Jewish groups, Muslim affairs, Christian community service work, but it wouldn’t have been the religion per se that would ‘categorize’ the student. That activity just referred to does not categorize at all, but rather would be just one more window into how involved and committed this student was to his/her activities, and possibly be an indicator of self-awareness to compare to an essay, for example. Any of those activities, regardless of identification, would be examined for level of involvement, not for affiliation one way or another. Further, lots of people choose to refrain from so personally self-identifying with their activities, preferring instead to describe activities without reference to affiliation of those. It is neither, in itself, a plus or a minus to do so.

However, if 100 excellent applicants from Dearborn, Michigan, all identifying as Iraqi-Americans, apply to the same university, they will, from mathematical percentages alone, have less of a chance of admission to the same high-level university than if those same 100 applicants were disbursed throughout the country and were applying to a variety of universities.

As to:

Sorry, but it’s relevant. It’s relevant because of geographical representation goals and because the college has every right to know the content of the curriculum at your school, the offerings at your school, the history of excellence at your school – relative to historical performance at that college or U – and how you size up relative to the rigors of that high school, or lack thereof.

As to:

That is also relevant. The college has a right not to overfill some departments and underfill others. It’s their prerogative as a business entity; it’s their prerogative when it comes to serving the entire student body maximally – knowing the level of service available to those coming in.

So according to you, colleges and universities have no right to be inquisitive about why the heck you see yourself as a match for their illustrious institution, as you decline to give them enough information to make an intelligent decision about you; rather, they should demand nothing specific enough about you, but rather take your word for it that you are “qualifed,” and have a better idea of what match means than they do. (Because that is the logical conclusion from your post, frankly.)

eastcoascrazy · June 28, 2011, 1:52pm

Post 2227 (aegrisomnia) “I have a problem with smart people not getting into them because they didn’t have the foresight or the ambition to get into jazz tap…Does this not bother anybody else?”

Yes, it bothers at least one other person.

Post 2228 (Bay) “That may say something about how smart they really are.”

Are you kidding? Or do you really mean to imply that somewhere back in 2000 my then 7 year old should have had the intelligence to realize that, in order to facilitate his potential ivy application in 2010-11, he should concentrate on some obscure EC as a hook? Or do you mean to imply that I, as his parent, should have had the foresight to look into the relative value of obscurity in after school activities for the 7-year-old boy as it relates to elite college admissions? Oh, darn, and to think that we wasted that whole summer letting him ride his bike with his friends.

Hunt · June 28, 2011, 1:56pm

I think Bay was kidding. But the bottom line is that colleges in the US are looking for a lot of different things, and some of them are more unusual than others. If you have one of the unusual things, it helps you get in. This can be annoying to a person who has something more common, especially if they worked really hard at it.

Put another way, it might be good strategy to move to Idaho if your main goal in life is getting your kid into Harvard. But there might be some pretty good reasons that you don’t want to move to Idaho.

fabrizio · June 28, 2011, 1:59pm

What is this, really? You never proved your claim; siserune did it for you. Now you’re piggy backing off of his source.

You are not exempt from your request. You cannot run away with “It’s obvious.”

If anyone’s playing a game here, it’s you. I cited an article that referred to “admissions officers” who defended the overall integrity of the system but acknowledged that “the bias is real.” These “admissions officers” magically became nothing more than “some other people” after you read the article. How convenient!

As for #1934, I do not want to read another “you don’t seem to want to address the implications” post from you again. Here are the relevant portions of #1934, since you want me to express my position but aren’t willing to read what I write:

*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.”

What does his being Asian have anything to do with it? If you already had enough math and science majors in the incoming class, fine. And if you already had enough violinists, fine. Pick humanities and social science majors. Pick jazz pianists. But you don’t need to consider racial classification to do those things.*

are colleges racist?

CONNECT WITH US