are colleges racist?

[fabrizio]

<p>

fabrizio, you and I both know that threads like these are a big game for you. But you need to be more subtle, or everyone will figure it out.

</p>

<p>Of the posts on page one of your posting history, all but four were on this thread. Please don’t act as “threads like these are not a big game for you.”</p>

<p>And what does “it” refer to?</p>

<p>

that is what the article said.

</p>

<p>So you’re just copying from the article. Your doing so does not mean you agree with or believe what the article said. Have I understood you correctly?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

btw, I think I remember the fab said he had legally changed his name to “Anglicize” it.

</p>

<p>Sure did. And I don’t regret it one bit.</p>

<p>

That is certainly an option for those whose suspicions rise to an extreme level.

</p>

<p>Can you tell me why Larry Summers isn’t Larry Samuelson?</p>

[Professor101]

<p>CC becomes a part-time job!

mokusatsu - The ex-admissions officer who said in that article that the bias is real, also said that the college where he had worked, Stanford, had taken measures to eliminate the bias problem. So the cited article also would support the proposition that there is now no “negative action.”

Well, let me ask you a few questions:
1). What are Stanford’s admission rates by ethic groups?
2). What methods does Stanford use to remove anti-Asian bias and where is the official publication?
3). Do you think that Stanford located in the Asian population center of America should have a lower Asian student population than Princeton which is located in a region with average Asian population?
4). Do you think that Stanford’s admission scores should be lower than HYP Columbia and Dartmouth?</p>

<p>If your answers can satisfy a room of commoners with common sense, I’ll raise my white flag.</p>

[Bay]

<p>

Can you tell me why Larry Summers isn’t Larry Samuelson?

</p>

<p>I can certainly guess what your theory is, but according to Wikipedia, its because he was born to Robert and Anita Summers.</p>

[soomoo]

<p>

Did you have any objections to assigning each applicant a unique identifier per application cycle and limiting the infamous box to “Are you a ‘URM’? If ‘yes,’ please check one or more of the following:”?

</p>

<p>I think this is a great idea. Yes. You can decline to state your ethnicity now, but suspicion still lingers that names can be identified. I have asked this before. If there really is no Anti-Asian discrimination vs. whites (and I’m not saying there is or isn’t) then what is the problem with this approach?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I can certainly guess what your theory is, but according to Wikipedia, its because he was born to Robert and Anita Summers.

</p>

<p>Why guess? The next portion of the sentence in Wikipedia is "Robert Summers and Anita Summers…who are both professors at the University of Pennsylvania, as well as the nephew of two Nobel laureates in economics: Paul Samuelson (sibling of Robert Summers, who, following an older brother’s example, changed the family name from Samuelson to Summers).</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

Do you have any substantive comments about the article itself?

Yeah, it’s full of hearsay and anecdotes and little data.</p>

<p>But you knew that already.</p>

[siserune]

<p>

Are there any race based statistics available for other UC schools?

</p>

<p>UC Statfinder has data broken down for each campus by race, SAT score, GPA, and other characteristics. The 1997-98 change for California whites and Asians at UCB in the 600-699 and 700-800 SAT (average per section) ranges are as follows:</p>

<p>white/Asian ratio of admission rates went up by factor of 1.05 at 700-800 SAT average
white/Asian ratio went down by factor of 0.927 in the 600-699 range.</p>

<p>So in the more academically elite pool that more resembles the Ivy league, the switch to race-blind slightly hurt Asians compared to whites. Alternatively, if relative changes of 5-8 percent are negligible, everything stayed the same after controlling somewhat for SAT. </p>

<p>

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

</p>

<p>Yes, and this is important to the National Merit calculations I mentioned earlier, where UC doesn’t have as many Asian National Merit scholars as predicted by Ivy discrimination.</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

Of the posts on page one of your posting history, all but four were on this thread. Please don’t act as “threads like these are not a big game for you.”</p>

<p>And what does “it” refer to?

“it” refers to the fact these threads are a big game for you, which you have now admitted.
Thanks for playing.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

If your answers can satisfy a room of commoners with common sense, I’ll raise my white flag.

</p>

<p>So it’s mokusatsu’s responsiblity to come up with a publication name, even if no publication exists which delineates those “methods” specifically? (Because of course, professional collegiality and the assumption of professionalism would not do it for you: No, the best operating procedure is to proceed with assumption of bias, and in this case only one kind of bias – no other kinds of biases)</p>

<p>And since I (for example) have not seen admission rates by ethnicity of application rates, and since it is unlikely that those also are published, he should nevertheless be responsible for seeing to it that you give up the fight? (Again, requiring him to prove a negative)</p>

<p>As to this:

Do you think that Stanford’s admission scores should be lower than HYP Columbia and Dartmouth?

</p>

<p>Why should Stanford consult you, or mokusatsu, or anyone on CC including me, about what their score standards “should” be? For that matter, “why” should Oxford & Cambridge insist on standards they insist on? Why aren’t their standards what HYP’s are?</p>

<p>(Hint: none of these institutions are public institutions.)</p>

<p>You also engage in the ‘when-will-you-stop-beating-your-spouse’ question: If mokusatsu can satisfy the narrow parameters you demand, that equates to ‘common sense,’ and nothing else does. </p>

<p>I will tell you one thing that the private elites are looking for : non-narrow people.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

“it” refers to the fact these threads are a big game for you, which you have now admitted.
Thanks for playing.

</p>

<p>You’re welcome? I guess? I mean, I don’t see how you’ve “trapped” me or anything since all but four of the posts on page one of your posting history were on this thread and your earliest posts date back to the “Race IV” thread.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

I will tell you one thing that the private elites are looking for : non-narrow people.

</p>

<p>Seems weird, then, that there isn’t [a</a> single](<a href=“http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~sica/reading.htm]a”>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~sica/reading.htm) book on the reading list of the Harvard Summer Institute on College Admissions that opposes racial preferences. There’s nothing to balance out</p>

<ol>
<li>The Case For Affirmative Action</li>
<li>“Race Sensitive Admissions: Back to Basics”</li>
<li>The Shape of the River</li>
<li>“Why a Diverse Student Body is so Important”</li>
</ol>

<p>Moreover, the way #3 is described makes it clear that there’s only one acceptable way of reading the book: “we simply must continue race-conscious admissions policies because they create a number of strong and important black professionals and black leaders.”</p>

<p>I don’t see how that reading list is broad at all when it comes to racial preferences.</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

Well, let me ask you a few questions:
1). What are Stanford’s admission rates by ethic groups?
2). What methods does Stanford use to remove anti-Asian bias and where is the official publication?
3). Do you think that Stanford located in the Asian population center of America should have a lower Asian student population than Princeton which is located in a region with average Asian population?
4). Do you think that Stanford’s admission scores should be lower than HYP Columbia and Dartmouth?

1 & 2: don’t know
3: According to nces, [College</a> Navigator - National Center for Education Statistics](<a href=“http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/]College”>College Navigator - National Center for Education Statistics), Stanford is 23% Asian, Princeton is 16% Asian. New York and New Jersey have above-average Asian populations.
4: The scores “should” be whatever Stanford wants them to be.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>mokusatsu - item 3 seems to be wrong according the new common data set model and Stanford also seems to be at the 16-18% level, prevalent among the Ivies.</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

I mean, I don’t see how you’ve “trapped” me or anything since all but four of the posts on page one of your posting history were on this thread and your earliest posts date back to the “Race IV” thread.

When you find yourself in a hole, . . . .</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

The scores “should” be whatever Stanford wants them to be.

</p>

<p>Precisely.</p>

[Professor101]

<p>

1 & 2: don’t know
3: According to nces, College Navigator - National Center for Education Statistics, Stanford is 23% Asian, Princeton is 16% Asian. New York and New Jersey have above-average Asian populations.
4: The scores “should” be whatever Stanford wants them to be.

</p>

<p>Here are the percent of Stanford and Princeton:
Asian Student Populations:
Stanford: 16%
Princeton: 18%</p>

<p>Asian Population:
NY&NJ 6.5%, New York City and Princeton area: 11-15%
California: 12%, SF Bay area: 30-40%</p>

<p>Top Ten schools within 500 miles of Princeton: 8
Top ten schools with 1700 miles of Stanford: 2 </p>

<p><a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board;

<p><a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board;

<p>

4: The scores “should” be whatever Stanford wants them to be.

Not sure this will pass the common sense test. But I agree. I’d go one step further: Stanford can do whatever they want with the boundary of the law including discriminating agaist a group without getting caught.</p>

[HotChocolate]

<p>

Originally posted by socaldad1
I went with my son on to visit UCLA. We took the tour which lasted about 2 hours. I have to say that I was shocked to see the high % of asian students. As a parent, I came away from the visit NOT wanting to send my son to UCLA.

I’m a little offended by this post. But it looks like you won’t have to worry about this anymore considering your son got rejected from UCLA anyway. ;)</p>

<p>In all seriousness, I wish him the best of luck wherever he ends up going.</p>

[mokusatsu]

<p>

Here are the percent of Stanford and Princeton:
Asian Student Populations:
Stanford: 16%
Princeton: 18%

Those College Board figures look like 1st year students, not total undergrad population</p>

<p>

Asian Population:
NY&NJ 6.5%, New York City and Princeton area: 11-15%
California: 12%, SF Bay area: 30-40%</p>

<p>Top Ten schools within 500 miles of Princeton: 8
Top ten schools with 1700 miles of Stanford: 2

Do students from California not apply to those 8 schools?</p>

<p>Asian population within 300 miles of Stanford: ?
Asian population within 300 miles of Princeton: ?
These numbers might not be too far apart</p>

[Professor101]

<p>

Do students from California not apply to those 8 schools?

</p>

<p>^^ Yes! Because Stanford DON’T want them!</p>

<p>

Asian population within 300 miles of Stanford: ?
Asian population within 300 miles of Princeton: ?

~20-25%
~7-10%
Go find youself. I need to go to bed.</p>