are colleges racist?

[performersmom]

<p>siserune and sewhappy,
Yes, I am puzzled. I will proffer purely anecdotal but very provocative stuff on this issue.

1. At ALL the coed privates (boarding or local) I have ever been familiar within the last 15 years, the girls dominate in overall HS GPA. This is revealed by public things like class rank, shared knowledge of grades all the way through, honors, you name it. We kid about it- if my D is #20 in her class, she is likely to be, not # 10 but more like #15 in girls (with whom she will be competing/yes on many other attributes as well/ for spaces at colleges).
2. I do not know if the GPA of just the Math or Science or M/S courses would reveal the same pattern or something different…
3. Yes, this is true: the boys who are in the upper 'tiles by HS GPA are mostly Asian.
4. I have no idea what the other kids’ tests scores are, so I cannot comment on that. </p>

<p>This is at privates of all types in different locations all over the country.</p>

<p>The feeling we parents of girls have is that the deck is stacked against girls on the GPA front- they are relatively mature, focused, organized, serious about school-work (at least during HS!), so their GPA bar is higher than it is for boys.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

In the years we’ve discussed this, when have I ever expressed opposition to geographic preferences? Last time I checked, geographic location wasn’t a suspect class. I also don’t see any ballot initiatives in California asking for the removal of geographic preferences in UC admissions.

</p>

<p>That’s immaterial. You have expressed resistance to the idea of race as an element of decision-making precisely because the student has no control over that. And you’re a huge fan of ‘merit’ as being solely deterministic when it comes to admission, regardless of how you recognize holistic merit. Except that geographic distribution is not merit, fabrizio. It is a business decision, which even the Universities of California, and Virginia, are prone to consider as a part of their respective admissions systems. So there will continue to be accidental and arbitrary aspects to college admissions that no ivory-tower experiment is going to rectify, and which will not be ‘corrected’ by any legal or adminstrative efforts. Even public universities are businesses.</p>

<p>

And have you ever known anyone to complain that he didn’t get in because his spot was “taken” by someone who matched him on X - 1 categories and bested him on the OBJECTIVE criterion?

</p>

<p>All the time students complain that a student from region X got into the same UC campus on lower objective criteria than a known student from region Y with different objective criteria. I see the criteria, as well, so I would know. Ditto for UVA (check out CC).</p>

<p>Welcome to the real world.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

In the years we’ve discussed this, when have I ever expressed opposition to geographic preferences? Last time I checked, geographic location wasn’t a suspect class. I also don’t see any ballot initiatives in California asking for the removal of geographic preferences in UC admissions.

</p>

<p>Ah, but an initiative in the UC system designed to bolster representation from the more rural parts of CA would certainly work against Asians, who tend to cluster in the major cities. Would that be “racist”?</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>

Quoting from #2333, “FWIW, trying to play wedge politics between blacks and Jews is a time honored right-wing tradition. Otherwise, it would make little sense for Fabrizio…”</p>

<p>Right, johnwesley. Your reference to a bigoted right-wing tactic had nothing to do with me. It just happened that you referred to me in the NEXT sentence. No, I was supposed to read that sentence by itself, without any reference to the previous one. </p>

<p>You can disagree with me. That’s fine. What you cannot do is claim that I’m a “right-wing bigot” without even trying to back it up.

</p>

<p>Well, let’s get one thing straight: are you saying, that someone who would constantly refer to Jews and blacks almost exclusively in threads pertaining to affirmative action, as though they were pitted on opposite sides of a great crusade, post after post for thousands of posts going back for years <em>might</em> be bigoted?</p>

<p>I never said it was “bigoted” but, if you say it is, I’ll agree with you:

FWIW, trying to play wedge politics between blacks and Jews is a time honored right-wing tradition. Otherwise, it would make little sense for Fabrizio to continually use the Jewish quota as a historic model for discrimination in college admissions since 1) it predates affirmative action by many decades 2) demonstrates that discrimination can exist independently from affirmative action and 3) shows that affirmative action is being used as a red herring in the current discussion.

</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>Let’s come out and say it. Fabrizio’s annoyed because when the Jews complained about quotas, people (eventually) listened, but he doesn’t feel the same courtesy gets extended to Asians complaining about affirmative action for URM’s that winds up impacting them. He’s also annoyed that Asian representation in elite schools that is several times Asian prevalence in the population is seen by some as “too much,” when Jewish overrepresentation at elite schools is even greater relative to the small size of the Jewish population.</p>

[soomoo]

<p>My impression is that Fabrizio wants to remove the label “Asian” that is placed on certain candidates during the admission process. He has no trouble with other non racial preferences. This doesn’t seem like such a complicated position to understand.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

I’ve already answered this in post #2214, which itself copied from #1934.

Is that your final answer? If so, I’m pretty disappointed.</p>

<p>Here’s fabrizio’s “answer” from his post 2214:

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 article 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>

<p>So, in other words, what convinces you that Asians are being discriminated against at elite schools–so convinced that you’ve written hundreds of posts about it–is the contents of a single magazine article that doesn’t even cite any data? Heck, I gave a better answer than that many pages back. </p>

<p>I will also note that only the first paragraph of the quote is an “answer” to the question. The rest is the same old smokescreen.</p>

<p>So here’s the deal: if you are an Asian high school student reading this, don’t be tricked. There are people who want you to believe that you will be cheated by elite schools in the admissions process. However, they don’t really have much evidence that this is true, and some of them, at least, appear to have an ulterior motive, which is to strip preferences from URMs–something which would benefit both Asians and whites in terms of admissions. But don’t let them trick you. Realize that there may be things about you, such as where you live, or what you are interested in, or (it appears) your gender, that may affect your admission to college. But don’t assume that your race alone is hurting you, just because some whiny people are “concerned.”</p>

[siserune]

<p>

siserune,</p>

<p>Your posts are really fascinating. I did’t know that females tend to score lower on the SAT than males. I’ve assumed that my DD with her 2340/35 will have a harder time than my DS with his 2400/36.

</p>

<p>Females on average score higher than men on verbal measures, especially in earlier years such as high school. But at the upper scores, somewhere around 700 verbal SAT, men start to dominate, as they do on higher verbal indicators such as word game tournaments. I don’t remember what the writing scores looked like but in psychometrics females generally do best, compared to men, on measures of verbal expression rather than verbal “computation” tasks such as analogies, antonyms, Scrabble, Boggle.</p>

<p>Men also outscore women on mathematics and spatial visualization measures, such as math SAT, competitions, video games, etc.</p>

<p>It is reasonable to assume that men and women have different cognitive profiles. This is a different question from “who is smarter”.</p>

<p>

How do you account for the success of the girls at getting admitted to the top schools? I would wonder if it is gpa. Don’t the girls tend to have the higher gpa?

</p>

<p>Girls exceed boys on measures of compliance and conscientiousness, such as completing homework, and attendance. They are more socialized to please teachers or defer to authority figures. Girls are more mature and purposeful in elementary and high school. This leads to higher results on all basic measures such as graduation rate, literacy and criminality as well as low-ceiling measures such as school grades. It is only when the ceiling is raised, such as admission to the top 10 schools, that the supply of qualified women starts to deplete compared to that of men. </p>

<p>As far as admission success is concerned,</p>

<p>-there are plenty of qualified girls at higher levels, just not 50 percent. 60-40 split or even 55-45 might be the result of a pure academic/cognitive selection at some of the upper schools if objective metrics were used. If the selection level were raised then the gender imbalance would increase.</p>

<p>-male and female qualifications converge somewhat in college. Men get relatively higher on verbal measures by reading more and female math majors catch up by taking classes. So it is misleading to take the differences from high school as 100 percent predictive.</p>

<p>-females show some overperformance of their objective credentials. Discipline and organization are important in college, too. Due to this and the (partial) catching up, it is correct to award females some virtual bonus on the test scores. </p>

<p>Similar considerations apply to white vs Asians, and although it is less politically correct to have an Asian SAT discount than a female SAT bonus, the principle is the same and is what would be required under a pure academic meritocracy. Legal or ethical constraints may prevent some of this from being done, or from being done openly.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>Post 2407:
Otherwise known as The Big Lie, or The Presumed Truth. (No compelling data any way you look at it. Just suspicion and distrust bordering on defamation. )</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

It is reasonable to assume that men and women have different cognitive profiles. This is a different question from “who is smarter”.

</p>

<p>Yes. That’s been shown from brain research.</p>

[limabeans01]

<p>

No, it just means you should consider subjective criteria, like extracurriculars, essays, recommendations, and so forth. So what kind of a system am I advocating? The same one we have now, except it doesn’t consider racial classification (or gender).

</p>

<p>OK fab, I understand where you’re coming from much better now. Your position makes sense to me IF the other criteria are also race neutral. Since I do not believe the SAT’s are race neutral I would also suggest throwing those out as well. Since geographic preferences cannot be considered race neutral, this also would need to be thrown out. I am not sure EC’s can be seen as race neutral because certain races tend to participate in certain activities in disproportionate numbers (sports, music, dance, student government,…just to name a few).</p>

<p>I am not trying to be a jerk, I really am looking for common ground. I just have a hard time seeing how eliminating race from the application (which I really have no problem with) and keeping everything else the same makes the system more fair for “everyone”.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

My impression is that Fabrizio wants to remove the label “Asian” that is placed on certain candidates during the admission process. He has no trouble with other non racial preferences.

</p>

<p>But he thinks that that ‘removal’ will result in a ‘fair’ admissions process, and I am telling you and him that accidents and arbitrariness, not factoring in race, are still very much a part of admissions. Which makes admissions just as unfair as, well… life.</p>

[epiphany]

<p>

I am not trying to be a jerk, I really am looking for common ground. I just have a hard time seeing how eliminating race from the application (which I really have no problem with) and keeping everything else the same makes the system more fair for “everyone”.

</p>

<p>We cross-posted, limabeans. (It doesn’t make it more fair for everyone.)</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

No, it just means you should consider subjective criteria, like extracurriculars, essays, recommendations, and so forth. So what kind of a system am I advocating? The same one we have now, except it doesn’t consider racial classification (or gender).

And this is why the issue of anti-Asian bias has to be kept alive, even in the absence of evidence–because it’s just not as attractive, from a PR point of view, to just be trying to strip preferences from black, Hispanic, and Native American kids. But it doesn’t look quite so churlish if you can say, “Hey, my people are being discriminated against, too!” Even if they aren’t.</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>

My impression is that Fabrizio wants to remove the label “Asian” that is placed on certain candidates during the admission process. He has no trouble with other non racial preferences. This doesn’t seem like such a complicated position to understand.

</p>

<p>Does anyone know whether that is even a common practice? If being Asian is not a “hook” (and, other than for instirutional research purposes) why would a college even bother labeling the application folder? This seems like one of those half-truths that gets spun around a mega-length thread like this and just gets swept up with the rest of the misinformation.</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

And you’re a huge fan of ‘merit’ as being solely deterministic when it comes to admission, regardless of how you recognize holistic merit.

</p>

<p>Why have a discussion with me if you think I’m lying and that I really support “numbers only” admissions?</p>

<p>

And have you ever known anyone to complain that he didn’t get in because his spot was “taken” by someone who matched him on X - 1 categories and bested him on the OBJECTIVE criterion?

All the time students complain that a student from region X got into the same UC campus on lower objective criteria than a known student from region Y with different objective criteria.

</p>

<p>Did you even read what you quoted? This is worse than when Bay and limabeans01 didn’t read the sentence following the one they quoted. You didn’t even read THE sentence you quoted!</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>Siserune is my hero. First, I think his posts are the most truly scholarly and empirical on this thread. I really do. Have no idea what his actual iron is in this fire but s/he is scrupulously fair and unflappable. </p>

<p>But most of all, with this statement, Siserune leads me to think that my emphatically un-hooked but quite smart DD might have a slight boost after all in the great grand game of admissions roulette:</p>

<p>

-there are plenty of qualified girls at higher levels, just not 50 percent. 60-40 split or even 55-45 might be the result of a pure academic/cognitive selection at some of the upper schools if objective metrics were used. If the selection level were raised then the gender imbalance would increase.

</p>

<p>In the end, we are ALL biased by our personal stake. That is why I’m so curious about Epiphany’s “job” irl, etc. I suspect on this highly charged thread that we all have reasons for our views that are very entwined in our personal livelihood and/or backgrounds.</p>

<p>Admissions at the Elites is something of a Spoils System nowadays. It’s a brawl.</p>

<p>ps</p>

<p>I think for the moment Fab’s notion of checking URM or Non-URM is a good one. Why would others disagree with that?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

Ah, but an initiative in the UC system designed to bolster representation from the more rural parts of CA would certainly work against Asians, who tend to cluster in the major cities. Would that be “racist”?

</p>

<p>I’m a conservative libertarian. I’ve never been a big fan of the disparate impact theory of discrimination. To me, the only discrimination is disparate treatment.</p>

<p>In case the above paragraph is viewed as not answering your question, let’s make it simple: no.</p>

<p>

Well, let’s get one thing straight: are you saying, that someone who would constantly refer to Jews and blacks almost exclusively in threads pertaining to affirmative action, as though they were pitted on opposite sides of a great crusade, post after post for thousands of posts going back for years <em>might</em> be bigoted?

</p>

<p>At least now you’re trying. That’s a start. Why don’t you quote a post of mine that satisfies the italicized portion of your post?</p>

[fabrizio]

<p>

He’s also annoyed that Asian representation in elite schools that is several times Asian prevalence in the population is seen by some as “too much,” when Jewish overrepresentation at elite schools is even greater relative to the small size of the Jewish population.

</p>

<p>Probably the fairest characterization of my posts that I’ve ever read from you. Thank you.</p>

<p>

My impression is that Fabrizio wants to remove the label “Asian” that is placed on certain candidates during the admission process. He has no trouble with other non racial preferences. This doesn’t seem like such a complicated position to understand.

</p>

<p>Thank you, soomoo. I feel that while we disagree on racial preferences, among the parents here who are very much in favor of it, your posts consistently show that you “get” what I’m saying, even though you may not agree.</p>

[Professor101]

<p>

siserune -Try using a better source. The percentages at College Board add up to 92 percent of Stanford and 100 percent of Princeton. The Common Data Sets show Stanford as having more Asians, especially after accounting for the “race not specified” group. You can calculate it for yourself.

Go ahead post the CDS sources for 2010-2011 Asian Freshmen percents for Stanford and Princeton. The numbers are 16% and 18%. I am always amused that people count “race not specified” or multi-racial as Asian. If you think “race not specified” are Asians, you already admit that Asians are at a disadvantage because if your race help you, why hide it? Unfortunately, for most Asians, their last names will sell them out even if they don’t identify themselves.</p>