are colleges racist?

epiphany · June 30, 2011, 2:05am

Except that the teeny tiny detail you are missing here is that siserune and I are in essential agreement (not disagreement) that Asians are not being systematically discriminated against, on the basis of race, in college admissions. I’m thrilled that he’s your hero, since he’s mine as well.

However, you have clearly received the wrong impression (or read my posts with a bias), that I have ever even once implied that it is not true that your

(or anyone like her, naturally)

Holistic admissions does not imply that no one gets in on brilliance alone, or on brilliance plus a number of other measures. I’ll repeat what I said earlier on the thread, without requoting myself, that the students who have the most apparently logical advantage are those who ‘have it all’ on all measures. typically, those are cross-admits. They are often (not always) strong across the board, in humanities and sciences, are both creative and analytical. Sometimes, by contrast, they are lopsided in giftedness in one area, to the point of mega-achievement considerably above their peers.

It neither implies that those who have an abundance of one or two qualities will have difficulty getting noticed and considered, nor that mostly what is needed is “gamesmanship.” There are a lot of game-players in admissions efforts who have a lot of rejections to talk about, and many such players have posted about their losses on CC.

DonnaL · June 30, 2011, 3:05am

What? Where in the world did you get the idea that this applies to verbal scores?

A little arithmetic with a calculator on the College Board website, using the 2010 data tables, shows that 4.33% of girls scored 700 and up on the SAT critical reading test, and 4.9% of boys. (Of course, the raw number of girls scoring above 700 was higher, because more girls take the test.) As for the writing test, it was 4.59% of girls, 3.9% of boys at 700 and up.

The differences in the percentages scoring 760 and up on the critical reading test were even smaller.

And I doubt the numbers were very different in any other year.

This is what you call domination? I don’t get it. But who knows, it’s entirely possible that my poor brain did the arithmetic wrong.

I also think it’s utterly hilarious that you think that if men perform better than women at something (math SAT’s, etc.), it’s a sign of innate ability. If women perform as well as or better than men at something (grades in high school and college), it simply means that they’re more compliant and work harder. Especially in humanities, where success is obviously more attributable to hours spent studying than innate talent!

If math is so hard and humanities so easy, then why is it that every year, year after year, the number of kids who score 800 on the verbal/critical reading part of the SAT’s is several thousand less than those who score 800 in math? If something being “easier” means more people are able to do it, then draw your own conclusions.

See: <a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/sat-mathematics-percentile-ranks-2010.pdf[/url]”>Higher Education Professionals | College Board;

<a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/sat-critical-reading-percentile-ranks-2010.pdf[/url]”>Higher Education Professionals | College Board;

<a href=“http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/sat-writing-percentile-ranks-2010.pdf[/url]”>Higher Education Professionals | College Board;

For much of history, when scholarship in humanities was dominated by men, it was immensely prestigious. Now that women have made such strides, I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me that the prestige of the humanities has decreased proportionately (as it has for other formerly male-dominated occupations), and that these boards – if not this particular thread, which is filled instead with other peculiar assertions – are filled with self-important, juvenile sneering at the importance (and difficulty) of the humanities.

And as for the claim that research (as reported by the popular science press and the likes of Louann Brizendine) has supposedly shown the vast brain differences between men and women, most of that so-called research has been long discredited. See this post, which was one of the first things I wrote when I joined these boards more than 3 years ago:

<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/5914478-post10.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/5914478-post10.html</a>

If you want to learn about more recent research, please read Cordelia Fine’s book “Delusions of Gender,” or, at least, this review of it:

[DELUSIONS</a> OF GENDER by Cordelia Fine reviewed by Carol Tavris - TLS](<a href=“TLS | Times Literary Supplement”>TLS | Times Literary Supplement)

Two excerpts:

[QUOTE]
As Cordelia Fine documents in Delusions of Gender, researchers change their focus, technology marches on, but sexism is eternal. Its latest incarnation is what she calls “neurosexism”, sexist bias disguised in the “neuroscientific finery” of claims about neurons, brains, hormones. Fine was spurred to write her critique, she says, when she found her son’s kindergarten teacher reading a book that claimed a young boy’s brain was incapable of forging the connection between emotion and language. The result of Fine’s irritation is a witty and meticulously researched expos

epiphany · June 30, 2011, 5:32am

Donna, I do believe that siserune said this, instead:

I also think these are generalities and can be challenged for exceptions. I, for example, am weaker in some measures of spatial visualization measures, but extremely high compared to males and females together, on analogies. (I have never scored anything less than 100% on a standardized analogy test, from childhood on.) Ditto for proficiency with Scrabble and antonyms! Possibly siserune was making some groupings based on averages or trends, but even if so, I do not see an implication in his posts that there are ceilings of ability, but rather general indicators of performance.

I responded positively to his post because of research I have read on brain differences, but noting that (in that reading) it’s important to account for a spectrum, as there are highly analytical female brains and early language-proficient male brains, for whom such patterns persist as well.

Canuckguy · June 30, 2011, 6:36am

It was never my intention to be glib. Selfish and tyrannical are terms used to describe psychopaths, as is glib. I thought this is where you wanted to go. Apparently not.

How is this related to the topic? Well, according to Harvard psychologist Marta Stout, they make up about 4% of the population. Because of their evolutionary advantage, they tend to congregate at the top more than chance occurrence would suggest:

[Wise</a> Up Journal - LA Times - Study shows politicians share personality traits with psychopaths *](<a href=“http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=961]Wise”>http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=961)

As a result, I tend not to believe what people in leadership position say and do without strong evidence to the contrary. Hence the connection.

I have never written the SAT, but was told that there was a re-centering in the 90s, making it easier to hit the ceiling in the math portion than the verbal portion. Logic tells me they should be making the math portion harder because too many are “maxing out”, obliterating the difference between the very good from the truly outstanding. My mind immediately starts to question the purpose of this move. Who are they trying to protect? Any thought?

johnwesley · June 30, 2011, 7:31am

fabrizio wrote:

Fab, you don’t get iit. My post was in the form of a question. Do you think someone with those traits might be a bigot?

lake42ks · June 30, 2011, 7:45am

Race too. More brain research will help us out.

johnwesley · June 30, 2011, 7:47am

ROTFL. That article cites the author as a vice- president of the National Association of Police Chiefs:

I’m going to chalk that up to intellectual laziness, Canuckguy, and not an attempt to “lie and manipulate without remorse.” :)

fabrizio · June 30, 2011, 7:50am

Cut to the chase. If you think I have those traits, quote a post of mine where I “pitted” blacks and Jews “on opposite sides of a great crusade.”

Hunt · June 30, 2011, 9:02am

I would hate to be lumped in with people who don’t answer questions, so I will. Immigrants from foreign lands who want to assimilate learn to speak English well, and often try to lose their foreign-sounding accents. Their kids often have no noticeable accents at all. This is part of cultural assimilation, and it is certainly characteristic of the wave of Jewish immigrants. Some, of course, take more radical steps in attempting to assimilate as rapidly as possible, such as changing their names to more “American-sounding” names.

And fabrizio, if you think you’ve given a cogent answer to the question of why you think Asians are being discriminated against at elite schools, you are only fooling yourself.

johnwesley · June 30, 2011, 9:26am

Fabrizio wrote:

I never suggested you were, but, now that you’ve insisted on bringing it up, let’s expose it to some sunshine. You live in Georgia, a state with one of the highest proportions of middle-class blacks in the U.S. and yet, you never mention how your middle-class black friends react to you when you debate these issues with them; you certainly don’t exhibit a great deal of empathy for them. In fact, your entire relationship with black people is a bit of a mystery and, something, I would think, that as an Asian living in a state with a history of state-mandated apartheid and the graduate of a school that did not even allow blacks to matricualte until the 1970s, you’d want to address.

But, you choose not to, and that is your privilege. But even without going there, I would think a good number of your black friends or their sisters and brothers, got admitted to some pretty good schools, maybe on the basis of their race; maybe because of the fact that they live in Georgia. Or, some combination of both. We know that sticks in your craw because you’ve said so. Over and over again. Based solely on your dedication to the subject, and not on any single post alone (although, we’ve see some unguarded moments) a reasonable person might be led to believe you have some animus against black people.

Now, that you’ve brought up the subject, prove to me that you don’t.

texaspg · June 30, 2011, 9:35am

canuckguy - "I have never written the SAT, but was told that there was a re-centering in the 90s, making it easier to hit the ceiling in the math portion than the verbal portion. "

I don’t know if we are saying the samething differently but I look at scoring high in Math these days as being much harder unless you make very few mistakes.

In Math one mistake causes you to drop to 760 -790 and this has been the case for the past couple of years. You can still score 800 with a couple of mistakes in reading and 800 in writing by scoring 10/12 on essay and one mistake.

However, Math has been inching upward for the last two-three years and from what I heard, it needs to be blamed on the Asian males for trying to ensure they don’t make any mistakes on this portion because they do lose points in reading and writing portions.

DukeTIP has increased their 7th grade national recognition number speadily upwards over the years. However, in the last 4 years, the Math number has gone up to 670 for recognition vs 650 for the other two areas. They use a 90 percentile requirement for each area and so people have to do much better in Math to achieve the same result.

IndianParent · June 30, 2011, 9:55am

Are we still debating whether Asians are discriminated against in the elite schools? That is not a matter of debate, that is a fact. There has been plenty of research done on this. Let’s just take Dan Golden’s research here, where he shows that pound for pound an Asian kid has to be far more accomplished than a non-Asian kid in other to secure a spot. The reason for the discrimination is quite simple. If accomplishments are the only things that count, Asians would sweep the ranks with 50% enrollment in the elite schools. Given that spots would still need to be reserved for people with hooks and for the athletes, that would basically squeeze out the Caucasian kids who are solid performers, but not exceptional. It would also decimate African American and Latino enrollment outside of athletics. Institutions would look severely lopsided then and their future funding would drop tremendously as legacies are the ones who pay the bills. Hence, institutions can’t risk alienating the legacies, who are majority Caucasians. However this will change as the Asian kids today graduate tomorrow, and becoming legacies who donate to their alma maters. In another generation the discrimination will be gone.

Pizzagirl · June 30, 2011, 10:58am

Actually, there is no evidence that any boost given to URM’s (Afr Am, Hisp, Native American) has impacted Asians more so than it’s impacted whites. If there is proof of that, then please show it.

Moreover, there is ample evidence that |
a) Asians tend to concentrate in STEM majors, thus meaning they are chasing a subset of spots available (since schools need to fill their humanities classes as well),
b) Asians disproportionately apply to a more concentrated list of schools, the UC’s and the Ivy League / other top schools among them, especially because few of them are “siphoned off” by living in Big 10 country as many whites would be, or “siphoned off” by HBCU’s as blacks would be)
c) Asians are INADVERTENTLY affected by being geographically concentrated in just a few areas of the country – urban areas at that;
d) the Asian immigrant community has not done a very good job of informing their newly-arrived brethren that in the US, admissions is not predicated on the highest scores and that indeed adcoms look for uniqueness of purpose and personality;
d) the Asian immigrant community has also not done a very good job of informing their newly-arrived brethren that there are many excellent colleges in this country that are actively looking for / would welcome more Asian applicants;
e) when colleges have discovered inadvertent, unintended bias on their part, they have made it a point to try to root it out (e.g., the Stanford example)
f) any such bias is not rooted in “Asians being undesirable” - it’s rooted in “not wanting more of the same” - it’s no surprise that a homogenous culture has a hard time really understanding how we here in the US in the year 2011 value diversity.

Side bars, such as a given Jewish family changing their name, are completely irrelevant to anything.

Hunt · June 30, 2011, 11:03am

Also, IndianParent, I think it would be very interesting to think about whether the effects that are observed are different for East Asians and South Asians. It is my (anecdotal) observation that South Asians, as a matter of culture, do not have as homogeneous a set of typical ECs at East Asians do, although interest in STEM majors seems high in both groups. So, do South Asians do better or worse than East Asians in getting admission to the most selective schools? If there is a difference (that isn’t based on stats), what might the causes be?

IndianParent · June 30, 2011, 11:06am

Lot of truth in many of the above, some more so than others.

a) STEM majors is a valid point. However, even in STEM majors, non-Asians require lower qualifications to get in than Asians. The argument is one of diversity in STEM majors.
b) School bias is a valid point. However, even in the schools, non-Asians require lower qualifications to get in than Asians. The argument is one of diversity in the schools.
c) Geographical consideration … same as above. Even within the same Geography, non-Asians have a lower bar.
d) This is the absolute crucial point. Asians often don’t know how to package themselves. This is where Asian Americans college counselors need to step in and help.
d2) Irrelevant. Asians should apply to where they want to apply. Same goes for anyone else.
e) Partially true, as colleges still stand by their motto of diversity, which hurts Asians.
f) This is another absolutely crucial point. Colleges here think in very different, racial terms. (One can call this line of thinking racist as well.) They believe that an Asian American kid is fundamentally different from a non-Asian American kid. I personally believe that is nonsense. (Would like to hear arguments to the contrary.) This is precisely why colleges come across as racist to Asians. More of the same is stereotyping Asians, as if they are all the same. They aren’t. It is in fact shocking that someone can even write than in the 21st century.

IndianParent · June 30, 2011, 11:07am

Not much difference to my knowledge, though South Asians tend to be richer as a community and somewhat more assimilated because of their language abilities, so they do package the applications better.

Bay · June 30, 2011, 11:13am

Why do I feel like Bill Murray in “Ground Hog Day?” :)

Hunt · June 30, 2011, 11:19am

I’ve never seen any evidence of this when you are talking about whites vs. Asians (make sure you don’t mix this up with the URM issue, which is different). Indeed, it is my suspicion that whites pursuing STEM majors may have higher stats than whites seeking other majors.

As for stereotyping, I agree that it’s a problem and could very well result in at least unconscious bias against Asians. However, it’s not stereotyping if there really are a large number of Asian kids who want to go into math/science, who play the violin and tennis, and are primarly involved in the same set of high school organizations. And while it’s hardly scientific, several years on CC have shown me that there really are a lot of kids like that. My opinion is that this is because of cultural norms, and has nothing to do with how smart or interesting a particular kid may be. But if kids look too much alike on paper, that can hurt their admission chances.

I hear you. But I do wonder about how this issue affects (and is perceived by) South Asians. I think most of those Asians who have discussed this here before are from Chinese families.

soomoo · June 30, 2011, 11:30am

Based on my interaction with quite a few South Asian families, I get the feeling that they are assimilating VERY quickly. Although the parents in these families may be traditional Indian, the children are all quite “white” and blend quite easily into upper middle class high school life.

bovertine · June 30, 2011, 11:33am

Dan Golden did no real research. He wrote a popular and entertaining book “The Price of Admission”. His section on Asian discrimination is based primarily on five anecdotes, and some old SAT studies which are debatable (read siserune’s posts, I believe it’s the same data). All his other “data” (he has very few footnotes) are basically opinions of other people. So it may be true, but it is certainly not a fact. All of this has been a major focus of the preceeding thousands of posts and hundreds of pages. I assure you, mentioning Dan Golden and calling something a “fact” is not going to change much.

I go back to my original contention, with a slight modification, that there is not **a lot ** of movement on this topic. It’s also amusing to me that almost every other contentious issue around here (validity of SAT, quality of Berkeley vs. Stanford, etc.) has managed to find its way into this thread. Again, with pretty much zero consensus, and extremely little change.

As I’ve said before, I suspect there may be some sort of bias, intentional or un-intentional, against Asians in the process, but I don’t see definitive proof. I would welcome a real study, but since I care very little, I am certainly not going to be the one to push for it. People who do care should organize, pool money, do whatever they can to bring about such research and change the process.

And if you really want to change this, and are not just blowing steam, I suspect one good way would be to get out and campaign against the current President. A couple strategic appointments to the Supreme Court will likely have more impact than a debate on College Confidential.

are colleges racist?

CONNECT WITH US